Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-12; Riva Gardens; Tentative Map (CT)PJ CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION .^T Oh la 1) APPUCATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) IFOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) • Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit • Planned Industrial Permit • Administrative Variance • Planning Commission Determination • Coastal Development Permit • Precise Development Plan • Conditional Use Permit • Redevelopment Permit • Condominium Permit • Site Development Plan • Environmental Impact Assessment • Special Use Permit • General Plan Amendment • Specific Plan • Hillside Development Permit • Tentative Porecl Mop Obtain from Engineering Department • Local Coastal Plan Amendment Tentative Tract Map CTOl'll • Master Plan • Variance • Non-Residential Planned Development • Zone Change • Planned Development Permit • List other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: ^OS'- I 12-• u- 3) PROJECT NAME:^'Va 6flncLg,A$'/Ze:S>-> tU>'L>'( ^lA^J Ci.-TSr -7^p-rrPTmoT7^ Ac- 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) MAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. (.J.^J^ /L^ . --US' OJ 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SipfiJATURE DATE ^•"••-•^ SIQNATURE DATE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION OevOIOsO NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Fornn 16 PAGE 1 OF 2 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE BETWEEN (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET) STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF AND (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER QF LOTS 1 3) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING R 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 7) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING 2- o 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 5) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 1^ 5 3 2^A 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED ^CEIVED BY: . A DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2 O city of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: SPANO JOSEPH Description CT010012 Amount 34 . 7 8 0984 11/12/02 0002 01 02 CGP 34-78 Receipt Number: R0030833 Transaction Date: 11/08/2002 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 716 34.78 Transaction Amount: 34.78 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 9200! Applicant: JOSEPH SPANO Description CT010012 Amount 5,390.00 Receipt Number: R0021312 Transaction Date: 06/28/2001 3351 06/28/01 0002 01 02 CGP 5390.00 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 1004 5,390.00 Transaction Amount: 5,390.00 PROJECT DPsrHiPTiftM/pvH, ,^^(^Tinri background information and si^non!^J,^ ™y aso incluae any appropna.ene«o^,..ap^-,„rr.=anrd:n%^ =^ Description/Explanation. THB EXISTING PROPERTY CONSISTS OF TW LARGE SlUDIVIBED LOrs(OPTIMO TRACT) AND Tm EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED SUIDIVISION TSILL RESULT IN FIVE PARCELS OF TOIGH TWO WILL BE OCCUPIED lY EXISTING FAMILY RESIDENC ES. THE REMINING THREE- PARCELS WILL BE INITIALLY VACANT AND DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE THREE PARCELS FRONTING ON CHESTNUT AVENUE ARB IMPROVEDi WITH EXISTING PUBLIC IMPR0VEMBNTS(SERVER UTERALS,WATER SERVICES,CURB,GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WRE INSTALLED UNDER AN ASSESSilENT DISTRICT ESTAB- LISHED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.ALL BONDS ISSUED FOR FINANCING HAVE BEEN RETIRED. STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD The Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code sets a fifty (50) day time restriction on Planning Commission processing of Tentative M^s and a thirty (30) day time limit for City Coimcil action. These time limits can only be extended by the mutual concurrence of the applicant and the City. By accepting applications for Tentative Maps concurrently with applications for other approvals which are prerequisites to the map; i.e.. Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Report, Condominium Plan, Planned Unit Development, etc., the fifty (50) day time limits and the thirty (30) day time limits are often exceeded. If you wish to have your application processed concurrently, this agreement must be signed by the applicant or his agent. If you choose not to sign the statement, the City will not accept your application for the Tentative Map imtil all prior necessary entitlements have been processed and approved. The imdersigned imderstands that the processing time required by the City may exceed the time limits, therefore the imdersigned agrees to extend the time limits for Planning Commission and City Council action and fiilly concurs with any extensions of time up to one year from the date the application was accepted as complete to properly review all of tiie applications. iggfce Signature Date .Tn.SRPH E. SPANO PROPERTY CTO Name (Print) Relationship to Application (Property Owner-Agent) FRM0037 2/96 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in tiiis and any other county, city and county, city municipality, distnct or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person .TOSEPH E. .qPAWD Corp/Part NADJA A. SPANO Title OWNER Title O^fER Address 23fO SPRUCE STREET.CARLSBAD Address SPRUCE STREET,CARLSBAD 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person JOSEPH E. SPANO Corp/Part TIAT>.TA A. SPANO Title OWNER Title OWNER Address 23^® SPRUCE STREET,CARLS Address 23fQ SPRUCE STREET,CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-46O0 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ^ NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, hsl the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust_ Title Non Profit/Trust, Title Address. Address Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? • Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. JOSEPH E. SPANO Print or type name of owner Sii liSture of applicaht/daje NADJA A. SPANO Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 arlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^ (760) 729-9291 • FAX (760) 729-9685 ...a world class district February 1, 2001 State of Califomia Department of Real Estate 107 South Broadway, Room 7111 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Project Name: Developer: Joseph Spano Address: Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street APN: 205-112-11,18 Units: 2 lots divided into 5 single family dwellings Carlsbad Unified School District has reviewed the above project and its impact on school attendance areas in this District. At this time, the schools of attendance for this project are: Magnolia Elementary School (K-6) 1905 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-6120 Valley Junior High School (7-8) 1645 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-6020 Carlsbad High School (9-12) 3557 Monroe Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-1726 The Goveming Board wishes to advise the Department of Real Estate and residents of Carlsbad that at present the Carlsbad Unified School District elementary schools are operating at full capacity. It is possible, therefore, that the students generated from this project may not attend the closest neighborhood school due to overcrowded conditions and, in fact, may attend school across town. You should also be aware that there are no school buses for regular student transportation from home to school. The Goveming Board wishes to also inform you that conditions imposed upon new development within the City of Carlsbad requires mitigation of school impacts. Sincerely, Gaylen Freeman Assistant Superintendent, Business Services cc: Joseph Spano City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 10, 2002 Joseph Spano 2390 Spmce Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS At the Plarming Commission meeting of December 4, 2002, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0 to RECOMMENDED APPROVAL (AS AMENDED). The decision of the Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Coimcil. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Plaiming Department at (760) 602-4600. Sincerely, MICHAEL JTHOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:MG:mh Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5317 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT °^°'"'-°"0.dY Af Oorlsh/^d LgadAgency: _ (countv} State Agency of Filing: Title: Date: 214913 Document No.: Project Title: Project Applicant Name: Project Applicant Address: Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency [j^ Schiool Di: State Agency | | CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ) Environmental Impact Report I ) Negative Declaration ) Application Fee Water Diversion CSfate Water Resources Control Boa] ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs ) County Administrative Fee C^^TProject ttiat is exempt from fees 0therSpe6^Oistrict Q Signature and title of person receiving payment: WHITE-PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW-DFG/FASB ^ly) $8^00 $850.00 TpTAi^}lECEIVED PINK-LEAD AGENCY GGlAjENROffl-SfrATE AGENCY OF FILING NOTICE OF EX A/IPTION To: County Clerk (F D (L 1^"^© CITY OF CA County of San Diego Q^W J. Smith, Recorder/County Clerfc Planning Dep Mailstop 833, Attn: Wendy i. ^ „ _ . 1635 Faraday PO Box 121750 JAN ^UUj Carlsbad CA San Diego CA 92112-1750 RV ?R (760) 602-4600\«V Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b Resources Code (Califomia Environmental Quality Act). Project Title: Riva Gardens - CT 01-12 Project Location - Specific: Northwest comer of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - Countv: San Diego Description of Project: Tentative Tract Map to allow ihe subdi'.'ision of two parcels totaling l.";4 acres into five single familv lots, including two panhandle lots. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Carlsbad Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Joseph and Nadja Spano Name of Applicant: Joseph and Nadja Spano Applicant's Address: 2390 Spruce St. Carlsbad. CA 92008 Applicant's Telephone Number: 760-729-8584 Exempt Status: {Checlc One) Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); Categorical Exemption - State type and section number: 15332 - In-fill development Statutory' Exemptions - State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: In-fill development of less than five acres with no habitat. Lead Agency Contact Person: Michael Grim Telephone: (760) 602-4623 If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? MICHAEL ^«^LZMM.feii,'Pl^niiirigttiifetQ-FFICE OF THH COU.NTY C1HRK~ rianmng uireciwi » 1*-!^ v^i inn L.uui ; N AN DIEGO COUNTY QN 2 ^ 2003 P Signed by Lead Agency] JAN 2 7 2003 REMOVED FEB 2 6 2003 • Signed by Appliqantj^j-^ij,^^^^ rC)AGENCY ON ^EB 2 6 m \ DIA>\ ITY oi 0 Revised Dec smber 2001 Date CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER MIKE GRIM NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Channbers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of two parcels totaling 1.14 acres into five single-family lots. Including two panhandle lots, on property generally located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Lots 5 and 6 of the Optimo Tract, according to Map No. 1805, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on September 4, 1924, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Friday, January 17, 2003. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602- 4623. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92008 at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 01-12 CASE NAME: RIVA GARDENS PUBLISH: Thursday, January 9, 2003 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL • *** »»•! ' RIVA GARDENS CT 01-12 6 Itv of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2002, to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of two parcels totaling 1.14 acres into five single-family lots, including two panhandle lots, on property generally located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Lots 5 and 6 of the Optimo Tract, according to Map No. 1805, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on September 4, 1924, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 27, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 01-12 CASE NAME: RIVA GARDENS PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 21, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us SITE RIVA GARDENS CT 01-12 PROOF OF PUBLIC TION (2010 i& 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of Califomia, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: NOVERBER21,2002 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This space is f he County Clerk's Filing Stamp Dated at this of SAN MARCOS, Caiifomia 21ST day NOVERBER, 2002 Proof of Publication of CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your Inter- est may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Cali- fornia, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday December 4, 2002, to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivisioin of two parcels totaling 1.14 acres into five single-family lots, including two panhandle lots, on prper- ty generally located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, in Local Facilities Manage- ment Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Lots 5 and 6 of the Optimo Tract, according to Map No. 1805, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on September 4, 1924, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cor- dialK/ invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 27, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is estatjiished by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you chal- lenge the Tentative Tract Map, in court, you may be limit- ed to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Gity of Carlsbad at orprior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 61-12 CASE NAME: RIVA GARDENS PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 21, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising o FILE COP Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2002, to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of two parcels totaling 1.14 acres into five single-family lots, including two panhandle lots, on property generally located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Chestnut Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Lots 5 and 6 ofthe Optimo Tract, according to Map No. 1805, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on September 4, 1924, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 27, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 01-12 CASE NAME: RIVA GARDENS PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 21, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us SITE RIVA GARDENS CT 01-12 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type of environmental documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your application, per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project. Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is checklist that is merely checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes" or "no" answer. This is especially important when a Negative Declaration is being sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME:_ 2. APPLICANT: 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: (iLo \ 12j=f 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: piVg LoT 6.13 lVl S a M SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. ^Land Use and Planning Population and Housing I I Geological Problems • water I^Air Quality r>4 Transportation/Circulation fXf Public Services I I Biological Resources ^^Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics I I Hazards Q Cultural Resources I I Noise •] Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no sotirce document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made piu-suant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared ifthe City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EER. must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR ptirsuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end ofthe fonn under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supportmg Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable enviromnental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority commimity)? ( ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastmcture)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal resuU in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fauh mpture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal resuh in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface mnoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No Impact • • M 0 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groimdwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groimdwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic unpacts? ( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal resuh in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • [El • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • n • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fu:e hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? ( ) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of pubhc facilities, including roads? ( ) Other govemmental services? ( ) a) b) c) d) e) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or suppHes, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significan t Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No Impact 0 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Impact c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution I I facilities? ( ) '—' d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) |^ e) Storm water drainage? ( ) |^ f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) Q g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) [ | Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significan t Impact • • • • • No Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of CaHfomia history or prehistory? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • n • • 0 • s Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in coimection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • ^ • • -a XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fi-om the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. Rev. 03/28/96 O Q DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the enviroimiental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are reconmiended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encom-age altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management sfrategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a ntimber of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Grov^^h Management performance standards at buildout. Rev. 03/28/96 0 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to enstxre the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as frails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City stieets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Corporate Office 16486 Bemardo Center Drive, #124 San Diego, CA 92128 Phone/Fax: (858) 451-3505/(858) 451-0946 www.ise.us December 2, 2002 Mr. Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: RIVA GARDENS ACOUSTICAL SITE ASSESSMENT - CARLSBAD, CA ISE REPORT #02-103 Dear Mr. Henthorn: At your request, Investigative Science and Engineering (ISE) was directed to investigate potential noise impacts to the proposed Riva Gardens residential development located in Carlsbad, California. The results of that survey, as well as predicted future sound levels at the site, are presented in this letter report. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS Existing Site Characterization / Proposed Project The subject property currently consists of two single-family residential dwelling parcels (APN's 205-112-11-00 and 205-112-18-00) located along Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street within the City of Carlsbad, CA. The location of the proposed project site can be seen in Figures 1a and -b below. An aerial view of the site plan is shown in Figure 2 below. The proposed project site is located approximately 500 feet from Interstate 5 and is structurally shielded from this roadway by existing residential structures. The proposed Riva Gardens Tentative Map requests a lot split and remodel in order to form a five-lot single-family residential development (refer to Figure 3). The final zoning of the proposed project would be R-1 (with a total of 4.41 dwelling units per acre) size. The existing one-story structures on proposed Lots 1 and 5 would remain after completion of the project and are not a part (NAP) of the proposed residential construction pian. Acoustical Definitions Sound waves are linear mechanical waves. They can be propagated in solids, liquids, and gases. The material transmitting such a wave oscillates in the direction of propagation of the wave itself Sound waves originate from some sort of vibrating Scientific and Forensic Engineering Consultants Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 2 of 15 ;;;:'-r;- V • surface. Whether this surface is the vibrating string of a violin or a person's vocal cords, a vibrating column of air from an organ or clarinet, or a vibrating panel from a loudspeaker, drum, or aircraft, the sound waves generated are all similar. All of these vibrating elements alternately compress the surrounding air on a forward movement and expand it on a backward movement. Figure 1a and-b: Project Vicinity Maps (Thomas Guide Page 1106 Grid F5) Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 • • • Page 3 of 15 • ./' V-v- Figure 2: Project Vicinity Aerial Ptioto (©AirPhoto USA, 1/01) Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric levels. The loudest sounds the human ear can hear comfortably are approximately one trillion times the acoustic energy that the ear can barely detect. Because of this vast range, any attempt to represent the acoustic intensity of a particular sound on a linear scale becomes unwieldy. As a result, a logarithmic ratio originally conceived for radio work known as the decibel (dB) is commonly employed. A sound level of zero "0" dB is scaled such that it is defined as the threshold of human hearing and would be barely audible to a human of normal hearing under extremely quiet listening conditions. Such conditions can only be generated in anechoic or "dead rooms". Typically, the quietest environmental conditions (extreme rural areas with extensive shielding) yield sound levels of approximately 20 decibels. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB. Sound levels above 120 dB roughly correspond to the threshold of pain. The minimum change in sound level that the human ear can detect is approximately 3 dB. A change in sound level of 10 dB is usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) of the sounds loudness. A change in sound level of 10 dB actually represents an approximately 90 percent change in the sound intensity, but only about a 50 percent change in the perceived loudness. This is due to the nonlinear response of the human ear to sound. Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 .:;" .-^^ Page 4 of 15 : / : \: . ^ * • SENSITIVE USE AREAS ^ IM. LOT 5 (NAP) t^V.g%^,; rv: »- \ t t. ——1 -fVJ^—— jM^a'omtk>^^^>-Mt,tKk»Mai--^ \ S — ^l— . .v-.*w* -^^..j \ \ * I N \ Figure 3: Proposed Site Configuration Map (William E. Billings Surveying - 7/02) Noise on the other hand, is generally defined as unwanted or annoying sound that is typically associated with human activity and which interferes with or disrupts normal activities. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in the setting, the time of day, and the sensitivity of the individual hearing the sound. As mentioned above, most of the sounds we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add to generate the sound we hear. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of determining all of the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects the nonlinear response characteristics of the human ear. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A-weighted sound level (or dBA). In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve. \g0^l Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 5 of 15 Although the A-weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of sounds from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. For this type of noise, a single descriptor called the Leq (or equivalent sound level) is used. Leq is the energy-mean A-weighted sound level during a measured time interval. It is the 'equivalent' constant sound level that would have to be produced by a given source to equal the average of the fluctuating level measured. For most acoustical studies, the monitoring interval is generally taken as one-hour and is abbreviated Leq-h. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors LIO, L50, and L90 are commonly used. They are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time. Sound levels associated with the LIO typically describe transient or short-term events, while levels associated with the L90 describe the steady state (or most prevalent) noise conditions. In addition, it is often desirable to know the acoustic range of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished through the maximum and minimum measured sound level (Lmax and Lmin) indicators. The Lmin value obtained for a particular monitoring location is often called the acoustic floor ^or that location. Finally, a sound measure employed by the State of California (and adopted by the City of Carlsbad) is known as the Community Noise Equivalence Level (or CNEL) is defined as the "A" weighted average sound level for a 24-hour day. It is calculated by adding a 5-decibel penalty to sound levels in the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and a 10-decibel penalty to sound levels in the night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) to compensate for the increased sensitivity to noise during the quieter evening and nighttime hours. APPUCABLE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Cify of Carlsbad The Noise Element of the City of Carlsbad identifies sound levels that are compatible with various land uses. According to the City of Carlsbad Draft Noise Guidelines Manual, sound levels up to 60 dBA CNEL are compatible with residential land uses. Sound levels up to 65 dBA CNEL are compatible with recreational areas such as parks and playgrounds. The City also requires an interior noise study (compliant with State of California CCR Title 24 standards) where exterior exposure is in excess of the above land use criteria. State of California CCR Title 24 The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, states that multi-family dwellings, hotels, and motels located where the CNEL exceeds 60 dBA, must obtain an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will limit interior noise to less than 45 dBA CNEL. Interior noise standards are typically applied to sensitive areas within the structure where low noise levels are desirable (such as living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, and dens or studies). Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 6 of 15 Worst-case noise levels, either existing or future, must be used for this determination. Future noise levels must be predicted at least ten years from the time of building permit application. The City of Carlsbad has adopted the CCR Title 24 standards. Thus, for the purposes of analysis, the applicable exterior noise design threshold is 60 dBA CNEL. The applicable interior noise standard is 45 dBA CNEL. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Existing Conditions Field Survey Two Larson Davis Model 700 ANSI Type 2 integrating sound level meters were used as the data collection devices. The meters (denoted as ML's 1 and 2) were mounted to tripods approximately five feet above the ground and were placed at project frontages having a worst-case noise exposure. This was done in order to capture the existing noise levels within the proposed project site. The monitoring locations are shown graphically in Figures 4a through -d. The measurements were performed on November 14, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. during peak hour traffic flow conditions. All equipment was calibrated before testing at ISE's acoustics and vibration laboratory to verify conformance with ANSI S1-4 1983 Type 2 and lEC 651 Type 2 standards. Traffic Noise Impact Assessment Approach The Caltrans Sound 32 Traffic Noise Prediction Model with California (CALVENO) noise emission factors {based on FHWA RD-77-108 and FHWA/CA/TL- 87/03 standards) was used to calculate future onsite vehicular traffic noise levels. Model input included a digitized representation of Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street (the two adjacent roadways for the project site), as well as any available local site topography, future Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes, vehicle mix, and receptor elevations. The roadway and site topography elevations were obtained from the data and plans provided by William E. Billings Surveying dated 12/02. Model output consisted of peak hour energy-mean A-weighted sound levels (or Leq-h) for each receptor examined. Receptor elevations were considered five feet above the appropriate floor (pad) elevation and were taken near the center of the proposed rear yard areas of each lot. The model assumed a "hard" site sound propagation rule (i.e., a 3-dBA loss per doubling of distance from roadway to receiver) for the receptors adjacent to any roadways as well as a 3-dBA constant attenuation to account for the presence of surrounding structures. Second floor receptor areas were modeled at 15 feet above the respective pad elevation. The modeled receptor locations are shown in Figure 5 below. Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 7 of 15 .-^^ 7-'^'"%^ Figures 4a through -d: Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (ISE, 12/02) Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 , December 2, 2002 " Page 8 of 15 K:^.^:", SENSITIVE USE AREAS \ sis i \ V ^ S-.'^^--^- ^^^^ Mi ## - Receptor Point Figure 5: Monitored Receptor Locations - Riva Gardens Development FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONS V: ' A % • • - ^ Ambient Sound IVIeasurement Results \' • ' Testing conditions during the monitoring period were partially sunny with an average barometric pressure reading of 29.95 in-Hg, an average northwesterly wind speed of 2 to 4 miles per hour (MPH), and an approximate mean temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The result of the peak traffic hour sound level monitoring is shown below in Table 1. The values for the energy equivalent sound level (Leq), the maximum and minimum measured sound levels (Lmax and Lmin), and the statistical indicators LIO, L50, and L90, are given for each monitoring location. Measurements collected at monitoring locations ML 1 and ML 2 reflect the typical sound levels associated with the observed community setting. The houdy average sound level (or Leq-h) recorded over the monitoring period ranged between 62 to 64 dBA and was observed to be predominately due to traffic along Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street as well as infrequent nearby residential noises and distant traffic noise from Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 9 of 15 Interstate 5 approximately 500 feet away. It was observed that the cumulative addition of Interstate 5 to surface street traffic was approximately 3.0 dBA (as determined from the difference of the Lmin and LOO metrics at ML 2). This correction will be added to the modeling effort in order to obtain a complete estimate of project area traffic noise. TABLE 1: Measured Ambient Sound Levels - Riva Gardens Development 1-Hour Noise Level Descriptors in dBA Site Start Time Leq Lmax Lmin LIO LSO LSO ML1 9:00 a.m. 62.0 75.0 57.0 63.5 61.0 60.0 ML 2 9:00 a.m. 64.0 76.5 57.5 67.0 63.0 60.5 Monitoring Locations: o ML 1: Meter positioned along project frontage at Adams Street. GPS: 33°9.522'N x 117°20.242'W o ML 2: Meter positioned aiong project frontage at Chestnut Avenue. GPS: 33°9.505'N x 117°20.248'W Measurements performed by ISE on November 14,2002. Estimated Position Enor (EPE) = 10 feet. Finally, it should be noted that the acoustic floor for the site, as seen by the Lmin indicator, averaged to approximately 57 dBA and is an indication of the ambient noise level at the project site in the absence of surface street traffic activity. This ambient exterior sound level exists at the project site due to the conglomeration of distant urban sounds including the presence of Interstate 5. Future Traffic Noise Impacts The predicted year 2020 traffic volume along Chestnut Avenue is expected to be 7,000 ADT with a future speed I imit a s h igh a s 3 5 M PH (Source: SANDAG Series 9 Enhanced Traffic Forecast Model, 12/02). Peak hour traffic values are calculated for a 10% traffic flow pattern and 96/2/2 automobiles/medium/heavy vehicles) percent mix in accordance with the Caltrans and City modeling practices. Similarly, traffic along Adams Street would be projected at less than 1,000 ADT with a future speed limit as high as 25 MPH. Both of these traffic flow patterns are consistent with the existing and proposed residential setting. The SANDAG prediction data is provided as an attachment to this report. For peak hour traffic percentages between approximately 8 and 12 percent, the energy-mean A-weighted sound level is equivalent to the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) with a tolerance of roughly one dBA. Outside this range, a maximum variance of up to two dBA occurs between Leq-h and CNEL for normalized traffic patterns. Thus, modeled levels obtained would be consistent with future CNEL values having a tolerance of ± 1 dBA. \^ \^ Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 10 of 15 The results of the acoustical modeling are shown below in Tables 2a and -b for all lots within the proposed development area. Modeled receptor points were taken within the rear yard (sensitive outdoor areas identified in Figure 5) as shown in Figure 2a as well as along the front building facades for the purposes of CCR Title 24 compliance determination (as shown in Table 2b). TABLE 2a: Exterior Noise Levels within Sensitive Areas - Riva Gardens Development Receptor No. Baseline Ground Level (dBA) Requires Future Mitigation? 1 44.9 Wo 2 45.3 No 3 52.8 No 4 50.3 No 5 56.2 No 6 56.0 No TABLE 2b: Exterior Fagade Noise Levels facing Street-Riva Gardens Development Receptor No. Second Story Facade Level (dBA) Requires Future Mitigation? 1 45.5 No 2 47.8 No 3 53.7 No 4 53.1 No 5 60.7 Yes 6 61.1 Yes Based on the model results above, no future exterior sensitive receptor areas within the proposed development would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City's noise abatement standards, although existing noise levels were observed to be greater than the 60 dBA CNEL standard. A mitigation plan consisting of a perimeter noise wall of six-feet in height running the entire length of the western property line onto Chestnut Avenue would provide the requisite mitigation for the existing noise levels due to traffic within the Chestnut Avenue / Interstate 5 interchange. The recommended noise wall position is shown below in Figure 6. Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 ' . : Page 11 of 15 PROPOSED 6-FOOT HIGH WALL ^1 ) \ I ^IS^SSS Sfr 4/^7- \ ih l \ \ -i-..^-iL-\. ~—V—)—- r ^- Figure 6: Proposed Noise Wall Location - Riva Gardens Development Finally, it was noted that selected building fa?ade areas within proposed building Lots #2 and #3 (modeled receptor points 5 and 6) would exceed the CCR Title 24 noise abatement threshold. Interior noise mitigation (i.e., specialized door and window treatments) would be required for these unit areas. Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, an intenor noise analysis compliant with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards would be required. The acoustical analysis should demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. Worst-case noise levels, either existing or future, must be used for this determination. Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 12 of 15 Should you have any questions regarding the findings identified herein, please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 451-3505. Sincerely, Rick Tavares, Ph.D. Project Principal Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. Cc: Jeremy Louden, ISE Attachments: Caltrans SOUND32 Program Input Decks SANDAG 2020 Series 9 Enhanced Traffic Prediction Volumes Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 13 of 15 832 Input Deck - Exterior Baseline Conditions RIVA GARDENS ACOUSTICAL MODEL - BASELINE T-PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, 1 672 , 45 , 14 , 45 , 14 , 45 T-PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, 2 96 , 25 , 2 , 25 , 2 , 25 L-CHESTNUT AVENUE, 1 N,97,752,78,CA-1 N,3409,708,89,CA-2 N,4405,1180,95,CA-3 L-ADAMS STREET, 2 N,3441,788,88,AS-1 N,3461,3484,97,AS-2 B-SLOPE EDGE, 1 , 1 , 0,0 821,3128,83,83,SE-1 837,1040,80,80,SE-2 3181,1004,88,88,SE-3 R, 1 , 65 ,10 1401,3084,90.,R1 R, 2 , 65 ,10 933,2692,89.,R2 R, 3 , 65 ,10 877,1632,88.,R3 R, 4 , 65 ,10 1581,1632,89.,R4 R, 5 , 65 ,10 1201,1144,87.,R5 R, 6 , 65 ,10 1921,1120,90.,R6 C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: RIVA GARDENS ACOUSTICAL MODEL - BASELINE BAR ELE 0 BARRIER HEIGHTS 2 3 4 5 BAR ID LENGTH TYPE 0.' 0.' SE-1 2088.1 BERM SE-2 2344.3 BERM 0 1 2 3 4 5 REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL) 1 Rl 65. 10. 41. .9 2 R2 65. 10. 42, ,3 3 R3 65. 10. 49, .8 4 R4 65. 10. 47, ,3 5 R5 65. 10. 53, .2 6 R6 65. 10. 53, .0 Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 14 of 15 832 Input Deck - Fagade Noise Levels Facing Street RIVA GARDENS ACOUSTICAL MODEL - SECOND STORY T-PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, 1 672 , 45 , 14 , 45 , 14 , 45 T-PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, 2 96 , 25 , 2 , 25 , 2 L-CHESTNUT AVENUE, 1 N,97,752,78,CA-1 N,3409,708,89,CA-2 N,4405,1180,95,CA-3 L-ADAMS STREET, 2 N,3441,788,88,AS-1 N,3461,3484,97,AS-2 B-SLOPE EDGE, 1,1, 821,3128,83,83,SE-1 837,1040,80,80,SE-2 3181,1004,88,88,SE-3 R, 1 , 65 ,10 1401,3084,105.,R1 R, 2 , 65 ,10 933,2692,104.,R2 R, 3 , 65 ,10 877,1632,103.,R3 R, 4 , 65 ,10 1581,1632,104.,R4 R, 5 , 65 ,10 1201,1144,102.,R5 R, 6 , 65 ,10 1921, 1120, 105.,R6 C,C 25 0 ,0 S0UND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: RIVA GARDENS ACOUSTICAL MODEL - SECOND STORY BAR ELE 0 BARRIER HEIGHTS 1 2 3 4 5 BAR ID LENGTH TYPE 0.^ 0.' SE-1 2088.1 BERM SE-2 2344.3 BERM REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL) 1 Rl 65. 10. 42, ,5 2 R2 65. 10. 44, ,8 3 R3 65. 10. 50, ,7 4 R4 65. 10. 50, . 1 5 R5 65. 10. 57, .7 6 R6 65. 10. 58, .1 Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Assessment - Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #02-103 December 2, 2002 Page 15 of 15 :r'-^vw SANDAG 2020 SERIES 9 ENHANCED TRAFFIC PREDICTION VOLUMES City of Carlsbad Planning Department November 12, 2002 Joseph Spano 2390 Spruce Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - Riva Gardens The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, November 15, 2002, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meefing which will be held on November 25, 2002. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 a.m. 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 reviev\^ by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, vour 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, Mike Grim at (760) 602-4623. Sincen E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:MG:sn File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Corporate Office 16486 Bemardo Center Drive, #124 San Diego, CA 92128 Phone/Fax: (858) 451-3505/(858) 451-0946 www.ise.us November 11, 2002 Mr. Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: RIVA GARDENS ACOUSTICAL SITE REVIEW - CARLSBAD, CA Dear Jack: Investigative Science and Engineering (ISE) is currently in the process of preparing our technical assessment of the proposed Riva Gardens development located in Carlsbad, California with respect to noise mitigation issues. The full acoustical report is forthcoming shortly pending completion of the necessary report graphics in concert with the project applicant. In order to minimize any delays, our findings and recommendations for the project are stated as follows: 1. Future traffic noise along adjacent roadway segments would produce exterior noise levels at the project site in excess of the City's 60 dBA CNEL noise abatement threshold. 2. Future traffic noise within sensitive receptor areas (such as rear and side yards) can be fully mitigated through the use of a perimeter noise wall of six-feet in height running the entire length of the western property line (with appropriate street setbacks). The height should be measured from the base (pad) elevation of the proposed development lots. 3. Finally, proposed structures with facades that face any roadways would exceed the CCR Title 24 noise abatement threshold of 60 dBA CNEL. Interior noise mitigation (i.e., specialized door and window treatments) would be required for these unit areas. Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, an interior noise analysis compliant with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards would be required. The acoustical analysis should demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. Worst-case noise levels, either existing or future, must be used for this determination. Scientilic and Forensic Engineering Consultants Mr. Jack Henthorn Riva Gardens Acoustical Site Review November 11, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Should you have any questions regarding the findings identified herein, please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 451-3505. Sincerely, Rick Tavares, Ph.D. Project Principal Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. Cc: Jeremy Louden, ISE Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department October 31, 2002 Joseph and Nadja Spano 2390 Spruce St Cartsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on December 4, 2002. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by November 14, 2002, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. Please submit the following plans: A) Ten (10) copies of your tentative map on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, folded into 81/2'x 11" size. B) One 81/2" X 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans. 2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. B) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. The list must be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any punctuation. For any address other than a single family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included but the Apartment, Suite and/or Building Number must NOT appear in the street address line. DO NOT type assessor's parcel number on labels. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^ CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDErC October 31,2002 Pace 2 Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt, Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt, and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: UNACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 Cartsbad, CA 92008 UNACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave. Apt. #3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 ACCEPTABLE MRS JANE SMITH APTS 123 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 C) D) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. Fee - a fee shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash check (payable to the City of Carisbad) and credit cards are accepted. Sincerely, MICHAEL GR Senior Planner MG:mg Attachment I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY DATE: July 26,2002 Michael Holtzmiller Planning Director 1625 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92008-7314 Subj. 01-12 Riva Gardens Enclosed are two (2) copies of Hydrology/Hydraulic report for subject project as required in your letter of March 18,2002,Engineering Department condition 2,categiry I. Enclosed is a letter from Geotechnical Exploration Inc. conceming the status of Preliminary Soils Analysis being prepared as required in your letter of March 18,2002 Engineering Department condition 5, Category 1. Concerning the requirement for street design and improvements of Adams Street, Jeremy Riddle indicated this condition can be satisfied by execution of a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA) due to City Council designation of Adams Street as an Altemate Design Street. oano Cc, Jeremy Riddle End, Hydrology Report Geotechnical Exploration Letter RECErVED JUL 2 6 2002 C/TY OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT- 07/26/2002 12:24 FAX 8585491604 GEOTECHNICAL EXP 12102 i GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 2^ July 2002 Joseph and Nadja Spano Job No. 02-8291 C/p JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 Siibject: Interim Report of Site Conditions Riva Gardens Residential Development - CTOl-12 1080 Chestnut Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia Dear Mr. and Mrs. Spano: i In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Ine. is In the process I of Investigating soil conditions at the residential site on Chestnut Street. Our work tol date has Included review of pertinent geologic reports and maps, observations of the site and surrounding vicinity, and subsurface soil testing around the existing structures and proposed building and improvement locations. Our field work was conducted on July 25, 2002, and included excavation of five hand-excavated test pits. It Is our understanding that the residential lot is being split Into 5 parcels and i isibeing developed to receive 3 additional residential structures. Wie found the site to be underlain by medium dense terrace deposit formational mjaterials. Existing cultivated topsoils appear to have a thickness ranging from 18 to 24 Inches. The topsoils consist of silty fine to medium sands. When properly prepared and moisture conditioned, the topsoils will have good load-bearing properties. The underlying terrace deposit formational materials were found to be low expansive and have excellent load-bearing properties. i It| is our opinion that the site can be developed utilizing standard grading techniques and conventional foundations and slabs on-grade floors. 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO. CA 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • E-MAIL: geotech@lxpres.com 07/26/2002 12:24 FAX 8585491604 GEOTECHNICAL EXP 12103 Riva Gardens Residential Development Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8291 Page 2 It is our opinion, based on our review of geotechnical reports and the results of our field investigation, that no significant soil or geologic hazards exist at the subject site and the property is well suited for the proposed development. Specific foundation design soil parameters and site preparation recommendations will be provided by our firm once the laboratory testing is completed. We will keep you advised as to the progress toward completion of the final report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 02-8291 will help to expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. ior Project Geologist Scott C. Burns, R.C.E. 55370 JKH/SCB/pj July 11,2002 '**^^^A/aj, Michael Holtzmiller //1. Plarming Director C/>Vx / / .?/ln 1635 Faraday Avenue ti Of:r ^ Carlsbad, Ca 92008-7314 A/» ^'^Z;)/ ^ Subj.CTOI-12 Riva Gardens ^ ^^P^^ Enclosed are three (3) corrected copies of subject tentative map and the second check print transmitted on March 18,2002. Also enclosed is a copy of letter outlining the results of a meeting with staff planner Michael Grim held on July 2, 2002 to discuss any unresolved issues relating to the project. 1 have retained Jack Henthorn and Associates to address the completion of the required Soils Analysis and Drainage Report. It is my hope, upon submittal of the required Engineering Reports, that all staff concerns will have been addressed to allow presentation to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for project approval. >V>-o End; Second Plan Check Letter dated 07/02/02 Corrected Tentative Maps (3) July 2,2002 Michael Holtzmiller Plaiming Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad,Ca 92008-7314 Subj. CT 01-12 Riva Gardens Dear Mike Adams Street, by virtue of its inclusion on Altemate Street Design List (established by the City Council) requires a special design process be followed. Until this determination for an altemate design is complete Street design is not practical. The Engineering Department concluded that it would be more pmdent to require a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement as well as street design plans, grading, slope easements and utility relocation.. However a street design plans could not be prepared with out an altemate design determination. Ultimately Engineering decided that it would be more pmdent to complete an NIA and defer all design and constmction until an altemate design was adopted for Adams Street. This conclusion was not reached until after your March 17,2002 letter. Prior to that decision the project was on hold to determine impact of requirement for street improvements on Adams Street. On July 2,2002 a meeting attended by Michael Grim, Planning, Jeremy Riddle, Engineering, Bill Billings ,LS and myself to discuss the issues raised ,in your March 18 letter. Jeremy Riddle concurred that since an NIA was being executed the following items were no longer relevant and/or the required changes had been made: ENGTNEERTNG Group I Item 1,3,4,6, and 7 Group II Item 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 PLANNING Item 1 It was suggested that the configuration of Lot 1 be changed so that the frontage on Chestnut Avenue would remain the same while the frontage on Adams Street would be reduced to 91.10 to avoid causing the existing stmcture to become non-conforming. We have retained Ralph Gonzales Consulting to prepare a Hydrology Report to comply Item 2, Group I. Mr. Gonzales has indicated that the July 26 deadline is achievable. Conceming the Soils report (Group l,Item 5) it was suggested by Jeremy Riddle that soils borings could be made on proposed Lots 1 and 5 to provide some indication of the soils conditions which might be encountered on Lots 2,3 and 4 to determine if any grading would be required at the time of constmction. Conceming Item 6,Group II, the applicant requested permission to install a fire hydrant on Adams Street (shown on tentative map). It was pointed out that approval from Fire Marshal and Water Department would be required. I was offended by Michael Grim's statement that ifl questioned any of the requirements the Tentative Map would be presented to the plarming commission with a recommendation to deny. An applicant questioning a condition on a tentative map is entitled to an explanation not a threat. Sincerely yours IE. Spano Lloyd Hubbs \/ Ramona Fanilla Claude "Buddy" Lewis End; Letter Dated 9/25/01 (Holtzmiller) Letter Dated 6/27/02 Letter Dated 3/18/02 (Grim) July 2,2002 Michael Holtzmiller Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad,Ca 92008-7314 Subj. CT 01-12 Riva Gardens Dear Mike Adams Street, by virtue of its inclusion on Alternate Street Design List (established by the City Council) requires a special design process be followed. Until this determination for an altemate design is complete Street design is not practical. The Engineering Department concluded that it would be more prudent to require a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement as well as street design plans, grading, slope easements and utility relocation.. However a street design plans could not be prepared with out an altemate design determination. Ultimately Engineering decided that it would be more prudent to complete an NIA and defer all design and construction until an alternate design was adopted for Adams Street. This conclusion was not reached until after your March 17,2002 letter. Prior to that decision the project was on hold to determine impact of requirement for street improvements on Adams Street. On July 2,2002 a meeting attended by Michael Grim, Planning, Jeremy Riddle, Engineering, Bill Billings ,LS and myself to discuss the issues raised ,in your March 18 letter. Jeremy Riddle concurred that since an NIA was being executed the following items were no longer relevant and/or the required changes had been made: ENGINEERING Group 1 Item 1,3,4,6, and 7 Group 11 Item 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 PLANNING Item 1 It was suggested that the configuration of Lot 1 be changed so that the frontage on Chestnut Avenue would remain the same while the frontage on Adams Street would be reduced to 91.10. To avoid causing the existing structure to become non-conforming. We have retained Ralph Gonzales, Consulting to prepare a Hydrology Report to comply Item 2, Group I. Mr. Gonzales has indicated that the July 26 deadline is achievable. Conceming the Soils report (Group l,ltem 5) it was suggested by Jeremy Riddle that soils borings could be made on proposed Lots 1 and 5 to provide some indication of the soils conditions which might be encountered on Lots 2,3 and 4 to determine if any grading would be required at the time of construction. Concerning Item 6,Group II, the applicant requested permission to install a fire hydrant on Adams Street (shown on tentative map). It was pointed out that approval from Fire Marshal and Water Department would be required. c^^^j^frU 7' 1 was offended by Michael Grim's ihat if I questioned any of the requirements the Tentative Map would be presented to the planning commission with a recommendation to deny. An applicant questioning a condition on a tentative map is entitled to an explanation not a threat. Sincerely yours Jose^lfJ. Spano /7 Aoyd Hubbs Ramona Fanilla Claude "Buddy" Lewis End; Letter Dated 9/25/01 (Holtzmiller) Letter Dated 6/27/02 Letter Dated 3/18/02 (Grim) Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department June 27, 2002 Joseph and Nadja Spano 2390 Spruce St Carisbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS The above-referenced application was deemed complete for processing on July 28, 2001. According to State Law, a project must be heard by the final decision-making body within six (6) months of the application complete date (in this case, February 28, 2002). This six-month timeline may be extended by request of the applicant for a maximum of three (3) months (in this case May 28, 2002). The Rive Gardens project, as submitted, has several issues that have yet to be resolved (please refer to September 25, 2001 and March 18, 2002 City correspondences, copies attached). All issues must be resolved before scheduling a project for approval before the Planning Commission. If all issues are not resolved, then the project is scheduled with a staff recommendation of denial. Due to the extended processing time and lack of issue resolution, the project has been tentatively scheduled for the September 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. You have three processing alternatives. You may withdraw the permit application and reapply once the plans and reports have been revised and/or prepared to resolve the issues of concern. Should you desire to go fonward to the Planning Commission with a staff recommendation of approval, you must resolve all project issues prior to August 16, 2002. You should be aware that staff review of project resubmlttals takes a minimum of three weeks, therefore any resubmittal must be received by the City on or before July 26, 2002. If no response is received prior to July 26, 2002, the project will be scheduled for the September 18, 2002 Planning Commission hearing with a staff recommendation of denial due to outstanding project issues. Please contact me at (760) 602-4623 if you have any questions. MICHAEL Senior Planner Don Hideout Jeremy Riddle File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department March 18, 2002 Joseph and Nadja Spano 2390 Spruce Street Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, application no. CT 01-12, as to its issues of concern to staff. You should also be aware that various design issues exist. These issues, listed below, must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 602-4623, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAELJ. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:MG:cs Chris DeCerbo Jeremy Riddle File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Planning: 1. As stated in the previous City correspondence, dated September 25, 2001, the proposed lot line configuration cannot cause any existing building to become non- conforming due to inadequate setbacks. The existing house on Lot #1 currently meets the required setbacks and, therefore, is an existing conforming structure. The proposed lot lines would cause the existing structure to become non- conforming. This remains as the only Planning Department issue with the proposed subdivision. Engineering: Below the symbol ® is used to designate items which have not been adequately addressed. All other items are a result of reviewing the added information on the revised exhibits. 1. ® Depict the extent of proposed grading and surface improvements required to install driveways that serve each proposed lot along Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street. The driveways shall be constructed to accommodate the road grading required for this project. It is prudent to ensure the driveway grades are not exceeded (14% max) as a result of the future road widening. 2. ® Provide a hydrology/hydraulics report for this project. The report should identify the pre and post storm run-off quantities and velocities and identify measures that are required to ensure no increase in storm quantity or velocity for the 10-year 6-hour or 10- year 24-hour storm event. The report should also identify capacity of the swale on lot 3 since it carries storm run-off from lots 3, 4 , and 5. Verify velocities are non erosive in the swale, since it wiii not be concrete-lined. 3. ® Revise the typical street sections for all streets to clarify the placement of streetlights. 4. ® Revise the Tentative Map (TM) to depict the complete limits of the sight distance corridor. 5. ® Provide a soils report that identifies any soils issues related to the proposed project. The report should identify the limits of remedial grading, if any. 6. ® Revise the TM to clarify if the proposed structures will include stem walls so that no grading will be performed. The applicant's response on our first review should be added as a note to the TM. 7. ® Revise the TM to list the anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) generated by this development. Below are listed additional engineering concerns that should be addressed prior to final determination or conditioning: 1. ® Revise the TM to depict Adams Street being graded out to allow for any future improvements to Adams in the future. Although surface improvements (curb, gutter, paving, sidewalk, etc.) are not required at this time, grading out the right-of-way is required to accommodate whichever "alternative" street design chosen for Adams Street. 2. ® Provide grading quantities (excavation, embankment, import, export, remedial). 3. ® Revise the TM to callout the proposed width of each existing of proposed driveway. 4. ® Revise the TM to depict the waiver of access rights to and from Chestnut Avenue along the project frontage. Use a common mapping symbol as shown on our first review comments and on this second review. 5. ® A public improvement plan will be required to include, but may not be limited to: grading out Adams Avenue, removing existing driveways, replacing curb/gutter/sidewalk, installing new driveways, adjusting/relocating existing water meters, under grounding overhead utilities, installing sewer laterals. 6. ® Revise the TM plans and legend symbol to depict that Lot 4 will include fire sprinkler provisions (required for all panhandle lots). Add a symbol to the legend and plans depicting a combined water/sprinkler service. 7. ® Revise the TM to indicate accurate figures for the GPM (potable water), and GPM (irrigation water) generated or required by the proposed development. Residential units typically use 220 gpd of potable water. The estimation that this project would require 115,000 gpm would exceed the ability of the existing water system. Refer to the redlines for clarification on this issue. 8. ® Revise the TM to callout the slopes of each proposed driveway leading to the building pad. This information is required to demonstrate that maximum driveway slopes (14%) will not be exceeded. 9. ® Revise the TM to callout the underground of overhead utilities along the project frontage of Adams Street. These improvements appear to conflict with the grading out of Adams Street. 10. ® Revise the CT to callout proposed offsite private grading and slope easements to be acquired (if they are needed). Since proposed grading has not been shown we cannot verify this yet. 11. Revise the TM to clearly identify if existing trees along Adams Street will remain or be removed to facilitate the proposed road grading. Coordinate with the Project Planner regarding the current street tree policy. Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department September 25, 2001 Joseph and Nadja Spano 2390 Spruce St Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, application no. CT 01-12, as to its completeness for processing. The application was deemed complete on July 28, 2001. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of completeness. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues exist. These issues, listed below, must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 602-4623, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOT2MILLER Planning Director MJH:MG:mh Chris DeCerbo Jeremy Riddle 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 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Planning: 1. The proposed subdivision would generate a residential density of 4.41 dwelling per acre. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Residential Low Medium Density, which allows up to 4.0 dwellings per acre. There is a provision in the General Plan Land Use Element which allows single family developments in the RLM General Plan designations and R-1-7,500 zoning designations to be developed at up to 5.0 dwelling per acre. Therefore the proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. Please revise the site plan to indicate the density of 4.41 dwelling per acre. 2. The buildable area of each panhandle lot must be at least 8,000 square feet. The two panhandle lots proposed in this subdivision are 8,230 square feet and 10.335 square feet, thereby meeting this requirement. All major subdivisions with panhandle lots must undergo public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. The proposed lot line configuration cannot cause any existing building to become non- conforming due to inadequate setbacks. The existing house on future Lot #1 would not meet the future 20-foot front yard setback for Lot #1, please revise the plan so that all structures meet the applicable setbacks. 4. It appears that two large, mature trees would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed lot configuration. Please attempt to design the subdivision to preserve all mature trees existing on the property. If the mature trees are not preserved, the project may be conditioned to replace these trees on site with minimum 36 inch box trees. Engineering: 1. Depict the extent of proposed grading and surface improvements required to install driveways that serve each proposed lot along Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street. 2. Provide a hydrology/hydraulics report for this project. The report should identify the pre and post storm run-off quantities and velocities and identify measures that are required to ensure no increase in storm quantity or velocity for the 10-year 6-hour or 10-year 24- hour storm event. The report should also identify capacity of the swale on lot 3 since it carries storm run-off from lots 3, 4 , and 5. Verify velocities are non erosive in the swale, since it will not be concrete-lined. 3. Revise the Tentative Map (TM) to clearly indicate the right-of-way that must be dedicated at the corner of Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street. This is required per City Standards for access behind pedestrian ramp curb returns. 4. Revise the typical street sections for all streets to clarify the placement of streetlights or fire hydrants. Clarify which improvements are existing and which are proposed. 5. Revise the site plan to depict all existing proposed easements that must be processed with this project (private sewer, drainage, shared access, sight visibility). 6. Show all exisling fire hydrants located within 300-feet of the site. 7. Provide a soils report that identifies any soils issues related to the proposed project. The report should identify the limits of remedial grading, if any. 8. Revise the CT to clarify if the proposed structures will include stem walls so that no grading will be performed, or if stmctures will be slab on grade with extended grading for the yard areas. Show conceptual grading on each lot, if any is anticipated. 9. List the anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) generated by this development. 10. Add CT 01-12 to the upper right-hand corner of the site plan and preliminary grading plan. 11. Revise the CT to depict Adams Street being graded out to allow for any future improvements to Adams in the future. 12. Please note this section of Adams Street is an "altemative design street". Street improvements cannot be installed here unless an alternative street design process is completed and reviewed by the community and approved by Council. This process may be avoided if the Owner executes and records a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA). Unless directed othenwise staff will add a condition for the Owner to enter into an NIA for the future improvements to Adams Street. 13. Revise the CT to clarify whether the existing structures will remain or be removed. 14. Provide grading quantities (excavation, embankment, import, export, remedial). 15. Revise the CT to indicate the existing driveways along Chestnut Avenue will be removed and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk will be installed in its place. 16. Revise the CT to callout the width of each existing of proposed driveway. 17. Revise the CT to depict the waiver of access rights to and from Chestnut Avenue along the project frontage. This lot will gain access from Adams via a panhandle. 18. Revise the CT to indicate the existing right-of-way of Laurel Tree Road to be vacated by separate document. 19. Revise the preliminary CT to include a complete legend of all existing and proposed items (e.g.: project boundary, existing lot lines, proposed lot lines, easement lines, existing topography, proposed topography, existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, proposed driveways, streetlights, existing sewer/water laterals, proposed sewer/water laterals, proposed fire service laterals, fire hydrants, etc.). 20. A public improvement plan will be required to include, but may not be limited to: grading out Adams Avenue, removing existing driveways, installing new curb/gutter/sidewalk, installing new driveways, adjusting/relocating existing water meters, under grounding overhead utilities, installing sewer laterals. 21. Revise the CT so that all proposed construction items are dark and bold. 22. On the CT, indicate the location of existing or proposed sewer and water services for each lot (typical). 23. Revise the CT plans and legend symbol to depict that Lots 2 and 4 will include fire sprinkler provisions (required for all panhandle lots). 24. Revise the CT to indicate the EDU's (sewer), GPM (potable water), and GPM (irrigation water) generated or required by the proposed development. 25. On the CT, depict the location of existing and proposed streetlights along Chestnut Avenue and provide verification that Public Road Standards are satisfied. 26. Revise the CT to rollout the slopes of each proposed driveway leading to the building pad. 27. Revise the CT to callout the underground of overhead utilities along the project frontage of Adams Street. 28. This project will require a Grading Permit for the grading along Adams Street. 29. Revise the CT to callout proposed offsite private grading and slope easements to be acquired (if they are needed). Since proposed grading has not been shown we cannot verify this yet. 30. Revise the CT plan to include clear symbols for existing and proposed topography. Existing should be light, dashed and screened. Proposed should be dark and bold. Revise the symbols to differentiate between the two. 31. Revise the CT to provide a typical cross-section of the proposed swale. Clarify if all these will be vegetated or grass-lined swales that could serves as post-construction BMP measures to address storm water quality (NPDES) requirements. 32. Revise the CT to show how each swale will discharge to Chestnut Avenue (e.g.: SDRSD D-27's?). Discharging over the sidewalk is not permitted. 33 The widths of the proposed panhandles cannot be 15-feet wide unless a covenant of easement for shared access is processed and a paved shared access driveway (20-feet wide minimum) is constructed. Reflect the proposed covenant of easement and access driveway on the CT. If a shared access easement and driveway is not provided, then these panhandle lots may not be less than 20-feet wide (and each panhandle shall have a 14-foot wide paved driveway. 34. Provide a hydrology report that includes a section discussing how storm water quality issues being handled (NPDES). rtment: t ^ ^S^. Fire Department: 1. The future single family home on Lot #4 must be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to meet NFPA 13D. Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department March 18, 2002 Joseph and Nadja Spano 2390 Spruce Street Carisbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, application no. CT 01-12, as to its issues of concern to staff. You should also be aware that various design issues exist. These issues, listed below, must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 602-4623, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAELS. HOtZMILLER Planning Director IVlJH:MG:cs c: Chris DeCerbo Jeremy Riddle fc-Fi1e Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Planning: 1. As stated in the previous City correspondence, dated September 25, 2001, the proposed lot line configuration cannot cause any existing building to become non- conforming due to inadequate setbacks. The existing house on Lot #1 currently meets the required setbacks and, therefore, is an existing conforming structure. The proposed lot lines would cause the existing structure to become non- conforming. This remains as the only Planning Department issue with the proposed subdivision. Engineering: Below the symbol ® is used to designate items which have not been adequately addressed. All other items are a result of reviewing the added information on the revised exhibits. 1. ® Depict the extent of proposed grading and surface improvements required to install driveways that serve each proposed lot along Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street. The driveways shall be constructed to accommodate the road grading required for this project. It is prudent to ensure the driveway grades are not exceeded (14% max) as a result of the future road widening. 2. ® Provide a hydrology/hydraulics report for this project. The report should identify the pre and post storm run-off quantities and velocities and identify measures that are required to ensure no increase in storm quantity or velocity for the 10-year 6-hour or 10- year 24-hour storm event. The report should also identify capacity of the swale on lot 3 since it carries storm run-off from lots 3, 4 , and 5. Verify velocities are non erosive in the swale, since it will not be concrete-lined. 3. ® Revise the typical street sections for all streets to clarify the placement of streetlights. 4. ® Revise the Tentative Map (TM) to depict the complete limits of the sight distance corridor. 5. ® Provide a soils report that identifies any soils issues related to the proposed project. The report should identify the limits of remedial grading, if any. 6. ® Revise the TM to clarify if the proposed structures will include stem walls so that no grading will be performed. The applicant's response on our first review should be added as a note to the TM. 7. ® Revise the TM to list the anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) generated by this development. Below are listed additional engineering concerns that should be addressed prior to final determination or conditioning: 1. ® Revise the TM to depict Adams Street being graded out to allow for any future improvements to Adams in the future. Although surface improvements (curb, gutter, paving, sidewalk, etc.) are not required at this time, grading out the right-of-way is required to accommodate whichever "alternative" street design chosen for Adams Street. 2. ® Provide grading quantities (excavation, embankment, import, export, remedial). 3. ® Revise the TM to callout the proposed width of each existing of proposed driveway. 4. ® Revise the TM to depict the waiver of access rights to and from Chestnut Avenue along the project frontage. Use a common mapping symbol as shown on our first review comments and on this second review. 5. ® A public improvement plan will be required to include, but may not be limited to: grading out Adams Avenue, removing existing driveways, replacing curb/gutter/sidewalk, installing new driveways, adjusting/relocating existing water meters, under grounding overhead utilities, installing sewer laterals. 6. ® Revise the TM plans and legend symbol to depict that Lot 4 will include fire sprinkler provisions (required for all panhandle lots). Add a symbol to the legend and plans depicting a combined water/sprinkler service. 7. ® Revise the TM to indicate accurate figures for the GPM (potable water), and GPM (irrigation water) generated or required by the proposed development. Residential units typically use 220 gpd of potable water. The estimation that this project would require 115,000 gpm would exceed the ability of the existing water system. Refer to the redlines for clarification on this issue. 8. ® Revise the TM to callout the slopes of each proposed driveway leading to the building pad. This information is required to demonstrate that maximum driveway slopes (14%) will not be exceeded. 9. ® Revise the TM to callout the underground of overhead utilities along the project frontage of Adams Street. These improvements appear to conflict with the grading out of Adams Street. 10. ® Revise the CT to callout proposed offsite private grading and slope easements to be acquired (if they are needed). Since proposed grading has not been shown we cannot verify this yet. 11. Revise the TM to clearly identify if existing trees along Adams Street will remain or be removed to facilitate the proposed road grading. Coordinate with the Project Planner regarding the current street tree policy. City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 25, 2001 Joseph and Nadja Spano 2390 Spruce St Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 01-12- RIVA GARDENS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, application no. CT 01-12, as to its completeness for processing. The application was deemed complete on July 28, 2001. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of completeness. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or othenwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues exist. These issues, listed below, must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 602-4623, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. H( Planning Director MILLER iVIJH:MG:mli Chris DeCerbo Jeremy Riddle File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carisbad.ca.us ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 01-12 - RIVA GARDENS Planning: 1. The proposed subdivision would generate a residential density of 4.41 dwelling per acre. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Residential Low Medium Density, which allows up to 4.0 dwellings per acre. There is a provision in the General Plan Land Use Element which allows single family developments in the RLM General Plan designations and R-1-7,500 zoning designations to be developed at up to 5.0 dwelling per acre. Therefore the proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. Please revise the site plan to indicate the density of 4.41 dwelling per acre. 2. The buildable area of each panhandle lot must be at least 8,000 square feet. The two panhandle lots proposed in this subdivision are 8,230 square feet and 10,335 square feet, thereby meeting this requirement. All major subdivisions with panhandle lots must undergo public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. The proposed lot line configuration cannot cause any existing building to become non- conforming due to inadequate setbacks. The existing house on future Lot #1 would not meet the future 20-foot front yard setback for Lot #1, please revise the plan so that all structures meet the applicable setbacks. 4. It appears that two large, mature trees would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed lot configuration. Please attempt to design the subdivision to preserve all mature trees existing on the property. If the mature trees are not preserved, the project may be conditioned to replace these trees on site with minimum 36 inch box trees. Engineering: 1. Depict the extent of proposed grading and surface improvements required to install driveways that serve each proposed lot along Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street. 2. Provide a hydrology/hydraulics report for this project. The report should identify the pre and post storm run-off quantities and velocities and identify measures that are required to ensure no increase in storm quantity or velocity for the 10-year 6-hour or 10-year 24- hour storm event. The report should also identify capacity of the swale on lot 3 since it carries storm run-off from lots 3, 4 , and 5. Verify velocities are non erosive in the swale, since it will not be concrete-lined. 3. Revise the Tentative Map (TM) to clearly indicate the right-of-way that must be dedicated at the corner of Chestnut Avenue and Adams Street. This is required per City Standards for access behind pedestrian ramp curia returns. 4. Revise the typical street sections for all streets to clarify the placement of streetlights or fire hydrants. Clarify which improvements are existing and which are proposed. 5. Revise the site plan to depict all existing proposed easements that must be processed with this project (private sewer, drainage, shared access, sight visibility). 6. Show all existing fire hydrants located within 300-feet of the site. 7. Provide a soils report that identifies any soils issues related to the proposed project. The report should identify the limits of remedial grading, if any. o 8. Revise the CT to clarify if the proposed structures will include stem walls so that no grading will be performed, or if structures will be slab on grade with extended grading for the yard areas. Show conceptual grading on each lot, if any is anticipated. 9. List the anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) generated by this development. 10. Add CT 01-12 to the upper right-hand corner of the site plan and preliminary grading plan. 11. Revise the CT to depict Adams Street being graded out to allow for any future improvements to Adams in the future. 12. Please note this section of Adams Street is an "alternative design street". Street improvements cannot be installed here unless an alternative street design process is completed and reviewed by the community and approved by Council. This process may be avoided if the Owner executes and records a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA). Unless directed othenwise staff will add a condition for the Owner to enter into an NIA for the future improvements to Adams Street. 13. Revise the CT to clarify whether the existing structures will remain or be removed. 14. Provide grading quantities (excavation, embankment, import, export, remedial). 15. Revise the CT to indicate the existing driveways along Chestnut Avenue will be removed and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk will be installed in its place. 16. Revise the CT to callout the width of each existing of proposed driveway. 17. Revise the CT to depict the waiver of access rights to and from Chestnut Avenue along the project frontage. This lot will gain access from Adams via a panhandle. 18. Revise the CT to indicate the existing right-of-way of Laurel Tree Road to be vacated by separate document. 19. Revise the preliminary CT to include a complete legend of all existing and proposed items (e.g.: project boundary, existing lot lines, proposed lot lines, easement lines, existing topography, proposed topography, existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, proposed driveways, streetlights, existing sewer/water laterals, proposed sewer/water laterals, proposed fire service laterals, fire hydrants, etc.). 20. A public improvement plan will be required to include, but may not be limited to: grading out Adams Avenue, removing existing driveways, installing new curb/gutter/sidewalk, installing new driveways, adjusting/relocating existing water meters, under grounding overhead utilities, installing sewer laterals. 21. Revise the CT so that all proposed construction items are dark and bold. 22. On the CT, indicate the location of existing or proposed sewer and water services for each lot (typical). 23. Revise the CT plans and legend symbol to depict that Lots 2 and 4 will include fire sprinkler provisions (required for all panhandle lots). 24. Revise the CT to indicate the EDU's (sewer), GPM (potable water), and GPM (imgation water) generated or required by the proposed development. 25. On the CT, depict the location of existing and proposed streetlights along Chestnut Avenue and provide verification that Public Road Standards are satisfied. 26. Revise the CT to callout the slopes of each proposed driveway leading to the building pad. o 27. Revise the CT to callout the underground of overhead utilities along the project frontage of Adams Street. 28. This project will require a Grading Pennit for the grading along Adams Street. 29. Revise the CT to callout proposed offsite private grading and slope easements to be acquired (if they are needed). Since proposed grading has not been shown we cannot verify this yet. 30. Revise the CT plan to include clear symbols for existing and proposed topography. Existing should be light, dashed and screened. Proposed should be dark and bold. Revise the symbols to differentiate between the two. 31. Revise the CT to provide a typical cross-section of the proposed swale. Clarify if all these will be vegetated or grass-lined swales that could serves as post-construction BMP measures to address storm water quality (NPDES) requirements. 32. Revise the CT to show how each swale will discharge to Chestnut Avenue (e.g.: SDRSD D-27's?). Discharging over the sidewalk is not permitted. 33. The widths of the proposed panhandles cannot be 15-feet wide unless a covenant of easement for shared access is processed and a paved shared access driveway (20-feet wide minimum) is constructed. Reflect the proposed covenant of easement and access driveway on the CT. If a shared access easement and driveway is not provided, then these panhandle lots may not be less than 20-feet wide (and each panhandle shall have a 14-foot wide paved driveway. 34. Provide a hydrology report that includes a section discussing how stomri water quality issues being handled (NPDES). 35. Identify the hydraulic grade line (pressure zone) of the existing water main fronting the property. Add a City drawing number reference that constructed each of these facilities. Fire Department: 1. The future single family home on Lot #4 must be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to meet NFPA 13D. January 31, 2001 Michael J. Holtzmiller Plaiming Dfrector 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008-7314 Subject: CTO 1-12 (Riva Gardens) Endosed are three corrected copies of tentative map and the original check print for subject fract map as requested in your letter of September 25, 2001. In response to the questions and comments in your letter we respectfully submit the following responses: Planning Item 3:The existing structure front door faces the side yard of Lot 6 of the Optimo Tract. The lot configuration now is being changed to establish Chestnut as the lot frontage which places the stmcture five feet into the front yard setback. It is requested that this be considered an existing non- conforming condition. Engineering Item 1: The existing driveway approaches on Chestnut Avenue will be modified as follows: Lot 3 approach relocated east to accommodate under sidewalk drainage outlet. The existing driveway approaches for Lots 1 and 2 will be removed and replaced with sidewalk. Existing driveways for Lot 5 and Lot 1 wiil remain. Driveways for lots 2 and 4 will be constmcted at time of building permit. Item 2: North County Design Group is preparing the Hydrology Study. Item 7: The frnn cf Westem Soils has been retained to prepare soils analysis. The study will be completed after the soil borings are complete. Item 9: ADT increase on Chestnut (10), ADT increase on Adams Street (20) Item 11: No grading is proposed on Adams Street at this time. Item 12: The present owners will execute an NIA Item 14: No grading proposed Item 16: Driveways to be constmcted will meet city standards at time of construction Item 18: Cannot locate Laurel Tree road on assessors or tract maps Item 20: The property owner will enter into an NIA for the sfreet improvements on Adams Sfreet. A street design will be prepared when the City requires improvements to be constructed. Item 23: The fire sprinklers requirement for lots 2 and 4 will addressed as part of a building permit application. Item 26: Future driveway slopes will not exceed maximum grades allowed by building code Item 27: Utility relocation/ underground will be addressed as part of street design on Adams Street Item 28: No grading proposed Item 29: No grading proposed Item 32: Lots 1,2 and 3 will sheet flow to Chestnut Avenue. Lots 4 and 5 will drain to the swale along the westerly side of Lot 3 and will discharge under sidewalk to Chestaut Ave. Item 34: North county Design Group is preparing the Hydrology Study. Fire Department Item 1: Automatic fire sprinkler system on Lot 4 will be addressed upon building permit application Sinc?r€lv? Jos^^ E. Spano''' ^ RECEIVED 'X\ 3 1 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT.