Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 09-02; Westfield Carlsbad Part III; Environmental Impact Report (EIR)CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Discretionary Review Checklist PROJECT NUMBER: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD BUILDING ADDRESS: 2525 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. By: ^gya^ Date: 05.07.2013 NO COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with 13. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: By: By: Date: Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON NAME: GREGORY RYAN ADDRESS: DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-4665 April 22, 2013 TO: Jason GofF, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Revised Conceptual Plan - 9* Review Plaza Camino Real RevitaUzation, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - Con9 Landscape Architect: MW Peltz - Phone: (858) 481-0888 All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. 7 V CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION REQUEST FOR CONDITIONS DATE: APRIL 17. 2013 TO: FINAL REVISED PLANS INCLUDED LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING - JEREMY RIDDLE • POLICE DEPARTMENT-J. SASWAY FIRE DEPARTMENT - GREG RYAN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - WILL FOSS El LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - PELA IE PEM-JOE GARUBA n M & O - CMWD - STEVE PLYLER •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DIVISION REQUEST FOR CONDITIONS ON PROJECT NO(S): SDP 09-04 ^<m" PROJECTTITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING/SHAY EVEN COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT STDS, GUIDELINES, & IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR REDEVELOPMENTS OPERATIONS OF PLAZA CAMINO REAL Please review and submit written conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the •.^vjwJ'Mr;^^...•>•>' .. ." ' ' ' • Planning Division at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 5/8/13. If you have "No Conditions", please so state. Please note that time is of the essence, as the staff report preparation has begun. If you have any questions, please contact JASON GOFF. at 4643. THANKYOU COMMENTS: KK) &6HyiJne^^ Signature 'Date c: File Request for Conditions 03/13 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO 4 DATE: MARCH 14. 2013 PROJEa NO(S): SDP 09-04 «« REVIEW NO: 7 PROJECTTITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING TO: ,,ip^f Land Development Engineering-Jeremy Riddle r~] Police Department-J. Sasway IXI Fire Department-Greg Ryan IXI Building Department-Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert IXI Property & Environmental Management - Joe Garuba I I Water/Sewer District IXI Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I I Sempra Energy - Land Management I I Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) I I Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •^ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DIVISION Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Division at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv 4/4/13. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are itemf^at need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 12/12 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: MARCH 14. 2013 PROJECT NO(S): SDP 09-04 REVIEW NO: 7 ^ PROJEa TITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING TO: ^ Land Development Engineering-Jeremy Riddle I I Police Department - J. Sasway ^ Fire Department - Greg Ryan Building Department - Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert ^ Property & Environmental Management - Joe Garuba [~\ Water/Sewer District ^ Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department f~| Sempra Energy - Land Management fl Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) [~| Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian ''ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DIVISION Please review and submit written comments and/or co^ijgj.|iqns^^^^ the^NNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Division at 1635 FaradayAvenue, by 4/4/13. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are itenrislthat need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 12/12 March 15, 2013 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Revised Conceptual Plan - 8* Review Plaza Camino Real Revitalization, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - ConR8 Landscape Architect: MW Peltz - Phone: (858) 481-0888 Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concem. 1. Please address planting of all landscape areas. 2. Please revise legend tree quantities and landscape calculations on sheet L5 as appropriate to coordinate with revisions. ^ CARLSBAD CITY OF Memorandum January 4, 2013 To: Jason Goff, Project Planner From: Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Subject: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD, SDP 09-04 The engineering department has completed its review of the project. The engineering department is recommending that the project be approved, subject to the following conditions: Engineering Conditions NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of this proposed development, must be met prior to approval of a building or grading permit whichever occurs first. General Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer forthe proposed haul route. Improvements for this project extend into city-owned property. No work for this project shall be permitted until Developer has secured a lease agreement (or other acceptable instrument) subject to approval by City Council. Developer shall satisfy applicable terms of said lease agreement prior to issuance of development permits. Developer shall prepare and submit for a lot line adjustment where the proposed building expands into city-owned land In accordance with the lease agreement. Said lot line adjustment shall be subject to approval by the city engineer. Developer shall maintain all proposed surface improvements (paving, curb, gutter, landscaping, lighting, etc.), underground utility lines and water quality treatment control best management practices (Biofiltration swales, pervious concrete, etc.) as shown on the proposed site plan. Maintenance obligations for these improvements Community & Economic Development - Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2740 I 760-602-1052 fax I www.carlsbadca.ROv Page 1 of 15 shall be included in the amended parking agreement (or other acceptable instrument) to the satisfaction ofthe city attorney and the director of property and environmental management. 5. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. 6. Developer shall submit to the city planner, a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Site Plan, Proposed Site Plan, Preliminary Grading Plan, and Preliminary Utility Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. The reproducible shall be submitted to the city planner, reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the city's project engineer and project planner prior to submittal of the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map, whichever occurs first. 7. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street and driveway intersections in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The Developer shall maintain this condition. 8. Prior to approval of Improvement or Grading Plans, developer shall submit to the city engineer written approval from North County Transit District (NCTD) demonstrating mass-transit improvement requirements for this project have been satisfied. 9. Developer shall provide written correspondence from the City of Oceanside acknowledging Developer has paid their fair-share contribution towards adaptive signals in accordance with the mitigation measure listed in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Said correspondence shall be provided to the city engineer. Fees/Agreements 10. Developer shall execute and submit a Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement (or other acceptable instrument) In a form acceptable to the city engineer and city attorney. 11. Developer shall execute and submit a Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement (or other acceptable instrument) in a form acceptable to the city engineer and city attorney. 12. Developer shall execute and submit a Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Maintenance Agreement in a form acceptable to the city engineer and city attorney. 13. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, developer shall cause owner to give written consent to the city engineer for the annexation of the area Page 2 of 6 shown within the boundaries of the Site Plan into the existing City of Carisbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided bythe city engineer. Grading 14. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Site Plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and technical studies/reports for city engineer review, post security and pay all applicable grading plan review and permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 15. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants ofthe above requirements. 16. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, developer shall submit to the city engineer receipt of a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board. 17. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, developer shall submit for city approval a Tier 3 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (TIER 3 SWPPP). The TIER 3 SWPPP shall comply with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The TIER 3 SWPPP shall identify and incorporate measures to reduce storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 18. This project is subject to 'Priority Development Project' requirements. Developer shall prepare and process a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), subject to city engineer approval, to demonstrate how this project meets new/current storm water treatment requirements per the city's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP), latest version. In addition to new treatment control BMP selection criteria in the SUSMP, the developer shall use low impact development (site design) approaches to ensure that runoff from impervious areas (roofs, pavement, etc) are drained through landscaped (pervious) areas prior to discharge. Developer shall pay all applicable SWMP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. Page 3 of 6 19. Developer acknowledges the regional Water Quality Control Board is proposing to issue an updated Municipal Permit for the San Diego region in early 2013. The new Municipal Permit updates the stormwater requirements on how projects treat and/or retain storm runoff During final design, developer shall demonstrate compliance with the latest storm water requirements to the satisfaction ofthe city engineer. 20. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans, landscape plans, building plans, etc) incorporate all source control, site design, treatment control BMP, applicable hydromodification measures, and Low Impact Design (LID) facilities. 21. Developer shall submit documentation, subject to city engineer approval, demonstrating how this project complies with Hydromodification requirements perthe city's SUSMP, latest version. Documentation shall be included within the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). Dedications/Improvements 22. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits associated with the mall renovation, all parking lot improvements and public/private utility infrastructure as shown on the Site Plan, shall be designed, processed and approved to the satisfaction of the city engineer with security posted. 23. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the Site Plan, to city standards all to the satisfaction of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12" diameter storm drain and larger) shall be inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees for private drainage systems. 24. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard Development Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public improvements shown on the Site Plan. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to: A. Proposed and/or realigned public sewer, potable water, and fire hydrants as shown on the preliminary utility plan. B. Proposed private storm drain improvements as shown on the preliminary utility plan. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 25. Developer shall design, and obtain approval from the city engineer, the structural Page 4 of 6 section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with city standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of grading, the final structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information subject to the review and approval ofthe city engineer. Utilities 26. Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the district engineer. 27. The developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the Site Plan to the satisfaction of the district engineer and city engineer. 28. Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-foot wide easements granted to the district or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the district or city engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. 29. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. 30. The developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the planning division for processing and approval by the district engineer. 31. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 32. The developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 33. The developer shall provide separate potable water meters to the satisfaction of the district engineer. Code Reminders The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: Page 5 of 6 34. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the Site Plan are for planning purposes only. Page 6 of 6 November 26, 2012 TO: Jason GofF, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 6* Review Plaza Camino Real Revitalization, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - Con6 Landscape Architect: MW Peltz - Phone: (858) 481-0888 All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. ri^^N CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR CONDITIONS DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2012 FINAL REVISED PLANS INCLUDED ^ TO: ^ LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING - TERIE ROWLEY • POLICE DEPARTMENT-J. SASWAY IE FIRE DEPARTMENT-GREG RYAN ^BUILDING DEPARTMENT - WILL FOSS E LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - PELA IE PEM-JOE GARUBA • PARKS/TRAILS - LIZ KETABIAN • M & O- CMWD - STEVE PLYLER •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR CONDITIONS ON PROJECT NO(S): SP 09-01/SDP 09-04/EIR 09-02 PROJECTTITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING/MICHELE ALVES PROPOSAL: COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT STDS, GUIDELINES, & IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR REDEVELOPMENT & OPERATIONS OF PLAZA CAMINO REAL Please review and submit written conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Division at 1635 Faraday Avenue, bv 12/11/12. Ifyou have "No Conditions", please so state. Please note that time is of the essence, as the staff report preparation has begun. If you have any questions, please contact JASON GOFF. at 4643. THANKYOU h . / COMMENTS: c: File Request for Conditions 3/10 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: SEPTEMBER 12.2012 <.-^ v^jJv&O o t 3? PROJEa NO(S): ^IRJ}9-e27SP 09-01/SDP 09-04/SUP-g9^ / i REVIEW N0:(_6 PROJEa TITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING/MICHELE ALVES TO: Land Development Engineering-Administration r~l Police Department-J. Sasway ^ Flre Department - Greg Ryan ^ Building Department-Will Foss [~] Recreation-Mark Steyaert Q Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque Q Water/Sewer District ^ Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA r~| School District [~~| North County Transit District - Planning Department |~] Sempra Energy - Land Management Q Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) ^ Property & Environmental Management •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions tothe PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, bv 10/3/12. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submrtted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives fvia phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: ^UK^ .&.^vW.Arc. ^r- 0^-(?M ^ e.^, PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 ^^(^ CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: SEPTEMBER 12. 2012 PROJEa NO(S): -EWUg^/SP 09-01/SDP 09-04/St>P1?9=07l PROJEa TITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD if REVIEW NO: APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING/MICHELE ALVES TO: ^ Land Development Engineering-Administration I I Police Department-J. Sasway Fire Department - Greg Ryan Building Department - Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I I Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque I I Water/Sewer District IXI Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I I Sempra Energy - Land Management I I Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) 1X1 Property & Environmental Management •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or condi^m^^^^^P^ in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, bv lO/^^riT^u please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: Signature / Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 Ob ^^^^ September 21, 2012 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 5* Review Plaza Camino Real Revitalization, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - Con5 Landscape Architect: MW Peltz - Phone: (858) 481-0888 Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual and the Specific Plan. It is noted that the Specific Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concem. REPEAT COMMENTS 1-11 Completed. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 2"** Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 4* Review: The applicant has responded: "Final enhancements will not be possible until final building elevations are complete at the construction document stage." Additional planting or other softening may be needed at the northeast comer of pad 4 to soften the building elevation. Please add trees along the south side of pad 4. 5*'^ review: The applicant has responded: "Pad 4 is subject to future approval of an SDP based upon final building design and landscape surroundings. Landscape treatment will be evaluated at that time. " It is understood that further evaluation will be provided; however the conceptual stage provides preliminary direction as needed to insure Landscape Manual and Specific Plan requirements are met. Trees will be needed along the southern and northern elevations of the future building and should be conceptually shown at this stage just as they are along the eastern and western sides. Please address. 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings wiil be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there arc no conflicts with troos. 2"** Review: The applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with thc trees." 3"* Review: Please show thc light poles on thc landscape plans. 4* Review: The applicant has responded: "Parking lot lighting is not complete for new layout. City will be provided a separate exhibit when complete. Light poles shall be coordinated and placed so not to conflict with trees." 5"" review: The Plaza Camino Real Revitalization September 21, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 applicant has responded: "Light poles will be placed where they will not conflict with the trees. " No further action is required on this item. 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four paricing stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Development Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 3r^ Review: The Specific Plan (page ^ 13) indicates that "Tree row spacing shall divide parking fields equally as much as possible and be piaccd approximately every 3-5 rows of double loaded paridng stalls." Please provide for those plantings. The Specific Plan also indicates that 2 large canopy trees will be placed at the end islands of each parking row. Please address as best as possible avoiding easements. Check all areas. 4* Review: Please show the trees in these areas. 5"" review: The applicant has responded: "Trees were previously evaluated in suggested areas and decided against for the following reasons: Sheet L3 - existing striping designates an existing ADA path of travel. In order to maintain ADA compliance, we do not have the room to add planters and/or trees " It appears that there is room for a planter and tree on sheet L-3. Please address. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-23 Completed. 24. Deleted. 25. Completed. 26 RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. I A-2 A Deleted. 3A. Completed. 4A. Deleted. 5 A. The illustrative plans and landscape plans appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site.—It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to thc project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity ef entry and arrival is needed. Please fiirther develop all plans and provide additional detailing as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 3*^ Review: The Specific Plan vision for the gateways (page 4-4) indicates that "The gateways must express the excitement and quality of the Westfield Shopping experience planned for Westfield Carlsbad." The design for building entries (page 4-19) indicates that "Each entry will make a strong landscape statement that reflects the permanence of Westfield Carlsbad within thc economic fabric of Corlsbad." It is not clear how the plans provido fer these and other visions and design concepts. Please addrcss. 4* Review: Tihe applicant has added enhanced paved plazas at the El Camino Real and Marron Road Plaza Camino Real Revitalization September 21, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 entries in the Specific Plan and better clarified the design intent. It is recommended that large architectural planter pots with specimen plantings be included at all corners to add interest and to soften the building elevation for pad 4 at the southwest comer of the El Camino Real entry. 5'^ review: The applicant has responded: "Decorative planter pots have been added to the plazas at the El Camino Real Gateways. Low stone walls surrounding raised planters are proposedfor the Marron Road Gateways. Ownership prefers the stone walls and gateway trees as an accent feature in lieu of decorative pots in these locations. " Low stone walls surrounding raised planers are acceptable; however I do not see the materials for these walls addressed on the architectural plans. Please indicate "Raised stone walls" on the landscape plans and/or provide this information on the architectural plans. Pots have been added at the entry off of El Camino Real. Final construction drawings will need to insure that locations and plant materials selected for these pots do not conflict with vehicular site lines. 1B-3B Completed. 1C-6C Completed. NEW COMMENTS ID. Please show landscaping in this area. September 21, 2012 TO: Jason GofF, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carisbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Specific Plan - 6* Review Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, EIR 09-02, SP 09-01 El Camino Real MELA file: 380 - Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan - SP6 Planner: Hofman Planning & Engineering, (760) 692-4100 All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: JUNE 29. 2012 PROJEa NO(S): EIR 09-02 REVIEW NO: PROJEa TITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING/MICHELE ALVES TO: |2Sl Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley I I Police Department - J. Sasway I I Fire Department-Greg Ryan I I Building Department - Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I I Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque I I Water/Sewer District I I Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I I Sempra Energy - Land Management I I Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) I I Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 7/20/12. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that helci to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you fN i COMMENTS: VAVOk dn r^AWtXS ^ ^ Signature ' Jbate PLANS AHACHED Review & Comment 03/10 Jason Goff From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Bill Hofman <admin@hofmanplanning.com> Monday, July 23, 2012 8:04 AM Jason Goff; 'Kim Baranek' FW: Comments on EIR HPE comments on EIR Draft-June-2012.doc Jason and Kim, Attached are my comments on the Draft EIR. Sorry these are a little late but these are mostly editorial in nature. If there are any questions or issues on these we can discuss tomorrow during conference call. Bythe way, I'm having orthoscopic knee surgery tomorrow morning and I have to go under a general anesthesia. So, if I don't seem very coherent that will be the reason. Talk to you tomorrow. Bill Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan/Site Development Plan Draft EIR (June 2012) Comments Overall, the Draft EIR is comprehensibly written and contains all of the required analysis and conclusions pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. My comments are directed to the Environmental Setting (Section 2.0), Project Description (Section 3.0), Aesthetics (Section 4.1) and Land Use and Planning (Section 4.9) sections. Most comments are editorial in nature. Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting Page 2.1. 2"^^ Paragraph - The location of the project is described as being east of South Vista Way. This roadway is a private street/driveway but I don't recall this street ever being referred to as South Vista Way. Haymar, a public street, enters the site from El Camino Real. At the first stop sign, you can tum right onto South Vista Way to get to the Animal Shelter, but South Vista Way does not extend into the shopping center and does not ring around the western end. Google Maps for some reason shows the private street as South Vista Way, but I believe that is incorrect (Mapquest calls it Monroe Street). My suggestion would be to refer to this private street as the northerly extension of Monroe Street. Several exhibits within the EIR document (eg. Figures 2-3 and 4.9-1) refer to this street as Monroe Street. My belief is this is not a named street, but should not be called South Vista Way. Section 3.0 - Project Description Page 3-1,2"*^ Paragraph -1 would suggest mentioning in this paragraph that the northern section of the Westfield Carlsbad parking lot is within the city limits of Oceanside. It really isn't clear here. Although this is adequately described subsequent to this paragraph, it would make this paragraph less confusing to the uninitiated reader. Page 3-7, 2"*^ Paragraph - We need to be careful with the term "Mixed Use" in this section. At the Planning Commission meeting last week for the Envision Carlsbad General Plan update, staff stated that a "Mixed Use" designation mandates the provision of residential units. It was staff's recommendation that the entire Westfield Carlsbad site be designated Regional Retail to allow Westfield the flexibility to provide residential units but not making it a mandate. This was a change from their original recommendation of Mixed Use on the western end of the site. This was adopted by the Planning Commission. Since the Specific Plan, the underlying commercial designation and C-2 zoning allow for residential units, I would describe as such and not use the term "Mixed Use." May seem minor, but we don't want to be in a position later of a misinterpretation. Page 3-17. 2"*^ Paragraph - The parking ratio should be 4.0 spaces for every 1000 square feet of GLA, not 5.0 spaces. Page 3-21, 1^' Paragraph. 3*^^ sentence - This sentence is a little misleading. The pads are technically "entitled" but only to allow for the grading of the pads. This sentence gives the impression that the subsequent buildings, although not proposed at this time, have no discretionary requirement. Of course, this is not the case since a subsequent SDP amendment will be necessary before any new construction. This is adequately described later, but this section is a little confusing. My suggestion is to add this clause to the end of the sentence: " .. .at this time and are subject to approval of a Site Development Plan amendment." Page 3-23. 3'^'' Paragraph - This paragraph states that the outbuilding pads each exceed the required 15' building setback from El Camino Real. We don't know this to be the case until a Site Development Plan is submitted and the buildings are plotted. It is possible that buildings will be located up to the setback line and the pad may slightly be reconfigured as part of the Site Development Plan. I don't see why this paragraph needs to be in the document and I would suggest deleting. Section 4.1 - Aesthetics Regulatorv Framework - This is just a general comment for this section. All of the various regulatory ordinances of the city of Carlsbad are listed here, but I don't see any mention of the State Specific Planning law (Sections 65450 - 65457 of the Government Code). Since the Specific Plan is to be the primary regulatory document for the site, I thought this should be mentioned along with the various Carlsbad ordinances. It is the Specific Plan that is providing the ability for the differences in development standards for this site, so it just seems worth including in the regulatory framework. However, this is not a big deal. Section 4.9 - Land Use and Planning Page 4.9-3. Housing Element Paragraph - No need for any changes here, however, I do want to note that it is likely that the Housing Element will change through the Envision Carlsbad planning process and this designation could change. My only concern is any future misinterpretations that residential housing is mandatory for this site. Page 7.1 - References for Hofman Planning and Engineering: Please replace Joe Cohan with Haixin Li Delete Michelle Alves Jason Goff From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Jason Goff Wednesday July 11, 2012 10:40 AM Joe Garuba Westfield Carlsbad - 2nd Screen Check Draft EIR - PEM Review? High Joe, In an effort to keep you and PEM in the loop regarding the Westfield Carlsbad project, we wanted to let you know that we are presently in the process of reviewing the second screen check ofthe draft EIR. Comments are due back to our EIR consultant (HELIX) no laterthan Friday, July 27, 2012. Ifyou are interested in reviewing the EIR and providing comments on the document than please let me know ASAP and I will have a digital copy produced and sent right over to you. Thanks, Jason. y"- c:iT¥ OP CARLSBAD -ig Divi sion Jason Goff Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 FaradayAvenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 P: 760.602.4643 F: 760.602.8559 Jason.Goff (5) carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Discretionary Review Checklist PROJECT NUMBER: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD (SDP 09-04) BUILDING ADDRESS: 2525 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with [El. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: Date: By: ^ Date: 07.09.2012 By: By: Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON NAME: GREGORY RYAN ADDRESS: DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-4665 REVIEW CHECKLIST SITE PLAN • 1. Landscape: Remove any trees that occur adjacent to any fire hydrants, fire department connection risers or backflow prevention device assemblies. Provide concrete pads around all fire hydrants proposed and existing in accordance with City of Carlsbad- Engineering Standard Drawings WF-01 and WF-02. WATER IMPROVEMENT m m • 1. Hydrants Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants. 1^ Provide concrete pads around all fire hydrants proposed and existing in accordance with City of Carlsbad- Engineering Standard Drawings WF-01 and WF-02. .j ST/ 2^0/ 3^0^ K Kl • 2. Backflow Prevention Device. ^ Additional on-site Backflow Prevention Devices shall be installed in accordance with City of Carlsbad- Engineering Standard Drawings WF-05. Discretionary Review Checklist PROJECT NUMBER: SP 09-01 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2525 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PLAZA CAMINO REAL SITE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The Item you have submitted for revie.. has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these Items after this date, Including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with Instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. By; <J. fZya^^' Date 6/16/2012 DENIAL Please see the attachto report of deficiencies marked with [Ki. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corre- ed plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: By: By: Date Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT r ->NTACT PERSON NAME: Gregory L Ryan Deputy Fire Marshal ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-4663 rPLAZA CAMINO REAL.docx REVIEW CHECKLIST SITE PLAN -| STi 2^°^ 3''°" • • El 1. Access: 0 Fire Department access. Provide fire access road in accordance with CMC 17.04.010. This access shall provide an unobstructed width of 24 feet, and a unobstructed vertical clearance or "clear-to-sky". Maintain inside and outside turning radii of 26'R inside and 52'R o/side. 0 Fire Lanes. All drive aisles shall be designated as fire lanes and shall become the responsibility of the developer to have said access restrictions recorded, that the owner is responsible to provide and maintain to identify and ensure enforcement of those designated access. WATER IMPROVEMENT ^ STm 2^^^ 2^^^ • • 0 1. Hydrants Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required. EI Provide additional fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along public streets and/or private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street Intersections when possible, but no closer than 100 feet from the terminus of a street or driveway. While compliance with Carlsbad Fire Code has been demonstrated with this submittal, I would like to address an issue that has plagued this project for the past several years. That issue is adequate fire sprinkler density for the many new consumer products that will likely be stored throughout this facility once completed. While it is not being suggested that the existing overhead fire sprinkler system be completely updated, it is being suggested that provisions be made for future tenant needs in the form of providing stub-ups or similar access to the proposed water supply main. As has been demonstrated over the past several years the existing overhead sprinkler systems were inadequate in both design and capabilities for today's consumer products. The results were in each instance either a separate water main supplying a separate sprinkler riser was required, or, a separate sprinkler system had to be built off ofthe existing system. Either scenario came at great expense to the tenant, caused untold delays during plan reviews, and only served the one tenant. Given the opportunity to provide additional underground points of connection may serve this project well in the future and offer greater flexibility to prospective tenants. Just a thought. ^ CITY OF CARLSBAD ^ REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: MAY 21. 2012 PROJEa NO(S): SDP 09-04 REVIEW NO: 4 PROJEa TITLE: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING/ALVES TO: ^ Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley I I Police Department - J. Sasway IXI Fire Department-Greg Ryan IXI Building Department-Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I I Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque I I Water/Sewer District Xl Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I I Sempra Energy - Land Management I I Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) I I Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv 6/11/12. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: Signature ' Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 <sei Jason Goff From: Joe Garuba Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:43 AM To: David Hauser; Jason Goff Cc: Jeremy Riddle Subject: RE: Westfield Specific Plan Comments Jason, I am ok with the language that on page 3-3 regarding Temporary Uses. However, we would like to add language that all events need to be in compliance with applicable storm water regulations and that BMP's will be in place if required. The Special Event permit has this language already, so it may be redundant. Also I have seen language used by the attorney's that requires general compliance with all laws, ordinances, etc. I thought that the list of prohibited uses was larger than just pawn shops and tattoo parlors (for the specific plan). Page 4-24 - Section 4.5 Outdoor lighting - we may want to require that they use energy efficient lighting (LED or Induction). As David indicated earlier, there is going to be a number of property transactions - leasable pads that will be defined by a meets and bounds description and an outright sale for property next to the main mall that will facilitate the expansion. The Specific Plan should recognize these in some fashion, but I will leave it to you to figure out where you would like to put it. Everything else seemed to be ok. Joe From: David Hauser Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:04 PM To: Jason Goff Cc: Jeremy Riddle; Joe Garuba; David Hauser Subject: Westfield Specific Plan Comments Hi Jason, The below are my comments on the Westfield Specific Plan submittal. My comments deal primarily with the sustainabiiity features ofthe project and not any issues with the proposed property lease and sale sites or impacts to our parking lot agreements. Joe Garuba is completing his review and will forward his comments relative to these issues later this week. I am pleased to see that Westfield is incorporating many sustainabiiity features into this project. My comments are as follows: On page 4-24 Section 4.5 Outdoor Lighting - Should include a bullet for energy efficiency. On page 4-26 Section 4.6 Public Safety Under Lighting - should include language about energy efficient lighting. On pages 4-27 and 28 Section 4.7 Sustainabiiity - recommend including electric vehicle charging stations. This is something I've been wanting to see addressed in the proposed policies to the General Plan Update. I was looking for some ratio of charging station spaces to the overall parking requirement. Perhaps, the developer can propose something. In any case, it would be nice to see some charging stations distributed around the parking lot. They do not have to give preference up front as has been done in some developments. Proximity to existing electrical service can be accommodated. Jason Goff From: Jeremy Riddle Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:59 PM To: Jason Goff Cc: Terie Rowley; Sabrina Michelson; Bridget Desmarais; Glen Van Peski Subject: Westfield Carisbad, SP 09-01 Jason- LDE has no further comments regarding this document. Let us know when you need conditions for this application. Thanks. Terie/Bridget/Sabrina- Please log out from LDE as of today. Thx. ^ CITY OF CARLSBAD Community & Economic DeveloptBent. Jeremy Riddle, CPESC, QSD Associate Engineer Land Development Engineering City of Carlsbad www.carisbadca.gov P: 760-602-2737 F: 760-602-1052 ieremv.riddle@carisbadca.gov 4 *C CITY OF ^ CARLSBAD Memorandum June 5, 2012 To: Jason Goff, Planning From: Jeremy Riddle, Land Development Engineering 4*'' ENGINEEI (SDP 09-04) SUBJEa: 4*'' ENGINEERING REVIEW OF WESTFIELD CARLSBAD Land Development Engineering staff has completed a review of the 4^'^ submittal of this application. Based on the revised exhibits and associated documents, below we have listed the engineering issues on this project that must be addressed prior to resubmittal: Engineering Issues 1. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit to callout the Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN's) for each property within the boundary of the site development permit. Refer to engineering redlines. 2. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, in the property owner section, revise the exhibit to callout the APN's owned by each unique property owner. Refer to redlines. 3. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit provide a legible breakdown of existing overall average daily trips (ADT's) and proposed overall ADT's and the net increase in ADT's with this revitalization project. Refer to redlines. 4. On sheet Al.0-0, the exhibit was modified to show the existing property lines, but many property lines were not included. Revise the exhibit to show all existing property lines. Referto legend and redlines. 5. On sheet Al.0-0, clarify why the properties near the southwest project corner are still included within the site development permit boundary. It is our understanding these properties were removed from the SDP boundary several months ago. If these properties do not belong within the SDP boundary, please remove the APN's from the project summary in the upper right hand corner and remove the City of Carlsbad from the Property Owner information. If they do belong, then add the APN's to the exhibit per the redline comments. 6. (repeat comment) On sheet C-4, C-8, and C-11, revise the exhibits to ensure that Westfield Carlsbad, SDP 09- JuneS, 2012 Page 2 of 2 vehicular stop signs coincide with the pedestrian crossing. Refer to redlines. 7. On sheet C-6, the revised drive aisle results in a configuration that is 'reverse-skewed' for motorists. With the new layout, it does not appear that passenger cars can turn this sharply to enter/exit the parking stall. Consider restriping the stalls so they are perpendicular or angled in the direction of traffic flow. Refer to redlines and address this discrepancy with the next submittal. 8. On sheet C-6 and C-7, define keynote 34 at the bottom of the page. 9. On sheet C-12, show/callout inside and outside radii for delivery trucks as they enter/exit the proposed loading docks. Referto Caltrans Figure 404.5F. A previous email was sent to address this concern, however this change must be reflected in the next submittal. Attached are redlined check prints of the project submittal. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. If you have any questions, please call me at 602-2737. Attachment c: Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager Engineering Project File Jason Goff From: David Hauser Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:04 PM To: Jason Goff Cc: Jeremy Riddle; Joe Garuba; David Hauser Subject: Westfield Specific Plan Comments «>? -o \ Hi Jason, The below are my comments on the Westfield Specific Plan submittal. My comments deal primarily with the sustainabiiity features ofthe project and not any issues with the proposed property lease and sale sites or impacts to our parking lot agreements. Joe Garuba is completing his review and will forward his comments relative to these issues later this week. I am pleased to see that Westfield is incorporating many sustainabiiity features into this project. My comments are as follows: On page 4-24 Section 4.5 Outdoor Lighting - Should include a bullet for energy efficiency. On page 4-26 Section 4.6 Public Safety Under Lighting - should include language about energy efficient lighting. On pages 4-27 and 28 Section 4.7 Sustainabiiity - recommend including electric vehicle charging stations. This is something I've been wanting to see addressed in the proposed policies to the General Plan Update. I was looking for some ratio of charging station spaces to the overall parking requirement. Perhaps, the developer can propose something. In any case, it would be nice to see some charging stations distributed around the parking lot. They do not have to give preference up front as has been done in some developments. Proximity to existing electrical service can be accommodated. On page 5-2 Section 5.1 General Development Standards - add a bullet point about the electric charging stations. On page 5-2 Section 5.1 under Outdoor lighting-add sub-bullet point about energy efficient lighting requirement. Issues that Joe will address include the need for lot line adjustments for the proposed parking lot land sales adjacent to the main mall building, ensuring that proposed storm water BMP maintenance requirements are properly addressed in our existing agreements and the special event provisions of the SP and how that may impact our existing agreements. David ..A ^ cirr Of CARLSBAD Property is f nvironmedfiil Managen'efii David Hauser, Director City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-602-2739 | david.hauser@carisbadca.gov Connectn^/r/j m Facebook | Twitter j You Tube i Flickr | Pinterest | Enews May 30, 2012 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 4* Review Plaza Camino Real Revitalization, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 (ux-Hv<W>v ; El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - Con4 Landscape Architect: MW Pehz - Phone: (858) 481-0888 Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual and the Specific Plan. It is noted that the Specific Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concem. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Completed. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3*^*^ Review: Please show all property lines and right-of-ways on the landscape plans on all landscape plan sheets. 4"^ Review: It is not clear which line represents the right-of-way/property line. Please clarify by drawing an arrow to the correct line. 3-11 Completed. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 2"'' Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 4"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Final enhancements will not be possible until final building elevations are complete at the construction document stage. " Additional planting or other softening may be needed at the northeast corner of pad 4 to soften the building elevation. Please add trees along the south side of pad 4. 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape constmction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with the trees." 3*^ Review: Please show the light poles on the landscape plans. 4^^^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Parking lot lighting is not complete for new layout. City will be provided a separate exhibit when complete. Light poles shall be coordinated and placed so not to conflict with trees. " Plaza Camino Real Revitalization May 30, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are te shade. 2"^ Review: Thc applicant has responded: "The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Development Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements." Thc specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 3*^ Review: The Specific Plan (page 4-13) indicates that ^ree row spacing shall divide parking fields equally as much as possible and bc placed approximately every 3 5 rows of double loaded parking stalls." Please provide for these plantings. The Specific Plan also indicates that 2 large canopy trees will be placed at the end islands of each parking row. Please address as best as possible avoiding easements. Check all areas, Review: Please show the trees in these areas. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-23 Completed. 24. Deleted. 25. Insure all requirements of the attached parking lot exhibit are met. S"^** Review: Please address how cars are kept out of the vegetated strips. 4"^ Review: Cars can be driven between the proposed wheel stops. Please identify the wheel stops on the plans and place so as to preclude cars from passing between them and through the planted swales. 26 RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1A-2A Deleted. 3 A. Architectural plans do not appear to specify the hardscape treatments. Please fiilly address. 3^"^ Review: Architectural plans provide 3 samples for paving on sheet A3.1- 2; however it is not clear if these are for interior or exterior spaces. Architectural illustrative sketches call for enhanced paving pattem #1 and #2; however there is no description as to what these patterns are. Please provide more detail/information. 4"" Review: Please explain what "Enhance paving pattern Ul and #2" are on the architectural plans. Are these just two different colors as noted on sheet A3-L2? 4A. Deleted. 5A. The illustrative plans and landscape plans appear to be fiinctional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site.—It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all plans and provide additional detailing as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 3*^ Review: The Specific Plan vision for thc gateways (page 4-4) indicates that "The gateways must express the excitement and quality of the Westfield Shopping experience planned for Westfield Carlsbad." Thc design for building entries (page 4-19) indicates that "Each entry will make a strong landscape statement that reflects the permanence of Westfield Carlsbad within the economic fabric of Carlsbad." It is not clear how thc plans provide Plaza Camino Real Revitalization May 30, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 for these and other visions and design concepts. Please address. 4"" Review: The applicant has added enhanced paved plazas at the El Camino Real and Marron Road entries in the Specific Plan and better clarified the design intent It is recommended that large architectural planter pots with specimen plantings be included at all corners to add interest and to soften the building elevation for pad 4 at the southwest corner of the El Camino Real entry. 1B-3B Completed. NEW COMMENTS IC. Page 4-7 of the specific Plan provides for enhanced paving at the entry. Please address and see comment 5A. Coordinate architectural illustrative plans. 2C. Per the Specific Plan (page 4-8) "No new Mexican Fan Palms will be introduced". This palm is listed as an invasive species. Please provide a substitute. 3C. Please show new trees to coordinate with architectural illustrative plans. Relocate planter to the north to avoid easements. 4C. Please show plantings per architectural illustrative plans. Coordinate civil plans to show the planter, 5C. Civil plans show a 6' wide bio-swale down the center of the 10' wide parkway along Marron Road. This leaves a 2' wide planting area on either side. Planting area is insufficient if trees are not allowed in this bio-swale area (i.e. 2' width for trees). Street trees along with screen plantings will be required. Please explain how this is to work and re-design as appropriate. 6C. The Specific Plan designates this as a "Major Site Entry"; however the entitlement package provides "Secondary Entry Trees". Please explain why this would not have "Gateway accent Trees" since it is a "Major Site Entry". May 29, 2012 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Specific Plan Review - 5* Review Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, EIR 09-02, SP 09-01 El Camino Real PELA file: 380 - Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan - SP5 Planner: Hofman Planning & Engineering, (760) 692-4100 Please advise the applicant to make the following additions and revisions to the specific plan so that an appropriate review can be performed. REPEAT COMMENTS 1, Deleted. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.) 2*^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3"* Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings arc defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however the information is fairly general and non-specific. A plant list is provided, however layout and use of the plans is not specific. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines along with more specific sketches as previously requested. •1*'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposod plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, paridng fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette. This specific plan lays out the development standards as discussed and agreed with City planning staff Additional sketches are included providing including end parking islands and parking lot tree spacing." More detailed exhibits/figures ore still needed to convey the design vision. As an example, the verbiage and exhib it/figure for the building entries provide for paving, site amenities and planting. Thc Specific Plan states (page 4-19): "Planting will be used as an architectural design element with emphasis placed on plant form and stmcture. Plant material will be selected and placed to enhance the architecture." Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan May 29, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 The major entry figure (page 4 19) shows one small landscape planter; benches with planter pots lined against a wall; accent paving; and bollards lined at the curb. The figure shows a very functional design that lacks interest and creativity. The verbiage is vague and does not provide clear direction (i.e. is there to be any other planting besides the one planter; are there to be any trees or palms?). More detailed figures and/or verbiage is needed for all areas to better clarify goals, standards and guidelines. 5'^ Review: The applicant has added enhanced paved plazas at the El Camino Real (page 4-6) and Marron Road (page 4-7) entries and better clarified the design intent It is recommended that large architectural planter pots with specimen plantings be included at all corners to add interest and to soften the building elevation for pad 4 at the southwest corner of the El Camino Real entry. 3. Deleted. 4. Deleted. 5-9 Completed. 10. Deleted. 11-12 Completed. 13-15 Deleted. 1A-4A Deleted. 1B-4B Completed. NEW COMMENTS IC. (Page 4-12) Civil plans show a 6' wide bio-swale down the center of the 10' wide parkway along Marron Road. This leaves a 2' wide planting area on either side. The Specific Plan sketch shows trees in the center of this bio-swale which may not be permitted. Planting area is insufficient if trees are not allowed in this bio-swale area (i.e. 2' width for trees). Street trees along with screen plantings will be required. Please explain how this is to work and re-design as appropriate. CITY OF ^CARLSBAD www.carlsbadca.gov Memorandum May 8, 2012 To: David Hauser, Property & Environmental Management Director Joe Garuba, Municipal Property Manager From: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Re: Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan (SP 09-01) - Temporary Parking Lot Events Please find enclosed a compact disk containing a PDF copy ofthe most recent submittal (4**^ submittal) of the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan, which we reviewed and commented on back in March of 2012. One of the items we are still at a crossroads with Westfield on is the use of the City's parking lot for what they are calling Temporary Uses (i.e., temporary parking lot events). This section begins on Pg. 3- 3, where it outlines the types of proposed uses they would like to be able to allow on a temporary basis; on the following page is Figure 6, which shows the locations that they would like to be able to hold these events; and on Pg. 6-5, under Section 6.3 they provide the process in which someone would file an application for one of these types of events. Leading up to this 4*^ submittal. Planning had taken a strong stance that we would not support these temporary or special promotional type events other than what had been occurring in the past, and as such had not made any formative comments to date regarding the proposed processes. Our stance was based on City Council Resolution No. 2001-118 whereby the City Council had unanimously denied Precise Plan 24(1), and had wrote findings cleariy expressing that they did not want these temporary promotional event type activities freely occurring within the parking lot and had identified that there were sufficient mechanisms in place to host outdoor special events (i.e., CMC Ch. 8.17 - Special Events, and Planning Department's Temporary Sales Locations permit for seasonal type sales, such as Christmas Tree lots and Pumpkins patches). In response to our "i"^ submittal comments, Westfield asked to meet and discuss our issues letter. One of the items of discussion at that meeting was regarding the temporary events and our opposition, whereby Westfield expressed a strong desire to go forward to City Council despite our position to determine if the City Council was now receptive to the idea. Seeing that the Specific Plan has to go to City Council for a decision, we have been recently working with Westfield to try and get this section in the best position possible, so if City Council did decide to approve it, the section would read logically. They eliminated such uses as Recreation Vehicle Sales/Expositions per our direction, but they find it very important that they be allowed to host such events as Automotive Demonstrations/Product Awareness, Bike/Skate Demonstrations or Shows, Farmer's Markets, and Seasonal Garden Centers. For the Automotive Demonstrations/Product Awareness category, you'll notice that they added "with local Carisbad dealers (excluding tent sales and used cars). This was added to ease our concern about other dealers from outside of the city being able to advertise/display cars at one of these types of events. Since this this last review, we have been working with Hofman Planning from a zoning standpoint to try and create a logical permitting review process for the Temporary Parking Lot Events should they be Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carisbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2710 I 760-602-8560 fax L^M..^ . .«^..^./ ..WV V.V.. Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan (SP 09-01) - Temporary Parking Lot Events May 8, 2012 Page 2 allowed to occur. However, the bigger question that really needs to be answered is whether or not PEM is even going to allow the parking lot to be used for such events. This is something that PEM has never weighed in on and probably should eariier than later. Please let us know if you have any comments regarding this that we can pass along to Westfield, or whether or not you would like to meet with them to discuss this use. Thank you. Enclosure: 1. CD containing 4*'' submittal of the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan (SP 09-01). CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 27. 2012 PROJEa NO(s): mmm^A REVIEW NO: i# PROJEa TITLE: PLAZA CAMINO REAL APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING/ALVES TO: ^ Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley I I Police Department - J. Sasway Xl Fire Department-Greg Ryan S Building Department - Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I I Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque I I Water/Sewer District 1X1 Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I I Sempra Energy - Land Management I I Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) I I Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •^ALWAYSSEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to th^^llANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, bvHllS/lZ.. If vou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. COMMENTS: Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 Ob (Jf^ CITY OF ^ CARLSBAD Memorandum March 14, 2012 To: Jason Goff, Planning From: Jeremy Riddle, Land Development Engineering SUBJEa: 4*" ENGINEERING REVIEW OF WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 09-01) Land Development Engineering staff has review the 4^^ submittal ofthe specific plan document for this project. Below, we have provided a list of engineering issues. Prior to resubmittal, please have the applicant address the following engineering issues: 1. On page 5-5, under 'Design, Color & Materials', add narrative explaining that no person shall erect any sign within the sight distance corridor (repeat comment). Refer to redlines. 2. Please add Appendix B (storm water management plan) to the specific plan (repeat comment). 3. A water study was added to Appendix E. However, this is not the latest water study. Based on previous correspondence we understand Dexter Wilson performed an update letter to this study, dated January 25, 2010. Please add this update to the appendix. 4. Once the information is available, please add Appendix G (mitigation measures) to the specific plan. Attached is redlined specific plan document. Please return this redline document with an updated copy of the specific plan with next review. If you have any questions, please call me at 602-2737. Attachment c: Engineering Project File March 6, 2012 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 3'^'' Review Plaza Camino Real Revitalization, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - Con3 Landscape Architect: MW Peltz - Phone: (858) 481 -0888 Please advise the applicant to make the following corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual and the Specific Plan. It is noted that the Specific Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. Many comments are not numbered on the red-line plans due to the conceptual nature of the plans but are provided for the applicant's use in providing more detail and addressing all Landscape Manual requirements. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for many trees in each tree group that can be very different in character. One symbol is used for all shrubs, grasses and ground covers. Please provide a different symbol for each type of tree (i.e. large evergreen, medium evergreen, small evergreen, large deciduous, medium deciduous, etc.) and a different symbol for each type of shmb (i.e. large evergreen shmb, medium size shmb, small flowering accent shmb, etc.). Vignettes at a larger scale are needed for different areas to convey concepts. Please provide enlargements showing more detailed landscaping for parking islands, site and building entries and perimeters, etc. to allow an appropriate review to be performed. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete and detailed plans. 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be less conceptual. Please see Illustrative Plans on Sheets AI.4-1, 2, and 3 for details of the proposed hardscape/landscape types and finishes for pedestrian connections, building entries and perimeters." Illustrative Plans do not appear to reflect real site conditions (i.e. trees located within easements, etc.) and clearly state that the plans are subject to change. The design intent will need to be better established in order to provide valid comments on the plans. Please provide fiirther detailing that reflects site conditions and provides clear design intent that can be enforced (see underlined comments above). Please also provide a different symbol for small, medium and large trees as well as different symbols for the palms. The proposed palms are different in character and form. See NEW COMMENT 3 A 3'^'^ Review: In addition to comments above, the architectural illustrative plans, civil plans and landscape plans need to be coordinated. For example, the entry adjacent to Plaza Camino Real Revitalization March 6, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 the drop off area on sheet L3 shows a landscape planter against the west building wall where the architectural illustrative plans on sheet A 1.4-4 and civil plan shows paving. Please coordinate all pans. Check all sheets and coordinate. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3''^ Review: Please show all property lines and right-of-ways on the landscape plans on all landscape plan sheets. 3-10 Completed. 11. Please provide examples and/or more detailing for the hardscape and landscape markers for review. See comment number 1 and 3A regarding hardscape. 12. Completed. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 2"'' Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape constmction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 2"** Review: The applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with the trees." 3'^'^ Review: Please show the light poles on the landscape plans. 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 2*^ Review: Thc applicant has responded: "The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Development Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements." Thc specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should addrcss current City requirements. Please address. 3'^'^ Review: The Specific Plan (page 4-13) indicates that "Tree row spacing shall divide parking fields equally as much as possible and he placed approximately every 3-5 rows of double loaded parking stalls. " Please provide for these plantings. The Specific Plan also indicates that 2 large canopy trees will be placed at the end islands of each parking row. Please address as best as possible avoiding easements. Check all areas. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-21 Completed. 22. At least three percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shmbs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 2"*^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should Plaza Camino Real Revitalization March 6, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 address current City requirements. Please address. 3'^'^ Review: The Specific Plan indicates that 3% of the parking field is to be landscaped. Please provide a calculation showing that this requirement has been met 23. Completed. 24. Deleted. 25. Insure all requirements of the attached parking lot exhibit are met. 3'^'^ Review: Please address how cars are kept out of the vegetated strips. 26 RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1A-2A Deleted. 3 A. Architectural plans do not appear to specify the hardscape treatments. Please fully address. 3'^'^ Review: Architectural plans provide 3 samples for paving on sheet A3.1- 2; however it is not clear if these are for interior or exterior spaces. Architectural illustrative sketches call for enhanced paving pattern #1 and #2; however there is no description as to what these pattems are. Please provide more detail/information. 4A. Deleted. 5A. The illustrafive plans and landscape plans appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please fiirther develop all plans and provide additional detailing as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 3'^'' Review: The Specific Plan vision for the gateways (page 4-4) indicates that "The gateways must express the excitement and quality of the Westfield Shopping experience planned for Westfield Carlsbad. " The design for building entries (page 4-19) indicates that "Each entry will make a strong landscape statement that reflects the permanence of Westfield Carlsbad within the economic fabric of Carlsbad. " It is not clear how the plans provide for these and other visions and design concepts. Please address. NEW COMMENTS IB. These are shown as landscape areas on the architectural illustrative plans. Please coordinate. 2B. Please show the water use for the vegetated strips on sheet L7. 3B. Pennisetum setaceum is listed as an invasive species. Please provide a substitute. WHEEL STOPS 3t 3t 1 ^ A OCA/ PUNTING AREA 7 =4 >- % 2-^ ^ MIN. DIM. 5' A - END PARKING ISLAND LANDSCAPE (parking on one side) 6' B - INTERIOR UNDSCAPE ISLAND (oarkina on both sides) 4' 0 - PLANTING STRIPS (w/no car overhana) 9' D - PLANTING STRIPS (w/car overhana of 2 1 /2 feet) 2 !^ C3 N O p TJ O si' p. N' o' 3 P o cr PARKING LOT DIAGRAM 1 * March 5, 2012 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carisbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Specific Plan Review - 4* Review Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, EIR 09-02, SP 09-01 El Camino Real PELA file; 380 - Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan - SP4 Planner: Hofman Planning & Engineering, (760) 692-4100 Please advise the applicant to make the following additions and revisions to the specific plan so that an appropriate review can be performed. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Deleted. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.) 2"** Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3"^*^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however the information is fairly general and non-specific. A plant list is provided, however layout and use of the plans is not specific. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines along with more specific sketches as previously requested. Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are definedfor each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette. This specific plan lays out the development standards as discussed and agreed with City planning staff. Additional sketches are included providing including end parking islands and parking lot tree spacing. " More detailed exhibits/figures are still needed to convey the design vision. As an example, the verbiage and exhibitfigure for the building entries provide for paving, site amenities and planting. The Specific Plan states (page 4-19): "Planting will be used as an architectural design element with emphasis placed on plant form and structure. Plant material will be selected and placed to enhance the architecture." Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan March 5, 2012 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 The major entry figure (page 4-19) shows one small landscape planter; benches with planter pots lined against a wall; accent paving; and bollards lined at the curb. The figure shows a very functional design that lacks interest and creativity. The verbiage is vague and does not provide clear direction (i.e. is there to be any other planting besides the one planter; are there to be any trees or palms?). More detailed figures and/or verbiage is needed for all areas to better clarify goals, standards and guidelines. 3. The exhibits appear to be fiinctional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 2"** Review: The applicant has responded: "Further definition and clarity will be provided in the subsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04 for areas within the area of work as shown on the plans." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3'^'* Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines section on "Gateways" (pg 4-4) and "Streetscape" (pg 4-7) regarding focal points and project arrival/entries. Additional pictures and illustrations have been included to depict concepts in the text." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however they are still fairly fiinctional only and lack interest and creativity. Please fully address the comment, f Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines per discussions with City planning staff. " Ihe exhibitsfigures still appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. Please see comment 2, 4'^ review above. 4. Deleted. 5-9 Completed. 10, Deleted. 11-12 Completed. 13-15 Deleted. 1A-4A Deleted. 1B-4B Completed. PROJECT NUMBER: BUILDING ADDRESS: Discretionary Review Checklist SDP 09-04 PLAZA CAMINO REAL 2525 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 156-302-08, -09 & 156-302-21. -22, -23, -24 FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. By: Date DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with S. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected pians and/or specifications to this office for review. By: <y. tiya^^' By; By: Date 02/27/12 Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON NAME: PHONE: Gregory L Ryan Deputy Flre Marshal ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4663 SDP 09-04 PLAZA CAMINO REAL.docx If .jSTi m 2NDii • • SITE PLAN 1. Access: O REVIEW CHECKLIST Fire Department access. Provide fire access road in accordance with CMC 17.04.010. This access shall provide an unobstructed width of 24 feet, and an unobstructed vertical clearance or "clear-to-sky". Maintain inside and outside turning radii of 26'R Inside and 52"R o/side. .^STi m 2ND111 • 3RD11 • O Fire Access Road surface The surface of all fire department access routes shall be of an impen/ious "all-weather" surface material, designed to carry a minimum load of 75,000 pounds axel weight. O Alternative road surface. Alternative road surface matenals such as turf block or grass-crete may be approved by the Chief if the applicant requests by letter for an approval of the u$e of Altemate Means and Materials and provide performance specifications and construction details which have been reviewed and certified by a licensed engineer. 0 Fire Lanes. All drive aisles shall be designated as fire lanes and shall become the responsibility of the developer to have said access restrictions recorded, that the owner is responsible to provide and maintain to identify and ensure enforcement of those designated access. WATER IMPROVEMENT 1. Hydrants - shall be provide as outlined below d Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required > Sheet C-9: Provide one F.H. for the two future buildings ftonted on Marron Rd. in the Center island. Indicate tiiat tfte backfhw-prevention devices fbr eadi oftiiese buildings shaH be loated in tiie eitikrjOte Middle island or in the Bump-out at the terminus ofthe access to these buildings (Southern-most). > Relocate tiie F.H. in front ofthe future buiiding nearest the El Camino Reai entrance to tiie island immediately across ft-om the proposed iocation. V Please show the proposed location of the back ftow prevention device for the ftre spnnklers for the buitding. Provide additional fire hydrants at inten/als of 500 feet along public streets and/or private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but no closer than 100 feet fnsm the terminus of a s&eet or driveway. ' LANDSCAPE .|STm 3"^^^ m • • 1. Distance from structure or building to combustible vegetation. O Access for emergency vehicles and maintenance. Pravide clear and un- obstructed flre department access throughout this project. Tree canopies that over-hang into the FD access must be 13-feet-6-inches or more. O No vegetation including trees, shrubs, or groundcover plantings are to be within 6-feet of any fire hydrant or fire sprinkler sen/ice device. Any trees planted within 12-feet of any fire hydrant shall be pravided with a root barrier to protect the water service main from Intrusion. FIRE SPRINKLERS ^ STu 2^0(11 3RD1! [S] • • 1. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required for all Residential Occupancies permitted after January 1, 2011, and all structures in excess of 5000 square feet. 0 This project exceeds or expands the aggregate floor area of five-thousand (5,000) square feet. El • • 2. Provide notes on all plans submitted fbr review that indicate that fire sprinklers are to be designed to NFPA 13 standards. IS] • • 3. Each buiiding shall require a separate DDCV. ISlf • • 4. The proposed buildings as part of the main mall complex in excess of 40-feet in height shall be required to provide a Class-1 Standpipe with hose outlet at each access stair or hatch and within 200- lineal feet of any roof access. WATER METERS [HI • • 1. You will be required to Install a By-pass water meter on each backflow prevention device PROJECT NUMBER: Discretionary Review Checklist SP 09-01 BUILDING ADDRESS: PLAZA CAMINO REAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED REVISIONS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: N/A FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. By: Date: DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with [El. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicabie codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: (j. Date: 10/24/11 By: By: Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON NAME: (^RegoR'fmM DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-4665 REVIEW CHECKLIST SITE PLAN ..^ STu 2^01!! 3RDH • • • 1. Access: SI Fire Department access inadequate. Provide fire access road in accordance with CMC 17.04.010. This access shall provide an unobstructed width of 24 feet, and a unobstructed vertical clearance or "clear-to-sky" to within 10 linear feet from drip line of all buildings. 0 Fire Access Road surface. The surface of all fire department access routes shall be of an impervious "all-weather" surface material, designed to carry a minimum load of 75,000 pounds axel weight. A registered Civil Engineer shall assess and certify that all designated fire department access lanes are sufficiently designed and constructed to support the weight of all emergency equipment. 0 Alternative road surface. Alternative road surface materials such as turf block or grass Crete may be approved by the Chief if; the applicant requests by letter for an approval ofthe use of Alternate Means and Materials and provide performance specifications and construction details which have been reviewed and certified by a registered engineer. 0 Fire Lanes. Fire lanes that are already designated or proposed shall become the responsibility ofthe developer to have said access restrictions recorded, that the owner is responsible to maintain and to identify and ensure enforcement of those designated access. WATER IMPROVEMENT .j STn 2^0111 3RDJ1 • • • 1. Hydrants Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required. 0 Provide additional fire hydrants at intervals of 225 feet along fire department access. Hydrants should be located no more than 90 lineal feet from any fire department connection. LANDSCAPE <|STi 2ND[I1 3RDrR • • • 1. Distance from structure or 0 No tree shall be planted within ten feet of any fire hydrant or backflow prevention device assembly. 0 No tree shall be planted or maintained in a manner such that the canopy is below 13'-6" and/or encroaches into a designated fire lane or fire department access. 0 Concrete pads shall be provided around all existing and proposed fire hydrants, free- standing fire department connection risers and backflow prevention devices. FIRE SPRINKLERS ^ STa 2'^'^™ S"^^*! • • • 1. An automatic fire sprinklersystem: 0 If this project results in substantial renovation of existing structures and systems, then it shall be the responsibility ofthe owner to revise the design ofthe existing system(s) so that no single sprinkler riser supplies more than 52,000 square feet of space for B and M occupancies or 40,000 square feet for A, S and H occupancies. 0 Those retail spaces (M occ's) that are provided with storerooms (S occ's) that are capable of installing storage racks, shelves or gondolas with a height greater than 72-inches from finished floor/surface shall have a minimum sprinkler design density of .45/3000 s.f. or extra-hazard Group 2, whichever is greater. PERMITS • • • 1. Annual use permits are required pursuant to CFC 17.04.105 For the core mall structure, and each tenant or anchor stores shall be required to apply for and obtain an annual fire department use permit for specific uses If necessary. CITY OF ^ CARLSBAD Memorandum October 19, 2011 To: Jason Goff, Planning From: Jeremy Riddle, Land Development Engineering SUBJEa: 3'" ENGINEERING REVIEW OF WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 09-01) Land Engineering staff has review the 3^^^ submittal of the specific plan document for this project. Below, we have provided a list of engineering issues. Prior to resubmittal, please have the applicant address the following engineering issues: 1. Revise the table of contents to list the various appendices attached to the document. 2. In Figure 4, revise the document to address the inconsistency with the transit center location. Referto redline. 3. On page 2-7, add a reference for the traffic impact study prepared by Gibson Transportation. In-lieu of adding the study as another appendix, refer the reader to EIR 09-02. 4. In previous meetings, we understood the exterior parking lot lighting would be reconstructed with new light standards. On page 2-7, revise the document or add narrative to clarify if there is a lighting plan that explains how lighting will be improved with the project. The specific plan should explain when and how this will be accomplished. 5. On page 2-8, please add Appendix F (mitigation measures) and to the specific plan. Staff could not find this information. 6. On page 2-8, please add Appendix B (storm water management plan) to the specific plan. 7. On page 4-5, add narrative that explains that the design goals for new/reconstructed streetscape include low impact development features such as bioretention swales/basins to serve as 'disconnects' to encourage evapotranspiration, root uptake, while filtering urban pollutants and reducing the impacts of urban runoff to downstream locations. 8. On page 4-7, update the project name to 'Westfield Carisbad'. Change 'SWPPP' to ' Westfield Carlsbad October 19,2011 Page 2 of 2 'state and local stormwater' requirements. Refer to redlines. 9. On page 4-8, modify the exhibit to show a concept for a depressed landscape area for potential storm water treatment areas. 10. On page 4-18, revise the document to explain how parking lot lighting upgrades will be accomplished. Will parking lot light improvements be phased in or done all at once? When will the lighting plan be submitted? 11. On page 4-22, clarify whether converting the parking lot lights to high efficiency lighting could be added to energy efficiency measures. 12. On page 5-4, add a bullet point explaining that no person shall erect any sign within line sight distance corridor. Referto redlines. 13. On page 7-9 and 7-10, add the correct reference for the appendix of the sewer and water system layout. Since the last review the appendices layout has changed. Refer to redlines. 14. Appendix B of to the document is missing (storm water management plan). Please include with the next submittal to ensure a comprehensive review. 15. In Appendix C and D, consider deleting 'figure 2' from the attached document as it conflicts with the other figure 2 in another area of the document. 16. For additional comments, refer to the redlines. Attached is redlined specific plan document. Please return this redline document with an updated copy of the specific plan with next review. If you have any questions, please call me at 602-2737. Attachment c: Engineering Project File October 12,2011 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Specific Plan Review - S*^*^ Review Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, EIR 09-02, SP 09-01 El Camino Real PELA file: 380 - Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan - SP3 Planner: Hofman Planning & Engineering, (760) 692-4100 Please advise the applicant to make the following additions and revisions to the specific plan so that an appropriate review can be perfonned. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. The landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to clearly define how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and guidelines. 2"*^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Plaza Camino Real is a unique use and was developed nearly twenty years before the implementation of the Landscape Manual policy and does not meet many of the standards of that policy. Retrofitting the center to meet all Manual policy standards is impossible. The PCRSP supersedes the City's Landscape Manual although the Plan meets the intent of the policy. The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to provide guidance on key design principles while allowing for creativity in design of future development. Particular plants or planting palettes are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather provided in the subsequent development plans such as SDP09-04 which will be resubmitted soon." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3"^^^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Included with this revised specific plan is a set of comprehensive landscape guidelines. Please refer to Section 4.2." Additional verbiage has been provided; however the verbiage is not specific and provides little specific direction. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines as previously requested. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.) 2"*^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3'^''Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan October 12, 2011 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 the new landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are definedfor each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette. " Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however the information is fairly general and non-specific. A plant list is provided, however layout and use of the plans is not specific. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines along with more specific sketches as previously requested. The exhibits appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please fiirther develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to defme the development of all areas. 2"** Review: The applicant has responded: "Further definition and clarity will be provided in the subsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04 for areas wdthin the area of work as shown on the plans." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3'''^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines section on "Gateways " (pg 4- 4) and "Streetscape " (pg 4-7) regarding focal points and project arrival/entries. Additional pictures and illustrations have been included to depict concepts in the text." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however they are still fairly functional only and lack interest and creativity. Please fully address the comment Please address and clarify how landscaping will be used to accentuate and enhance building architecture; site, parking and building entries; intersections; focal points; etc. 2"** Review: The applicant has responded: "The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to allow for innovative design as part of future development that accentuates and enhances buildings proposed and existing for the center to remain modern. Please see Section III, Landscape guidelines." The applicant has not addressed the comment. The guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to new landscape guidelines. Within the guidelines are sections that address "Gateways", "Streetscape ", "Parking Fields" "Building frontage " and "Building entry" with regards to landscape enhancements and guidelines. " Additional verbiage which includes "visions " has been provided; however there are little specifics as to how the vision will be accomplished. Please fully address the comment providing specific information as to how the vision will be realized. Please address how proposed landscaping will be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing landscaping. 2" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Section III, Development Standards, defines landscape requirements within the Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan boundary area. All new development shall comply with these landscape standards and staff will review to ensure proposed landscaping will be compatible with existing landscape to remain." The applicant has not addressed the comment. The guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment. 3'''^ Review: Ihe applicant has responded: "Please refer to new 5. Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan October 12, 2011 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 landscape guidelines, specifically the "Streetscape" section (pg 4-7). " Additional verbiage has been provided; however there are little specifics as to how the final vision will be accomplished. Please fully address the comment providing specific information as to how the vision will be realized. 6. Please address how landscaping will be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 2^^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Subject to staff review of subsequent entitlement plans, landscaping and other elements, such as walls, trellises, gates, will be used together to provide adequate screening of service areas or other areas of unsightliness." The applicant has not fully addressed the comment. The SP now discusses only screening of trash enclosures and service areas. Please address screening of utilities and screening/softening of architectural masses, etc. Please fully address. 3'^''Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to new landscape guidelines, specific examples include: "Streetscape " design section regarding screening, "Gateways " plant material section regarding softening with understory of shrubs and "Buildingfrontage " re softening buildings with landscaping. " Additional verbiage has been provided; however there are little specifics as to how the final vision will be accomplished. Please fully address the comment providing specific information as to how the vision will be realized. 7. Please provide a list of plants proposed for use (i.e. project theme trees; accent trees; shmbs; ground covers; vines). The list needs to identify proposed plants for each different use (i.e. project perimeter; project entries; parking areas; intersections; building entries; etc.). Proposed plant sizes also need to be provided. 2"*^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP defines landscape requirements and guidelines to provide guidance on design principles while allowing for abstract and creativity in design of future development. Specific plants are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather by the subsequent development plans such as SDP 09-04 currently under staff review." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to new landscape guidelines. Each section within the guidelines ("Gateways ", "Streetscape ", etc) includes a plant list and plant species. " Several invasive species are proposed (Date Palm, Mexican Fan Palm, Vinca, etc.) Please review/revise plantings as appropriate deleting any invasive species. 8-9 Completed. 10. Deleted. 11-12 Completed. 13-15 Deleted. 1A-4A Deleted. NEW COMMENTS IB. Paragraph 3 on page 4-7 indicates: "The trees will be placed at 120 feet on center or less with a total number along each street equivalent to one tree per 120 feet of street frontage." Please revise to one tree per every 40 feet of street frontage to meet Landscape Manual requirements. 2B. Page 4-9: London Plane tree is highly susceptible to anthracnose and should not be used in the Carlsbad area. Please provide a substitute. Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan October 12, 2011 Conceptual Plan Review Page 4 3B. It is understood that existing parking areas are to remain in much of the project area; however Landscape Manual requirements should be addressed where parking areas are modified now or in the fiiture. Parking lot landscaping is currently minimal at best and needs additional thought and improvement. The specific plan appears to indicate that parking landscaping will for the most part remain as is. The redevelopment of the project should address improvements to the parking areas in order to revitalize and make the project more inviting and aesthetically pleasing. On page 4-11, the specific plan indicates that the total number of trees within the refurbished parking field will equate to one tree per approximately every 25 parking spaces.... The Landscape Manual requires one tree per four parking spaces. Please revise to indicate that where parking is modified, trees shall be installed at the rate of one tree for every four parking spaces unless approved otherwise by the City. 4B. Page 4-11: The specific plan indicates that "Traffic speeds within the interior intersections are greatly reduced from the signed traffic speed on the adjacent public streets and the line-of-sight measurement shall be equally reduced within the interior of the sight. As measured from the tangent point of the curb radius, a line-of-sight shall extend from 5' beyond the tangent point through the landscape to an equally measured point the adjacent tangent." Please explain how the 5' dimension has been determined. ^ CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO 4 DATE: MAY 10. 2010 REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJEa NO(S): SDP 09-04 (onlv - Der Planner) REVIEW NO: 2 PROJEa TITLE: PLAZA CAMINO REAL REVITALIZATION APPLICANT: HOFMAN ENGINEERING PROPOSAL: TO: 1^ Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley I I Police Department - J. Sasway IXI Fire Department - James Weigand IXI Building Department - Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I I Public Works Department (Streets) - Thomas Moore I I Water/Sewer District IX Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I I Sempra Energy-Land Management I I Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) I I Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by MAY 27. 2010. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: 7^ 7Vd Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1^ 6,1'/1 lO REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: JUNE 3,2010 REVIEW NO: 1 TO: 1^ Engineering, Development Services-Terie Rowley (^'I^IDDLC^ n Police Department - J. Sasway • Fire Department - James Weigand • Building Department - Will Foss n Recreation - Mark Steyaert • Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore • Water/Sewer District n Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District 1^ Don Neu, Chris DeCerbo, Van Lynch, Jason Goff - Planning Department n Sempra Energy - Land Management • Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) • Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): EIR 09-02 PROJECTTITLE: PLAZA CAMINO REAL APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING PROPOSAL: FIRST SCREENCHECK Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to PLANNING TRACKING DESK, in the Planning Department at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv 07/01/10 . Ifyou have "No Comments", please so state. Thank you . COMMENTS: t7f*e< Ff^lmg.g? >v44ArW ^j^i^cJro^)/ . DATE: PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 o CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: MAY 10. 2010 REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJEa NO(S): SDP 09-04 (onlv - per Planner) REVIEW NO: 2 PROJEa TITLE: PLAZA CAMINO REAL REVITALIZATION APPLICANT: HOFMAN ENGINEERiNG PROPOSAL: TO: IXI Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley I I Police Department - J. Sasway IX Fire Department - James Weigand IX Building Department - Will Foss I I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I I Public Works Department (Streets) - Thomas Moore I I Water/Sewer District IX Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I I Sempra Energy - Land Management I I Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) I I Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYSSEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by MAY 27, 2010. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you ^ _ . COMMENTS:/C^WjLoiit. fnAj^^jTi^Ul^ fT ^^^/^/^ pliUtyi^VUvO Signature Date Review & Comment 4 • o May 20, 2010 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 2"'' Review Plaza Camino Real Revitalization, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization Con2 Landscape Architect: MW Peltz - Phone: (858) 481-0888 Please advise the applicant to make the following corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. It is noted that the Specific Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concem. Many comments are not numbered on the red-line plans due to the conceptual nature of the plans but are provided for the applicant's use in providing more detail and addressing all Landscape Manual requirements. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for many trees in each tree group that can be very different in character. One symbol is used for all shmbs, grasses and ground covers. Please provide a different symbol for each type of tree (i.e. large evergreen, medium evergreen, small evergreen, large deciduous, medium deciduous, etc.) and a different symbol for each type of shmb (i.e. large evergreen shmb, medium size shmb, small flowering accent shmb, etc.). Vignettes at a larger scale are needed for different areas to convey concepts. Please provide enlargements showing more detailed landscaping for parking islands, site and building entries and perimeters, etc. to allow an appropriate review to be performed. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete and detailed plans. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be less conceptual. Please see Illustrative Plans on Sheets A 1.4-1, 2, and 3 for details of the proposed hardscape/landscape types andfinishes for pedestrian connections, building entries and perimeters. " Illustrative Plans do not appear to refiect real site conditions (i.e. trees located within easements, etc.) and clearly state that the plans are subject to change. The design intent will need to be better established in order to provide valid comments on the plans. Please provide further detailing that reflects site conditions and provides clear design intent that can be enforced (see underlined comments above). Please also provide a different symbol for small, medium and large trees as well as different symbols for the palms. The proposed palms are different in character andform. See NEW COMMENT 3A. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3. Completed. Plaza Camino Real Revitalization May 20, 2010 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 4. Completed. 5. It appears that several trees shown to remain may actually be proposed for removal. Please review and revise as appropriate. Check all trees. 6. Completed. 7. Completed. 8. Please provide a separate different symbol for Washingtonia robusta. 9. Completed. 10. Completed. 11. Please provide examples and/or more detailing for the hardscape and landscape markers for review. See comment number 1 and 3A regarding hardscape. 12. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shmbs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 2"'^ Review: Although a plan note has been added, the plans do not graphically address this comment. Please provide screening of service areas and any other unsightly areas graphically on the plans. Check all sheets. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 2"'^ Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, .shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape constmction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will he placed so not to conflict with the trees. " 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Development Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements. " The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 17. Trees shall be planted a minimum of 2' from curbs. 2""^ Review: Trees appear to be shown within 2' of curbs. Please address. 18. Any lane of through traffic shall be separated from parking by a minimum 5' wide planting strip. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. " The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 19. Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide a perimeter landscape strip of at least 8' on all sides. The perimeter landscaped strip may include any landscaped yard, setback, or landscaped area otherwise required within the property and shall be continuous except for required access points. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. " The specific plan Plaza Camino Real Revitalization May 20, 2010 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 20. Please correct the sheet number. 2"^^ Review: The match line number needs to be revised to reference the correct sheet 21. Planting or any combination of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to provide screening from adjacent property or streets of the parking area to a height of 3'. 22. At least three percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shmbs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. " The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 23. Completed. 24. Per the water conservation section of the manual (C.3-4.6), woody shmbs must be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% of the groundcover area at maturity. Please address on the plans. 2"^^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. " The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 25. Insure all requirements of the attached parking lot exhibit are met. 26 RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. NEW COMMENTS 1 A. Existing parking lot trees appear to be being removed and are not replaced. Please replace all removed parking lot trees. Check all areas. 2A. Trees are needed to soften the parking lot and provide separation from drive aisles. Where conflicts with easements occur, please redesign the area to include planting areas with trees, shmbs and ground covers as appropriate. 3A. Architectural plans do not appear to specify the hardscape treatments. Please fully address. 4A. The applicant has responded to many of the comments that the Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. The landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to clearly defme how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and guidelines and further detailing on the Preliminary Landscape Plans. 5A. The illustrative plans and landscape plans appear to be fiinctional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area Plaza Camino Real Revitalization May 20, 2010 Conceptual Plan Review Page 4 at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all plans and provide additional detailing as appropriate to define the development of all areas. WHEEL STOPS IE tr if 1 PUNTING AREA i/> AOCA/- =4 1 O 05 5 N p. p g 3 si" ft <. ^ N' o 3 MIN. DIM. 5' A - END PARKING ISLAND LANDSCAPE (parking on one side) 6' B - INTERIOR UNDSCAPE ISLAND (oarkina on both sides) 4' C - PUNTING STRIPS (w/no oar overhana) 9' D - PLANTING STRIPS (w/car overhana of 2 1/2 feet) PARKING LOT DIAGRAM s to <^ o DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO JANUARY 20. 2010 Review #2 ^ Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley • Police Department - J. Sasway 1^ Fire Department - James Weigand • Building Department - Will Foss n Recreation - Mark Steyaert • Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore • Water Maintenance & Operation - Steven Plyler 1^ Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District n North County Transit District - Planning Department • Sempra Energy - Land Management n Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) • Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S):SP 09-01 PROJECT TITLE: Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan APPLICANT: Hofman Planninq & Enqineerinq PROPOSAL: Plaza Camino Real Revitalization Proiect Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to Michele Masterson in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 02/09/10. If you have "No Comments," please so state. Comment: Date: Review & Comment CITY OF CARLSBAD ? | REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO ^•^^j-H^^.JJ DATE: MARCH 8, 2010 REVIEW NO: 1^^ SCREEN CHECK DRAFT TO: Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley ^^iC^?£ifl]i "Ri NIN, Police Department - J. Sasway • Police Department - J. Sasway • Fire Department - James Weigand • Building Department - Will Foss n Recreation - Mark Steyaert O Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore • Water/Sewer District • Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District n North County Transit District - Planning Department • Sempra Energy - Land Management D Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) • Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): EIR 09-02 PROJECTTITLE: Plaza Camino Real APPLICANT: Hofman Planninq & Enqineerinq PROPOSAL: Specific Plan-EIR Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to TRACKING DESK, in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 03/17/10 . If you have "No Comments", please so state. Thank you (7 f . , , COMMENTS: fg^e,. <L ^ v^^A (ft^^^M AA4>J ^[2^|IO DATE: 'b1f\\x PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 Jason Goff From: Jeremy Riddle Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:46 PM To: Jason Goff Cc: Glen Van Peski Subject: RE: Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - EIR Project description & Technical Reports Jason- I am through reviewing the draft EIR project description and the following technical reports that were submitted to us March 8, 2010: 1. Geotechnical Reconnaissance by Geocon, dated 1/28/2010 2. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment by Geocon, dated March 2, 2010 Our comment is as follows: • The Geotechnical Reconnaissance recommends that a subsurface investigation and an additional study (Geotechnical Investigation) be performed to fully analyze potential grading/structural impacts (ie.: liquefaction) for the project. With that said, we recommend that a full Geotechnical Investigation be performed now so that it can be integrated into the EIR. Then, subsurface conditions can be better understood and remedial grading/construction can be better analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures (if any) be imposed. Please address these issues prior to resubmittal. If you have further question, please let me know. Thanks. CARLSBAD Jeremy Riddle Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Calrsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov P: 760-602-2737 F: 760-602-8558 E: ieremv.riddle@carlsbadca.gov From: Jason Goff Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 8:36 AM To: Jeremy Riddle Subject: Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - EIR Project description 8i Technical Reports Jeremy, Are you getting close to completing your review of the EIR draft project description and Technical Reports that I sent over to you to review and comment on. I'm wrapping up my comments and getting ready to send them out. I would like to send them on to Helix on Monday if I can. Please let me know where you are or if you are going to need some more time. Thanks - '55' CITY Of CARLSBAD jrni'Xi Departrns^n? Jason Goff Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 P: 760.602.4643 F: 760.602.8559 Jason.Goff (Scarlsbadca.gov Jason Goff From: Jason Goff Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 11:45 AM To: 'Patrick Gibson' Cc: 'Greg Fitchitt'; Jeremy Riddle; Doug Bilse; John Kim; 'Kim Baranek'; 'Dave.Sorenson@kimley- horn.com'; Bob Johnson jr Subject: RE: Srd Party Review of PCR Revitalization Attachments: Planning Comments.TIA.Draft No. 2.Plaza Camino Real Revitalization.pdf Pat, Here are my comments on the 2"'' draft of the TIA. Please see the attached. ^JASDN GOFF / ASSOCIATE PLANNER 760.602.4643 CiTY OF CARISBAD PIANNING DEPARTMENT From: Jason Goff Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 11:34 AM To: Patrick Gibson Cc: Greg Fitchitt; Jeremy Riddle; Doug Bilse; John Kim; Kim Baranek; Dave.Sorenson@kimley-horn.com; Bob Johnson jr Subject: RE: 3rd Party Review of PCR Revitalization Pat, I have some comments on the Parking Analysis portion of the TIA that I need to send you also. I'll scan them right now and send it to you today. Thanks. JASON GOFF / ASSOCIAIF PLANNFR 760.602.4643 CITY OF CARISBAD PI ANNING DEPARTMENT From: Jeremy Riddle Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:22 AM To: Patrick Gibson; Greg Fitchitt Cc: Jason Goff; Doug Bilse; John Kim; Kim Baranek; Dave.Sorenson@kimley-horn.com; Bob Johnson jr Subject: 3rd Party Review of PCR Revitalization Pat/Greg- Here is the review letter regarding the latest TIA for the Westfield Revitalization project. Please address these comments, along with Doug's memo prior to resubmittal of the TIA. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. A cir •'• c CARLSBAD Jeremy Riddle Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Calrsbad, CA 92008 www.cadsbadca.gov P: 760-602-2737 F: 760-602-8558 E: ieremv.riddle@carlsbadca.gov i 1 • # '9 ^ Chapters Caltrans Intersection Lane Volume Analysis Due to the Project's proximity to the 1-5 and SR 78 freeways, both of which are state owned facilities and operated by Caltrans, an additional evaluation of the intersections that are freeway ramp locations was conducted per Ca|trans guidelines. This Chapter presents an analysis of freeway ramp locations using the Intersection Lane Volume (ILV) methodology described in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation, July 2008. INTERSECTION LANE VOLUWIE IVIETHODOLOGY The ILV methodology evaluates the traffic demand at an intersection to the available capacity at the intersection. Using signal phasing, intersection geometry, and peak hour traffic volumes, the methodology determines the Intersecting Lane Volumes per hour (ILV/hour). The thresholds used to define the operating conditions are summarized in Table 37. As mentioned in Chapter 1, six of the 17 analyzed intersections are freeway ramp locations, including: 5. Jefferson Street & SR 78 westbound ramps 6. Jefferson Street & SR 78 eastbound ramps 7. El Camino Real & SR 78 westbound ramps 8. El Camino Real & SR 78 eastbound ramps 14. 1-5 southbound ramps & Carlsbad Village Drive 15. 1-5 northbound ramps & Carlsbad Village Drive These ramp locations form the diamond interchanges at Jefferson Street/SR 78, El Camlno Real/SR 78, and Carlsbad Village Drive/1-5. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual defines a spread diamond interchange as an interchange which has greater than 150 feet storage between the two intersections of the interchange. Since the storage between all three • • • • ® o ® lOkci- 1^ 4ivx- &rD*p"=>'Floor Area, Chapters Parking This Chapter provides an analysis of the parking requtrements, as required by the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code (Code), and potential parking impacts of the Project. The Chapter also analyzes whether the Project parking will meet the operational needs of the Project. PROPOSED SUPPLY As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Project Site currenlly has 6,402 parking spaces. As part of the Project, 306 net surface parking stalls would be displaced, resulting in a total of 6,096 parking spaces at Project buildout. CODE REQUIREIVIENTS I- Code parking requirements for the/Project were calculated by applying the parking ratios from the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code/ Parking ratios identified in the Code have been applied to the retail, restaurant, and cinema uses. The Code requires that shopping centers use of a parking ratio of 5.0 spaces per 1.000 sf of combined^GLA^ection 21^4.090 of the Code also allows for a 15% reduction in the requirement for common parking facilities. Therefore, a parking ratio of 4.25 spaces per 1,000 sf of combined GLA has been used to compute the code requirements for the Project Site. ^ Please, v\oW. -HAR-I- C.M.C. r^^w.Vcs g* •ip>j^^ rACot^viit^-1\A>"S> ) CsAd'^-\i^eu\ sVuauO loWwj <yp^ cft^ d^l./^ »U cAf C-v-^j-t^ l-j Table 39 summarizes the Code requiremenis for the Projecl Site at full buildout. As shown in L : . Luk(5.l- ?i 11 the table, the Code requirement for the Project Site al full buildout Is 5,043 spaces. Therefore, the Project would have a surplus of 1,053 spaces al full buildout over Code requirements. .:o ^ © ® « ' • • • • 0 Shared Parkina Using natihrated ULI IVIodel ULI established the parking demand ratio for a regional shopping center with over 600,000 GLA sf at 4.0 spaces per 1,000 GLA sf on the weekday and 4.5 spaces per 1,000 GLA sf on the Afp %lLoc; weekend. Westfield Plaza Camino Rea) currently also includes freestanding restaurants, fast -iwi. Ao A - food uses within the mall, and cinema components that entail different parking demand ratios. re,W\ \ The shared parking demand analysis for the Project Site was therefore done in two ways: 1) \<^<^^^ calculating the parking demand for the regional shopping center as one land use, and 2) calculating the parking demands for the retail, restaurants, and cinema as different land uses (mixed-use development), and accounting for sharing of the parking supply between these land uses. Table 41 shows the land use assumptions used in the parking analyses for the existing and full buildout conditions. The shared parking model was calibrated to the existing peak day conditions at Westfield Plaza Camino Real in that the model resulls matched the actual part<ing occupancy counts of December 20, 2008. This calibrated model was then used to project the future parking demands for the shopping center. II was conservatively assumed that unlike existing conditions, the mall would be fully occupied in the future. Regional Shopping Center. Table 42 summarizes the hourly parking demand for the project on a weekday and a Saturday in the busiest month of the year - December for a regional shopping center. Table 43 summarizes the results from the shared parking model calibrated to existing conditions for a regional shopping center. The model was calibrated for a demand of 4.03 parking spaces/1,000 GLA sf. A 5% transit mode adjustment was taken for employees to account for the transit center on the Project Site. Table 43 shows that the calibrated model indicates a peak parking demand of 3,669 spaces, matching closely the actual count of 3,668 on December 20, 2008. Figures 47 and 48 illustrate the projected variation in peak parking demand for the different months of the year during a weekday and a weekend, and Figure 49 indicates the projected hourly variation in the parking demand for the peak month of December for the busiest weekday and weekend day of the year. These monthly and hourly variations are based on the default nalional values in the ULI shared parking model. This calibrated model was then used to projecl the shared parking demand for Westfield Plaza - Camino Real under future conditions. As shown in Table 41. the non-retail land uses account . ^ ?\€rx.te. d^t\JL. •{\0<\^ rzAvS^ WiV^'^^O K 4W- tf^ii»fitl6t>roA C:^rvK for approximately 6% of the existing shopping center. Under the future condilions, the non-retail ^ ^ land uses would account for approximately 11% of the shopping center. The ULI and ICSC 1 recommend that the peak parking demand at a regional shopping center be increased by 0.03 spaces per 1,000 sf of GLA for every 1% of non-retail space above 10%. Thus the measured peak parking demand ratio of 4.03 spaces per 1,000 GLA sf for the existing mail was increased proportionately to 4.06 spaces per 1,000 GLA sf under future conditions to account for the increased non-retail land uses (i.e., 6% increased to 11%). Table 44 summarizes the hourly parking demand for the project on a weekday and a Saturday in the busiest month of the year under future conditions - December. Table 45 shows that the calibrated model indicates a peak parking demand of 4,816 spaces on the peak day of the year for the regional shopping center under future conditions. This demand is more than satisfied by the parking supply of 6,096 spaces at full buildout. Figures SO and 51 illustrate the projected variation in peak parking demand for the different months of the year during a weekday and a weekend, and Figure 52 indicates the projected hourly variation in the parking demand for the peak month of December for the busiest weekday and weekend day of the year. As shown in these figures, the proposed parking supply will be able to accommodate the peak parking demand on every day of the year. Mixed-Use Development Table 46 summarizes the hourly pari<ing demand for the project on a weekday and a Saturday in the busiest month of the year - December for a mixed-use development. Table 47 summarizes the results from the shared parking model calibrated to existing conditions for a mixed-use development The model was calibrated for a demand of 4.03 parking spaces/1,000 GLA sf for the retail land uses. It was assumed that a portion of the visitors to the restaurant and the cinema would also be visiting the retail portions of the project and that therefore these were "captured trips" already accounted for in the retail parking demand. The analysis estimated the captive markel for restaurants at 50% and cinema at 34% - in other words, 50% of the customers to the restaurants and 66% of the customers to the cinema came to the Westfield Plaza Camino Real for that reason only and did not visit any of the other land uses. These captive market assumptions are well wilhin the range of captive market measurements found in other mixed-use developments as described in the Urban Land Institule research. Additionally, a 5% transit mode adjustment was taken for employees to account for the transit gT' - center on the Project Site. Table 47 shows that the calibrated model indicates a peak parking demand of 3,668 spaces, matching the actual count of 3,668 on December 20, 2008. Figures 53 and 54 illustrate the projected variation in peak parking demand for the different months of the year during a weekday and a weekend, and Figure 55 indicates the projected houriy variation in • • • • ®o® Therefore, the analysis in this Chapter used a parking ratio of 4.25 spaces per 1,000 GLA sf to compute the Code requirements. The Project Site has a parking supply surplus of 1,053 spaces over the Code requirements. 2. The actual peak parking demand of the Project was measured by counting the number of cars parked in the Project Site parking lots on the Saturday before Christmas in the early afternoon - typically the busiest hour of the year for a regional shopping center. The actual peak paridng demand for the Project Site is 4.03 spaces per 1,000 sf GLA. Thus^Jha^ctual peak parking demand on the busiest hour of the year is substantially lower tnatjhe Code requirements. 3. The Projecl has a surplus of 1,371 spaces over the peak demand at full buildout, laking into account the transit service to the site and analyzing Westfield Plaza Camino Real as a mixed-use development The peak parking demand ratio for the proposed land use mix at full buildout, wilh a total GLA of 1,186,509 sf and peak parking demand of 4,725 spaces, is 3.98 spaces per 1,000 sf of GLA (4,725 spaces/1,186.509 ksf = 3.98 spaces per 1,000 GLA sf). The peak parking demand ralio of 3.98 spaces per 1,000 GLA sf may reduce over time as transit service to the Project Site increases. TABLE 39 CODE REQUIREMENTS (C7LA ^ Land Use Parking Ratio Required Spaces Code Requirements at^W Buildo^^ 4.25 per 1.000 GLA sf 5,043 Supply at Full Buildout 6.095 Surplus (Deficit) 1,053 159 TABLE 40 EXISTING CONDITIONS - PEAK PARKING DEMAND Peak Day Supply (spaces) 6.402 Parking Demand (spaces) [a] 3.668 Vacant Space (GLA sf) 241,084 Leased Space (GLA sf) 910.008 Peak Day Parking Demand Ratio (spaces^LA sf) 4.03 Note: [a] Based on an aerial photograph taken on Satuipay, December 20. 2008 at 1:00 p.m. \,ooo ^ 160 TABLE 41 WESTFIELD PLAZA CAMINO REAL LAND USES Land Use Existing Conditions [a] Future Conditions [b] Retail / Commercial, including Firestone, Bank, and Office {GiA sf) 854,010 1,057,226 Food including outparcels (GLA sf) 37,111 81,661 Cinema (GLA sf) - 1.305 seats existing and 1,905 seats future 18,887 47,622 Vacant including Rob-May building (GLA sf) 241.084 - TOTAL (GLA sf) 1,151,092 1,186,509 NON-RETAIL PERCENTAGE 11% Notes: [a] Based on December 2008. [b] The analysis conservatively assumes that the mall w/ould be fully occupied'in the future. 161 •an Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. March 24, 2010 Mr. Jeremy Riddle Associate Engineer CityofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Kimley-Hom's Review of March 2010 Traffic Study for PCR Revitalization Dear Mr. Riddle: Kimley-Hom and Associates has completed our third party review of the above referenced traffic impact analysis. In my opinion, Gibson Transportation Consulting has followed standard practices for completing traffic impact analyses, particularly as they relate to methodologies used in Carlsbad, Oceanside and Caltrans District 11. Their analysis is very thorough, and they evaluated many different future year roadway scenarios. 1. Appendix E shows the wrong information. It shows tables with Synchro intersection delay and level of service. It should contain Peak Hour Arterial analysis worksheets. 2. The traffic study's peak hour arterial analysis shows poor level of service on El Camino Real; whereas, the isolated intersection analysis shows acceptable levels. This is due to the close spacing of intersections. We observed peak hour and noon time traffic flow at these intersections (fi-om Vista Way to Plaza Drive), and noted queuing and poor signal progression. This indicates that the signal timing is not optimal. Thus, the peak hour arterial analysis is a better descriptor of traffic flow on El Camino Real near the freeway. 3. The project identifies a cumulative impact to roadways and peak hour arterials in Oceanside and identifies mitigation as fair share towards adaptive-responsive signals along these segments to improve traffic operations. While adaptive- responsive signals may be able to adjust to address real-time traffic conditions, the congestion occurs because of the closely spaced intersections on El Camino Real between Marron Road and Vista Way (which includes one Oceanside signal, two Caltrans signals and two Carlsbad signals). The following mitigation is suggested to provide more tangible benefits (see comment 2 above) and flexibility. 401 B Street Suite 600 San Diego, Califomia 92101 TEL 619 234 9411 FAX 619 234 9433 •an Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Mr. Jeremy Rlddle, March 24, 2010, Pg. 2 • "Prior to issuance of a building permit for major renovation, the Project Applicant shall contribute $50,000 to the City of Oceanside to administer either a multi-agency signal optimization project on El Camino Real or to implement an adaptive and/or responsive signal operation. If either of these options is not implemented within a period of five years fi-om the date of the contribution, the moneys shall be retumed to the Project Applicant." 4. The shared parking analysis shows through several different methods that there will be sufficient parking for the overall project. However, there is not enough information on the project to know if the parcel on the southwest comer of Marron Road/El Camino Real will have adequate parking. Given that this parcel is across the street fi-om the remainder of the site, there should be analysis of the parking needs for that parcel, separate from the rest of the site. If there is a shortage, that should be addressed. I understand fi-om City staff that that parcel will undergo further review when a site user is identified. This fijrther analysis may be more appropriately addressed at that time. I am available to meet with you or the applicant to discuss if necessary. Very tmly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCLA.TES, INC. David K. Sorenson, P.E. (Traffic) Vice President k:\snd_tpto\095272009_3rd_party_ review_pcr\admin\j riddle 2010_03_24.doc March 19, 2010 TO: ENGINEERING / SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION FROM:Traffic Signal Systems Engineer Comments on 2"*^ Submittal of Traffic Study for Westfield Camino Real Revitalization On March 10, 2010 staff received the 2""* submittal of the Transportation Study for the Westfield Camino Real Revitalization project. Enclosed please find staff response to this study. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 7504. DOUG BILSE, T.E. Traffic Signal Systems Engineer, Transportation Attachment: Response to 2"*^ submittal of the Transportation Study for the Westfield Camino Real Revitalization dated March 2010 c: City Engineer City of Carlsbad Comments on Westfield Camino Real Revitalization Traffic Study for Westfield Camino Real Revitalization 2"^^ Submittal Comments from the Traffic Division TABLE 2 • Page 17 of the document is missing the intersection of El Camino Real and Hosp Way in the City of Carlsbad TABLE 9 • The LOS definitions for CLASS I roadway sections is incorrect. Figure 4A • The tuming movements for the intersection of El Camino Real and Plaza Drive (LD. 9) are inconsistent with data collected for the 2009 Traffic Monitoring Program. Specifically the eastbound left and westbound right tum movements appear low and should be reviewed and revised accordingly. Figure 4B • The tuming movements for the intersection of 1-5 SB Ramp and Carlsbad Village Drive (LD. 14) are inconsistent with data collected for the 2009 Traffic Monitoring Program. Speciflcally the eastbound right tum movement appears low and should be reviewed and revised accordingly. Figure 5 • The mid-block volumes at the following locations are inconsistent with data previously collected for the City of Carlsbad: Jefferson Street south of SR78 (LD. 17), Marron Road east of El Camino Real (I.D. 11), and El Camino Real north of Carlsbad Village Drive (I.D. 13). TABLE 10 • The LOS results for several locations are inconsistent with the findings of the 2009 Traffic Monitoring Program at the following locations: El Camino Real/Plaza Dr. (I.D. 9), Jefferson St./Marron Rd. (I.D. 10), Monroe St./Marron Rd. (I.D. II), ECR/Marron (I.D. 13), 1-5 SB Ramp/Carlsbad Village Dr. (I.D. 14), 1-5 NB Ramp/Carlsbad Village Dr. (I.D. 15), and El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Dr. (I.D. 17). Several ofthese can be addressed with revised tuming movements. Figure lOA • Please review tuming movements for El Camino Real and Plaza Dr. (I.D. 9) with respect to comments above regarding baseline tuming movements. Figure 16 • Please review mid-block LOS results for (I.D. 9) with respect to comments above regarding baseline mid-block counts. Page 1 of 3 3/22/2010 City of Cartsbad Comments on Westfield Camino Real Revitalization Figure 21A • Please review tuming movements for El Camino Real and Plaza Dr. (I.D. 9) with respect to comments above regarding baseline tuming movements. SCENARIO 4: Near Term without Proiect • Street Segment - Peak Hour Analysis (pg. 85): The report states "While the two segments along Vista Way are projected to operate at LOS D or E, the Project does not add enough traffic to these segments, as shown later in Figure 20, to result in a significant impact." This statement needs to be re-written to state either the segments were measured using the Oceanside criteria and found to not have a significant impact, or explain why the Oceanside criteria was not used. SCENARIO 5: Near Term with proiect • Significant Impact Analysis (pg. 88): The report states that Table 27 defines segment impacts as "(i.e., an increase in V/C of 0.20 or greater)" this should be revised to read "(i.e., an increase in V/C of 0.02 or greater)." SCENARIO 7: Horizon Year with Proiect r2030) • Project Trip Distribution and Assignment (page 91): the project trip distribution does not appear to be consistent with project trip distribution in previous scenarios. For example, see Figure 9 to compare trip distributions of different scenarios. Figure 26A • Please review tuming movements for El Camino Real and Plaza Dr. (I.D. 9) with respect to volumes of previous scenarios. There appears to be less traffic in the 2020 scenario than earlier scenarios. Figure 26B • Please review tuming movements for Jefferson St. and Marron Rd (I.D. 10), El Camino Real and Marron Rd. (I.D. 13) and El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Dr (I.D. 17) with respect to volumes of previous scenarios. There appears to be less traffic in the 2020 scenario than earlier scenarios. Figure 30A • Please review tuming movements for El Camino Real and Plaza Dr. (I.D. 9) with respect to volumes of previous scenarios. There appears to be less traffic in the 2020 scenario than earlier scenarios. Figure 30B • Please review tuming movements for Jefferson St. and Marron Rd (I.D. 10), El Camino Real and Marron Rd. (I.D. 13) and El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Dr (I.D. 17) with respect to volumes of previous scenarios. There appears to be less traffic in the 2020 scenario than earlier scenarios. Table 26 (Page 124) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. Page 2 of 3 3/22/2010 City of Carlsbad Comments on Westfield Camino Real Revitalization • The significance criteria used in this table does not correspond to the Oceanside criteria for roadway segments in Oceanside. Please revise the table or explain why the Oceanside criteria do not apply. Table 27 (Page 125) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. • The significance criteria used in this table does not correspond to the Oceanside criteria for roadway segments in Oceanside. Please revise the table or explain why the Oceanside criteria do not apply. Table 28 (Page 126) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. Table 29 (Page 127) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. Table 33 (Page 131) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. Table 34 (Page 132) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. • The significance criteria used in this table does not correspond to the Oceanside criteria for roadway segments in Oceanside. Please revise the table or explain why the Oceanside criteria do not apply. Table 35 (Page 133) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. Table 36 (Page 134) • Include a column identifying the significance criteria used that differentiates the Carlsbad and Oceanside criteria. Page 3 of 3 3/22/2010 '^•^ CITY OF CARLSBAD Memorandum March 15, 2010 To: Bob Johnson, City Engineer Doug Bilse, Traffic Systems Coordinator From: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer 3''' Submit (EIR 09-02) Re: 3'^'' Submittal of Traffic Study for Plaza Camino Real Revitalization The applicant for the project (Westfield) has provided the 3"^ submittal of the traffic study for this project by Gibson Transportation, dated April 2010. We have enclosed the revised study along with your previous review comments and memo by Gibson responding to your comments. I have asked our 3"^ party review consultant (Kimley-Horn) to also review this revised report against their previous comments. They will be reporting their findings to me. With your response, please provide direction on whether this study can be routed to Oceanside for their review and if it is ready to be shared with the EIR consultant (Helix) for integration into the environmental documents for this project. Please review the revised study and provide any comments on this study to me so I can pass them onto the project planner who will forward them onto Westfield. Ifyou have any questions, please call me at ext. 2737. Thank you. Enclosures cc: Glen Van Peski, Senior Civil Engineer Jason Goff, Project Planner Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2710 I 760-602-8560 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM February 22, 2010 TO: Jason Goff, Planning FROM: Jeremy Riddle, Engineering^ SUBJECT: SECOND ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PLAZA CAMINO REAL (SP 09-01) Engineering Development Services staff has reviewed the revised Specific Plan (SP) and we have identified the following outstanding issues: Engineering Issues 1. Prior to resubmittal, revise the specific plan narrative to match the latest results/findings from the traffic study being revised by Gibson Transportation. 2. After page 11, 'exhibit' 1 should be named 'figure' 1 per the table of contents (TOC). The same comment applies on the next page where 'exhibit' 2 should be 'figure' 2 per the TOC 3. On figure 3-6, increase the font size of the street names so there are legible (repeat comment). Add the missing street names where noted on the redlines. Move the 'figure' description as noted so it can be read without having to flip open the large page (typical). 4. On figure 4 add a symbol to denote locations of transit stops within and adjacent to the project limits. The narrative should refer to this figure to describe how mass transit is promoted as part of the project. 5. On page 19, the circulation element should clarify that the capacity of existing circulation infrastructure, relative to this project, is described in more detail in the public facilities (section V) portion ofthe specific plan. One ofthe bullet points should list that a traffic impact study, dated was prepared Gibson Transportation. 6. On figure 5, clarify why the main driveway throat is included within the temporary event area. Are the driveway entries subject to change? Refer to redlines. 7. On page 37 regarding circulation, add a design guideline for vehicles to ensure adequate circulation for public safety vehicles throughout the project. Refer to redline comment. 8. On page 44, clarify that, depending on the scope, repaving existing pavement may require grading and/or stormwater permits per the Municipal Code and the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP). Add "discretionary" to the last sentence as noted. Plaza Camino Real SpecifiW'lan February 22, 2010 Page 2 of 2 9. On page 45, the narrative states that the Specific Plan area meets current storm water requirements. It may have met it when it was originally developed, but does not meet current storm water standards. Revise this storm water section to describe that a majority of the PCRSP is existing and that all new/revitalized portions of the PCRSP will meet current storm water requirements. Add narrative on how the project will incorporate low impact development principles to minimize impervious area, route water through planters/pervious areas and maximize infiltration to reduce the development affects on run-off volumes and peaks flows. 10. On page 54 under the drainage section, include narrative to describe that new/revitalized sections of the PCRSP will employ low impact development features to reduce impervious areas and route runoff over pervious areas, thereby reducing existing peak runoff rates and volumes. Refer to the redlines. 11. On page 61 under sewer collection, add a reference to Appendix D that shows the layout of existing sewer infrastructure serving the project. Under phasing, although there are no trunk main improvements required, clarify that there are new/proposed sewer lateral connections to serve the out parcel buildings. See redline comments. 12. On page 62 under water distribution, clarify the reference to Appendix E for the water system layout. Under phasing, although there are no infrastructure upgrades required, there are new/proposed wateriine extensions off the existing system to serve the out parcel buildings. Under the adequacy findings, correct the reference per the redline comment. 13. Please address the comments on the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that were identified by a memo dated February 19, 2010. 14. Address redlines as noted on the returned exhibits. Please be advised, this check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Ifyou have any questions regarding the engineering issues, please contact me at 760-602-2737. Attachment: Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, with engineering redlines C: Glen Van Peski, Senior Civil Engineer Engineering file Febmary 4, 2010 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape /^chitectural Review - Specific Plan Review - 2"*^ Review Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, EIR 09-02, SP 09-01 El Camino Real PELA file: 380 - Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan - SP2 Planner: Hofman Planning & Engineering, (760) 692-4100 Please advise the applicant to make the following additions and revisions to the specific plan so that an appropriate review can be performed. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. The landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to clearly define how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and guidelines. 2"^^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Plaza Camino Real is a unique use and was developed nearly twenty years before the implementation of the Landscape Manual policy and does not meet many of the standards of that policy. Retrofitting the center to meet all Manual policy standards is impossible. Ihe PCRSP supersedes the City's Landscape Manual although the Plan meets the intent of the policy. The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to provide guidance on key design principles while allowing for creativity in design offuture developmenL Particular plants or planting palettes are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather provided in the subsequent development plans .such as SDP09-04 which will be resubmitted soon. " The applicant has not addressed the comment Please address. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.) 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04. " The appUcant has not addressed the comment Please address. 3. The exhibits appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan Febmary 4, 2010 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please fiirther develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Further definition and clarity will be provided in the suhsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04for areas within the area of work as shown on the plans. " The applicant has not addressed the comment Please address. 4. Please address and clarify how landscaping will be used to accentuate and enhance building architecture; site, parking and building entries; intersections; focal points; etc. 2"^^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to allow for innovative design as part offuture development that accentuates and enhances buildings proposed and existing for the center to remain modern. Please see Section III, Landscape guidelines. " The applicant has not addressed the comment The guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment. 5. Please address how proposed landscaping will be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing landscaping. 2" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Section III, Development Standards, defines landscape requirements within the Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan boundary area. All new development shall comply with these landscape standards and staff will review to ensure proposed landscaping will be compatible with existing landscape to remain. " The applicant has not addressed the comment ne guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment. 6. Please address how landscaping will be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Subject to staff review of suhsequent entitlement plans, landscaping and other elements, such as walls, trellises, gates, will be used together to provide adequate screening of service areas or other areas of unsightliness. " The applicant has not fully addressed the comment The SP now discusses only screening of trash enclosures and service areas. Please address screening of utilities and .screening/softening of architectural masses, etc. Please fully address. 7. Please provide a list of plants proposed for use (i.e. project theme trees; accent trees; shmbs; ground covers; vines). The list needs to identify proposed plants for each different use (i.e. project perimeter; project entries; parking areas; intersections; building entries; etc.). Proposed plant sizes also need to be provided. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: " The PCRSP defines landscape requirements and guidelines to provide guidance on design principles while allowing for abstract and creativity in design of future development Specific plants are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather by the subsequent development plans such as SDP 09-04 currently under staff review. " The apphcant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 8. Completed. 9. Completed. 10. Paragraph a.5. on page 36 indicates: "No design theme is mandated by the specific plan for Street Furniture to allow periodic replacement as styles evolve". Street furniture needs to be addressed indicating where it is proposed and what types of furniture are Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan Febmary 4, 2010 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 proposed. 2"'^ Review: Paragraph a, I, 2 and 3 on page 38: Please revise the word "should" to "shall". 11. Completed. 12. Completed. 13. Paragraph b.5. on page 36 indicates: "The use of trees within the parking areas shall be located as not to conflict with light standards". This needs to be revised to clarify that both trees and lights are to be coordinated to maintain a well balanced landscape design with appropriate lighting. 2"*^ Review: fhe applicant has responded: "The plan has been revised to clarify that trees and lights are to be coordinated to maintain a well balanced landscape design with appropriate lighting. " The plan was revised indicating the following: "The placement of parking lot trees and light standards shall be coordinated to ensure that trees will not block lighting of the parking area or otherwise create unsafe lighting conditions. " This does not address a well balanced landscape design. Please fully address the comment 14. Paragraph b.9. on page 36 indicates: "As redevelopment occurs, interior intersections will be upgraded for public safety to slow traffic and aesthetic purposes". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will be achieved. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Intersections of entry driveways and public street corners shall adhere to "street corner sight clearances" by limiting plant materials and elements to be no higher than 30 inches. " The new wording covers plant heights only. Please fully address other improvements and aesthetics. 15. Paragraph b.lO. indicates: "Landscape design shall avoid forcing pedestrian from passing through large open parking areas". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will be achieved. 2"'^Review: The applicant has responded: "Design Guidelines and puhlic safety elements within the PCRSP encourage the use ofpedestrian walkways to prevent patrons from walking through large open parking areas. Detailed plans showing how pedestrian access is addressed are part of subsequent entitlement plans such as SDP 09-04. " The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. NEW COMMENTS 1 A. Paragraph a., 3 on page 32 indicates: "Detailed landscape Plans shall be approved as part of subsequent site development plans or other entitlement approvals." This is understood, however additional specifics and detailing are needed in the SP to provide guidelines to check the SDP's against. Current SP guidelines are minimal and provide little direction to guide development of SDP's. See comment number 1 above. 2 A. Please review all portions of the development standards and design guidelines and revise words such as "should" and "encouraged" to words that provide enforcement such as "shall". 3A. Paragraph d, 3 and 4, page 33 indicates: "Parking lot trees that are removed for redevelopment, diseased, or reaching the end of their natural life span shall be replaced by drought tolerant species." and "Parking lot trees that are removed as a resuh of new development shall be replaced on a one for one basis." Parking lot landscaping is currently minimal at best and needs additional thought and improvement. The SP appears to indicate that parking landscaping will for the most part remain as is. The Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan Febmary 4, 2010 Conceptual Plan Review Page 4 redevelopment of the project should address improvements to the parking areas in order to revitalize and make the project more inviting and aesthetically pleasing. Please flilly address. 4A. Please address Landscape Manual requirements in the SP. City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM November 23, 2009 TO: Jason Goff, Planning FROM: Jeremy Riddle, Engineering SUBJECT: FIRST ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PLAZA CAMINO REAL (SDP 09-04/SUP 09-07) Engineering Development Services staff has reviewed the exhibits for this project and we have found this application incomplete. Based on our review, we have also identified the following issues of concern: Incomplete items: 1. The submitted Storm Water Standards Questionnaire (SWSQ) was not properiy filled out. Refer to returned redlined SWSQ. Please provide a corrected SWSQ with the next submittal. Based on the proposed project criteria/thresholds in Section 1 and 2, this project qualifies as a priority development project, but that outcome was not checked. 2. Since this project qualifies as a priority development project, prepare and submit a preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address how priority storm water requirements will be met for this project. The SWMP should be prepared to meet the City Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP), latest version. The preliminary SWMP should: 1) describe the watershed, 2) identify impaired water bodies this project contributes to, 3) list the anticipated existing/proposed pollutants-of-concern and 4) identify site design, low-impact development features and treatment control best management practices that will be employed to avoid pollutant contact with storm water or to filter urban pollutants from storm water prior to discharge from this project. 3. Based on the information provided with the submittal, it is unclear whether the existing backbone potable water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure is sized to handle the additional demands resulting from this project. With the next submittal, prepare and submit technical studies that address whether the existing facilities are capable to handling additional demands. If facility improvements are required, revise the site plans to include and call out these improvements. 4. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the plans to call out the dimensions of all existing and reconfigured drive aisles, truck loading docks, etc. Refer to redlines. 5. On sheet Al.0-0, revise the project data to include the existing, proposed and net increases in demand for 1) Sewer (MGD), 2) Average and peak potable water (gpm) and, 3) Average irrigation demands (gpm) are for the proposed project. Plaza Camino Real SDP 09 November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 5 .f 6. On sheet Al .0-0, revise the plan to include the distance between intersections and medium/high-use driveways. Add a symbol to the plans to describe which intersections are served by traffic signals. Refer to redlines. 7. With upcoming water regulations, retention/detention of runoff will likely be required to reduce the impact impervious area has on downstream watercourses. Please evaluate the model SUSMP and identify whether retention is required and revise the exhibits to show how it will be accomplished. Depending on how detention will be accomplished, this will affect the design layout of the project. 8. On all sheets, add short legal descriptions and existing property lines to the plan to demonstrate how re-construction falls within or crosses over existing property lines. Engineering Issues 1. Revise the Site Grading Plan to show the potable water services and meters for the mall. Staff has concerns over those portions of the existing mall that are served by water meters located inside building(s). Revise the project and plans to provide a common meter bank outside the mall to allow staff to access, read and better monitor connections to the City potable water system. 2. If the traffic study for this project (under separate review) results in mitigation measures, revise this Site Plan to show and call out the mitigation improvements. 3. Revise the Site Grading to demonstrate what water quality measures will be chosen to satisfy the City SUSMP. Show site design, low impact development (LID), treatment control best management practices, and how reduction of impervious area will be met. Impervious runoff must be routed/filtered through vegetative areas (rain gardens, planter areas, grass swales, bio-retention areas, etc) prior to routing water underground through pipes and off the project site. 4. The City has experienced numerous storm water violations from various tenants within this specific plan area. For a history of these violations, contact Westfield or the Storm Water Protection department at (760) 602-2799. With the next submittal, please revise the site plan and submit a SWMP that includes narrative to discuss these deficiencies and identify source control, site design and structural treatment improvements to prevent these repeat violations from occurring in the future. As an example, we suggest exploring different options such as covering the existing and proposed truck delivery bays to avoid storm water contact with target pollutants. We also suggest installing offline trash/debris separators on the major storm drains serving this project to separate out floatables and other urban pollutants associated with this project. Please ensure the SWMP also includes pollution prevention measures to address downstream water bodies with current 303d listed impairments. Together with all other Cities in the San Diego region, early next year (estimated March 2010) Carisbad will be adopting a new SUSMP. The new SUSMP will affect how you select/size water quality treatment devices which will also impact the design layout of this project. As a resource, you may review the 'model' SUSMP at: Plaza Camino Real SDP 09 November 23, 2009 Page 3 of 5 f http://www.proiectcleanwater.ora/pdf/susmp/final updated model susmp 2009.pdf. Although the 'model' SUSMP will be revised to fit each city's needs, the new LID standards will still be a requirement. We suggest you review the information, select the method(s) of how you satisfy the new water quality standards and revise this project (plans and SWMP) as necessary with the next submittal. Delaying compliance with these upcoming standards may result in further project redesign and processing delays that staff hopes to avoid. Please see the redlines for alternatives/opportunities that may help you meet upcoming standards. 6. On sheet A1.0-0, add information on the property owners to state which lot(s) each property owner owns within the project boundary. Refer to redlines. 7. On sheet Al .0-0, expand the ADT information to breakout what ADT the existing mall generates, what the reconfigured mall will generate and the change in ADT. Refer to redlines. 8. On sheet Al.0-0, we identified some areas where the new proposed buildings expand beyond existing property lines per the final map for CT 76-18. Other common development appears to be span over two existing legal lots (lots 1 & 2). Please explain how land uses crossing separate ownerships will be handled/resolved. Will lot line adjustments or lot mergers be processed to help address this? Will new lots be created for the new buildings? 9. Revise the site plans and concept landscape plans (sheets L2-L4) to call out and show sight distance corridors per the City's Landscape Manual. 10. Revise the concept landscape plans (sheets L2-L4) to incorporate appropriate landscaping for depressed median bio-retention swales/basins. Coordinate with the revised site grading plan sheets for the locations of bio-retention areas. The concept landscape plans should also show all other low impact development measures such as planter boxes to treat roof runoff prior to discharge off the site. 11. On sheet L2, revise the plan to show Caltrans line-of-sight using corner sight distance at each intersection where access for the mall intersects a public street. Verify no obstructions with landscape improvements and resolve any conflicts prior to resubmittal. 12. On sheet L2, revise the site plan to clarify and resolve other internal sight distance issues resulting from trees or other obstructing vegetation. Refer to redlines. 13. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the site grading plans to show existing wateriine easements, clarify which ones will be vacated, and show the locations of proposed wateriine easements for the new waterlines and hydrants. Having the easements shown on a sheet separate from the grading/improvements does not allow staff to review and identify for conflicts that may be present. 14. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the site grading plans to show the preliminary locations of double detector check valve assemblies (fire protection) that will serve the new/reconfigured buildings. 15. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the plans to show and call out the type of LID Plaza Camino Real SDP 09 November 23, 2009 Page 4 of 5 f measures that will disconnect impervious areas into vegetated areas, filter pollutants, allow percolation and/or groundwater recharge, and reduce runoff rates and volumes that result from the proposed project. We have identified several opportunities for different types of LID techniques. Please select the type(s) of LID measures, include them in the preliminary SWMP and on the site grading plans. 16. On sheets C-4 through C-6, wherever possible, the median islands should be used as depressed landscape islands to intercept and treat localized flows. With a nearby storm drains, explore how to drain these depressed landscape islands into them. Staff has identified several places to consider them. Refer to redlines. 17. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the plans to call out where new and reconfigured roof runoff will be disconnected and drained through planters (or other LID features). Hard piping roof runoff underground without treatment or use of LID is not acceptable. 18. On sheets C-4 through C-6, call out the size of all existing potable wateriines. We found no wateriine sizes on the exhibits. This information should be available through performing record research. 19. On sheet C-4, explain whether there is a proposed sidewalk along the project entrance. Sheet L4 shows a sidewalk on the east side of the project entry street, but this sheet does not. Please address this discrepancy. 20. On sheet C-4, clarify how the new/revised truck bay drains and how urban pollutants will be filtered prior to discharge. 21. On sheet C-5 and sheet C-7, revise the plans to call out whether a left turn pocket can be provided into the reconfigured parking lot to lots 1 and 2. Can the signal at this intersection be reconfigured to accommodate this movement or will the Marron Rd southbound left turns approaching El Camino conflict with this? Refer to redlines and address comment. 22. On sheet C-5, revise the plans to clarify whether how the new building closest to the intersection of El Camino Real and Plaza will sewer via gravity. Since the sewer lateral is so long, provide invert elevations at the point of connection and proposed pad to demonstrate this new building will sewer via gravity without the need to pump. Refer to redlines. 23. On sheet C-5, for the new building closest to the intersection of El Camino Real and Plaza, revise the plans to clarify the size of the existing wateriine adjacent to the new building and dimension how far away it will be. Verify that city crews will be able to access, remove and replace the existing wateriine without affecting the new structure. Refer to redlines. 24. On sheet 7, explain the general circulation of what appears to be a loading dock and drive-thru in front of the new building. How will pedestrians cross over this challenging area to the building? Overall vehicular and pedestrian circulation for this lot needs more attention to address conflicts and function. 25. Revise the site plans to call out and show the mass transit stop locations that serve Plaza Camino Real SDP 09 November 23, 2009 Page 5 of 5 this project. t 26. Address redlines as noted on the returned exhibits and SWSQ. Please be advised, check prints must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. If you have any questions regarding the engineering issues, please contact me at 760-602-2737. Attachments: Exhibits for Plaza Camino Real Site Development Plan, with engineering redlines Redlined Storm Water Standards Questionnaire C: Glen Van Peski, Senior Civil Engineer Engineering land use file CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO OCTOBER 28. 2009 REVIEW #1 IEI Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley 3 Police Department - J. Sasway 3 Fire Department - James Weigand ^ Building Department - Will Foss O Recreation - Mark Steyaert n Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore • Water/Sewer District 1^ Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District • North County Transit District - Planning Department • Sempra Energy - Land Management n Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) • Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): SDP 09-04/SUP 09-07 PROJECT TITLE: Plaza Camino Real Revitalization APPLICANT: Hofman Planninq PROPOSAL: Relocate/replace two buildinqs. addition ofthree pad buildings. Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to Michele Masterson in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 11/17/09. If you have "No Comments," please so state. Thank you COMMENTS: - FlK/. SF/Z/^/^l^.}^ ( IAJJU. /SiC. ZEduna^ f^ott^ /^A/V s^idcrurtKr PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: OCTOBER 28.2009 REVIEW #1 TO: ^ Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley 3 Police Department - J. Sasway 3 Fire Department - James Weigand ^ Building Department - Will Foss n Recreation - Mark Steyaert • Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore • Water/Sewer District IEI Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District D North County Transit District - Planning Department n Sempra Energy - Land Management O Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) • Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NOfS): SDP 09-04/SUP 09-07 PROJECT TITLE: Plaza Camino Real Revitalization APPLICANT: Hofman Planninq PROPOSAL: Relocate/replace two buildings, addition of three pad buildings. Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to Michele Masterson in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 11/17/09. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. . ^ ^ 'TT— cSENTSi'^/^fe^/r <^pl^ CTfy^jiMdinK flm^ . PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 November 13, 2009 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 1"^ Review Plaza Camino Real Revitalization, SDP 09-04, SUP 09-07 El Camino Real PELA file: 383 - Plaza Camino Real Revitalization - Conl Landscape Architect: MW Peltz - Phone: (858) 481-0888 Please advise the applicant to make the following corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. It is noted that the Specific Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. Many comments are not numbered on the red-line plans due to the conceptual nature of the plans but are provided for the applicant's use in providing more detail and addressing all Landscape Manual requirements. 1. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for many trees in each tree group that can be very different in character. One symbol is used for all shmbs, grasses and ground covers. Please provide a different symbol for each type of tree (i.e. large evergreen, medium evergreen, small evergreen, large deciduous, medium deciduous, etc.) and a different symbol for each type of shmb (i.e. large evergreen shmb, medium size shmb, small flowering accent shmb, etc.). Vignettes at a larger scale are needed for different areas to convey concepts. Please provide enlargements showing more detailed landscaping for parking islands, site and building entries and perimeters, etc. to allow an appropriate review to be performed. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete and detailed plans. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3. Provide a plant palette list indicating the following: a. Tree types and quantities b. Shmb types and quantities (approximate) 4. At the scale provided it is difficult to determine which existing trees are to remain and which are to be removed. Please provide a larger scale plan or provide better differences between the symbols. 5. It appears that several trees shown to remain may actually be proposed for removal. Please review and revise as appropriate. Check all trees. 6. Please show any bio-swales/detention basins or underground drainage collection systems (in or under planting areas that could impact the planting) and work these facilities into the design. 7. Platanus acerifolia has been very difficuh to maintain in a disease free condition in Carlsbad due to anthracnose. Please provide a substitute. Plaza Camino Real Revitalization November 13, 2009 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 8. Please provide a separate different symbol for Washingtonia robusta. 9. Pmnus does not perfonn exceptionally well in zones 23 and 24. It is recommended that the use of this tree be limited and a substitute be provided where large quantities are proposed. 10. 50% of the shmbs (except on slopes 3:1 or steeper) shall be a minimum 5 gallon size. Please revise accordingly. 11. Please provide examples and/or more detailing for the hardscape and landscape markers for review. 12. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shmbs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 14. Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street comers within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C .4). In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show and label all vehicular sight lines and insure these requirements are met. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape constmction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 17. Trees shall be planted a minimum of 2' from curbs. 18. Any lane of through traffic shall be separated from parking by a minimum 5' wide planting strip. 19. Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide a perimeter landscape strip of at least 8' on all sides. The perimeter landscaped strip may include any landscaped yard, setback, or landscaped area otherwise required within the property and shall be continuous except for required access points, 20. Please correct the sheet number. 21. Planting or any combination of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to provide screening from adjacent property or streets of the parking area to a height of 3'. 22. At least three percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shmbs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 23. Recycled water use plans have been forwarded to Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. Comments will be forwarded back to the applicant once received by Planning. Plaza Camino Real Revitalization November 13, 2009 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 24. Per the water conservation section of the manual (C.3-4.6), woody shmbs must be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% of the groundcover area at maturity. Please address on the plans. 25. Insure all requirements of the attached parking lot exhibit are met. 26 RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. WHEEL STOPS PUNTING AREA \nt A OCA/ I > ^ I MIN. DIM. 5' A - END PARKING ISLAND LANDSCAPE (parking on one side) 6' B - INTERIOR LANDSCAPE ISLAND (parking on both sides) 4' C - PUNTING STRIPS (w/no car overhang) 9' D - PLANTING STRIPS (w/car overhang of 2 1 /2 feet) PARKING LOT DIAGRAM n ^ O CJ o p g 3 si" <.?^ ^ ^- N' o' 3 O < fD 3 cr £i to o <^ o DATE: CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO AUGUST 25, 2009 REVIEW NO: 1 • • • • • • • • Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley Police Department-J. Sasway Fire Department - James Weigand Building Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy - Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 PROJECT TITLE: PLAZA CAMINO REAL APPLICANT: Hofman Planning & Engineering PROPOSAL: Comprehensive set of development standards, guidelines, and implementation procedures for the redevelopment and operations ofthe Plaza Camino Real. Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to Michele Masterson in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 09/14/09. If you have "No Comments," please so state. Thank you COMMENTS: —MV/^^M/JT lfyc/^<i>-JJ /=<y<^ ycj/c^ X PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 City of Carlsbad Police Department Date: November 4, 2009 To: Michelle Masterson, Planning Department From: Jodee Sasway, Crime Prevention Specialist, Carlsbad Police Department Subject: Plaza Camino Real SDP 09-04/SUP 09-07 Plan Review Recommendations Carlsbad Police Department's Crime Prevention Unit has provided the following optimal security recommendations. The purpose ofthis document is to safeguard property and public welfare by regulating and reviewing the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. The standards used in this document represent model national standards. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design The proper design and effective use ofthe built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life. The proper design influences this by positively affecting human behavior. The design includes the physical environment, the planned behavior of people, the productive use of space and an effective crime/loss prevention program. Natural Surveillance 1. Place and design the physical features to maximize visibility. This will include building orientation, windows, entrances and exits, parking lots, walkways, landscape trees and shrubs, fences or walls, signage and any other physical obstruction. 2. Design the space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. 3. Place dumpster so they do not create blind spots or hiding places. 4. Maintain clear visibility from the building to the street, sidewalk, parking area and passing vehicles 1. Design the placement of persons and or activities to maximize surveillance possibilities. Locate gathering areas in locations with natural surveillance and access control or to locations away from the view of would-be offenders. 5. Design lighting that provides for appropriate nighttime illumination of parking lots, walkways, entrances and exits. 6. Use vehicular traffic as natural surveillance assets. 7. Use a pedestrian walkway or connector that can clearly identify a face up to 20 yards away? Natural Access Control 1. Use sidewalks, pavement, lighting and landscaping to clearly guide the public to and from entrances and exits. 2. Direct people using "way finding" orientation addressing comfort, safety and the ability to take action. 3. Use fences, walls or landscaping to prevent and or discourage public access to or from dark and or unmonitored areas. 4. Design the space to provide natural barriers to conflicting activities. 5. Provide clear boarder definition to the controlled space establishing a territory and identity. 6. Incorporate maze entrances in public restrooms. This avoids the isolation that is produced by an anteroom or double door entry system. 2560 Orion Way • Carlsbad, CA 92010-7240 • (760) 931-2100 • FAX (760) 931-8473 ^ Maintenance and Management 1. Use low-maintenance landscaping and lighting treatment to facilitate the principles of natural surveillance, natural access control and territorial reinforcement. 2. Use call-out only pay phones. 3. Provide close-in parking to nighttime employees. Lighting 1. When creating lighting design, avoid poorly placed lights that create blind-spots for potential observers and miss critical areas. Ensure potential problem areas are well-lit: pathways, stairs, entrances/exits, parking areas, ATMs, phone kiosks, bus stops, etc. 2. Avoid too-bright security lighting that creates blinding glare and/or deep shadows, hindering the view for potential observers. Eyes adapt to night lighting and have trouble adjusting to severe lighting disparities. Using lower intensity lights often requires more fixtures. 3. Light buildings to ensure Engineering Society (IES) minimum standards? a. Pubic Space -1-5 horizontal fc of light and .5-.8 fc 5 feet above the ground b. Open Parking facility - minimum 3 fc on the pavement surface and .3 fc at 5 feet above the ground c. Pedestrian walkways and all access routes - illuminated up to 4 fc. d. Sidewalks and grounds - minimum .6 fc on the pavement and .6 fc at 5 feet above the ground e. Store walkways and refuge - minimum 3 fc on surface and 1.2 fc 5 feet above ground f. Storefront entrance - minimum 6 fc on surface and 1.2 fc 5 feet above ground 4. Place lighting along pathways and other pedestrian-use areas at proper heights for lighting the faces of the people in the space (and to identify the faces of potential attackers). 5. Recessed areas of buildings or fences, which have a minimum depth of two feet, a minimum height of five feet, and do not exceed six (6) feet in width and are capable of human concealment, should be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.25 foot-candles of light at ground level during the hours of darkness. This recommendation applies to defined recessed areas, which are within six feet of the edge of a designated walking surface with an unobstructed pathway to it, not hindered by walls or hedgerow landscaping a minimum of two (2) feet in height. 6. Overhead light poles should not be placed in an area planted with shade trees or other canopy producing species. Only basic ground cover, including but not limited to hedges and shrubs, should be used. 7. Accessible luminaries should have vandal resistant light fixtures and be not less than three feet in height from ground level when used to illuminate walkways and a minimum of eight feet in height from ground level when illuminating surfaces associated with vehicles. Light fixtures should be deemed accessible if mounted within fifteen feet vertically or six feet horizontally from any accessible surface. Landscaping 1. Planting trees that have an open crown and are limbed up to 8 feet can create a perceptually safer and more comfortable area. 2. Use tree lined streets to create a light ceiling to reduce glare. 3. Newly planted trees and hedges should maintain a visual clearance between 24 inches and 72 inches above grade. 4. Parking lots, pedestrian paths to and from parking areas, building entrances and exits, sidewalks and pedestrian paths should maintain the 2.5:7' rule and should not obstruct natural surveillance opportunities. Shrubbery and other greenery should not be allowed to block visibility of and from windows and doors. 5. Landscaping and lighting plans should be coordinated to make sure that trees and bushed do not negatively impact the lighting. Addressing 1. Numerals should be located where they are clearly visible from the street on which they are addressed. They should be of a color contrasting to the background to which they are affixed. 2. Numerals should be no less than six inches in height, if located less than 100 feet from the centeriine of the addressed street or 12 inches in height if placed further than 100 feet from the centeriine ofthe addressed street. 3. The numerals should be illuminated during the hours of darkness. 4. The rear doors of all building should have address numbers not less than six inches in height and be of a color contrasting to the background to which they are affixed. Facade Use doors, windows and other architectural features to break large wall planes into smaller components creating a more pedestrian friendly scale. Doors 1. Hollow steel doors should be a minimum sixteen (16) U.S. gauge and have sufficient reinforcement to maintain the designed thickness of the door when any locking device is installed. 2. Only use glass doors with fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant glazing. Protect all exterior doors with security hardware. 3. Equip all doors and steel gates with a latch cover constructed of steel. Ensure the latch cover is a minimum of .125 inch thick. Attach the latch cover to the outside by welding or with non-removable bolts spaced apart on not more than ten-inch centers. 4. Construct the jamb of all aluminum frame-swinging doors to withstand 1600 pounds of pressure in both a vertical distance ofthree inches and horizontal distance of one inch each side of the strike, to prevent violation ofthe strike. 5. Equip rear doors used for shipping and receiving and employee entrances with a viewer. 6. A single, double door or steel gate shall be equipped with a double cylinder deadbolt with a bolt projection exceeding one inch or a hook-shaped or expanding deadbolt that engages the strike sufficiently to prevent spreading. The deadbolt lock shall have a minimum of five-pin tumblers and a cylinder guard. Windows 1. Cover other vulnerable non-movable windows with burglar resistant glazing. Windows of commercial buildings are vulnerable to breakage during the hours of darkness when the business is non-operational especially windows within 40 inches of any door locking mechanism 2. Glaze should be constructed of either two part laminated glazing with a 0.60 inch inner layer or burglary resistant glazing Roofs 1. All skylights on the roof of any building should be provided with rated burglary resistant glazing material securely fastened with bolts that are non-removable from the exterior. 2. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building should be secured as follows: a. If the hatchway cover is of wooded material, it should be covered on the inside with at least sixteen (16) gauge steel metal or its equivalent and attached with screws. 3. All air duct or air vent opening exceeding ninety-six (96) square inches on the roof, exterior doors, or exterior walls of any building should be secured by covering the same with the following: a. Iron bars of a least number four (4) steel or equivalent, spaced no more that five (5) inches apart on center, at each direction, welded at all point of intersection, or one by one-fourth (1X %) inch flat steel or equivalent, spaced no more the five (5) inches apart on center, welded at all points of intersection. Trash Enclosures 1. Position the trash enclosures away from areas of shipping and receiving. Alarm Systems 1. When considering an alarm system, the police department recommends a "verified system" in an effort to eliminate false alarm activations and increase breach detection. A verified system is verified through audio or visual components. 2. Consider security cameras to monitor the parking lots, pedestrian walkways and entrances, and public transportation areas. This information is a representation of information gathered on a national level. The purpose is to provide effective and consistent information. Ifyou would like additional assistance concerning building security or employee security issues, please contact the Crime Prevention Unit at (760) 931-2105. Reviewed by: Jodeene R. Sasway Crime Prevention Specialist Carlsbad Police Department City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM October 7, 2009 TO: Jason Goff, Planning FROM: Jeremy Riddle, Engineering SUBJECT: FIRST ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PLAZA CAMINO REAL (SP 09-01) Engineering Development Services staff has reviewed the Specific Plan (SP) and we offer the following issues of concern: Engineering Issues 1. Revise the SP to provide a breakdown of both existing and proposed commercial/development areas with total building square footages. The SP should then discuss a narrative summary of each existing/proposed development area and what modifications are anticipated to existing structures, parking stalls, access aisles, pedestrian movements, utilities, landscaping, etc. 2. Since this SP will intensify the existing land use and with the proximity to interstate 78, traffic is a significant concern. We understand a traffic study is being prepared to address whether the projects impacts existing street and intersection capacities. All circulation portions of the SP should be revised to discuss impacts, if any, to existing circulation elements and include details of improvements required to address the redevelopment proposed by this SP. 3. Modify the parking section (page 30) of the SP to summarize both the existing and proposed parking stalls within the SP area, including the parking area north of the SP boundary. Since additional commercial development is being proposed, and it will eliminate some existing parking, the SP should clearly demonstrate whether additional parking stalls are required to serve the SP area. 4. Provide a completed Storm Water Standards Questionnaire with the next submittal (see attached). 5. As identified on page 45, prepare and include a preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water provisions of this project. The SWMP should be prepared to meet the City SUSMP, latest version. The preliminary SWMP should: 1) describe the watershed, 2) identify impaired water bodies this project contributes to, 3) list the anticipated existing/proposed pollutants-of-concern and 4) list site design, low-impact development features and treatment control best management practices that will be employed to avoid pollutant contact with storm water or to filter urban pollutants from storm water prior to discharge from this project. 6. Revise the SP to add exhibit numbers to each exhibit for ease of reference. Plaza Camino Real October 7, 2009 Page 2 of 3 7. Please explain if there are anticipated changes to existing lot configurations within the SP boundary which would require processing subdivision application(s). 8. On page 13, revise Exhibit C to show the designated area for special events as described on page 27. 9. On page 13, revise Exhibit C to show the limits of the parking lot north of the SP boundary as described on page 30. 10. On page 16, revise Exhibit E to callout and show the mass transit stop locations that serve this project. This exhibit should also include a legend to breakdown of specific land use areas within the SP boundary and provide sufficient detail on existing and proposed development areas (square footages, uses, etc.). Narrative sections should also be added to the SP to describe these land use areas in more detail. 11. On page 18, revise the circulation element to describe the city as approaching build- out, versus already built out. Refer to redlines. 12. On page 19, revise the circulation element section to describe how redevelopment of the PCRSP will lead to increases in vehicular traffic trips to the project. Discuss the circulation improvements, if any, this project will construct to ensure the existing circulation system will handle the anticipated traffic. 13. On page 29, revise the intersection guidelines to match the sight distance corridor language in the City's Landscape Manual. For example, the City's Landscape Manual limits vegetation height to a maximum of 30" above the established grade, not 42". Refer to redlines. 14. On page 29, provide guidelines for internal (private-private) drive aisle intersections to address how vehicular sight distance will be handled. 15. On page 30, revise the grading guidelines to allow temporary changes in grade that may exceed 15-ft, as measured from existing grade, if performed as remedial grading that is recommended by a soils report. 16. On page 34, please complete and include the exhibit showing pedestrian and vehicular traffic movements surrounding and within the SP area. Since this exhibit was not and with traffic circulation a concern, additional comments may arise upon resubmittal ofthis new information. 17. On page 34, include narrative on improvements, if any, to serve the project per conclusions in the traffic study. 18. On page 36, add notes to clarify that private drive aisle intersections should also maintain sight distance corridor measures. 19. On page 36, add "enhance pedestrian circulation" to section b.9 per the redlines. 20. On page 38 and 40, clarify the material of at-grade pedestrian crossings. Refer to redlines. Plaza Camino Real October 7, 2009 Page 3 of 3 21. On page 41, explain how energy conservation will be addressed. Can the existing lights be converted to induction fixtures (HEI) to reduce energy consumption or can other measures be done? Also explain how the spill over of parking lot light into Buena Vista creek is/will be addressed. Is shielding already existing or is it not needed? Please revise the SP to explain. 22. Revise page 43 to add the reference to EIR 09-02 per redlines. 23. Address redlines as noted on the returned exhibits. Please be advised, this check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. If you have any questions regarding the engineering issues, please contact me at 760-602-2737. Attachment: Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, with engineering redlines C: Glen Van Peski, Senior Civil Engineer Engineering file DATE: TO: CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO AUGUST 25, 2009 REVIEW NO: 1 • • • • • • • • Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley Police Department - J. Sasway Fire Department - James Weigand Building Department-Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore ^Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy - Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *AL\NAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 PROJECT TITLE: PLAZA CAMINO REAL APPLICANT: Hofman Planning & Engineering PROPOSAL: Comprehensive set of development standards, guidelines, and implementation procedures forthe redevelopment and operations ofthe Plaza Camino Real. Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to Michele Masterson in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 09/14/09. If you have "No Comments," please so state. Thank you COMMENTS: PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: AUGUST 25.2009 REVIEW NO: 1 TO: ^ Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley 3 Police Department - J. Sasway 3 Fire Department - James Weigand ^ Building Department - Will Foss n Recreation - Mark Steyaert • Public Works Department (streets) - Thomas Moore • Water/Sewer District IEI Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District • North County Transit District - Planning Department • Sempra Energy - Land Management • Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) O Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 PROJECT TITLE: PLAZA CAMINO REAL APPLICANT: Hofman Planning & Engineering PROPOSAL: Comprehensive set of development standards, guidelines, and implementation procedures for the redevelopment and operations of the Plaza Camino Real. Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to Michele Masterson in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 09/14/09. If you have "No Comments," please so state. COMMENTS: PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 \\ August 27, 2009 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Specific Plan Review - Review Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan, EIR 09-02, SP 09-01 El Camino Real PEL.-\ file: 380 - Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan - SPI Planner: Hofman Planning & Engineering, (760) 692-4100 Please advise the applicant to make the following additions and revisions to the specific plan so that an appropriate review can be performed. 1. The landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to clearly define how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and guidelines. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i,e, project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc) 3. The exhibits appear to be fimctional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please fiirther develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to defme the development of all areas. 4. Please address and clarify how landscaping will be used to accentuate and enhance building architecture; site, parking and building entries; intersections; focal points; etc. 5. Please address how proposed landscaping will be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing landscaping. 6. Please address how landscaping will be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 7. Please provide a list of plants proposed for use (i.e. project theme trees; accent trees; shmbs; ground covers; vines). The list needs to identify proposed plants for each different use (i.e. project perimeter; project entries; parking areas; intersections; building entries; etc.). Proposed plant sizes also need to be provided. 8. Paragraph a.2. on page 36 indicates: "Plant selection should consider ease of long-term maintenance". The word "should" needs to be revised to "shall". Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan August 27, 2009 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 9. Paragraph a.3. on page 36 indicates: "Landscaping with high water and maintenance demands should be avoided". The word "should" needs to be revised to "shall". 10. Paragraph a.5. on page 36 indicates: "No design theme is mandated by the specific plan for Street Furniture to allow periodic replacement as styles evolve". Street furniture needs to be addressed indicating where it is proposed and what types of flirniture are proposed. 11. Paragraph b. 1. on page 36 indicates that "Overall parking lot landscape area within the Plan boundary shall not be less than 6% exclusive of drive aisles". Please indicate what the percentage will be inclusive of the drive aisles. 12. Paragraphs b.2 and b.3 on page 36 address removal of trees. Please indicate where and how many trees are anticipated to be removed. 13. Paragraph b.5. on page 36 indicates: "The use of trees within the parking areas shall be located as not to conflict with light standards". This needs to be revised to clarify that both trees and lights are to be coordinated to maintain a well balanced landscape design with appropriate lighting. 14. Paragraph b.9. on page 36 indicates: "As redevelopment occurs, interior intersections will be upgraded for public safety to slow traffic and aesthetic purposes". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will be achieved. 15. Paragraph b.lO. indicates: "Landscape design shall avoid forcing pedestrian from passing through large open parking areas". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will be achieved. 5rian T. Smith and Associates, Inc. Arciiaedogy / &iclogy / History / f^leorAsoioey /Air Oualily / Traffic /Acoustics 3 October 2014 Mr. Bill Heitman Westfield Plaza Camino Real 2525 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Subject: Negative Paleontological, Archaeological, and Native American Monitoring and Mitigation Report, Westfield Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, CaUfomia (SCH No. 2010011004) Dear Mr. Heitman: The following letter report summarizes the results of our paleontological, archaeological, and Native American monitoring investigation conducted in response to the environmental mitigation requirements (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) specified in the City of Carlsbad's Mitigated Negative Declaration for utility infrastmcture work concomitant with the recent improvements to the Westfield Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center (SCH No. 2010011004). The project site is located west of El Camino Real, north of Marron Road, and south ofthe perimeter road on the north side of the shopping center, Carlsbad, San Diego County, Cahfomia (Attachments 1 and 2). On the U.S. Geological Survey's 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-scaIe San Luis Rey, California topographic quadrangle map, the site is located in the northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bemardino Base and Meridian (Attachment 2). Paleontological, archaeological, and Native American monitoring was conducted for trenching for new water, sewer, and storm drain lines, in addition to landscaping (tree planting) activities. The maximum depth of excavation was approximately 20 feet (±) below the existing grades for the new sewer mains. Geologically, most of the project site (i.e., the eastem part of the shopping center property) is shown to be underlain by Quatemary alluvium (Qal on Attachment 3, after S.S. Tan and M.P. Kennedy, 1996, Geologic map of the northwestem part of San Diego County, Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 96-02, pl. 1 [map sheet, scale 1:24,000]), with the adjacent descending hillsides mapped as the middle Eocene (~ 40 to ~ 50 million year old) Santiago Formation (Tsa on Attachment 3). However, based upon a survey of the collection records ofthe Department of Paleontology at the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) in San Diego, the Department of Geological Sciences at San Diego State University (SDSU), and the Invertebrate Paleontology Section of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in Los Angeles (LACMIP), there are at least five recorded middle HOIO Fbway Road, Suite A, Raway, CA ?20^+i F+iooe («») 679-S21B or 6m-99fO; nax (Sfi) 679-9896; www.bfea-ca.com 5usiness Office: 1+^/8 ibex Court, San Diego, CA 92X2.9; pfione (SJS) +S+-0?!?; rax (SJS) -Wt-O^SS Brian F. Smith and Associates — Page 2 Pleistocene fossil localities within (SDSU loc. 634) or in the immediate vicinity ofthe project site (LACMIP loc. 5192; SDNHM Iocs. 4297, 5019, and 5468). Fossils from these localities include a diverse assortment of estuarine marine invertebrates dominated by bivalve and gastropod mollusks. Thus, some of the sediments mapped as the Eocene Santiago Formation on Attachment 3 must be reassigned to past interglacial (middle Pleistocene) estuarine infiUings of the Buena Vista Creek valley. Archaeologically, the Buena Vista Lagoon and adjacent wetlands and contiguous valley of Buena Vista Creek would have provided important food resources for local inhabitants associated with the Archaic or Encinitas Tradition cultures (10,000 to 2,000 years before the present [YBP]), followed by the Late Prehistoric Luiseno Indians (1,200 to 500 YBP). Major village sites surround the lagoon margins and sources of fresh water along Buena Vista Creek. Documented prehistoric occupation for a period of nearly 10,000 years is a testament to the rich and diverse environment represented by the confluence ofthe lagoon, ocean, and Buena Vista Creek. While prehistoric sites are recorded in close proximity to the project site, no evidence of any archaeological deposits associated with the prehistoric occupation of this area was identified during monitoring. In all likelihood, any archaeological deposits that may have been present on the property were destroyed when the shopping center was first constmcted many years ago. Therefore, the current grading and trenching needed for the improvement project has not resulted in any impacts to cultural resources. The archaeological mitigation monitoring program is determined to be complete. Paleontological, archaeological, and Native American monitoring of utility infrastmcture trenching activities occurred intermittently, as needed, between April 22, 2014 and September 4, 2014. Native American monitoring was provided by Saving Sacred Sites, Inc., Vista, Cahfomia. The maximum depth of trenching for new sewer mains was approximately 20 feet (±). Despite the possibility of recovering marine invertebrate or terrestrial vertebrate fossils from the local Quatemary sediments, and recovering historic or prehistoric archaeological materials from the near-surface sediments, no fossils or historic or prehistoric cultural artifact assemblages of any kind were observed or collected during the monitoring process. The only recovered artifact was a single valve of the bay scallop (Argopecten ventricosus) that appears to be Holocene in age and not a fossil. The shell could have possibly been derived from a local shell midden, but it was an isolate without any cultural context and is not regarded as culturally significant. Based upon this investigation, no significant paleontological or archaeological resources are regarded as having been either lost or otherwise adversely affected by utility trenching activities concomitant with site preparations for the Westfield Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Project. The City of Carlsbad's mitigation requirements for preserving significant paleontological and archaeological resources are thus considered to have been satisfactorily completed. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact us at our Poway address. Thank you for the opporttmity to have provided paleontological, archaeological, and Native American monitoring services for this project. Brian F. Smilh unil A^.^iciales - Page 3 Sincerely, George L, Kennedy, Ph.D. Senior Paleontologist Brian F. SmKHfM^. President ana Principal Archaeologist Attachments: Index maps, geologic map ToddA.Wirths,M.S.,P.G. California Professional Geologist No. 7588 5 miles Attachment 1 General Location Map The Westfield Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Project DcLomie (1:250,000) 0 1000 2000 fl S Attachment 2 Project Location Map The Westfield Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Project USGS San Luis Rey Quadrangle (7.5-minutc series) 2000 fl Attachment 3 Geologic Map Thc Westfield Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Project Geology afier Tan and Kennedy (1996) 5rian T: Smith and Associates, Inc. Archacoloey / Siiology / Histortj / Falexintologj /Air Ouality / Traffic / Acoustics April 14, 2014 SLBE Certification #12850577 Mr. Bill Heitman Senior Project Manager Westfield Plaza Camino Real Construction Jobsite 2525 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 RE: Archaeological, Paleontological, and Native American Mitigation Monitoring Program Retention Letter for the Westfield Carlsbad (SCH No. 2010011004) Project -City of Carlsbad, Califomia. Dear Mr. Heitman: Please submit this letter to the City of Carlsbad as verification that our firm, Brian F. Smith and Associates Inc., (BFSA), has the capabilities and the personnel available to conduct the Archaeological Paleontological, and Native American mitigation monitoring program for the Westfield Carlsbad Project. Our firm has been retained by Westfield and will conduct the monitoring in accordance with the project's mitigation monitoring requirements and in compliance with the City's guidelines. Per the MMRP (C-1 through C-4, and P-l), our duties will be to monitor the required earthwork in order to identify any archaeological (prehistoric and historic) and paleontological (fossils) materials that may be present. Should the monitoring result in the discovery of any artifacts, fossils, and historic features the activity in that location will be halted, and the discovery will be assessed for significance and collections will be made. Any discoveries will be discussed with the City staff, including any additional detailed study that might be required. Dr. Shasta Gaughen, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pala Band of Mission Indians, has concurred with our use of Saving Sacred Sites as the Native American monitor for this project. They will provide a representative during the grading of those areas within the project that may contain prehistoric cultural deposits. The monitors for this project will be supervised and directed by Brian F. Smith, Dr. George Kennedy, and Tracy Stropes, who are qualified with the City and all local agencies as consulting archaeologists, paleontologists, and historians. If the City has any questions regarding our monitoring program, please have them contact Kyle Guerrero or me directly. Sincerely, Brian F. Smith BFSiks 14010 PowaL| Road, Suite A. Powat), CA phone {SjS) 679-aTiS or 68\-99%i; fax (S?S) 679-9596; www.bfsa-ca,com • 5u!5inejw office: H678 ibex Court, San Diego, CA 92119; pKone (855) +8+-0?l5; Tax C8?8) +8+-0?S8 brian P. Smith and Associates, Inc. Archaealt^ / biologii / History / HjeontcJogj/Air Quality / Traffic/Acoustics April 8,2014 Mr. Bill Heitman Senior Project Manager Westfield Plaza Camino Real Construction Jobsite 2525 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 SLBE Certification #32850577 RE: Proposal for Archaeological, Paleontological, and Native American Mitigation Monitoring for the Westfield Carlsbad (SCH No. 2010011004) Project-City of Carlsbad, California. Dear Mr. Heitman: Thank you for requesting the following proposal for environmental services. As you know, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., (BFSA) is an SLBE/SBE certified company, which provides its services throughout the southern Califomia region, and is recognized by all appropriate State and local agencies as qualified environmental consultants. We have developed a reputation as a premier vendor, especially in the areas of Archaeological, Native American, Biological, Hiatorical, Paleontological Studies and Project Monitoring. Our natural and cultural resources management experience coupled with the support staff at BFSA can provide you with solutions for streamlining your projects, as well as your bottom line. We have assisted many companies with the resources required to keep their projects on task with local, state and federal guidelines. Working with BFSA would result in .significant savings of both time and money. We are pleased to be able to present you with this proposal for monitoring sei-vices in support of the mitigation measures, which require archaeological, paleontological, and Native American monitoring. 1. QUALIFICATIONS We have prepared the following proposal to supply the necessaiy archaeological, paleontological, and Native American monitormg services for the Westfield Carlsbad project in the City of Carlsbad, California. We have conducted a number of similar projects in the area. EXAMPLES OF MONITORING PROJECTS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Petco Park Robertson Ranch The Parkloft Project Faraday Development Oceanside Springhill Suites North Block Grande North Tabata Ranch The Mark Park Tenace 48 Ranch Aria Brian F. Sntilli and Axsiu iales, Inc. Aprils. 20I'l W.-.^r/ii-lil Cdi hhfid - /'<t,t;c Smart Corner The Legend Tri-City Christian School Island Village Experience of BFSA Archaeology, Paleontology, and Historical Studies BFSA Staff members of BFSA are _ •mmmim recognized as qualified: "T"I • archaeologists • paleontologists, • geologists, and • historians, by the federal government, state agencies, and all local jurisdictions to which applications have been made. Since 1990, BFSA has had an average of 40 employees on staff. The firm has experience in all facets of cultural resource projects, including surveys, site testing and evaluation. Native American consultation, historic site recordation and research, architectural evaluations, mitigation programs, construction monitoring, cultural evaluations of geophysical data, evaluations for CEQA and National Register eligibility, and paleontological and biological studies. In over 36 years of business, BFSA archaeologists have evaluated over 3,500 archaeological sites for significance under CEQA, local guidelines, or National Register eligibility (Section 106). We have several individuals who have extensive experience with NAGPRA as well as Native American Consultation on numerous projects. We also have monitors certified in both archaeology and paleontology; which means one monitor can cover both disciplines. We will be able to staff and conduct the necessai-y monitoring program without interruption. BFSA staff archaeologists also have 40-Hour HAZWOPER certificates for working in contaminated sites. BFSA has recently completed a six-month field program for the Department of Energy at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation excavating historic sites in contaminated sites. For this project, safety protocol requii-ed protective clothing (Level B and C) and strict adherence to the established safety plan on the nuclear project. Our staff will be able to comply with any safety regulations applied to this project. IL PROJECT TEAM: BFSA KEY PERSONNEL Brian /•'. .V/«///i anti A.wwciales. lnc April H. 20N Wi'.,tlivlil Oirlsba,! - fiiKt' .* l5 The archaeological program will be directed by Brian F. Smith Tracy Stropes. While the paleontological program will be directed by Dr. George Kennedy. Brief summaries of experience and qualifications are presented below. Brian F. Smith, MA president. Consulting Arcltaeologist and Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith is the president and principal historical archaeological consultant for BFSA. Mr. Smith has logged over 40,000 hours as Principal Investigator conducting more than 3,500 cultural resource studies in the past 36 years. The range of projects corapleted or directed by Mr. Smith includes literature searches, historical research, intensive archaeological surveys, historical building surveys, site recording, archaeological site testing and excavations, preservation plan implementation, and large-scale data recovery (salvage excavation) mitigation programs. Additionally, Mr. Smith has served as Principal Investigator for data recovery programs at sites evaluated as eligible for the National Register under Criterion D (information value). i In the past 36 years, Mr. Smith has conducted various projects - throughout California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Montana, and i Texas. These previous studies include every possible aspect of archaeology imaginable, from literature searches to large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Brian Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies including the City of San Diego, CCDC, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BR), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans). Mr. Smith has been approved or certified to perform archaeological studies in all counties in the State of California to which he has applied, and has also conducted work for Sempra Energy in Baja California, Mexico. Tracy A. Stropes, MA, RPA Senior Project Archaeologist Mr. Stropes is a professional archaeologist with over 23 years of experience in cultural resouice management. His experience includes over ten years in project management, report authorship, lithic analysis, laboratory management, Native American consultation, and editing for several technical reports for numerous projects throughout southern California. Mr. Stropes has conducted cultmal resource surveys, archaeological site testing and evaluations for National Register eligibility and Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, mitigation of resources through data recovery for archaeological sites, budget and report preparation, and direction of crews of all sizes for projects ranging in duration from a single day site visit to one year. Mr. Stropes is a Registered Professional Archaeologist and on the list of archaeological consultants qualified to conduct archaeological investigations southem Califomia. He has served as project ai-chaeologist for numerous projects and composed data recovery and preservation programs for sites throughout Califomia for both CEQA and NEPA level compliance. He has acted as teaching assistant for archaeological field classes at several sites in Orange (Cypress College), Los Angeles Brian F. Smilh and As.wiair.s, Inc. April S, 2014 Wt'irfii-lil Ciirhhail - /'(i^'f 4 (Cypress College), and San Diego Counties (San Diego State University). In addition, Mr. Stropes was employed to teach discussion sessions for introduction to cultural anthropology classes at SDSU. Intemationally, Mr. Stropes has acted as field surveyor for the Natural Histoi-y Foundation of Orange County & Institucion Nacional de Antropologia y Historia surveying and relocating several sites in northern Baja Califomia. As project archaeologist, Mr. Stropes is currently responsible for coordinating and directing field supervisors and crews for inventoiy surveys, ai-chaeological testing and data recovery field efforts. Mi-. Stropes has authored and contributed to numerous cultural resource management technical reports and has participated in a number of small- to large-scale archaeological investigations for federal, state and local agencies, as well as for private industiy projects. George L. Kennedy, PhD Principal Paleontologist for Paleontological Monitonng Projects and Fossil Analyses/Ciiration Dr. Kennedy has more than 45 years of professional experience with the fossil record of southern California and the Pacific Coast region of North America, including research associations with the U. S. Geological Survey (Research Geologist and Paleontologist), the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (curator of Cenozoic Invertebrates), San Diego State University (Adjunct Professor and Director, E. C. Allison Center Paleontological Collections), and San Diego Paleontological Associates (Principal and Senior Paleontologist). His responsibilities at BFSA include overseeing the paleontological services program offered by BFSA, including supervision of field monitors, preparators and curatorial assistants; recording geologic and .stratigraphic information in the field; running fossil salvage operations; identification of fossils; and, preparation of CEQA-mandated paleontological monitoring and mitigation reports required by local governmental agencies. Dr. Kennedy has authored or coauthored more than 100 published papers and abstracts on marine invertebrate fossils, systematic studies on marinemollusks (particularly die Bivalvia), paleoecological and paleoclimatic reconstructions, and Quaternary dating techniques (amino acid racemization and uranium-series disequilibria) and their applicaUon to marine terrace studies and problems of Quaternary neotectonics (e.g., dating fault activity). Dr. Kennedy continues his studies with colleagues at the U. S. Geological Survey (Denver), the Department of Geological Sciences at San Diego State University, and the paleontology departments of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the University of Califomia Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley. HI. SCOPE AND FEES Archaeological, Paleontological, and Native American Mitigation Monitoring: Brian F. Smilh and .A.s.s()€iales, Inc. April H, 2014 Due to the high cultural sensitivity of this area, the mitigation measures have indicated that cultural resources monitoring will be conducted during ground-disturbing activities within the Project site. As requested, this mitigation monitoring proposal provided below conforms to the conditions of approval (C-1 through C-4 and P-l) for this project and will provide the costs and scope for only the archaeological and mitigation monitoring. 1 Monitorins Hourly Costs • One dual-certified archaeological and paleontological monitor: $65.00 per hour. • Provide one Native American monitor: $60.00 per hour. • Time and a half will be charged for any overtime work (over eight hours a day or 40 hours a week). • Drive time and mileage (.50/mile) will be charged at the hourly rate. Fixed Costs The fees for services (if required) are based on the rate schedule provided below: Archaeological & Paleontological Fixed Costs Prepare a letter of qualifications Attendance at the precon (project archaeologist) Attendance at the precon (project paleontologist) Attendance at the precon (Native American) , Prepare one negative monitoring report. Total fixed costs No Charge $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $1.500.00 $2,550.00 Additional Costs The following costs are for work items required by the City of Carlsbad and added as extra work, if required: • Dual-Ceitified Archaeological/Paleontological Monitor: $65.00 per hour. • Native American monitor: $60.00. • Extra meetings requiring a principal archaeologist or paleontologist: $75.00 per hour. • Project Management (Kyle M. Gueixero): $85.00 per hour. • Project Management (Brian Smith): $150.00 per hour. • In the event monitors are called to monitor the project for a specific day and upon arrival are informed the project will not be in operation that day, a four-hour minimum will be charged to offset the cost of time and travel. If you have ordered a monitor then realize you do not need one, please contact our office immediately to avoid this charge. Brian F. Smilh and Associaies, Inc, April 8, 20J4 We.iijirit! Ciiii.^!>,i,l - I'a.iif n 1^ Mitigation Curation: In the event archaeological or paleontological resources are identified as a result of the monitoring program, additional work (Mitigation Measures C-2 through C-4 and P-l) would be required to evaluate the resource(s) for significance. All discoveries must be reported to the City of Carlsbad and any recommendations for recoveiy or excavations must be reviewed by the City, The City will provide direction regarding any additional work. A change order request will be provided following receipt of the City's guidance for any additional work, which must be approved by the Client and City. Time required to respond to city, public or agency comments, if any, cannot be determined in advance; therefore, time and materials must be charged for any response to comments or attendance at meetings. Report changes as a result of design changes or new information provided, would also be at our standard time and materials rate. Three copies of the report will be prepared for the Agency, and one copy for your files. Additional copies may be prepared at our standard time and materials rate. Please inform us how many copies you will require. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this proposal, Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (858) 484-0915 (phone), (858) 583-6437 (cell) or (858) 679-9896 (fax). Sincerely, Kyle M. Guerrero Durector of Operations Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. kgucrrero@bfsa-ca.com / hereby authorize Brian F. Smith/vrd A.t.tociates, Inc., to begin work in accordance with this Agreement. Signed by:KZ/^^^// j^J^^-^C^fi^^ Date: PrintedName: Rj'U- JALM7/¥I^ Title: liriun /••. Smilh and As.iorialc.s, Inc. April 8, 2014 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT City of Carlsbad 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 966-6500 (760) 967-2001 (fax) www.GoNCTD.com BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bill Horn Supervisor, County of San Diego IVIark Packard Mayor Pro Tem, City of Carlsbad Board Vice Chair Donald Mosier Councilinember, City of Del Mar Tony Kranz Counciimember, City of Encinitas Ed Gallo Councilmember, City of Escondido Gary Fallen Counciimember, City of Oceanside Rebecca Jones Vice Mayor, City of San Marcos Mike Nichols Councilmember, City of Solana Beach John J, Aguilera Deputy Mayor, City of Vista EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Matthew O. Tucker GENERAL COUNSEL Lori A. Winfree MAR 2 0 2014 Planning Division March 18, 2014 Mr. Jason Goff Planning Department City of Carisbad 1635 FaradayAvenue Carisbad, CA 92008 Subject: Proposed Improvements to Southbound El Camino Real-Marron Road Bus Stop Dear Mr. Goff: This letter is to confirm that the latest design of proposed improvements at the bus stop, located in the southbound direction on El Camino Real at Marron Road, satisfy NCTD's design criteria, as specified in the NCTD Bus Stop Development Handbook. The proposed design meets NCTD's immediate needs for an ADA compliant bus stop, and provides flexibility for possible installation of a passenger shelter to accommodate ridership growth in the future. Also, per our recent discussion pertaining to the NCTD bus stop, NCTD understands that per Condition No. 17 of the City of Carisbad Planning Commission Resolution No. 6983 relating to the approval for the Westfield Carisbad mall improvements, it will be Westfield Mall's responsibility to purchase a bench and trash receptacle for the El Camino Real- Marron Road bus stop to replace the existing bus stop amenities. Based on the most recent data available to NCTD, it is NCTD's understanding that this suburban bus stop location has over hventy (20) weekday boardings, requiring the installation of a bench per NCTD's Service Standards for fixed-route amenities contained in NCTD's Comprehensive Strategic Operating and Capital Plan. NCTD planning staff requests the developer to provide advance notice no less than three (3) weeks prior to the start of construction. This advance notice allows NCTD to identify a temporary stop location during construction activities and minimize the inconvenience to NCTD customers. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760-966-6591 or bolszanickv@nctd .org. Sincerely, William Olszanicky Manager of Service Implementation cc: Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning and Engineering Johnny Dunning, NCTD Kim Hayford, NCTD Bryan Killian, NCTD Peykan Abbassi, NCTD CITY OF OCEANSIDE ENGINEERING City of Carlsbad January 22, 2014 JAN 2 7 2014 Planning Division Jeremy Riddle City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 Dear Mr. Riddle, This confirms that the City of Oceanside has received all payments required by section 4 of the settlement agreement between Plaza Camino Real LP and Westfield LLC and the City of Oceanside. A copy of the settlement agreement is attached hereto. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, David DiPierro City Traffic Engineer cc: City of Oceanside: Steve Jepsen, City Manager John Mullen, CityAttorney George Buell, Development Services Director Scott Smith, City Engineer City of Carlsbad: Doug Bilse, Senior Traffic Engineer Jason Goff, Associate Planner Jason Geldert Ed Casey Alston + Bird LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16"" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 300 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY • OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-2885 • TELEPHONE 760-435-5097 Document No. 10-D0749-1 10/6/10 (2) AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (hereinafter, the "Agreement") is made by and between Plaza Camino Real, LP ("PCR") and Westfield LLC (collectively, "Westfield") and the City of Oceanside ("City") (collectively, the "Parties"), which Agreement shall become effective as of the date on which the last Party executes this Agreement (the "Effective Date"). RECITALS A. Thomas Enterprises Inc. ("Thomas") is the owner of a property interest in an approximately 92-acre site generally located at the northeastem comer of State Route 76 and Foussat Road in the City, approximately two miles east of Interstate 5 (the "Pavilion Property"). Thomas proposes to develop on the Pavilion Property a 950,000 square foot commercial center (the "Pavilion Project Total Square Footage"), consisting of approximately 794,000 square feet of retail uses, 50,000 square feet of restaurant uses, 60,000 square feet of cinema uses and 46,000 square feet of a health club use (the "Pavilion Project"). B. On November 19, 2008, the City approved the following entitlements for the Pavilion Project: (a) a Tentative Parcel Map (to divide the Pavilion Property into 10 parcels); (b) a Development Plan; (c) five Conditional Use Permits (for a 60,000 square-foot movie theater, a 40,000 square-foot health club and three drive-through restaurants); and (d) an Underground Utilities Waiver (collectively, the "Pavilion Project Entitlements"). At that same hearing, the City certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pavilion Project (the "Pavilion EIR"). C. On December 18, 2008, PCR filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus ("Petition") in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego (the "Trial Court"), Case Number 37-2008- 00102065-CU-WM-NC (the "Action") against the City and Thomas challenging the City's approval of the Pavilion Project Entitlements and the Pavilion EIR under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) ("CEQA"). On April 30, 2010, the Trial Court entered a Judgment denying the Petition. On June 28, 2010, PCR filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (the "Appellate Court"), Case No. D057644, from that Judgment (the "Appeal"). The Appeal is pending. D. PCR is the owner of the Westfield Plaza Camino Real shopping center ("PCR Center") located near the intersection of El Camino Real and State Route 78 in Carlsbad, Califomia (the "PCR Site"). PCR and Westfield LLC. have applied to the City of Carlsbad ("Carlsbad") for a Specific Plan, a Site Development Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, a Comprehensive Sign Program and ground leases (collectively, the "PCR Project Entitlements"). The PRC Project Entitlements do not propose final discretionary approval of development of residential uses at the PCR Site. If Carlsbad approves those entitlements and certifies an Environmental Impact Report for those entitlements (the "PCR Project EIR"), which the Parties agree will not authorize impacts associated with any residential development on the PCR Site, PCR intends to construct improvements to its existing regional shopping center that will involve (i) demolition, reconfiguration and/or reconstmction of approximately 179,630 square feet of LEGAL02/32l93120vl existing uses and (ii) constniction of approximately 35,417 square feet of new commercial/retail uses (the "PCR Project"). E. The Parties desire to settle the Litigation and provide for parameters under which development of the Pavilion Project and the PCR Project may proceed without objection from any Party hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the agreements set forth below, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Within three (3) calendar days after the Effective Date this Agreement, PCR shall file and serve a dismissal with prejudice of the Appeal. No Party shall seek attomey's fees or costs from any other Party conceming the Appeal or the Action. 2. So long as (a) this Agreement remains in full force and effect; (b) Thomas; any corporation, partnership, individual, agent, organization, association or other legal entity that is in any way affiliated with Thomas; or any person or entity who is receiving financial support from Thomas does not file a letter or provide a verbal testimony commenting on any aspect of the PCR Project EIR or PCR Project Entitiements; and (c ) the Pavilion Project Total Square Footage does not increase (a "Consistent Pavilion Development"), Westfield, including any corporation, partnership, individual, agent, organization, association, or other legal entity that is any way affiliated with Westfield, and/or PCR shall not (i) subject to the second sentence of this section 2, file any written comments or provide any oral testimony with City or any other public agency, or seek judicial review, objecting to or challenging such a Consistent Pavilion Development, including but not limited to any permits or environmental review document approved by the City for such a Consistent Pavilion Development, including the Pavilion EIR and the Pavilion Project Entitlements; or (ii) provide financial, legal and/or other assistance to other parties who may seek to file any written or oral objections to such a Consistent Pavilion Development with City or any other public agency or any private party, and/or seek judicial review challenging such a Consistent Pavilion Development. If the City files a formal comment letter on the PCR Project Draft EIR, then Westfield may file a comment letter on the environmental review documents for a Consistent Pavilion Development. Except for a Consistent Pavilion Development, Westfield reserves all rights to contest, challenge and object, whether in an administrative or judicial proceeding, to any other type of development on the Pavilion Property under any applicable law, including but not limited to CEQA. 3. So long as (a) this Agreement remains in fiill force and effect, and (b) the PCR Project Entitlements do not include final discretionary approval of (i) residential uses on the PCR site such that said approval precludes environmental review of the development of such residential uses under CEQA or (ii) the development of a project that exceeds the total square footage specified in the Notice of Preparation issued for the PCR Project EIR (the "PCR NOP") on or about January 5, 2010 (a "Consistent PCR Development"), the City shall not (i) subject to the provisions in the third sentence of this Section 3, file any written comments or provide any oral testimony with Carlsbad or any other public agency, or seek judicial review, objecting to or LEGAL02/32193120vi challenging such a Consistent PCR Development, including, but not limited to, any permits or environmental review document approved by Carlsbad for such a Consistent PCR Development, including the PCR Project EIR and the PCR Project Entitlements; or (ii) shall provide financial, legal and/or other assistance to other parties who may seek to file any written or oral objections to such a Consistent PCR Development with City or any other public agency or any private party, and/or seek judicial review challenging such a Consistent PCR Development. Prior to the close of the written conunent period on the Draft PCR Project EIR, the City shall orally contact Westfield and staff for Carlsbad with any questions or concems that the City may have regarding any impact analysis contained in a Draft PCR EIR Project, and the City shall cooperate with PCR and Carlsbad to informally resolve those concems. If those concems are not informally resolved, the City may file a formal comment letter on the Draft PCR Project EIR so long as those comments relate to more significant environmental impacts than had been disclosed to the City as of the effective date of this Agreement. Except for a Consistent PCR Development, the City reserves all rights to contest, challenge and object, whether in an administrative or judicial proceeding, to any other type of development on the PCR Site under any applicable law, including but not limited to CEQA. 4. Subject to the provisions of Section 5 below, and in order to lessen any impact that the PCR Project may have on traffic in the City of Oceanside, PCR agrees to pay to the City the following: (a) $7,400 toward the City's upgrade of traffic signals in the vicinity of the PCR Site, (b) $30,039 in full satisfaction ofthe City's thoroughfare fees, and (c) $85,410 toward the City's future expansion of the bridge located at El Camino Real over State Route 78 (collectively, the 'Traffic Payments"). PCR shall submit to the City the full amount of the Traffic Payments upon the issuance by Carlsbad of die first building permit for the PCR Project if that project is approved by Carlsbad. Beginning on the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the amount of the Traffic Payments shall increase by three percent (3%) on an annual basis after that second anniversary (the "Annual Adjustment Factor"). Except for the Traffic Payments, the City shall not seek any other fees or charges of any type from PCR in connection with the development of a Consistent PCR Development. 5. Lawsuit by Thomas. If Thomas or any corporation, partnership, individual, agent, organization or association that is in any way affiliated with Thomas files a lawsuit challenging an approval by Carlsbad of the PCR Project Entitlements or Carlsbad's certification of die PCR Project EIR under CEQA (the "First Thomas Lawsuit"), then PCR's obligation to pay the Traffic Payment to the City is stayed until a final judgment resolving the First Thomas Lawsuit is entered by a court, unless PCR secures building permits prior to a final judgment, in which case, the obligation to make the payment specified in section 4 of this Agreement applies. If such a final judgment resolves tiie First Thomas Lawsuit entirely in PCR's favor, then PCR shall remain obligated to make the Traffic Payment upon the issuance by Carlsbad of the first building permit for tiie PCR Project, although the first increase in the amount of tiie Traffic Payment based on the Annual Adjustment Factor shall not occur until two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement plus the amount of time that the First Thomas Lawsuit was pending. If such a final judgment does not resolve the First Thomas Lawsuit entirely in PCR's favor (an "Adverse Judgment"), then PCR, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement and any outstanding obligations and covenants hereunder, including but not limited to the Traffic Payment and the covenants in Sections 2 and 3, provided however, that PCR cannot elect to LEGAL02/32193120vl terminate the Agreement after Carlsbad publishes draft revisions to the PCR Project EIR or a new draft EIR for the PCR Project. Until the earlier of two years after the entry of an Adverse Judgment or PCR's election to terminate the Agreement, PCR's obligation to pay the Traffic Payment shall be stayed as provided in the first sentence of this Section 5. If Carlsbad recertifies a new environmental review document under CEQA for the PCR Project that satisfies the Adverse Judgment and reapproves the PCR Project Entitlements, and Thomas does not file a lawsuit (a "Second Thomas Lawsuit") challenging such actions by Carlsbad within thirty (30) calendar days after Carlsbad files a Notice of Determination conceming such reapproval, then PCR shall pay the Traffic Payment in the manner provided for in the second sentence of this Section 5, although the amount of the Traffic Payment shall not be increased for the period in which Carlsbad was reapproving the PCR Project. If a Second Thomas Lawsuit is filed, then PCR's obligation to pay the Traffic Payment shall be govemed by the same provisions that apply to the First Thomas Lawsuit. 6. Enforcement of Agreement. The Parties agree that any action brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of Califomia for the County of San Diego. In the event that a legal proceeding is brought by any Party to enforce any part of this Agreement, or determine any rights of any of the Parties hereunder, whether in law or in equity, the prevailing party in any such proceeding shall be entitied to any award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. This Agreement may be enforced by a court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, including but not limited to specific perfonnance and injunctive relief 7. Goveming Law. This Agreement shall be construed and govemed exclusively by the laws of the State of California. 8. Ambiguities. Inasmuch as this Agreement is the product of joint drafting and negotiation between the Parties, it is agreed and understood that the general rale that ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this Agreement. In the event that any language of this Agreement is determined to be ambiguous, each Party shall have an opportunity to present evidence as to the actual intent of the Parties with respect to any such ambiguous language. 9. Claimed Breach of the Agreement. If any Party claims that another Party has breached the Agreement, the non-breaching Party shall promptiy provide written notice to the allegedly breaching Party that specifies the claimed breach. The Parties shall reasonably cooperate with one another to resolve the claimed breach for at least twenty (20) business days after the date of that notice before the party claiming breach may either seek to terminate the Agreement or file a lawsuit claiming breach of the Agreement., 10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, including facsimile copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrament. 11. Amendment and Modification. Any amendment or modification of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the Parties. Any amendment or modification not made in this manner shall have no force or effect. LEGAL02/32193l20vl 12. Successors. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective successors, assigns, related entities and persons, and personal representatives of each Party. 13. Further Acts and Assurances. Each Party agrees to do any and all acts or tilings reasonably necessary in connection with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement without undue delay or expense. 14. Authoritv. Each Party represents and warrants that the person executing this Agreement on its behalf has tiie legal and actual authority to do so. 15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is intended by the Parties as a final, complete and exclusive expression of their agreement, and supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no other agreement, statement, or promise relating to the subject matter hereof which is not contained herein shall be valid or binding. 16. Notices. Identification of contact persons required by this Agreement shall be sent either by means of facsimile transmission, by ovemight mail, or by hand delivery, addressed to the party and/or its attomey as set forth below. Delivery shall be deemed completed upon facsimile transmission, by deposit in tiie ovemight mail, or upon actual hand delivery upon both the party and its attomey. To Westfield LLC and PCR: Company: Westfield, LLC Address: 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor City, State: Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attention: Peter Schwartz Senior Executive Vice President & General Counsel With a copv to: Name: Edward J. Casey, Esq. Company: Alston & Bird LLP Address: 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor City, State: Los Angeles, CA 90071 To Citv: Name: Peter Weiss Titie: City Manager for the City of Oceanside Address: 300 North Coast Highway, Suite 300 City, State: Oceanside, CA 92054 Name: Barbara Reigel Wayne Title: City Clerk for the City of Oceanside Address: 300 North Coast Highway, Suite 300 City, State: Oceanside, CA 92054 LEGAL02/32l93120vl With a copy to: Name: John Mullen Titie: City Attomey Address: 300 North Coast Highway City, State: Oceanside, CA 92054 Attention: John Mullen, City Attomey IN WITNESS WHEREOF, tiie Parties have executed this Agreement and Release on the dates set forth below. Dated: OCJM>^'i 2010 PLAZA CAMINO REAL a Califomia limited partnership By: PCRGP, L.R Its: General Partner By: WESTHELD AMERICA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Its: Sole Member Dated: O. jhyfy^ V . 2010 By: WESTFIELD U.S. HOLMNGS, LLC Its: Genera].^aj^er /yy By: j r^/y^/j RortA. Padcer Its: Assist/nt Secretary WESTFIELD LLci a Delaware limited hability Corporation By: Approved As to Form: ALSTON & BIRD LLP —- By: Edward J. Casey, Esq. Attorneys for Plaza Camino Real, a Califomia limited partnership, and Westfield U.S. Holdings, LLC, acker Itg: Associate General Counsel Dated: ., 2010 I,riGA[j02/3219312avl Dated: 2010 CITY OF OCEANSIDE Attestefl^y: By : QciU liklAA Peter Weiss Its: City Manager By: C^^nfjMa~:^.rr,r.^j^j^Mc Dated:, Barbara K^el Wayne, City Clerk T. 7 • 2010 Approved As to Form: OFHCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF OCEANSIDE By:. l iol>^i p. Mullen, City Attoraey Dated: 2010 LEGAL02/32193120vl ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On OcM(^ y, JOJO . before me, /In^,^. M 2^.//c^ . Califomia Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing paragraph is tme and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) I » r ll III »j ANNIE M ZETTEl ^ Commlsjion # 1794435 • I Notary Public . Collfofnla i los Ah0eles County - iT?TTPgTy',^;i';"'; f LEGAL01/13150798vl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Everett L. DeLano HI (Calif. Bar No. 162608) M. Dare DeLano (CaUl Bar No, 196707) DELANO & DELANO 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, Califomia 92025 (760)510-1562 (760) 510-1565 (fex) www.delanoandoelano .com Attomeys for Petitioner AUG 1 6 2013 "TiTYOFCARLSBAp^ niTY CLERK'S OFFICE. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH COUNTY DIVISION 37-2013-00061990-CU-WM-NC NORTH COLWY ADVOCATES, a non-profit ) Case No. corporation; ) Petitioner, ) ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF vs. ) MANDATE CITY OF CARLSBAD, a public body corporate ) (Califomia Environmental Quality Act) and politic, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive. Respondents, PLAZA CAMINO REAL, LP, CMF PCR. LLC, ) CITY OF CARLSBAD, and DOES 6 through ) 10, inclusive Real Parties in Interest. North Cotinty Advocates v. City qf Carlsbad Writ Petition Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 INTRODUCTION 1. This action challenges the approvals by Respondent City of Carlsbad ("City" or "Respondent") of the Westfield Carlsbad project ("Project"), and the related feilure to comply witii the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. The Project site is genaally located soudi of Buena Vista Creek and State Route 78, west of El Camino Real, north of Mairon Road and east of an unnamed private loop road that is the northerly extension of Monroe Street, along the City's boundary with the City of Oceanside. 2. Among other things, the City feiled to consider the enviromnental impacts associated with the Project, feiled to prepare and circulate required environmental analysis, and failed to consider and adopt feasible altematives and mitigation. 3. Petitioner seeks altemative and peremptory writs of mandate declaring the City's approvals invalid, and enjoining tiie City from taking steps to implement the approvals. PARTIES 4. Petitioner North County Advocates is a Califomia non-profit public benefit corporation that seeks to protect the environment, public health and welfere in the northem part of San Diego County. Petitioner and its members bave been injured as a result of Respondent's actions. Petitions and its members use, enjoy and benefit from the resources affected by Reqx)ndent's actions. Respondent's actions adversely afifect the recreational, vocational, aesthetic, sciaitific, raivironmaital and economic interests of Petitioner and of Petitioner's members. The interests of Petitioner and Petitioner's members have been and will continue to be adversely affected by Respondent's unlawfiil sutions in violation of CEQA. Hie relief sought in tills Petition would redress Petitioner's and Petitioner's members' injuries. 5. Respondent City of Carlsbad is a political subdivision of the State of Califomia and tiie County of San Diego and a body corporate and politic exercising local govemment powers, as specified by the Constitution and tiie laws of the State of California. 6. Petitioner does not know tiie tiiie names or c^>acities of the persons or aitities sued herein as Does 1 through 5, and thaefore sue tiiese respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner will amend the Petition to set forfli flie names and capacities of said respondents along witii q)propriate charging allegations when tiie same bave been ascratained. North County Advocates v. City qf Ccarlsbad Writ Petition Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. Plaza Camino Real, LP, CMF PCR, LLC, and tiie City of Carlsbad are tiie Project applicants and recipients of Project jqpproval. 8. Petitioner does not know the true names or capacities of tiie persons or entities sued herein as Does 6 tiirough 10, and therefore sue tiiese real paities in interest by such fictitious names. Petitioner will amend the Petition to set forth the names and cqiacities of said real parties in interest along witii appropriate charging allegations v^en the same have been ascertained. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 9. The Westfield Carlsbad Shopping Center was built in 1969. It currentiy is developed with a two- and three-story indoor shopping center with five main anchor store buildings and numerous smaller retail specialty shops. It also contains over 6,400 surface parking spaces as well as several out- buildings within the main mall parking lots and across Marron Road to the soufli ofthe main mall. 10. The area is designated as R, Regional Commercial, on the City's General Plan Land Use Map and C-2, General Commercial, on tiie City's Zoning Map. 11. The Project includes two entitiement requests: (1) the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan, which covers a 77.5 acre boundary area within thc existing Plaza Camino Real Shoppii^ Center and (2) a Site Development Plan for the demolition, reconfiguration, and/or reconstraction of approximately 225,631 square feet of gross leasable area of regional shopping center uses within an 18-acre area ofthe Specific Plan boundary. It also includes frontage improvements along El Camino Real and Marron Road. Upon completion ofthe Project the Westfield Carlsbad shopping center will total approximately 1,150,456 square feet of gross leasable commercial space. 12. On or about August 31, 2012, a Draft EIR regarding the Project was made available for public review. The City received comment letters on the Draft EIR, including from representatives of Petitioner. Subsequentiy, a Final EIR ("FEIR") was prepared. The FEIR concluded tiiat all impacts of the Project would be mitigated to below a level of significance. 13. On June 5,2013, the Carlsbad Planning Commission met to consider tiie Project and EIR. Testimony was received regarding, among other things, transportation impacts, impacts to Buena Vista Creek, and the inconsistency betweai tiie Project and "smart growth" planning principles. With certain modifications, tiie Planning Commission voted to recommaid approval of the Project and EIR. North Couray Advocates v. City Carhbad Page 3 Writ Petitjoo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. On July 9,2013, tiie City Council met to consider tiie Project and EIR, Again, testimony, including from Petitioner, was received regarding several issues. The City Council voted to approve the ProjecL The Project approvals included adopting Resolution No. 2013-176 and Ordinance No. CS- 219, certifying EIR 09-02, and proving findings, a Mitigation Momtoring and Reporting Program, Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan SP 09-01 and Site Development Plan SDP 09-04. 15. A Notice of Determination was filed on July 10,2013. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND INADEQUATE REMEDIES AT LAW 16. Petitioner has exhausted all available administirative remedies, and objections to tiie Project have been presented orally and in writing to the City, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21177. These include, but are not limited to, letters and oral comments presented during public hearings. 17. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21167.5 by mailing a written notice of commencement of this action to the City. A trae and correct copy of that notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 18. Petitioner has advised the City that Petitioner has elected to prepare the reconi of proceedings relevant to the approval of the Project, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, A tiue and correct copy of that notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 19. Petitioner has complied with Public Resources Code Section 21167.7 by filing a copy of the original petition with the Califomia Attomey General. A tiue and correct copy ofthe notification is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 20. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law unless the Court grants the requested writ of mandate requiring the City to set aside its approval ofthe Project and tiie FEIR. In tiie absence of such remedy, the City's approvals will remain in effect in violation of State law, and Petitioner will sufifer irreparable harm because ofthe significant adverse environmental impacts generated by the Prpject. /// III III North County Advocates v. Ct(y qf Carlsbad Page 4 WritPedtion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CEQA PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS) 21. Petitioner incorporates by reference each of the all^ations set fortii in tiiis Petition as if set fbrth herein in fiill. 22. The FEIR fails to meet the requirements for an objective analysis of impacts. 23. Respondents failed to follow procedures mandated by CEQA, including but not limited to, failing to notify responsible agencies, feiltng to provide proper notice for public involvement, failing to provide adequate infomiation in the EIR and allow adequate opportimity for public input, and failing to provide adequate access to Project-related documents, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER EPmRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS REQUIRED BY CEQA) 24. Petitioner incorporates by refra-ence each of the allegations set forfli in this Petition as if set fortii hereiti in fiill. 25. Respondents' approval of the FEIR constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that the FEIR is not in accord with CEQA, tiie CEQA Guidelines, and case law, but rather is legally inadequate and insufficient in numeroios respects, including but not limited to, the following: a. The Project description is not stable and finite, and is unclear, inconsistent, skewed, inaccurate and incomplete in numerous respects; b. The FEIR feils to discuss the existing environmental conditions in the affected area, iacluding but not limited to, conditions on the ground and current planning concHtions; c. The FEIR fails to analyze adequately the significant adverse direct, indirect and cumulative efiects of the Project, including but not limited to, the following: i. Land use and community character impacts, including but not limited to, feiting to address inconsistencies with municipal code requirements, failing to address inconsistencies wifli applicable General Plan requirements, failing to address inconastencies witii tiie Growtii Man^ement Program, failing to address inconsistencies witii smart growth principles, feiling to address inconsistencies witii tbe City's Housing Element, feiling to aldress inconsistencies with Nwth County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad Writ Petition Pages 4 7 10 ' recommaidations of the San Diego Association of Governments, failing to address 2 reqtiirements for paiks and recreation, feiling to address requhements for parking, ^ feilii^ to address inconsistencies \vith relevant habitat planning programs, Ming to address inconsistencies witii the Habitat Management Program, filing to ^ address effects on the physical conditions as they ejosted at tiie time oftiie ^ environmental analysis, and feiling to address impacts to neighborhood and community character; ^ iL Visual quality and aestiietics impacts, including but not limited to, feiling to 5 address impacts to existing resources, failing to address impacts associated with lighting; iii. Transportation and traffic impacts, including but not limited to, failing to consider existing conditions, foiling to address reasonably foreseeable impacts to traffic and traffic safety (including construction traffic, increased traffic, additional delays, narrow roads, overcrowded roads and Lntersections, additional atxidents, reduced access, and shifts in travel routes), failing to address impacts associated with existibag failing streets and roads, failing to consider ail roadways (including regionally significant arterials, fi«eways, ramps, and interchanges), failing to recognize the Project's impacts in relation to existing problems and failing streets and intersections, failing to address safety considerations associated with existing and Project traffic, using inaccurate baseline data, failii^ to assess impacts on alternative transportation (such as public transit, pedestiian and bicycle usage), failing to address the Project's impacts on area roads and intersections, using incorrect criteria to determine impacts, failing to consider sight distance, failing to consider impacts if mitigation is not fully funded, feiling to address impacts to and fix>m parking, relyii^ upon unsupported models and data, using unsupported assumptions, feiling to consider an ^ropriate share of mitigation for Project impacts, failing 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 North County Advocates v. City qf Carlsbad Page 6 Writ Prtition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to analyze adequately impacts to intersections, and failing to analyze all affected areas; iv. Hydrological and water quality impacts, including but not limited to, failing to address reasonably foreseeable impacts and the mtroduction of pollutants to groundwater and surface water, failing to discuss post-construction impacts, and failing to consider criteria for mitigation to impacts; v. Water supply impacts, including but not limited to, failing to address the shortage of water in the area, failing to demonstrate an adequate water supply, failing to consider long-term water needs and supply, failii^ to provide an adequate showing that water supply would be available, and feiling to analyze the impacts of the Project's use of and demand for water; vi. Air quality impacts, including but not limhed to, failing to address reasonably foreseeable impacts (including the contribution of pollutants, grading related impacts, and the lack of attainment of air quality standards), failing to address Greenhouse Gas impacts, failing to use proper criteria to identify impacts to air quality, and failing to consider potential health impacts, including cancer risk; vii. Noise impaits, including but not limited to, failing to. consider existing noise conditions, failing to address reasonably foreseeable impacts, feiling to consider all likely sources of noise, failing to address impacts caused by proposed mitigation, failing to apply applicable standards appropriately, failing to consider likely future noise sources, and relying upon unsupported models and data; viii. Biological resource impacts, including but not limited to, feiling to addrcss unpacts to open space, failing to address impacts to smsitive habitats and plant and animal species, failing to consider unpacts of biological resources below tiie soil, feiling to consider post-construction impacts, failing to consider impacts to non-native grasslands, feiling to address impacts of mitigation propo^d, feiling to address impacts to wildlife corridors and wildlife movement, failing to address impacts North Covnty Advocates v. City of Carhbad Page 7 Writ Petiticra 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 associated with lighting, failing to protect important resources, relying upon old and inadequate survey data, lack of a synthesized project analysis, failing to provide a regional context, failing to address impacts to wetiands aud wetland species, failing to address unpacts associated with constmction and dredging, failing to provide for adequate protection of riparian areas, and failmg to address impacts to other species of concem; bc. Archaeological and paleontological resource impacts, including but not limited to, relying upon old and unreliable surveys, failing to adequately analyze impacts, and madequately disclosing sites; X. Historic and cultural resource impacts, including but not limited to, failing to consider all available resources, failing to consider the entire extent ofthe resource, relying upon improper methods of survey and analysis, failing to adequately analyze unpacts, and inadequately disclostag resources and impacts; xi. Toxics and toxic substances impacts, including impacts associated with hazardous wastes and materials on the site and in the vicinity of thc Project site and neighboring sites, polluted air quality, polluted surface water and groundwater in tiie Project area, and polluted soils in the Project area, and failing to address requirements for the handling and disposal of toxic and hazardous substances and waste; xii. Natural resource impacts, including but not limited to, failing to address soils and geology in the area; xiii. Agricultural resource impacts, including analyzing existing uses; xiv. Public facilities and services impacts, including but not limited to, failing to address impacts to parks and recreation, police, paramedic, fire services, solid waste, water supply, and wastevrater services and failing to comply with the Growth Management Plan's requirements for the provision of public services, including adequate open space; North County Advocates v. City qf Carbbad Writ Petition P^8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 jl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 XV. Growth-related impacts, including growth inducement associated with the Project d. The FEIR fails to consider adequately the cumulative impacts of the Project and other projects that are either existing, approved, planned, or reasonably foreseeable, including future road projects and other developments located both within and outside of Respondents' physical boundaries; e. The FEIR illegally defers analysis of reasonably foreseeable unpacts; f. The FEIR improperly segments the Project, piecemealing or otherwise avoiding reasonably foreseeable impacts, and separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole; g. The FEIR fails to consider adequately impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment, in violation of Section 15126(e) ofthe CEQA Guidelines; h. The FEIR fails to address adequately impacts that caimot be mitigated, including but not limited to, describing their implications and the reasons why the Project is being proposed notwitiistanding its adverse effects; i. The FEIR fails to consider adequately the significant irreversible effects of the Project, in violation of Section 15126(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, including but not limited to, traffic circulation impacts; reduction in visual quality; loss of natural, undeveloped open space and its associated visual and biological resources; increased erosion rates and the potential to exacerbate the loss of iiative top soils due to grading, compaction, and constmction of impervious surfaces; and the change in the existing commumty character, j. The FEER. impermissibly defines the Project objectives in a way to attempt to preclude discussion of reasonable alternatives; k. The FEIR fails to analyze adequately a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which could reduce substantially Project related impacts, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the altematives; North County Advocates v. City of Carbbad Writ Petition Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 j.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The FEIR fails to analyze adequately feasible mitigation measures, fails to provide for mitigation for each environmental effect, illegally relies upon deferred mitigation measures, and fails to provide for effective and enforceable mitigation; and m. The FEIR fails to adopt a proper baseline. 26. Respondents failed to respond adequately to public comments. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO .ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD) 27. Petitioner incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in tiiis Petition as if set forth herein in full. 28. Respondents failed to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations tiiat is supported by substantial evidence in the record despite the Project's significant environmental impacts. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO ADOPT FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES REQUIRED BY CEQA) 29. Petitioner incorporates by reference each of the allegations set fortii in tiiis Petition as if set forth herein in full. 30. Respondents failed to consider and adopt feasible alternatives, includmg but not limited to, altematives requiring less impacts that meet some or all of the Project objectives. 31. Re^ndents defined tiie Project and its objections too narrowly, resulting in a narrowing of the consideration of altematives. 32. Respondents feiled to adopt tiie environmentally superior altemative. 33. Respondents failed to consider and adopt feasible mitigation measures, failed to mitigate for each environmental effect, illegally deferred mitigation, and Mled to provide for effective and enforceable mitigation. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO USE THE CORRECT BASELINE AS REQUIRED BY CEQA) 34. Petitioner incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in tiiis Petition as if set forth herein in full. 35. Respondents failed to use the correct feeline for tb& Project in its environmental analysis. North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad Page 10 Writ Petition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 :4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 36. Respondents failed to consider tibiat the portions of tiie site are currentiy unocciqiied, and instead presumes that development oftiie site is immuient SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO ADOPT HNDINGS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD) 37. Petitioner incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in this Petition as if set forfli herem in full. 38. Respondents failed to adopt findings tiiat are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Among other things, the findings assert that the Project's mitigation measures adequately reduce impacls below a level of significance without adequate evidence in the record to support such fmdings, the findings assert that mitigation measures are infeasible wifliout an adequate consideration of feasible mitigation and witiiout an adequate showing of alleged financial infeasibility, and the findings assert that the Project will be consistent with General Plan and other requirements where there is insufficient evidence to support such consistency findings. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF GENERAL PLAN) 39. Petitioner incorporates by reference each ofthe allegations set forth ip this Petition as if set forth herein in Ml. 40. The City's approval of tiie Project is mconsistent witii the City's General Plan, including Housing Element policies calling for residential uses onthe Project site. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows: A. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and/or permanent injunction enjoining Regwndents fixim taking any steps to fiirther the Project until lawfiil approval is obtained fix>m Respondents after the preparation and consideration of adequate environmental analysis, with adequate notice to interested parties, adoption of findings supported by substantial evidence, and compliance with applicable requirements; B. For alternative and peremptoty writs of mandate, vacating approvai of the FEIR and all aspects ofthe Project, and enjoining Respondents from taking any steps to further the Project until lawfiil North County Advocates v. City cf Carhbad Writ Petition Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J- J. 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 approval is obtained from Respondents after tiie preparation and consideration of adequate environmental analysis, with adequate notice to interested parties, adoption of findings supported by substantial evidence, and compliance with applicable requirements; C. For costs of suit; D. For reasonable attorneys' fees; and E. For such otiier and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: .August 7,2013 Respectfiilly Submitted, DELANO &DELANO M. Dare DeLano Attomeys for Petitioner North County Advocates v. City of Carbbad Writ Petition Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 € 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION' have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and know its contents. I am a party to tiiis action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those maners which are stated on information and belief, and as to tiiose matters! believe tiiem to bc tme. 1 am an officer ofNorth County Advocates, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I malce this verification for that reason. I have read thc foregoing docuraent(s). I am informed and beHeve and on lhat ground allege that the matters stated in it are tme. I am one of the attomeys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the County San Diego, CaUfomia, where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for tiiat reason. I have read die foregoing document(s). I am informed and believe thai on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. Executed on August 7,2013 at Carlsbad, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under thc laws of the State of Califomia that thc foregoing is tme and correct. Patricia Bleha North Count}'Advocates V. City of Cartsbad Page 13 Writ Petition EXHIBIT 1 DELANO SL DELANO August.?, 2013 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Notice of Intention to Commence Action Under the Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act 3i>- m & a «• m i O ft- — Dear City Clerk: Please take notice that Nortii County Advocates intends to commence an action in Califomia Superior Court, alleging violations of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and tiie City's General Plan against tiie City of Carlsbad to challenge the ^provals of the Wesffield Carlsbad project, including adopting Resolution No. 2013-176 and Ordinance No. CS-219, certifying EIR 09-02, and approving findings, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan SP 09-01 and Site Development Plan SDP 09-04. Among other things, the petition will seek to vacate the approval of tiie Project, and to enjoin the City from taking any fiirther steps to implement the approvals. If the City would like to discuss these concems and their possible resolution, please contact the imdersigned immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1*5 D O IS I I Sincerel :verett DeLano f a o I. Si -sl -J 0\ ON 21 O X 3 EXHIBIT 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Everett L. DeLano III (Calif. Bar No. 162608) M. Dare DeLano (Calif. Bai: No. 196707) DELANO & DELANO 220 W, Grand Avenue Escondido, Califomia 92025 (760)510-1562 (760)510-1565 (fax) www.delanoanddelano.com Attomeys for Petitioner SUPERIOR COUHT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH COUNTY DIVISION NORTH COUNTY ADVOCATES, a non-profit ) Case No. corporation; Petitioner, ) NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE vs. ) ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ) CITY OF CARLSBAD, a public body corporate ) (Califomia Environmental Quality Act) and politic, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, j Respondents, PLAZA CAMINO REAL, LP. CMF PCR, LLC. ) CITY OF CARLSBAD, and DOES 6 tiirough ) 10, inclusive ) Real Parties in Interest. \ ) : By this notice. Petitioner gives notice that Petitioner elects to prepare the administrative record ui the above-entitied action. DATED: August 7,2013 Respectfiilly Submitted, DEL.\NO & DELANO By: : ^^^^ - Evifett L. DeLano HI Attomey for Petitioner North County Advocates v. City of Carhbad Page ] Notice of Election to Prepare Record EXHIBITS 1 2 3 4 b 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 PROOF OF SERVICE North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad_ I, the imdersigned, declare: 1. I am over tiie age of 18 years and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of San Diego, Califorma, in wMch county tiie witiiin mentioned service occurred. My busmess address is 220 W. Grand Avenue, Escondido CA 92025. 2. I am femiliar with this office's nonnal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing witii tiie U.S. Postal Service. That practice is lo deposit correspondence with the U.S, Postal Service tiie same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. 3. On August 8, 2013,1 served a copy of VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE to the following by the following means: California Attoraey Gei^ral Service Deputy 300 Soutii Sprmg St. Los Angeles, CA 90013 U.S. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury that tiie foregoing is trae and correct. Dated this Thursday, August 08,2013 at Escondido, California, M. D'are DeLano ?roof of Service SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO • CENTRAL DIVISION, HALL OF JUSTICE, 330 W. BROADWAY, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 J EAST COUNTY DIVISION, 250 E. MAIN ST.. EL CAJON, CA 92020 J EAST COU^frY DIVISION, RAMONA, 1428 MONTECITO RD., RAMONA CA 92065 J NORTH COUNTY DIVISION, 325 S. MELROSE DR., VISTA, CA 92081 • SOUTH COUNTY DIVISION, 500 3RD AVE., CHUIA VISTA, CA 91910 FOR COURT USE ONLY PLAINTIFF(S) ASSIGNED JUDGE DEFENDANT(S) DEPT STIPULATION TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER The parties and their attomeys stipulate that the matter is at issue and the claims in this action shall be submitted to the following altemative dispute resolution (ADR) process. Selection of any of these options will not delay any case management timelines. • Mediation (court-connected) • Mediation (private) • Voluntary settlement conference (private) • Neutral evaluation (private) • Non-binding private arbitration • Binding private arbitration • Non-binding judicial arbitration (discovery until 15 days before trial) • Non-binding judicial arbitration (discovery until 30 days before trial) • Other (specify e.g., private mini-trial, pnvate judge, etc.): It is also stipulated that the following shall serve as arbitrator, mediator or other neutral: (Name) Alternate neutral (for court Civil Mediation Program and arbitration onty):. Date: Date: Name of Plaintiff Name of Defendant Signature Signature Name of Plaintiff's Attomey Name of Defendant's Attomey Signature Signature If there are more parties and/or attorneys, please attach additional completed and fully executed sheets. It is the duty of the parties to notify the court of any settlement pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, mle 3.1385. Upon notification of the settlement, the court will place this matter on a 45-day dismissal calendar No new parties may be added without leave of court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: Judge of the Superior Court SDSC CIV-359 (Rev. 12/10) STIPULATION TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) Cal RiMs of Court, rule 3.1389 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION NOTICE: All plaintiffs/cross-complainants in a general civil case are required to serve a copy of the foilowing three forms on each defendant/cross-defendant, together with the complaint/cross-complaint: (1) this Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information form (SDSC form #CIV-730), (2) the Stipulation to Use Alternative Dispute Resoiution (ADR) form (SDSC form #CIV-359), and (3) the Notice of Case Assignment form (SDSC form #CIV-721). Most civil disputes are resolved without filing a lawsuit, and most civil lawsuits are resolved without a trial. The courts, community organizations, and private providers offer a variety of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes to help people resolve disputes without a trial. The San Diego Superior Court expects that litigants will utilize some form of ADR as a mechanism for case settlement before trial, and it may be beneficial to do this early in the case. Below is some information about the potential advantages and disadvantages of ADR, the most common types of ADR, and how to find a local ADR program or neutral. A form for agreeing to use ADR is attached (SDSC fomi #CIV-359). Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of ADR ADR may have a variety of advantages or disadvantages over a trial, depending on the type of ADR process used and the particular case: Potential Advantages • Saves time • Saves money • Gives parties more control over the dispute resolution process and outcome • Preserves or improves relationships Potential Disadvantages • May take more time and nrcney if ADR does not resolve the dispute • Procedures to learn about the other side's case (discovery), jury trial, appeal, and other court protections may be limited or unavailable IVIost Common Tvoes of ADR You can read more information about these ADR processes and watch videos that demonstrate them on the court's ADR webpage at http://www.sdcourt.ca.qov/adr. Mediation: A neutral person called a "mediator" helps the parties communicate in an effective and constmctive manner so they can try to settle their dispute. The mediator does not decide the outcome, but helps the parties to do so. Mediation is usually confidential, and may be particularly useful when parties want or need to have an ongoing relationship, such as in disputes between family members, neighbors, co-workers, or business partners, or when parties want to discuss non-legal concerns or creative resolutions that could not be ordered at a trial. Settlement Conference: A judge or another neutral person called a "settlement officer" helps the parties to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their case and to discuss settlement. The judge or settlement officer does not make a decision in the case but helps the parties to negotiate a settlement. Settlement conferences may be particulariy helpful when the parties have very different ideas about the likely outcome of a trial and would like an experienced neutral to help guide them toward a resolution. Arbitration: A neutral person called an "arisitrator" considers arguments and evidence presented by each side and then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less fonnal than a trial, and the rules of evidence are usually relaxed. If the parties agree to binding arbitration, they waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision as final. With nonbinding arbitration, any party may reject the artjitrator's decision and request a trial. Arbitration may be appropriate when the parties want another person to decide the outcome of their dispute but would like to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial. SDSC CIV-730 (Rev. 12/10) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION Pagel of2 other ADR Processes: There are several other types CJf ADR which are not offered through the court but which may be obtained privately, including neutral evaluation, conciliation, fact finding, mini-trials, and summary jury trials. Sometimes parties will try a combination of ADR processes. The important thing is to try to find the type or types of ADR that are most likely to resolve your dispute. Be sure to learn about the rules of any ADR program and the qualifications of any neutral you are considering, and about their fees. Local ADR Programs for Civil Cases Mediation: The San Diego Superior Court maintains a Civil Mediation Panel of approved mediators who have met certain minimum qualifications and have agreed to charge $150 per hour for each of the first two (2) hours of mediation and their regular houriy rate thereafter in court-refen-ed mediations. On-line mediator search and selection: Go to the court's ADR webpage at www.sdcourt.ca.aov/adr and click on the "Mediator Search" to review individual mediator profiles containing detailed infonnation about each mediator including their dispute resolution training, relevant experience, ADR specialty, education and employment history, mediation style, and fees and to submit an on-line Mediator Selection Form (SDSC form #CIV-005). The Civil Mediation Panel List, the Available Mediator List, individual Mediator Profiles, and Mediator Selection Form (CIV-005) can also be printed from the court's ADR webpage and are available at the Mediation Program Office or Civil Business Office at each court location. Settlement Conference: The judge may order your case to a mandatory settlement conference, or voluntary settlement conferences may be requested from the court ifthe parties certify that: (1) settlement negotiations between the parties have been pursued, demands and offers have been tendered in good faith, and resolution has failed; (2) a judicially supervised settlement conference presents a substantial opportunity for settlement; and (3) the case has developed to a point where all parties are legally and factually prepared to present the issues for settlement consideration and further discovery for settlement purposes is not required. Refer to SDSC Local Rule 2.2.1 for more infbrmation. To schedule a settlement conference, contact the department to which your case is assigned. Arbitration: The San Diego Superior Court maintains a panel of approved judicial artsitrators who have practiced law for a minimum of five years and who have a certain amount of trial and/or ariaitration experience. Refer to SDSC Local Rules Division II. Chapter III and Code Civ. Proc. ^ 1141.10 et seq or contact the ArtDitration Program Office at (619) 450-7300 for more information. More information about court-connected ADR: Visit the court's ADR webpage at www.sdcourt.ca.qov/adr or contact the court's Mediation/Arisitration Office at (619) 450-7300. Dispute Resolution Programs Act (DRPA) funded ADR Programs: The following community dispute resolution programs are funded under DRPA (Bus. and Prof Code §§ 465 et seq.): • In Central, East, and South San Diego County, contact the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC) at www.ncrconline.com or (619) 238-2400. • In North San Diego County, contact North County Lifeline, Inc. at www.nclifeline.orq or (760) 726-4900. Private ADR: To find a private ADR program or neutral, search the Internet, your local telephone or business directory, or legal newspaper for dispute resolution, mediation, settlement, or arbitration services. Legal Representation and Advice To participate effectively in ADR, it is generally important to understand your legal rights and responsibilities and the likely outcomes if you went to trial. ADR neutrals are not allowed to represent or to give legal advice to the participants in the ADR process. If you do not already have an attomey, the Califomia State Bar or your local County Bar Association can assist you in finding an attomey. Information about obtaining free and low cost legal assistance is also available on the California courts website at wvw. courtinfo. ca. gov/selfhelpAowcost. SDSC civ-730 (Rev 12/10) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION Page 2 of 2 Superior Court of Califomia County of San Diego NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO IMAGING DEPARTMENT This case has been assigned to an Imaging Department and original documents attached to pleadings filed with the court wili be imaged and destroyed. Original documents should not be filed with pleadings. If necessary, they should be lodged with the court under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1302(b). On August 1,2011 the San Diego Superior Court began tiie Electi-onic Filing and Imaging Pilot Program ("Program"). As of August 1,2011 in all new cases assigned to an Imaging Departtnent all filings will be imaged electronically and the electronic version of tiie document will be the official court file. The official court file vrill be electronic and accessible at one ofthe kiosks located in the Civil Business OfRce and on the Internet through the court's website. This Prograra will be expanding to other civil courtrooms over rime. You should be aware that the electronic copy of the filed document(s) will be the official court record pursuant to Govemment Code section 68150. The paper filing will be imaged and held for 30 days. After that time it will be destroyed and recycled. Thus, you should not attach any original documents to pleadings filed with the San Diego Superior Court Original documents filed with the court will be imaged and destroyed except those documents specified in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1806. Any original documents necessary for a motion hearing or ti-ial shall be lodged in advance of tiie hearing pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, mle 3.13020?). It is the duty of each plaintiff, cross-complainant or petitioner to serve a copy of this notice with the complaint, cross-complaint or petition on all parties in the action. On all pleadings filed afler tiie initial case originating filing, all parties must, to the extent it is feasible to do so, place the words "IMAGED FILE" in all caps immediately under the title ofthe pleading on all subsequent pleadings filed in the action. Please refer to the General Order - Imaging located on the San Diego Superior Court website at: http://www.sdcourt,ca,gov/CivillmagingGeneraIOrder Paga: 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STREET ADDRESS: 325 S. Melrase MAILING ADDRESS: 32S S. Melross CITY AND Z»P CODE; Vista. CA 92081 BRANCH NAME: North County TELEPHONE NUMBER: (760) 201-8026 FOH COUKT USE ONLY PLAINTIFF; North County Advocates FOH COUKT USE ONLY DEFENDANT: City of Carisbad FOH COUKT USE ONLY Short Title; North County Advocates vs. City of Cartsbad [IMAGEDJ FOH COUKT USE ONLY NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT CASE NUMBER: 37-2013-00061990-CU-WM-NG Filed : 08/08/2013 EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE HAS BEEN REASSfGNED to Judge Robert P Dahlquist, in Department N-29 due to the following reason: Independent Calendar Department Case All subsequent documents filed in tills case must include the name of the new judge and the department number on the first page immediately tselow the number of the case. All counsel and self-represented litigants are advised that Division II of the Superior Court Rules Is strictly enforced. It is the duty of each plaintiff (and cross-complainant) to serve a copy of tNs notice with the complaint (and cross-complaint). (Rev 8-06) NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT P*ga:1 DELANO & DELANO August 16,2013 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL City Clerk CityofCarlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: North Countv Advocates v. Citv of Carlsbad. Case No. 37-2013-00061990 Dear City Clerk: m I o a. _ I Since Petitioner has elected to prepare the administrative record in this action, Petitioner will need to gain access to the records related to the Westfield Mall Project, including the categories of records listed in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). These include all of the following: • All project application materials, § 21167.6(e)( 1); • All staff reports and related documents, §§21167.6(e)(2) & (3); • Any transcript or minutes, § 21167.6(e)(4); • All notices, §21167.6(e)(5); • All comments and responses, § 21167.6(e)(6); • All written evidence or correspondence, § 21167.6(e)(7); • Any proposed decisions or findings, § 21167.6(e)(8); and • Other written materials, including drafts of any environmental dociunent, or portions thereof, and all intemal agency communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to the project or to compliance with CEQA, § 21l67.6(e)(10). This request, on behalf of North Coimty Advocates, is pursuant to both CEQA and the Public Records Act. This request includes all electronic records. At this time. Petitioner is requesting access to the records related to the Project, As such, there should be no charge for allowing Petitioner to review them. During review of these records, Petitioner can decide which records will need to be copied and the manner of copying. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, a* 1^ su rr •St t— f > i 2 s- O ta D. §• O o n 0 O 1 I Ov ov '.Jl N> 9 o a DELANO & DELANO August?, 2013 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL City Clerk City of Carisbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Notice of Intention to Commence Action Under the Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act Dear City Clerk: m I- < a m <« m a. H <5 O I Please take notice that North County Advocates intends to commence an action in Califomia Superior Court, alleging violations of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's General Plan against the City of Carlsbad to challenge the approvals oftiie Westfield Carlsbad project, including adopting Resolution No, 2013-176 and Ordinance No, CS-219, certifying EIR 09-02, and approving findings, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan SP 09-01 and Site Development Plan SDP 09-04, Among other things, the petition will seek to vacate the approval of the Project, and to enjoin the City from taking any further steps to implement the approvals. If the City would like to discuss these concems and their possible resolution, please contact the undersigned immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter. § > £. m «t I— 3 z s- o 2- Sincerel iverett DeLano ro n o 3 a. ol a n > vO to c |vJ to o a 3 O. ft 3 C L/l Ln O O L/l Ln ov Ov Ln K) c ft ViCARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov July 30, 2013 CMP PCR LLC c/o Westfield, LLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 11*^ Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF RESTRiaiON - SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD Dear Applicant: Please find the enclosed Notice of Restriction that needs to be signed, notarized, and returned for recordation. This is to fulfill a condition of approval of the Site Development Plan. Please ensure the following items are addressed prior to returning the Notice of Restriction: ^ Correct Notary Acknowledgement Required (Effective Januarv 1. 2008. all Certificates of Acknowledgement used by a California notarv on a document that will be recorded in the State of California must NOT HAVE "PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME" in the acknowledgement. (Assembly Bill 886, Chapter 399)) ^ Document must be properly notarized. ^ Name on signature page and name on Notarial Acknowledgement must match. Property owner's signatures/initials must be the same as on Notary Acknowledgement. ^ Notary Seal cannot be blurry/too light (County will not record ttie document if any portion of tlie Notary Seal is blurry or too liglit). ^ Include property owner's name in the designated space above the owner's signature. Please pay particular attention to the signature requirements at the bottom of the signature page. It is our goal to assist you in getting the Notice of Restriction recorded as expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions or need additional assistance, please contact Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst at (760) 602-4615 or via email at michele.masterson@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner c: CED Senior Management Analyst File Copy h. Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND) WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Space above this line for Recorder's use Assessor's Parcel Number Project Number and Name 156-302-08-00 SDP 09-04 - Westfield Carlsbad NOTICE OF RESTRICTION ON REAL PROPERTY The real property located in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California described as follows: Lot 12 of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 76-18 (Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center) in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 8956, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 11, 1978, is restricted by a Site Development Plan No. SDP 09-04 approved by the City of Carlsbad on July 9, 2013. A copy is on file at the City of Carisbad Planning Division. The obligations and restrictions imposed are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. Rev. 01/2013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO On before me, Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Signature of Notary) Rev. 12/17/2007 156-302-08 SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD OWNER: Owner's Name Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF CARLSBAD DON NEU, City Planner Print name and title Date Signature Print name and title CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney By; Assistant City Attorney Date Date (Proper notarial acl<nowledgment of execution by Contractor must be attactied.) (Ctiairman, president or vice-president and secretary, assistant secretary, CFO or assistant treasurer must sign for corporations. Ottierwise, ttie corporation must attacti a resolution certified by ttie secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering ttie officer(s) signing to bind ttie corporation.) (if signed by an individual partner, the partnership must attach a statement of partnership authorizing the partner to execute this instrument). Rev. 01/31/2013 A:ro?"/^^ aFILE V^CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov July 30, 2013 Plaza Camino Real, a California Limited Partnership c/o Westfield, LLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, ll**" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF RESTRICTION - SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD Dear Applicant: Please find the enclosed Notice of Restriction that needs to be signed, notarized, and returned for recordation. This is to fulfill a condition of approval of the Site Development Plan. Please ensure the following items are addressed prior to returning the Notice of Restriction: Correct Notary Acknowledgement Required (Effective Januarv 1. 2008. all Certificates of Acknowledgement used by a California notarv on a document that will be recorded in the State of California must NOT HAVE "PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME" in the acknowledgement. (Assembly Bill 886, Chapter 399)) >^ Document must be properly notarized. Name on signature page and name on Notarial Acknowledgement must match. ^ Property owner's signatures/initials must be the same as on Notary Acknowledgement. *^ Notary Seal cannot be blurry/too light (County will not record the document if any portion ofthe Notary Seal is blurry or too light). ^ Include property owner's name in the designated space above the owner's signature. Please pay particular attention to the signature requirements at the bottom of the signature page. It is our goal to assist you in getting the Notice of Restriction recorded as expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions or need additional assistance, please contact Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst at (760) 602-4615 or via email at michele.masterson@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner c: CED Senior Management Analyst File Copy Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © f RECORDING REQUESTED BYAND) WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carisbad Village Drive Carisbad, California 92008-1989 Space above this line for Recorder's use Assessor's Parcel Number Project Number and Name 156-302-09 &18-22 SDP 09-04 - Westfield Carisbad NOTICE OF RESTRICTION ON REAL PROPERTY The real property located in the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California described as follows: Lots 2-6 and 13 of Carisbad Tract No. CT 76-18 (Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center) in the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 8956, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 11, 1978, is restricted by a Site Development Plan No. SDP 09-04 approved by the City of Carisbad on July 9, 2013. A copy is on file at the City of Carisbad Planning Division. The obligations and restrictions imposed are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. Rev. 01/2013 V 156-302-09 & 18-22 SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD OWNER: Owner's Name Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF CARLSBAD DON NEU, City Planner Print name and title Date Signature Print name and title CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney By^ Assistant City Attorney Date Date (Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Contractor must be attached.) (Chairman, president or vice-president and secretary, assistant secretary, CFO or assistant treasurer must sign for corporations. Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.) (If signed by an individual partner, the partnership must attach a statement of partnership authorizing the partner to execute this instrument). Rev. 01/31/2013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 4 On before me. Notary Public, who proved to me personally appeared on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Signature of Notary) Rev. 12/17/2007 I m ViCARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov July 30, 2013 City of Carlsbad City Manager's Office 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF RESTRICTION - SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD Dear Applicant: Please find the enclosed Notice of Restriction that needs to be signed, notarized, and returned for recordation. This is to fulfill a condition of approval of the Site Development Plan. Please ensure the following items are addressed prior to returning the Notice of Restriction: Correct Notary Acknowledgement Required (Effective Januarv 1, 2008. all Certificates of Acknowledgement used by a California notary on a document that will be recorded in the State of California must NOT HAVE "PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME" in the acknowledgement. (Assembly Bill 886, Chapter 399)) Document must be properly notarized. Name on signature page and name on Notarial Acknowledgement must match. Property owner's signatures/initials must be the same as on Notary Acknowledgement. Notary Seal cannot be blurry/too light (County will not record the document if any portion of the Notary Seal is blurry or too light). Include property owner's name in the designated space above the owner's signature. Please pay particular attention to the signature requirements at the bottom ofthe signature page. It is our goal to assist you in getting the Notice of Restriction recorded as expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions or need additional assistance, please contact Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst at (760) 602-4615 or via email at michele.masterson@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, imcereiy, i JASON GOFF fl Associate Planner c: CED Senior Management Analyst File Copy Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® Ik RECORDING REQUESTED BYAND) WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carisbad Village Drive Carisbad, California 92008-1989 Space above this line for Recorder's use Assessor's Parcel Number Project Number and Name 156-302-17, 23&24 SDP 09-04 - Westfield Carisbad NOTICE OF RESTRICTION ON REAL PROPERTY The real property located in the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California described as follows: Lots 1, 7 and 9 of Carisbad Tract No. CT 76-18 (Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center) in the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 8956, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 11, 1978, is restricted by a Site Development Plan No. SDP 09-04 approved by the City of Carisbad on July 9, 2013. A copy is on file at the City of Carisbad Planning Division. The obligations and restrictions imposed are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. Rev. 01/2013 156-302-17, 23 &24 SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD OWNER: Owner's Name Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF CARLSBAD DON NEU, City Planner Print name and title Date Signature Print name and title CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney By^ Assistant City Attorney Date Date (Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Contractor must be attached.) (Chairman, president or vice-president and secretary, assistant secretary, CFO or assistant treasurer must sign for corporations. Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seai empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.) (If signed by an individual partner, the partnership must attach a statement of partnership authorizing the partner to execute this instrument). Rev. 01/31/2013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO On before me, Notary Public, personally appeared \ , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instmment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Signature of Notary) Rev. 12/17/2007 Jason Goff From: Sent: To: Subject: Bridget Desmarais on behalf of Planning Monday June 10, 2013 8:07 AM Jason Goff FW: New Westfield PCR From: Jenna Carison rmailto:luckylittlemustardseed@qmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 6:45 AM To: Pianning Cc: cwahl@swspr.com: iluternauer@5wspr.com Subject: New Westfield PCR To Whom It May Concern: I, Jenna Carlson, support the New Westfield PCR. Since moving from the Midwest in May of 2009,1 have called North County San Diego home. During the past four years, I have been highly disappointed in the state of the Carlsbad Westfield Mall. We need to create a clean/updated shopping destination for everyone. It must be much more convenient, comfortable and modem than what we currently experience when we walk through its doors. Plus, I am sure it will create more jobs and generate new tax revenues for our city by the sea. Thank you for your time and I hope to see the project approved in the near future. Sincerely, Jeima Carlson DELANO & DELANO July 9,2013 VIA E-MAIL Mayor Hall and Honorable Members of the City Counci! c/o City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Julv 9.2013 City Council Meeting: Agenda Item #17: Westfield Carlsbad Project and EIR I Dear Mayor Hall and Honorable Members of the City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf ofNorth County Advocates in cormection with the proposed Westfield Carlsbad project ("Projecf) and related Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), The Westfield Mall site poses an outstanding opportunity for smart growth, SANDAG has designated the site as a possible "Town Center," having a potential for "200 to 400 multi-family residential units," Yet the EIR fails to discuss SANDAG's designation, and the Project fails to provide any mixed-use opportunities or even to provide for the possibility of such uses in the future. The response from City staff on this point has been that the Project does not preclude smart growth, but such a response misses the point - now is the time to pursue smart growth, not to wait until some undefined opportunity arises in the unknown future, particularly since the Project only decreases the possibility of smart growth on the site. Furthermore, as my October 19,2012 letter noted, the EIR adopts an incorrect baseline for much of its discussion, reasoning that the "existing" environment includes occupancy of the vacant Robinsons-May store, CEQA specifically provides that an agency must consider the existing conditions. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4''' 310, 322. Failing to account for these existing conditions renders the EIR's analysis of traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, aesthetics, noise and other impacts insufficient. § > i z s- o ta § a a ol o n > vO o Ln O S s Q. n 3 C n Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. Sincerely, eLano Ln Ln 9 9 Ln Ln Ov Ov Ln to ft Jason Goff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bill Hofman <bhofman@hofmanplanning.com> Tuesday, July 09, 2013 2:55 PM Council Internet Email Jason Goff; Don Neu; Jane Mobaldi; Chris DeCerbo Westfield Response to DeLano & DeLano Comment Letter 7_9_13 Response to DeLano Comment Letter_1 (2).PDF Hi Andie, Attached is a letter of response from Westfield's attorney to an eariier letter submitted to the City Council today from DeLano & DeLano. Could you please distribute to the City Council and City Clerk for tonight's meeting? Let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks. Bill Hofman, President HOFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3156 Lionshead Avenue • Carisbad • CA • 92010 760-692-4012 Direct • 760-692-4100 General 760-692-4105 Fax www, hof ma nplanninq.com ALSTON&BIRDUP 333 South I lope Street •16th Floor L.OS Angeles, CA 90071 -1410 213-576-1000 Fax:213-576-1100 www.alston.coni July 9, 2013 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tem Mark Packard Council Meniber Keith Blackburn Council Member Farrah Golshan Douglas Council Meniber Lorraine Wood City of Carisbad 1200 Carisbad Viilage Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Westfield Carhbad Environmenlai Impact Report 09-02 (Item 17) Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Packard, and Honorable Council Members: We are in receipt ofthe July 9, 2013 letter submitted by DeLano & DeLano regarding the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan and Site Development Plan. The comnients provided in the DeLano letter were previously provided as part of DeLano & DeLano's Draft EIR comment letter dated October 19, 2012. These comments were thoroughly responded to as part ofthe Final EIR that was completed in December 2012, We are providing a summary of those responses here Ibr your convenience. The comment regarding SANDAG's designation for the project site was addressed in Response to Comment No. J4 of the Final EIR and discussion of SANDAG's designation of the site was incorporated into Section 4.9 Land Use and Planning of the Final EIR. As set forth therein, SANDAG has designated the Westfield Carisbad shopping center as a potential "Town Center" area. The minimum land use and transportation targets established for Town Centers include a minimuni of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), 30 employees per acre, and the provision of light rail transit, rapid bus, or streetcar/shuttle. Accordingly, the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map Site De.'scripfions state that potential development could add anywhere from 200 to 400 multi- family residential units and additional retail square footage within the Westfield Carlsbad shopping center. In addition, the Smart GroM'th Concept Map Site Descriptions further notes that this smart growth opportunity area is currently served with high-frequency local transportation service, with two existing rapid bus transit stations located in the eastern jiortion ofthe opportunity area. Furthermoie, the Smart Growth Concept Map Site AllaiMa* Brussels • Charlotte' D.ilLis • li>s Angeles • New York* Research Triangle • Silicoii Valley • Ventura Counly • Washington, D.C. City of Carisbad July 9,2013 Page 2 Deicriptions also identify the additional light/commuter rail service that exists approximately 1.5 miles north ofthe shopping center. While no residential uses are being proposed as part ofthe SDP project, and such uses are not a reasonably foreseeable phase of the SDP, the Westfield Carisbad SP would permit the future development of residential units on-site, subject to further environmental review under CEQA and the City's approval of additional discretionary actions. In addition, the shopping center site would continue to meet the minimum employment requirements of 30 employees per acre consistent with a Town Center. Furthermore, the Specific Plan area would continue to be sei"ved by high-frequency local transportation service, two existing rapid bus transit stations, and light/commuter rail service to the north ofthe shopping center. Therefore, the proposed project would support smart growth and would not alter SANDAG's identification of the site as a potential Town Center. The comment from DeLano & DeLano regarding the baseline for the proposed project has been thoroughly addressed in Response to Comment No. RTC J3 ofthe Final EIR. As the California Supreme Court in recognized in the very cases relied upon by DeLano & DeLano, a "temporary lull or spike in operations that happens to occur at the time environmental review for a new project begins should not depress or elevate the baseline." {Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327-28.) Since "environmental conditions may vary from year to year" "in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods." (Id.) That is particularly true here. Although the City of Carlsbad acknowledges that the former Robinson's-May department store space is currently vacant, its space has been occupied both in the long-term and recent period. Specifically, the Robinson's-May store was operated by the Robinson's-May retailer for more than 30 years until its vacancy in 2006. Since 2006, the Robinson's-May space has been occupied by other retail users from time to time. Considering the occupancy ofthe Robinson's May space over a range of time, the current vacancy represents a temporary lull in the space's occupancy. Moreover, the applicant has a vested right to lease the Robinson's-May space to other retail users up to the same level of occupancy as the Robinson's-May occupancy. Therefore, given that the current vacancy of the Robinson's-May space is part of a temporary vacancy, the Draft EIR appropriately presumed an occupied store is part of the environmental baseline condition for the purposes of the EIR's analysis ofthe proposed project. Thus, the EIR's analyses are fully sufficient under CEQA. City of Carisbad July 9,2013 Page 3 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ALSTON & BIRD LLP iM-i Neal P. Maguire l,EaA1.02/34256463v3 A>c..o. FILE COPY ViCARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION June 6, 2013 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1 Carisbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD At the June 5, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-1 (Siekmann) to recommend certification/recommend approval as amended your request. The decision ofthe Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please contact your project planner Jason Goff at (760) 602-4643 or Jason.goff@carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:JG:bd c: Data Entry File Stephen Fluhr, Westfield, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Kim Baranek, Helix Environmental Planning, 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 enc: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6981, 6982 and 6983 Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © (JRLSBAD >^ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE June 5, 2013 Planning Commission City of Carisbad (City Hall 1200 CaHsbad Village Dr. CaHsbad CA 92008 Dear Commissioners: The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce is wholeheartedly supporting the revitalization of the Westfield Plaza Camino Real shopping mall project that is before you this evening. The revitalization wilt completely overhaul the facility. Everything from the ground up will be redone. In addition to the facelift the center will transform into a shopping and tourism destination. Westfield is making a multimillion dollar investment into their property which will create jobs and new sales taxes that will grow the quality of life of the city for its residents. Once the center is completed in 2014 it will immediately become a region wide shopping attraction which will bring thousands of shoppers from the immediate area as well as visitors to the county. Respectfully submitted. Ted Owen President/CEO CaHsbad Chamber of Commerce 5934 Priestly Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 931-8400 • Fax: (760) 931-9153 • E-mail: chamber@carlsbad.org • Web: www.carlsbad.org ACCREDITED Bridget Desmarais From: OSBORNE, JOHN R <jo2783@att.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:55 PM To: Planning Subject: I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Dear Planning Commission representative. As a Board member of the Carisbad Chamber of Commerce. I urge your prompt support for the proposal in front of you to upgrade the Westfield shopping center in Carisbad. I believe the proposed changes will enhance the city's image, provide an improved shopping experience for all the residents of North County. In addition, a revitalized shopping center is sure to boost the city's sales tax revenues which will in turn support the many vital services the city provides. For these and a host of other reasons, I urge your support. Thank you. John Osborne AT&T Director - External Affairs 101 W. Broadway, Ste 1310 San Diego, CA 92101 o: 619-237-2144 m: 619-200-3024 f: 619-231-0758 e: iohn.osborne@att.com Texting and Driving: It Can Wait. Take the pledge today and pass it on! Sabrina Michelson From: Sent: To: Subject: Joseph G. Charest <jcharest@KatzandAssociates.com> Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:09 PM Planning Westfield El Camino Real I am happy to add my name in support of the renovation plans for the Westfield El Camino Real shopping center. This center has grown old even as more modern centers have renovated and prospered. Clearly, Westfield is willing to invest in its center and, by doing so, is investing in Carisbad, as a revitalized center will certainly draw more shoppers - including many who would be spending their shopping dollars at other, more modern centers in other cities ~ and therefore add significantly to Carisbad's tax base. I work near Westfield's UTC property and the transformation there has been amazing. It has become a gathering place for the surrounding community as well as a shopping mecca. Please vote in favor of allowing the Westfield plan to go forward. Joe Charest | Vice President 3347 Del Rio Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92009 ITB(YI NO. 3 Sabrina Michelson From: Dan Hulen <dan@schubachaviation.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 4:44 PM To: Planning Cc: kchristianson@univ-wea.com Subject: I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Dear Commissioners: The Carisbad Chamber of Commerce is wholeheartedly supporting the revitalization of the Westfield Plaza Camino Real shopping mall project that will transform this underutilized and underperforming asset to the community. It is vital that the planning commission approve the plan as presented by Westfield to completely redevelop and bring this CaHsbad landmark back to vitality and profitability. I have seen the proposal and remodel plans from the Westfield group. It is innovative, people centric and makes an impressive statement regarding quality of life and additional revenue for the citizens of our community. Westfield has a proven track record in revitalizing properties such as this one, upon it's completion in 2014, this project will provide a quality regional shopping, dining and entertainment option to shoppers from Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista. Respectfully yours, Daniel R. Hulen Director of Operations General Manager Schubach Aviation 2026 Palomar Airport Rd. CaHsbad, CA.92011 760-929-0307 Office 760-310-7443 Cell 760-683-6809 efax dan@schubachaviation.com Bridget Desmarais From: Darrell Pilant <DPilant@caesars.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:46 PM To: Planning Subject: I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! We don't have a decent mall in Carisbad. Please revitalize the existing mall so that it becomes a place that people want to shop. I live in Carisbad Village and fully support this project. Thank you. Darrell Pilant 3391 Madison Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Subject: Mills, Trisa <Trisa.MILLS@tmag.com> Wednesday June 05, 2013 2:25 PM Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! As the Community Relations Director for Taylor Made Golf Company we support the revitalization of the Westfield Plaza Camino Real, as recommended. Thank you Trisa trisa mills director | charity community relations and kingdom programs trisa.mills@tmaQ.com o: 760.918.6358 | c: 760.212.0260 | f: 760.918.2366 taylormade golf company 5545 fermi court carlsbad, ca 92008 Follow Us -ij^Jj^ You BACK IN , BLACK This email and any attachments contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). Ifyou are not an intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or use of information within it Is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error or without authorization, please notify us immediately by reply email and permanently delete all copies of the email and any attachments from your system. If you need any further assistance, please send a message to postmastenatT)^? • PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL. Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Valentine, James W. <JValentine@semprautilities.com> Wednesday June 05, 2013 2:58 PM Planning Ted Owen (TedOwen@carisbad.org) I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! As a Carlsbad resident, Chamber Board Member and SDG&E employee I fully support the revitalization ofthe Westfield Plaza Camino Real. This project is long overdue and will finally help serve the needs of community in a way they deserve. Jim Valentine Manager, Operations Perfomiance Services Electric Regional Operations San Diego Gas & Electric 8315 Century Park Court, CP 22A San Diego, CA 92123 Work - (858) 636-5701 FAX - (858) 636-3967 Cell - (760) 405-5649 ivalentine@semDrautilities. com Bridget Desmarais tem From: Sent: To: Subject: Deb Beddoe <deb@youropsmanager.com> Wednesday, June 05, 2013 12:05 PM Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Planning Commission Finally the Westfied remodel can be approved!! I know the voters are confused as to why this has taken so long as the mall in its current state does not reflect Carlsbad values. I applaud you for approving the remodel and look forward to supporting the remodeled mall with my shopping dollars. Best regards. Deb Beddoe, Founder & CEO Your Ops Manager www.vouropsmanaeer.com 760-603-1800 YOUROPSMANAG ER 2012 Small Business ofthe Year 2013 Finalist Small Business ofthe Decade Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Subject: Mimi Gaffey <gaffey@cox.net> Wednesday June 05, 2013 10:57 AM Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Even though I don't live in Carlsbad, I have waited a very long time to see something done to Plaza Camino Real Shopping Mall. It will keep a lot of us from going to Escondido or San Diego to go to a vibrant mall setting. I strongly urge the Council to proceed post haste with allowing Westfield to start NOW to get this done. Mimi gaffey Bridget Desmarais From: Joe - Sharon Salas <salasinn2@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:39 AM To: Planning Subject: I support the new Westfield Plaza Camino Real Dear Sir/Madam: After attending the community meeting regarding the Westfield Mall, I feel that the remodeling would be an upgrade. Because Sears, JC Penneys and Macys own their structures and the land underneath them, it Is difficult for me to believe that there would be any major upgrade in the quality of Stores. The theater would be a major attraction and I would heartily approve of it. My specific concern is that the increase In traffic coming down Monroe would Impact the residents who live along Monroe and have to use Wickham for their ingress and egress. Automobiles going north or south on Monroe often travel at high rates of speed and if there is even more traffic, I believe it could become dangerous. Overall, I think it would be a benefit to Carlsbad as long as the traffic situation Is studied and any speed modifications are made as needed for public safety. Joe and Sharon Salas 2711 Woodwind Road Carlsbad CA 92008 (760) 434-6344 Bridget Desmarais From: Lou Storrow <lstorrow@hriawyer.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:39 AM To: Planning Subject: I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Revitalization is the key word. I know people who still refer to PCR as the "murder mall" because the first things that come to mind are "it's run down" and "haven't there been some serious crimes over there?" We need a fresh new facility to re-kindle interest and customer traffic and to make sure PCR is not ignored in favor of the other Westfield upgrades around the county. Louis A Storrow, Esq. StorrowLaw, ARC 2794 Gateway Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-929-9141 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE; The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, is a confidential communication and is only for the use ofthe individual(s) or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, review or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this communication has been received in error, please notify the sender immediately at (760) 929-9141 or at the above address. Bridget Desmarais From: Gina McBride <gina@mcbridefinancial.com> Sent: Wednesday June 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: Planning Subject: Support fort the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Importance: High Dear Carlsbad Planning Commissioners: The quality of life for all of our Carlsbad citizens will be enhanced with the revitalization of the Westfield shopping mall project coming before you at this evening's meeting. Westfield is making a multimillion dollar investment into this property, creating jobs and new sales taxes, greatly benefiting our city economy. The revitalization is a "re-do" fi'om the ground up and is vitally needed to keep pace with fhe shopping experiences available in the county and to provide a new and exciting tourism destination. The new center will be an "eye-popper" to see fi-om Highway 78. The principals have reached out to conimunity leaders to assure the center will have amenities important to our residents and to those who will come firom other parts of the county to shop, dine and be entertained. I wholeheartedly support this game-changing project that will immensely impact the future of Carlsbad and urge your approval. Respectfully submitted, Gina McBride, a Carlsbad Resident McBride Financial Advisory/Philanthropy Concepts 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Bridget Desmarais From: Hohenstein, Tucker <Tucker.Hohenstein@colliers.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:24 AM To: Planning Subject: I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! I am in full support ofthe Westfield renovation. Thank you Tucker Hohenstein Senior Vice President Colliers International 858 336 4104 \\cm ^ 3 Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Subject: Gary Nessim <Garynessim@att.net> Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:44 AM Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! I have seen the plans for Westfield Plaza Camion Real at the recent outreach at Buena Vista School and support the changes as a good interim upgrade that will benefit the community. I expect many new tenants will be attracted by the remodel to improve the retail mix. Gary Nessim HomeLife Village Realtors 500 Grand Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760 729 3333 Bridget Desmarais From: Ted Owen <TedOwen@carisbad.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:32 AM To: Planning Subject: I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce would like to go on the record of supporting wholeheartedly the approval of the propose revitalization of Westfield Plaza Camino Real (PCR) being brought to the Commission tonight at your meeting. The Revitalization will be a major remodel of nearly every facet of the mall giving a facelift and modernization that has been needed for some time. The completed project will turn the project into a community gathering place creating new jobs, and increased sales tax that will allow the city to improve the quality of life for all its residents. This kind of redevelopment project will greatly enhance the city both in its image and as a destination for visitors and residents alike. Ted Owen President & CEO Carisbad Chamber of Commerce towen@carisbad.org (760) 931-8400 ext. 206 From: Emmett Durnan. 490TrNeblina Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92008 To: Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad Date: June 5, 2013 RE: Statement Given Regarding Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan Good Evening I have been a resident of Carlsbad for 25 years, and therefore also a customer of the Plaza Camino Real shopping center. For 8 of those 25 years I was also the General Manager of Plaza Camino Real, from 1998-2006. For background, I have been in shopping center management for 23 years, working for The Hahn Company at Horton Plaza, UTC and Parkway Plaza, for Donahue Schriber managing a portfolio, and for Westfield at PCR and Mission Valley. I retired last June from full-time work and currently do consulting associated with the shopping center Industry on a part-time basis. I have no ongoing financial or other connection to Westfield. For full disclosure, however, I am currently completing a 2 >i month consulting contract with them related to their mall in Santa Ana. That contract will be finished next week. My interest in being here is as a resident of CaHsbad, and as a former GM. Having been on both sides ofthe table, I have said it as a customer and General Manager, and heard it from friends, other residents, customers, and city leaders, that the mall needs upgrading. What you have before you is the most ambitious commitment I've seen to date by Westfield to this mall and this city. This is a regional mall. The trade area is over 600,000 people. Carlsbad's population represents only 20% of that, so most of the potential for mall sales, and its associated sales tax revenue, comes from the surrounding cities. For many years, to the city' detriment, Carlsbad had not been friendly to large format, large scale retail developments. As a result our city is ringed with numerous retail developments just outside our borders giving sales tax revenue to our neighbors. Fortunately, In recent years the city seems to have changed its approach. PCR has been one of the top sales tax generators for the city since it opened, just behind Car Country Carisbad. This is an opportunity for the city to reclaim some ofthe tax revenue lost to our neighbors. As I mentioned eariier, this is the most ambitious commitment I've seen by Westfield to this mall and this city. The EIR makes mention of previous submissions, then retraction, ofother redevelopment plans for the mall. None, however, had the commitment or the scale or the impact that this one does. I, therefore, strongly urge you to approve the EIR, the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan and the Site Development Plan, and make this mall what it should be. Rem ^3 Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Subject: RossSylvan@aol.com Tuesday June 04, 2013 12:18 PM Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Dear Sirs/Madams: Please vote for the planned changes to the Westfield Plaza Camino Real. The current condition of the mall keeps me away from the property-few good shopping choices and run-down condition. As a Carisbad resident, I would like to see a mall that feels attractive, safe, and exciting. I need more shopping and dining options. The city needs more tax dollars and can get this with the proposed changes to the mall. Maybe our tourism industry will also benefit, with more to do in this city while vacationing. Chris Ross 6135 Paseo Monona Carisbad, CA 92009 Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mary Sea <maryksea@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:50 AM Arthur Black; Stephen.Lheureux@carlsbadca.gov; Velyn.Anderson@carlsbadca.gov; Jeff.Segall@carlsbadca.gov; Michael Schumacher; Victoria Scully; Kerry Siekmann Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! I support the Carisbad mall project. It is way over due and can only help the city of Carisbad. I was at the May 30 meeting and liked most of what I saw. I hope the City will move forward with the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real project. Sent from my iPad Bridget Desmarais From: Carmen Rene <carmenrene11 @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 8:50 PM To: Arthur Black; Stephen.Lheureux@carisbadca.gov; Velyn.Anderson@caHsbadca.gov; Jeff.Segall@carlsbadca.gov; Michael Schumacher; Victoria Scully; Kerry Siekmann Cc: Planning Subject: I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Dear Members of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, I support the new Westfield Plaza Camino Real and hope you do as well. The proposed revitalization will... 1. Update Westfield PCR with new floors, lighting, ceiling, handrails, signage, parking lot lighting and landscaping, providing the shopping center with a much needed facelift. 2. Include a new state-of-the-art digital movie theater, a 24 Hour Fitness with an indoor lap pool and rooftop basketball court, and several sit down and fast casual dining options. 3. Transform Westfield PCR into a local shopping destination for Carlsbad residents and draw new shoppers from other North County communities. 4. Create a community gathering destination for the whole family that provides a convenient, comfortable and modem place to relax, rejuvenate, shop, be entertained, dine and socialize. 5. Provide a substantial investment in our community that will create jobs and generate new tax revenues for the City to help pay for core services such as parks, libraries, police and fire. I urge you to support this important revitalization as well. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss. Carmen Rene 928-941-0951 3433 Moon Field Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010 Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mary Sea <maryksea@gmail.com> Monday, June 03, 2013 6:21 PM Arthur Black; Stephen.Lheureux@carlsbadca.gov; Velyn.Anderson@carlsbadca.gov; Jeff.Segall@carisbadca.gov; Michael Schumacher; Victoria Scully; Kerry Siekmann Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! This email is to show my support of the extremely over due remake of Carisbad Mall. I was present at the meeting on May 30 and believe plans for this project will make a difference for Carisbad. Sent from my iPad Bridget Desmarais From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Hanley <jhanley@solaglobal.com> Monday June 03, 2013 3:54 PM Arthur Black; Stephen.Lheureux@carisbadca.gov; Velyn.Anderson@carisbadca.gov; Jeff.Segall@carisbadca.gov; Michael Schumacher; Victoria Scully; Kerry Siekmann Planning I Support the New Westfield Plaza Camino Real! Please register my support for the new Westfield Plaza Camino Real as it will provide a substantial investment in our community that will create jobs and generate new tax revenues for the City to help pay for core services such as parks, libraries, police and fire John M. Hanley CEO SOLATUBE. Solatube Global Marketing Inc. 3216 Grey Hawk Court Carlsbad, CA 92010 USA Ph:+1-760-597-1111 Fax: +1-760-599-1009 Mobile: +1-760-420-8402 E-mail: ihanlevg>solaglobal.com LirikedQI] Corporate Sponsor of the AIACE (www.aiaeurope.org) JOIN US AT A COMMUNITY MEETING! Come learn about Westfield's plans to remodel Plaza Camino Real. Thursday May 30, 2013 6:00 -8:00pm Buena Vista Elementary School 133aBuend ViEta Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Design concKpfs, rendenngs and an anticipated timeline for completing the improvejnents will be presented during the meeting. Community members Will have the opportunity to provide feedbacl: on lhe plans, and Westlield staff will be on hand to answei questions. RSVP to Brooke Ellison at belli sorf@s p r. co m y^esdieid i%c,r.o. ^ " RLE copy VcARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov May 14, 2013 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1 Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on May 28, 2013. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring the following required information with you to this meeting or provide it to your planner prior to the meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission: 1. Unmounted colored exhibit(s) of your site plan and elevations; and 2. A PDF of your colored site plan and elevations. The colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, vour proiect could be rescheduled to a later time. The PDF of your colored site plan and elevations will be used in the presentation to the Planning Commission and the public at the Planning Commission Hearing. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) and the PDF here by the scheduled time above. Should you wish to use visual materials in your presentation to the Planning Commission, they should be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Digital materials will be placed on a computer in Council Chambers for public presentations. Please label all materials with the agenda item number you are representing. Items submitted for viewing, including presentations/digital materials, will be included in the time limit maximum for speakers. All materials exhibited to the planning Commission during the meeting (slides, maps, photos, etc.) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Planning Division for at least 60 days after final action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Jason Goff at (760) 602- 4643. DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:JG:bd c: File Copy Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Stephen Fluhr, Westfield, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 KIm Bargnek, Helix Environmental Planning, 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® AciT.o. 'ih aFILE VcARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov April 9, 2013 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1 Carisbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 7*" REVIEW FOR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD (REDUCED PROJECT DESIGN) Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your Site Development Plan, application no. SDP 09-04, as to its completeness for processing. The application is still incomplete as submitted and must remain incomplete until the legislative actions (i.e., SP 09-01/EIR 09-02) associated with this project have been approved by the City Council. The City may, in the course of processing this 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Jason Goff, at (760) 602-4643, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting division/department individually as follows: • Planning Division comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Landscaping comments: Michael Elliott, PELA, at (760) 944-8463. • Land Development Engineering comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Property & Environmental Management comments: Joe Garuba, Municipal Property Manager, at (760) 434-2893. • Building Division comments: Will Foss, Building Official, at (760) 602-2716. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DECERBO Principal Planner CD:JG:sm Attachments: 1. Planning Division Redlines dated 3/22/13 (entire set) 2. PELA (Landscaping) Redlines dated 3/15/2013 (Sheets L1-L8) 3. Land Development Engineering Redlines dated 4/5/13 (entire set 1635 FaradayAvenue, CaHsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® \^B SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD April 9, 2013 Page 2 c: Westfield, Attn: Stephen Fluhr, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Helix Environmental Planning, Attn: Kim Baranek, 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Joe Garuba, PEM Michael Elliott, PELA Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal File Copy Data Entry SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD April 9, 2013 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning Division: 1. The site plans, floor plans, and roof plans all need to be revised to match the building articulations and reveals that are presented in the elevations and three-dimensional renderings. Unless the City Council is willing to support the elevation encroachments onto the City property, the building footprint will need to be setback off the property line so as to accommodate the proposed articulations and reveals, as many of the proposed TRESPA (simulated wood) wall panels, awnings, canopies, and some of the roof ledges are now projecting out over and encroaching into City owned property as presently proposed. The articulated elevations presented in the rendering are necessary to support the project and find it consistent with the specific plan. Please revise accordingly. 2. The site plan and all other sheets need to be revised to accommodate a minimum 24 ft. back-up maneuvering area behind the new parking stalls located perpendicular to Marron Road in the southeastern corner ofthe parking lot. 3. Revise the grading/landscape plans to include the 2 ft. high berm along El Camino Real that was previously included to match Section AA on Sheet L5 and the detail on Pg. 4-11 of the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan. Insure that the planting concept provides the minimum 36" of parking lot screening. 4. The Lot Coverage in the Summary Table on Sheet Al.0-0 needs to be updated to reflect the revised project. 5. Please see the attached redlines (full plan set) and address all issues and inconsistencies throughout. Return redlines with your next submittal. PELA: The numbers below are referenced on the attached set of red line plans for ease of locating the area of comment concern. Please revise accordingly and return the red lines with your next submittal. 1. Please address planting of all landscape areas. 2. Please revise legend tree quantities and landscape calculations on Sheet L5 as appropriate to coordinate with revisions. Land Development Engineering: 1. Please see the attached redlines (full plan set) and address all issues and inconsistencies throughout. Return redlines with your next submittal. Property & Environmental Review: No Comments. \^B SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARTSBAD April 9, 2013 Page 4 Fire: No comments. Building: No Comments. CITY OF VCARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov March 7, 2013 Mr. Stephen Fluhr Westfield 225 Broadway, Ste. 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 SUBJECT: STATUS OF FEES FOR EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL Dear Mr. Fluhr: As you may know, to process applications for master plans, specific plans, amendments to these permits, EIRs, and certain other permits the City charges a base fee and additional fees when staff time on the project exceeds a threshold number of hours, according to the City Council adopted fee schedule. The application fee for processing an EIR is based on the number of staff hours spent to review the application. The city's Community and Economic Development Fee Schedule require a base fee, which includes 160 hours of project planner review and 40 hours of project engineer review. Staff time is then billed at an houriy rate after the 1** 160 hours of the project planner and 40 hours of the project engineer review time. The base fee for an SP includes 200 hours of project planner review and 60 hours of project engineer review. Staff time is then billed at an houriy rate after the 1®* 200 hours of project planner and 60 hours of project engineer review time. Enclosed is an accounting of the number of planning and engineering staff hours spent reviewing the Plaza Camino Real EIR and SP. The staff review time period covered is from August 24, 2009 through March 6, 2013. Please submit the required funds by March 29, 2013 so as not to result in an interruption in the processing of the project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed calculations, please contact me at (760) 602-4615. Sincerely, MICHELE MASTERSON Senior Management Analyst c: Don Neu, City Planner lIlliNilffOff, Associate Planner Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-2710 F 760-602-8560 ® Plaza Camino Real March 7, 2013 Paae 2 EIR 09-02 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL As of March 6, 2013 our records indicate the project planner and project engineer have accumulated the following number of hours: Project Planner - Jason Goff 233.3 Less 160 hour threshold 160.0 Hours to be billed 73.3 73.3 hours x $94.08 = $6,896.06 Project Engineer - Jeremy Riddle 99.5 Less 40 hour threshold 40.0 Hours to be billed 59.5 59.5 hours x $115.34 = $6,862.73 TOTAL $13,758.79 SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL As of March 6, 2013 our records indicate the project planner and project engineer have accumulated the following number of hours: Project Planner - Jason Goff 277.8 Less 200 hour threshold 200.0 Hours to be billed 77.8 77.8 hours x $94.08 = $7,319.42 Project Engineer - Jeremy Riddle 94.5 Less 100 hour threshold 60.0 Hours to be billed 34.5 34.5 hours x $115.34 = $3,979.23 TOTAL $11,298.65 Please remit a check to the City of Carisbad in the amount of $25,057.44 at your eariiest convenience. CELIA A. BREWER CITY OF PAUL G. EDMONSON cnY ATTORNEY A H I C D A ASSISTANT crrv ATTORNEY JANEMOBALDI L.AnLitJAL' RONALDKEMP ASSISTANT CITf ATTORNEY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY February 13, 2013 Stephen Fluhr, Director of Development Westfield 225 Broadway, Suitel700 San Diego CA 92101 Re: Westfield Carisbad / Request for Permission to Locate a Loading Dock and Patio Seating on City Owned Property Dear Mr. Fluhr, The City Manager and City Council are in receipt of your request on behalf of Westfield dated February 5, 2013 for permission to locate a loading dock and patio seating on City owned property in the Plaza Camino Real public parking lot. The City Council considered your request in its closed session meeting of February 12, 2013, since the request was to utilize City property for uses other than parking, and would therefore require an amendment to the conditions, covenants and restrictions contained in section B.l. ofthe Grant Deed dated January 20,1981 from Plaza Camino Real to the Parking Authority perpetually restricting the use ofthe property to a public use as a municipal parking lot. In any event, the Plaza Camino Real Public Parking Lot Operating Agreement dated January 20, 1981 provides in section 21, paragraph 6, that the. City Manager or City Council may approve or disapprove a request to alter parking lot improvements. Since your request would convert a portion of the City owned parking lot to a private non- parking use, and real estate negotiations between the city and Westfield on the site have been terminated without resolution, the request was considered by the City Council and denied. Therefore, it will be necessary for Westfield to work within the confines ofthe existing building footprint in its application for a site development plan for Plaza Camino Real. Very truly yours, JANEMOBALDI Assistant City Attorney ^ www.carlsbadca.gov ^ 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 T 760-434-2891 F 760-434-8367 ® /rn c: Mayor and City Council City Manager Community & Economic Development Director City Planner Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning & Engineering CITY OF VXARLSBAD Planning Division • FILE www.carlsbadca.gov December 20, 2012 Ms. Shay Even Hofman Planning & Engineering 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1 Carisbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: WESTFIELD CARLSBAD - EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 09-04 Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on February 20, 2013. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by January 10, 2012, 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) 10 copies of your (specific plan, site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans, floor plans, etc.) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 9" x 12" size. B) One SYz" x 11" color copy of your reduced site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans, floor plans, etc. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically reproducible. C) An electronic copy of the full plan set In PDF format (including any available color renderings). 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, including all forms of interval ownership, 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 - If the number of owners within the 600 foot radius is 1,000 or greater, a display advertisement in two papers of general circulation will be placed in lieu of direct mailing and labels will not be required to be submitted. Ifthe number of owners within the 600 foot radius is less than 1,000, please submit two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. For any address other than a single-family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 09^J- WESTFIELD CARLSBAD December 20, 2012 Page 2 Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt. Courier 14 pt. Courier New 11 pt, and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE (with APN) 209-060-34-00 Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 MRS JANE SMITH Carlsbad, CA 92008 APT 3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 C) 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 City Planner if the required scale is impractical. D) 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. In the case of ownership list that is 1,000 or greater, the fee is equal to the current cost of publishing a 1/8 page ad in two newspapers of general circulation. Cash check (payable to the City of Carlsbad) and credit cards are accepted. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:sm Attachment c: File 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 EQUAUZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPUCATION NAME AND NUMBER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY DATE: 4 4 Hofman Planning & Enqineerina November 20, 2012 Jason Goff Planning Department, City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dear Jason, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Site Development Plan and have developed a revised plan set. The following letter contains our response to your comments and each is numbered and corresponds to the City comment letter dated October 16, 2012. Planning Division: 1. Plans have been updated to reflect the ownership changes. PELA: 13. Trees added per request. 16. Planter with tree and landscape added per request. 5A. Raised stone walls called out per request. Decorative Pots added to far west entry in lieu of raised stone walls. Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Haixin Li, PE (760) 692-4100 RECEiVED NOV 2 0 2012 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNiNG DIVISION 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Hofman Planning & Enqineerina November 8, 2012 RECEIVED Jason Goff ' ^ ^ "^ "^ Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD ?6l6°'FaXAvenua PLANNING DIVISION Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Goff, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan and have developed a revised draft of the document that is included with this submittal package. The following letter contains our response to the City Comment Letter dated October 16, 2012. Response to Planning Comments: 1. Please address the attached copy of the red lined comments dated October 9, 2012. The comments have been addressed. 2. The exhibit on Pg. 4-10 is misleading. It is understood that the new street frontage improvements along Marron Road (highlighted in orange) will be completed as part of the development associated with SDP 09-04, while the remaining portion of the street frontage (highlighted in yellow) would be completed at another stage of development, which has not yet been anticipated. The text in the Street Front Legend stating "Existing Street Frontage to Remain" is Incorrect and misleading. Development standards throughout are set up such that eventually, this frontage will also be improved similar to that which is being considered as part of SDP 09-04. The two part strategy discussed in this exhibit is not appropriate as it implies that the yellow section will never be improved. Please revise. The wording has been changed to 'Existing Street Frontage To Be Improved in Future Phase'. 3. On Sheet Al .0-0 of the most recent submittal of the Site Development Plan (SDP 09-04, dated September 12, 2012) we noticed that some of the APNs associated with the various property owners listed in the Property Owner text box may be incorrect, thereby necessitating a review and possible revision to the Property Ownership Exhibit (Appendix F) associated with the Specific Plan. The inconsistencies we identified were as follows: a. APN 156-302-21, which is presently listed under the "City of Carisbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category on Sheet Al.0-0 of the SDP submittal, should instead be listed under the "Plaza Camino Real, a California Limited Partnership" ownership category, and SPO9-0V-WESTFIELD CWiLSBAD November 8, 2012 Page 2 b. APN 156-301-23, which is presently listed on Sheet Al.0-0 of the SDP submittal under the "City of Carisbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category, should instead be revised to read as APN 156-302-23, and c. The correct APN 156-302-23, should instead be moved and listed under "The Parking Authority of the City of Carisbad" ownership category on Sheet Al.0-0 of the SDP submittal, and lastly, d. APN 156-302-24, which is presently listed under "The Parking Authority of the City of Carlsbad" ownership, should instead be moved and listed under the "City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category. Please note that Lot 1 (APN 156-302-23) as shown on the Property Ownership Exhibit (Appendix F) of the SP may be wrong from an ownership standpoint. We confirmed with our GIS database and it has this parcel identified as being owned by the Parking Authority of the City of Carisbad, which reflects the corrections above. Please confirm property ownership and revise if necessary. Revisions have been made on sheet A1.0-0 of the SDP. Additionally, Appendix F has been revised to reflect the ownership change as well. 4. (REPEAT COMMENT) Please update Appendix 'A' - Sign Survey with the latest sign survey data. Please also revise the survey to include the dimensions of all signs (i.e., area, height, width, length, etc.) and eliminate any ambiguity. The sign survey has been updated and included in the appendices. Please contact me with any questions. Regards, Shay Even Assistant Planner Hofman Planning & Engineering (760) 692-4019 4% Z.O. • " AdOOBllJ V (CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov October 16, 2012 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering Suite 1 3156 Uonshead Avenue Carisbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: 6th REVIEW FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Hofman, The Planning Department has reviewed the 6th submittal of your Specific Plan, application no. SP 09-01, as to its completeness for processing. As stated in previous reviews, a Specific Plan is a legislative action and the application will be deemed incomplete until approved by City Council. 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be mcluded with your submittals, including eight (8) copies of the revised Specific Plan document, one (1) redlined copies in underiine strikothrough format, and one (1) electronic digital copy. If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter or your application, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting division/department individually as follows: • planning Division comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Landscaping (PELA) comments: Michael Elliott, at (760) 944-8463. • Property & Environmental Management comments: David Hauser, Property & Environmental Management Director, at (760) 602-2739. • Property & Environmental Management comments: Joe Garuba, Municipal Property Manager, at (760) 434-2893. • Land Development Engineering comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Land Development Engineering, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4663. 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSgTTD SPECIFIC PLAN October 16, 2012 Page 2 Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:JG:bd Attachments: Planning Division Redline Comments, dated October 9, 2012. c: Stephen Fluhr, Westfield, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Kim Baranek, Helix Environmental Planning, 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 Don Neu, Planning Division Chris DeCerbo, Planning Division David Hauser, Property & Environmental Management Joe Garuba, Property & Environmental Management Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA Greg Ryan, Fire Department File Copy Data Entry SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN October 16, 2012 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please address the attached copy ofthe red lined comments dated October 9, 2012. 2. The exhibit on Pg. 4-10 is misleading. It is understood that the new street frontage improvements along Marron Road (highlighted in orange) will be completed as part of the development associated with SDP 09-04, while the remaining portion of the street frontage (highlighted in yellow) would be completed at another stage of development, which has not yet been anticipated. The text in the Street Front Legend stating "Existing Street Frontage to Remain" is incorrect and misleading. Development standards throughout are set up such that eventually, this frontage will also be improved similar to that which is being considered as part of SDP 09-04. The two part strategy discussed in this exhibit is not appropriate as it implies that the yellow section will never be improved. Please revise. 3. On Sheet Al.0-0 of the most recent submittal of the Site Development Plan (SDP 09-04, dated September 12, 2012) we noticed that some of the APNs associated with the various property owners listed in the Property Owner text box may be incorrect, thereby necessitating a review and possible revision to the Property Ownership Exhibit (Appendix F) associated with the Specific Plan. The inconsistencies we identified were as follows: a. APN 156-302-21, which is presently listed under the "City of Carisbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category on Sheet Al.0-0 of the SDP submittal, should instead be listed under the "Plaza Camino Real, a California Umited Partnership" ownership category, and b. APN 156-301-23, which is presently listed on Sheet Al.0-0 of the SDP submittal under the "City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category, should instead be revised to read as APN 156-302-23. and c. The correct APN 156-302-23, should instead be moved and listed under "The Parking Authority of the City of Carlsbad" ownership category on Sheet Al.0-0 of the SDP submittal, and lastly, d. APN 156-302-24, which is presently listed under "The Parking Authority of the City of Carisbad" ownership, should instead be moved and listed under the "City of Carisbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category. Please note that Lot 1 (APN 156-302-23) as shown on the Property Ownership Exhibit (Appendix F) of the SP may be wrong from an ownership standpoint. We confirmed with our GIS database and it has this parcel identified as being owned by the Parking Authority of the City of Carlsbad, which reflects the corrections above. Please confirm property ownership and revise if necessary. 4. (REPEAT COMMENT) Please update Appendix 'A' - Sign Survey with the latest sign survey data. Please also revise the survey to include the dimensions of ali signs (i.e., area, height, width, length, etc.) and eliminate any ambiguity. Landscaping (PELA): No further issues. s^ SP 09-01 _ WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN October 16, 2012 Page 4 Land Development Engineering: No further issues. Property & Environmental Management: Comments to follow under separate cover. Fire Department: Comments to follow under separate cover. CITY OF VcARLSBAD Planning Division lo|la'|\'7> FILE COPY www.carlsbadca.gov October 16, 2012 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering Suite 1 3156 Uonshead Avenue Carisbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: Sth REVIEW FOR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your Site Development Plan, application no. SDP 09-04, as to its completeness for processing. The application is still incomplete as submitted and must remain incomplete until the legislative actions (i.e., SP 09-01/EIR 09-02) associated with this project have been approved by the City Council. The City may, in the course of processing this 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled fora public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be addressed and submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment. Please prepare and include with your re-submittal: 1) a copy of this list; 2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified issue items have been addressed; and 3) provide seven (7) sets of the revised plans, along with two (2) ll"x 17" reduced sets. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Jason Goff, at (760) 602-4643, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting division/department individually as follows: • Planning Division comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Landscaping comments: Michael Elliott, PELA, at (760) 944-8463. • Land Development Engineering comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Property & Environmental Management comments: Joe Garuba, Municipal Property Manager, at (760) 434-2893. • Building Division comments: Will Foss, Building Official, at (760) 602-2716. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4661. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® L^C SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD October 16, 2012 Page 2 Sincerely, CHRIS DECERBO Principal Planner CD:JG:bd Attachments: Planning Division Redlines dated 10/15/12 - Sheet Al.0-0 PELA (Landscaping) Redlines dated 9/21/12 - Sheets L1-L8 c: Stephen Fluhr, Westfield, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Kim Baranek, Helix Environmental Planning, 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Joe Garuba, PEM Michael Elliott, PEU Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal File Copy Data Entry L^[ SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD October 16, 2012 Page 3 Planning Division: ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. Please review Sheet Al.0-0 and revise some of the APNs associated with the various property owners that are listed in the Property Owner text box (see redlines). Please confirm the following and revise accordingly: a. APN 156-302-21, which is presently listed under the "City of Carisbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category, should instead be listed under the "Plaza Camino Real, a California Limited Partnership" ownership category, b. APN 156-301-23, which is presently listed under the "City of Carisbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category, should instead be revised to read as APN 156-302-23. c. The correct APN 156-302-23, should instead be moved and listed under "The Parking Authority ofthe City of Carlsbad" ownership category, and d. APN 156-302-24, which is presently listed under "The Parking Authority of the City of Carisbad" ownership, should instead be moved and listed under the "City of Carisbad, a municipal corporation" ownership category. Please note that Lot 1 (APN 156-302-23) as shown on the Property Ownership Exhibit (Appendix F) of the SP may be wrong from an ownership standpoint. Please verify. Our GIS database identifies this parcel as being owned by the Parking Authority of the City of Carisbad, which reflects the corrections above. PELA: REPEAT COMMENTS 1-11 Completed. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 2"^* Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 4*'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Final enhancements will not be possible until final building elevations are complete at the construction document stage." Additional planting or other softening may be needed at the northeast corner of pad 4 to soften the building elevation. Please add trees along the south side of pad 4. s"" review: The applicant has responded: "Pad 4 is subject to future approval ofan SDP based upon final building design and landscape surroundings. Landscape treatment will be evaluated at that time." It is understood that further evaluation will be provided; however the conceptual stage provides preliminary direction as needed to insure Landscape Manual and Specific Plan requirements are met. Trees will be needed along the southern and northern elevations of the future building and should be conceptually shown at this stage just as they are along the eastern and western sides. Please address. 14. Completed. IL^I SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD October 16, 2012 Page 4 15. All utilitios aro to bo scroonod. Landscapo construction drawings will be requirod to show and label all utilities and provide appropriato scrooning. Ploaso also locate all light polos on tho concept landscape plans and insure that there aro no conflicts with troos. 2"^ Review: The applicant has rospondod: "Utilities aro shown.' Light polos will bo placed so not to conflict with tho troos." 3"^ Roviow: Ploaso show tho light polos on the landscape plans. 4**^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Parking lot lighting is not complete for new layout. City will be provided a separate exhibit when complete. Light poles shall be coordinated and placed so not to conflict with trees." 5^'' review: The appUcant has responded: "Light poles will be placed where they will not conflict with the trees." No further action is required on this item. 16. Troos shall be providod at the minimum rato of ono per every four parking stalls.—Troos pertaining to this roquiroment shall bo located within tho parking aroa, oxclusivo of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 2*^ Roviow:—The applicant has rospondod: "The PCRSP will be the guiding documont for development within the PCRSP area. Please soo Dovolopmont Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requiremonts."—The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements.—Please addross. i'^ ffeview: Tho Spocific Plan (page 4 13) indicates that "Tree row spacing shall divide parking fields equally as much as possible and bo placed approximately every 3 5 rows of double looded parking stalls." Please provido for those plantings. The Specific Plan also indicates that 2 large canopy trees will be placed at the end islands of each parking row. Please address as best as possible avoiding easements. Check all areas. 4**^ Review: Please show the trees in these areas. 5"" review: The applicant has responded: "Trees were previously evaluated in suggested areas and decided against for the following reasons: Sheet L3 - existing striping designates an existing ADA path of travel. In order to maintain ADA compliance, we do not have the room to add planters and/or trees " It appears that there is room for a planter and tree on sheet L-3. Please address. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-23 Completed. 24. Deleted. 25. Completed. 26. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1A-2A Deleted. 3A. Completed. 4A. Deleted. L^[ SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD October 16, 2012 Page 5 5A. Tho illustrative plans and landscape plans appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the sito. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries bo expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to bo addressed (arrivol to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation oround tho site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.).—A cloar definition and clarity of entry ond arrival is needed.—Pleose further develop oil plons and provido odditionol detoiling as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 3*^ Review: The Specific Plan vision for the gateways (poge 4 4) indicates that 'The gateways must express the excitement and quality of the Westfield Shopping experience planned for Westfield Carisbad." The design for building entries (poge 4 19) indicates thot "Each entry will make a strong landscape statement that reflects the pormonence of Wostfiold Corlsbod within tho economic fabric of Carisbad." It is not cleor how the plans provide for those and other visions and design concepts. Pleose address. 4'*' Review: The applicant has added enhanced paved plazas at the El Camino Real and Marron Road entries in the Specific Plan and better clarified the design intent. It is recommended that large architectural planter pots with specimen plantings be included at all corners to add interest and to soften the building elevation for pad 4 at the southwest corner of the El Camino Real entry. 5^'' review: The appUcant has responded: "Decorative planter pots have been added to the plazas at the El Camino Real Gateways. Low stone walls surrounding raised planters are proposed for the Marron Road Gateways. Ownership prefers the stone walls and gateway trees as an accent feature in lieu of decorative pots in these locations." Low stone walls surrounding raised planers are acceptable; however I do not see the materials for these walls addressed on the architectural plans. Please indicate "Raised stone walls" on the landscape plans and/or provide this information on the architectural plans. Pots have been added at the entry off of El Camino Real. Final construction drawings will need to insure that locations and plant materials selected for these pots do not conflict with vehicular site lines. 1B-3B Completed. 1C-6C Completed. NEW COMMENTS ID. Please show landscaping in this area. Land Development Engineering: No further issues. Property & Environmental Review: Comments will follow under separate cover. Fire: Comments will follow under separate cover. Building: Comments will follow under separate cover. July 19,2012 225 Broadway Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 T 619.544.8100 F 619.238.9485 City of Carlsbad Mr. Jason Goff Associate Planner 1635 Fai'aday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. GofT: This letter is in response to your inquiry as to Westfield's intent for installation of our updated signage package, to be completed in conjunction with our currently proposed project. This letter shall confirm that Westfield will be removing our existing signs at the time they are replaced by the sign package currently under city review. It is not our intention to double up on the amount of signs by leaving the old signs in place. As we will be rebranding the property, we will be removing any signage referencing Westfield PCR, and it will be replaced by the new approved signage referencing Westfield Carlsbad. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Stephen Fluhr Director of Development Jason Goff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jason Goff Tuesday July 10, 2012 8:09 AM Shay Even (seven@hofmanplanning.com) Sabrina Michelson; Bill Hofman; Gregory Ryan Westfield Carisbad - Site Development Plan (May 11, 2012 submittal) - Fire Department Comments Fire.July9, 2012.pdf Shay, This email supplements our June 11, 2012 issues letter we sent you following our review of the May 11, 2012 submittal of the Westfield Carlsbad Site Development Plan (SDP 09-04). In that letter it was identified that Fire Department comments would follow under separate cover. Please note that the Fire Department has since reviewed the proposed project and is providing the following comments listed on the attached pages. If you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me directly by telephone at (760) 602-4643, or by email at: iason.goff@carisbadca.gov. You may also contact Gregory Ryan directly by telephone at (760) 602-4661 or email at: Gregorv.Rvan(5)carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, Jason •A ^ i i rv Ol CARLSBAD Pfarining Division Jason Goff Associate Planner City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad,CA92008 P: 760.602.4643 F: 760.602.8559 Jason.Goff@carisbadca.Rov Jason Goff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jason Goff Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:56 AM Shay Even (seven@hofmanplanning.com) Sabrina Michelson; Bill Hofman; Gregory Ryan Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan (May 11, 2012 submittal) Fire.June 16, 2012.pdf Fire Department Comments Shay, This email supplements our June 11, 2012 incompleteness letter we sent you following our review of the May 11, 2012 submittal of the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan (SP 09-01). In that letter it was identified that Fire Department comments would follow under separate cover. Please note that the Fire Department has since reviewed the proposed project and is providing the following comments listed on the attached pages. If you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me directly by telephone at (760) 602-4643, or by email at: iason.goff@carisbadca.Rov. You may also contact Gregory Ryan directly by telephone at (760) 602-4661 or email at: Gregorv.Rvan@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, Jason <^ CARLSBAD Pianning Division Jason Goff Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 P: 760.602.4643 F: 760.602.8559 Jason.Goff @carlsbadca.ROv Plonninq & Enqineerinq 'a\70 July 5, 2012 Jason Goff Planning Department City of Carisbad 1635 FaradayAvenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Goff, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan and have developed a revised draft of the document that is included with this submittal package. The following letter contains our response to the City Comment Letter dated June 11, 2012. Response to Planning Comments: 1. Please address each red lined comment as noted in the returned copy of the Specific Plan dated March 15, 2012. Please note, some of the comments listed below may be repeated in the red lined copy. Done. 2. In general, the Signage Provisions on Pgs. 5-3 through 5-8 exceed what was previously discussed and agreed upon in the meeting minutes from April 23, 2012. Please revise to be consistent with these minutes and submit a draft of the signage provisions for us to review and discuss prior to the resubmittal of the Specific Plan. Signage Provisions have been revised and sent to Jason Goff for review. Changes have been incorporated into the SP. 3. Please be aware that "Facia Sign" definition on page 5-3 would preclude the "Westfield ID signs" from being pin set on the various architectural features which are shown throughout the Site Development Plan elevations. We would recommend that you revise the definitions section to accommodate this feature for the Westfield ID signs if you would like it to be included. The definition has been revised. 4. In table 5a, the Quantity values indicated for the following signs (Facia Anchor, Facia Mini-Anchor, Facia Cinema, Facia Restaurant, Facia Tenant, and Facia Tenant Pads) are not applicable or enforceable as proposed in this table and need to be removed. Please note that Sign Standard No. 2 would be applied instead to dictate the size and quantity of the signs allowed. Please revise Table 5a to eliminate these quantity values. Table 5a has been revised as requested. 5. In Table 5b, the Quantity values indicated for Facia Tenant Signs are not applicable or enforceable as proposed in this table and need to be removed. Please note that Sign Standard No. 4 would be applied instead to dictate the size and quantity of the signs 9R ^P 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD July 5, 2012 Paae 2 allowed. Please revise Table 5b to eliminate these quantity values. Table 5b has been revised as requested. 6. In Section 5.2, under Building Height for Planning Area 1 (Pg. 5-9) and Planning Area 5 (Pg. 5-13), the lower finished floor elevation is shown as 46.8 ft., which with a proposed 75 ft. maximum building height would please the maximum height ofthe main building at an elevation of 121.8 ft. Please note the lower finished floor elevation is identified on the Civil Plans as 30.30 ft. Therefore, with a 75 ft. maximum building height, the maximum elevations forthe main building should be at 105.3 ft. Please revise these numbers. Building height numbers have been revised. 7. In Section 6.3 (Temporary Parking Lot Events Permit), please incorporate the following language: "When a business or property owner plans an outdoor event on private property that is not a Special Event as defined in CMC Chapter 8.17, the business or property owner may apply for a permit to hold such event to the Community & Economic Development Director or his or her designee in accordance with the application requirements of the City of Carisbad's Community & Economic Development Policy 8 - Minor Special Events on Private Property." A copy of the City of Carisbad's Community & Economic Development Policy 8 - Minor Special Events on Private Property is attached for your review. Done. 8. Please update Appendix 'A' - Sign Survey with the latest sign survey data. Please also revise survey to include the dimensions of all signs (i.e., area, height, width, length, etc.) and eliminate any ambiguity. An additional exhibit has been added to Appendix 'A' - Sign Survey showing sign dimensions. Landscape (PELA): Please advise the applicant to make the following additions and revisions to the specific plan so that an appropriate review can be performed. REPEAT COMMENTS 2. 5'^ Review: The applicant has added enhanced paved plazas at the El Camino Real (page 4-6) and Marron Road (page 4-7) entries and better clarified the design intent. It is recommended that large architectural planter pots with specimen plantings be included at all corners to add interest and to soften the building elevation for pad 4 at the southwest corner of the El Camino Real entry. Decorative planter pots have been added to the plazas at the Ei Camino Real Gateways. Low stone walls surrounding raised planters are proposed for the Marron Road Gateways. Ownership prefers the stone walls and gateway trees as an accent feature in lieu of decorative pots in these locations. NEW COMMENTS IC. (Page 4-12) Civil Plans show a 6' wide bio-swale down the center of the 10' wide parkway along Marron Road. This leaves a 2' wide planting area on either side. The Specific Plan sketch shows trees in the center of this bio-swale which may not be permitted. Planting area is insufficient if trees are not allowed in this bio-swale area (i.e. 2' width for trees). Street trees along with screen plantings will be required. Please explain how this is to work and re-design as appropriate. The bio-swale is 10' in width having a 6' flatter bottom and 2' wide 3:1 slopes on SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD July 5, 2012 Paae 3 either side. The total depth of the bio-swale is approximately 8" and will contain well-draining soil. We will plant the trees as close to the sidewalk as possible while allowing enough distance for plant growth. The centeriine of the trees will be approximately 4' from the sidewalk. The trees will be located 40' on center, so there will not be an issue with clogging. This concept was run by Jeremy Riddle who did not have a problem with locating trees in bio-swale as described here. Property & Environmental Management: 1. On Pg. 4-24, Section 4.5 - Outdoor Lighting, please include a bullet for energy efficiency. Done. 2. On Pg. 4-26, Section 4.6 - Public Safety under Lighting, please include language about energy efficient lighting. Bullet point already existing in this section refers you to Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines, where we have added a bullet for energy efficiency. 3. On Pg. 4-27 and 4-28, Section 4.7 - Sustainabiiity, please include electric vehicle charging stations. This is something we've been working towards as part of the proposed policies in the General Plan Update and would like to see incorporated into this Specific Plan. We are still in the process of investigating the proper ratio of charging station spaces to the overall parking requirement, and thus at this point are open to working with Westfield to come up with something that is reasonable. With this added provision, the SDP 09-04 will also need to be revised to include charging stations conveniently distributed around the parking lot of the areas being improved. Proximity to existing electrical service can be accommodated. Westfield is very mindful of the need to accommodate the charging of electric vehicles. Westfield intends to provide electric vehicle charging stations in the future. At this time, the exact amount of stations and location of stations has not been determined. The City has acknowledged that there are no standards for electric vehicle charging stations; therefore requiring electric vehicle charging stations is not warranted. 4. On Pg. 4-2, Section 5.1 - General Development Standards, please add a bullet point about the electric charging stations. See above response. 5. On Pg. 5-2, Section 5.1 - Outdoor lighting, please add sub-bullet point about energy efficient lighting requirement. Done. 6. The Specific Plan should recognize that there will be a number of property transactions occurring to facilitate the expansion (i.e., leasable pads will need to be defined by a meets and bounds, and also the outright sale of property next to the main mall). It is known that these actions will occur and inclusion in the Specific Plan is not necessary. 7. Language should be added to the sections covering Temporary Parking Lot Events requiring that all events need to be incompliance with applicable storm water regulations and that BMP's will be in place if required. BMP's will be in place if required, inclusion in the Specific Plan is not necessary. 4 Hofman Plannina & Enaineerina ^^^^IV^^ July 5, 2012 Jason Goff ^^'^^ ^^WS/Q/V Planning Department, City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO 4'^ REVIEW COMMENTS FOR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dear Jason, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Site Development Plan and have developed a revised plan set. The following letter contains our response to your comments and each is numbered and corresponds to the City comment letter dated June 11, 2012. Planning Division: 1. All property lines have been highlighted in green on sheet Al .0-0. 2. The Specific Plan boundary has been adjusted to match property lines and the Site Development Boundary on sheet Al .0-0 3. Average Daily Traffic data added to summary table and Table 18 deleted on sheet A1.0-G. 4. Enhanced pavement features at the third driveway on Marron Road have been shown. 5. Earthwork information has been added on Sheets C-5 through C-7. 6. Plan views have been extended to show the full extent of the development boundary as it specifically pertains to the third driveway along Marron Road. 7. Limit of Work boundary has been revised to include the requested driveway enhancements at the third driveway along Marron Road. 8. Done. 9. Cross section has been added to show the green screen wall on civil plans and landscape plans. 10. Mexican Fan Palms removed from plan legend per request. Landscaping (PELA): REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Completed. 2. Property Line line-weight increased and called out with arrow on plans per request. 3-11 Completed. 13. Pad 4 is subject to future approval of an SDP based upon final building design and landscape surroundings. Landscape treatment will be evaluated at that time. 14. Completed. 15. Light poles will be placed where they will not conflict with the trees. 16. Trees were previously evaluated in suggested areas and decided against for the following reasons: Sheet L3 - existing striping designates an existing ADA path of travel. In order to maintain ADA compliance, we do not have the room to add planters and/or trees. Sheet L4 - Even with light relocated, tree would need to be planted very close to the curb edge resulting in poor health and little chance to grow and develop. Tree location within end aisle planter would also not match other planters and look unplanned and out of place. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-23 Completed. 24. Deleted. 25. Wheel stops have been revised. See C-4. 26. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1A-2A Deleted. 3A. Enhanced paving pattern #1 and #2 are two different concrete colors. See sheet A3.1-2. 4A. Deleted. 5A. Decorative planter pots with have been added to the plazas at the El Camino Real Gateways. Low stone walls surrounding raised planters are proposed for the Marron Road Gateways. Ownership prefers the stone walls and gateway trees as an accent feature in lieu of decorative pots in these locations. 1B-3B Deleted. NEW COMMENTS IC. Enhanced paving has been added and called out per request. 2C. Mexican Fan Palm removed from plant legend per request. 3C. Planter shifted and design changed per request. Trees added. 4C. Illustrative plan was incorrect. What was indicated as a raised median is only striping. Width is not adequate for raised planter or planting. 5C. The proposed bio-swale is 10' wide, with a 6' flatter bottom and 2' wide 3:1 slopes on both sides. The total depth of the bio-swale is approximately 8" and will contain well- draining soil. We will plant the trees as close to the sidewalk as possible while allowing enough distance for plant growth. The centeriine of the trees will be approximately 2' from the sidewalk. The trees will be located 40' on center, so there will not be an issue with clogging. This concept was run by Jeremy Riddle who did not have a problem with locating trees in bio-swale as described here. 6C. Nomenclature is not clear. "Secondary Entry Tree" does not indicate trees for a secondary entry, but Instead indicates a secondary tree, as opposed to a major tree, in the Major Site Entry. In other words, The Major Site Entries contain a Gateway accent tree (primary) and a secondary tree. We changed the designation to help make its intent more clear. Land Development Engineering: 1. Assessor Parcel Numbers have been added for each property on the site plan. See sheet Al.0-0. 2. Architect Assessor Parcel Numbers have been added for each owner listed on the sheet Al.0-0. 3. Average Daily Traffic data added to summary table and Table 18 deleted on sheet Al .0-0 4. All property lines have been highlighted in green on sheet Al .0-0. 5. We prefer to have the properties on the southeast corner do belong as part of the SDP. The boundary will remain as shown on sheet Al .0-0. 6. Done. 7. Done. 8. Done. 9. Please find attached redlined check prints of the project submittal. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Building Division: Comments will follow under separate cover. Fire Department: Comments will follow under separate cover. V (CARLSBAD i-iriui- Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov June 11, 2012 Hofman Planning & Engineering Attn: Bill Hofman 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1 Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: Sth REVIEW FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Hofman, The Planning Department has reviewed the 5*^ submittal of your Specific Plan, application no. SP 09-01, as to its completeness for processing. As stated in previous reviews, a Specific Plan is a legislative action and the application will be deemed incomplete until approved by City Council. 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 aw/are that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including eight (8) copies of the revised Specific Plan document, three (3) redlined copies in underiine strikothrough format, and one (1) electronic copy (MS Word format). If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter or your application, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting division/department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Landscaping (PELA) comments: Michael Elliott, at (760) 944-8463. • Property & Environmental Management comments: David Hauser, Property & Environmental Management Director, at (760) 602-2739. • Property & Environmental Management comments: Joe Garuba, Municipal Property Manager, at (760) 434-2893. • Land Development Engineering comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4663. Sincerely, a. 71 DON NEU City Planner DN:JG:sm 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® June 11, ^12 Page 2 Attachments: Planning Division Consolidated Redline Comments, dated June 11, 2012. City of Carlsbad's Community & Economic Development Policy 8 - Minor Special Events on Private Property. c: Westfield, Attn: Stephen Fluhr, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Helix Environmental Planning, Attn: Kim Baranek, 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 Don Neu, City Planner David Hauser, Property & Environmental Management Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Joe Garuba, Municipal Property Manager Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PEIA Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal File Copy Data Entry SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please address each red lined comment as noted in the returned copy of the Specific Plan dated March 15, 2012. Please note, some of the comments listed below may be repeated in the red lined copy. 2. In general, the Signage Provisions on Pgs. 5-3 through 5-8 exceed what was previously discussed and agreed upon in the meeting minutes from April 23, 2012. Please revise to be consistent with these minutes and submit a draft of the signage provisions for us to review and discuss prior to the resubmittal of the Specific Plan. 3. Please be aware that the "Facia Sign" definition on page 5-3 would preclude the "Westfield ID signs" from being pin set on the various architectural features which are shown throughout the Site Development Plan elevations. We would recommend that you revise the definitions section to accommodate this feature for the Westfield ID signs if you would like it to be included. 4. in Table 5a, the Quantity values indicated for the following signs (Facia Anchor, Facia Mini- Anchor, Facia Cinema, Facia Restaurant, Facia Tenant, and Facia Tenant Pads) are not applicable or enforceable as proposed in this table and need to be removed. Please note that Sign Standard No. 2 would be applied instead to dictate the size and quantity of the signs allowed. Please revise Table 5a to eliminate these quantity values. 5. In Table 5b, the Quantity values indicated for Facia Tenant Signs are not applicable or enforceable as proposed in this table and need to be removed. Please note that Sign Standard No. 4 would be applied instead to dictate the size and quantity of the signs allowed. Please revise Table 5b to eliminate these quantity values. 6. In Section 5.2, under Building Height for Planning Area 1 (Pg. 5-9) and Planning Area 5 (Pg. 5-13), the lower finished floor elevation is shown as 46.8 ft., which with a proposed 75 ft. maximum building height would place the maximum height ofthe main building at an elevation of 121.8 ft. Please note the lower finished floor elevation is identified on the Civil Plans as 30.30 ft. Therefore, with a 75 ft. maximum building height, the maximum elevation for the main building should be at 105.3 ft. Please revise these numbers. 7. In Section 6.3 (Temporary Parking Lot Events Permit), please incorporate the following language: "When a business or property owner plans an outdoor event on private property that is not a Special Event as defined in CMC Chapter 8.17, the business or property owner may apply for a permit to hold such an event to the Community & Economic Development Director or his or her designee in accordance with the application requirements of the City of Carisbad's Community & Economic Development Policy 8 - Minor Special Events on Private Property." A copy of the City of Carisbad's Community & Economic Development Policy 8 - Minor Special Events on Private Property is attached foryour review. SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 4 8. Please update Appendix 'A' - Sign Survey with the latest sign survey data. Please also revise the survey to include the dimensions of all signs (i.e., area, height, width, length, etc.) and eliminate any ambiguity. Landscaping (PELA): Please advise the applicant to make the following additions and revisions to the specific plan so that an appropriate review can be performed. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Deleted. 2. Additional ond moro dotoilod oxhibits ore noodod to clarify landscape goals, stondards and guidolinos.—Pleose bettor define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. projoct porimotor; entry plontings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway oroos ond behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; ond parking islonds; intersections; building entries; orchitoctural perimeters; etc.) 2"^ Review: Tho applicant hos rospondod: "Any chonge to any exhibit could in theory, forco a SP amendment.—In ordor to reduce tho potential for SP amendments, tho requested oxhibits aro not providod.—Howovor the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are rodevelopod. Soo SDP 09 04."—Tho applicant has not oddrcssod tho comment.—Ploaso addross.—i*^ Review:—The applicant has responded: "Please refer to tho now landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, stondords and guidelines.—The proposod plantings ore dofinod for each specific aroo (gatewoys, streetscape, parking fields, building frontago and building entry) and includo o plonting palette."—Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; howovor tho information is fairly general and non-specific. A plont list is providod, howovor layout ond use of tho plans is not specific. Pleose provido spocific development standards ond guidelines along with moro spocific sketches as previously roquostod. 4**^ Review: Tho applicant has rospondod: "Ploaso rofor to tho revised landscapo guidolinos with regards to overall vision, standards and guidolinos. Tho proposod plontings ore dofinod for ooch spocific area (gotoways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontago and building entry) and include a planting paletto. This specific plon lays out the dovolopmont standords as discussed and ogroed with City planning staff. Additional sketches ore included providing including ond parking islands and porking lot troo spocing."—Moro detailed exhibits/figures oro still needed to convey the design vision. As an Gxamplo, tho vorbiago and exhibit/figure for the building entries provide for paving, site amenities and planting.—The Specific Plan statos (page 4 19): "Planting will bo used as on orchitoctural design clement with emphasis placed on plant form and structure. Plont material will be seloctod and placed to enhance the architecture." Tho major entry figure (page 4 19) shows one small landscope planter; benches with planter pots lined against o wall; accent paving; and bollards lined at the curb. Tho figure shows o very functional design that locks interest ond crootivity. The verbiage is vogue and doos not provido cleor direction (i.o. is there to be ony othor planting besides the one planter; aro there to bo any trees or palms?). Moro detailed figures and/or verbiage is needed for oil areos to bettor clarify goals, standards and guidelines. 5'*^ Review: The applicant has added enhanced paved plazas atthe El Camino Real (page 4-6) and Marron Road (page 4-7) entries and better clarified the design intent. It is recommended that large architectural planter pots with specimen plantings be included at all corners to add interest and to soften the building elevation for pad 4 at the southwest corner of the El Camino Real entry. SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 5 3. Deleted. 4. Deleted. 5-9 Completed. 10. Deleted. 11-12 Completed. 13-15 Deleted. 1A-4A Deleted. 1B-4B Completed. NEW COMMENTS IC. (Page 4-12) Civil plans show a 6' wide bio-swale down the center of the 10' wide parkway along Marron Road. This leaves a 2' wide planting area on either side. The Specific Plan sketch shows trees in the center of this bio-swale which may not be permitted. Planting area is insufficient if trees are not allowed in this bio-swale area (i.e. 2' width for trees). Street trees along with screen plantings will be required. Please explain how this is to work and re-design as appropriate. Property & Environmental Management: 1. On Pg. 4-24, Section 4.5 - Outdoor Lighting, please include a bullet for energy efficiency. 2. On Pg. 4-26, Section 4.6 - Public Safety under Lighting, please include language about energy efficient lighting. 3. On Pg. 4-27 and 4-28, Section 4.7 - Sustainabiiity, please include electric vehicle charging stations. This is something we've been working towards as part of the proposed policies in the General Plan Update and would like to see incorporated into this Specific Plan. We are still in the process of investigating the proper ratio of charging station spaces to the overall parking requirement, and thus at this point are open to working with Westfield to come up with something that is reasonable. With this added provision, the SDP 09-04 will also need to be revised to include charging stations conveniently distributed around the parking lot ofthe areas being improved. Proximity to existing electrical service can be accommodated. 4. On Pg. 5-2, Section 5.1 - General Development Standards, please add a bullet point about the electric charging stations. 5. On Pg. 5-2, Section 5.1 - Outdoor lighting, please add sub-bullet point about energy efficient lighting requirement. SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARS\D June 11, 2012 £§£§6 6. The Specific Plan should recognize that there will be a number of property transactions occurring to facilitate the expansion (i.e., leasable pads will need to be defined by meets and bounds, and also the outright sale of property next to the main mall). 7. Language should be added to the sections covering Temporary Parking Lot Events requiring that all events need to be incompliance with applicable storm water regulations and that BMP's will be in place if required. Land Development Engineering: No further issues. Fire: Comments to follow under separate cover. rfi(\i<f€h ^li^]t'>- 4^OP QFILE VXARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov June 11, 2012 Hofman Planning & Engineering Attn: Bill Hofman 3156 Uonshead Avenue, Suite 1 Carisbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 4*^ REVIEW FOR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD (REVITALIZATION) Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your Site Development Plan, application no. SDP 09-04, as to its completeness for processing. The application is still incomplete as submitted and must remain incomplete until the legislative actions (i.e., SP 09-01/EIR 09-02) associated with this project have been approved by the City Council. The City may, in the course of processing this 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be addressed and submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment. Please prepare and include with your re-submittal: 1) a copy ofthis list; 2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified issue items have been addressed; and 3) provide seven (7) sets ofthe revised plans, along with two (2) ll"x 17" reduced sets. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Jason Goff, at (760) 602-4643, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting division/department individually as follows: • Planning Division comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Landscaping comments: Michael Elliott, PELA, at (760) 944-8463. - • Land Development Engineering comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Building Division comments: Will Foss, Building Official, at (760) 602-2716. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DECERBO Principal Planner CD:JG:sm 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SDP 09^04 - WESTFIELD CA^BAD Jurie 1|, 2012 Page 2 Attachments: Land Development Engineering Redlined Check Print dated 6/4/2012. PELA (Landscaping) Redlined Check Print dated 5/30/2012. c: Westfield, Attn: Stephen Fluhr, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Helix Environmental Planning, Attn: Kim Baranek, 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal File Copy Data Entry SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning Division: 1. On Sheet Al.0-0, please revise the overall site plan to show all the property lines. The Legend at the bottom ofthe sheet uses a green dashed line to identify the various property lines running through the project site. Only a portion of the properties comprising the overall site are highlighted. Please revise. 2. On Sheet Al.0-0, please revise the Specific Plan boundary (red dashed line) so that both the Specific Plan and the Site Development Plan boundaries are consistent. Presently, they are different specifically in the areas along Marron Road and in the area north ofthe parcel with the existing Tire Shop. 3. On Sheet Al.0-0, please revise "Table 18: Project Trip Generation Estimates" to be more legible. The printing appears blurred and difficult to read. 4. Please revise all sheets where applicable to show enhanced pavement features at the third driveway on Marron Road similar to the other entry paving enhancements proposed at the other entrances. 5. Please add the Earthwork information found in the Legend on Sheet C-1 to the Preliminary Grading Plans (Sheets C-5 through C-7). 6. On Sheets C-5, C-8, and C-ll, please extend the plan view to show the full extent of the development boundary as it specifically pertains to the third driveway along Marron Road. 7. On Sheets C-5, C-8, and C-11, please extend the Limits of Work boundary to include the above requested driveway enhancements at the third driveway along Marron Road. 8. Please add a note to "Detail 1: Vegetated Bioswale" in the Civil Plans that refer the reader to the Landscape Plans for the specific planting details. 9. The elevations on Sheets A2.1-1 and A2.1-3 show a green screen with planting around the newly proposed service area. However, the Landscape Plans do not include this green screen, and it is not clear from the Civil Plans if a planting area is included that can accommodate the green screen. Please note that staff supports the use of the green screen from an aesthetic standpoint and encourages its use to assist in screening this area. Please provide a cross sectional type detail of this area showing how this green screen will be accommodated. The cross section should be included in both the Civil Plans and Landscape Plans. 10. Sheets L4 and L5 are proposing new Mexican Fan Palms, which are considered an invasive species. As a reminder, please revise the plans to provide a substitute. Landscaping (PELA): The numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 4 REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Completed. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3'^'' Review: Please show all property lines and right-of- ways on the landscape plans on all landscape plan sheets. 4"" Review: It is not clear which line represents the right-of-way/property line. Please clarify by drawing an arrow to the correct line. 3-11 Completed. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 2"^* Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 4"" Review: The applicant has responded: "Final enhancements will not be possible until final building elevations are complete at the construction document stage." Additional planting or other softening may be needed at the northeast corner of pad 4 to soften the building elevation. Please add trees along the south side of pad 4. 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscapo construction drawings will be required to show and lobol all utilities and provide appropriato scrooning.—Plooso also locate oil light poles on the concept londscopo plans and insure thot there aro no conflicts with trees.—2"^ Roviow: Tho applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with tho troos." 3*^ Review: Please show the light poles on tho landscopo plons. 4"" Review: The applicant has responded: "Parking lot lighting is not complete for new layout. City will be provided a separate exhibit when complete. Light poles shall be coordinated and placed so not to conflict with trees." 16. Troos sholl be providod at tho minimum rote of ono por every four parking stalls.—Trees pertaining to this roquiroment sholl bo located within tho parking oroa, exclusive of parking lot sotbocks. The troos shall be located in close proximity to tho spaces thoy aro to shade. 2"^ Roviow:—Tho opplicont has responded: "Tho PCRSP will bo tho guiding documont for dovolopmont within tho PCRSP area. Ploaso soo Dovelopmont Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscopo requirements."—The specific plan has not yet boon completed or accepted and should address current City requirements.—Please address. Review: Tho Specific Plan (poge 4 13) indicotos that "Troe row spacing shall divide parking fiolds equally as much as possible and be placed approximately every 3 5 rows of double loaded parking stolls." Ploase provido for these plantings. The Specific Plan also indicates that 2 large canopy trees will be placed at the end islands of each parking row. Please address as best as possible avoiding easements. Check all areas. 4"^ Review: Please show the trees in these areas. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-23 Completed. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 5 24. Deleted. 25. Insure all requirements of tho attached parking lot exhibit ore met. 3"* Review: Piease address how cars are kept out of the vegetated strips. 4"" Review: Cars can be driven between the proposed wheel stops. Please identify the wheel stops on the plans and place so as to preclude cars from passing between them and through the planted swales. 26. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1A-2A Deleted. 3A. Architectural plans do not appear to specify the hardscape treatments. Please fully address. 3^'' Review: Architectural plans provide 3 samples for paving on sheet A3.1-2; however it is not clear if these are for interior or exterior spaces. Architectural illustrative sketches call for enhanced paving pattern #1 and #2; however there is no description as to what these patterns are. Please provide more detail/information. 4"^ Review: Please explain what "Enhance paving pattern ttl and ttl" are on the architectural plans. Are these just two different colors as noted on sheet A3-1.2? AA. Deleted. 5A. Tho illustrotive plans and landscape plans oppoor to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to tho sito. It is rocommondod that landscape oroo ot project entries bo Gxpondod to allow for hotter focal ond project arrival development. Spatial dovolopmont and sequencing needs to bo addressed (orrival to tho project at perimeter entries via vehicles and podostrions; navigation around the sito after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; ote).—A clear definition and clarity of entry ond arrival is needed.—Ploose further develop all plans and provido additional detailing as oppropriote to dofino tho dovolopmont of all areas. 3*^ Roviow: Tho Spocific Plan vision for the gateways (page 4-4) indicates that "Tho gateways must express the excitement and quality of tho Westfield Shopping oxporionco planned for Westfield Carlsbod." The design for building entries (page ^ 19) indicates that "Each ontry will moko a strong landscape statement that reflects the permanence of Wostfiold Carisbad within the economic fabric of Carisbad." It is not clear how thc plans provide for those and othor visions and design concepts. Ploaso address. 4^'' Review: The applicant has added enhanced paved plazas at the El Camino Real and Marron Road entries in the Specific Plan and better clarified the design intent. It is recommended that large architectural planter pots with specimen plantings be included at all corners to add interest and to soften the building elevation for Pad 4 at the southwest corner ofthe El Camino Real entry. 1B-3B Completed. NEW COMMENTS IC. Page 4-7 of the specific Plan provides for enhanced paving at the entry. Please address and see comment 5A. Coordinate architectural illustrative plans. 2C. Per the Specific Plan (page 4-8) "No new Mexican Fan Palms will be introduced". This palm is listed as an invasive species. Please provide a substitute. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 6 3C. Please show new trees to coordinate with architectural illustrative plans. Relocate planter to the north to avoid easements. 4C. Please show plantings per architectural illustrative plans. Coordinate civil plans to show the planter. 5C. Civil plans show a 6' wide bio-swale down the center of the 10' wide parkway along Marron Road. This leaves a 2' wide planting area on either side. Planting area is insufficient if trees are not allowed in this bio-swale area (i.e. 2' width for trees). Street trees along with screen plantings will be required. Please explain how this is to work and re-design as appropriate. 6C. The Specific Plan designates this as a "Major Site Entry"; however the entitlement package provides "Secondary Entry Trees". Please explain why this would not have "Gateway accent Trees" since it is a "Major Site Entry". Land Development Engineering: 1. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, please revise the exhibit to callout the Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN's) for each property within the boundary of the site development permit. Refer to engineering redlines. 2. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, in the property owner section, please revise the exhibit to callout the APN's owned by each unique property owner. Refer to redlines. 3. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, please revise the exhibit to provide a legible breakdown of existing overall average daily trips (ADT's) and proposed overall ADT's and the net increase in ADT's with this revitalization project. Refer to redlines. 4. On sheet Al.0-0, the exhibit was modified to show the existing property lines, but many property lines were not included. Please revise the exhibit to show all existing property lines. Referto legend and redlines. 5. On sheet Al.0-0, please clarify why the properties near the southwest project corner are still included within the site development permit boundary. It is our understanding these properties were removed from the SDP boundary several months ago. If these properties do not belong within the SDP boundary, please remove the APN's from the project summary in the upper right hand corner and remove the City of Carlsbad from the Property Owner information. If they do belong, then add the APN's to the exhibit perthe redline comments. 6. (repeat comment) On sheet C-4, C-8, and C-11, please revise the exhibits to ensure that vehicular stop signs coincide with the pedestrian crossing. Refer to redlines. 7. On sheet C-6, the revised drive aisle results in a configuration that is 'reverse-skewed' for motorists. With the new layout, it does not appear that passenger cars can turn this sharply to enter/exit the parking stall. Please consider restriping the stalls so they are perpendicular or angled in the direction of traffic flow. Refer to redlines and address this discrepancy with the next submittal. 8. On sheet C-6 and C-7, please define keynote 34 at the bottom ofthe page. A^B SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARTSBAD June 11, 2012 Page 7 9. On sheet C-12, please show/callout inside and outside radii for delivery trucks as they enter/exit the proposed loading docks. Refer to Caltrans Figure 404.5F. A previous email was sent to address this concern; however this change must be reflected in the next submittal. 10. Please find attached redlined check prints of the project submittal. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Fire: Comments will follow under separate cover. Building: Comments will follow under separate cover. Hofman Plannina & Enaineerina May 11, 2012 Jason Goff Planning Department, City of Carisbad 1635 FaradayAvenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dear Jason, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Site Development Plan and have developed a revised plan set. The following letter contains our response to your comments and each is numbered and corresponds to the City comment letter dated March 29, 2012. Planning Division: 1. (REPEAT COMMENT) It is imperative that the Civil Plans (Sheets C-1 through C-12) be coordinated with the Landscape Plans (Sheets Ll through L7) and the architectural Illustrated Plans (Sheets AI.4-1 through A1.4-3). All base layers that are used for the rest of the plans also need to be coordinated so they are consistent throughout and accurately convey development intent. More specifically, revise the Civil Plans and Landscape Plans to include the full extent of the hardscape design features shown on the architectural Illustrated Plans (Sheets AI.4-1 through A1.4-3) including decorative hardscape paving at each of the three main entrances along Marron Road. These need to be consistent in design, shape, dimension, and location. Furthermore, it is imperative that the Civil Plans accurately depict all of the proposed landscape planter areas that are proposed within the outer sidewalk and plaza areas running along the main portion of the mall expansion/revitalization area. Please revise accordingly. The plans have been revised and additional actions have been taken to ensure accuracy throughout the plan set. 2. To be consistent with the main entry concept illustrated in the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan, the plans need to be revised to show a detached sidewalk with a parkway planter strip running along the north side of the main entrance at Plaza Drive and El Camino Real. Please coordinate all plans to show this revision. Plans have been coordinated and revised. 3. Please incorporate Sheets Al. 1 -1 a and A1.2-1 b into the revised plan set. These are the two exhibits that were submitted subsequent to the SDP submittal to specifically explain the reconfiguration of floor space to show that the total net new development does not exceed 35,417 sq. ft. Sheets added. Referto new sheets Al.l-la and Al.2-1 a 4. On Sheet AO. 1-0 (Cover Sheet), in the upper right-hand portion of the sheet, the "Westfield Carisbad Site Development Permit Package" is dated February 24, 2010. This date is also consistent with the dates that are labeled in the lower right-hand corner of each of the following sheets through Sheet A3.1-2. For future submittals, please check to insure that the correct date is being provided. All pages show the original submission date of February 24, 2010 and revision dates are indicated on each sheet just above the sheet title. 5. On Sheet Al .0-0, please revise the following: a. In the "Summary Table" under the heading "Required Parking Spaces", please revise the 3.98/1000 SF parking ratio to read instead as 4/1000 SF. This ratio was recently changed in the Specific Plan for ease of calculation. The required number of spaces also needs to be revised to reflect this change. Updated as noted. b. Within the Legend, please provide a category for "Property Lines" and label plans accordingly. Updated as noted. 6. (REPEAT COMMENT) On Sheet Al.1-1 (Level 1 Floor Plan), not all colored areas shown on this plan are represented in the legend. Please revise accordingly. Updated as noted. 7. On Sheet Al .2-1 (Level 2 Floor Plan), please address the following: a. (REPEAT COMMENT) Not ail colored areas shown on this plan are represented in the legend. Please revise accordingly. Updated as noted. b. Please revise plans to show the full extent of screen walls and gates proposed around the two (2) new loading bay/service areas. Updated as noted. See to sheets A1.2-1 and Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3. 8. On Sheet Al .3-1 (Roof Plan - Main Building), please revise as follows: a. Please remove the outline of the graphic panel labeled with a 42'-0" T.O.P. measurement located at the northeast corner of the building. We do not support this proposed sign/graphic panel. Updated as noted. See sheet A1.2-1 and Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3. b. The new commercial space on the south side of the building adjacent to the newly relocated loading bay/service area has a roof height elevation of 58 ft. and a mechanical device with a top of screen (T.O.S.) elevation of 64 ft. Is the roof of this building flat, or is there a parapet running along its perimeter? If there is supposed to be a parapet here, please add a top of parapet (T.O.P.) elevation so we can determine how much ofthe mechanical screen will be visible above the parapet. Both flat roofs and roofs with parapet conditions occur. Elevations have been checked and adjusted (where necessary). See Roof Plan Al.3-1. c. The T.O.P measurement seems to be missing in the center portion of the building also. Please check all portions of the roof and label the T.O.P. where it may be missing. Updated as noted. See Roof Plan, sheet Al .3-1. d. Label the elevation at the top of the tower feature for Regal Cinemas. Updated as noted. See Roof Plan, sheet Al .3-1. e. Label the elevation for the top of the screen walls surrounding each of the new loading bay/service areas as similariy done for the screen wall around the pool area for the gym. Updated as noted. See Roof Plan, sheet A1.3-1. f. Per engineering comments, a roof is required over the two (2) new service/loading bays. Please revise the plans to show a roof over these facilities and label roof elevation and any parapet heights that might be integral to the exterior design of these elevations. Roof for service area not shown. On Sheet A2.1-1 (North Elevation), please address the following: a. The building height dimensions labeled along the edge of the elevations are not all scaled correctly and/or do not match the height of the feature being measured. Please revise. Updated as noted. See updated Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3. b. Please revise the new loading bay screen walls to provide additional architectural treatments. A possible suggestion to also consider is integrating some form of raised planters around the outside of the screen wall on the north and east elevations that would project out and step down in elevation with the topography ofthe site. "Green Screen Walls" have been added. See updated Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2&A2.1-3. 10. On Sheet A2.1-2 (South Elevations), please address the following: a. In the top elevation panel, there are two large expanses of blank walls east of the existing Macy's building that need some additional architectural treatments beyond what is being shown herein. Please revise these two areas to be more architecturally consistent with the design elements that are being utilized throughout the rest of the areas of the mall building that is being redeveloped. We also suggest including the proposed landscaping treatments and pedestrian amenities (i.e., bollards, light fixtures, etc.) proposed for these two areas as is similariy illustrated in the other elevation plans. Updated. See updated Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3. b. The building height dimensions labeled along the edge of the elevations are not all scaled correctly and/or do not match the height of the feature being measured. Please revise. Updated. See updated Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3. c. The new loading bay illustrated on this elevation appears to lack any screen type gates. Please clarify and revise to fully screen the interior of this facility. Updated. See updated Elevation on sheets A2.1-2. 11. On Sheet A2.1-3 (East Elevation), please address the following: a. The building height dimensions labeled along the edge of the elevations are not all scaled correctly and/or do not match the height of the feature being measured. Please revise. Updated. See updated Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3. b. Please coordinate stone material graphics on the elevation sheets and revise for clarity. For example, on Sheet A2.1-3 (East Elevation), there is a portion of the elevation labeled 4" HIGH HORIZONTAL BANDS - SPLIT-FACE STONE VENEER W/ GLASS INSET. This area is further detailed on Sheet A2.3-3 in both pictures where it is labeled as 4" HIGH SPLIT-FACE STONE VENEER IN STACK BANDS. When you compare these graphic details to the graphic detail shown on Sheet A2.1- 2 (South Elevation, Top Panel) the stone material that is illustrated left of the main entrance appears very different from the others discussed herein. Please revise. Clarified. Unchanged. c. There is a Graphic Panel measuring approximately 25 ft. square and extending approximately 10 ft. above the parapet height of the wall that it is attached to, which staff will not support. Please remove this feature from all plans, which appears to include the North Elevation (Sheet A2.1-1), South Elevation (Sheet A2.1-2), Roof Plans (Sheet Al.3-1), and architectural Illustrated Plans (Sheets AI.4-1 and A1.4-3). See updated North Elevation on sheet A2.1-1, South Elevation on sheet A2.1-2, Roof Plan on sheet Al.3-1 and architectural Illustrated Plans on sheets AI.4-1 and A1.4-3. d. Please revise the new loading bay screen walls to provide additional architectural treatments. A possible suggestion to also consider is integrating some form of raised planters around the outside of the screen wall on the north and east elevations that would project out and step down in elevation with the topography of the site. See updated Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3 - added "Green Screen Walls". 12. For all Elevations shown on Sheets A2.1-1 through A2.2-3, please coordinate and label the appropriate building colors (which are missing entirely) and materials as they directly relate to the Colors & Materials illustrated on Sheet A3.2-2. Refer to the Colors & Materials Sheet A3.1-2. 13. On Sheet A3.1-2 (Colors & Materials), please address the following: a. Identify and label paint colors and manufacturer; and coordinate with elevation plans. Done. b. How is the "Wall Cladding" (C-1 through C-4) material shown on this sheet related to the elevations? Is this the plaster material labeled on the elevations? Please clarify and coordinate with the elevation plans. See updated Elevations on sheets A2.1-1 & A2.1-2 & A2.1-3. c. Please label the paving materials according to what they are and then coordinate with the Landscape Plans and Civil Plans so it is clear what is being proposed. Paving has been coordinated with Landscape and Civil Plans. d. Add the "Simulated Wood" material as illustrated on the elevations. What is this? What does it look like? Is there a picture that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? See Colors & Materials Sheet A3.1-2. e. Add the "Cementious Panel" materials as illustrated on the elevations. What is this? What does it look like? Is there a picture that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? Material removed. f Add the "l.C. Concrete Board formed with Expressed Horizontal Bands" material as illustrated on the elevations. What is this? What does it look like? Is there a picture that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? See Colors & Materials Sheet A3.1-2. g. Add the various "Stucco" materials and finishes as illustrated on the elevations. What are these? What do they look like? Are there any pictures that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? See Colors & Materials Sheet A3.1-2. h. Add the various "Plaster" materials and finishes as illustrated on the elevations. What are these? What do they look like? Are there any pictures that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? See Colors & Materials Sheet A3.1-2. 14. Provide a detailed color/materials sample board that corresponds with Sheet A3.1-2. Color & Material on Sheet A3.1-2 provides current design intent. 15. Landscape Plan Sheets L3 through L5, Note 5 references the architectural plans for hardscape treatments. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Landscape plans have been revised to be consistent with Architectural design and to coordinate with Civil plans. 16. (REPEAT COMMENT) Please note that the Planning Division supports the direction that is being provided by our Landscape Architect. Revise all plans to fully address his comments listed in the section below. Noted. 17. (REPEAT COMMENT) Please revise the landscape plans to include pedestrian light fixture locations, details, and dimensions, as well as the type, design, and dimension of the proposed bollards. Bollards have been added and given a call-out specifying type, design, and dimension. Landscape lighting, including accent uplighting, area lighting, and pedestrian scale post lighting, is planned but will not be designed or located until building facades are finalized during the construction document phase. 18. On Sheet C-4 (Proposed Site Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Plans have been revised to include hardscape design features shown on the architectural Illustrated Plans including decorative hardscape paving at each of the three main entrances along Marron Road. The plans have also shown all of the proposed landscape planter areas within the outer sidewalk and plaza areas running along the main portion of the mall expansion/revitalization area. b. Please see Issue Item No. 2 above and revise plans accordingly. Plans have been revised to show a detached sidewalk with a parkway planter strip running along the north side of the main entrance at Plaza Drive and El Camino Real. c. Provide aisle width dimensions between all new parking lot end islands. Done. d. Label building setbacks from Marron Road. Done. e. Label parking lot setbacks from Marron Road in the area of the newly proposed outparcels. Done. f The loading bays on the south and east sides of the mall do not appear to be fully screened or enclosed by screen walls. Please show all walls and gates. Walls and gates are shown on architectural plans and landscape plans. g. Provide and label all property lines. Done. h. Please label the curbs surrounding the parking lot end islands and center tree islands where missing. Done. i. Should a 0" curb (Keynote No. 8) be labeled at the sidewalk area in front of the main entrance (at the foot of the bollards) located approximately 190 ft. east of the existing Macy's building? Yes. See revised plans. 19. On Sheet C-5 (Preliminary Grading Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Be sure to show zero curbs where pedestrian crosswalks are cutting through the landscape planters connecting with the handicap parking at the main entrances. Done. b. Expand the frame of the sheet and development area to include the main driveway near Macy's (i.e., the 3'" driveway west of the Marron Road/El Camino Real intersection). Done. c. Please label the top of curb (TC) elevations for all planter end islands missing from the sheet. Done. 20. On Sheet C-6 (Preliminary Grading Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Be sure to show zero curbs where pedestrian crosswalks are cutting through the landscape planters connecting with the handicap parking at the main entrances. Done. b. Please see Issue Item No. 2 above and revise plans accordingly. Plans have been revised to show a detached sidewalk with a parkway planter strip running along the north side of the main entrance at Plaza Drive and El Camino Real. c. Please label retaining wall and TW/BW elevations supporting the new loading bay. The proposed loading areas are not conventional depressed loading dock. They are just delivery truck parking area. There will not be any retaining walls in this area. All retaining walls have been labeled where applies. 21. On Sheet C-7 (Preliminary Grading Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Be sure to show zero curbs where pedestrian crosswalks are cutting through the landscape planters connecting with the handicap parking at the main entrances. Done. b. Please label retaining wall and TW/BW elevations supporting the new loading bay. The proposed loading areas are not conventional depressed loading dock. They are just delivery truck parking area. There will not be any retaining walls in this area. All retaining walls have been labeled where applies. c. Please label the top of curb (TC) elevations for parking lot center tree islands missing from the sheet. Done. 22. On Sheet C-11 (Proposed Striping Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Done. b. Please see Issue Item No. 2 above and revise plans accordingly. Done. d. Provide drive aisle width dimensions between parking spaces and parking lot end islands. Done. Landscaping (PELA): It is noted that the Specific Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. Many comments are not numbered on the red-line plans due to the conceptual nature of the plans but are provided for the applicant's use in providing more detail and addressing all Landscape Manual requirements. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for many troes in each tree group that oan be very different in character. One symbol is used for all shrubs, grasses and ground covers. Please provide a different symbol for each type of tree (i.e. large evergreen, medium evergreen, small evergreen, large deciduous, medium deciduous, etc.) and a different symbol for eaoh type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen shrub, medium size shrub, small flowering accent shrub, etc.). Vianettes at a larger scale are needed for different areas to convey concepts. Please provide enlargements showing more detailed landscaping for parking islands, site and building entries and perimeters, etc. to allow an appropriate review to be performed. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete and detailed plans. 2"^* Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be less conceptual. Please see Illustrative Plans on Sheets AI.4-1, -2, and -3 for details of the proposed hardscape/landscape types and finishes for pedestrian connections, building entries and perimeters." Illustrative Plans do not appear to reflect real site conditions (i.e. trees located within easements, etc.) and cleariy state that the plans are subject to change. The design intent will need to be better established in order to provide valid comments on the plans. Please provide further detailing that reflects site conditions and provides clear design intent that can be enforced (see underiined comments above). Please also provide a different symbol for small, medium and large trees as well as different symbols for the palms. The proposed palms are different in character and form. See NEW COMMENT 3A. Review: In addition to the comments above, the architectural illustrative plans, civil plans and landscape plans need to be coordinated. For example, the entry adjacent to the drop off area on sheet L3 shows a landscape planter against the east buiiding wall of the JCPenny's building whereas the architectural illustrative plans on Sheet A1.4-1 and Civil Plans show paving. While this example illustrates the necessity to coordinate ail plans it is also important to note that the easterly wall in question contains a side entrance into the JCPenny's buiiding which would be blocked by the proposed landscaping. Please check all sheets and coordinate plans accordingly. Plans have been revised to coordinate and match Architectural design and to coordinate with Civil plans. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3^ Review: Please show all property lines and right-of-ways on the landscape plans on all landscape plan sheets. Right-of-ways, easements, limits of work, and property lines have been labeled on all sheets where they exist. 3-10 Completed. 11. Please provide examples and/or more detailing for the hardscape and landscape markers for review. See comment number 1 and 3A regarding hardscape. Plans have been revised to show architectural hardscape design for informational purposes. Hardscape design and finishes are detailed on Architectural plans. Enlargements of Gateway entry areas have been added to better convey design intent. 12. Completed. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and othenwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 3^ Review: Above comment not addressed. Trees and shrub areas have been added to further enhance architecture. Final enhancements will not be possible until final building elevations are complete at the construction document stage. 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with the trees." 3^ Review: Please show the light poles on the landscape plans. Parking lot lighting is not complete for new layout. City will be provided a separate exhibit when complete. Light poles shall be coordinated and placed so not to conflict with trees. 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Development Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements."—The specific plan has not yet been oompieted or accepted and should address current City requirements.—Please address. 3^ Review: The Specific Plan (page 4-13) indicates that "Tree row spacing shall divide parking fields equally as much as possible and be placed approximately every 3-5 rows of double loaded parking stalls." Please provide for these plantings. The Specific Plan also indicates that 2 large canopy trees will be placed at the end islands of each parking row. Please address as best as possible avoiding easements. Check all areas. Tree placement within the parking fields will be per the Parking Lot Tree Spacing exhibit within the specific plan. Trees have been added to comply and match this exhibit. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-21 Completed. 22. At least three (3%) percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shrubs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 3^^ Review: The Specific Pian indicates that 3% of the parking fieid is to be landscaped. Please provide a calculation showing that this requirement has been met. Parking Field calculation has been added to sheet L5 under "Landscape Calculations". 23. Completed. 24. Deleted. 25. Insure all requirements of the attached parking lot exhibit are met. ^ Review: Please address how cars are kept out of the vegetated strips. Parking stalls adjacent to vegetated strips will be fitted with concrete wheel stops. These are now shown on the plans. 26. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1A-2A Deleted. 3A. Architectural plans do not appear to specify the hardscape treatments. Please fully address. 3^ Review: Architectural plans provide 3 samples for paving on sheet A3.1-2; however it is not clear if these are for interior or exterior spaces. Architectural illustrative sketches call for enhanced paving pattern #1 and #2; however there is no description as to what these patterns are. Please provide more detail/information. See Colors & Materials Sheet A3.1-2 4A. Deleted. 5A. The illustrative plans and landscape plans appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all plans and provide additional detailing as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 3^ Review: The Specific Plan vision for the gateways (page 4-4) indicates that "The gateways must express the excitement and quaiity of the Westfield Shopping experience planned for Westfield Carlsbad." The design for building entries (page 4-19) indicates that "Each entry will make a strong landscape statement that reflects the permanence of Westfield Carlsbad within the economic fabric of Carlsbad." It is not clear how the plans provide for these and other visions and design concepts. Piease address. Illustrative and landscape plans have been further enhanced to provide more materials and interest in hardscape and planting layouts. Specific elements include, but are not limited to, sole project entry tree and secondary entry trees, bands of massed plants at site entries, minimum quantity requirements for plant material varieties, and more enhanced paving at entries. NEW COMMENTS IB. These are shown as landscape areas on the architectural illustrative plans. Please coordinate. Illustrative plans and landscape plans have been coordinated. 2B. Please show the water use for the vegetated strips on sheet L7. Water use now shown. 3B. Pennisetum setaceum is listed as an invasive species. Please provide a substitute. Pennisetum setaceum removed from planting list. Festuca californica and Muhlenbergia filipes added to legend. Land Development Engineering: 1. The existing curb and gutter along Marron Road and El Camino Real are proposed to be replaced with vegetated swales. Revise the drainage report to address the size/capacity of the proposed vegetated swales along Marron Road and El Camino Real. Verify these vegetated swales can intercept and convey the 100-year peak flow event from the parking lots without flooding the parking stalls. Drainage report has been revised to include 100-yr flow rate and vegetated swale capacity calculations. 2. Address discrepancies between the updated preliminary storm water management plan and the site development plan. The site development plan shows several landscape areas serving as bioretention basins along the south and east parking areas (with an intricate storm drain network) but are only shown as landscape islands on the preliminary storm water management plan. It appears the site development plan may not reflect the updated treatment features identified in the preliminary storm water management plan. These bio-retention areas are no longer necessary after bio-swales are added along Marron and El Camino Real. Plans have been revised to show these areas as regular landscaped islands with 6" curbs. Also bio-retention areas are no longer needed at the north side of the shopping complex. Runoff from new improvements are collected by concrete gutters and directed towards the proposed vegetated swales in the parking lot. 3. Refer to redlines as noted on the returned preliminary storm water management plan. Add the updated project name for Westfield Carisbad. Add narrative regarding treatment control (page 3). Remove "self-treating" from pervious surfaces or clarify self- treating when the underlying soil can absorb the 1*' 1-inch of rainfall from the area that is routed to it (page 7). Clarify how roof runoff will be directed to landscape areas as the site development plan has not demonstrated how this will happen (page 8). Add narrative that loading docks will be covered (page 11). Add narrative that geotechnical recommendations will be sought regarding underiying soil conditions as it relates to designing vegetated strips and porous concrete (page 13). Verify the channel characteristics of the vegetated swale can be constructed per the site development plan (summary). SWMP has been revised to address all the redlined comments. (REPEAT COMMENT) Revise the preliminary utility plan to show the potable water services and meters for the mall. Staff has concerns over those portions of the existing mall that are served by water meters located inside building(s). Revise the project and plans to provide a common meter bank outside the mall to allow staff to access, read and better monitor connections to the City potable water system. Water meters for the redeveloped portions of the mall must be reconfigured to allow access from the outside of the building (versus inside the building). The current configuration has resulted in several conflicts by city staff. On the returned exhibits, a response stated was that no change would be made to the existing building. We will continue to ask for the redeveloped portion of the mall (not existing), be reconfigured to address this water meter reconfiguration issue. Please revise the exhibits to show where the existing water meters are located, on the redeveloped portion area, and show the new/proposed water meters outside the buildings to avoid future conflicts. Master water meters and backflow preventers are shown on the utility plans. 5. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit to callout the short legal descriptions for each property on this overall site plan. Refer to engineering redlines from the 1*' review set and revise the plans to comply. Refer to Specific Plan document for Property Ownership exhibit located in the appendices. 6. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al.0-0, in the property owner section, revise the exhibit to callout the lots owned by each unique property owner. Refer to Specific Plan document for Property Ownership exhibit located in the appendices. 7. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit provide a comprehensive breakdown of existing overall ADT's and proposed overall ADT's and the net increase in ADT's with this revitalization project. This information is available from the traffic report prepared by Gibson Transportation. See updated Site Plan Al.0-0. 8. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al .0-0, revise the exhibit to address the potential sight distance conflict located just north of Area 3. Refer to redlines. If there is a conflict, revise the exhibits to address. Sight distance lines are shown on sheet C-4. 9. (REPEAT COMMENT) Revise the project data on sheet Al .0-0 to express the proposed sewer generation in equivalent dwelling units (EDU). Revised. 10. On sheet Al.3-1, revise the exhibit to clarify why the loading docks are not included in this roof plan. These docks are to be covered as described in the preliminary storm water management plan. Address this inconsistency. The loading areas will not be covered. SWMP and grading plans have been revised accordingly. 11. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet AI.4-1, revise the exhibit to flip the orientation of the plan so that north faces up to match the key map and the other exhibits. See updated Illustrative Plan AI.4-1. 12. On sheets C-1 and C-5 and C-6, revise the exhibits to clarify whether the loading docks will be covered as discussed in the preliminary storm water management plan. The new loading dock will not be covered. It will have trench drain and filters at the back ofthe loading area, and be connected to the storm drain system. 13. On sheet C-4, add keynotes to callout and delineate the proposed enhanced at pedestrian crossings and primary entry intersections as shown on in Specific Plan. Done. 14. On sheet C-4, add dimensions to each drive aisle (typical) within the site development plan boundary. Revise those median islands to improve vehicular traffic flow through the parking lot and to provide refuge for pedestrians near cross-walks. Refer to redlines. Done. 15. On sheet C-4, there are proposed or reconfigured median islands as compared to the existing condition. The water conservation exhibit also shows using recycled water in these islands. Revise the exhibits to add keynotes to clarify areas of landscape or vegetated strips. Refer to redlines. Done. 16. On sheet C-4, revise the striping on the easteriy driveway exiting onto Marron Road. It appears no thru movements will be permitted so this driveway should show right and left turns only. Refer to redlines. Done. 17. On sheet C-4, revise the exhibits to ensure that vehicular stop signs to coincide with pedestrian crossings. Refer to redlines. Done. 18. On sheet C-4, add detail for how the vegetated strips located along the north parking area will be added to the existing parking lot. Will this area be a raised planter or will it use 0-inch curbs to intercept runoff from the parking lot. Add a typical cross-section. It will be 0-inch curbs. Cross-section added. 19. On sheet C-4, revise the exhibit so it matches the proposed landscape area per the concept landscape exhibits (typical). Done. 20. On sheet C-4, add keynotes or callout where sidewalk will be removed. Refer to redlines. Done. 21. On sheets C-4 thru C-6, revise the exhibit to add keynotes and callout where new sidewalks are proposed. Refer to redlines. Done. 22. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-4 thru C-10, show and callout the existing property lines (typical). Although the existing lines are shown on the constraints exhibit, add them to the proposed site plan exhibits to demonstrate which properties are impacted by the improvements by this site development plan. Done. 23. On sheet C-5, show/callout inside and outside radii for semi-tractor trailers as they enter/exit the proposed loading docks and maneuver through the mall. Based on Caltrans turning templates, it appears the truck movement conflicts with the proposed landscape islands. Refer to redlines and address conflict. According to Westfield, there will not be a semi-tractor trailer on-site. The depth of the loading area is to accommodate 2 trucks tandem parking. Note has been added on plan. 24. On sheet C-5, add a typical cross-section for the proposed vegetated swale along Marron Road and El Camino Real. Show that the small berm and swale can fit is this buffer. The preliminary storm water management plan calls out the swale as 10-ft wide bottom with 3:1 side slopes. Cross-section added on plan. The proposed swale is 10-ft wide total, with 4-ft wide bottom and 3:1 side slopes. 25. On sheets C-5 and C-6, add drainage directions to the preliminary grading plan to show how these swales will drain. Verify grades and slopes so these swales will drain to the proposed storm drain inlets. Drainage directions and flow-line grades have been added on plan. 26. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-5 through C-7, some of the bioretention areas are not typical. Some are oddly-shaped, contain sidewalk and/or fire hydrants. Since hydrants or sidewalks would not be depressed, address how this will impact (reduce) the function of the bioretention areas. Revise the exhibits to provide some additional detail as to how these areas will function. Maybe this couid be addressed in the typical detail. These bio-retention areas are no longer necessary after bio-swales are added along Marron and El Camino Real. Plans have been revised to show these areas as regular landscaped islands with 6" curbs. 27. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-5 thru C-7, revise the exhibit to include a typical expanded detail (either plan view or 3-D composite) of the depressed bioretention areas. The detail should show the 0-inch curb, 6-inch curb side, area drain, depressed landscape area, side slopes, landscaping, etc.). These bio-retention areas are no longer necessary after bio-swales are added along Marron and El Camino Real. Plans have been revised to show these areas as regular landscaped islands with 6" curbs. 28. On sheet C-6, add grading/elevation detail to the truck loading dock. It appears a retaining wall is required to support this driveway with the sloping grade here. Add retaining wall symbol, top-of-wall elevation. Referto redlines. The loading areas are not depressed. Necessary slopes and grades have been added on plan. 29. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-7, it is our understanding many of the landscape islands shown on this sheet will serve as bioretention basins as described in the preliminary storm water management plan. The exhibits show how runoff is discharged from the bioretention basins, but not how it gets there. Without adequate design, runoff from the project will bypass these basins and not serve their purpose. Please add detail to this preliminary grading plan to show how runoff from this project will be collected, intercepted and treated by these various bioretention basins. This plan should show each bioretention basin treats the drainage management area (DMA) as described in the preliminary storm water management plan. These bio-retention areas are no longer necessary after bio-swales are added along Marron and El Camino Real. Plans have been revised to show these areas as regular landscaped islands with 6" curbs. 30. On sheets C-5 thru C-6, the site development plan shows several landscape islands built as bioretention basins. However now that linear bioretention swales are proposed along Marron Road and El Camino Real the preliminary storm water management plan does use these landscape medians for bioretention purposes. Please verify how much bioretention is required and if not needed, consider deleting the proposed storm drain network required to drain these median islands. These bio-retention areas are no longer necessary after bio-swales are added along Marron and El Camino Real. Plans have been revised to show these areas as regular landscaped islands with 6" curbs. 31. On sheets C-8 thru C-10, please coordinate the location of existing and proposed fire hydrants throughout this project. Many proposed hydrants appear to be located close to structures. Meet with the Fire Marshal and depict the correct hydrant locations. We have met with the Fire Marshal and revised hydrant locations as requested. 32. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-8 thru C-10, previously we asked for sewer invert elevations per our redline comments. No changes were made with this resubmittal. Please address these comments to assure that the new development will gravity flow to an existing sewer system. Existing and proposed sewer invert elevations have been added on the plans. 33. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-8 through C-10, show and callout the preliminary fire service (double detector check valve) locations for each new/redeveloped structure. Coordinate with the Fire Marshal. We have met with the Fire Marshal. DCDAs and FDCs have been added on the plans as requested. 34. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-9, callout 'proposed sewer laterals' as private. Done. 35. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-9, clarify at where the existing 10-inch wateriine has a three-way junction if there are control valves that would be affected by the proposed raised median curbs. Refer to redlines. There isn't a three-way junction. One the existing is to be abandoned. 36. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-9 thru C-10, provide a 20-ft minimum width public sewer easement that encompasses the existing backbone sewer main that serves the various out-parcel buildings and Lot 1 & 2 of Map No. 8956. Refer to redlines. The existing backbone sewers are public, but there are no existing easements. City Engineering Dept. has indicated that easement might not be necessary because the City owns the property. 37. On sheet C-11, we previously asked to address discrepancies in line-of-sight lines, however, now they were removed. Please show line-of-sight lines at each driveway connection to a public street using Caltrans guidelines. Line-of-sight lines have been added back. Caltrans corner sight distance is applied at driveways connecting to a pubic street without a traffic signal, which is 440 ft at design speed of 40 mph. Caltrans stopping sight distance is applied at driveways connecting to a public street where a traffic signal is installed, which is 300 ft at design speed of 40 mph. Per Caltrans standards, due to extreme site constraints, the minimum stopping sight distance has to be applied where the corner sight distance is not practical. At one of the driveway, where Marron Road makes a slight turn, 300 ft of minimum stopping sight distance is applied. 38. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-12, address how emergency access vehicles will approach the new out-parcels and exit given drive aisle widths and layout. A circuitous fire engine route is still shown on the plan, but during emergencies would be unlikely used. Add the missing (direct) fire access approach and resolve this conflict prior to resubmittal. Refer to redlines. Existing striping has been revised to allow for fire and emergency vehicles to circulate through the new out-parcels. It has been discussed with and accepted by the Fire Marshal. 39. Attached are redlined check prints of the project submittal, preliminary storm water management plan and hydrology study. The check print and redline studies must be returned with the revised plans and updated studies to facilitate continued staff review. Noted. Building Division: No comments at this time. Fire Department: Please see the attached "Discretionary Review Checklisf from the Fire Department dated February 27, 2012. Met with Fire Marshal. All comments have been addressed. See revised plans. Hofman Plannina & Enaineerina May 11, 2012 RECEIVED Jason Goff l^^y 1 1 2012 Planning Department City of Carisbad CITY OF GARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue p, AMMI|S|G DIVISION Carlsbad, CA 92008 rLMiNiNiiNv:. SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Goff, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan and have developed a revised draft of the document that is included with this submittal package. The following letter contains our response to the City Comment Letter dated March 16, 2012. Response to Planning Comments: 1. Please address each red lined comment as noted in the returned copy of the Specific Plan dated March 15, 2012. Please note, some of the comments listed below may be repeated in the red lined copy. All redlined comments have been addressed. 2. Please consider printing the appendices as a separate volume to the specific plan. By adding all of the studies to the appendices it will make the document too large at final completion and difficult for reproduction in the future. The appendices have been provided as a separate volume. 3. Can you add some of the 3 dimensional artist renderings from the SDP submittal? These not only will add visual interest to the document, but also conveys some of the concepts that are illustrated in the design guidelines. Additional images have been incorporated. See section 4.1. 4. In accordance with our telephone conversation with Stephen Fluhr from Westfield on March 8, 2012, please revise Table 4 - Use Classifications such that "Religious Uses" follow the same approval process as "Clubs and Lodges" and "Philanthropic/Charitable Institutions". The returned redlines have been marked to show these uses all requiring a CUP-PC. Please revise accordingly. Completed. 5. On pg. 3-3 please delete from the prohibited uses: "churches, synagogues, mosques, or other buildings in which religious assembly is the primary use." Completed. SP 09-01 -WESTFIELD?!RLSBAD April 10, 2012 Page 2 6. Please see our landscape architect's comments below and revise the Specific Plan to address his comments specifically. We agree with his assessment that the landscape concept illustrations are lacking interest and creativity. Please note that this comment is not just limited to the major entries at the mall building (pg. 4-19), but all others as well. See response to Landscape Comments below. 7. In accordance with our previous discussions on March 9, 2012, please revise the 75 ft. maximum building height for Planning Areas 1 and 5 so that this height only applies to the main mall structure and not all of the planning area. Clarification regarding the point of measurement needs to be defined to clarify our understanding that the 75 ft. height is being measured from the lower grade on the north side of the main mall building. In addition, a new building height standard needs to be added to address any future buildings that could be placed in the outlying parking lot areas of Planning Areas 1 and 5. For these areas, please reference compliance with C.M.C. Section 21.04.065 for building height. Additional clarification of building height has been provided to address this concern. See pages 5-8 & 5-12. 8. The Signage Provisions in Sections 5-3 through 5-5 need to be clearer regarding the assignment of signage quantities, particulariy with respect to the facia type signs on all of the outlying pad buildings and possibly the tenant signs on the main mall structure. It is not clear from the signage provisions how the number of signs will be allotted. For example, the area south of Marron Road covered by Table 5b would allow nine (9) 150 square foot facia type signs for only three buildings located in this area. That is three (3) times the amount of signage that our code presently allows for a freestanding commercial building, not to mention the table also does not identify who would get these signs. This is also true for the other pad sites. In addition, the following types of requirements should be added to the facia type sign regulations as it specifically relates to the outlying pad buildings and possibly tenants on the main mall structure: a. Total sign area shall not exceed 1 sq. ft. per each lineal foot of building frontage; and b. The width of any sign shall not exceed 75% of the width of the building frontage or lease space to which the sign pertains. These types of requirements will better control the placement and orientation of signage, and will also control the amount of signage to building ratios which is presently absent in the Specific Plans signage provisions. The sign section was modified to address these concerns. 9. Further discussion and revisions need occur to both Section 3.2 - Temporary Uses (pg. 3-3) and Section 6.3 - Major & l\Ainor Temporary Parking Lot Events Permit (pg. 6-5). The current process is not implementable as proposed and circumvents many life-safety processes that are already covered by current city processes. Revisions made to Section 3.2 and Section 6.3 as requested. 10. Repeat Comment (2"'^ Review Issues Letter dated June 7. 2010 and 3^*^ Review Issues Letter dated November 16. 2011). Please provide, for review and comparison, copies of the City/County approved sign programs from the Westfield Culver City Mall (i.e. Fox Hill SP 09-01 - WESTFIELofli^LSBAD April 10, 2012 Page 3 Mall), Westfield UTC Mall, and the Westfield Plaza Bonita Mall. Please note that we resen/e comments on the WCSP signage criteria section until we have had a chance to review the proposed sign program and see what you intend to propose. Has been provided to staff. Please note that staff would prefer to be involved eariy on and more directly in resolving the issues identified above or assisting in ways that might facilitate a quicker processing time of this application. We can assist in a number of ways such as answering questions, providing input, or even performing a cursory review of the individual sections, subject matter, and/or graphics. Please, do not hesitate in contacting us. Landscape (PELA): REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Deleted. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.) 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however the information is fairiy general and non-specific. A plant list is provided, however layout and use of the plans is not specific. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines along with more specific sketches as previously requested. 4'" Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette. This specific plan lays out the development standards as discussed and agreed with City planning staff. Additional sketches are inciuded providing including end parking islands and parking lot tree spacing." More detailed exhibits/figures are still needed to convey the design vision. As an example, the verbiage and exhibit/figure for the building entries provide for paving, site amenities and planting. The Specific Plan states (page 4-19): "Planting will be used as an architectural design element with emphasis placed on plant form and structure. Plant material will be selected and placed to enhance the architecture." The major entry figure (page 4-19) shows one small landscape planter; benches with planter pots lined against a wall; accent paving; and bollards lined at the curb. The figure shows a very functional design that lacks interest and creativity. The verbiage is vague and does not provide clear direction (i.e. is there to be any SP 09-01 -WESTFIELD^Ii^LSBAD April 10, 2012 Page 4 other planting besides the one planter; are there to be any trees or palms?). More detailed figures and/or verbiage is needed for all areas to better clarify goals, standards and guidelines. Exhibits have been added to and enhanced to create more interest and to better clarify specific design goals. 3. The exhibits appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Further definition and clarity will be provided in the subsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04 for areas within the area of work as shown on the plans." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3^^* Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines section on "Gateways" (pg. 4-4) and "Streetscape" (pg. 4-7) regarding focal points and project arrival/entries. Additional pictures and illustrations have been included to depict concepts in the text." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however they are still fairiy functional only and lack interest and creativity. Please fully address the comment. 4'" Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines per discussions with City planning staff." The exhibits/figures still appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. Please see comment 2, 4'" review above. Exhibits have been added to and enhanced to create more interest and to better clarify specific design goals. 4. Deleted. 5-9 Completed. 10. Deleted. 11-12 Completed. 13-15 Deleted. 1A-4A Deleted. 1B-4B Completed. Engineering: 1. On page 5-5, under 'Design, Color & Materials', please add a narrative explaining that no person shall erect any sign within the sight distance corridor (repeat comment). Please refer to redlines. Completed. This requirement was made a specific standard under the sign section. See page 5-5 2. Please add Appendix B (storm water management plan) to the specific plan (repeat comment). Completed. 3. A water study was added to Appendix E. However, this is not the latest water study. SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD^i^LSBAD April 10, 2012 Page 5 Based on previous correspondence we understand Dexter Wilson performed an update letter to this study, dated January 25, 2010. Please add this update to the appendix. The letter dated January 25, 2010 has been added to the Appendices. 4. Once the information is available, please add Appendix G (mitigation measures) to the specific plan. Noted. 5. Attached is redlined specific plan document. Please return this redline document with an updated copy of the specific plan with next review. If you have any questions, please call me at 602-2737. Completed. Fire Department: 1. Fire Department comments will follow under separate cover. 1 'Acrvo. ^ ^ QFILE V CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov March 29, 2012 Hofman Planning & Engineering Attn: Bill Hofman 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: Srd REVIEW FOR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your Site Development Plan, application no. SDP 09-04, as to its completeness for processing. The application is still incomplete as submitted and must remain incomplete until the legislative actions (i.e., SP 09-01/EIR 09-02) associated with this project have been approved by the City Council. The City may, in the course of processing this 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be addressed and submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment. Please prepare and include with your re-submittal: 1) a copy of this list; 2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified issue items have been addressed; and 3) provide seven (7) sets of the revised plans, along with two (2) 11"x 17" reduced sets. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Jason Goff, at (760) 602-4643, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Division comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Landscaping comments: Michael Elliott, PELA, at (760) 944-8463. • Engineering Department comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Building Division comments: Will Foss, Building Official, at (760) 602-2716. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DECERBO Principal Planner CD:JG:sm 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® 9\R I St5p']09-04 -WESTFIELD OARLSBAD • March 29, 2012 Page 2 Attachments: Land Development Engineering Redlined Check Print (full set). Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, and Hydrology Study. PELA Redlined Check Print (Landscape Plans). Fire Department - Discretionary Review Checklist, dated February 27, 2012. c: Westfield, Attn: Stephen Fluhr, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCertDo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal File Copy Data Entry SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning Division: 1. (REPEAT COMMENT) It is imperative that the Civil Plans (Sheets C-1 through C-12) be coordinated with the Landscape Plans (Sheets Ll through L7) and the architectural Illustrated Plans (Sheets AI.4-1 through A1.4-3). All base layers that are used for the rest of the plans also need to be coordinated so they are consistent throughout and accurately convey development intent. More specifically, revise the Civil Plans and Landscape Plans to include the full extent of the hardscape design features shown on the architectural Illustrated Plans (Sheets AI.4-1 through A1.4-3) including decorative hardscape paving at each of the three main entrances along Marron Road. These need to be consistent in design, shape, dimension, and location. Furthermore, it is imperative that the Civil Plans accurately depict all of the proposed landscape planter areas that are proposed within the outer sidewalk and plaza areas running along the main portion of the mall expansion/revitalization area. Please revise accordingly. 2. To be consistent with the main entry concept illustrated In the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan, the plans need to be revised to show a detached sidewalk with a parkway planter strip running along the north side of the main entrance at Plaza Drive and El Camino Real. Please coordinate all plans to show this revision. 3. Please incorporate Sheets Al.l-la and A1.2-1b into the revised plan set These are the two exhibits that were submitted subsequent to the SDP submittal to specifically explain the reconfiguration of floor space to show that the total net new development does not exceed 35,417 sq. ft 4. On Sheet AO. 1-0 (Cover Sheet), in the upper right-hand portion of the sheet, the "Westfield Carisbad Site Development Permit Package" is dated February 24, 2010. This date is also consistent with the dates that are labeled in the lower right-hand corner of each of the following sheets through Sheet A3.1-2. For future submittals, please check to insure that the correct date is being provided. 5. On Sheet Al .0-0, please revise the following: a. In the "Summary Table" under the heading "Required Parking Spaces", please revise the 3.98/1000 SF parking ratio to read instead as 4/1000 SF. This ratio was recently changed in the Specific Plan for ease of calculation. The required number of spaces also needs to be revised to reflect this change. b. Within the Legend, please provide a category for "Property Lines" and label plans accordingly. 6. (REPEAT COMMENT) On Sheet Al.1-1 (Level 1 Floor Plan), not all colored areas shown on this plan are represented in the legend. Please revise accordingly. 7. On Sheet A1.2-1 (Level 2 Floor Plan), please address the following: a. (REPEAT COMMENT) Not all colored areas shown on this plan are represented in the legend. Please revise accordingly. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD RLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 4 b. Please revise plans to show the full extent of screen walls and gates proposed around the two (2) new loading bay/service areas. 8. On Sheet Al .3-1 (Roof Plan - Main Building), please revise as follows: a. Please remove the outline of the graphic panel labeled with a 42'-0" T.O.P. measurement located at the northeast corner of the building. We do not support this proposed sign/graphic panel. b. The new commercial space on the south side of the building adjacent to the newly relocated loading bay/service area has a roof height elevation of 58 ft. and a mechanical device with a top of screen (T.O.S.) elevation of 64 ft. Is the roof of this building flat, or is there a parapet running along its perimeter? If there is supposed to be a parapet here, please add a top of parapet (T.O.P.) elevation so we can determine how much of the mechanical screen will be visible above the parapet. c. The T.O.P measurement seems to be missing in the center portion of the building also. Please check all portions of the roof and label the T.O.P. where it may be missing. d. Label the elevation at the top of the tower feature for Regal Cinemas. e. Label the elevation for the top of the screen walls surrounding each of the new loading bay/service areas as similariy done for the screen wall around the pool area for the gym. t Per Engineering comments, a roof is required over the two (2) new service/loading bays. Please revise the plans to show a roof over these facilities and label roof elevation and any parapet heights that might be integral to the exterior design of these elevations. 9. On Sheet A2.1-1 (North Elevation), please address the following: a. The building height dimensions labeled along the edge of the elevations are not all scaled correctly and/or do not match the height of the feature being measured. Please revise. b. Please revise the new loading bay screen walls to provide additional architectural treatments. A possible suggestion to also consider is integrating some form of raised planters around the outside of the screen wall on the north and east elevations that would project out and step down in elevation with the topography of the site. 10. On Sheet A2.1-2 (South Elevations), please address the following: a. In the top elevation panel, there are two large expanses of blank walls east of the existing Macy's building that need some additional architectural treatments beyond what is being shown herein. Please revise these two areas to be more architecturally consistent with the design elements that are being utilized throughout the rest of the areas of the mall building that is being redeveloped. We also suggest including the proposed landscaping treatments and pedestrian amenities (i.e., bollards, light fixtures, etc.) proposed for these two areas as is similariy illustrated in the other elevation plans. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 5 b. The building height dimensions labeled along the edge of the elevations are not all scaled correctly and/or do not match the height of the feature being measured. Please revise. c. The new loading bay illustrated on this elevation appears to lack any screen type gates. Please clarify and revise to fully screen the interior of this facility. 11. On Sheet A2.1-3 (East Elevation), please address the following: a. The building height dimensions labeled along the edge of the elevations are not all scaled correctly and/or do not match the height of the feature being measured. Please revise. b. Please coordinate stone material graphics on the elevation sheets and revise for clarity. For example, on Sheet A2.1-3 (East Elevation), there is a portion of the elevation labeled 4" HIGH HORIZONTAL BANDS - SPLIT-FACE STONE VENEER W/ GLASS INSET. This area is further detailed on Sheet A2.3-3 in both pictures where it is labeled as 4" HIGH SPLIT-FACE STONE VENEER IN STACK BANDS. When you compare these graphic details to the graphic detail shown on Sheet A2.1- 2 (South Elevation, Top Panel) the stone material that is illustrated left of the main entrance appears very different from the others discussed herein. Please revise. c. There is a Graphic Panel measuring approximately 25 ft. square and extending approximately 10 ft. above the parapet height ofthe wall that it is attached to, which staff will not support. Please remove this feature from all plans, which appears to include the North Elevation (Sheet A2.1-1), South Elevation (Sheet A2.1-2), Roof Plans (Sheet Al.3-1), and architectural Illustrated Plans (Sheets AI.4-1 and A1.4-3). d. Please.revise the new loading bay screen walls to provide additional architectural treatments. A possible suggestion to also consider is integrating some form of raised planters around the outside of the screen wall on the north and east elevations that would project out and step down in elevation with the topography of the site. 12. For all Elevations shown on Sheets A2.1-1 through A2.2-3, please coordinate and label the appropriate building colors (which are missing entirely) and materials as they directly relate to the Colors & Materials illustrated on Sheet A3.2-2. 13. On Sheet A3.1-2 (Colors & Materials), please address the following: a. Identify and label paint colors and manufacturer; and coordinate with elevation plans. b. How is the "Wall Cladding" (C-1 through C-4) material shown on this sheet related to the elevations? Is this the plaster material labeled on the elevations? Please clarify and coordinate with the elevation plans. c. Please label the paving materials according to what they are and then coordinate with the Landscape Plans and Civil Plans so it is clear what is being proposed. d. Add the "Simulated Wood" material as illustrated on the elevations. What is this? What does it look like? Is there a picture that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD ^I^LSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 6 e. Add the "Cementious Panel" materials as illustrated on the elevations. What is this? What does it look like? Is there a picture that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? f. Add the "l.C. Concrete Board formed with Expressed Horizontal Bands" material as illustrated on the elevations. What is this? What does it look like? Is there a picture that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? g. Add the various "Stucco" materials and finishes as illustrated on the elevations. What are these? What do they look like? Are there any pictures that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? h. Add the various "Plaster" materials and finishes as illustrated on the elevations. What are these? What do they look like? Are there any pictures that could be added to the Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1? 14. Provide a detailed color/materials sample board that corresponds with Sheet A3.1-2. 15. Landscape Plan Sheets L3 through L5, Note 5 references the architectural plans for hardscape treatments. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. 16. (REPEAT COMMENT) Please note that the Planning Division supports the direction that is being provided by our Landscape Architect. Revise all plans to fully address his comments listed in the section below. 17. (REPEAT COMMENT) Please revise the landscape plans to include pedestrian light fixture locations, details, and dimensions, as well as the type, design, and dimension of the proposed bollards. 18. On Sheet C-4 (Proposed Site Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. b. Please see Issue Item No. 2 above and revise plans accordingly. c. Provide aisle width dimensions between all new parking lot end islands. d. Label building setbacks from Marron Road. e. Label parking lot setbacks from Marron Road in the area of the newly proposed outparcels. t The loading bays on the south and east sides of the mall do not appear to be fully screened or enclosed by screen walls. Please show all walls and gates. g. Provide and label all property lines. h. Please label the curbs surrounding the parking lot end islands and center tree islands where missing. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 7 i. Should a 0" curb (Keynote No. 8) be labeled at the sidewalk area in front of the main entrance (at the foot ofthe bollards) located approximately 190 ft. east of the existing Macy's building? 19. On Sheet C-5 (Preliminary Grading Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Be sure to show zero curbs where pedestrian crosswalks are cutting through the landscape planters connecting with the handicap parking at the main entrances. b. Expand the frame of the sheet and development area to include the main driveway near Macy's (i.e., the 3^"^ driveway west of the Marron Road/El Camino Real intersection). c. Please label the top of curb (TC) elevations for all planter end islands missing from the sheet. 20. On Sheet C-6 (Preliminary Grading Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Be sure to show zero curbs where pedestrian crosswalks are cutting through the landscape planters connecting with the handicap parking at the main entrances. b. Please see Issue Item No. 2 above and revise plans accordingly. c. Please label retaining wall and TW/BW elevations supporting the new loading bay. 21. On Sheet C-7 (Preliminary Grading Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. Be sure to show zero curbs where pedestrian crosswalks are cutting through the landscape planters connecting with the handicap parking at the main entrances. b. Please label retaining wall and TW/BW elevations supporting the new loading bay. c. Please label the top of curb (TC) elevations for parking lot center tree islands missing from the sheet. 22. On Sheet C-11 (Proposed Striping Plan), please address the following: a. Please see Issue Item No. 1 above and revise plans accordingly. b. Please see Issue Item No. 2 above and revise plans accordingly. d. Provide drive aisle width dimensions between parking spaces and parking lot end islands. Landscaping (PELA): It is noted that the Specific Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD ^ March 29, 2012 Page 8 Many comments are not numbered on the red-line plans due to the conceptual nature of the plans but are provided for the applicant's use in providing more detail and addressing all Landscape Manual requirements. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. Ono symbol is usod for many trees in eaoh tree group that oan be very different in character. One symbol is used for all shrubs, grasses and ground covers. Please provide a different symbol for eaoh type of treo (i.o. large evergreen, medium evergreen, small evergreen, large dooiduous, medium deciduous, etc.) and a different symbol for eaoh type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen shrub, modium size shrub, small flowering accent shrub, etc.). Vignettes at a larger scale are needed for different areas to convey concepts. Please provide enlargements showing more detailed landscaping for parking islands, site and building entries and perimeters, etc. to allow an appropriate review to be performed. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete and detailed plans. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be less conceptual. Please see Illustrative Plans on Sheets AI.4-1, -2, and -3 for details of the proposed hardscape/landscape types and finishes for pedestrian connections, building entries and perimeters." Illustrative Plans do not appear to reflect real site conditions (i.e. trees located within easements, etc.) and cleariy state that the plans are subject to change. The design intent will need to be better established in order to provide valid comments on the plans. Please provide further detailing that reflects site conditions and provides clear design intent that can be enforced (see underiined comments above). Please also provide a different symbol for small, medium and large trees as well as different symbols for tho palms. The proposed palms are different in character and form. See NEW COMMENT 3A. 3^ Review: In addition to the comments above, the architectural illustrative plans, civil plans and landscape plans need to be coordinated. For example, the entry adjacent to the drop off area on sheet L3 shows a landscape planter against the east building waii of the JCPenny's building whereas the architectural illustrative plans on Sheet AI.4-1 and Civil Plans show paving. While this example illustrates the necessity to coordinate ali pians it is also important to note that the easterly wall in question contains a side entrance into the JCPenny's building which would be blocked by the proposed landscaping. Piease check ali sheets and coordinate plans accordingly. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3^ Review: Please show ali property lines and right-of-ways on the landscape pians on ail landscape plan sheets. 3-10 Completed. 11. Please provide examples and/or more detailing for the hardscape and landscape markers for review. See comment number 1 and 3A regarding hardscape. 12. Completed. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on atl sides of buildings. 2""^ Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to inciude trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 3^^ Review: Above comment not addressed. -Sc SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 9 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with the trees." 3^*^ Review: Please show the light poles on the landscape plans. 16. Trees shall be providod at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in oloso proximity to the spaces they aro to shade. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Dovolopmont Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements."—The specific plan has not yet been oompieted or accepted and should address current City requirements.—Please address. 3^ Review: The Specific Pian (page 4-13) indicates that "Tree row spacing shall divide parking fields equally as much as possible and be placed approximately every 3-5 rows of double loaded parking staiis." Please provide for these plantings. The Specific Plan also indicates that 2 large canopy trees will be placed at the end islands of each parking row. Please address as best as possible avoiding easements. Check all areas. 17. Completed. 18-19 Deleted. 20-21 Completed. 22. At least three (3%) percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shrubs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 3"^ Review: The Specific Plan indicates that 3% of the parking field is to be landscaped. Please provide a calculation showing that this requirement has been met. 23. Completed. 24. Deleted. 25. Insure all requirements of the attached parking lot exhibit are met. 3'^ Review: Please address how cars are kept out ofthe vegetated strips. 26. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1A-2A Deleted. SR SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 10 3A. Architectural plans do not appear to specify the hardscape treatments. Please fully address. 3!'''Review: Architectural plans provide 3 samples for paving on sheet A3.1-2; however it is not ciear if these are for interior or exterior spaces. Architecturai illustrative sketches cail for enhanced paving pattern #1 and #2; however there is no description as to what these patterns are. Please provide more detail/information. 4A. Deleted. 5A. The illustrative plans and landscape plans appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all plans and provide additional detailing as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 3^'^ Review: The Specific Plan vision for the gateways (page 4-4) indicates that "The gateways must express the excitement and quality of the Westfield Shopping experience planned for Westfield Carlsbad." The design for building entries (page 4-19) indicates that "Each entry wiil make a strong landscape statement that reflects the permanence of Westfield Carlsbad within the economic fabric of Carlsbad." It is not clear how the plans provide for these and other visions and design concepts. Please address. NEW COMMENTS 1B. These are shown as landscape areas on the architectural illustrative plans. Please coordinate. 2B. Please show the water use for the vegetated strips on sheet L7. 3B. Pennisetum setaceum is listed as an invasive species. Please provide a substitute. Land Development Engineering: 1. The existing curb and gutter along Marron Road and El Camino Real are proposed to be replaced with vegetated swales. Revise the drainage report to address the size/capacity of the proposed vegetated swales along Marron Road and El Camino Real. Verify these vegetated swales can intercept and convey the 100-year peak flow event from the parking lots without flooding the parking stalls. 2. Address discrepancies between the updated preliminary storm water management plan and the site development plan. The site development plan shows several landscape areas serving as bioretention basins along the south and east parking areas (with an intricate storm drain network) but are only shown as landscape islands on the preliminary storm water management plan. It appears the site development plan may not reflect the updated treatment features identified in the preliminary storm water management plan. 3. Refer to redlines as noted on the returned preliminary storm water management plan. Add the updated project name for Westfield Carisbad. Add narrative regarding treatment control (page 3). Remove "self-treating" from pervious surfaces or clarify self- treating when the underiying soil can absorb the 1^' 1-inch of rainfall from the area that is SDP 09-04 - WESTFSD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 11 routed to it (page 7). Clarify how roof runoff will be directed to landscape areas as the site development plan has not demonstrated how this will happen (page 8). Add narrative that loading docks will be covered (page 11). Add narrative that geotechnical recommendations will be sought regarding underlying soil conditions as it relates to designing vegetated strips and porous concrete (page 13). Verify the channel characteristics of the vegetated swale can be constructed per the site development plan (summary). 4. (REPEAT COMMENT) Revise the preliminary utility plan to show the potable water services and meters for the mall. Staff has concerns over those portions of the existing mall that are served by water meters located inside building(s). Revise the project and plans to provide a common meter bank outside the mall to allow staff to access, read and better monitor connections to the City potable water system. Water meters for the redeveloped portions of the mall must be reconfigured to allow access from the outside of the building (versus inside the building). The current configuration has resulted in several conflicts by city staff. On the returned exhibits, a response stated was that no change would be made to the existing building. We will continue to ask for the redeveloped portion of the mall (not existing), be reconfigured to address this water meter reconfiguration issue. Please revise the exhibits to show where the existing water meters are located, on the redeveloped portion area, and show the new/proposed water meters outside the buildings to avoid future conflicts. 5. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit to callout the short legal descriptions for each property on this overall site plan. Refer to engineering redlines from the 1^' review set and revise the plans to comply. 6. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al .0-0, in the property owner section, revise the exhibit to callout the lots owned by each unique property owner. 7. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit provide a comprehensive breakdown of existing overall ADT's and proposed overall ADT's and the net Increase in ADT's with this revitalization project. This information is available from the traffic report prepared by Gibson Transportation. 8. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet Al .0-0, revise the exhibit to address the potential sight distance conflict located just north of Area 3. Refer to redlines. If there is a conflict, revise the exhibits to address. 9. (REPEAT COMMENT) Revise the project data on sheet Al.0-0 to express the proposed sewer generation in equivalent dwelling units (EDU). 10. On sheet Al.3-1, revise the exhibit to clarify why the loading docks are not included in this roof plan. These docks are to be covered as described in the preliminary storm water management plan. Address this inconsistency. 11. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet AI.4-1, revise the exhibit to flip the orientation of the plan so that north faces up to match the key map and the other exhibits. 12. On sheets C-1 and C-5 and C-6, revise the exhibits to clarify whether the loading docks will be covered as discussed in the preliminary storm water management plan. s? SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 12 13. On sheet C-4, add keynotes to callout and delineate the proposed enhanced at pedestrian crossings and primary entry intersections as shown on in Specific Plan. 14. On sheet C-4, add dimensions to each drive aisle (typical) within the site development plan boundary. Revise those median islands to improve vehicular traffic flow through the parking lot and to provide refuge for pedestrians near cross-walks. Refer to redlines. 15. On sheet C-4, there are proposed or reconfigured median islands as compared to the existing condition. The v/ater conservation exhibit also shows using recycled water in these islands. Revise the exhibits to add keynotes to clarify areas of landscape or vegetated strips. Refer to redlines. 16. On sheet C-4, revise the striping on the easteriy driveway exiting onto Marron Road. It appears no thru movements will be permitted so this driveway should show right and left turns only. Refer to redlines. 17. On sheet C-4, revise the exhibits to ensure that vehicular stop signs to coincide with pedestrian crossings. Refer to redlines. 18. On sheet C-4, add detail for how the vegetated strips located along the north parking area will be added to the existing parking lot. Will this area be a raised planter or will it use 0-inch curbs to intercept runoff from the parking lot. Add a typical cross-section. 19. On sheet C-4, revise the exhibit so it matches the proposed landscape area per the concept landscape exhibits (typical). 20. On sheet C-4, add keynotes or callout where sidewalk will be removed. Refer to redlines. 21. On sheets C-4 thru C-6, revise the exhibit to add keynotes and callout where new sidewalks are proposed. Refer to redlines. 22. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-4 thru C-10, show and callout the existing property lines (typical). Although the existing lines are shown on the constraints exhibit, add them to the proposed site plan exhibits to demonstrate which properties are impacted by the improvements by this site development plan. 23. On sheet C-5, show/callout inside and outside radii for semi-tractor trailers as they enter/exit the proposed loading docks and maneuver through the mall. Based on Caltrans turning templates, it appears the truck movement conflicts with the proposed landscape islands. Refer to redlines and address conflict. 24. On sheet C-5, add a typical cross-section for the proposed vegetated swale along Marron Road and El Camino Real. Show that the small berm and swale can fit is this buffer. The preliminary storm water management plan calls out the swale as 10-ft wide bottom with 3:1 side slopes. 25. On sheets C-5 and C-6, add drainage directions to the preliminary grading plan to show how these swales will drain. Verify grades and slopes so these swales will drain to the proposed storm drain inlets. =Sc SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 13 26. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-5 through C-7, some of the bioretention areas are not typical. Some are oddly-shaped, contain sidewalk and/or fire hydrants. Since hydrants or sidewalks would not be depressed, address how this will impact (reduce) the function of the bioretention areas. Revise the exhibits to provide some additional detail as to how these areas will function. Maybe this could be addressed in the typical detail. 27. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-5 thru C-7, revise the exhibit to include a typical expanded detail (either plan view or 3-D composite) of the depressed bioretention areas. The detail should show the 0-inch curb, 6-inch curb side, area drain, depressed landscape area, side slopes, landscaping, etc.). 28. On sheet C-6, add grading/elevation detail to the truck loading dock. It appears a retaining wall is required to support this driveway with the sloping grade here. Add retaining wall symbol, top-of-wali elevation. Referto redlines. 29. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-7, it is our understanding many of the landscape islands shown on this sheet will serve as bioretention basins as described in the preliminary storm water management plan. The exhibits show how runoff is discharged from the bioretention basins, but not how it gets there. Without adequate design, runoff from the project will bypass these basins and not serve their purpose. Please add detail to this preliminary grading plan to show how runoff from this project will be collected, intercepted and treated by these various bioretention basins. This plan should show each bioretention basin treats the drainage management area (DMA) as described in the preliminary storm water management plan. 30. On sheets C-5 thru C-6, the site development plan shows several landscape islands built as bioretention basins. However now that linear bioretention swales are proposed along Marron Road and El Camino Real the preliminary storm water management plan does use these landscape medians for bioretention purposes. Please verify how much bioretention is required and if not needed, consider deleting the proposed storm drain network required to drain these median islands. 31. On sheets C-8 thru C-10, please coordinate the location of existing and proposed fire hydrants throughout this project. Many proposed hydrants appear to be located close to structures. Meet with the Fire Marshal and depict the correct hydrant locations. 32. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-8 thru C-10, previously we asked for sewer invert elevations per our redline comments. No changes were made with this resubmittal. Please address these comments to assure that the new development will gravity flow to an existing sewer system. 33. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-8 through C-10, show and callout the preliminary fire service (double detector check valve) locations for each new/redeveloped structure. Coordinate with the Fire Marshal. 34. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-9, callout 'proposed sewer laterals' as private. 35. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-9, clarify at where the existing 10-inch wateriine has a three-way junction if there are control valves that would be affected by the proposed raised median curbs. Refer to redlines. SDP 09-04 - WESTFIELD CT^LSBAD March 29, 2012 Page 14 36. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheets C-9 thru C-10, provide a 20-ft minimum width public sewer easement that encompasses the existing backbone sewer main that serves the various out-parcel buildings and Lot 1 & 2 of Map No. 8956. Refer to redlines. 37. On sheet C-11, we previously asked to address discrepancies in line-of-sight lines, however, now they were removed. Please show line-of-sight lines at each driveway connection to a public street using Caltrans guidelines. 38. (REPEAT COMMENT) On sheet C-12, address how emergency access vehicles will approach the new out-parcels and exit given drive aisle widths and layout. A circuitous fire engine route is still shown on the plan, but during emergencies would be unlikely used. Add the missing (direct) flre access approach and resolve this conflict prior to resubmittal. Refer to redlines. 39. Attached are redlined check prints of the project submittal, preliminary storm water management plan and hydrology study. The check print and redline studies must be returned with the revised plans and updated studies to facilitate continued staff review. Building Division: No comments at this time. Fire Department: Please see the attached "Discretionary Review Checklisf from the Fire Department dated February 27, 2012. CCARLSBAD' ' RLE COPV Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov March 16, 2012 Hofman Planning & Engineering Attn: Bill Hofman 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 4th REVIEW FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD Dear Mr. Hofman, The Planning Department has reviewed the 4*^ submittal of your Specific Plan, application no. SP 09-01, as to its completeness for processing. As stated in the previous reviews, a Specific Plan is a legislative action and the application will be deemed incomplete until approved by City Council. 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public liearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including eight (8) copies of the revised Specific Plan document, three (3) redlined copies in underline strikethrough format, and one (1) electronic copy (MS Word format). If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter or your application, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Engineering Department comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4663. Sincerely, DON NEU City Planner DN:JG:sm 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD Cy^SBAD March 16, 2012 Page 2 Attachments: Planning Division Consolidated Redline Comments, dated March 15, 2012. Engineering Redlines c: Westfield, Attn: Stephen Fluhr, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott PELA Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal File Copy Data Entry SP 09-01 - WESTFI^ CARLSBAD March 16, 2012 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please address each red lined comment as noted in the returned copy of the Specific Plan dated March 15, 2012. Please note, some of the comments listed below may be repeated in the red lined copy. 2. Please consider printing the appendices as a separate volume to the specific plan. By adding all of the studies to the appendices it will make the document too large at final completion and difficult for reproduction in the future. 3. Can you add some of the 3 dimensional artist renderings from the SDP submittal? These not only will add visual interest to the document, but also conveys some of the concepts that are illustrated in the design guidelines. 4. In accordance with our telephone conversation with Stephen Fluhr from Westfield on March 8, 2012, please revise Table 4 - Use Classifications: such that "Religious Uses" follow the same approval process as "Clubs and Lodges" and "Philanthropic/Charitable Institutions". The returned redlines have been marked to show these uses all requiring a CUP-PC. Please revise accordingly. 5. On pg. 3-3 please delete from the prohibited uses: "churches, synagogues, mosques, or other buildings in which religious assembly is the primary use." 6. Please see our landscape architect's comments below and revise the Specific Plan to address his comments specifically. We agree with his assessment that the landscape concept illustrations are lacking interest and creativity. Please note that this comment is not just limited to the major entries at the mall building (pg. 4-19), but all others as well. 7. In accordance with our previous discussions on March 9, 2012, please revise the 75 ft. maximum building height for Planning Areas 1 and 5 so that this height only applies to the main mall structure and not all of the planning area. Clarification regarding the point of measurement needs to be defined to clarify our understanding that the 75 ft. height is being measured from the lower grade on the north side of the main mall building. In addition, a new building height standard needs to be added to address any future buildings that could be placed in the outlying parking lot areas of Planning Areas 1 and 5. For these areas, please reference compliance with C.M.C. Section 21.04.065 for building height. 8. The Signage Provisions in Sections 5-3 through 5-5 need to be clearer regarding the assignment of signage quantities, particulariy with respect to the facia type signs on all of the outlying pad buildings and possibly the tenant signs on the main mall structure. It is not clear from the signage provisions how the number of signs will be allotted. For example, the area south of Marron Road covered by Table 5b would allow nine (9) 150 square foot facia type signs for only three buildings located in this area. That is three (3) times the amount of signage that our code presently allows for a freestanding commercial building, not to mention the table also does not identify who would get these signs. This is also true for the other pad sites. SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD C AsBAD March 16, 2012 Page 4 In addition, the following types of requirements should be added to the facia type sign regulations as it specifically relates to the outlying pad buildings and possibly tenants on the main mall structure: a. Total sign area shall not exceed 1 sq. ft. per each lineal foot of building frontage; and b. The width of any sign shall not exceed 75% of the width of the building frontage or lease space to which the sign pertains. These types of requirements will better control the placement and orientation of signage, and will also control the amount of signage to building ratios which is presently absent in the Specific Plans signage provisions. 9. Further discussion and revisions need occur to both Section 3.2 - Temporary Uses (pg. 3-3) and Section 6.3 - Major & Minor Temporary Parking Lot Events Permit (pg. 6-5). The current process is not implementable as proposed and circumvents many life-safety processes that are already covered by current city processes. 10. Repeat Comment (2"*^ Review Issues Letter dated June 7. 2010 and 3"^ Review Issues Letter dated November 16. 2011). Piease provide, for review and comparison, copies of the City/County approved sipn programs from the Westfield Culver City Maii (Le. Fox Hill Mall), Westfield UTC Mall, and the Westfield Plaza Bonita Mall. Please note that we reserve comments on the WCSP signage criteria section untii we have had a chance to review the proposed sign program and see what you intend to propose. Please note that staff would prefer to be involved eariy on and more directly in resolving the issues identified above or assisting in ways that might facilitate a quicker processing time of this application. We can assist in a number of ways such as answering questions, providing input, or even performing a cursory review of the individual sections, subject matter, and/or graphics. Please, do not hesitate in contacting us. Landscape (PELA): REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Deleted. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.) 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3''' Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however the informafion ' SP 09-01 - WESTFI^ CARLSBAD March 16, 2012 Page 5 is fairiy general and non-specific. A plant list is provided, however layout and use of the plans is not specific. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines along with more specific sketches as previously requested. 4^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette. This specific plan lays out the development standards as discussed and agreed with City pianning staff. Additional sketches are inciuded providing including end parking islands and parking iot tree spacing." More detailed exhibits/figures are still needed to convey the design vision. As an example, the verbiage and exhibit/figure for the building entries provide for paving, site amenities and planting. The Specific Plan states (page 4-19): "Planting will be used as an architectural design element with emphasis placed on plant form and structure. Plant material will be selected and placed to enhance the architecture." The major entry figure (page 4-19) shows one small landscape planter; benches with planter pots lined against a wall; accent paving; and bollards lined at the curb. The figure shows a very functional design that lacks interest and creativity. The verbiage is vague and does not provide clear direction (i.e. is there to be any other planting besides the one planter; are there to be any trees or palms?). More detailed figures and/or verbiage is needed for all areas to better clarify goals, standards and guidelines. 3. The exhibits appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Further definition and clarity will be provided in the subsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04 for areas within the area of work as shown on the plans." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines section on "Gateways" (pg. 4-4) and "Streetscape" (pg. 4-7) regarding focal points and project arrival/entries. Additional pictures and illustrations have been included to depict concepts in the text." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however they are still fairiy functional only and lack interest and creativity. Please fully address the comment 4^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the revised iandscape guidelines per discussions with City planning staff." The exhibits/figures still appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. Please see comment 2, 4'" review above. 4. Deleted. 5-9 Completed. 10. Deleted. SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CMSBAD March 16, 2012 Page 6 11-12 Completed. 13-15 Deleted. 1A-4A Deleted. 1B-4B Completed. Engineering: 1. On page 5-5, under 'Design, Color & Materials', please add a narrative explaining that no person shall erect any sign within the sight distance corridor (repeat comment). Please refer to redlines. 2. Please add Appendix B (storm water management plan) to the specific plan (repeat comment). 3. A water study was added to Appendix E. However, this is not the latest water study. Based on previous correspondence we understand Dexter Wilson performed an update letter to this study, dated January 25, 2010. Please add this update to the appendix. 4. Once the information is available, please add Appendix G (mitigation measures) to the specific plan. 5. Attached is redlined specific plan document. Please return this redline document with an updated copy of the specific plan with next review. If you have any questions, please call me at 602-2737. Fire Department: 1. Fire Department comments will follow under separate cover. Hofman DECEIVED Planning & Enaineerina f 2 2012 • i->tJMfVlf\IG D^Vl.Q^n^! Jason Goff Planning Department City of Carisbad 1635 FaradayAvenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Jason, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan and have developed a revised draft ofthe document that is included with this submittal package. The following letter contains our response to your comments and each is numbered and corresponds to the City comment letter dated November 16, 2011. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMENTS: 1. Noted. Redlines have been addressed and City redlined copy returned with this submittal for ease in review. 2. Document revised to reflect "City Planner" in place of "Planning Director" as requested to comply with new organization of department. 3. Document revised to reflect "Planning Division" in place of "Planning Department as requested to comply with new organization of department. 4. Figure 3 has been revised to remove the parcel on the west of the rim road. 5. Figure 3 has been revised to correct name of the rim road. 6. The net change total square feet is 35,417. Table 2 was revised to reflect this as the correct square footage. 7. Figure 5 has been revised to remove the parcel on the west of the rim road. 8. Figure 5 has been revised to correct name of the rim road. 9. Section 2.4 - Land Use Element: The text has been revised to remove the Circulation Element Policies from the Land Use section. 10. Section 2.4 - Land Use Element: The Land Use Element goals that were accidently deleted in formatting have be re-inserted into document. Westfield SP February 16, 2012 Response to Comments 11. Section 2.6- Existing Non-conforming: Per agreement noted in City meeting notes, Westfield will comply with the proposed non-conforming code update, but the language is incorporated directly into the text. 12. Section 3.1 - Table 4 Allowed Uses a. "Drive-in or Drive-thru service" wording has been revised to clarify that restaurants with takeout service are permitted. b. "Wireless Communication Facilities"- per city requested added in that they are subject to 21.42.140(B)(165) of CMC and process is a M-CUP/CUP-PC c. "Eating and Drinking Establishments"- Revised so that Bar/Lounges listed as separate item requiring CUP subjectto CMC 21.42.140(b)(20). d. "Recreation": Revised so that Pool Hall and Bowling lanes required a CUP by PC and are subject to Special Regulations of CMC 21.42.140(b)(35) and (110). 13. Section 3.2 - Temporary Uses in Parking Lot: Per City meeting and follow up meeting notes from Jason dated 1/31/12, this section was revised as agreed. 14. Section 4.1- Design Guidelines (Architecture): Please see revised section 4.1 for addition of language regarding screening of service areas. 15. Section 4.2- Design Guidelines(Landscape): Please see revised section 4.2 regarding Landscape. Changes in text reflect items agreed upon through city meetings and follow up emails. 16. Section 5.1-General Development Standards(Parking): Per City meeting and follow up discussions/emails regarding landscape along Marron and parking standards, parking stall size of 8.5ft by 19ft was agreed upon with 2 ft overhang. Please see revised section 17. Section 5.1-General Development Standards(Parking): Compact spaces development standard revised to reflect no overhang permitted. 18. Section 5.1-General Development Standards(Outdoor Lighting): Revised development standard to meet the agreed upon 35ft maximum height and added text regarding how to measure the height in place of including an drawing. 19. Section 5.2-Planning Area Requirements (Landscape Setbacks): Setbacks have been revised to be measured from back of sidewalk with 10ft on Marron and 15ft on ECR and include fully landscaped areas. As agreed in dialogue with City, parking overhang will be permitted in setback. 20. Section 5.2- Planning Area Requirements (Building height): Revised to include reference to CMC Section 21.04.065. 21. Section 5.2- Planning Area Requirements (Parking Areas):Revised to Include agreed upon improvements and reference to the appropriate Design guidelines sections. Page 2 of 5 Westfield SP February 16, 2012 Response to Comments 22. Section 6.4- Application and Fees: See revised number 2 of this section for inclusion of the north arrow, scale and distance to property lines 23. Section 7- Public facilities/Growth Management: Revised Specific Plan with the City of Carisbad 2010 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report. 24. Section 7- Fire: Station 3 has been removed from the text since it will be outside the 5 minute response time for Westfield when relocated to Robertson Ranch. 25. Section 8- Specific Plan Administration (Major Specific Plan Amendment): Revised section to reference CMC Chapter 21.52 26. Westfield Carisbad sign program was provided to City for review in understanding what is being proposed for project. In addition, language/graphics have been added to sign section of Specific Plan per city request. RESPONSE TO ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Table of Contents revised to include Appendices. 2. Figure 4 revised to correct printing error on transit center. 3. Reference to traffic impact study prepared by Gibson included and as well as reference to EIR 09-02 on page 2-7. 4. There is a plan to improve lighting and the following text has been added to Section 2.4 under Public Safety Element per comment: "With the first phase of the project, the Developer will implement a new lighting scheme for all ofthe parking fields, drive paths and pedestrian paths within these fields. The upgrade will include new wiring, poles and LED fixtures. Existing concrete bases will be re-used for the majority of locations with adjustments made only to provide even coverage and to avoid landscape disruptions. The total height to the highest point will not exceed 35' and the average illumination will be approximately 2 foot candles measured at the ground." 5. Placeholder for Appendix F (Mitigation Measures) has been added to document. Actual mitigation measures will be included once they are finalized by EIR consultant. 6. Appendix B (Storm Water Management Plan) will be submitted subsequently with the SDP package. 7. Section 4.2 Landscape Guidelines "Streetscape" - Under Design, narrative has been added regarding low impact development features. 8. Section 4.2 Landscape Guidelines "Streetscape" - project name has been updated to reflected Westfield Carisbad and SWPPP has been changed to state and local stormwater requirements per redlines. Page 3 of 5 Westfield SP February 16, 2012 Response to Comments 9. Section 4.2 Landscape Guidelines "Streetscape"- Exhibits on streetscape revised to show bioswales for stormwater treatment areas. 10. Lighting plan will be submitted subsequently. 11. As noted in item #4 above, it is anticipated that parking lot lighting will be converted fully to LED fixtures which will provide for significant energy reduction when compared to existing usage. 12. Planning Division comments requested that the Violations section of sign ordinance not be superseded by Specific Plan, so the section has been removed. 13. References have been corrected for sewer and water system layout per redlines. . 14. See number 6 above. 15. Noted. Figure numbers have been deleted from appendix documents so as not to conflict with main document figures. 16. Redlines received and incorporated. Redline copy returned with submittal for ease of review. RESPONSE TO LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1. Included with this revised specific plan is additional verbiage for landscape guidelines. Per discussions with City planning staff, certain areas of the Landscape Manual have been superseded by this specific plan. Please refer to Section 4.2. 2. Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette. This specific plans lays out the development standards as discussed and agreed with City planning staff. Additional sketches are included providing including end parking islands and parking lot tree spacing. 3. Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines per discussions with City planning staff. 4. Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines per discussions with City planning staff. 5. Please refer to the revised landscape guidelines per discussions with City planning staff. 6. Please refer to new landscape guidelines regarding "Service areas and utilities" at the end of Section 4.2. 7. The plant palettes have been revised using the invasive species list provided to us by the City. 8. COMPLETED Page 4 of S Westfield SP February 16, 2012 Response to Comments 9. COMPLETED 10. DELETED 11. COMPLETED 12. COMPLETED 13. DELETED 14. DELETED 15. DELETED IA. DELETED 2A. DELETED 3A. DELETED 4A. DELETED NEW COMMENTS: IB. As agreed to with City planning staff, the specific plan has been revised to reflect trees every 40 ft of street frontage for ECR and 80 ft of street frontage for Marron Road. 2B. London Plan tree has been removed from plant list for "Streetscape" plant materials. 3B. Per discussions with City planning staff, the ratio of parking lot streets of 1 tree for every 4 spaces will not be required for this project. 4B.This portion has been revised removing the 5' dimension and instead simply limiting the height of parking lot end islands shrubs and tree canopies for line of sight. The wording in text will now reflect the following: "The parking lot end islands shall not contain shrub planting higher than 30" and tree canopies lower than 6' in height in order to provide a view corridor for drivers and pedestrians transversing the parking lot." Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bill Hofman Tel: (760) 692-4100 Fax: (760) 692-4105 Email: bhofman@hofmanplanning.com Page 5 of 5 ^cXsBAD a FILE Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov November 16, 2011 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 3rd REVIEW FOR SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Hofman, The Planning Department has reviewed the 3rd submittal of your Specific Plan, application no. SP 09-01, as to its completeness for processing. As stated in the previous reviews, a Specific Plan is a legislative action and the application will be deemed incomplete until approved by City Council. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required forthe application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including eight (8) copies of the revised Specific Plan document, one (1) redlined copy in underiine strikothrough format, and one (1) electronic copy (MS Word format). If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter or your application, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Land Development Engineering comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: Gregory Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshal, at (760) 602-4663. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:JG:bd Attachments: —*«lty of Carlsbad 2010 Growth IVIanagement Plan Monitoring Report. Planning Division Consolidated Redline Comments, dated 11/10/2011. Engineering Redline Comments, dated 10/19/2011. Fire Department Discretionary Review Checklist, dated 10/24/2011. c: Stephen Fluhr, Westfield, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Dlego, CA 92101 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA Greg Ryan, Deputy Flre Marshal File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Address redlines as noted on the returned copy of the Specific Plan dated 11/10/2011. Please note, some ofthe comments listed below are repeated in the redlines. 2. Please revise the document to refer to the "City Planner" wherever "Planning Director" is used. 3. Please revise the document to refer to the "Planning Division" wherever "Planning Department" is used. 4. Figure 3. The finger parcel (APN 156-301-12) located west ofthe rim road is not a part of the specific plan and needs to be eliminated from the boundaries. 5. Figure 3. The rim road is mislabeled on the plan as Monroe Street. Monroe Street does not extend north of Marron Road. 6. Section 2.2 (Pg. 2-1) - Table 2. The net change total square feet is identified as 35,423 square feet in the table where previously it was identified as 35,417 square feet. Please identify what is changing? Please be aware that the EIR is only analyzing a net change of 35,417 sq. ft. and would need to be updated to reflect an increase to 35,423 sq. ft. 7. Figure 5. See comment 4 above. 8. Figure 5. See comment 5 above. 9. Section 2.4 (Pg. 2-6) - Land Use Element. The following Circulation Element Policies and text appear to be mistakenly formatted in the section covering Land Use. Please revise. • Encourage pedestrian circulation in commercial areas through the provision of convenient parking facilities, increased sidewalk widths, pedestrian-oriented building designs, landscaping, street lighting and street furniture. (Alternative Modes of Transportation, Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.2). • Design pedestrian spaces and circulation in relationship to land uses and available parking for all new construction and redevelopment projects (Alternative Modes of Transportation, Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.S). The on-site mass transit service promotes the use of public transportation while reducing the need for parking. Multiple entries/exits allow for safe movement of vehicles throughout the plan area. 10. Section 2.4 (Pg. 2-6) - Land Use Element. The following Land Use Element Goals and text appear to have been accidentally deleted in the formatting ofthe document. Please insert the following text at the end of the Land Use Element section following the Overall Land Use Pattern, Goal A.2 that is already identified: • A City which provides for land uses which through their arrangement, location and size, support and enhances the economic viability of the community. (Overall Land Use Pattern, Goal A.3) SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN November 16, 2011 Page 3 • A City that achieves a healthy and diverse economic base by creating a climate for economic growth and stability. (Commercial, Goal A.l) Located within a major commercial district with prime regional access, Westfield Carlsbad has contributed to the economic viability of the community since 1969. Development standards and guidelines within the WCSP promote the continued revitalization of Westfield Carlsbad, along with helping it to remain modern, and continue as a vibrant regional activity center. 11. Section 2.6 (Pg. 2-9 through 2-10) - Existing Nonconforming Structures. For this section of the specific plan, please delete the proposed language and directly reference the City of Carlsbad's Municipal Code, Chapter 21.48. 12. Section 3.1 (Pg. 3-2) - Table 4. Please revise accordingly: a. Under "Drive-in or Drive-thru Service" Restaurants are correctly identified in this section as being excluded so as not to have any restaurants with a drive-thru or drive-in type characteristics associated. However, while we are not opposed to restaurants providing take-out services., the way this section is currently worded, one would think that a restaurant with take-service is prohibited, which is not our intent at all. Please revise. b. Under the section covering "Wireless Communications Facilities", include that Wireless Communications Facilities are "subject to C.M.C. Section 21.42.140(B)(165)", and change the permitting process from M-CUP to a combination "M-CUP/CUP-PC" to comply with the processing requirements already outlined by code. The City of Carisbad has very specific requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities, and seeks to continue regulating these facilities as currently processed. c. Under the section "Eating & Drinking Establishments", the proposed language concerns us that a standalone "Bar or Cocktail Lounge" could easily be permitted under this use table without any type of public hearing or discretionary action. Please note that staff is not opposed to bars in association with a restaurant as defined in C.M.C. Section 21.04.056 for "bona fide public eating establishment"; however, we are concerned with the language in this section as proposed. Please revise to require that "Bars/Cocktail Lounges" require a CUP subject to C.M.C. 21.42.140(B)(20) and approval by the Planning Commission. d. Under the Section "Recreation", please revise to require that "Pool Hall" and "Bowling Lanes" require a CUP subject to approval by the Planning Commission. Reference that each CUP is subject to Special Regulations C.M.C. 21.42.140(B)(35) for "Bowling Alley" and C.M.C. 21.42.140(B)(110) for "Pool Hall". 13. Section 3.2 (Pg. 3-1 through 3-3) - Temporarv Parking Lot Events. Our previous comments regarding Temporary Parking Lot Events stands. We have provided City Council history on the matter and cannot support the proposal with this section included. As previously stated in the 2"'^ Review: "On April 17, 2001, a Precise Plan Amendment (PP 24(1)) to allow for temporary promotional outdoor events (i.e., custom car shows, boat shows, recreational vehicle shows, etc.) over portions ofthe mall parking lot was unanimously denied by City Council (see City Council Resolution 2001-118). The City Council, wrote findings clearly expressing that they did not want these types of activities freely occurring in the parking lot, and went on to identify that there are sufficient mechanisms in place to host outdoor special events." SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN November 16, 2011 Page 4 14. Section 4.1 (Pg. 4-1 through 4-2) - Design Guidelines (Architecture). The design guidelines do not discuss the screening of "Service Areas" (i.e., trash enclosures, loading & delivery bays, etc.). Not only do these areas need to be screened from public view, but they need to be thoughtfully crafted into the architecture and overall site design. Please revise the Design Guidelines, and also the section covering Landscaping and Development Standards to address proper screening of these types of facilities. 15. Section 4.2 (Pg. 4-3 through 4-12) Design Guidelines (Landscape). Staff cannot support the proposed Landscape Design Guidelines deviating from the minimum requirements of the City of Carisbad Landscape Manual, this is especially important with respect to the parking lot trees and landscape treatment of both the El Camino Real and Marron Road frontages. As indicated in our 2nd Review issues letter dated June 7, 2010 (Issue Item No. 9), "Please note that the Planning Staff supports the direction that is being provided to you by our Landscape Architect. Please revise the SP to address his comments below." This issue has not been addressed. 16. Section 5.1 (Pg. 5-1) - General Development Standards (Parking). The proposed standard parking stall size cannot be supported. The proposed standard parking stall size of 8.5 ft. by 18 ft. with a 2.5 ft. overhang allowed to be included in the 18 ft. length is not really any different than a compact parking stall size. Please revise to meet current standards as outlined in C.M.C. Chapter 21.44 - Parking. 17. Section 5.1 (Pg. 5-1) - General Development Standards (Parking). No overhang is to be permitted with compact spaces. Revise the development standard covering compact spaces accordingly. 18. Section 5.1 (Pg. 5-2) - General Development Standards (Outdoor Lighting). The proposed 40 ft. tall parking lot light standards are not supported. Revise the development standard to meet the agreed upon 35 ft. maximum height. 19. Section 5.2 (Pg. 5-5 through 5-9) - Planning Area Requirements (Landscape Setbacks). It is the intent that the landscape setback plantable area running along El Camino Real and Marron Road be increased (i.e., to a minimum 15 ft. along El Camino Real, and a minimum 10 ft. along Marron Road) from their current status and fully landscaped excluding the curb adjacent sidewalk encroachments and any parking overhangs. This is especially important regarding the parking lots that are located along these frontages. We understand that this will require elimination of some parking spaces along these frontages to accommodate the additional landscape areas as well as further improvements to parking lots. The development standards as currently worded in the specific plan do not provide for this and must be revised. The property line along Marron Road is haphazardly located along this frontage. Measuring from the property line does not meet the intent of our minimum requirement. Perhaps the landscape setbacks should be measured from back of the curb adjacent sidewalks. We are open to discussion on how and where to measure the setback provided the intent is met. Revise all setbacks accordingly. 20. Section 5.2 (Pg. 5-5 through 5-9) - Planning Area Requirements (Building Height). Underthe Building Height sections, please reference compliance with C.M.C. Section 21.04.065. 21. Section 5.2 (Pg. 5-5 through 5-9) - Planning Area Requirements (Parking Areas). In general terms please note that the specific plan development standards should be designed to guide future development, not explain the limited amount of development and improvements that are included as part of the proposed Site Development Plan (SDP 09-04). All these sections will also need to be revised to reflect our direction regarding increased landscaping and improvements in these areas SP 09-01 - PIAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN November 16, 2011 Page 5 (see Landscape Comments). All Parking Area sections of the Planning Area Development Requirements need to reference the appropriate Design Guideline sections. 22. Section 6.4 (Pg. 6-6) - Application and Fees. In addition to the four items that are required as part of sign permit application submittal package, please also require the following items be included: a. North arrow and scale b. Distance to the property line(s) for all proposed freestanding sign(s) 23. Section 7.0 (Pgs. 7-1 through 7-17) - Public Facilities/Growth Management. Some of the information contained within this section ofthe Specific Plan appears to be old or possibly outdated. Please find attached "City of Carlsbad 2010 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report". Please review and update this section where applicable. 24. Section 7.0 (Pg. 7-15) - Fire. Please be aware that Fire Station No. 3 is not a permanent facility. In fact, this Fire Station is actually in the process of relocating to Robertson Ranch. Once the new building is completed the new Fire Station No. 3 will be outside of the 5 minute response time for Westfield Carlsbad. 25. Section 8.0 (Pg. 8-1 through 8-2) - Specific Plan Administration (Maior Specific Plan Amendment). Please revise this section to reference C.M.C. Chapter 21.52 as opposed to spelling out the whole code section verbatim. Please replace the "Major Specific Plan Amendment" section with the following language: "All modifications to this Specific Plan shall be processed in a manner consistent with the requirements of a General Plan Amendment within the City of Carlsbad as specified in Chapter 21.52 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code." The revised language would follow the same process that you outlined, but would keep the Specific Plan Amendment process updated consistent with the City's Municipal Code. 26. Repeat Comment (2"'' Review Issues Letter dated June 7. 2010). Please provide, for review and comparison, copies of the City/County approved sign programs from the Westfield Culver City Mall (i.e. Fox Hill Mall), Westfield UTC Mall, and the Westfield Plaza Bonita Mall. Please note that we reserve comments on the PCRSP signage criteria section until we have had a chance to review the proposed sign program and see what you intend to propose. Engineering: 1. Revise the "Table of Contents" to list the various appendices attached to the document. 2. In Figure 4, revise the document to address the inconsistency with the transit center location. Refer to redline. 3. On page 2-7, add a reference for the traffic impact study prepared by Gibson Transportation. In-lieu of adding the study as another appendix, refer the reader to EIR 09-02. 4. In previous meetings, we understood the exterior parking lot lighting would be reconstructed with new light standards. On page 2-7, revise the document or add narrative to clarify if there is a lighting plan that explains how lighting will be improved with the project. The specific plan should explain when and how this will be accomplished. SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN November 16, 2011 Page 6 5. On page 2-8, please add Appendix F (mitigation measures) and to the specific plan. Staff could not find this information. 6. On page 2-8, please add Appendix B (storm water management plan) to the specific plan. 7. On page 4-5, add narrative that explains that the design goals for new/reconstructed streetscape include low impact development features such as bioretention swales/basins to serve as 'disconnects' to encourage evapotranspiration, root uptake, while filtering urban pollutants and reducing the impacts of urban runoff to downstream locations. 8. On page 4-7, update the project name to 'Westfield Carlsbad'. Change 'SWPPP' to 'state and local stormwater* requirements. Refer to redlines. 9. On page 4-8, modify the exhibit to show a concept for a depressed landscape area for potential storm water treatment areas. 10. On page 4-18, revise the document to explain how parking lot lighting upgrades will be accomplished. Will parking lot light improvements be phased in or done all at once? When will the lighting plan be submitted? 11. On page 4-22, clarify whether converting the parking lot lights to high efficiency lighting could be added to energy efficiency measures. 12. On page 5-4, add a bullet point explaining that no person shall erect any sign within line sight distance corridor. Refer to redlines. 13. On page 7-9 and 7-10, add the correct reference for the appendix of the sewer and water system layout. Since the last review the appendices layout has changed. Refer to redlines. 14. Appendix B of to the document is missing (storm water management plan). Please include with the next submittal to ensure a comprehensive review. 15. In Appendix C and D, consider deleting 'figure 2' from the attached document as it conflicts with the other figure 2 in another area of the document. 16. For additional comments, refer to the enclosed redlines dated 10/19/2011. Landscaping (PELA): REPEAT COMMENTS: 1. The landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to clearly define how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and guidelines. 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "The Plaza Camino Real is a unique use and was developed nearly twenty years before the implementation of the Landscape Manual policy and does not meet many of the standards of that policy. Retrofitting the center to meet all Manual policy standards is impossible. The PCRSP supersedes the City's Landscape Manual although the Plan meets the intent ofthe policy. The landscape guidelines within SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN November 16, 2011 Page 7 the PCRSP are intended to provide guidance on key design principles while allowing for creativity in design of future development. Particular plants or planting palettes are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather provided in the subsequent development plans such as SDP09-04 which will be resubmitted soon." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3'^'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Included with this revised specific plan is a set of comprehensive landscape guidelines. Please refer to Section 4.2." Additional verbiage has been provided; however the verbiage is not specific and provides little specific direction. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines as previously requested. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.)' 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3"' Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however the information is fairly general and non-specific. A plant list is provided, however layout and use of the plans is not specific. Please provide specific development standards and guidelines along with more specific sketches as previously requested. 3. The exhibits appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Further definition and clarity will be provided in the subsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04 for areas within the area of work as shown on the plans." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3'^'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to the new landscape guidelines section on "Gateways" (pg 4-4) and "Streetscape" (pg 4-7) regarding focal points and project arrival/entries. Additional pictures and illustrations have been included to depict concepts in the text." Additional verbiage and sketches have been provided; however they are still fairly functional only and lack interest and creativity. Please fully address the comment. 4. Please address and clarify how landscaping will be used to accentuate and enhance building architecture; site, parking and building entries; intersections; focal points; etc. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to allow for innovative design as part offuture development that accentuates and enhances buildings proposed and existing for the center to remain modern. Please see Section III, Landscape guidelines." The applicant has not addressed the comment. The guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment. 3'^''Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to new landscape guidelines. Within the guidelines are sections that address "Gateways", "Streetscape", "Parking Fields" "Building frontage" and "Building entry" with regards to landscape enhancements and guidelines." Additional verbiage which includes "visions" has been provided; SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN November 16, 2011 Pages however there are little specifics as to how the vision will be accomplished. Please fully address the comment providing specific information as to how the vision will be realized. 5. Please address how proposed landscaping will be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing landscaping. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Section III, Development Standards, defines landscape requirements within the Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan boundary area. All new development shall comply with these landscape standards and staff will review to ensure proposed landscaping will be compatible with existing landscape to remain." The applicant has not addressed the comment. The guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment. 3"' Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to new landscape guidelines, specifically the "Streetscape" section (pg 4-7)." Additional verbiage has been provided; however there are little specifics as to how the final vision will be accomplished. Please fully address the comment providing specific information as to how the vision will be realized. 6. Please address how landscaping will be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 2"^* Review: The applicant has responded: "Subject to staff review of subsequent entitlement plans, landscaping and other elements, such as walls, trellises, gates, will be used together to provide adequate screening of service areas or other areas of unsightliness." The applicant has not fully addressed the comment. The SP now discusses only screening of trash enclosures and service areas. Please address screening of utilities and screening/softening of architectural masses, etc. Please fully address. 3'^'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to new landscape guidelines, specific examples include: "Streetscape" design section regarding screening, "Gateways" plant material section regarding softening with understory of shrubs and "Building frontage" re softening buildings with landscaping." Additional verbiage has been provided; however there are little specifics as to how thefinal vision will be accomplished. Please fully address the comment providing specific information as to how the vision will be realized. 7. Please provide a list of plants proposed for use (i.e. project theme trees; accent trees; shrubs; ground covers; vines). The list needs to identify proposed plants for each different use (i.e. project perimeter; project entries; parking areas; intersections; building entries; etc.). Proposed plant sizes also need to be provided. 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP defines landscape requirements and guidelines to provide guidance on design principles while allowing for abstract and creativity in design offuture development. Specific plants are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather by the subsequent development plans such as SDP 09-04 currently under staff review." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3^'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Please refer to new landscape guidelines. Each section within the guidelines ("Gateways", "Streetscape", etc) includes a plant list and plant species." Several invasive species are proposed (Date Palm, Mexican Fan Palm, Vinca, etc.) Please review/revise plantings as appropriate deleting any invasive species. 8-9 Completed. 10. Deleted. 11-12 Completed. 13-15 Deleted. 1A-4A Deleted. SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN November 16, 2011 Page 9 NEW COMMENTS: IB. Paragraph 3 on page 4-7 indicates: "The trees will be placed at 120 feet on center or less with a total number along each street equivalent to one tree per 120 feet of street frontage." Please revise to one tree per every 40 feet of street frontage to meet Landscape Manual requirements. 2B. Page 4-9: London Plane tree is highly susceptible to anthracnose and should not be used in the Carlsbad area. Please provide a substitute. 3B. It is understood that existing parking areas are to remain in much of the project area; however Landscape Manual requirements should be addressed where parking areas are modified now or in the future. Parking lot landscaping is currently minimal at best and needs additional thought and improvement. The specific plan appears to indicate that parking landscaping will for the most part remain as is. The redevelopment ofthe project should address improvements to the parking areas in order to revitalize and make the project more inviting and aesthetically pleasing. On page 4-11, the specific plan indicates that the total number of trees within the refurbished parking field will equate to one tree per approximately every 25 parking spaces.... The Landscape Manual requires one tree per four parking spaces. Revise to indicate that where parking is modified, trees shall be installed at the rate of one tree for every four parking spaces unless approved otherwise by the City. 4B. Page 4-11: The specific plan indicates that "Traffic speeds within the interior intersections are greatly reduced from the signed traffic speed on the adjacent public streets and the line-of-sight measurement shall be equally reduced within the interior of the sight. As measured from the tangent point of the curb radius, a line-of-sight shall extend from 5' beyond the tangent point through the landscape to an equally measured point the adjacent tangent." Please explain how the 5' dimension has been determined. Fire: 1. Fire Department comments are attached. Please see "Discretionary Review Checklist dated 10/24/2011. Hofman RECEIVED I^SS -TO Planning & Engineering OCT 0 3 2011 ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD Y - A P s OF Planning Civii Engineering Fiscai Services Coastai _ _ P P i' i'P KJV F PLANNING DIVISION ^^-^ '^^^^^^^^^^^ Jason Goff Planning Department City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR SP 09-01 - WESTFIELD CARLSBAD SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Jason, We reviewed the City's comments on the Westfield Carisbad Specific Plan and have developed a revised draft of the document that is included with this submittal package. The following letter contains our response to your comments and each is numbered and corresponds to the City comment letter clated June 7, 2010. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMENTS: 1. Noted 2. This section has been added to the Specific Plan Document, please refer to Section 4.6. The information included is based on the May 12, 2010 email along with the addition of more detail for sustainable landscape. We will consider the installation of electric vehicle charging stations in the future but we do not want to be committed to this in the Specific Plan. 3. This section of the specific plan has been incorporated within others as part of the development standards/design guidelines revision. This design of site entrances has been addressed through the new landscape guidelines, specifically the "Gateways" and "Streetscape" sections. The Gateways section highlights the major entries and discusses how landscape design will distinguish these entrances from the rest of the streetscape. The "Streetscape" section Identifies a design scheme thaf highlights the transition from the street to the shopping's centers landscape theme. These revised guidelines take into account the comments and the 11x17 exhibit provided by City regarding the extent of the improvements. As conceptually described in the "Streetscape" section of the landscape guidelines and included as a standard in the Planning Area development standards, a 10 foot landscaped setback will be provided along Marron Road. We will consider providing enhanced designs to the pavement as we go forward with development but we do not want this as a requirement ofthe Specific Plan as we would like to focus our budget on areas that will create the best overall project and experience for shoppers. Illustrations have been added throughout the landscape design guidelines to provide a conceptual idea of how development may implement these guidelines. The landscape guidelines address the special interest corners through discussions of "gateways" and "streetscapes". Entries and 3152 Lionshead Avenue • Carisbad • CA 92010 • (760) 692-4100 • Fax: (760) 692-4105 pedestrian scale is also touched on in the architectural design guidelines. Vignettes have been added throughout guidelines to convey the concepts represented in text. Please keep in mind that we will do all we can to provide pleasing entry ways and create a nice entry experience for our patrons, however, given our defined budget, we want to focus most of our attention to those areas that will be more utilized by those patrons. The experience they will remember will be the shopping experience within the interior ofthe mall and we want to maximize this to the degree possible. 4. The landscape guidelines address the special interest corners through discussions of "gateways" and "streetscapes". Entries and pedestrian scale is also touched on in the architectural design guidelines. Vignettes have been added throughout guidelines to convey the concepts represented in text. Incorporated per request, please see revised Section 5.1. As a percentage of total shoppers, we do not believe there will be any significant pedestrian circulation entering the site at the corner of Marron Road and El Camino Real. Pedestrians living in the apartments to the south will likely not walk to the center, but those that do will take the existing stainA/ay that culminates closer to the Marron Road entry way, not El Camino Real. We believe it is preferable to channel pedestrian access through the main entry ways where pedestrians will have direct access to the center via sidewalks. Providing an entryway directly at the corner will result in Pedestrians cutting across the parking lot away from primary sidewalks creating potential safety hazards. 5. We agree with this comment and the Specific Plan document has been reorganized since last submittal making the design guidelines and development standards easier to read and understand. The development standards section now includes a section on planning area standards which provides the standards for each planning area in a clear, concise format. In addition, pictures and Illustrations have been added to the guidelines to provide a conceptual idea ofthe intent of specific plan. 6. The Specific Plan has been revised to incorporate the same format as the draft Q overiay zone per City request. Please see revised Section 6.1. 7. The non-conforming section of the Specific Plan has been revised and reflects the existing code where applicable. Please see revised Section 2.6. 8. These revisions include our proposed sign regulations. Additionally, we will be providing you with our proposed sign program shortly. We also would like to extend the invitation to take a tour of some of our other centers so you can actually see some of the concepts that we are proposing, if required after review of our proposed sign program. 9. Noted. As we have maintained from the outset, this project will not meet and is not intended to meet the city's current landscape guidelines. Instead, we have proposed a set of guidelines that will create the environment we believe will be pleasing and worthwhile to our patrons. This center has been in place for over 40 years and it is not in the best interest of either a successful shopping center renovation or to the city of Carisbad to pay for a complete overhaul of the existing parking lot and landscaped areas to comply with the city's current landscape policies. As noted eariier, monies are better spent on the renovations that directly impact the shopping experience of customers and the ability to keep and attract good retail tenants. This is the area we want to devote most attention to. Having said this, we are proposing improvements to the existing site and we hope the city will agree with the standards we are proposing. RESPONSE TO ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The Specific Plan will continuously be updated to match the results of the traffic study upon review and acceptance from the City of Carisbad. 2. References to figures have been revised to be consistent with each other (ie all are labeled Figure now) and the table of contents. 3. Figures have been revised for new format of document. Street names have been added and font size increased. "Figure" description label is cleariy visible on page, as new format eliminate the need to flip open to a larger page. 4. Figure 4 has been revised to add location of transit stops. The specific plan text has also been revised to include reference to exhibit in discussion of mass transit on page 2-7 per City redline. 5. The Circulation element discussion has been revised per redlined comment to include reference to Public Facilities section (pg 2-6) and Gibson traffic study (pg 2-7) 6. The main driveway throat on west is included in temporary event area because the Carisbad Marathon utilizes that area; therefore the exhibit will remain as proposed. 7. A design guideline has been added to the text per the City redline and comment, please see revised Section 4-3 (page 4-18). 8. The statement is no longer included that no permits are necessary for on-going parking maintenance. 9. The narrative on storm water has been revised to reflect redline comments, please see revised Section 2.6 (page 2-8) 10. The narrative re: LID features has been added to Specific Plan text perthe redline comments, please see revised Section 7.1. 11. Specific Plan has been revised per comment and redlines. Please see revised Section 7.4. 12. Specific Plan has been revised per comment and redlines. Please see revised Section 7.5. 13. The comments on the SWMP will be addressed and submitted with SDP. 14. Noted. Redlined check print is re-submitted with revised Specific Plan. RESPONSE TO LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1. Included with this revised specific plan is a set of comprehensive landscape guidelines. Please refer to Section 4.2. 2. Please refer to the new landscape guidelines with regards to overall vision, standards and guidelines. The proposed plantings are defined for each specific area (gateways, streetscape, parking fields, building frontage and building entry) and include a planting palette. 3. Please refer to the new landscape guidelines section on "Gateways" (pg 4-4) and "Streetscape" (pg 4-7) regarding focal points and project arrival/entries. Additional pictures and illustrations have been included to depict concepts in the text. 4. Please refer to new landscape guidelines. Within the guidelines are sections that address "Gateways", "Streetscape", "Parking Fields" "Building frontage" and "Building entry" with regards to landscape enhancements and guidelines. 5. Please refer to new landscape guidelines, specifically the "Streetscape" section (pg 4-7). 6. Please refer to new landscape guidelines, specific examples include: "Streetscape" design section regarding screening, "Gateways" plant material section regarding softening with understory of shrubs and "Building frontage" re softening buildings with landscaping. 7. Please refer to new landscape guidelines. Each section within the guidelines ("Gateways", "Streetscape", etc) includes a plant list and plant sizes. 8. COMPLETED 9. COMPLETED 10. Please referto new landscape guidelines, specific examples include: "Gateways" Materials and Standards - Furniture section, "Building Frontage" Materials and Standards - Furniture section and "Building Entries" Materials and Standards - Furniture section 11. COMPLETED 12. COMPLETED 13. Please referto new landscape guidelines as text and format have changed. 14. Please referto new landscape guidelines as text and format have changed. Plant height with regards to sight lines is included with "Streetscape" section (pg 4-7). 15. Please refer to new landscape guidelines. Pedestrian circulation system as shown on Figure 7 provides adequate access on the improved eastern portion of Westfield Carlsbad. 1 A. Guidelines has been provided in this draft to provide framework for future Site Development Plans to be checked against. 2A. Guidelines have changed since previous draft; the use of "shall" has been incorporated into new guidelines, where appropriate. 3A. Please refer to new landscape guidelines, "Parking Fields". The parking area on the eastern side ofthe site adjacent to new improvements will be redesigned to better serve the future pad buildings and patrons. Included in the new guidelines is a list of plants, materials, etc. The remaining parking will not be redesigned but trees will be replaced as needed under current maintenance program. 4A. Per previous discussions with City, the new guidelines in this specific plan will provide standards and guidance for the landscaping of the site and supersede the City of Carisbad Landscape Manual Section IV as it relates to streetscape, parking lot and building frontage and Section VI as it relates to plant zones, streetscape and parking design. .'^'c!to. • • FILE COPY V (CARLSBAD Planning Department www.carlsbadca.gov June 9, 2010 Hofman Planning & Engineering Attn: Bill Hofman 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 2nd REVIEW FOR SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL REVITALIZATION Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Site Development Plan, application no. SDP 09-04, as to its completeness for processing. The application is still incomplete, as submitted and must remain incomplete until the legislative actions (i.e., SP 09-01/EIR 09-02) associated with this project have been approved by the City Council. The City may, in the course of processing this 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment only. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including six (6) sets of the revised plans, along with one 11"x17" reduced set. If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter or your application, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Engineering Department comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Sen/ices, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: James Weigand, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DeCERBO Principal Planner CD:JG:sm Attachments Greg Fitchitt, Vice President of Development, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Don Neu, Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA James Weigand, Fire Will Foss, Building File Copy Data Entry ^ 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T (760) 602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 ® SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAMTNO REAL June 9, 2010 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please revise all plans to reflect a 10 foot minimum building and parking lot setback along the north side of Marron Road as required as part of the Planning Department's 2"" review comment letter for SP 09-01. For purposes of this SDP, please revise the plans to show the extent of the 10 ft. setback area starting from the 1®* entrance and ending at the 3'^'^ entrance just past the Macy's building (see redlined plans Sheet Al .0-0 and separate 11"x17" exhibit). The rest of parking lot area setbacks along Marron Road will be required to be improved as part of other subsequent projects in the future. Please provide details within the Preliminary Landscape Plans demonstrating how the screening of parked cars along this frontage shall occur. Staff is requiring a combination of mounding, landscaping and/or decorative walls (42 inches max. height) to adequately screen parked cars. Please be sure to revise the grading plans to address any landscape mounding and/or walls. For mounding design, please provide naturally and visually flowing topography. Where Engineering is specifically requesting bioswales in some of these areas, please be sure to integrate landscape features nearest the parking area (at the back of the setback) to address the screening of parked cars adjacent to these areas. 2. The first three (3) vehicular entrances along Marron Road and also the main entrance at Plaza Drive must be further improved to include enhanced paving materials through the first intersection interior to the site (see enclosed redlined plans and attached 11"x17" exhibit). Please revise all plans to be consistent throughout. 3. Please eliminate the existing parking stalls located along the west side of the drive aisle that is leading into the site from the first signalized intersection on Marron Road. Instead, please convert this area to a combination landscape and pedestrian path (please refer to the enclosed irx17" colored exhibit for direction). The pedestrian path area shown on the exhibit and vehicular circulation drive aisle areas must be separated by a landscape barrier, but shall provide breaks along the way to allow for convenient pedestrian access between the sidewalk and the parking lot Because the buildings along the south side of Marron Road are reliant on the PCR shopping center for parking (per Gibson Parking Study), adequate pedestrian connections between these areas and the PCR parking lot is a necessity. Landscaping along this main entry shall be designed to provide for more of a grand/gateway type entrance. Accent trees, flowering landscape, entry monumentation and gateway features shall be utilized for placemaking and identification. The required pedestrian path shall be of a width that will comfortably accommodate side-by-side pedestrian movements, shall be designed to include a decorative hardscape material that is consistent with the areas surrounding the main mall, and shall include decorative scaled pedestrian lighting consistent with the main mall and SP requirements as revised. Please also close the first vehicular intersection access (east side of drive aisle) to the outlying pad areas and extend the pedestrian path and landscaping in this area. Provide an enhanced crosswalk feature at this location to connect the outlying pad areas with the parking lot and pedestrian path to the west. The main entry drive shall be enhanced with decorative hardscape/paving materials to accent and enhance the main entry. This feature shall be carried through the first intersection at the southeast corner of the mall. Please revise all plans to reflect these requirements. In addition, please revise the other hvo entries off of Marron Road to include similar design features and hardscape materials. SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAN^D REAL June 9, 2010 Paqe 3 4. Provide an illustrative vignette of the full main entry at Plaza Drive similar to the ones provided on Sheets AI.4-1, A1.4-2, and A1.4-3. Please revise the existing plans to provide for a more creative entry experience at this location and revise other plans to be consistent. The landscape concept along this main entry shall be especially designed to provide for a grand entrance. Add more in the form of accent trees, flowering landscape, entry monumentation and placemaking identification features/structures. The main entry drive shall be enhanced with decorative hardscape/paving materials to accent and enhance the main entry. This feature shall be carried through the first intersection interior to the site. Enhanced crosswalks shall border the intersections and set them apart. As you drive into the site on Plaza Drive from El Camino Real, the landscaping area east of the interior intersection shall be significantly enhanced from what is currently proposed to capture the eye and draw you into the site from the street. Pedestrian sidewalks must be designed as similarly discussed in the issue items above, especially along the south side of Plaza Drive where a parkway is already proposed. Integrate natural flowing topographic contouring/mounding where possible within this landscape corridor to provide for greater visual effect and to also screen parked cars where applicable. Please revise all plans to reflect these requirements. 5. Please see Planning Department Issue Item No. 4 from the 2"^* Review issues letter for SP 09-02 pertaining to the ECR/Marron Road intersection and the ECR/Plaza Drive intersection and revise the vignette illustrative concept plans to support this action. Please note that the vignette for the ECR/Marron Road intersection on the NE corner should not include a trash enclosure/delivery area prominently situated on this corner. This is not going to meet the design intent that we are requesting on this corner. Revise all plans to be consistent throughout. 6. The Building Square Footage section of the Summary Table on Sheet Al .0-0 doesn't add up. Please revise this section to be correct. Also, it would be easier to understand if you could also break out and separate the new Building Square Footage for each of the outlying pad areas as you did for the Proposed New Commercial Level 1 and Proposed New Commercial Level 2, which we assume to be within the main building edifice? Please revise. 7. Not all colored areas are represented in the Level 1 and Level 2 Floor Plan Legend on Sheets Al.1-1 and A1.2-1. See the attached redlines for specifics. Please revise to show accordingly. 8. Please demonstrate how the typical diagonal parking space exhibit shown on Sheet C-7 is consistent with the City of Carisbad's general parking requirements for minimum area and dimensions. Please note that even with diagonal parking, two-way traffic aisles are required to be a minimum 24 feet in width. The proposed exhibit is showing a 21.64 ft. drive aisle width. Where the project is proposing new diagonal parking, please revise the site plan to be consistent with the zoning codes general development standards and requirements. 9. The proposed Typical Standard Parking space exhibit shown on Sheet C-7 does not meet the minimum area requirement of 170 sq. ft. as specified in the City of Carisbad's general parking requirements (see C.M.C. 21.44.050). Please revise this exhibit to comply with standards, and where the project is proposing new parking spaces based on this design, please revise all affected sheets within the plan set to be consistent with the zoning codes general development standards and requirements. SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAM June 9, 2010 Paqe 4 ft O REAL 10. Please revise the civil plans to label all dimensions of drive aisles. The way the plans are currently drawn, with only the limits of work shown and the rest of the parking lot and drive aisle areas grayed back or not even shown, it is impossible to verify dimensions. Please revise. 11. Sheet C-5 of the Civil Plans calls for a 45 ft. finished floor elevation at the outlying pad on the SE corner of ECR and Plaza Drive. The existing topography at this location is approximately 37 ft. Is this a typo, or is the pad height increasing by 8 ft. on this corner? If so, all the other plans within the project plan set need to be revised to reflect this grade difference, especially the illustrative site plans that are basically calling for at grade improvements. 12. Please incorporate some other accent color(s) into key architectural building forms and details to infuse some color into the development and draw the eye to certain specific areas. This is especially important in warming up the architecture at the core pedestrian areas and creating a more inviting atmosphere. Please revise the plans accordingly. 13. Please revise the plans to further explain the screen wall/door materials and design elements for the areas that appear to be truck service bays. The first location is on the north elevation, east of the main mall entrance, west of the proposed gym, which we are assuming will service a proposed grocery store/market based on the nearby cart rack. One elevation (Sheet A2.1-1) says MTL PANEL & DOORS w/ HORIZ. RIBS, the other (Sheet A2.2-1) says OVERHEAD ROLL UP DOOR AND WALL PANEL, SINGLE SHEET METAL PANEL W/ HORIZONTAL RIBS - FACTORY FINISH in the North Elevation Detail, another says METAL WALL PANEL & DOORS in the North Plaza View. 14. The other location is on the south elevation, just east of and adjacent to the proposed 2,338 sq. ft. outfacing commercial tenant space. The elevation on Sheet A2.1-2 says METAL ROLL-UP GATES W/ HORIZONTAL RIBS. The last location is on the east elevation. One elevation (Sheet A2.1-3) says METAL DOOR PANELS, the other elevation (Sheet A2.2-3) says OVERHEAD ROLL-UP DOOR SINGLE SHT. MTL. PANEL W/ HORIZONTAL RIBS - FACTORY FINISHED. First of all, are these intended to be your standard industrial grade metal roll up doors, or is it intended to be something that is more upscale in design? Is there a picture available that can be added as part ofthe Inspiration Image on Sheet A3.1-1 to show us what these doors will look like? Our recommendation is that these would be less utilitarian in design and more upscale. Our goal is to make these areas blend into the background and design of the rest of the mall elevations. Please clarify. Second, please coordinate the descriptions of each of these doors that are shown on Sheets A2.1-1, A2.1-2, A2.1-3, A2.2-1, and Sheet A2.2-3 so they are consistent throughout. As designed, the courtyard plaza areas that lead into the main entries of the mall combined with the contemporary architectural design of the buildings do not appear to provide for a warm pedestrian experience. Instead, they come across as being a little cold, something you would rather pass through quickly to get into the main shopping area of the interior mall. We would rather these areas be inviting places, where people ,SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAI\^D REAL June 9, 2010 Page 5 would want to be, especially those that are dining outside. Are there any other design features that could be added to create a warmer and more inviting atmosphere, such as fountains, greater landscape elements; indirect, recessed, and/or accent lighting, etc . . .? The main entry area located near the southeast corner, which will access the future movie theater, is especially concerning since this area is assumed to be a very active place based on the proposed outfacing businesses that are going to be located in this area, the proposed movie theater entrance, and the convergence of the pedestrian connections to the three outlying restaurant pads. I can envision lots of people mingling in this area while waiting for movies or dinner reservations. Not all people are going to go into the mall and wait, especially if this is successful. It would be nice if this area could be a bit larger and incorporate more of a formal plaza area that is pedestrian scaled, warm and inviting. 15. Please note that the Planning Staff supports the direction that is being provided to you by our Landscape Architect. Please revise the SP to address his comments below. 16. It is important that the Civil Plans include the hardscape design features that are included within the preliminary Landscape Plans and illustrative vignettes. Please coordinate the Civil Plans with these other plans so they are consistent in design, dimension, and location. Please also insure that the Civil Plans call out or show all the proposed landscape planter areas along the outer sidewalk areas along the main portion of the mall expansion/revitalization area. 17. Please revise the preliminary landscape plans to include pedestrian light fixture details and dimensions, as well as the type, design, and dimension ofthe proposed bollards. 18. Please also address all the issues/conflicts raised or identified in the redlined set of plans and exhibits. Please be advised, redline check prints and exhibits must be returned with the revised set of plans to facilitate continued staff review. Engineering: 1. (repeat comment) On all the exhibits that show proposed building expansion/development, show the existing property lines. This is required to ensure that building expansions are either contained within their respective properties, or where they do cross, will trigger land/lease negotiations with the impacted property owner (e.g.: City). 2. (repeat comment) Revise the Site Grading Plan to show the potable water services and meters for the mall. Staff has concerns over those portions of the existing mall that are served by water meters located inside building(s). Revise the project and plans to provide a common meter bank outside the mall to allow staff to access, read and better monitor connections to the City potable water system. We ask that water meters for the redeveloped portions of the mall be reconfigured to allow access from the outside of the building (versus inside the building). The current configuration has resulted in several conflicts by city staff. On the returned exhibits, a response stated was that no change would be made to the existing building. We will continue to ask for the redeveloped portion of the mall (not existing), be reconfigured to address this water meter reconfiguration issue. Please revise the exhibits to show where the existing water meters are located, on the redeveloped portion area, and show the new/proposed water meters outside the buildings to avoid future conflicts. SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL June 9, 2010 Paqe 6 3. (repeat comment) Revise the site plans to show and callout the mass transit stop locations that serve this project. The response letter stated it was added, but we could not find it. 4. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit to callout the short legal descriptions for each property on this overall site plan. Refer to engineering redlines from the 1*' review set and revise the plans to comply. 5. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, in the property owner section, revise the exhibit to callout the lots owned by each unique property owner. 6. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit provide a comprehensive breakdown of existing overall ADT's and proposed overall ADT's and the net increase in ADT's with this revitalization project. This information is available from the traffic report prepared by Gibson Transportation. 7. (repeat comment) On sheet Al.0-0, revise the exhibit to address the potential sight distance conflict located just north of Area 3. Refer to redlines. If there is a conflict, revise the exhibits to address. 8. A wider landscape buffer is being required along Marron Road by Planning. Please revise all impacted sheets to carry out changes to parking totals, parking alignments, landscape islands, drainage, drive aisles, etc. Where feasible consider using a portion bf the wider landscape buffer as biofiltration swales (in lieu of pervious pavement) to treat the redeveloped portions of the parking lot runoff per the SUSMP. 9. Revise the project data on sheet Al.0-0 to express the proposed sewer generation in equivalent dwelling units (EDU). 10. On sheet A1.2-2, clarify why Area 2 includes part of the existing adjacent building that does not seem part of this project. See redlines. 11. On sheet Al .3-1, address the inconsistent new roof callout where that uses the existing roof symbol. Refer to redlines. 12. On sheet A1.3-2, revise the note to clarify that with future Site Development Permits, the applicant will be required to supply additional information such as tiuilding elevations, materials, signage, parking lot configurations, service entry details, water quality treatment measures, etc. 13. On sheet Al .4-1, revise the exhibit to flip the orientation of the plan so that north faces up to match the key map and the other exhibits. 14. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the design to address how the depressed median islands will (realistically) intercept storm water runoff from the redeveloped impervious (hardscape/buildings/pavement) areas. From our review it appears that much of the runoff will run past the bioretention areas without being filtered by these landscaped basins. Full capture and treatment is required by the SUSMP. Consider alternatives to enhance treatment of the project by constructing a ribbon gutter to help route runoff to the basins before overflowing to the porous pavement areas. We are open to other alternatives. Please address prior to resubmittal. ,SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAI\^pD REAL June 9, 2010 Page 7 15. On sheet C-4 through C-6, show and callout the preliminary fire service (double detector check valve) locations for each new/redeveloped structure. 16. On sheet C-4 through C-7, revise the exhibits so that porous pavement is not used in highly traveled areas or where tire movement (turning) will degrade the pavement prematurely. Refer to CASQA design guidelines. Consider using the porous pavement in thin strips where tires will not tear them up. Refer to redlines for examples. 17. On sheet C-4, revise the exhibit to show how the depressed bioretention areas will drain. Some of the depressed areas show storm drains while others do not. Please complete the design. 18. On sheet C-4, revise the exhibit to include a typical expanded detail (either plan view or 3-d composite) of the depressed bioretention areas. The detail should show the 0-inch curb, 6-inch curb side, area drain, depressed landscape area, side slopes, landscaping, etc. 19. On sheets C-4 through C-6, some of the bioretention areas are not typical. Some are oddly-shaped, contain sidewalk and/or fire hydrants. Since hydrants or sidewalks would not be depressed, address how this will impact (reduce) the function of the bioretention areas. Revise the exhibits to provide some additional detail as to how these areas will function with these. Maybe this could be addressed in the typical detail. 20. On sheets C-4 through C-6, show the existing property lines. This is submittal checklist item required so staff can provide a complete review of the Site Development Permit exhibits. 21. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the exhibit to callout the length of sight (LOS) distance required for each intersection using Caltrans corner sight distance. The exhibits were revised to show the LOS lines, they seem to be inconsistent in length. If conflicts arise please resolve them prior to resubmittal. 22. (repeat comment) On sheets C-5, revise the exhibits to provide for 20-ft wide public water easements on all new/proposed waterlines. Although existing water lines are within 15-ft easements, new designs shall conform to new standards. Easements for fire hydrants may be 10-ft wide. 23. On sheet C-5, verify the pad elevation of the new outparcel building near El Camino Real in Area 3. The stated elevation of 45-ft seems excessive based on adjacent topography. Refer to redlines. 24. On sheet C-5, add a note to the plans that explains that new buildings subject to future SDP's will be subject to storm water requirements per the City Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). 25. On sheet C-5, clarify at where the existing 10-inch wateriine has a three-way junction if there are control valves that would be affected by the proposed raised median curbs. Refer to redlines. 26. On sheet C-5, provide a 20-ft minimum width public sewer easement that encompasses the existing backbone sewer main that serves the various out-parcel buildings and Lot 1 & 2 of Map No. 8956. Refer to redlines. SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL June 9, 2010 Page 8 27. On sheet C-5 through C-6, the outdoor pool/recreation area is proposed over the existing 10-inch wateriine. Redesign to avoid a public facility located in an inaccessible area. Re-route the wateriine in drive aisles outside and around these private improvements. Provide 20-ft wide public wateriine easements for new waterlines. See redlines. 28. (repeat comment) On sheet C-5, previously we asked for sewer invert elevations per our redline comments. No changes were made with this resubmittal. Please address these comments to assure that the new development will gravity flow to an existing sewer system. 29. On sheet C-5, revise keynote number 13 to callout 'proposed private sewer lateral'. 30. On sheet C-6, the revised site design results in proposed structures located over an existing (8-inch?) public sewer line. Consider how these public facilities will be repaired or replaced in the future. The current design is unacceptable. Revise the design so that public facilities are accessible and can be repaired or maintained without resulting in damage to buildings/private improvements. In general, public facilities should be located in drive aisles/parking lots, not under buildings. Re-route the sewer prior to resubmittal. Provide 20-ft public sewer easements. 31. On sheet C-7, please modify the construction notes to call out that the existing traffic signal will be modified to add the westbound left turn movement. Refer to redlines. 32. On sheet C-7, explain why there are different sight distance lines along Marron Road. Marron has 400-ft and 300-ft line of sight lines and El Camino Real has a 250-ft sight line. Given the speeds, shouldn't El Camino have longer line-of-sight lines as compared to Marron Road? Verify accuracy against Caltrans standards and list the sight distance requirements (in feet) for each location. If conflicts arise with obstructions to line of sights, please resolve them prior to resubmittal. 33. (repeat comment) On sheet C-8, address how emergency access vehicles will approach the new out parcel building and exit given drive aisle widths and layout. A circuitous fire engine route is still shown on the plan, but during emergencies would be unlikely used. Add the missing (direct) fire access approach and resolve this conflict prior to resubmittal. Refer to redlines. Building: 1. For ADA, please revise the summary table on Sheet Al.0-0 to include the total number of parking spaces required and the total number of disabled accessible parking spaces provided. Revise all other site development plan sheets to show disabled accessible spaces. Verify distribution/location for each building. 2. Please clarify the accessible paths of travel from all transit points at the street to the buildings. PELA: Please note that because the Specific Plan has not yet been completed, final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. The numbers below are referenced on the red-lined set of plans enclosed as part of this project review for ease of .SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAI\|pb REAL June 9, 2010 Page 9 locating each area of comment concern. Many comments are not numbered on the red-line plans due to the conceptual nature of the plans but are provided for the applicant's use in providing more detail and addressing all Landscape Manual requirements. REPEAT COMMENTS: 1. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for many trees in each tree group that can be very different in character. One symbol is used for all shrubs, grasses and ground covers. Please provide a different symbol for each type of tree (i.e. large evergreen, medium evergreen, small evergreen, large deciduous, medium deciduous, etc.) and a different symbol for each type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen shrub, medium size shrub, small flowering accent shrub, etc.). Vignettes at a larger scale are needed for different areas to convey concepts. Please provide enlargements showing more detailed landscaping for parking islands, site and building entries and perimeters, etc. to allow an appropriate review to be performed. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete and detailed plans. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be less conceptual. Please see Illustrative Plans on Sheets AI.4-1, 2, and 3 for details of the proposed hardscape/landscape types and finishes for pedestrian connections, building entries and perimeters." Illustrative Plans do not appear to reflect real site conditions (i.e. trees located within easements, etc.) and clearly state that the plans are subject to change. The design intent will need to be better established in order to provide valid comments on the pians. Please provide further detailing that reflects site conditions and provides clear design intent that can be enforced (see underlined comments above). Please also provide a different symbol for small, medium and large trees as well as different symbols for the palms. The proposed palms are different in character and fomi. See NEW COMMENT 3A. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3. Completed. 4. Completed. 5. It appears that several trees shown to remain may actually be proposed for removal. Please review and revise as appropriate. Check all trees. 6. Completed. 7. Completed. 8. Please provide a separate different symbol for Washingtonia robusta. 9. Completed. 10. Completed. 11. Please provide examples and/or more detailing for the hardscape and landscape markers for review. See comment number 1 and 3A regarding hardscape. SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL June 9, 2010 Page 10 12. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 2"" Review: Although a plan note has been added, the plans do not graphically address this comment. Please provide screening of sen/ice areas and any other unsightly areas graphically on the plans. Check all sheets. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 2"" Review: Landscaping appears to be minimal in several locations. Please add landscaping to include trees, shrubs and ground covers to better accentuate and enhance the architecture. 14. Completed. 15. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "Utilities are shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with the trees." 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Development Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Piease address. 17. Trees shall be planted a minimum of 2' from curbs. 2"" Review: Trees appear to be shown within 2' of curbs. Piease address. 18. Any lane of through traffic shall be separated from parking by a minimum 5' wide planting strip. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Pians have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP." The specific plan has not yet been compieted or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 19. Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide a perimeter landscape strip of at least 8' on all sides. The perimeter landscaped strip may include any landscaped yard, setback, or landscaped area othenwise required within the property and shall be continuous except for required access points. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Pians have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 20. Please correct the sheet number. 2"'^ Review: The match line number needs to be revised to reference the correct sheet. 21. Planting or any combination of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to provide screening from adjacent property or streets of the parking area to a height of 3'. .SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAM^|D REAL June 9, 2010 Page 11 22. At least three percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shrubs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 23. Completed. 24. Per the water conservation section of the manual (C.3-4.6), woody shrubs must be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% of the groundcover area at maturity. Please address on the plans. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Preliminary Landscape Pians have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP." The specific plan has not yet been completed or accepted and should address current City requirements. Please address. 25. Please insure that all requirements of the attached parking iot exhibit are met. 26. Please RETURN all REDLINES that are enclosed as part of this review package and upon resubmitting please Include one (1) additional copy of the landscape plan set (i.e., concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan). NEW COMMENTS: IA. It appears that existing parking lot trees are being removed and not replaced. Please replace all removed parking lot trees. Check all areas. 2A. Trees are needed to soften the parking lot and provide separation from drive aisles. Where conflicts with easements occur, please redesign the area to include planting areas with trees, shrubs and ground covers as appropriate. 3A. Architectural plans do not appear to specify the hardscape treatments as indicated. Please revise plans to fully address. 4A. The applicant has responded to many of the comments that the Preliminary Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. Please note that the landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to cleariy define how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and guidelines and further detailing on the Preliminary Landscape Plans. 5A. The illustrative plans and landscape plans appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape areas at project entries be expanded and enhanced to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed in the plans (i.e., arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation SDP 09-04 - PLAZA CAMiT30 REAL June 9, 2010 Page 12 around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at the buildings, etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is desperately needed. Please further develop all plans and provide additional detailing as appropriate to define the development of all areas. Fire: Fire Department comments will follow under separate cover. VcARLSBAD '^"•^ Planning Department www.carlsbadca.gov June 7, 2010 Hofman Planning & Engineering Attn: Bill Hofman 3152 Uonshead Avenue Carisbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 2nd REVIEW FOR EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL (SPECIFIC PLAN) Dear Mr. Hofman, The Planning Department has reviewed the 2"^ submittal of your Specific Plan, application no. SP 09-01, as to its completeness for processing. As made aware in the first review, a Specific Plan is a legislative action and the application will be deemed incomplete until approved by Cify Council. The Cify 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and Items needed to process your application. These items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including eight (8) copies of the revised Specific Plan document, one (1) redlined copy In underline strikothrough format, and one (1) electronic copy (MS Word format). If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter or your application, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Engineering Department comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: James Weigand, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, IRIS DeCERBO Principal Planner CD:JG:sm Attachments c: Greg Fitchitt, Vice President of Development, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Don Neu, Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA James Weigand, Fire Marshal File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T (760) 602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 ® EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PL^ CAMINO REAL June 7, 2010 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please find attached a redlined copy of the Specific Plan document with suggested modifications and comments. A copy of the document will be sent electronically via email as well, whereby you can electronically accept the associated track changes directly. Please note that we were unable to modify or provide comments directly within the individual Tables that are listed in the SP due to formatting issues with the document. Therefore, instead if we have a comment on a specific table, we have provided it in the form of a written explanation located in the right hand column. Please revise or adjust these sections accordingly. 2. ' Please add a Sustainabiiity Section to the Specific Plan, which identifies the specific project level commitments Westfield has stated they would Integrate into the project as GHG reduction measures. These measures are those listed in the May 12, 2010 email from Bill Hofman. Also, one additional thought would be to include electric vehicle recharging stations around the PCR site. The PCR site is a strategically situated location adjacent to two (2) major freeways. This could become a destination for travelers with electric vehicles who need to charge their vehicles during long trips. Because it takes time to charge these vehicles, PCR would be a great location because of the ample shopping and entertainment opportunities that currently exist and are proposed for in the future. If this is considered please update the proposed SDP accordingly showing their proposed locations. 3. According to pg. 37, Section e.) VEHICLE ENTFl'XNCES, "vehicle entrances are focuses of attention and often create the first impression for patrons." This section further describes that "distinctive design elements should be incorporated into the [vehicular entrance] design." The primary vehicular entrance that is shown in Visual Simulation No. 4 made part of EIR 09-02, and SDP 09-04 provides a glimpse of how this section of the Specific Plan is being implemented. Visual Simulation No. 4 and the SDP depict a newly proposed (approximately) 20 ft. wide section of stamped concrete at the pedestrian crosswalk location in a brick tone color. This design does not give off the greatest first impression for a revitalized Plaza Camino Real. Project entrances should be a focuses of attention, and therefore we expect more design elements to be incorporated into these project entrances, especially at Plaza Drive, where it connects with El Camino Real (a scenic corridor and gateway to the city). Considerably more detail and design elements/features need to be incorporated into the vehicular entrance development standards and the accompanied illustrations that are provided within the Specific Plan to portray the level of detail that is expected to be developed. These main entrances need to consider some form of design element/characteristic that is carried out all the way through into the project site to at least the next interior intersection that the main vehicular entrance is internally connecting with. Please see the attached 11"x17" redline exhibit as an example of how far we want these vehicular entrance design elements carried out. Please include a separate and distinct decorative hardscape type paving material/treatment for these areas. Incorporate detached pedestrian sidewalk pathways that comfortably accommodate side by side pedestrian movements, pedestrian scaled lighting, enhanced landscape features that draw the eye and separates pedestrians from interior vehicular circulation, trellis structures, monumentation/gateway placemaking identification features, etc. These particular EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLJ^ CAMINO REAL June 7, 2010 Page 3 detached pedestrian sidewalk pathways need to include a similar, if not the same type of hardscape treatment/feature that is proposed around the main edifice of the mall area and need to also allow for periodic interconnections with the parking lot areas where possible to ailow for and encourage pedestrian use. At the main entrances, where the drive aisles connect with the public street, the landscape areas on either side of the drive aisles need to be widened and enlarged to accommodate enhanced landscape and gateway entry features so as to clearly identify and celebrate the arrival. In addition to revising the SP text, please also revise existing illustrations and/or add additional illustrations throughout the document to describe how these areas are expected to look. Provide vignettes similarto the SDP proposal to depict a certain Illustrative concept. 4. As far as pedestrian circulation and architecture are concerned, the corner of El Camino Real and Marron Road is a critical or special interest intersection just as the Plaza Drive intersection is. It is highly conceivable that pedestrians moving across the ECR/Marron Road intersection coming to the project from the apartments to the south and east, or the other shopping areas that are across ECR, are not going to walk north along ECR to the Plaza Drive connection, nor is it likely that they will walk even the shortest distance to the first entrance along Marron Road. However, it is highly conceivable instead that pedestrian where possible will take the short cut across the landscape at this corner to enter the site. Therefore, it is important to consider pedestrian connections and orientation of architecture at this critical intersection. The SDP submittal on Sheet A1.4- 3 shows a vignette of a possible layout for a building on the SE corner of ECR and Plaza Drive. This vignette includes enhanced plaza type paving on this corner, which wraps the building and connects pedestrians directly to the internal pedestrian circulation system. This works well to not only connect the proposed building with the street and intersection, but to also connect pedestrian with the internal circulation system of the project. We want to see something similar proposed on the corner of ECR and Marron Road. Please revise the SP language and organization of the document to include these two intersections as special interest corners, not only from an architectural standpoint, but also from a pedestrian circulation point of view. Just as you've done for the SDP, please also include within the SP document detailed vignettes for illustrative purposes, which show how these two areas could and should be designed to look and function. These two corner buildings are required focal points and the descriptions and design details outlined within the SP need to cleariy identify and encourage designs that support this idea. Please revise the SP document accordingly, and also revise the proposed SDP vignettes to clearly identify and describe these concepts. 5. Please reorganize the design guidelines and the development standards of the SP document so that they are more integrated and easier to read and understand. We feel that a reader should be able to go to one area of document, identify what the objective is, understand the guidelines and intent, and then immediately see the development standard and requirements to implement those concepts and ideas. The way it is currently proposed, the development standards come first ahead of the design guidelines, and a reader has to jump back and forth between pages to understand the intent. The outcome is that readers go straight to the development standards and then miss the objectives that are outlined within the design guidelines. Somehow these two areas should be brought together as one. The Westfield UTC master plan document does a pretty good job of this. You may want to refer to that as an example to follow. Also, we think it is important to add pictures and illustrations of concepts and ideas to illustrate the objectives and intent, quality of materials, scale of pedestrian lighting, etc. Please add these types of features to the document. EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PL^ CAMINO REAL June 7, 2010 Page 4 6. Attached is a draft copy of the zone code update that is currently being prepared for the C.M.C. Chapter 21.06 - Qualified Development Overiay (Q) Zone. Please note one of the key aspects to this is how it is adding the Minor SDP process to the code where it is currently missing. Please review this draft document and compare it against the current proposal. We like the format of this and would like the SP revised to incorporate it instead of what is currently in the document. Please also note that by referencing the code directly it may create problems in the future as the zone code is updated. This update is a good example of where code sections are changing from which you are basing direction on in the SP. We can discuss this further in our weekly meetings if needed. 7. The Existing Non-Conforming Structures section of the Specific Plan doesn't make any sense as it is currently proposed. Please revise this section of the Specific Plan to be consistent with our most recently amended Nonconforming Uses and Structures Ordinance. 8. Please provide, for review and comparison, copies of the City/County approved sign programs from the Westfield Culver City Mall (i.e. Fox Hill Mall), Westfield UTC Mall, and the Westfield Plaza Bonita Mall. Please note that we reserve comments on the PCRSP signage criteria section until we have had a chance to review the proposed sign program and see what you intend to propose. 9. Please note that the Planning Staff supports the direction that is being provided to you by our Landscape Architect. Please revise the SP to address his comments below. Engineering: 1. Prior to resubmitting, please revise the specific plan narrative to match the latest results/findings from the traffic study being revised by Gibson Transportation. 2. After page 11, 'exhibit' 1 should be named 'figure' 1 per the table of contents (TOC). The same comment applies on the next page where 'exhibit' 2 should be 'figure' 2 per the TOC. 3. On figure 3-6, please increase the font size of the street names so there are legible (repeat comment). Add the missing street names where noted on the redline plans. Move the 'figure' description as noted so it can be read without having to flip open the large page (typical). 4. On figure 4 please add a symbol to denote locations of transit stops within and adjacent to the project limits. The narrative should refer to this figure to describe how mass transit is promoted as part of the project. 5. On page 19, the circulation element should clarify that the capacity of existing circulation infrastructure, relative to this project, is described in more detail in the public facilities (section V) portion of the specific plan. One of the bullet points should list that a traffic impact study, dated was prepared Gibson Transportation. 6. On figure 5, please clarify why the main driveway throat is included within the temporary event area. Are the driveway entries subject to change? Please refer to the enclosed redlines. EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLy^ CAMINO REAL June 7, 2010 Page 5 7. On page 37 regarding circulation, please add a design guideline for vehicles to ensure adequate circulation for public safety vehicles throughout the project. Please refer to the enclosed redlines. 8. On page 44, clarify that, depending on the scope, repaving existing pavement may require grading and/or storm water permits per the Municipal Code and the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP). Piease add "discretionary" to the last sentence as noted. 9. On page 45, the narrative states that the Specific Plan area meets current storm water requirements. It may have met it when it was originally developed, but does not meet current storm water standards. Revise this storm water section to describe that a majority of the PCRSP is existing and that all new/revitalized portions of the PCRSP will meet current storm water requirements. Add narrative on how the project will incorporate low impact development principles to minimize impervious area, route water through planters/pervious areas and maximize Infiltration to reduce the development affects on run-off volumes and peaks flows. 10. On page 54 under the drainage section, please include narrative to describe that new/revitalized sections of the PCRSP will employ low impact development features to reduce impervious areas and route runoff over pervious areas, thereby reducing existing peak runoff rates and volumes. Please refer to the enclosed redlines. 11. On page 61 under sewer collection, please add a reference to Appendix D that shows the layout of existing sewer infrastructure serving the project. Under phasing, although there are no trunk main improvements required, clarify that there are new/proposed sewer lateral connections to serve the out parcel buildings. Please refer to the enclosed redlines. 12. On page 62 under water distribution, please clarify the reference to Appendix E for the water system layout. Under phasing, although there are no infrastructure upgrades required, there are new/proposed wateriine extensions off the existing system to serve the out parcel buildings. Under the adequacy findings, correct the reference per the redline comment. 13. Please address the comments on the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that were identified by a memo dated February 19, 2010. 14. Address redlines as noted on the returned exhibits. Please be advised, this check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Landscaping (PELA): REPEAT COMMENTS: 1. The landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to cleariy define how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PlX\ CAMINO REAL June 7, 2010 Page 6 guidelines. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Plaza Camino Real is a unique use and was developed nearly twenty years before the implementation of the Landscape Manual policy and does not meet many of the standards of that policy. Retrofitting the center to meet all Manual policy standards is impossible. The PCRSP supersedes the City's Landscape Manual although the Plan meets the intent of the policy. The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to provide guidance on key design principles while allowing for creativity in design of future development. Particular plants or planting palettes are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather provided in the subsequent development plans such as SDP 09-04 which will be resubmitted soon." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.) 2""* Review: The applicant has responded: "Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 3. The exhibits appear to be functional only and show little Interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to define the development of all areas, i""* Review: The applicant has responded: "Further definition and clarity will be provided in the subsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04 for areas within the area of work as shown on the plans." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 4. Please address and clarify how landscaping will be used to accentuate and enhance building architecture; site, parking and building entries; intersections; focal points; etc. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to allow for innovative design as part of future development that accentuates and enhances buildings proposed and existing for the center to remain modern. Please see Section III, Landscape guideUnes." The applicant has not addressed the comment. The guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment 5. Please address how proposed landscaping will be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing landscaping. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The Section III, Development Standards, defines landscape requirements within the Plaza Camino Reai Specific Plan boundary area. AU new development shaU comply with these landscape standards and staff wiU review to ensure proposed landscaping will be compatible with existing landscape to remain." The applicant has not addressed the comment The guidelines are vague at best and provide little to no specifics. Please fully address the comment. EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PL^|^ CAMINO REAL June 7, 2010 Page 7 6. Please address how landscaping will be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "Subject to staff review of subsequent entitlement plans, landscaping and other elements, such as walls, trellises, gates, will be used together to provide adequate screening of sen/Ice areas or other areas of unsightliness." The applicant has not fully addressed the comment The SP now discusses only screening of trash enclosures and sen/ice areas. Please address screening of utilities and screening/softening of architectural masses, etc. Please fully address. 7. Please provide a list of plants proposed for use (i.e. project theme trees; accent trees; shrubs; ground covers; vines). The list needs to identify proposed plants for each different use (i.e. project perimeter; project entries; parking areas; intersections; building entries; etc.). Proposed plant sizes also need to be provided. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "The PCRSP defines landscape requirements and guidelines to provide guidance on design principles while allowing for abstract and creativity in design of future development Specific plants are not mandated by the Specific Plan but rather by the subsequent development plans such as SDP 09-04 currently under staff review." The applicant has not addressed the comment. Please address. 8. Completed. 9. Completed. 10. Paragraph a.5. on page 36 indicates: "No design theme is mandated by the specific plan for Street Furniture to allow periodic replacement as styles evolve". Street furniture needs to be addressed indicating where it is proposed and what types of furniture are proposed. 2"'^ Review: Paragraph a, 1, 2 and 3 on page 38: Please revise the word "should" to "shall". 11. Completed. 12. Completed. 13. Paragraph b.5. on page 36 indicates: "The use of trees within the parking areas shall be located as not to conflict with light standards". This needs to be revised to clarify that both trees and lights are to be coordinated to maintain a well balanced landscape design with appropriate lighting. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "The plan has been revised to clarify that trees and lights are to be coordinated to maintain a well balanced landscape design with appropriate lighting." The plan was revised indicating the following: "The placement of parking lot trees and light standards shall be coordinated to ensure that trees wiU not block lighting of the parking area or otherwise create unsafe Ughting conditions." This does not address a weU balanced landscape design. Please fully address the comment. 14. Paragraph b.9. on page 36 indicates: "As redevelopment occurs, interior intersections will be upgraded for public safety to slow traffic and aesthetic purposes". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will be achieved. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "Intersections of entry driveways and public street corners shaU adhere to "street corner sight clearances" by limiting plant materials and elements to be no higher than 30 inches." The new wording covers plant heights oniy. Please fuliy address other improvements and aesthetics. EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PL/WK CAMINO REAL June 7, 2010 Page 8 15. Paragraph b.10. indicates: "Landscape design shall avoid forcing pedestrian from passing through large open parking areas". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will be achieved. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "Design Guidelines and public safety elements within the PCRSP encourage the use of pedestrian walkways to prevent patrons from walking through large open parking areas. Detailed plans showing how pedestrian access is addressed are part of subsequent entitlement plans such as SDP 09-04." The appUcant has not addressed the comment. Please address. NEW COMMENTS: IA. Paragraph a. GENERAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, No. 3 on page 32 indicates: "Detailed landscape Plans shall be approved as part of subsequent site development plans or other entitlement approvals." This is understood, however additional specifics and detailing are needed in the SP to provide guidelines to check the SDPs against. Current SP guidelines are minimal and provide little direction to guide development of SDPs. See comment No. 1 above. 2A. Please review all portions of the development standards and design guidelines and revise words such as "should" and "encouraged" to words that provide enforcement such as "shall". 3A. Paragraph d. PARKING LOT/VEHICULAR ACCESS LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, Nos. 3 and 4, page 33 indicates: "Parking lot trees that are removed for redevelopment, diseased, or reaching the end of their natural life span shall be replaced by drought tolerant species." and "Parking lot trees that are removed as a result of new development shall be replaced on a one for one basis." Parking lot landscaping is currently minimal at best and needs additional thought and improvement. The SP appears to indicate that parking landscaping will for the most part remain as is. The redevelopment of the project should address improvements to the parking areas in order to revitalize and make the project more inviting and aesthetically pleasing. Please fully address. 4A. Please address the City of Carisbad Landscape Manual requirements in the SP. Fire Prevention: The Fire Department has reported during this review period that they have no additional comments. Hofman Planning & Engineering 2010 25 YEARS OF Pianning Civil Engineering Fiscai Services Coastal EKCF[L"ENCE RECEIVED Iloliiiaii I'i.nitiint; & May 6, 2010 Sjiuinrt rinu Jason Goff CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD PLA^I^^!^iG DEPT Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO I^T STAFF REVIEW FOR SDP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL REVITALIZATION Dear Jason, The responses below correspond with the numbered comments In the staff incomplete and Issues 1 review letter dated December 15, 2009. LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPUCATION PLANNING: 1. Locations and dimensions of access ways as required for compliance with Title 24 will be provided on subsequent submittal. 2 Earthwork volumes are shown on Sheet C-1. 3. The common area and the proposed new and reconfigured commercial areas are provided on Sheets Al.1-1 & Al.2-1, The net additional Gross Leasable Area for the entire site will be under the 35,417 square foot limit analyzed in the EIR. 4. Roof plans wlthi approximate roof top equipment locations and dimension have been provided. All roof mounted equipment shall be Installed shielded from view. 5. The required Inforrnation for CMF PCR LLC was submitted on December 10, 2009 prior to receipt of staff letter doted December 15, 2009, 6. Dimensions of the parking stalls compliant with city standards ore provided on the Site Striping Plan on Sheet C-7. 3162 Lionshead Avenue • Carisbad • CA 92010 • (760) 692-4100 • Fax: (760) 692-'^ 105 7. A color/materials board will be provided prior to public hearings. Please see Inspiration Image Sheet A3.1-1 providing examples of proposed design elements. ENGINEERING: 1. A corrected SWSQ was submitted April 12, 2010, with the revised SWMP as part of the EIR review for the project. 2. The revised Storm Water Management Plan and Drainage reports were submitted April 12, 2010, as port of the EIR review for the project. 3. One copy of both a Water & Sewer studies doted June 28, 2008, and on update letter prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering, doted January 25, 2010, is enclosed, Existing facilities ore capable of handling additional demand. 4. The plans hove been revised to coll out the dimension of all existing and reconfigured drive aisles, truck loading docks as requested, 5. The project data has been revised to include the existing, proposed and net Increases In demand for sewer, overage and peak potable water, and Irrigation demands, 6. The distances between intersections and driveways and traffic symbols hove been added to Sheet C-7. 7. Please see civil and landscape sheets for details related to retention/detention and the project SWMP. 8. Current legal descriptions ore shown on sheet Al.0-0. Real estate negotiations between city and Westfield hove not yet been completed, which will determine whether or not there will be changes to legal descriptions / property lines within the PCRSP area. ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. On December 15, 2009, on behalf of Westfield LLC, HPE submltfed a written request to withdraw the Special Use Permit application no. SUP 09- 07 and request the balance of any remaining funds to be returned to Westfield LLC, 2. Please see Illustrative Plans on Sheets Al.4-1, 2, & 3 for details of the proposed pedestrian connections between the main portions of the moll edifice, outlying pods and gathering places, (reference landscape plans as well) 3. See Sheet Illustrative Plan North Plaza & Walk on Sheet Al ,4-1 as well as sheets 2.1-2 (north elevation) and 2.2-1 for improvements to the areas closest to JC Penney's. 4. The elevations have been enlarged and with detail sections provided on Sheets A2.2-1 through A2.2-). 5. The colors hove not been selected. Please see Sheets A2.1-3 & A3.1-1 for examples of proposed design elements and sense of building materials to be Incorporated Into the revitalization. A Color & Materials Board will be prepared prior to public hearings, 6. Lot 3 (APN 156-302-21) has been Included on the Summary Table, however no improvements to this area ore proposed at this time. 7. The loading areas ore to be screened by metal doors. Details of the doors, height materials, treatment ore further shown on A2.2-1 and A2.2-3, 8. At this time, the team has Included approximate locations for the loading areas In order to accommodate truck turning rodll and overall function of the surrounding parking design. Per the PCRSP, all loading bays/service areas shall be screened from public points of view abutting El Camlno Real and Marron Rood. The outlaying pods and area immediately adjacent will be subject to future SDP approvals, The future SDPs will Include limited parking reconfiguration, landscape, outdoor dining areas and loading areas. 9. A note as been added to Al.3-1 that per the PCRSP, structures located within 300 feet of El Camlno Real ore limited to 35 feet in height. Architectural features may go up to 45' per CMC 21.28.030. 10. The plans hove been revised to reflect the 15 foot building and parking setback along ECR. A combination of landscaping and berming will be used in this area to soften the appearance of the parking areas as seen from El Camlno Real. 11. The plans have been revised for consistency. 12. Noted. 13. All redlines are returned. ENGINEERING: 1. The team Is still assessing this Item. 2. The revisions to the traffic study In response to City comments ore complete. The traffic study findings do not require mitigation measures. 3. -5. Please see revised civil plans and the submitted SWMP for water quality measures details. 6. The effected parcel ownership Information is Iisted below: a. Plaza Camino Real 156-302-09 (Lot 13), 156-302-21 (Lot 3), 156- 302-22 (Lot2) b. CMF 156-302-08 (Lot 12) c. City of Carlsbad 156-302-23 (Lot 1), 156-302-24 (Lot 9) 7. The revised traffic report prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting addresses both City of Carisbad and City of Oceanside staff comments. Traffic generation rote for all uses is Super Regional Shopping Center 35 ADT/1000 SF. The existing use of 1,151,092 sf generates 40,288 ADT. The proposed use of 1,186,509 sf generates 41,528 ADT which is on additional 1240 ADT. These square footages and ADT ore shown on sheet A 1.0-0. 8. Current legal descriptions ore shown on sheet Al .0-0. Real estate negotiations between city and Westtleld hove not yet been completed, which will determine whether or not there will be changes to legal descriptions or lot lines within the PCRSP area. 9. The PCRSP will be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see PCRSP sections Development Standards and Design Guidelines. 10. Please see Landscape and civil plans for blo-retentlon areas, 11. The plans hove been revised to show the Caltrans llne-of-slght distance at each Intersection where access for the moll Intersects a public street, 12. Please see revised landscape plans. 13. Existing, vacated and proposed easements ore now shown. 14. The locations of the double detector check values assemblies will be reviewed as port of the future SDP's for the outlying buildings. 15. Changes have been Incorporated. 16. Changes have been Incorporated. 17. Please see Civil plans for details of roof runoff. 18. Changes have been Incorporated. 19. The plans hove been revised to show the walkway. 20. See Civil Sheets C-4 and C-5 and SWMP for details of how urban pollutants will be filtered prior to discharge. 21. Left turn lanes are now shown. 22. Invert elevations ore now shown, 23. Size of water line is now shown. Exact location of building Is subject to future SDP. 24. See Al .4-3 and revised civil plan. 25. Changes hove been incorporated, 26. The redlines hove been returned, The SWSQ was submitted April 12 with the revised SWMP. LANDSCAPE: 1. The Preliminary Landscape Plans hove been revised to be less conceptual. Please see Illustrative Plans on Sheets Al.4-1, 2, & 3 for details of the proposed hardscape/landscape types and finishes for pedestrian connections, building entries and perimeters. 2. Trees have been removed from all easements. Easements ore listed on Sheet L- 3, L-4 and L-5. See civil sheets for property information. 3. Tree and shrub types and qualities ore listed on Sheet L-5, 4-5. Any trees scheduled to be removed, remain or relocated ore shown L-l. 6. Please see civil sheets for LID design. 7. Substitute Is provided. 8. Substitute is provided. 9. Substitute is provided. 10. Of the total shrubs, 50% wlll be 5 gallon and the remainder will be 1 gallon. 11. Hardscape and landscape markers will be incorporated Into the signage program. 12. The plans hove been revised. 13. Noted. 14. The Preliminary Landscape Plans hove been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. 15. Utilities ore shown. Light poles will be placed so not to conflict with the trees. 16. The PCRSP wlll be the guiding document for development within the PCRSP area. Please see Development Standards and Design Guidelines sections of the PCRSP for landscape requirements. 17. Plans have been changed. 18. The Preliminary Landscape Plans hove been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. 19. The Preliminary Landscape Plans hove been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. 20. Please clarify. 21. A combination of berming and plantings will be used to soften the appearance of the parking areas. Please see Sheets L-3 &. L-5 and civil sheets for details. 22. The Preliminary Landscape Plans hove been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. 23. Noted. 24. The Preliminary Landscape Plans hove been revised to be consistent with the PCRSP. 25. Mulch is the preferred method of water retention in the soil per the PCRSP. FIRE: 1. Noted. 2. The plans hove been revised to located connection for the sprinkler system within 90 feet of a fire hydrant. POLICE: The team has reviewed the Carisbad Police Department optimal security recommendations and wlll address safety concerns from design conception to ongoing services of the development. Sincerely, Hofman President Enclosure 9 8 5 • 2 010 Hofman Planning & Engineering / \ V j Pianning Civil Engineering Fiscal Services Coastal f January 19, 2010 i i< s Jason Goff Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave CaHsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Response to 1^ Staff Review for SP 09-02 - Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan Dear Jason The responses below correspond with the numbered comments in the letter provided by staff dated November 2, 2009. Other changes to the PCRSP that were not a result of the written comments are: • Elements previously in Design Guidelines related to landscaping, and lighting have been move to Development Standards. • Specific Plan boundary has been revised to exclude Lot 28 and portions of Lots 21 and 9 that were within Buena Vista Creek. • The summary of diversion from the El Camino Real Corridor Standards has been removed and applicable items inserted into Development Standards Table 5. • The Ownership Exhibit has been removed from the body of the PCRSP and added as Appendix F. • An existing Signage Survey has been provided as Appendix B. INCOMPLETENESS FTEMS 1. The PCRSP has been revised to include all applicable mandatory statutory requirements. As the Specific Plan is not for a major new project or redevelopment consisting of significant public capital facilities and/or right-of-way additions, not all mandatory sections can (or should) be handled in the same way and to the same level of detail as a specific plan that is more broadly encompassing in scope. Section 65451 requirements as generally addressed are listed below: a. 1. The extent of land uses covered by the Spedfic Plan is limited to commercial. a. 2. An expanded public facilities analysis has been included in the revision; see section V of the PCRSP. a. 3. The PCRSP is within an area of the city that is very near built out. 3152 Lionshead Avenue • Carlsbod • CA 92010 • (760) 692-4100 • Fox: (760) 692-4105 a. 4. The PCRSP and assodated development plan is developer funded. Therefore, implementation measures and financing systems are not applicable to the PCRSP. 2. A parking analysis to support the reduced parking standard was submitted on November 25, 2009 for staff review. The Parking Standards section has been revised per staff comment. 3. Existing Conditions, Section II of the PCRSP, provides identification of existing conditions and a breakdown of development being proposed in the reconfigured commercial use and new commercial use areas. ISSUE ITEMS Planning: 1. The appendices complete and available to date are provided. In order to provide staff with a precise view of how the SP will ultimately be formatted, "place holders" have been added to the list for appendices which are not yet available, such as the EIR, and final Traffic Report. In addition, all exhibits are labeled and a list is provided at the end of the Table of Contents. 2. As previously noted Gross Leaseable Area (GLA) is 1,151,100 sf and Gross Floor Area is 1,348,500 sf, as noted on page 7 of PCRSP. 3. The SP has been revised for consistency, see all included exhibits. 4. Lighting is addressed in Development Standards Section. Light standards under 20 feet are encouraged in pedestrian areas. Light standards throughout the PCR parking areas have been reduced to 35' per staff comment. All lighting will be designed to avoid light spillover into adjacent properties with special consideration given to lighting on the outer edges of parking areas. 5. The definition for incidental outdoor dining has been removed from the PCRSP, and the PCRSP now only references existing Code sections for incidental outdoor dining allowances (see Table 3 Use Classifications, Section III.A.5 and Table 6 for remaining references to incidental outdoor dining). 6. Carisbad Code contains process and requirements for special events occurring within public right-of-way. The PCRSP continues to reference those CMC sections were applicable, but includes process and requirements for temporary parking lot events (see sections III.B.l and IV.D). 7. Based on our follow up discussion of the request to modify the uses section of the PCRSP, a use classification framework has been developed. HPE contacted City Planning Staff working on the GP / Zoning Code update and was informed there is nothing to reference at this point. The use classification framework is designed to capture the current mix of uses allowed pursuant to the CMC. EIR 09-01/SP 09-02 8. The Plan has been revised per staff comments related to building height and setbacks for development fronting El Camino Real. Table 5 outlines development standards. References to Special Use Permits has been removed from the document. The site plan for SDP 09-04 will be modified to reflect these standards. 9. A comprehensive survey showing locations and types of existing signage has been added as Appendix B. 10. As directed by staff, a comprehensive sign program will be prepared for the approval of the Planning Commission. Sign standards are being finalized, and therefore, left incomplete. A comprehensive set of sign standards will be presented to staff. 11. Development processes have been modified to reflect at minimal change to the main mall structure and to use staff approval level at all logical points. The thresholds considered in combination with the overall development cap imposed by the PCRSP allow for reasonable flexibility to implement development within the design parameters of the plan. 12. The Design Guideline Section (See III.B.) has been revised to provide goals and design principles to guide future development, while at the same time, inviting subsequent design to be inspired and innovative. 13. Specific Plan administration section has been modified to directly refer to existing CaHsbad code and policy requirements for specific plan administration and amendment. This avoids unnecessary duplication of processes and minimizes potential for inconsistencies between the plan and the CMC. 14. Noted. ENGINEERING: 1. A breakdown of existing development is provided in the Existing Conditions section per Planning Incomplete Item no. 3. The Specific Plan is to provide standards and guidelines for future development via tfie Site Development Plan review. SDP 09-04 will provide the information requested related to modification to existing structures, parking, access aisles, pedestrian movements, and utilities and landscaping. 2. The Facilities section addresses impacts to existing street and intersection capadties. Improvements required as part of subsequent SDP or other entitlements, will be addressed at that time. Refer to the Traffic Report currently under review. 3. Parking within the Plan area is deflned in Section Parking Standards (See III.A.5.). The elimination of existing parking is addressed in SDP 09-04. EIR 09-01/SP 09-02 4. A Storm Water Standards Questionnaire will be included with the forthcoming project SWMP. 5. A project SWMP will be provided by the end of January 2010. 6. The exhibits have been revised to include numbers. 7. The Speciflc Plan is to provide standards and guidelines for future development via the Site Development Plan process. If lots are to be reconflgured, that will be addressed in future entitlements and maps. 8. Figure 5 shows the designated area for Temporary Parking Lot Events. 9. The PCRSP boundary is shown on Figure 3. 10. The exhibit has been revised to call out the transit station on the western end of the PCRSP boundary. The entire PCRSP area is designated as Commerdal (C-2); there are no other land use areas. 11. The drculation element as been revised to describe the city as approaching build-out. 12. Please see section V of the PCRSP and the Traffic Report under review. 13. The plans have been revised to adhere to the City's Landscape Manual limits on vegetation height for public streets. There are no limits related to vegetation for the interior drives within the center. 14. A goal of the PCRSP is to increase overall public safety on site. This indudes limiting vegetation at private, interior drive aisle intersections. 15. Grading revised as suggested. 16. The PCRSP is to guide future redevelopment of PCR. A pedestrian/vehicular exhibit is not provided because any subsequent development could substantially alter the exhibit and in theory, force a SP amendment. Therefore, pedestrian and vehicular circulation will be induded as part of future development plans and must adhere to the guidelines and development standards, goals and objectives of the PCRSP. Please see Section III.B.5., Public Safety, Design Guidelines, and SDP 09-04 as related to pedestrian/vehicular circulation. 17. Section V of the specific plan summarizes much of the trafflc analysis. Rather than breaking apart the facility analysis into different sections of the document, all public facilities are analyzed in Section V for more coherent organization. 18. The plans have been revised to adhere to limits for vegetation height for public streets. There are no limits related to vegetation for the interior drives within EIR 09-01/SP 09-02 the center. Vegetation will be placed so to ensure customer's clear view and minimize the potential for collisions. 19. Enhanced pedestrian circulation has been added per redline. 20. The PCRSP is to guide future redevelopment of PCR not mandate specific building, or hardscaping materials. Please refer to the Landscape sections in the Development Standards and Design Guidelines regarding the use of hardscaping/decorative pedestrian crossings. SDP 09-04 provides Hardscape details. 21. The purpose of the PCRSP is to guide redevelopment of PCR into the future, not mandate specific technology for lighting or other items that can become quickly outdated. Per Section III.A.9. as part of any lighting upgrade or development plan, where lighting will be affected, a Lighting Plan must be induded for staff review. At that time, modern, energy effident lighting standards will be provided to limit spillover, glare, etc. 22. Reference to EIR 09-01 (number provided by City on Notice of Preparation) has been added. 23. Redlines have been included with this submittal. EIR 09-01/SP 09-02 LANDSCAPING: 1. The Plaza Camino Real is a unique use and was developed neariy twenty years before the implementation of the Landscape Manual policy and does not meet many of the standards of that policy. Retrofitting the center to meet all Manual policy standards is impossible. The PCRSP supersedes the City's Landscape Manual although the Plan meets the intent of the policy. The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to provide guidance on key design principles while allowing for creativity in design of future development. Particular plants or planting palettes are not mandated by the Speciflc Plan but rather provided in the subsequent development plans such as SDP 09-04 which will be resubmitted soon. 2. Any change to any exhibit could in theory, force a SP amendment. In order to reduce the potential for SP amendments, the requested exhibits are not provided. However the issues raised in your comment will be addressed during the entitlement process as areas within the PCRSP are redeveloped. See SDP 09-04. 3. Further definition and clarity will be provided in the subsequent entitlement plans and SDP 09-04 for areas within the area of work as shown on the plans. 4. The landscape guidelines within the PCRSP are intended to allow for innovative design as part of future development that accentuates and enhances buildings proposed and existing for the center to remain modern. Please see Section III, Landscape Guidelines. 5. The Section III, Development Standards, defines landscape requirements within the Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan boundary area. All new development shall comply with these landscape standards and staff will review to ensure proposed landscaping will be compatible with existing landscape to remain. 6. Subject to staff review of subsequent entitlement plans, landscaping and other elements, such as walls, trellises, gates, will be used together to provide adequate screening of service areas or other areas of unsightliness. 7. The PCRSP defines landscape requirements and guidelines to provide guidance on design principles while allowing for abstract and creativity in design of future development. Specific plants are not mandated by the Spedfic Plan but rather by the subsequent development plans such as SDP 09-04 currently under staff review. 8. Noted. That section of the 1^ Draft of Landscape Guidelines has been moved to Section III. A., Development Standards. 9. Noted. That section of the 1^' Draft of Landscape Guidelines has been moved to Section III.A., Development Standards. EIR 09-01/SP 09-02 10. Please see Section III.B. Design Guidelines, and Street Furniture addressing locations, and types of furniture to be used within the PCRSP boundary. Specific locations and style will be addressed in subsequent entitlement plans. 11. The percentage of landscape for the parking areas including the drive aisles for the areas of work for SDP 09-04 is approximately 4.28%. The overall percentage of landscaping in the parking lot area, exclusive of drive aisles, is six percent. As new development occurs, the percentage of landscaping of all parking areas shall not fall below this amount. 12. Parking lot trees that are removed for redevelopment, diseased, or reaching the end of their natural life span shall be replaced on a one to one ratio. The Specific Plan does not propose the removal of any trees. SDP 09-04 proposes to utilize as many existing trees as possible. Please review those plans for details related to the number of trees to be replaced. 13. The plan has been revised to clarify that trees and lights are to be coordinated to maintain a well balanced landscape design with appropriate lighting. 14. Intersections of entry driveways and public street corners shall adhere to "street corner sight clearances" by limiting plant materials and elements to be no higher than 30 inches. 15. Design Guidelines and public safety elements within the PCRSP encourage the use of pedestrian walkways to prevent patrons from walking through large open parking areas. Detailed plans showing how pedestrian access is addressed are part of subsequent entitlement plans such as SDP 09-04. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at 760- 692-4019. Sincerely, ^ \ Andrew Hoskinson Principal Planner EIR 09-01/SP 09-02 • * A # I'fii copy '^•/S-07 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department December 18, 2009 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering 3152 Uonshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR EIR 09-02/ SP 09-01/ SDP 09-04/ SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL REVITALIZATION - FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Dear Mr. Hofman, The following is a list of items which are considered to be supplemental to the previous issues letter dated December 15, 2009. In that letter it was stated that the Fire Department comments would follow under separate cover. Please find those comments attached below. If you should have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss your application, please contact me at (760) 602-4643. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:lt c: Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer James Weigand, Fire Prevention File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ® 0^4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO RE/^R " " ElR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP d^4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION - FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS December 18, 2009 Paqe 2 SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES Fire: 1. Please be advised that fire sprinklers will be required for any structures that are 5,000 square feet or greater. 2. Please note that the Fire Department connection for the sprinkler system will need to be located within 90 feet of a fire hydrant. Please revise plans where applicable to comply. i COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 15, 2009 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning & Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR EIR 09-02/ SP 09-01/ SDP 09-04/ SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL REVITALIZATION Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. City comments on SP 09- 01 have been previously provided to you via correspondence dated November 2, 2009. The Planning Department has reviewed your Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit, application no. SDP 09-04 and SUP 09-07, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted and must remain incomplete until the legislative action (i.e.. Specific Plan (SP 09-01)) associated with this project has been approved by the City Council. The City may, in the course of processing this 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 may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process youi" application. These Items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including six (6) sets of plans. If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter or your application, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Engineering Department comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Services, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: James Weigand, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, i iHRIS DECERB Principal Planner CD:JG:lt c: Greg Fitchitt, Vice President of Development, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Don Neu, Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Projed Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA James Weigand, Fire Will Foss, Building File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP dTO4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATTREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Page 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: 1. Please provide, as general site information, the location and dimensions of all accessways and pathways as required for compliance with Title 24 - State Accessibility Requirements. 2. Please provide, as part of the grading plans, earthwork volumes: cut, fill, remedial, import, and export. 3. Please provide detailed floor plans. As proposed, the plans do not clearly identify the location of the proposed grocery store use, movie theater, or how the new internally and externally oriented retail spaces are being designed and divided, and/or where the windows are in relationship to doors. Please revise the plans to provide these details and show how the project will function. 4. Please provide detailed roof plans. Be sure to show top of parapet heights and top of roof heights. Because mechanical enclosures are proposed, please show top of mechanical enclosure heights. We encourage all mechanical enclosure to be designed and located to be architecturally integrated into the building design. Please revise the plans to provide these details and all others items required to complete the roof plan. 5. Please provide updated disclosure information for CMF PCR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. 6. Please provide dimensions of all proposed parking stalls in accordance with the general requirements ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.) Chapter 21.44 - Parking. 7. Please provide a detailed color/materials sample board ofthe proposed project. Engineering: 1. The submitted Storm Water Standards Questionnaire (SWSQ) was not properiy filled out. Refer to returned redlined SWSQ. Please provide a corrected SWSQ with the next submittal. Based on the proposed project criteria/thresholds in Section 1 and 2, this project qualifies as a priority development project, but that outcome was not checked. 2. Since this project qualifies as a priority development project, prepare and submit a preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address how priority storm water requirements will be met for this project. The SWMP should be prepared to meet the City Standard Urban Storm water Management Plan (SUSMP), latest version. The prelirriinary SWMP should: 1) describe the watershed, 2) identify impaired water bodies this project contributes to, 3) list the anticipated existing/proposed pollutants-of-concern and 4) identify site design, low-impact development features and treatment control best management practices that will be employed to avoid pollutant contact with storm water or to filter urban pollutants from storm water prior to discharge from this project. 3. Based on the information provided with the submittal, it is unclear whether the DI^4 EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 0^4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Paqe 3 existing backbone potable water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure is sized to handle the additional demands resulting from this project. With the next submittal, prepare and submit technical studies that address whether the existing facilities are capable of handling additional demands. If facility improvements are required, revise the site plans to include and call out these improvements. 4. On sheet C-4 through C-6, revise the plans to call out the dimensions of all existing and reconfigured drive aisles, truck loading docks, etc. Refer to redlines. 5. On sheet Al.0-0, revise the project data to include the existing, proposed and net increases in demand for 1) Sewer (MGD), 2) Average and peak potable water (gpm) and, 3) Average irrigation demands (gpm) are for the proposed project. 6. On sheet Al .0-0, revise the plan to include the distance between intersections and medium/high-use driveways. Add a symbol to the plans to describe which intersections are served by traffic signals. Refer to redlines. 7. With upcoming water regulations, retention/detention of runoff will likely be required to reduce the impact that impervious area has on downstream watercourses. Please evaluate the model SUSMP and identify whether retention is required and revise the exhibits to show how it will be accomplished. Depending on how detention will be accomplished, this will affect the design layout ofthe project 8. On all sheets, add short legal descriptions and existing property lines to the plan to demonstrate how re-construction falls within or crosses over existing property lines. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The El Camino Real Scenic Corridor standards will be integrated into the proposed Specific Plan (SP 09-01). Accordingly, please provide a letter requesting a withdrawal of SUP 09-07 as this application will no longer be required. 2. In order to achieve a more pedestrian friendly site design, please redesign the overall site plan to provide more pedestrian connection(s) behween the onsite uses. The proposed outlying pads and the main portions of the mall should be better integrated so that pedestrians are encouraged to walk from one location to the other. Please also revise the plans to incorporate desirable outdoor public gathering places. 3. One of the malls main entrances on the north side and east of J.C. Penny's, is not included in the proposed facade improvements. Staff would like to discuss the possibility of including this area as part of the proposed improvements. Let's discuss at your eariiest convenience. 4. The proposed elevations are too conceptual and the scale is too small to read and/or understand. Please revise the plans to be more readable (i.e., minimum 1/8 scale) and provide an additional details section to the plans that describes the various architectural features. The elevations should be divided into sections, and where building facades turn, please provide the side elevations. At this time staff reserves comment on the proposed architecture until we can better understand the proposal. oft4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO RE/ftiE EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 0TO4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Page 4 5. Please revise the elevations to call out the proposed building colors. 6. Please explain why Lot 3 (APN 156-302-21) is shown within the boundaries of Site Area 2? No development appears to be proposed within this area. If it does need to be included, please revise Sheet A1.0-0 Summary Table to include this parcel. 7. There are two new service areas proposed along the south and east elevations of Site Area 1. According to the elevation plans, on Sheet A2.1-1, it appears that these areas may be screened, or in the case of the south elevation, it appears to be enclosed by metal gates. The site plan does not show the use of any screening materials. Staff strongly recommends that the service areas be fully screened. Please label the plans and provide details of any proposed screening materials. 8. Staff is concerned with the proposed location of the future loading bays/service areas that are shown on the site plan for the outbuildings along El Camino Real and Marron Road given their visibility along the corridor and at the intersection of El Camino Real and Marron Road. It is not necessary to show these facilities at this time, given that future developers may want to orient a building in a different way? Please remove these loading bays/service areas from the plans and instead incorporate these features on subsequent Site Development Plan applications for each pad area. 9. On Sheet A1.3-2, please reduce the maximum building height that is labeled next to the future building pads for Site Area 2 and 3 from 45 feet to 35 feet as discussed in the Planning Department's 1** review comment letter for EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 dated November 2, 2009. 10. Please revise all plans to reflect the 15 foot minimum building and parking setback along El Camino Real as discussed in the Planning Department's 1^' review comment letter for EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 dated November 2, 2009. Please provide details within the Preliminary Landscape Plans demonstrating how the screening of parked cars along this frontage will occur. Staff strongly encourages a combination of berming, landscaping and decorative walls (42 inches max height) to adequately screen parked cars. Please revise the grading plans to address any landscape berming. 11. On Sheet L3 of the preliminary landscape plans, an extensive redesign of the main PCR entrance at El Camino Real is shown, which includes new landscape and hardscape features, landscape markers, and the relocation of signage. Please revise all other relevant plans to show this proposed revision. 12. Comments pertaining to the parking study that was submitted on November 25, 2009 as part of the Transportation Study for the Wesffield Plaza Camino Real Revitalization Project (Gibson, November 2009) will follow under separate cover. 13. Please address redlines as noted on the returned exhibits. Please be advised, check prints must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Engineering: 1. Please revise the Site Grading Plan to show the potable water services and meters for the mall. Staff has concerns over those portions of the existing mall that are served by water meters located inside building(s). Please revise the project and plans to provide a common meter bank outside the mall in order to allow staff to of^4 EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 0TO4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Page 5 access, read and better monitor connections to the City's potable water system. 2. If the traffic study for this project (under separate review) results in mitigation measures, please revise this Site Plan to show and call out the mitigation improvements. 3. Please revise the Site Grading to demonstrate what water quality measures will be chosen to satisfy the City SUSMP. Please show site design, low impact development (LID), treatment control best management practices, and how reduction of impervious area will be met. Impervious runoff must be routed/filtered through vegetative areas (rain gardens, planter areas, grass swales, bio-retention areas, etc) prior to routing water underground through pipes and off the project site. 4. The City has experienced numerous storm water violations from various tenants within this specific plan area. For a history of these violations, contact Westfield or the Storm Water Protection Department at (760) 602-2799. With your next submittal, please revise the site plan and submit a SWMP that includes a narrative to discuss these deficiencies and identify source control, site design and structural treatment improvements to prevent these repeat violations from occurring in the future. As an example, we suggest exploring different options such as covering the existing and proposed truck delivery bays to avoid storm water contact with target pollutants. We also suggest installing offline trash/debris separators on the major storm drains serving this project to separate out floatables and other urban pollutants associated with this project. Please ensure the SWMP also includes pollution prevention measures to address downstream water bodies with current 303d listed impairments. 5. Together with all other Cities in the San Diego region, eariy next year (estimated March 2010) Carisbad will be adopting a new SUSMP. The new SUSMP will affect how you select/size water quality treatment devices which will also impact the design layout of this project. As a resource, you may review the 'model' SUSMP at: http://www.proiectcleanwater.org/pdf/susmp/final updated model susmp 2009.pdf. Although the 'model' SUSMP will be revised to fit each city's needs, the new LID standards will still be a requirement. We suggest you review the information, select the method(s) of how you satisfy the new water quality standards and revise this project (plans and SWMP) as necessary with the next submittal. Delaying compliance with these upcoming standards may result in further project redesign and processing delays that staff hopes to avoid. Please see the attached redlines for alternatives/opportunities that may help you to meet upcoming standards. 6. On Sheet Al .0-0, please add information on the property owners to state which lot(s) each property owner owns within the project boundary. Please refer to the attached redlines. 7. On Sheet Al.0-0, please expand the ADT information to breakout what ADT the existing mall generates, what the reconfigured mall will generate, and the change in ADT. Please refer to the attached redlines. 8. On Sheet Al.0-0, we identified some areas where the new proposed buildings expand beyond existing property lines per the final map for CT 76-18. Other common development appears to be span over two existing legal lots (lots 1 & 2). Please explain how land uses crossing separate ownerships will be handled/resolved. Will lot line adjustments or lot mergers be processed to help oft4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO RE>ft?E EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 0TO4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO RE/OT^EVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Paqe 6 address this issue? Will new lots be created for the new buildings? 9. Please revise the site plans and concept landscape plans (Sheets L2-L4) to call out and show sight distance corridors per the City's Landscape Manual. 10. Please revise the concept landscape plans (Sheets L2-L4) to incorporate appropriate landscaping for depressed median bio-retention swales/basins. Coordinate with the revised site grading plan sheets for the locations of bio-retention areas. The concept landscape plans should also show all other low impact development measures such as planter boxes to treat roof runoff prior to discharge off the site. 11. On Sheet L2, please revise the plan to show Caltrans line-of-sight using corner sight distance at each intersection where access for the mall intersects a public street. Verify no obstructions with landscape improvements and resolve any conflicts prior to resubmittal. 12. On Sheet L2, please revise the site plan to clarify and resolve other internal sight distance issues resulting from trees or other obstructing vegetation. Please refer to the attached redlines. 13. On Sheet C-4 through C-6, please revise the site grading plans to show existing wateriine easements, clarify which ones will be vacated, and show the locations of proposed wateriine easements for the new wateriines and hydrants. Having the easements shown on a sheet separate from the grading/improvements does not allow staff to review and identify for conflicts that may be present. 14. On Sheet C-4 through C-6, please revise the site grading plans to show the preliminary locations of double detector check valve assemblies (fire protection) that will serve the new/reconfigured buildings. Be sure to revise the concept landscape plans to also include locations of these devices in order to avoid conflicts with proposed landscaping. 15. On Sheet C-4 through C-6, please revise the plans to show and call out the type of LID measures that will disconnect impervious areas into vegetated areas, filter pollutants, allow percolation and/or groundwater recharge, and reduce runoff rates and volumes that result from the proposed project. We have identified several opportunities for different types of LID techniques. Please select the type(s) of LID measures, and include them in the preliminary SWMP and also on the site grading plans. 16. On Sheets C-4 through C-6, wherever possible, the median islands should be used as depressed landscape islands to intercept and treat localized flows. With a nearby storm drains, explore how to drain these depressed landscape islands into them. Staff has identified ^several places to consider them. Please refer to the attached redlines. 17. On Sheet C-4 through C-6, please revise the plans to call out where new and reconfigured roof runoff will be disconnected and drained through planters (or other LID features). Hard piping roof runoff underground without treatment or use of LID is not acceptable. 18. On Sheets C-4 through C-6, please call out the size of all exisfing potable wateriines. Dft4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REA^E EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP Og'C4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Page 7 We found no wateriine sizes on the exhibits. This information should be available through performing record research. 19. On Sheet C-4, please explain whether there is a proposed sidewalk along the project entrance. Sheet L4 shows a sidewalk on the east side of the project entry street, but this sheet does not. Please address this discrepancy. 20. On Sheet C-4, please clarify how the new/revised truck bay drains and how urban pollutants will be filtered prior to discharge. 21. On Sheet C-5 and Sheet C-7, please revise the plans to call out whether a left turn pocket can be provided into the reconfigured parking lot to Lots 1 and 2. Can the signal at this intersection be reconfigured to accommodate this movement or will the Marron Road southbound left turns approaching El Camino Real conflict with this? Please refer to the attached redlines and address comment. 22. On Sheet C-5, please revise the plans to clarify whether how the new building closest to the intersecfion of El Camino Real and Plaza will sewer via gravity. Since the sewer lateral is so long, provide invert elevations at the point of connection and proposed pad to demonstrate this new building will sewer via gravity without the need to pump. Please refer to the attached redlines. 23. On Sheet C-5, for the new building closest to the intersection of El Camino Real and Plaza, please revise the plans to clarify the size of the existing wateriine adjacent to the new building and dimension how far away it will be. Please verify that city crews will be able to access, remove and replace the existing wateriine without affecting the new structure. Please refer to the attached redlines. 24. On Sheet 7, please explain the general circulation of what appears to be a loading dock and drive-thru in front of the new building. How will pedestrians cross over this challenging area to the building? The overall vehicular and pedestrian circulafion for this lot needs more attention to address conflicts and function. 25. Please revise the site plans to call out and show the mass transit stop locations that serve this project. 26. Please address redlines as noted on the returned exhibits and SWSQ. Please be advised, check prints must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Landscape (PELA): It is noted that the Speciflc Plan has not yet been completed. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of this document by the City. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. Many comments are not numbered on the red-line plans due to the conceptual nature of the plans but are provided for the applicant's use in providing more detail and addressing all Landscape Manual requirements. 1. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for many trees in each tree group that can be very different in character. One symbol is used for all shrubs, grasses and ground covers. Please provide a different symbol for EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 0^4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Page 8 each type of tree (i.e. large evergreen, medium evergreen, small evergreen, large deciduous, medium deciduous, etc.) and a different symbol for each type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen shrub, medium size shrub, small flowering accent shrub, etc.). Vignettes at a larger scale are needed for different areas to convey concepts. Please provide enlargements showing more detailed landscaping for parking islands, site and building entries and perimeters, etc. to allow an appropriate review to be performed. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete and detailed plans. 2. Please show and label all property lines, right-of-ways, and easements on the plans. Insure no trees are located within easements. 3. Please provide a plant palette list indicating the following: a. Tree types and quantities b. Shrub types and quantities (approximate) 4. At the scale provided it is difficult to determine which existing trees are to remain and which are to be removed. Please provide a larger scale plan or provide better differences between the symbols. 5. It appears that several trees shown to remain may actually be proposed for removal. Please review and revise as appropriate. Check all trees. 6. Please show any bio-swales/detention basins or underground drainage collecfion systems (in or under planting areas that could impact the planfing) and work these facilities into the design. 7. Platanus acerifolia has been very difficult to maintain in a disease free condition in Carisbad due to anthracnose. Please provide a substitute. 8. Please provide a separate different symbol for Washingtonia robusta. 9. Prunus does not perform exceptionally well in Zones 23 and 24. It is recommended that the use of this tree be limited and a substitute be provided where large quantities are proposed. 10. 50% of the shrubs (except on slopes 3:1 or steeper) shall be a minimum 5 gallon size. Please revise accordingly. 11. Please provide examples and/or more detailing for the hardscape and landscape markers for review. 12. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightjiness and screen/soften new improvements. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Please provide trees and otherwise address this comment on all sides of buildings. 14. Landscape elements over 30-inches in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25 feet outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight oft4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO RE>^E EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 0g^4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Paqe 9 Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show and label all vehicular sight lines and insure these requirements are being met. 15. All utilifies are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the concept landscape plans to insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 16. Trees shall be provided at the minimum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. 17. Trees shall be planted a minimum of 2 feet from curbs. 18. Any lane of through traffic shall be separated from parking by a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip. 19. Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide a perimeter landscape strip of at least 8- feet on all sides. The perimeter landscaped strip may include any landscaped yard, setback, or landscaped area othenwise required within the property and shall be continuous except for required access points. 20. Please correct the sheet number. 21. Planfing or any combinafion of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to provide screening from adjacent property or streets ofthe parking area to a height of 3'. 22. At least three percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shrubs. The plantings shall be contained in planfing areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculafion proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 23. Recycled water use plans have been forwarded to Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. Comments will be forwarded back to the applicant once received by Planning. 24. Per the water conservafion section of the manual (C.3-4.6), woody shrubs must be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% of the groundcover area at maturity. Please address on the plans. 25. Insure all requirements ofthe attached parking lot exhibit are met. 26. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. Building: The Building Department has no comments. oftl/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REA^E EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 0g5D4/SUP 09-07 - PLAZA CAMINO REATREVITALIZATION December 15 2009 Paqe 10 , Fire: The Fire Department has not yet reviewed the proposal as of the date of this letter. As such, Fire Department comments will follow under separate cover. Police: For Police comments please see the attached letter dated November 4, 2009. -4^ Hofman '(^^j^ Planning & Engineering Planning Civil Engheering Fiscal Services Coastal December 15, 2009 Jason Goff Planning Department City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Ave Carisbad, CA 92008 RECEIVED DEC 1 5 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Subject: Withdrawal of SUP 09-07 Dear Jason, On behalf of our client, Westfield LLC, we would like to withdraw the Special Use Permit applicafion no. SUP 09-07 and request the balance of any remaining funds to be returned to Westfield LLC. This applicafion withdrawal is in response to your letter doted November 2, 2009 in regards to exempfing the PCR Specific Plan from the ECRCS and is limited to the SUP. As you well know, the other applicafions, EIR 09-02 / SP 09-01 / SDP 09-04 will remain in processing. At this fime we would ask that the refund check be mode payable to Westfield LLC. Please send the check to the address below: Westfield LLC Att: Greg Fitchitt Vice President of Development 225 Broadway, 17th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 If you hove any questions please contact Bill Hofman at 760-692-4012. Thank you, Michelle Alves iorishi-oci Avpnuf) '20 10 0 ^ FILE COPY Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department November 16, 2009 Andrew Hoskinson Hofman Planning & Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carisbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL (SPECIFIC PLAN) FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Dear Mr. Hoskinson, The following is a list of items which are considered to be supplemental to the previous issues letter dated November 2, 2009. In that letter it was stated that the Fire Department comments would follow under separate cover. Please find those comments attached below. If you should have any questions or wish to set up a meefing to discuss your applicafion, please contact me at (760) 602-4643. Sincerely JASON GOFF Associate Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer James Weigand, Fire Prevention File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLAZ/^MINO REAL (SPECIFIC PLAN) - FIRE OPARTMENT COMMENTS November 16,2009 ^ ^ Page 2 SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES Fire: 1. Fire hydrant locations for new structures will be determined during building plan check. ^ ^ FILE COPY Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department November 2, 2009 Andrew Hoskinson Hofman Planning & Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLAZA CAMINO REAL (SPECIFIC PLAN) Dear Mr. Hoskinson, Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Specific Plan, application no. SP 09-01, as to its completeness for processing. A Specific Plan is a legislative action and the applicafion will be deemed incomplete unfil approved by City Council. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or othenwise, supplement the basic informafion required for the applicafion. In addifion, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this applicafion can be scheduled for a public hearing. Notwithstanding the above, attached is a list of project issues and items needed to process your application. These items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including six (6) sets of plans. If you would like to schedule a meefing to discuss this letter or your applicafion, please contact your staff planner Jason Goff at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: 'Jgtem Goff, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4643. • Engineering Department comments: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer - Engineering Development Sen/ices, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department comments: James Weigand, Fire Inspecfions, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, /^ARY T BARBERIO Assistant Planning Director GTB:JG:sm c: Greg Fitchitt, Vice President of Development, 225 Broadway, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Don Neu, Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Michael Elliott, PELA File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLAW CAMINO REAL ^ November 2, 2009 Paqe 2 INCOMPLETENESS ITEMS Planning: 1. Please revise the Specific Plan to address all mandatory statutory requirements as listed in the State of California Government Code Secfion 65451. Items not adequately addressed include Government Code Secfions 65451 a.1. through a.4 2. Please provide a parking study/analysis to support the reduced parking standard being proposed within. Assuming that staff can support a reduced parking ratio for the Specific Plan based on a parking study/analysis, we recommend that the Parking Standards identified in Section A.5. ofthe Development Standards & Design Guidelines (Pg. 30) be revised to factor the 15% common parking reduction into the rafio (i.e., 3.8 spaces/1000 square feet of gross leasable area). 3. Please revise the Specific Plan to provide an "Existing Conditions" section, specifically identifying the full extent of the existing Plaza Camino Real (PCR) and a breakdown of the amount of development being proposed in the "reconfigured commercial use" and "new commercial use". ISSUE ITEMS Planning: 1. Please include all appendices listed at the back of the proposed Specific Plan. 2. On pg. 5, PCR is identified as being 1,151,100 sq. ft. of "Gross Leasable Area". Please identify PCR's "Gross Floor Area" versus its "Gross Leasable Area". 3. None of the exhibits in the Specific Plan are labeled in accordance with the references made throughout the text. Please revise. 4. Please revise the Specific Plan to require that all exterior parking lot and project lighting be of a pedestrian scale. Staff cannot support the proposed 45 ft. tall parking lot light standards for the parking lot. We suggest reviewing how the Bressi Ranch Master Plan addressed lighting, and revise the Specific Plan to better address pedestrian scaled exterior lighting. 5. Please revise the Specific Plan to reference the City's current code sections, policies, standards, and permitting processes for incidental outdoor dining. 6. Please revise the Specific Plan to reference the City's current code sections, policies, standards, and permitting processes for Special Events. 7. Staff has concerns with the list approach to the Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses sections outlined in the proposed Specific Plan. While we recognize Westfield's desire to utilize a specific list for purposes of clarification, we would like to meet with you to discuss other options or alternatives. 8. The main shopping center structure is at grade and setback approximately 450 ft. from El Camino Real, and thus is exempt from the El Camino Real Corridor Standards (ECRCS). However, the existing outlying buildings and proposed new building pads are EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PlMk CAMINO REAL November 2, 2009 Paqe 3 within areas that would be subject to the ECRCS. In order to modernize Plaza Camino Real, provide a unified appearance throughout, and also attract the types of national retail chains typically associated with a regional center such as this, staff recognizes that some architectural design aspects ofthe ECRCS (i.e., the Old California/Hispanic design theme and signage) could pose a challenge to fulfilling these goals. That being said, there are other standards of the ECRCS which are important to preserving the visual and aesthetic appeal of the corridor (i.e., building height and setbacks development standards). Therefore, as part of the Specific Plan process, staff supports the Specific Plan being exempt from the architectural design and signage standards ofthe ECRCS in order for PCR to have a unified appearance throughout; however, it must still comply with other aspects of ECRCS (i.e., setbacks and building heights). Accordingly, staff cannot support the proposed 45 ft. maximum building height for the outlying building pads, but could instead support a 35 ft. maximum building height with a provision allowing for an increase in height up to a maximum of 45 ft. in accordance with the standards of C.M.C. Section 21.28.030 for the C-2 Zone. Please revise the Specific Plan to incorporate these standards into the text. Also, it is important that the El Camino Real Corridor frontage along Plaza Camino Real be visually/aesthetically enhanced from its current condition. As such staff cannot support the proposed 10 ft. minimum/15 ft. average building setback that is proposed in the Specific Plan, nor can we support the 5 ft. minimum parking setback. These are not adequate and must be revised. Please revise the Specific Plan to require a 15 ft. minimum building setback for buildings located along ECR (as measured from ROW boundary), as well as a 15ft. minimum parking setback along ECR (as measured from ROW boundary). The parking setback should be a full 15 ft. in depth and should prohibit any allowances for car overhang. Furthermore, detailed development standards need to be incorporated into the Specific Plan to effectively address the screening of parked cars along this frontage. New development along this frontage should require the use of, or combinafion of, berming, landscaping, and/or decorative walls (42 inches max height) to adequately screen parked cars. Exhibits visually depicting these requirements should be included in the Specific Plan. Furthermore, by exempting the Specific Plan from the ECRCS, a Special Use Permit (SUP) would no longer be required and thus all the references to processing SUPs, whether minor or major, could be removed from the Specific Plan. 9. Please revise the Specific Plan to include a detailing of all existing signage. Exhibit(s) and pictures need to be included to aid in identifying existing sign locafions, type, size, etc. 10. Instead of signage criteria being identified in the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan should be revised to identify that signage for PCR will be established through the processing and approval of a comprehensive sign program, which will require the approval of the Planning Commission. A provision should be included to allow the PCR Sign Program to vary from the standards of the City's Sign Ordinance and some parameters for when this will be permitted. Any future signage would be subject to the sign program and the processes outlined within. 11. Staff has concerns with the proposed development review process included within the Specific Plan beginning on pg. 46 and would like to meet and discuss with you other EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLAJ^CAMINO REAL November 2, 2009 Paqe 4 alternatives. Staff is primarily concerned with the proposed project amendment thresholds and the levels of development review. 12. Please revise the design guideline secfion of the Specific Plan to provide significanfiy more description, guidance, detail, etc. If necessary, staff is available to meet and discuss options, alternatives, level of detailing, etc. 13. The organization and content of the Specific Plan Administration section found on pg. 54-55 needs to be enhanced and/or revised to more fully explain the amendment process (i.e., the Planning Commission and City Council's role, responsibility, and process; compliance with CEQA; etc.). 14. It is highly recommended that real estate negotiations be initiated immediately with the City of Carisbad regarding the four (4) new commercial pads proposed on City owned property (i.e., APNs 156-302-23 and 156-302-24) located northwest and southwest of the intersection of El Camino Real and Marron Road. Please accept this letter of issues as a starting point for discussion, and note that additional issues or concerns may arise as new material or informafion is provided. Staff is available and willing to set up a series of meetings as needed to work through the various issues that have been identified with the proposed Specific Plan. Engineering: 1. Please revise the Specific Plan (SP) to provide a breakdown of both existing and proposed commercial/development areas with total building square footages. The SP should then discuss a narrative summary of each existing/proposed development area and what modifications are anticipated to existing structures, parking stalls, access aisles, pedestrian movements, utilities, landscaping, etc. 2. Since this Specific Plan will intensify the existing land use and with the proximity to interstate 78, traffic is a significant concern. We understand a traffic study is being prepared to address whether the projects impacts existing street and intersection capacities. All circulation portions of the SP should be revised to discuss impacts, if any, to existing circulation elements and include details of improvements required to address the redevelopment proposed by this SP. 3. Modify the parking section (page 30) of the Specific Plan (SP) to summarize both the existing and proposed parking stalls within the SP area, including the parking area north of the SP boundary. Since addifional commercial development is being proposed, and it will eliminate some existing parking, the SP should cleariy demonstrate whether additional parking stalls are required to serve the SP area. 4. Provide a completed Storm Water Standards Questionnaire with the next submittal (please see attached). 5. As identified on page 45, prepare and include a preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water provisions of this project. The SWMP should be prepared to meet the City SUSMP, latest version. The preliminary SWMP should: 1) describe the watershed, 2) identify impaired water bodies this project contributes to, 3) list the anticipated exisfing/proposed pollutants-of-concern and 4) list site design, low-impact development features and treatment control best EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLMm CAMINO REAL November 2, 2009 Page 5 management practices that will be employed to avoid pollutant contact with storm water or to filter urban pollutants from storm water prior to discharge from this project. 6. Revise the Specific Plan to add exhibit numbers to each exhibit for ease of reference. 7. Please explain if there are anticipated changes to exisfing lot configurafions within the Specific Plan boundary which would require processing subdivision applicafion(s). 8. On page 13, revise Exhibit C to show the designated area for special events as described on page 27. 9. On page 13, revise Exhibit C to show the limits of the parking lot north of the Specific Plan boundary as described on page 30. 10. On page 16, revise Exhibit E to call out and show the mass transit stop locations that serve this project. This exhibit should also include a legend breakdown of specific land use areas within the Specific Plan (SP) boundary and provide sufficient detail on existing and proposed development areas (square footages, uses, etc.). Narrative sections should also be added to the SP to describe these land use areas in more detail. 11. On page 18, revise the circulafion element to describe the city as approaching build- out, versus already built out. Refer to redlines. 12. On page 19, revise the circulafion element section to describe how redevelopment of the PCRSP will lead to increases in vehicular traffic trips to the project. Discuss the circulation improvements, if any, this project will construct to ensure the existing circulafion system will handle the anticipated traffic. 13. On page 29, revise the intersection guidelines to match the sight distance corridor language in the City's Landscape Manual. For example, the City's Landscape Manual limits vegetation height to a maximum of 30" above the established grade, not 42". Refer to redlines. 14. On page 29, provide guidelines for internal (private-to-private) drive aisle intersecfions to address how vehicular sight distance will be handled. 15. On page 30, revise the grading guidelines to allow temporary changes in grade that may exceed 15-ft, as measured from existing grade, if performed as remedial grading that is recommended by a soils report. 16. On page 34, please complete and include the exhibit showing pedestrian and vehicular traffic movements surrounding and within the Specific Plan area. Since this exhibit was not included, and with traffic circulation being a concern, additional comments may arise upon the resubmittal of this new information. 17. On page 34, please include narrative on improvements, if any, to serve the project per conclusions in the traffic study. EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLA^f CAMINO REAL November 2, 2009 Page 6 18. On page 36, please add notes to clarify that the private drive aisle intersections should also maintain sight distance corridor measures. 19. On page 36, add "enhance pedestrian circulation" to section b.9 per the enclosed redlines. 20. On page 38 and 40, clarify the material of at-grade pedestrian crossings. Please refer to the enclosed redlines. 21. On page 41, explain how energy conservation will be addressed. Can the exisfing lights be converted to inducfion fixtures (HEI) to reduce energy conisumpfion or can other measures be done? Also explain how the spillover of parking lot light into Buena Vista creek is/will be addressed. Is shielding already existing or is it not needed? Please revise the Specific Plan to explain. 22. Please revise page 43 to add the reference to EIR 09-02 per redlines. 23. Please address redlines as noted on the returned exhibits. Please be advised, this check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Landscaping (PELA): 1. The landscaping section of the specific plan is minimal and insufficient to clarify project direction, goals and landscape design. Further detail and direction is needed to cleariy define how the project landscaping will be developed and improved. A comprehensive set of landscape development standards, guidelines and implementation procedures to facilitate the redevelopment and revitalization of the Plaza Camino Real project is needed. Final comments are reserved pending more complete standards and guidelines. 2. Additional and more detailed exhibits are needed to clarify landscape goals, standards and guidelines. Please better define proposed plantings in all areas (i.e. project perimeter; entry plantings within the vehicular sight triangle; parkway areas and behind sidewalks along entry drives and drive aisles; end parking islands; intersections; building entries; architectural perimeters; etc.). 3. The exhibits appear to be functional only and show little interest, creativity or improvement to the site. It is recommended that landscape area at project entries be expanded to allow for better focal and project arrival development. Spatial development and sequencing needs to be addressed (arrival to the project at perimeter entries via vehicles and pedestrians; navigation around the site after entry for both vehicles and pedestrians; arrival at buildings; etc.). A clear definition and clarity of entry and arrival is needed. Please further develop all exhibits and provide additional exhibits as appropriate to define the development of all areas. 4. Please address and clarify how landscaping will be used to accentuate and enhance building architecture; site, parking and building entries; intersections; focal points; etc. 5. Please address how proposed landscaping will be compatible and enhance the positive character of exisfing landscaping. EIR 09-02/SP 09-01 - PLA CAMINO REAL November 2, 2009 Page 7 6. Please address how landscaping will be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. 7. Please provide a list of plants proposed for use (i.e. project theme trees; accent trees; shrubs; ground covers; vines). The list needs to identify proposed plants for each different use (i.e. project perimeter; project entries; parking areas; intersecfions; building entries; etc.). Proposed plant sizes also need to be provided. 8. Paragraph a.2, page 36 indicates: "Plant selection should consider ease of long-term maintenance". The word "should" needs to be revised to "shall". 9. Paragraph a.3, page 36 indicates: "Landscaping with high water and maintenance demands should be avoided". The word "should" needs to be revised to "shall". 10. Paragraph a.5, page 36 indicates: "No design theme is mandated by the specific plan for Street Furniture to allow periodic replacement as styles evolve". Street furniture needs to be addressed indicating where it is proposed and what types of furniture are proposed. 11. Paragraph b.l, page 36 indicates: "Overall parking lot landscape area within the Plan boundary shall not be less than 6% exclusive of drive aisles". Please indicate what the percentage will be inclusive of the drive aisles. 12. Paragraphs b.2 and b.3 on page 36 address removal of trees. Please indicate where and how many trees are anticipated to be removed. 13. Paragraph b.5, page 36 indicates: "The use of trees within the parking areas shall be located as not to conflict with light standards". This needs to be revised to clarify that both trees and lights are to be coordinated to maintain a well balanced landscape design with appropriate lighting. 14. Paragraph b.9, page 36 indicates: "As redevelopment occurs, interior intersections will be upgraded for public safety to slow traffic and aesthetic purposes". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will t>e achieved. 15. Paragraph b.10, page 36 indicates: "Landscape design shall avoid forcing pedestrian from passing through large open parking areas". Please provide clarification and exhibits as appropriate to address how this will be achieved. Fire Prevention: Fire comments to follow under separate cover. Police: The Police Department had no comments regarding the proposed Specific Plan. # 4 Citv of Carlsbad FILE COPY Planning Department May 28, 2009 Jonathon Bradhurst Westfield 402 W. Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 RE: GROCERY STORE USE AT PLAZA CAMINO REAL SHOPPING CENTER Dear Mr. Bradhurst: The purpose of this letter is to confirm that a grocery store is an allowable use at the Plaza Camlno Real shopping center. The site has a General Plan Land Use designafion of Regional Commercial (R) and is zoned General Commercial (C-2). Per Section 21.28.010(D) Table A of the Carisbad Municipal Code (C.M.C), this zone allows "Any use permitted in the C-1 zone." Per C.M.C. Section 21.26.010(D) Table A of the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Zone, Grocery Store is identified as a permitted use. With respect to General Plan consistency, grocery stores are typically associated with the Local Shopping Center (L) General Plan Land Use designation. However, the Regional Commercial (R) General Plan Land Use designation identifies that "local shopping centers may be adjunct to regional centers to also serve the daily convenience needs of customers utUizing the larger shopping center." Therefore, a grocery store, located within a larger regional shopping center, such as Plaza Camino Real, is consistent with the underlying Regional Commercial (R) General Plan Land Use designation. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:lt Cc: Greg Fitchitt, Westfield, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 2050, San Diego, CA 92101 Jay Taranton, Taranton Consulfing, 4683 Telescope Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008 Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning & Engineering, 3152 Lionshead Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92010 Don Neu, Planning Director Gary Barberio, Assistant Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 •» www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1^' I Westfield' p: Westfield, LLC O), 225 Broadway Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 June 12,2009 Sandra Holder, Community Development Director CityofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Request for the City to Initiate the Plaza Camino Real Specific Plan Application. Dear Ms. Holder: This letter is written to make a formal request by Westfield, LLC ("Westfield"), on behalf of its affiliates having ownership interests at Plaza Camino Real shopping center ("PCR"), for the City of Carlsbad to initiate an application for a Specific Plan pertaining to a revitalization of the shopping center. The revitalization project would include the Robinson's-May Building, the movie theaters on the south side of Marron Road, three new building pads on the east end of the upper level parking lot, and other elements of PCR. In discussions with City staff, we came to an understanding that the best way to process this project was through a Specific Plan application. The Specific Plan would serve to codify the approval process for the proposed revitalization of PCR. As we understand the process, the City of Carlsbad would initiate the application for the Specific Plan, and Westfield would pay for the City's processing of the Specific Plan and environmental review. Based on our recent discussions, it is our understanding that the proper way to initiate the application process under this scenario is for the City Council to approve a Resolution of Intention ("ROI"). We would respectfiilly ask that the staff process this ROI as soon as possible. As we discussed at our most recent meeting, we would like to have included in the ROI an understanding of the role that Westfield will have in the environmental review process. As you know, the revitalization that is being proposed for PCR is quite small relative to the size ofthe existing development on the site and will likely not create significant environmental impacts. Notwithstanding, Westfield is committed to completing a full environmental impact report ("EIR"). As such, Westfield is requesting that as part of the ROI, the following understanding is made part of the resolution: Although the city will hire and direct all work to be completed by the EIR consultant team, Westfield will be allowed to review all draft technical reports and Page 1 of2 4 the draft main text of the EIR, and to provide comments back to the city staff prior to any draft documents being issued to the general public. Also, Westfield will have the ability to directly communicate with the EIR consultant team as long as any such communication is approved in advance by the City and any conversations or meetings held between the consultants and Westfield be set up with and include a staff member of the City of Carlsbad. In any such communications, Westfield will provide factual information only with the purpose of producing a document that is fully compliant with all laws, rules and regulations of the City of Carlsbad and the State of California. Westfield's ability to provide input at an earlier stage of the process will ensure maximum accuracy of the information that is contained in the EIR that will be made available for public review. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We would like to begin the revitalization of PCR as soon as possible. We therefore request that the ROI be processed promptly, as the timeline for the EIR process will be the critical path. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please don't hesitate to call me at this office. Sincerely, Westfield, LLC Greg Fitchitt Vice President of Development 619-544-8134 Cc: City Manager Gary Barberio Don Neu Jason Goff Glen Pruim Bob Johnson Page 2 of2 Speaker Slip City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Meeting • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that regarding IS on the Agenda. The item number is 3 The Topic is: • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: My Name: My Address: •ft LAfk/\ 3AAp Please place this slip in the clear tray marked Speaker Slips located on the wall next to the Minutes Clerk. / Speaker Slip City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Meeting I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS on the Agenda. The item number is . The Topic is: O^O^ (IMQ^ • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: My Name: Address: —' '^-^ Please place this slip in the clear tray marked Speaker Slips located on the wall next to the Minutes Clerk. Speaker Slip City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Meeting I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS on the Agenda. The item number is ^3 The Topic is: [l)^^'<^i^j^UJ^ (^kv6^/ . ' • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: MvName: ^\i^^/^7f hil(^9''^l ^/ly Address: Please place this slip in the clear tray marked Speaker Slips located on the wall next to the Minutes Clerk. Speaker Slip City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Meeting ^jjjjl I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS on the Agenda. The item number is ^ The Topic is: /' ^^y^!ir37 'T^"^'-:.^^ • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: My Name: 'rUl^'t^ \'H. I' > .JJ ^ Address: -^"ff rK^H^^ '-^tP Please place this slip in the clear tray marked Speaker Slips located on the wall next to the Minutes Clerk. Speaker Slip City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Meeting jjSt I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IP IS on the Agenda. The item number is __3 . The Topic is: Oc^^ -Cv f.\<!l • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: My Name: Oc^ / \ o VN LU ^ A My Address:. Please place this slip in the clear tray marked Speaker Slips located on the wall next to the Minutes Clerk. Speaker Slip CityofCarlsbad Planning Commission Meeting I i, I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that < . IS on the Agenda. The item nunf^ber is <3 The Topic is: l/'M^ L\& ij-'' • I would like to address the Commission regarding an Item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: My Name: 'J){ Ofi^^ A) Address: jg?? ^rJ fJ I .Ji, ^/J^ Please place this slip in the clear tray marked Speaker Slips located on the wall next to the Minutes Clerk. Speaker Slip City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Meeting I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that jS on the Agenda. The item number is >-3 . The Topic is: VJ<lA^icU • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: My Name: _ l^vAddress: ^r{<,^\\>^ , ^ZOQt Please place this slip in the clear tray marked Speaker Slips located on the woll next to the Minutes Clerk. Speaker Slip City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Meeting ^j^l would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS on the Agenda. The item number is 3 • The Topic is: V)cs\(\' • I would like to address the Commission regarding an item that IS NOT on the Agenda. The Topic is: My Name: Cl-Cxrv^cv\ ^t'^^ y Address: 3>M33 hAbovN Fi^lX T^^, R IQ ^ 0 Please place this slip in the clear troy marked Speaker Slips located on the wall next to the Minutes Clerk.