Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MS 93-09; MAXEY-JOHNSON; Minor Subdivision (MS)
cr A^'^^\ CARLSBAD - ENGINEERING DEM^TMENT APPLICATION FOR ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK OR PROCESSING Complete all appropriate information. Write N/A when not applicable. PROJECT NAME: Portions of Pacific Ave.. Mountain View Dr. and DATE: m-g-m PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Public Street & Utility Easement Ocean St. Army Navy Academy PROJECTADDRESS: 2605 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA 92008 LOT NO(S).: 58. 132 & 133 MAP NO.: 2037 NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: LFMP ZONE: APN(S).: # LOTS: 203-041-01 # ACRES: OWNER: Army Navy Academy APPLICANT: Army Navy Academy Mailing Address: 2605 Carlsbad Blvd. Mailing Address: 2605 Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone Number: ( 760 ) 729-2385 Phone Number. (760 ) 729-2385 1 certify that 1 anj the legal owner and that all the above infomiation is tnSe^an^ correct to the jjest of my knowledge Signature Jityl^^/fuffAPate // ^ r Signature^ 'MfduJiA'/mL^ Date ///J^sT"^/ 1 CIVIL ENGINEER: Douglas R. Melchior SOILS ENGINEER: f"'""- Melchior Land Surveying Firm: Mailing Address: 5731 Palmer Way, Suite 6 Mailing Address: Carlsbad. Ca 92008-7247 Phone Number: (760 ) 438-1726 Phone Number: ( ) State Registration Number: p. L. S. #4611 State Registration Number: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Firm: Mailing Address: Phone Number: ( ) State Registration Number: IMPROVEMENT VALUATION 1. What water district is the proposed project located in (circle one)? Carlsbad Municipal Water District Olivenhain Vallecitos 2. If in the Carisbad Municipal Water District, what is the total cost estimate, including the 15% contingency fee, for water and reclaimed water improvements (if applicable)? $ N/A 3. What is the total cost estimate, including the 15% contingency fee, for sewer (for Carisbad Municipal Water District only), street, public (median) landscape and irrigation, and drainage improvements (if applicable)? $ N/A 4. What is the total cost of landscape and irrigation improvements on private property (if $ applicable)? N/A GRADING QUANTITIES cut cy fill cy remedial cy import/export cy DOCS/MISFORMS/APPLICATION ENG PLANCHECK OR PROCESSING REV 6/10/97 CITY OF CARLSBAD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK OR PROCESSING Complete all appropriate information. Write N/A when not applicable. - OJ/VN^R: d/Zr^i •-^ ^l^ng Address: ^lyoS dar-\sbQ<^ PROJECT NAME: t^^f^ q2>jgrf^ ^Itg It^fOegV DATE: ^ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AfcP^ ^Z) /Vg^D QpfgHlL^Y- g£>l/iOli:^ PROJECTADDRESS: ^2^^Qg^ LOT NO(S). MAP NO. NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: LFMP ZONE: APN(S). # LOTS: # ACRES: Phone Number: (^66 )-J^')'- 33^3 - >c ^fe^. I certify that I am th information Signati al owner and that all the above nrecttoTR^ best of my knowledge Date Si'P-C'f APPLICANT: Mailing Address: Phone Number: ( ) Signature Date CIVIL ENGINEER:'y^<s\ er>G»A«q<^, V^. Firm: Mailing Address: g)>00 6. V.APA\.I^SA>AO Phone Number: QtV) "1^7?.'^^t^ SOILS ENGINEER: JkmgJ A. <:flM^s State Registration Number: tX^ft^ Mailing Address: 74ZPTp:APg*5r Phone Number: (M^ ) g4 ^ *7>tPva Stafte Registration Number: fi^gT i)tU20D"7 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: IMPROVEMENT VALUATION 1. What water district is the proposed project located in? (circle one) Carisbad Municipal Water District Olivenhain Vallecitos 2. If in the Carisbad Municipal Water District, what is the total cost estimate, including the 15% contingency fee, for water and reclaimed water improvements (if applicable)? $ 3. What is the total cost estimate, including the 15% contingency fee, for sewer (for Carlsbad Municipal Water District only), street, public (median) landscape and irrigation, and drainage improvements (if applicable)? $ 4. What is the total cost of landscape and irrigation improvements on private property (if applicable)? $ GRADING QUANTITIES cut '^jo cy fill |3oo cy remedial cy ^mpor^xport ^*^0 cy H-WORD/DOCS/MISFORMS/APPLICATiON ENG PLANCHECK OR PROCESSING OF CARLSBAD - ENGINEERING DEk JTMINT APPLICATION ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK Complete all appropriate information. Write N/A when not applicable. /t(^4^y A/^-f/L/ f^cjUi PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DATE: -yV /O PROJECT ADDRESS: cA^oi LOT NO(S).: NUMBER OF LOTS: MAP NO.: APN(S).: NUMBER OF ACRES: OWNER: Mailing Address: ^&>o<^ Phone Number: 76CO-ll9 • 8 T <^^^ Fax Number: E-Mail: I certify that I am the legal owner and that all the above information is true and corred: to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Date: Mailing Address: ?l.<f /^fklttto flt^ IVIL ENGINEER: FIRM: OCLI Phone Number: Fax Number: E-Mail: state Registration Number: ^C/ 2 2. APPQCANT: JD 07^ 4^flf^ Mailing Address: ,?^cf/^ /(f^^^A CJ^^^.W^ '{yjjj^ Cfi^jj, 9>g/^ Phone Number: X ^^^.g? - 7 XcP • / ^ O "7 Fax Number: 74o 7 - 0%<f f E-Mail: Signature: SOILS ENGINEER: FIRM: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: E-Mail: State Registration Number: jgCC % 5"3 g"^ ADDmONAL COMMENTS: IMPROVEIWIENT VALUATION 1. What water distrid: is the proposed project located in? (check one) l^tarlsbad Munidpal Water District Qoiivenhain Qvallecitos 2. If in the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, what is the total cost estimate, including the 15% contingency fee, for water and reclaimed water improvements, sewer (for Carlsbad Municipal Water District only), street, public (median) landscape and irrigation, and drainage improvements (if applicable)? $ cut .cy fill cy GRADING QUANTITIES remedial cy import cy export cy SEE REVERSE SIDE OF CARLSBAD - ENGINEERING DEr ITf^ENT APPLICATION ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK Complete all appropriate information. Write N/A wlien not applicable. APPLICAHON FOR ( ^ all that apply) FOR CITY USE ONLY APPLICAHON FOR ( ^ all that apply) PROJECT 1 DRAWING LD. 1 NUMBER DEPOSn/FEES PAID COMMENTS • Adjustment Plat (ADJ) Q Certificate of Compliance (CE) Dedication of Easement (PR) Type: Dedication of Easement (PR) Type: Type: Type: Q Encorachment Permit (PR) • Final Map (FM) • Grading Plancheck (DWG) Q Improvement Plancheck (DWG) • Parcel Map (PM) [] Quitclaim of Easement (PR) Type: [] Quitclaim of Easement (PR) Type: Type: Type: Q Reversion to Acreage (RA) Q Street Vacation (STV) [] Tentative Parcel Map (MS) Q Cert:ificate of Correction (CCOR) []] Covenant of Easement (PR) Substantial Conformance Exhibit (SCE) Q^Other APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE STAMP APPLICATON RECEIVED 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECKBOXES) CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATIOIM Q Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit Q Administrative Variance (X] Coastal Development Permit Q Conditional Use Permit Q Condominium Permit Q Environmental Impact Assessment Q General Plan Amendment Q Hillside Development Permit Q Local Coastal Plan Amendment Ijp Master Plan Q Non-Residential Planned Development Q Planned Development Permit (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) COP • Planned Industrial Permit tu Planning Commission Determination [7] Precise Development Plan 0 Redevelopment Permit Q Site Development Plan Q Special Use Permit • Specific Plan • Tontativo Porccl Mop Obtain from Engineering Department r~] Tentative Tract Map r~| Variance Q Zone Change r~) List other applications not specified IFOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) 2) 3) 4) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: PROJECT NAME: 2Q3-041-01 Army and Navy Academy Improvement«; BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: New Dormitory Buildings. Parking, and Street Tmprnvpmpntc 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) Army and Navy Academy 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) tBP/Architecturp MAILING ADDRESS 2605 Carlsbad Blvd. MAILING ADDRESS 2300 Newport Blvd. CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Carlsbad, CA 92018 (760) 729-2385 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 673-0300 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNpM-EDGE. ^ ^ - 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. STG NATURE DATE SIGN^URE CmTE ^ 7i BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parc-.e.l.c^ A.R.C.n,F.,R ,v a of Grandville Park in r.hP. Cii-y Carlsbad. NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPUCATIONS BE FILKD, MUST BE SUBWIITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.f A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MU .T BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. PAf 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT ON THE BETWEEN 2605 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad West STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF Carlsbad Blvd, (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET) Mountain View Dr. AND (NAME OF STREET) 91 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS No. I N/A 1 3) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 1 9) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING N/A 80% 15.98 VR 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING Cypress Ave. 296 N/A 0 VR (NAME OF STREET) 1 2) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 15) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 8) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 320 N/A 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE SIGNATURE FGR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1999 CITY OF CARLSBAD DATE RECEIVED BY: DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 1 6 CITY OF CARLSBAD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT •LAND USE REVIEW INITIAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST TRAFHC AND QRCULATION • ^ I EXPLANATION j X Inadequate traffic projection provided \/ ,Street level of service problems l/ Intersection level of service problems Driveway problems Comer sight distance problems Non standard street improvements proposed V/ Pedestrian circulation problems v/ Offsite street improvements needed y Street parking problems Intersection distance problems Cul-de-sac length problems Parking aisles lack turnarounds Parking lot dimension inadequate Truck access inadequate Parking lot adequate circulation Private street widths not to code 1^ X' End space needs 5' side backup area 7 Adjacent property access not considered Surrounding circulation conflicts exist x: Inadequate street/parking lot lighting Growth management circulation requirements not met Handicap ramps Other Oist) . U.\l IC3EaAQ\AE=KI/^V\A/DnATA\hJIICr^\IKIITDtr\/l OUI/' SEWERAGE DISpdsHtL EXPLANATION Easement widths not to standard s/ Gravity flow not maintained l/ All weather access not provided 1/ Offsite sewer improvements required Non-standard facilities proposed y Facilities not in compliance with sewer master plan Growdi management requirements not met / y Other (list) — ^ ihait-^i art pnnptisj/f7 0 ^ ^ / WATER FACILITIES EXPLANATION Fire hydrants not properly shovm or located y j V V Water meter access problems «M Water line conflict with sewer line Water easements inadequate 1/ Offsite water facilities required j j >< Y V Other (list) ^ ±. 1 DRAINAGE EXPLANATION Proposed desiltation controls inadequate V Improper discharge of drainage into sewer system Erosion problems at proposed outlets Overland flow exceeds City standard Excessive or nuisance flow at cross gutters Improper diversion of drainage proposed v/ Ribbon gutter proposed in parking lot Parking lot drains across sidewalk , y / X Inadequate site or lot drainage V r ( Inadequate drainage behind retaining wall imm — ^ Proposed drainage too close to structure 1/ Lot drainage not to street or approved drainage jourse / X Excessive use of curb drains 11/ Narrow sideyard requires special design (f H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\INITREVI.CHK Pad sites not proposed to surface d^ttfifii All weather access not provided to facilities v/1 J iA offsite drainage improvements required Facilities not in compliance with master drainage plan Easement widths not to standard Inadequate facilities proposed to handle upstream flows Encroachment into flood hazard area Failsafe over-flow not provided at sumps 7^ Growth management requirements not met Urban Pollutant Mitigation Required 7^ Sauih^jSk( 7i/f^S{^' 7 Within Mello II - Onsite Retention Required 1/ Other Oist) SOILS AND GEOLOGY EXPLANATION Soils report inadequate for scope of work V/ Site requires geologic review Geologic hazards not properly mitigated Excessive grading proposed for site 1/ Onsite spoil/borrow site problems Cut and/or fill height problems Proposed slopes exceed 2:1 standard Inadequate slope setbacks from site boundary V Slope stability problems exist Retaining or cribwall height problems Other Oist) CONSTRUCTION EXPLANATION 2 Offsite grading requires easement Site lacks adequate construction staging area 1/ Construction Phasing Project Phasing problems iZ Offsite haulage into sensitive neighborhood proposed Construction access problems Other Oist) H:\LIBRARV\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\IN1TREVI.CHK LANDTTTLE^ EXPLANATION Utility easement conflicts exist Notice of violation on property Unpaid liens or taxes exist L/ Assessment district reapportionment required Access to public resources not provided Facilities reimbursement agreement exists Tide Report boundary conflicts with site plan boundary Other Oist) FIELD CONDITIONS EXPLANATION Site plan conflicts with field conditions (/ ' Existing public facilities damaged or inadequate L/ Existing overhead facilities to be addressed -Hilt ^.f/tnex. CZo^^/zt^^-^lL^J. a*% 1/ Utility conflicts with proposed improvement {/ Major utility relocations required Other Oist) GENERAL LOT REQUIREMENTS EXPLANATION L/ ^Lot width not per Code requirements Lot area is less than required per zoning 1/ Lot not fronting on dedicated public street or easement Panhandle lot not to code Lot depth to width exceed 3:1 Lot depth less than 90 feet MAPPING EXPLANATION Recording in units Remainder Parcel Subdivision boundary bearings and distances ^ y X Other Oist) —- H:\UBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\INITREVI.CHK Water/Sewer/Recycled Water Land Use Procedures ^\^D0 CHECKLISTFOR: Vt^W^^^^/^^ CP? ^^-q-? DETERMINATION OF PROJECT COMPLETENESS Use this checklist in addition to using our existing checklist for Land-use Review. SITE PLAN/TENTATIVE MAP INCLUDES A PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF POTABLE WATER, SEWER, AND RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO SERVE THE PROJECT. THE PL^N SHOULD ALSO INDICATE: General 1. ACCESS ROAD AND EASEMENTS DEPICTED FOR ANY 2. OFF-STREET FACILITY [AVOID WHENEVER POSSIBLE] 3. PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER OR SEWER EASEMENTS 4. LOCATIONS OF FIRE HYDRANTS [APPROVED BY FIRE MARSHAL] 5. FIRE HYDRANTS SHOWN ON TYPICAL STREET CROSS- SECTIONS Water System 0^ V / 1. WATER AGENCY LISTED AS "CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT" [IF IT IS IN OUR SERVICE AREA] 2. PROJECT DEMAND OF POTABLE WATER IN GALLONS PER MINUTE (GPM) 3. HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE(S) OF EXISTING POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS 4. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES 5. PRELIMINARY PIPE SIZES (MINIMUM 8") 6. (^^?0F PIPE (GENERALLY PVC, BUT STEEL IS \WJRANTED IN HIGH PRESSURE ZONES) CONSULT WITH DESIGN DIVISION 7. PRELIMINARY PIPE ALIGNMENTS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT Sewer System 0^ 1. SEWER AGENCY LISTED AS "CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT " [IF IT IS IN OUR SERVICE AREA] 2. PROJECT DEMAND OF SEWER. IN EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS (EDU's) 3. INVERT AND RIM ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING AND Water/Sewer/Recycle(WVater Land Use Procedures vf 4. PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEMS CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES PRELIMINARY PIPE SIZES (MINIMUM 8", SEE STANDARDS FOR 6" ALLOWANCE ON CDS) PRELIMINARY PIPE ALIGNMENTS (WITHIN STREETS AND OFFSITE, IF APPLICABLE) Recycled y 0" Water System \Ui WiP^^K- VNKW .^tt/py 1. PROJECT DEMAND OF RECYCLED WATER, IN GALLONS PER MINUTE (GPM) HYDRAULIC GRADE LINES OF EXISTING RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMS, CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES 2. 5. PRELIMINARY PIPE SIZES (MINIMUM 8") 6. TYPE OF PIPE (GENERALLY PVC, BUT STEEL IS WARRANTED IN HIGH PRESSURE ZONES) CONSULT WITH DESIGN DIVISION 7. PRELIMINARY PIPE ALIGNMENTS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT I ^ SITE PLAN/TENTATIVE MAP INCLUDES A SUFFICIENT TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION TO ANALYZE POTABLE WATER/RECYCLED WATER PRESSURE SERVICE AND GRAVITY SEWER FLOW PROJECT INCLUDES A POTABLE WATER, RECYCLED WATER, AND SEWER STUDY (IF YOU DETERMINED SERVICIBILITY CHALLENGES). SEE PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING THIS. PROJECT AVOIDS "BACKYARD" SEWER [AND STORM DRAIN] CLEANOUTS. SEE PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING THIS. Water/Sewer/Recycled Water Land Use Procedures ^ //)/) ISSUES TEMPLATE WATER/SEWER/RECYCLED WATER ly y u/ Revise the to identify how the project is served by Indicate all M^lPipii^ff^ (i.e., storm drain, water, sewer, recycled water, etc.) along adjacent streets and within the project limits. Depict the paaMMnBnpwp of proposed facilities required to serve the project. ^ipai of the water facilities is required, if more than 19 units are proposed. (i.e.: invert Revise the plans to reflect elevations). Provide verification adequate pressure and capacity exist in the existing potable water main to serve the project. Meet with the H^BHl to determine if the project warrants fire protection measures. If fire hydrants are proposed, public improvement plans will be required to construct public water mains to serve them. Revise the plans to reflect all fire protection improvements. Provide verification the site can be adequately maneuvered by a fire truck, if deemed necessary by the fire marshal. Public I facilities, if proposed, should be located within Revise the plans to clarify how the development will be served by | proposed slopes within the development shall be irrigated with recycled water. All detailing the areas to be irrigated with BHBHBB and those by Ensure that facilities and services are provided to these areas of Provide an potable water demand. Revise the plan to indicate the BHj (sewer) , WMk (potable water), and (reclaimed water) generated or required by the proposed development. Provide a pBgMMHMIiiHiitfflf^ffflBlfl^^ which identifies capacity of the existing and proposed infrastructure. Identify if the existing system can serve the project. Identify preliminary pipe sizes through the project and reflect these sizes on the tentative map or site plan. Provide a MBmMMBi»Hfii^fi^|P| which identifies capacity of the existing and proposed infrastructure. Identify if the existing system can serve the project. Identify preliminary pipe sizes through the project and reflect these sizes on the tentative map or site plan. Provide a |^^|^|M^fliMBH^iiia^|if(|^^ which identifies capacity of the existing and proposed infrastructure. Identify if the existing system can serve the project. Identify preliminary pipe sizes through the project and reflect these sizes on the tentative map or site plan. Jeremy Riddle - Re: Army & Navy Acaden^? Dormitory l^age 1 From: Lori Rosenstein ^it:;^^!^ To: Jeremy Riddle Date: 8/21/03 3:49PM Subject: Re: Army & Navy Academy Dormitory Jeremy, I told ANA that the fence was not required if the catch basin was related to Storm Water issues. I also told them it was a private responsibility and if they thought a fence was needed for safety reasons that we would need to discuss this further. Thanks for your input! Lori »> Jeremy Riddle 08/20/03 12:09PM »> Hi Lori- I have not had to install a fence around a catch basin yet, and before I answer, I would like to know why a fence is prompted. Is the catch basin open to allow a person to fall 3-feet or does it have a steel grate cover? Is the engineering inspector asking for this? Is there really a public safety issue to require a fence? Usually a catch basin in the middle of a parking lot does not have a fence around it, so why would this one? I just want make sure before we install a fence it that it really justified. I don't want anybody asking down the road, who approved this? Thanks for understanding. Talk to you soon. »> Lori Rosenstein 08/19/03 10:41AM >» Hi Jeremy! We are trying to wrap up the Army & Navy Academy Dormitory on Pacific Avenue in time for school to start. The building is near completion and they are requesting a temporary CofO to get the students moved in before their landscaping is done. My question to you is this. Mike Shirey originally worked on this project, but I don't know who has been assigned it since. There is a catch basin in the parking lot at the corner of Mountain View and Pacific. The catch basin is no more than 3 feet deep, but I believe a fence will be required around it. Can you please tell me how high the fence needs to be or forward this to the appropriate person? Thanks! Lori Jeremy Riddle - Army & Navy Academy DIA & FP Bond Pagel From: Donna Harvey To: David Dates; Don Moore; Jeremy Riddle; Skip Hammann Date: 4/14/04 10:36AM Subject: ffismy & Navy Academy^ DIA & FP Bond The Development Improvement Agr and FP bond ($22,000) for CDP 99-49 has been accepted and signed by the Attorney. I will be routing to Bob Wojcik to sign the documents to^ay. Now that the security is in place, I wili be able to refund their grading security of $89,553 that we were holding until the improvement security was in place. Please confirm if there are any outstanding issues involved in this refund. Donna 4/14/04 CC: Jennifer Gowen MEMO February 11, 2002 Re: Water Improvements to Army and Navy Academy Mike Shirey Development Services Division Mike: Per your request I have looked at the site plan for the Army and Navy Academy improvements. I also spoke with Kurt Musser on 2/08/02 regarding this and we agreed on the following: • The 10" pipe for the DDCV is oversized according to the fire water demands given. An 8-inch or possibly a 6-inch may work; this of course should be approved by the Fire Marshal. • The three 2-inch water services are good but it would be better for each to have a 2-inch backflow preventer device rather for them to manifold into one larger 4- inch. The 4-inch proposed would be more difficult and expensive to maintain and would provide no cost savings. • It may be better to have each water service/meter located closer to the building it will serve, that would reduce the amount of private water piping necessary. This is recommendation. The meter shop would be ok with different location for these meters. • The existing DDCV circled in red on the attached plans should be removed and easement quitclaimed. Thanks Mark Biskup attached: site plan with comments CITY OF CARLSBAD CONSTRUCTION CHANGE SUBMnTAL CHECKLIST /TP ^f- /V City Project No. <^f^ V^-^f City Project Name /\rrt^y Jh H^C'tO-. City Drawing No. f 33' /o^/H 7 ' ^ City Project Engineer S/f7r7^^^ This construction change proposes the following revisions: Seweij^WateE^iknd/or Reclaimed Water [] Storm Drain or Street • Grading Other ~^/rF(=' The following items need oniy be in the initial submittal: I l^C 1- 6ee (see current fee schedule). Fee amount collected The following items must be included in each submittal: I j/^ 2. Two (2) redlined grading blueprints showing changes on City approved plans, folded to 9" X 12" (Distribution: 1 Planchacker, 1 Jngpection; NOTE: Additional copies may be requested). I i^s 3. Letter of Transmittal (Distribution: Original to Planchecker, copy to File). I 4. Two (2) copies of supporting calculations, if required (Distribution: 1 Planchecker, 1 File). lA/y^ 5, Previously reviewed bluelines, if any (Distribution: Planchecker). FEE Minor Construction Change (a Minor Construction Change is a simple revision requiring no review of calculations of similar documents and that does not necessitate a review of Conditions of Approval or a Substantial Conformance determination). Major Construction Change (a Major Construction Change is one involving complex changes to the plans and/or changes that require review of supporting documents). SUBMITTAL COMPLETE: CHECKED BY: DATE: COMMENTS: ^ F7..e^fryt^ ^ar;)C S/JA.^ /^//^ MJ Q^/>M^/ / H:/DEVEL0PMENT SERVICES/MASTERS/Construction Chanfle Submittal Checklist Revised 1/14A)2 DATE May 7, 2002 PROJECT I.D. CDP 99-49 ; DWG 133-6/147-2: RP 99-14 PROJECT NAME Army/Navy Academy - "Construction Change" PROJECT PLANNER Mike Grim/Lori Rosenstien RECOMMENDED P.E. Dave Rick or Jeremy Riddle PROJECT STATUS: 1) Per the conditions of approval, the applicant is required to revise two old plans to show the location ofthe water services for the project. The applicant repeatedly submitted the construction change erroneously, as well as, made numerous revisions to the original construction change (i.e., DWG 133-6). 2) I had a meeting with Colleen B. (Fire), Mark B. (Water), the applicant, their architect and their "water service engineer." Once a determination is made on the size of the proposed waterline that is coming off of Ocean Street, the architect is supposed to let me know the size. (For continuity sake, the architect is the main contact.) Then the old mylars/vellums can be released to Dave Chapin of Dei (ANA Civil Engineer) to make the changes on the plans. 3) The meeting with the applicant was on 4/24/02. Have not heard anything since. Citv of Carlsbad Public Works Engineering March 12, 2004 Army & Navy Academy, Inc. 2605 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad CA 92008 ^ 9^"'^'^ ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY, CDP 99-49, DWG 133-6 AND DWG 147-2 DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND Enclosed, please find the Bonds & Agreements for the above listed project. Please complete and execute each document attaching notary acknowledgments. Include current signature authorization for the person or persons signing the Agreements. For a corporation, the signature requirements are listed on the signature page of the documents. For a LLC, this would be an official paper listing the individual as a Member of the LLC with sole authority to bind the organization. For a partnership, this would be an official document identifying the individual as a general partner with sole authority to execute documents on behalf of the limited partnership. Follow the instructions on the attached checklist and signature pages and use blue ink for signatures. PLEASE DO NOT DATE PAGE ONE OF ANY DOCUMENT. Complete the enclosed Annual Solicitation, Substitute W-9 Form and enclose a check in the amount indicated by the attached printouts. To execute an Agreement, complete the Surety name and address on page 1; enter the Surety name and address on the indicated notification page; sign and date the agreement on the signature page; and have all signatures notarized. To execute a Bond, complete the Surety name, address. Security (bond) number(s), and Premium on page 1. Include the effective date if requested. Sign and date the bonds on the appropriate signature page and have all signatures notarized. Surety must sign, date, notarize, and attach sealed Power of Attorney to each bond. Please return all original documents and checklist to me including the cost estimates if attached. To expedite the return processing, do not remove the signature flags or arrows on the documents. If you have any questions, please call me at 602-2779. Sincerely, Donna Harvey ^ Management Assistant Enc. c: Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 ^ Citv of Carlsbad Public Works ~ Engineering October 22, 2001 Army/Navy Academy PO Box 3000 Carlsbad, CA 92008 COMPLETION OF GRADING PLANCHECK FOR: DWG 395-1A PROJECT NAME & NO.: Army/Navy Academy, CDP 99-49. RP 99-14 This correspondence is to inform you that the City Engineer has signed the Grading Plans for the project noted above. These plans are now the property of the City of Carlsbad and have been filed for permanent record with this office. Signature of your Grading Plans clears the way for issuance of your grading permit subject to the limitations and requirements of City Ordinances, your conditions of approval (if any) and all requirements for outside agency permits such as the Coastal Commission. The approval of these plans by the City of Carlsbad does not authorize the applicant to violate any federal, state, or city laws, ordinances, regulations or policies including, but not limited to, the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and any amendments thereto. Presently, our records indicate your project is clear for grading permit issuance provided the following items are completed to the satisfaction of this office: 1. Provide the City with three (3) sets of bluelines of the approved grading plans. 2. Pay the grading permit fee balance in the amount of $150.00. 3. Apply for a grading permit within the next one (1) year. 4. Provide the City with a copy of this letter. 5. Complete the Grading Permit Application (Attached). 6. Execute and return "Hold Harmless Agreement for Geologic Failure" Provided that all the above requirements have been met, you may now apply for your grading permit. Please submit all required items to the Engineering Development Services Counter at 1635 Faraday Avenue. Please be aware that fees are subject to change. You may wish to verify permit fees before coming in and applying for your permit. You may obtain the blueline sets and any other reproductions you desire through one of several bonded blueprint firms in the area at your cost. Your grading permit will be issued when all of the above items have been completed. After permit issuance, contact the Engineering Inspection Request Line at 438-3891 to set up a preconstruction meeting with your Inspector. The inspector will bring the permit and give you your copy at the preconstruction meeting. PLEASE DO NOT BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UNTIL YOU HAVE RECEIVED YOUR PERMIT FROM YOUR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY OCTOBER 22, 2001 Page 2 of 2 In addition the following items will be required during the construction of your project. Coordinate the timing of these items with your Construction Inspector: 1. An approved Haul Route Permit prior to hauling any construction equipment or materials onsite or offsite. Allow 2 working days for approval. 2. An approved Traffic Control Plan and a valid Right of Way Permit prior to any work in the public right of way. Allow one week for approval. 3. Obtain a Retaining Wall Permit from the Building Department Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. It has been a pleasure working with you through the plancheck process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Project Engineer, Michael J Shirey, at 760-602-2400 ext. 1420. In an effort to improve our customer service, the Community Development Department is soliciting your comments on the service you have received in processing your project. Enclosed is a Customer Service Survey form. Please take a few minutes to complete this form and return it to the City. Your help is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, \ ROBERT J. WOJCIK, PE Deputy City Engineer-Engineering/Development Services c: Project Planner, Mike Grim Inspection: Office Specialist Permit Station - Front Counter File Attachments: Grading Permit Application Right of Way Permit Packet Customer Service Survey DOCS*(ISFORMS\GRADING PUNCHECK COMPLETION LTR 10/18/01 12:35 0949«'"'*9267 tBP/Arcliltecture 121001/002 Fax Cover Page Date: To: \4 IO/I9JD/ City of Cailsbad-Eagmcering Dept Fax ft 0760)602-1052 From: Mike Kohls, tBP/Aicfaitecture cc; File 6.6 Proj: Army and Navy Acadcany Carlsbad, Ca PrcJ No.: 99033.00 #ofPages: 2, including ibis cover sheet ^1 Archiucnuc nooning IfiCBiion Managwiient tPr>'Aichilci.-iui-c 2300 Newpon HouIev.irO No^'^p"^•l Hv-'-ith. CA. y2603 ph; 07? O.'iOO la\; iJ4>) 673 9267 10/05/01 11:10 0714 673 9267 T.B.P. ilOOl • Fax Hnvftr Paqft Date: 10/05^01 To: Mike Shlr^ City of Carlsbad-Engineering Dept. Fax#: (760)602-1052 From: Mike Kohls, tBP/AiX!hitecture cc: RIe 6.6 Proj: Amiy and Navy Academy Carlsbad, Ca Proj No.: 99033.00 # of Pages: , including this cover sheet AichitBcaire Planning lastAm Messaga/M^mo Contract for dodicatlon. tBP/Arcfiitecture 2300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92663 ph; 949 673 0300 fax: 949 673 9267 Bl002_ T.B.P. 10/05/01 11:10 0714 673 9267 T.B.r. _ ^ Oct OS Ql, l2:02p , 13/05/2881 18:16 7S0438333X ^€LO^^lDR LAND StKUEV fCCE 0Z/a2 MEICHIOR LAND SURVEYING INC : r— ^— OetobcrS,^! An»y-N»Yy Academy Atm..CdoBel Steve Miller 00 Carol Hiumascb 2605CttUbadBM Carlst>adl,CA9200S jRE: Mouataia Viaw Dnvv-Movmaio Vkw/Cailsba^ Bovdevsrd Bctani - Fa«incAve/Oce«ii$tmtBetuni Att Street Dedicatiov to Citgr oT Caiisbwl for Ajnnyfltfavy Academjr Suliject- Addition te acFeettent for FiofmioaBl Services dated March 19,1999 A. Prepare easBDientdocuniam for stnet easememdedioatkioExh^ B. Prepare eaaoaefflpltt tor street casemeiftdedkatbaEidsb^ C. Pr^aredosmecileulatiQm. D. Pr^)si«appticationpa<^eaiidprt>coKvrithCity ofCaii^tad fEE:SZ400JIO Ownet/CUem to provide cwrent Pi^ioiinaty Thb RepoA dated witfaia 30 days of submittaL Owna/ClicmtopayalltHle-pity&es. Qty Fee-^A $430.00 Jfthe above is agreesble, please sign bebw. We are prqwred to be^ inmediatdy. rendent Copy To. TBP Afchitects, Attn Mifce Cohls t 973-1 PAuuietw^f • sunE6*zietMto. c^ eeooe t?6Di fwe-i^j^rMX Pa^«»assi mtsiOlMRtlPD nsl 10/05/01 11:10 0714 673 9267 T.B.P. El003_ • ct 05 01 12:03p p. 3 Army & jVavy Academy PO Box 3000 Carlsbad, CA 92018-3000 Fax Cover Sheet DATE: October 5. 2001 TIME: 11:32 AM TO: Melchior Surveying PHONE: (760) 438-1726 FAX: (760)438-3991 FROM: Steve Miller PHONE: 760.729.2385, Ext. 207 Superintendent FAX: 760.720.7121 RE: Mountain View Proposal Number OIF pages including cover sheet: 2 Message: Mr. Melchior: Here is the documentation you asked for, Apparently this is all that's holding up our pennit for our new dormitory. Thanks as always for your professional support! :s, Steve Miller Army and Nav>' Academy W CITY OF CARLSBAD w DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 27, 2001 TO: LORI ROSENSTEIN FROM: Associate Engineer - Engineering/Development Services VIA: Senior Civil Engineer - Engineering/Development Services _ RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above-referenced project and are recommending: X That the project be approved subject to the conditions as listed on the attached sheet. That the project be denied for the following reasons: X The following is a final Engineering/Development Services project report for inclusion in the staff report for this project. RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ACY/NAVY ACADEMY - DORMITOORECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ENGINEERING CONDITIONS NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all ofthe foiiowing conditions, upon the approval of this proposed Redevelopment Permit, must be met prior to approval of a grading permit. Genera/ 1. (7) 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, a construction staging plan and proposed haul route. 2. (16) Developer shall install sight distance corridors as shown on the Redevelopment Permit Architectural, Civil, and, preliminary Landscape site plans; and, in accordance with Engineering Standards. Fees/Aqreemente 3. (17) Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 4. (21) Priorto issuance of building permit, Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City for the future public improvement to Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive along the project frontage for a half street width of 42 feet (based on a half street of 30 feet, plus 12 feet). Public improvements shall include but are not limited to: Paving, Base, Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters, Pavement Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing, Under-grounding or Relocation of Utilities, Sewer, Water, Fire Hydrant(s), Street Light Standard(s), and Driveway Approach, etc., to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall process a Plat and Legal Description (NIA Exhibit 'A'), and submit an improvement cost estimate (used to prepare NIA Calculation Sheet & NIA Exhibit 'C'), through the City's Engineering Department as a "PR Number." The NIA Calculation Sheet shall include, but not be limited to, all ofthe above-referenced improvements, Design, 20% Contingency, and Standard Assessment District, Plan Check and Inspection costs. Grading 5. (24) Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. 6. (26) This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a plan consistency determination from both the City Engineer and Planning Director. 7. (27) Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Coastal Conditions ^ 8. (28) Since a Grading Permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season", April 1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th upon written approval ofthe City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control measures are in place by October 1 st. Dec//caf/ons///nprove/wente 9. (32) Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. 10. (37) Mountain View Drive shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage based on a center line to right-of-way width of 30 feet, including the curb return radius (35' radius) atthe northwestcorner of the Mountain View Drive/Carlsbad Boulevard intersection, and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Additionally, the Owner shall also dedicate a 35 foot curb return radius at the southeast corner of the Pacific Avenue/Ocean Street intersection, in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 11. (39) Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results. 12. (40) Developer shall complywith the City's requirements ofthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval ofthe City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants ofthe following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products; B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers; C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. it0^^l\ 13. The applicant sl^^ubmit for City approval, a "Storm Wa^^ollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)." The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan shall: 1) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants; 2) Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter said pollutants; 3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; 4) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post constructed BMPs in perpetuity; 5) Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a 10-year, 6-hour storm event. Code Reminder The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 14. (49) Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Special Engineering Conditions 15. The 48' right of way dimension shown on the Mountain View drive typical street section, on sheet C-4 (Civil Site Plan), shall be revised to 50'. This revision shall be shown on the site plan conforming mylar. 16. Condition of Approval No. 10, of DRB Resolution No. 233, is still applicable to the ANA Master Plan and is still valid and in full force and effect; however, the condition will be held in abeyance until such time as the ANA submits for an actual Master Plan Amendment (MPA). Once a MPA is submitted, the phasing condition shall once again become operative, and improvements shall be completed, in accordance with the phasing plan, the NIA, and, alternative street design criteria. WATER & SEWER CONSIGNS 1. Prior to approval of improvement or grading plans. 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 Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. 2. Priorto issuance of building permits. Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities; including, the San Diego Countv Water Authority capacity charge(s). 3. The Developer shall install potable water and fire service water services, and meters, at a location approved by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plan DWG 133-6, in accordance with a construction change to the plan. 4. The Developer shall install sewer lateral(s) and clean-out(s) at a location approved by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of the sewer lateral(s) shall be reflected on public improvement plan DWG 133-6, in accordance with a construction change to the plan. 13/21/2001 1G:52 7147793829 DCI ENGINEERING PAGE 0: DCf Engineering, Inc. L4ND SURVEYINO AND CiVH. eNOmeeMNQ 21 March 01 City of Carisbad Engineering Department Mr. Mike Shirey 1635 Fairday Carlsbad, California 02008 Subject: Anny/Navy Academy Dormitory AddKion Cartsbad, CaUfomia Dear Mr. Shirey; Per our discussion at our last meeting, DCI Engineering, Inc.'s opinion In regards to the new sewer lateral connection in Pacific Avenue Is to replace the existing 6" VCP sewer lateral with a new 6* PVC lateral. The existing lateral Is approximately 50 years old and the condition Is unknown and should not be relied on. Please do not hesitate to cai if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, David R. Chapin Presfdent 9929 smwwKr 2lmarOi 5100 Ea«t La Pilma Ayenue' Sulta 117' Anaheim Hills * California ' 92807 " 714.779.3828 " fax 714.779.3829 MRR-20-2001 13:02 FROM NflCK ENGINEERING TO 19496739267 P.01 NACK& PEZESHKI ENGINEERING 300 Carisbad ViJlage Orive Suite 205 Cai-lsb«d.CA 92008 Ph: (7<iO) 720-1205 Pax: (760) 120-0941 E-itiail: u[IIce(gpsclcandpc?:eshki.coi7i March 20,2001 tBP Architecture 2300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Attn: Michael Kohls Reference: Army Navy Academy sewer connection Dear Michael, It is our opinioTi that the existing clay lateral sewer pipe should be replaced with new PVC pipe. The point of connection should be the existing sewer main on Pacific Ave. This would eliminate the possible failure point at the connection between the PVC and the existing clay pipe. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you Don Street Project Engineer 10/18/01 12:35 09496739267 tBP/ArcMtecture 121002/002 J ^ T ® February 26, ZOOl Mike Kohls TBP Architecture 'tD 2 7 ?Ofll 2300 Newport Blvd; - ^P4DruiTr«, Newport Beach, CA 92663 *^miEOV 1'^- Re: Parking Lot Improvements adjacent to NCTD Railroad ROW Dear Mr. Kohls, NCTD is in favor of slope stabilization in the NCTD Railroad ROW as required to support constniaion ofthe parking lot fecility at the NW Comer of Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. Our understanding is that you intend to regrade eroded areas ofthe slope and place ground cover if required to provide further stabilization. As wc discussed, we will not allow any permanent imgation to be placed on the NCTD slopes. Note that we will require that your contractor obtain a "Righl of Entry Permit" from NCTD to work on the slope, which we will issue at no cost. Please keep me informed on the status of this project. Sincerely, Chip Willeit General ROW Consultant February 5, 2001 City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department RECEIVED ANTHONY DEPAOLA FEB 06 2C01 TBP ARCHITECTURE 2300 NEWPORT BLVD ENG'NF"^ :^'G NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DEPAd i .viu^.'» SUBJECT: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MPA & DORMITORY (RP99-14/CDP99-49) Dear Tony: City staff has completed the fifth review of the above referenced project. Prior to staff making a determination on the project, the following items of clarification and issues of concern must be resolved and/or adequately addressed: PLANNING & REDEVELOPMENT: 1. The original master plan parking arrangement was based upon a maximum of 350 students and 100 employees. The amount of required parking was assessed per the Zoning Ordinance standard for high schools: one space per employee and one space per ten students. Since the existing parking totaled oniy 25 spaces and many of the students lived on campus without cars, etc., the master plan was conditioned to only add part of the total parking requirement concurrent with the first phase of development. According to Exhibit G of RP 94-02, this amounted to 48 additional spaces. Therefore, a minimum of 48 parking spaces is required to be constructed along Mountain View in conjunction with the first phase of development, which in this case is the dormitory. In response to the timing of construction of the remainder of the required parking, it is staff's position that all required on-site parking shall be installed and all existing parking be brought up to current regulations at the time the next major remodel/construction project occurs on- site. This will be added as a condition of project approval for the dormitory. Again, the required parking is based upon a maximum of 350 students and 100 employees; any changes to those numbers would result in a reevaluation of parking requirements. Please add a breakdown of the existing, proposed, and future parking data to the summary data sheet. Currently the site plan shows the remainder of the parking to take place during Phase 9 of construction. This difference of opinion is worthy of some discussion with staff and a possible change to the site plan note. 2. On the project data sheet please provide a breakdown of existing and proposed beds with regard to the number of students and faculty. The information should verv clearly identify the number of existing beds, the number of beds being removed as part of the proposed demolition, the number of proposed beds, the number of resident students, the number of day students, and the number of employees. This can be shown in two tables. The final tally should show the total number of students does not exceed 350 and the total number of employees does not exceed 100. Staff is concerned that based on the information provided, the number of beds being added causes total enrollment to exceed 350 students. Make sure the site plan data is consistent with the information provided on the project data sheet. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^ Army & Navy Academy RP99-14/CDP99-49 2/5/01 Paqe 3 a new lateral (since the street is not being improved at this time) if the existing lateral can be utilized. This issue still needs to be addressed. (Please see Sewer & Water, Issue No. 1, of Engineering Second Issues Review memorandum, dated December 6, 2000.) 2. Thank you for revising the proposed potable water and fire services. However, staff's detailed directions were not followed, so additional revisions are required, as follows: a. First, are you sure that two (2) 4" lines are required? b. As previously requested, please show a 2" potable water service per Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Standard W-4. c. As previously requested, label the Double Detector Check Valve (DDCV) assembly for the fire-flow line as a W-22 (there is no W-28). Also, locate the DDCV out of the public right of way. d. A Backflow Preventer has been added to the potable waterline, please move this out of the public right of way. 3. Again, as previously requested, please indicate that the existing improvement information for Pacific Avenue is from DWG 133-6, on sheet C-4. Grading & Drainaae 1. As previously requested, please provide documentation from the effected property owner (North County Transit District?), that they concur with the proposed "slope stabilization mitigation measures," for the proposed parking lot construction. 2. Thank you for providing surface runoff calculations using information contained in the San Diego Hydroiogy Manual. The report, as prepared, is acceptable. However, staff does have the following comments: a. Staff had previously asked for a basin cross-section on the redlined check prints. This cross-section was not added to the plans (sheet C-4). Staff needs to see this section because there is some concern with how this basin is actually going to function since the street improvements will not be completed at this time. Therefore, the section should show how the Mountain View drive outfall will function with the existing street grades, curbs (proposed outfall seems to be located behind an existing curb), and edge of pavement (EP). b. Relocate the proposed slopes of the basin over 2' for the additional right of way dedication requirement, and make sure that the basin still has the same capacity. MisceUaneous 1. Again, thank you for showing the sight distance sight lines on all of the applicable plan sheets, and, for adding the previously requested note on the Preliminary Landscape plan (LS). (Please see Miscellaneous, Issue No. 2, of Engineering Second Issues Review memorandum, dated December 6, 2000.) However, LS sheet 5, still needs to be revised, or staff's previous comment must be addressed. The sight line must be clear. The note that Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department February 5, 2001 ANTHONY DEPAOLA ^^Odonr, TBP ARCHITECTURE '^f^AFtnim 2300 NEWPORT BLVD "^CT/fri NEWPORTSEACH,CA 92663 SUBJECT: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MPA & DORMITORY (RP99-14/CDP99-49) Dear Tony: City staff has completed the fifth review of the above referenced project. Prior to staff making a determination on the project, the following items of clarification and issues of concern must be resolved and/or adequately addressed: PLANNING & REDEVELOPMENT: he original master plan parking arrangement was based upon a maximum of 350 students and 100 employees. The amount of required parking was assessed per the Zoning Ordinance standard for high schools: one space per employee and one space per ten students. Since the existing parking totaled only 25 spaces and many of the students lived on campus without cars, etc., the master plan was conditioned to only add part of the total parking requirement concurrent with the first phase of d^velopment. According to Exhibit G of RP 94-02, this amounted to 48 additional spaces. U^4^ APP^ ClJjrY 3^ Therefore, a minimum of 48 parking spaces is required to be constructed along Mountain View in conjunction with the first phase of development, which in this case is the dormitory. In response to the timing of construction of the remainder of the required parking, it is staff's position that all required on-site parking shall be installed and all existing parking be brought up to current regulations at the time the next major remodel/construction project occurs on- site. This will be added as a condition of project approval for the dormitory. Again, the required parking is based upon a maximum of 350 students and 100 employees; any changes to those numbers would result in a reevaluation of parking requirements. Please add a breakdown of the existing, proposed, and future parking data to the summary data sheet. Currently the site plan shows the remainder of the parking to take place during Phase 9 of construction i This difference of opinion is worthy of some discussion with staff and a possible change to the site plan note. •— p^/^^ 4€2> -pPT^ I^Arf^/J/tr ArOP£:]^ On the project data sheet please provide a breakdown of existing afid proposed beds with regard to the number of students and faculty. The information jmould verv clearlv identify the number of existing beds, the number of beds being removed as part of the proposed demolition, the number of proposed beds, Ihe number of resident students, the number of day students, and the number of emplovee&k'ligrhis nan he shown in t\A/n'tahlR.«i The final tally sh tally should show the total number of students does not exceed 350 and the total number of employees does not exceed. 100. Staff is concerned that based on the infonnation provided, the number of beds being added causes total enrollment to exceed 350 students. Make sure the site plan data is consistent with the information provided on the project data sheet. J^^^) ^lhti2^ ^-prjA^ 6!^tX> 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad. CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 Army & Navy Academy RP99-14/CDP99-49 2/5/01 Paqe 2 3^4Jum umber all parking spaces (existing and proposed) for ease of identification and reference. For instance, it appears that there are only 24 existing spaces shown on the site plan (Sheet 2) when the plan calls out 25. Also, Sheet 2 calls out 38 proposed parking spaces in the Mountain View parking lot. This is inconsistent with the 48 spaces shown on the project data sheet (Sheet 1). In addition, as explained above, a minimum of 48 parking spaces are required to be constructed in conjunction with the first phase of development as set forth in the existing Master Plan conditions of approval. - ^2^K)^ ftCA^ I'^^J't^ 4. Staff is concerned that the 3' separation between the proposed dormitory and the adjacent academic building to the east does not make good design sense. According to the Building Department, the proposed 3' building separation conforms to the Uniform Building Code if the existing building has no external openings along that area. Please note, depending on the floor plan of the existing building, you may need to delete rooms to accommodate the 3' building separation. Please address this issue in your future submittal. aeeA>fP<^P^ y^f^MtA^^f lVAi^TZ> f^mt FfrtfFSi? /^//«^ PROTUri^iT- I^IUU ^/JF»Amj? ^Zagjtf -Vo. The landscape plan submitted with the last set of plans appears to contain only a few changes suggested by our landscape plancheck consultant. Please confirm this is the most recent landscape plan and advise staff if you are proposing any additional changes. Please include the most recent landscape plan with all future plan submittals. ^t7l6>£iP TE.^ V^. Existing campus plan (sheet A-1) should include the location of the archery range and temporary classrooms. In addition, Building 37 should be removed, as I do not believe it cists any longer. ^ofO^ &^0i>h7]C?i^ ^UY>^c>fy^ (-hSd[\')M:>oey<0 ^ ^Jpf^A^t; Staff suggests the elimination of the Phasing Plan for simplification purposes for the following reasons: 1) it is our understanding that ANA is currently conducting a comprehensive needs assessment and will be submitting a comprehensive Master Plan lendment in the future which will better address the development of future pleases; and 2) 'the current Master Plan for ANA permits the phases to occur in any order. fij^^ifTBO 8. The east and west building elevations shown on the colored building elevations submitted on January 3, 2001 are inconsistent with the roof plan shown on sheet A-3. Please modify for consistency. Does the roof pitch continue to the peak or flatten out at the top. The ENGINEERING: f^i^T^ Traffic & Transportation l^"^. As previously requested, please revise the "future" curb to curb and right of way widths for Mountain View Drive to 20'/30', respectively. This is not a cul-de-sac street, and therefore, must meet Local Street Standards. Additional public right of way dedication will be required. Also, revise the Civil, Architectural and Landscape plan view widths/design to meet Local Sewer & Water )/^. The sewer design is exactly the same. Staff had previously asked for clarification regarding this design (i.e., the need for a hew sewer lateral). If the plan is to still install an on-site sewer main to service future buildings, then, as previously indicated, a different design is required. Also as previously indicated, there may be no need to cut into the street to install Army & Navy Academy RP99-14/CDP99-49 2/5/01 Paqe 3 a new lateral (since the street is not being improved at this time) if the existing lateral can be utilized. This issue still needs to be addressed. (Please see Sewer & Water, Issue No. 1, of Engineering Second Issues Review memorandum, dated Decernber 6, 2000.)'-t^\Q /n\LL 2. Thank you for revising the proposed potable water and fire sen/ices. Hov^ver, staffs detailed directions were not followed, so additional revisions are required, as follows: ya. First, are you sure that two (2) 4" lines are required? 1^1^ CtVHJ^" As previously requested, please show a 2" potable water service per Carisbad Municipal VVater District (CMWD) Standard W-4. /^gUlS^, A?--^ AOP&^ As previously requested, label the Double Detector Check Valve (DDCV) assembly for the fire-flow line as a W-22 (there is no W-28). Also, locate the DDCV out of the public right of way. /c?-^ CAUL (P^OT AW&P A Backflow Preventer has been added to the potable waterline, please move this out of the public right of way. Q^^V^jJ f^f^lfJP Again, as previously requested, please indicate that thei existing improvement information for Pacific Avenue is from DWG 133-6, on sheet C-4. ^^PvD w ^ - ^ Grading & Drainaae 1. As previously requested, please provide documentation from the effected property owner (North County Transit District?), that they concur with the proposed "slope stabilization mitigation measures," for the proposed parking tot construction. J0 fpl^/>u^ Thank you for providing surface runoff calculations using information contained in the San Diego Hydrology Manual. The report, as prepared, is acceptable. However, staff does b^ve the following comments: Y a. Staff had previously asked for a basin cross-section on the redlined check prints. This cross-section was not added to the plans (sheet C-4). Staff needs to see this section because there is some concern with how this basin is actually going to function since the street improvements will not be completed at this time. Therefore, the section should show how the Mountain View drive outfall will function with the existing street grades, rbs (proposed outfall seems to be located behind an existing curb), and edge of pavement (EP). b. Relocate the proposed slopes of the basin over 2' for the additional right of way dedication requirement, and make sure that the basin still has the same capacity. ' 7sce//aneous Again, thank you for showing the sight distance sight lines on all of the applicable plan sheets, and, for adding the previously requested note on the Preliminary Landscape plan (LS). (Please see Miscellaneous, Issue No. 2, of Engineering Second Issues Review memorandum, dated December 6, 2000.) However, LS sheet 5, still needs to be revised, or staff's previous comment must be addressed. The sight line must be clear. The note that Army & Navy Academy RP99-14/CDP99-49 2/5/01 Paqe 4 added only functions if the proposed trees and vegetation have a canopy of not less tipfen 8', and, not greater than 30", respectively. The planting legend was not revised, and o explanation was given, if this proposed landscaping meets the 8'/30" criteria. Therefore, a) provide documentation that this proposed planting schedule meets this criteria; b) revise the planting schedule, so that it does meet this criteria; or, c) remove all vegetation from encroaching into the site line. Additionally, as previously requested, please add the. second half of the note to the LS, as follows: 'The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development." <^^^ As before, staff had hoped to be able to draft the Engineering Conditions of Approval for the project at this time. However, again, not all issues were addressed. Staff will continue to work with the applicant; however, all issues must be adequately resolved. 3. Previous redlined check prints are attached for the applicant's use in making the requested revisions. These check prints must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813 if you have any questions regarding Planning and Redevelopment comments listed above. For questions regarding the engineering comments listed above please contact Mike Shirey at (760) 602-2747. Sincerely, LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Enclosure c: Mike Shirey, Engineering Department Mike Grim, Planning Department Pat Kelley, Building Department i' ENGINEERING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PUBUC WORKS IG/DEVELOPMEF MEMORANDUM January 31, 2001 TO: LORI ROSENSTEIN - HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT FROM: Associate Engineer - Engineering/Development Services RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 - MPA & DORMITORIES / BCOOUD ISSUES REVIEW /p <^ Mn\ Engineering Department staff have completed a fifth review (third actual issues review) of the ^ i^'' above-referenced project. Prior to engineering staff making a determination on the project, the following engineering issues of concern must be resolved/adequately addressed: ^7 '^fl^^^ Traffic & Transportation As previously requested, please revise the "future" curb to curb and right of way widths for Mountain View Drive to 20'/30', respectively. This is not a cul-de-sac street, and therefore, must meet Local Street Standards. Additional public right of way dedication will be required. Also, revise the Civil, Architectural and Landscape plan view widths/design to meet Local Street Standards. Sewer & Water The sewer design is exactly the same. Staff had previously asked for clarification regarding this design (i.e., the need for a new sewer lateral). If the plan is to still install an on-site sewer main to service future buildings, then, as previously indicated, a /(Ct^'jdifferent design is required. Also as previously indicated, there may be no need to cut l/^ |jl5(l5'into the street to install a new lateral (since the street is not being improved at this time) if S'^/wOW*^® existing lateral can be utilized. This issue still needs to be addressed. (Please see ^ \]\^v Sewer & Water, Issue No. 1, of Engineering Second Issues Review memorandum, dated December6, 2000.) Thank you for revising the proposed potable water and fire services. However, staffs detailed directions were not followed,^o additional revisions are required, as follows: First, are you sure that tw^2) 4" line^ are required? As previously requested, please show a 2" potable water service per Carisbad Municipal V\^ter District (CMWD) Standard W-4. As previously requested, label the Double Detector Check Valve (DDCV) assembly for the fire-flow line as a W-22 (there is no/W-2|iy. Also, locate the DDCV out of the public right of way. ^ A Backflow Preventer has been added to the potable wateriine, please move this / out of the public right of way. Again, as previously requested, please indicate that the existing improvement information for Pacific Avenue is from DWG 133-6, on sheet C-4. RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/Sw Y ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 THIRD ISSUES REVIEW L. ROSENSTEIN MEMO; JANUARY 31, 2001 Grading & Drainaae As previously requested, please provide documentation from the effected property owner (North County Transit District?), that they concur with the proposed "slope stabilization mitigation measures," for the proposed parking lot construction. Thank you for providing surface runoff calculations using information contained in the San Diego Hydrology Manual. The report, as prepared, is acceptable. However, staff does have the following comments: aL Staff had previously asked for a basin cross-section on the redlined check prints. This cross-section was not added to the plans (sheet C-4). Staff needs to see this section because there is some concern with how this basin is actually going to function since the street improvements will not be completed at this time. Therefore, the section should show how the Mountain View drive outfall will function with the existing street grades, curbs (proposed outfall seems to be located behind an existing curb), and edge of pavement (EP). Relocate the proposed slopes of the basin over 2' for the additional right of way dedication requirement, and make sure that the basin still has the same capacity. Msce/Zaneotys Again, thank you for showing the sight distance sight lines on all of the applicable plan sheets, and, for adding the previously requested note on the Preliminary Landscape plan (LS). (Please see Miscellaneous, Issue No. 2, of Engineering Second Issues Review memorandum, dated December 6, 2000.) However, LS sheet 5, still needs to be revised, or staffs previous comment must be addressed. The sight line must be clear. The note that was added only functions if the proposed trees and vegetation have a canopy of not less than 8', and, not greater than 30", respectively. The planting legend was not revised, and no explanation was given, if this proposed landscaping meets the 8'/30" criteria. Therefore, a) provide documentation that this proposed planting schedule meets this criteria; b) revise the planting schedule, so that it does meet this criteria; or, c) remove all vegetation from encroaching into the site line. Additionally, as previously requested, please add the second half of the note to the LS, as follows: "The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development." As before, staff had hoped to be able to draft the Engineering Conditions of Approval for the project at this time. However, again, not all issues were addressed. Staff will continue to work with the applicant; however, all issues must be adequately resolved. Previous redlined check prints are attached for the applicanf s use in making the requested revisions. These check prints must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. If you or anyone from ANA have any questions, please contact me directly at 760/602-2747. MICHAEL J. SHI Associate Engineer - Erigineering/Development Services Attachment Cc: Senior Civil Engineer - Engineering/Development Services Senior Planner - M. Grim January 31, 2001 TO: MANAGEMENT ANALYST FROM: Senior Planner RP 99-14 - ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY RECONSTRUCTION Thanks again for the meeting last Monday, it was very helpful to go over the project in such focused detail. Listed below are the Planning Department comments on the latest submittal. 1. The original master plan parking arrangement was based upon a maximum of 350 students and 100 employees. The amount of required parking was assessed per the Zoning Ordinance standard for high schools: one space per employee and one space per ten students. Since the existing parking totalled only 25 spaces and many of the students lived on campus without cars, etc., the master plan was conditioned to only add part of the total parking requirement concurrent with the first phase of development. According to Exhibit G of RP 94-02, this amounted to 48 additional spaces. I would recommend that these spaces be built in concurrence with the proposed dormitory. Since the original permit allowed partial construction of the parking, we would just be continuing an existing agreement. Regarding the remaining parking, I would condition all parking to be up to code with the next remodel/construction project they perform. Again, this is based upon a maximum of 350 students and 100 employees; any changes to those numbers would result in a reevaluation of parking requirements. The parking data should be shown on the summary data sheet. 2. They seem to be adding a significant number of beds with this proposal. Army & Navy should provide us with a disposition of the existing and proposed beds with regard to the number of students and faculty. It seems like they're increasing capacity of the school without declaring additional students. This would include a clarification of the amount of demolition of Hoover and McClendon Halls. RP 99-14 - ARMY ANL^ WY ACADEMY DORMITORY RECC^TRUCTION January 31, 2001 Paqe 2 3. All parking spaces (existing and proposed) should be numbered for ease of identification and reference. For instance, it appears that there are only 24 existing spaces on the site plan. 4. According to the Building Department, the proposed three-foot building separation conforms to the Uniform Building Code if the existing building has no external openings along that area. This is an advisory note for the applicant; depending on the floor plan of the existing dormitory, they may need to delete rooms to accommodate the three-foot building separation. Thanks again for the meeting and please feel free to contact me at extension 4623 if you have any questions. '•r MICHAEL GRIM c: Chris DeCerbo Michael Shirey Planning File Copy NA^K& PEZESHKI ENGINEERING •ACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: COMPANY: DATE: FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 3 PHONE NUMBIiR: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: • URGENT • FOR REVIEW CD PLEASE COMMENT • PLEASE REPLY • PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: 300 CARLSHAD VILLAGE DRIVE. SUITE 205, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760)720-1205 FAX: (760)720-OM1 T0"d A9e6£i96t?6T 01 DNia33NI3N3 MDbN WOdd LP:Zl T00S-80-a3d PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM December 6, 2000 TO: LORI ROSENSTEIN - HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT FROM: Associate Engineer - Engineering/Development Services RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 - MPA & DORMITORIES a SECOND ISSUES REVIEW V ^\^(^ Engineering Department staff have completed a fourth review (second actual issues review) of the above-referenced project. Prior to engineering staff making a determination on the project, the following engineering issues of concern must be resolved/adequately addressed: Traffic & Transportation Thank you for fully dimensioning the proposed parking lot. My redline check prints indicated that drive aisles must have a minimum width of 24'. The proposed widths range from 22' to 24'. Also, my redlines indicated that parking stalls must have a minimum length of 20' Two of the parking stall areas show a minimum 19' length. Unless these are supposed to be compact spaces, this does not meet City Standards and must be revised. And, in any event, the drive aisle must be revised to a 24' minimum ^ width. Thank you for providing calculations showing that the proposed retention basin is of sufficient size to retain a 10-Year storm event, in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. However, the data in the report was calculated using information contained in the Orange County Hydroiogy Manual. The information that must be used to prepare the report is the San Diego Hydrology Manual. Although both manuals are valid, the data contained therein is not exactly the same. Projects in Carisbad are required to use San Diego County information. Now, regarding the report, there are some issues as follows: a. The report indicates that the depth of the proposed basin, to retain a 10-year storm event, must be 6'. The plans show a depth of less than half of a foot (0.4'); b. The report also indicates that the size of the basin that is required "is a little larger y. than shown on the site plan." J^-- —— "S^Staff has concerns over this issue. If the retention basin needs to be deeper and larger, and, with the parking spaces and drive aisles already not meeting the correct lengths and widths, respectively, what effect will these revisions have on the parking lot layout and number of parking spaces? Will these changes necessitate further encroachment into y. ^ the off-site slope?(-V ) iSlSUv '9^?CT\Ov^ ( v > jr. ^ • '"'^/\- Thank you for adding the typical street sections for Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive on civil plan sheet 4. PIggse revise the "future" curb to curb and right of way widths for Mountain View Drive to/^p^30', respectively. This is not a cul-de-sac street, and therefore, must meet Local street Standards. Also, revise the Civil, Architectural and Landscape plan view widths/design to meet Local Street Standards. / RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/fWvY ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 SECOND ISSUES REVIEW L. ROSENSTEIN MEMO; DECEMBER 6, 2000 Sewer & Water """V/- Thank you for providing the correspondence from Mr. David Nack, P.E., regarding the need for a new sewer lateral to the proposed building. However, the explanation needs further clarification. The proposed pad elevations and finished floor elevations are hardly changing. Therefore, why is there now a problem with meeting the invert elevation to the existing sewer line in Pacific Avenue? Additionally, the correspondence indicates that,". . . future phases to the campus would necessitate the proposed sewer lateral." Generally, separate buildings have their own sewer laterals, or tie into an on-site "sewer main," which ties into the public system. Is this "lateral" supposed to serve as a type of "main" for future buildings? If so, this fonward thinking is commendable, however, quantifiable data must be supplied of how this is going to operate, if indeed, the inlet elevations do not work as proposed. Basically, there is no need to cut into the street to install a new lateral (since the street is not being improved at this time) if the existing ^ ^ I lateral can be utilized. — ^~/*« Thank you for showing a Double Detector Check Valve (DDCV) assembly for thafire-flow (.^)wVN.y\^ line. The water information still need^jD be revised, however. Please show/2^otable3ij^^'^ *~ TW^t^ vS service per CJ\dy!ia2Standard(W;^ Also, label the DDCV as CMWD Standard W- "^'"^^^ wo \*J-Z6 •—'(^^ Please add valy^at the fire service tap in Pacific Avenue. Finally, proposed VHVMCftT' wateriines, within the public right of way, must be copper in accordance with CMWD ^ivJo CfvJ^ , Standards. (Please see the redline check prints for more information.) A^VCC-f ovX \ * • y \^ \ J ob ^OcO • ^ _ ytr Thank you for labeling the existing sewer and wateriine in Pacific Avenue on sheet 4. As * previously requested, also please indicate that this information is from DWG 133-6, on sheet 4. Grading & Drainaae 1. Thank you for providing the correspondence form Kleinfelder regarding Preliminary Geo- technical Study, Section 3.2, (existing slope surficial stability issue). The correspondence indicates that mitigation measure No. 1, "erosion mats," will be utilized to stabilize this slope. Staff has some concern over this issue, as follows: ^/^ X This slope is located "off-site" from the proposed project. Therefore, provide — ——~ /\ documentation from the effected property owner (North County Transit District?) that they concur with the proposed design; Please be advised, that prior to issuance of any grading permit, an easement must be secured from the effected property owner to work on this slope; What effect will the proposed parking lot redesign (i.e., retention basin, parking spaces and drive aisles), per above, have on this existing slope if the proposed setback from the slope is deceased from its proposed 13'? Will the proposed "erosion mat" still suffice? Please provide additional information from the soils engineer regarding this issue. Msce/Zaneot/s Previously the existing dwelling units along Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive were shown on the civil plan sheet 4, in accordance with a previous request; now they have been deleted. Please add them back to civil plan sheet 4. RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMYIK ^ ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 SECOND ISSUES REVIEW L. ROSENSTEIN MEMO; DECEMBER 6, 2000 Thank you for showing the sight distance sight lines on all of the applicable plan sheets. Landscape plan sheet 5, however, needs to be revised. The sight line must be clear. Therefore, either remove all of the proposed trees that encroach into the sight line, or, place the following notes on sheet 5: "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level, nor having a canopy less than 8 feet above the street level, may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition." X"The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development." ^Also, please revise the planting legend so that the above first note will work, if it is used. As before, staff had hoped to be able to draft the Engineering Conditions of Approval for the project at this time. However, not all issues were addressed, and, with the additional information that was provided, other new issues surfaced. Even though the project seems to have been in review for quite some time, the formal first issue review was not conducted until all of the requisite information was submitted; that review was not until August 28, 2000. Again, staff will work with the applicant; however, all issues must be resolved. A redlined check print is attached for the applicant's use in making the requested revisions. This redlined check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. If you or anyone from ANA have any questions, please contact me directly at 760/602-2747. MICHAEL J. SHI Associate Engineer - Engineering/Development Services Attachment Cc: Senior Civil Engineer - Engineering/Development Services Associate Planner - M. Grim tBP/Architecture Newport Beach • Oakland • Los Angeles •*0V 15 2000 November 14, 2000 Lori Rosenstein Management Analyst-Housing & Redevelopment CITY OF CARLSBAD 2695 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Re: Planning Resubmittal Army and Navy Academy RP99-14/CD99-49 tBP P/N 99014.00 Dear Lori: We have completed our responses to the City's comments and submit the enclosed documents per the following: LETTER FROM MICHAEL J. SHIREY DATED AUGUST 28, 2000: Traffic & Transportation 1. 2. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4&5 Architecture Planning Interiors Management ADT added to sheet 1 (previous sheet AS-1). Sitelines indicated on sheets 5, 4 and 2 (previous sheets L-l, C-4 and AS-3). Parking spaces revised on site plans. Yes. Parking lot lights are indicated on sheet 2 (previous sheet AS-3). Parking lot is fully dimensioned on civil site plan, sheet 4. See enclosed Hydrology Study from DCI Engineering, Inc., the project's Civil Engineer. Information indicated on civil site plan, drawing 4. Sewer and Water See enclosed letter from Nack and Pezeshki Engineering, the project's Mechanical Engineer. Information is indicated on the civil site plan. Grading and Drainage la. See enclosed Hydrology Study from DCI Engineering, Inc. for water runoff flows. lb &lc See revised civil site plan, drawing 4. Id. Vegetated brow ditch is indicated on civil site plan. 2. See revised civil site plan and enclosed memo from Kleinfelder, Inc., the project's Geotechnical Engineer. 2300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA 92663-3799 • Phone: (949) 673-0300 • Fax: (949) 673-9267 Lori Rosenstein City of Carlsbad Analyst tBP P/N 99014.00 Page 2 Land Title and Mapping 1. See revised encumbrance plot drawing 2, per discussions between Mike Shirey and Doug Melchoir, the project's Land Surveyor. 2. As requested, we have revised the order of our drawings as directed and per my discussion with Lori Rosenstein. 3. See enclosed plans. LETTER FROM LORI ROSENSTEIN DATED AUGUST 7, 2000: Building Department 1. Added one accessible (handicapped) parking space on site plans. 2. Added the existing archery range enclosure on site plan drawings. As discussed, we will await the City's direction regarding any additional issues and public hearings, do not hesitate to contact Colonial Miller, Anthony DePaola or myself with any questions. Very Truly Yours, Please tBP/Architecture 5rales Project Architect cc: Colonial Stephan Miller, Army and Navy Academy Anthony DePaola, tBP/Architecture Enclosures: 6 sets of blueline drawings August 28 letter from Mike Shirey August 7 letter from Lori Rosenstein Redlined check prints October 26 letter from Nack & Pezeshki Engineering Hydrology Study from DCI Engineering, Inc. Fire Flow Hydraulic Calculations from Nack and Pezeshki Engineering November 13 memorandiun from Kleinfelder, Inc. RM/nm P/99014/Proj Mngmt/Corresp/Ll 1 BOORosenstein NACK& PEZESHKI ENGINEERING 300 Carisbad Village Drive Suite 205 Carisbad, CA 92008 Ph: (760) 720-1205 Fax: (760) 720-0841 E-mail: nack(S,primenet.coin October 26,2000 tBP/Architecture 2300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Atten: Robert Morales Re: Army/Navy Academy Carlsbad, CA . Public Works - Engineering Comments tBP/Architecure No. 99033.00 Nack & Pezeshki Engineering No. CA941N RECEIVED NOV 2 7 2000 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Dear Robert: Below, please find our responses to the comments made by Mr. Michael J. Shirey of the City of Carlsbad Public Works Department in his letter of August 28, 2000. We are only responding the "Sewer & Water" comments portion of the letter. 1. Is the sewer lateral that is being shown on the civil site plan, sheet C-4, existing or proposed? - The sewer lateral is proposed. If it is proposed, how did the existing building sewer, and why is the sewer flow being changed? - The sewer exiting the proposed building cannot meet the existing invert elevations. In addition future phEises to the campus would necessitate the proposed sewer lateral. 2. Are the water meters being shown in the civil site plan, sheet C-4, existing or proposed? - The domestic and fire water lateral are proposed. If they are proposed, the water meters must he located with in the public right of way. - Concur, see revised sheet PS-1. Also, what size meters are going to be required? The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) maximum meter size is 2 inch. - 2" Meter will be used, see revised PS-1. -•^.^ Mr. Morales October 26, 2000 Page 2 NACK& PEZESHKI ENGINEERING Show a Double Detector Check Valve (DDCV) assembly for the fire flow line. - See PS-1 for location and installation. 3. Please label the type of pipe proposed for the water line (laterals) on sheet C-4 - See sheet PS-1 for mformation. 4. Please label the size and type of pipe for the existing sewer and water line in Pacific Avenue on sheet C-4, as follows: Sewer = 8 inch VCP; Water = 6 inch RTAC, per DWG-133-6. Concur, see revised sheet PS-1. 5.. Please list project demandfor potable water in gallons per minute (gpm), on sheet AS-l. - See revised PS-1. 6. Meet with City's Fire Marshall to determine fire flow demand in gpm. Show this fire flow demand on sheet AS-1. - See revised PS-1. Also see attached hydraulic calculations that determine fire flow. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any comments or questions. Sincerely, Nack & Pezeshki Engine^a^g David 1^/^ck, P.E. Princj cc: Anthony DePaola BliirfSINEERING/DEVELOPMENT SEi% ^ICES PROJECT REPORT PROJECTID: RP 99-14, CDP 99-49 PREPARED BY: Michael J. Shirey PROJECT NAME: Army/Navy Academy APPROVED BY: SlJ Dormitory Reconstruction LOCATION: South side of Pacific Avenue, between Ocean Street and Mountain View Drive BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Reconstruct existing dormitory after fire. ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION: Traffic and Circulation: Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 1400 (for entire site); which include, 450 (for dormitory) Traffic Study Performed by: N/A Comment: There are no major traffic or circulations issues associated with the proposed project. Sewer: Sewer District: Carisbad Sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (edu's) Required: Dormitory - Utilizing High School criteria of 1 edu/30 pupils: 80 pupils X 1 edu/30 pupils = 2.70 Total EDU's = 3.00 Entire Site - Utilizing High School criteria of 1 edu/30 pupils, and Faculty Housing criteria of 1 edu/unit: 304 pupils X 1 edu/30 pupils =10.13 + 7 units X 1 edu/unit = 7.00 Total EDU's =17.13 Total EDU's = 17.00 Comment: The project civil and sewer design engineer have both determined that the existing 6" VCP sewer lateral for the dormitory must be replaced due to its age and its potential for failure at the connection points with the existing sewer mainline within Pacific Avenue. Therefore, this existing 6" VCP lateral will be replaced with a new 6" PVC lateral. Water: Water District: Carlsbad EDU's Required: Dormitory 3/Entire Site 17 Gallons Per Day (gpd) Required: Dormitory - 3edu's x 220gpd/edu = 660gpd Entire Site - 17edu's x 220gpd/edu = 3740gpd Comment: There are no major water issues associated with the proposed project. Grading: Quantities: Cut = 1400 cy; Fill = 1900 cy; Import 500cy; Export = Ocy (See comment below.) Permit Required: YES Off-site Approval required/obtained: YES/YES Hillside Grading Requirements met: N/A Preliminary Geo-technical Investigation Performed by: Kleinfelder, Inc. Comment: Off-site slope stability mitigation is required for the proposed parking lot slopes, within the North County Transit District (NCTD) right of way. NCTD has submitted documentation that they are aware of and concur with the proposed grading and mitigation. In accordance with the documentation that NCTD submitted, the grading contractor will be required to obtain a "Right of Entry" permit from NCTD prior to any grading within their right of way. Drainage and Erosion Control: Drainage Basin: A Preliminary Hydrology Study Performed by: DCI Engineering, Inc. Erosion Potential: High (On proposed parking lot slopes within the NCTD right of way.) Comment: A 3' deep private retention basin shall be installed adjacent to the proposed parking lot. This basin will reduce the post-developed 10-Year, 6-Hour storm to pre-developed conditions, in accordance with California Coastal Commission Mello II criteria. This basin will also function as a structural pollutant mitigation device in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES), and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) criteria. Land Title: Conflicts with existing easement: YES (See comment below.) Easement dedication required: NO Site boundary coincides with land title: YES Comment: A number of older easements and street dedications ("paper streets"), that are no longer in use, traverse the site. Construction ofthe dormitory and parking lot will not effect any existing easements. Improvements: Off-site improvements: NO Standard Variance Required: NO Comment: Previously, in accordance with Design Review Board (DRB) Resolution No. 233, approved on October 4,1995, construction phasing conditions of approval were placed on Redevelopment Permit (RP) 94-02. These phasing conditions were placed on the project to construct full street improvements when any future Redevelopment Permits within the ANA Master Plan were submitted. The current application is for the reconstruction of one of the ANA dormitories which was severely damaged by fire. To meet City parking requirements, a parking lot must also be constructed. Generally, with discretionary review of a project, exactions are made on the developer/applicant to complete street/infrastructure frontage improvements concurrent with development. Thus, the previous construction phasing condition. Since approval of DRB Resolution No. 233, the City enacted an Alternative Street Design ordinance, NS-555/556, on June 27, 2000, which designates certain streets as alternative design streets. Alternative design streets are either to be constructed concurrent with adjacent development, or, deferred in accordance with a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA). The two streets adjacent to this proposed project are: Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive. Both of these streets are designated as alternative design streets. Since this proposed project is a reconstruction of a damaged building, rather than additional development ofthe property, rather than improving these two streets at this time, a NIA will be executed by ANA, so as to secure improvements to these streets in the future, once an alternative design is prepared. Condition of Approval No. 10, of DRB Resolution No. 233, is still applicable to the ANA Master Plan and is still valid and in full force and effect, however, the condition will be held in abeyance until such time as the ANA submits for an actual Master Plan Amendment (MPA). Once a MPA is submitted, the phasing condition shall once again become operative, and improvements shall be completed, in accordance with the phasing plan, the NIA, and, alternative street design criteria. 02/27/01 14:37 ©714 673 9267 T.B.P. 121002/002 February 26, ZOOl Mike Kohls ^^OBiy^L^ TBP Architecture f^EB 9 7 'iftn* 2300 Newport Blvd. - 7D>»n Newport Beach, CA 92663 ^^OHITECTI f'- • Re: Parking Lot Improvements adjacent to NCTD Railroad ROW Dear Mr. Kohls, NCTD is in favor of slope stabilization in the NCTD Railroad ROW as required to support constmction of the parking lot facility at the NW Comer of Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. Our understanding is that you intend to regrade eroded areas of the slope and piace ground cover if required to provide further stabilization. As we discussed, we will not allow any permanent irrigation to be placed on the NCTD slopes. Note that we will require that your contractor obtain a "Right of Entry Pennit" from NCTD to work on the slope, which we will issue at no cost. Please keep me informed on the status of this project. Sincerely, Chip Willeit General ROW Consultant Mike Shirey - Carlsbad Blvd Bridge Page 1 From: <Helming956(gaol.com> To: <mshir(@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 10/19/00 10:29AM Subject: Carlsbad Blvd Bridge The decision has been made to not replace the Carlsbad Blvd. bridge over the SDNR tracks. To remedy the drainage ponding at the corner of Mountain View & Pacific we should look to the NH Academy to complete the street improvements in this area along with their onsite construction. Doug Helming Helming Engineering, Inc. (760) 431-5999 Fax (760) 602-0614 CC: <mplan@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering August 28, 2000 Robert Morales TBP ARCHITECTURE 2300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 - MPA & DORMITORIES FIRST ISSUES REVIEW Dear Robert, Engineering Department staff have completed a third review of the above-referenced project for application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for the project are complete. Prior to engineering staff making a determination on the project, the following engineering issues of concern must be resolved/adequately addressed: Traffic & Transportation vn. Thank you for submitting the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) information for the project. As ^ p[previously requested, however, please add this information (i.e., ADT = 450tpd) to sheet AS-1. 2^^ Please indicate proposed and future clear 275 ft. Caltrans Corner Sight Distance sight lines, for both directions at the proposed driveway, on the preliminary landscape plan sheet L-1; civil site plan, sheet C-4; and, architectural site plan, sheet AS-3. 3. Please adequately address the following issues regarding the proposed parking lot: <^ Proposed parking spaces that are adjacent to each other at an angle must have 5' offsets for motorist maneuverability. skT Is parking lot lighting required/proposed? i/* V Please fully dimensiorUhe proposed parking lot (i.e., parking spaces, drivexiA x — ^ aisle, driveway, etc) I^W ZO'^cis s' ' ^^f^ff^ '^'^^^ ^'H / cirr^Sijt _ Provide calculations showing that the retention basin is of sufficient size to fS^lSfH. retain a 10-Year storm event, in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. ^Jy^ ^^^cTi ///j^//^!^?^\A^^'^^ you for showing the location of the existing dwelling units (D/U) along the north i^/t"H^ Uff ftrrr* f gj(jg Qf Pacific Avenue. However, as requested at the June 6, 2000, staff/applicant IXfJuk^ meeting, please also show the topography to the edge of pavement (EP), where the EBj^ ^ / is located, any existing improvements/utilities, etc.UJVv^*if Ad WtJ-^^'Tbpa ^ (^/^"^^ Jl^ ^^1, Please add typical street sections for Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive on the ^^^^ ^ civil site plan, sheet C-4, showing existing and "potential" future improvements and label v$<L S'Vt as -h.|«V,^^W.^ xs to fvT. •xfl- ''^\ 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562^ ^ RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARiWY/NAVY ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 FIRST ISSUES REVIEW R. MOI^LES LETTER; AUGUST 28, 2000 Sewer & Water / y V - JH-."^ is the,^ sewer lateral that is being shown on the civil site plan, sheet C-4, existing or ^^^y. ^ropose^ If it is proposed, how did the existing building sewer, and why is the sewer "^^^^^t**^ ^ / y. flow being Changed? CT!91^>WC •\W'^TRfUi'^rV*^*^ S/Mb^f ^'^ JL. — P&C'Are the water meters being shown on the civil site plan, sheeJ.^CM, existing orVVVAvK^^ proposed? If they are proposed, the water meters must be locate;i^5Whin the public right <n^»]^ of way. Also, what size meters are going to be required^j^me Carisbad Municipal ^^^^T^lj^h • Water District (CMWD) maximuayneter size is 2 inch. Show a Double Detector Check cStlW. t^^^ Valve (DDCV) assembly for thQ^ow line(;f)K/4^ yw€W(v) ^Ujcwfe- \yCCO ^tO^iefer^ Please label the type of pipe proposed for water line (laterals) on sheet C-4. . Please label the size and type of pipe for the existing sewer and wateriine in Pacific X^O lO j Aj^goue on sheet C-4, as follows: Sewer =\^ch Y^l^Water =i64nch FiJAd^, per DWG ^ Please list project demand for potable water in gallons per minute (gpm), on sheet AS-1. ^ Meet with the City's Fire Marshall to determine fire flow demand in gpm. Show this the fire flow demand on sheet AS-1. Grading & Drainaae 1. Drainage issues for the proposed building. a^ Multiple roof drains discharging directly to Pacific Avenue are unacceptable. ^ Roof runoff must be captured on-site and then should be directed through a vegetated swale along the front of the building, tying into the proposed on-site storm drain. Submit calculations showing the proposed runoff flows (Q in cfs) and velocity (V in fps) for the discharge into the street for a 100-Year storm event. ^ Show how the westerly proposed retaining wall is going to drain in accordance with the Preliminary Geo-technical Study, Section 3.10 on page 11. >j2^ Indicate the "top-of-wall (TW)/bottom-of-wall (BW)" retaining wall heights.- Is the flow line that is being shown at the toe of slope on the south side of the =*.-z 'A«/f •fe ^ building supposed to be a Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) or vegetated , brow ditch? The Preliminary Geo-technical Study, Section 3.2 on page's 6 & 7, states that the existing slope along the northeriy side of the proposed parking lot, ". . . is too steep for long term surficial stability." The report lists as mitigation measures: 1) using erosion mats; or, 2) re-grading the slope at 1^/4:1 (City Standards are 2:1). If this existing slope will not provide stability for the proposed parking lot, then it must be mitigated. Therefore, provide documentation from the Soils Engineer specifically indicating whether this slope is impacted by the proposed parking lot and whether it must be mitigated (i.e., re-graded and compacted at ^•V/(JA/tf /fe //t ^vi'^''J/^(5U0$ Wfl^f" sl / > / RP99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY (ANA) 1999 3 FIRST ISSUES REVIEW \ .s R. MORALES LETTER; AUGUST 28, 2000 Land Title & Mapping ^'Q ^v\l^^ /17 Unfortunately, the easement information that is being shown is still incorrect. Sheet C-1 indicates that the August 11,1999, Preliminary title Report (PR) was used, however, the A*^^ llf-^ numbering is off. For example, PR Item No.'s 4, 6, 7 & 13 on sheet C-1 are really Itemr-) , i /l» No.'s 6, 9, 10 & 16 of Schedule "B" of the PR. Also, it seems that not all of thefeVj] '^.1 Vljy applicable easements have been shown. For example, various easements indicate that L^*'''*!. \^ they affect certain parcels, like parcel 'A" or Parcel "E." But then, other easements that (I'f j^tjn also indicate that they reflect the same parcels are not shown. It seems that easement , ]^ item No.'s 11-15, 17, 18, 22-25, 27-35, 45 and 46 still must be shown. The way that the y . A, information is being shown (i.e., tabular information with corresponding numbers is 3fi»' I acceptable), but, it seems that the information must be shown with greater accuracy./K-jp^j^^ Please verify and revise. ^^'^'^ Please create a new Site Plan, plan set, as follows: Make sheet's AS-1, AS-3, C-1, C-4 ^ ^and L-1, sheet's 1 through 5 of 5, respectively. Please make sure that any revisions that are made to one plan sheet, are also made to any other applicable plan sheets. Staff had hoped to be able to draft the Engineering Conditions of Approval for the project at this time. However, as previously indicated, specific engineering issues of concern were not previously addressed because the application was still incomplete. The remaining engineering issues have now been identified. A redlined check print is attached for your use in making the requested revisions. This redlined check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. If you or anyone from ANA have any questions, please contact me directly at 760/602-2747. MICHAEC^HIRE^ Associate Engineer - Engineering/Development Services attachment Senior Civil Engineer - Engineering/Development Services Associate Planner - M. Grim Management Analyst - L. Rosenstein HEIMINQ ENqiNEERiNq, INC. DATE: AUGUST 17, 2000 TO: MIKE SHIREY, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, CITY OF CARLSBAD FROM: DOUG HELMING, CONSULTANT PROJECT MANAGER SUBJECT: ARMY-NAVY ACADEMY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS; Ref. - Carlsbad Blvd. Bridge Replacement, Proj. No. 3557 1. I recommend that the Army-Navy Academy be conditioned to construct street improvements along Pacific and Mountain View Drive to match into existing Carisbad Blvd. 2. The future right-of-way needs for the widening of Carisbad Blvd. should be protected in the area where they propose to build a new parking lot. The time schedule for the widening of Carlsbad Blvd. may not proceed as we originally thought. By conditioning the Academy to construct improvements along their frontage we would have the options of: • Having them construct the improvements if the bridge widening does not proceed at this time, or • Having them bond or do a future improvement agreement for the improvements so the City can reduce it's costs when we do widen the Bridge and Carisbad Blvd., or • Backing of the condition at a later time if the City later determines it is not necessary. Thank you for allowing me to comment on the proposed improvements by the Army-Navy Academy. Call me if you have questions on the above. Doug Civii ENGINEERS MUNICIPAI CONSULTAINTS LANCI PIANNERS 5962 loPlflce Court, Suite 245, Cflrlsbod,CA 92008 • (760)431-5999 Fox (760) 602-0614 • E-moil: tielming956@Qol.toin August 7, 2000 City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department ROBERT MORALES TBP ARCHITECTURE 2300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SUBJECT: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY (RP99-14/CDP99-49) On June 26, 2000 the Housing and Redevelopment Department received the revised project plans and corresponding project information requested by the City of Carlsbad in our letter to you dated March 31, 2000. The items requested from you earlier to make your Major Redevelopment Permit (application no. RP99-14) and Coastal Development Permit (application no. CDP99-49) complete have been received and reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Department along with all other appropriate City departments. It has been determined that the applications are now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your applications may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is July 26, 2000. Please note that although the applications are now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the applications that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. The following list of issues of concern contains all comments I have received to date from other departments. Additional comments wili be forthcoming under a separate letter. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813 if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. Sincerely, LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Attachment c: Mike Grim, Planning Department Mike Smith, Fire Department Pat Kelley, Building Department 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^ Issues of Concern Building Department: The Building Department has completed its review of the subject project for application completeness. The following issues have been identified: 1. The Mountain View parking area still does not have adequate handicapped parking. Please consult State Code Section 1129B; Table 11 B-6 for correct accessible parking ratios in each lot. 2. The civil site plan does not show the illegal structure (the archery range enclosure) for which the applicant was recently sent a violation notice. If it is intended for the illegal structures to remain, the site plan should show all proposed structures. RKJK & ASSOCIATES INC. June 22, 2000 Mr. Mike Shirey, CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA, 92008 Subject: Army and Navy Academy Dally Trip Generation Dear Mr. Shirey: This letter provides a follow up to our telephone conversation on June 20, 2000. As we discussed, the report previously prepared by RKJK & Associates (RKJK) did not include an average daily traffic (ADT)/daily trip generation estimate for the Army and Navy Academy. The previous report was focused on the potential effects of closing Cypress Avenue (which is no longer under consideration), and no site specific ADT estimate was needed. We have therefore prepared an ADT estimate based on San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) criteria. The recommended explanatory variable for middle/junior high schools is the number of students enrolled. Both the current Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan serve 320 students, most of whom reside at the site. Table 1 summarizes the daily ADT estimate for the Army and Navy Academy. There is no change in the projected daily ADT estimate from the current Master Plan to the proposed Master Plan. It is a pleasure providing this information for your review and use in processing the project application. If you have any questions regarding this, please give me a call at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Carieton Waters, P.E. Senior Associate CW:sjf/11149 JN:1229-99-01 XC: Mr.Richard Hannasch, ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY Attachment Mr. Robert Morales, TBP ARCHITECTURE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING • GIS • TRAFFIC/ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING 1 601 Dove Street, Suite 290 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone:(949)474-0809 • Fax:(949)474-0902 TABLE 1 ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY DAILY TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY EXPLANATORY VARIABLE QUANTITY DAILY TRIP RATE'^ DAILY TRIPS Students 320 1.4 ^ 450 Daily Trip Rate Source:(Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Governments, July, 1998. j:kktables\kk11100\kk11149tb JN:1229-99-01 ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2000 June 22, 2000 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Housing and Development Department City of Carisbad 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carisbad, CA 92018 Attn: Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst RE: Under-grounding of Utilities Planning Submittal Comment Dear Ms. Rosenstein: Inspiring Excellence Since 1910 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED JUN 26 2000 tBP ARCHITECTURE RECEIVED JUL 1 2 2000 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT This letter is in response to the City Engineering Department's, "Major Issues of Concern," comment from your letter dated March 31, 2000. Army and Navy Academy's administrators met with San Diego Gas and Electric, our architect (tBP), and our electrical engineer (GLP/Karjala) to discuss under-grounding of existing overhead utilites. Attached is GLP/Karjala's memo dated May 8, 2000, and SDG&E's response dated May 12, 2000. As presented and discussed at our June 6 meeting, we propose to relocate utility poles within our Phase 1 Scope of Work in lieu of under-grounding. Our proposal is due to impacts on the residential properties on the north side of Pacific Avenue and our campus-renewal master plan. Under-grounding will be considered during future phases as required by our master plan and the City of Carlsbad. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to me at 760-729-23 85, x207. Sincexely, Stephen A. Miller President cc: Anthony DePaola, tBP/Architecture Post Offic* Box 3000 Carlsbad, CA 92018 (760) 729-2385 ext. 207 Fax (760) 720-7121 www.armyandnavyacademy.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION Revised June 19, 2000 PROJECT NAME: Army and Navy Academy Dormitory Buildings, Parking and Street improvements APPLICANT NAME: Army and Navy Academy Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: Proposed Buildings: Proposed Parking: Subtotal Proposed Master Plan Amendments: 80 Bed Student Dormitory, Building 3 (Phase 1) 25 On-site Parking Spaces (Existing) 48 On-site Parking Spaces (Phase 1) 73 Parking Spaces 1. Amendment to the Design Guidelines for an Optional Architectural Design Guideline. 2. Amendment to the Phasing Schedule for replacement of fire damaged Dorman Hall as Phase 1. RECEIVED JUL 1 2 2000 ENG114EERING •£PART^AENT DATE: TO; ATTN.: FROM: PROJECT: SUBJECT: CLIENT REF. GLP Karjala Associates, Inc. Consulting Electrical Engineers Mays, 2000 RECEIVED tBP Architeclura JUL 1 2 2000 Tony DePaola Joel Brandts ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2000 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FAX MEMO Page 1 of 2 ELECTRICAL MASTER PLAN FOR ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY CARLSBAD, CA UNDERGROUNDING OF ELECTRICAL UTILITIES ON PACIFIC AVENUE 99046 GLPKNO.: OO010 Our 5-4-00 Meeting with San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) was both enlightening and productiwe. Don Aitevers. Customer Project Planner for SDG&E, helped clarify a number of considerations as well as the magnitude of work (both in design and construction) involved in changing the existing overhead utilities to underground. Street improvements on Pacific Avenue will be included with the upcoming construction of the Donnitory Buiiding. We informed SDG&E ofthe City's desire to underground the utilities with these street Improvements. SDG&E pointed out the following: 1. The existing utility poles serve the residential properties on the north side of Pacific Avenue. At the present time, these properties do not have facilities for underground services, Ifthe utility lines were to go undergound at this time, utility poles would have to be added aiong the north side of Pacific Avenue to accommodate these existing services, 2. SDG&E requires a reasonable amount of time to design an underground distribution system (they need 8 to 10 weeks to design the Dormitory Building's services exclusive of any street improvements). SDG&E explained that the existing utility poles include not only primary distribution lines, but transformers, capacitors, switches, etc., (as well as telephone and CATV lines). All this hardware must be considered and redistributed. 3. SDG&E can not design an underground distribution system that wil! facilitate the Army and Navy Academy's future until the Army and Navy's Electrical Master Plan has progressed further (it is our understanding thatthe Electrical Master Plan will commence later this year). The Electrical Master Plan is a large, lengthy endeavor that includes the following: a. As-built Phase I. Site visits to review existing conditions. ii. Meetings with the Owner's representative to verify specific as—built conditions. 3185-C AinA/ay Avenue • Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4601 Phone: (714) 751-1851 • Fax: (714)751-4216 - Email: files lpk.com GLP K^r'i^la Associates, Inc. Consulting Electrical Engineers FAX MEMO Page 2 of 2 III. Electrical drawings including the following: (1) Site as-built electrical plans showing the existing power, fire alarm, telephone and other systems cn campus. (2) Site electrical load calculations based upon the overall campus Master Plan. Time Frame: Two to three weeks from date of authorization to proceed. b. Repon Phase i. Attend meetings with Architect and Owner to determine Master Plan priorities. ii. Review Architect's Master Plan building layout. IV. III. IV. Meet and coordinate with San Diego Gas & Electric to determine incoming service options for the different areas of the campus. Electrical drawings including the following; (1) Preparation of Electrical Master Plan schematic drawings in 11" x 17" forma:. (2) Preparation of written Master Plan Report in 8 1/2" x 11" format. (3) Drawings, sketches and studies for the various options around the campus for supplying power and signal systems for the present and future buildings. V. Time Frame: Three to four weeks from date of completion of as-built phase. As the various considerations and timeframes were discussed, it became increasingly more apparent that the existing utility poles on Pacific Avenue should be relocated to facilitate the street improvements for the Dormitory Building (in lieu of the utilities going underground). The Electrical Master Plan will indude consolidation of the Army and Navy's electrical sen/ices and undergrounding of electrical utilities. Please call with any questions and/or comments. -END- rifflA/P\PrO(«cltv00010 Army i Navy. Dortinl6P.508.00,i«pO 3185-C AiHA/ay Avenue • Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4601 Phone: (714) 751-1851 • Fax: (714)751-4216 • Email: files@glpk.com cii-P Kariai^ Associaies, inc. C suiting Electrical Hngineers m 12 GLP Kari^^ TO: ^ i DESCRIPTION COMR^NTS Page 1 of ^ (Irldudes This Page) ^^<VC<- T FAX: (714)7^1-4216 Aimay Av"enU« - Costa Me«. 9262fr460i • (714)751^ OA .4 TQTRL P.01 Racaivid Itey-lZ-OD D8:50aB Froir To-GLP KARJALA ASSOC, Pw 01 memo HEliviiNq ENqiNEERlNq, INC. .5962 La Place Court, Suite WM Garlshad, CA 920081 . (760)431-5999 • Fox (760) 602^0614 Date: April 17,2000 To: Mike Shirey, City of Carlsbad From: Doug Helming, Consultant Project Manager Subject: CARLSBAD BLVD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, PROJECT NO. 3557 The project is currently in a temporary circle pattern. We are trying to get Caltrans to agree to bridge replacement funding of more than the $1 million they have currently offered from seismic retrofit funds. The plans you saw are where we are currently at in the design development area. I estimate that if we proceed with the bridge replacement project we would not get to construction for at least two years. We have to go through NEPA environmental clearance due to federal funding requirements. If we do not do a bridge replacement at this time, a possibility, the bridge would have to have a seismic retrofit done. This process would not change the existing physical alignment at Mountain View and Carisbad Blvd. ^ I think that the A/N Academy would do the improvements to Mountain View and maybe the return at Pacific that would match into the existing Carisbad Blvd. and be as compatible as | possible with the proposed Carisbad Blvd. Bridge replacement project. "Sec? General Information CITY OF CARLSBAD w Pro->,rft Id : C^Z^^F^-^^ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR : ^'^^Y^^^'^X ^^f^ff}^ Conditional use permits, condominium permits, master plans, planned development permits, planning commission determinations, redevelopment permits, non-floodplain special use permits, specific plans and site development plans. The following checked items were incomplete or missing from the ^ site plan or application package and must be completed or submitted prior to further Engineering review of the project: U> J\/J A. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant, owner and Engineer or Architect who prepared the plan. B. North arrow and scale. C. Vicinity map showing major cross streets. D. Date of preparation/revisions. E. Project Name and Application Types submitted. F. Name of sewer, water and school districts providing service _Y to the project. M.. G. All facilities labeled as "existing" or "proposed". /v^ H. A summary table of the following: 1. Street address and assessors parcel number. /v7 2. Site acreage. IxZy 3. Existing zone and land use. /tX 4. Proposed land use. I\/ 5. Total building coverage. M 6. Building square footage. 7. Percent Landscaping. /l/l. 8. Number of parking spaces required/provided. /v/. 9. Square Footage of open or recreational space (if applicable). 10. fiihir fnntaoe of storaae space (if applicable). Ji, ^^kf 11. <!^eraqe Daily Traffi'c>qenerated by the project broken down by TTk^ .-> separate uses^^ . II. Site Information ^ A. General 1. Approximate location of existing and proposed buildings and permanent structures on site and within 100 feet of site. 2. Location of all major vegetation showing size and type. 3. Location of railroads. 4. Bearings and distances of each exterior boundary line. 5. Distance between buildings and/or structures. 6. Building set backs (front, side and rear). 7. Location, height and materials of walls and fences. V / \y 8. Location of free standing signs. y B. Street ar^'^ltilities 1. The location, width and proposed name of all streets within and adjacent to the proposed project. Show street grades and centerline radi i. Name, location and width of "existing adjacent streets and alleys, Include medians and adjacent driveway locations. /v/ 3. Typical street cross sections for all adjacent and streets ly/ _> within project. ^ 4. Width, locationj_4;>^ use of all existing and/or proposed oublic or private OTsemenii. lAj V Iris. C-V) W up _ 5. Public and prTvlte streets Vnd utilites clearly identified.*^^" 6. Show distance between all intersections and medium and high^[^^^y< use driveways. av^Uu 7. Clearly show parking stall and isle dimensions and truck ^" turning radii for all parking areas. 8. Show access points to adjacent undeveloped lands. 9. Show all existing and proposed street lights and utilities (sewer, water, major gas and fuel lines, major electric and telephone / facilities) within and adjacent to the project. 10. Show location of all fire hydrants within 300 feet of site. C. Grading and Drainage 1. Approximate contours at I' intervals for slopes less than 5%, 2' intervals for slopes between 5% and 10%, and 5' intervals for slopes over 10% (both existing and proposed). Existing and proposed topographic contours within a 100 foot perimeter of the boundaries of the site. Existing onsite trees; those to be removed y/ _ and those to be saved; <5»N5k'dt> ^f<?cvloi^ ^"PP. JL« 2. Earthwork volumes; cut, fill, import and export. i^t€. i^l^v-Vy ^ ><r 3. Spot elevations at the corners of each pad. XheioCv-) 4> ^P^b^^'. l7 JW"^ 4. Method of draining each lot. Include a typical cross section taken parallel to the frontage for lots with less than standard frontage. /vf 5. Location, width and/or size of all watercourses and drainage facilities within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision show location approximate size of any proposed detention/retention basins. J><f 6. Clearly show and label the 100 year flood line for the before and after conditions for any project which is within or adjacent to a FEMA flood plain. ,14.7 For projects with an average daily traffic (ADT) generation rate greater than 500 vehicles per day: Two (2) copies of a Circulation Impact Analysis for the project. The analysis must be prepared by an appropriate registered Engineer. The analysis must show project impacts to all intersections and road segments Identified as impacted within the included Local Facilities Management Plan. The following should be included with the study: a) 8 1/2" X 11" or 8 1/2" x 14" plats showing zone impacted roads, background and project AM and PM peak hour impacts and traffic distribution. b) Project traffic generation rates c) Necessary calculations and or analysis to determine intersection and road segment levels of service. d) Any proposed mitigation requirements to maintain the public facility standards. ^^15. Two copies of preliminary soils/geologic report for all project with cut or '^fill depths exceeding 5 feet. City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department April 12, 2000 ROBERT MORALES TBP ARCHITECTURE 2300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SUBJECT: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY (RP99-14/CDP99-49) This letter is intended as a follow-up to my last letter, dated March 31, 2000, containing items needed to complete the major redevelopment permit application and issues of concern. The following constitute the latest comments received from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District following their review of the plans dated February 10, 2000: ^>'The project shall be planned to use recycled water for on-site irrigation. 2. Two new water meters and services shall be required, one for potable water'to the buildings and one for the irrigation system. 3. Improvements to Mountain View Drive: a. Relocation of existing water appurtenances are required. b. Existing water pipeline may need to be relocated and the size increased depending on fire flow requirements. c. Sewer laterals may need to be installed for buildings to receive sewer service. d. A new sewer access hole is required depending on sewer lateral size and locations. If you have any questions regarding the comments contained in this letter please contact either Bill Plummer of the Carisbad Municipal Water District at (760) 438-2722 or my office at (760) 434-2813. Sincerely, LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst RECEIVED c: Mike Shirey, Engineering Department Mike Grim, Planning Department Bill Plummer, Carisbad Municipal Water District Mike Smith, Fire Department Pat Kelley, Building Department m.. 1 3 2000 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^ V M. tBP/Architecture June 19, 2000 Housing and Development Department City of Carlsbad 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92018 Attn: Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst Re: RP99-14/CDP99-49 Resubmittal Response Army and Navy Academy tBP P/N 99014.00 Dear Ms. Rosenstein: RECEIVED JUN 26 2000 Of CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Architecture Planninj^ Interions Management RECEIVED JUL 1 2 2000 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT In response to the City of Carlsbad's comments dated March 31, 2000, we resubmit the following as our written responses. Additionally, the Academy has deleted Phase 3 and Phase 8 from their application. ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. Quality of drawings: As presented and accepted at our June 6 meeting with Mike Shirey, the attached civil site plan is hereby submitted. 2. Traffic Information: The attached previous traffic study dated December 7, 1993 and the attached letter from the Study's Traffic Engineer are submitted as requested. 3. Application Number: As previously requested, application numbers were placed on site plans. All attached drawings now have the application numbers. 4. Easement Information: Included in the submittal is an encumbrance plat on our site plan, and each easement's recording information. 5. Street Lights: The attached civil site plan indicates Phase 1 street lights along Pacific Avenue. 6. 7. See Connment No. 1 note. Carlsbad Blvd. Street Improvements: We met with Doug Helming and have indicated "future capitol improvements" per his "preliminary" plan, which is attached. 8. Hydrology Information: No comment. 2300 Newport Boiikvard • Newport Beach, CA 92663-3799 • Phone:(949) 673-03 00 • Fax: (949) 673-9267 Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst Housing and Development Department City of Carlsbad Page 2 of 3 ENGINEERING COMMENTS (continued) 9. Major Issue of Concern: The under-grounding of utilities is addressed in the attached letter from the Army and Navy Academy, and the attached correspondences regarding discussions with SDG&E. HOUSING ANr> REDEVELOPMENT COMMENTS 1. Site Plan: See attached revised Phase 1 site plan. 2. Architectural Design Guidelines: See attached revised amendment, which identifies the "optional" use of the amendment. 3. Carlsbad Municipal Water District: See attached civil site plan for new water and sewer connections along Pacific Avenue. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1- Fire Sprinkler System: As indicated on our previous submittal and the attached site plan, the proposed dormitory building will be fully fire sprinklered. 2. Existing Buildings: The existing building areas will not be increased. 3. Details: See attached site plan. 4. Additional Requirements: Please provide aU requirements. BUILDING DEPARTMENT (PHASE 1^ 1- New Parking Lot: An accessible space is indicated on th« attached site plan. Additionally, we previously and currently indicate new accessible spaces at the existing parking lot. 2. Remodeling of Existing Admin and Cafeteria Buildings: This work has been deleted from the application Scope of Work. Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst Housing and Development Department City of Carlsbad Page 3 of 3 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (PHASE 1) (continued^ 3. Existing Dormitory Room: This work is a part of the Academy's proposed work. 4. New Dormitory Building: The attached site plan indicates an access ramp and accessible dorms/toilets on the first floor. 5. Temporary Modular Buildings: The attached plans have been revised to clearly note demolition of temporary buildings. Please do not hesitate to call Col. Miller, Tony DePaola or myself with any comments or concerns. Very Truly Yours, IBP/Architecture Robert Morales, Project Architect cc: Col. Steven Miller, Army & Navy Academy Anthony DePaola, tBP/Architecture RM:lkb Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department Ma.ch31,2000 RECEIVED r iRcrrECTURE ^Pf^ " 3 2000 2300 NEWPORT BLVD CM/-IKICCDIM^ NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY (RP99-14/CDP99-49) On February 10, 2000 the Housing and Redevelopment Department received the revised project plans and corresponding project information requested by City of Carlsbad in our letter to you dated October 31, 1999. At the time the plans were resubmitted, I discussed with you the fact that the dormitory bed counts shown for each phase were incorrect and you modified the plans accordingly while you were in my office. At the same time you said that you would be sending me revised bed counts for each of the three phases showing consistency with the Master Plan. In anticipation of this additional information I held off on distributing the revised plans to the other City Departments. After a week and a half I distributed the plans and let the other City Departments know additional information was forthcoming. 1 received the revised bed counts for each phase on March 14, 2000 and immediately distributed this information to the appropriate departments, i also met with staff members from both the Planning and Engineering Departments to discuss the revised plans. It was the general consensus of the group that the plans are very confusing because so much information is being conveyed. As a result, the project itself is becoming very complicated. It was suggested by those staff members present, that we meet with you and your client to discuss the information that is required for this project to be taken forward to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for action. The purpose of the meeting is twofold. First, we would like to discuss the timing of the project and the revisions to the phasing of the public improvements. It was my understanding when we started this project that construction of the,, dormitory to replace the housing that was destroyed in the fire was of utmost importance io the Army and Navy Academy. The land use permit for that building alone should not be a complicated task. However, two more dormitories have been added to the project and the phasing plan and design guidelines for the Master Plan must be revised to accommodate the new dormitories. While all of these things can be accomplished in the redevelopment permit application, I am concerned that your client has a different understanding of the timing associated with the processing of the land use permit based on the original scope of the project. Additionally, I think it is important to discuss the phasing of the public improvements and undergrounding of utilities for the site which will have to be revised to correspond with the current scope of the project. Following the review of the resubmitted plans, staff finds that all of the items requested of you earlier have not been received or are unsuitable for further processing and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. RP99-14/CDP99-49 Engineering: Engineering Department staff have completed a second review of the above-referenced project for application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for the project are still incomplete and unsuitable for continued review due to the following incomplete items: 1. As previously indicated, in general, the plans need to be brought up to site plan submittal quality. These plans are acceptable for an overview of the entire project site. But since the applicant is proposing actual construction of buildings, the plans must be able to be reviewed for engineering issues of concern. To accomplish this, the plans must have a design element to them. They do not have to be full construction improvement drawings, but they do need more legible detail. The applicant did supply additional information on the existing plan sheets, but there is still not enough detail to enable standard engineering review. For example, sheet AS-3 indicates, "drainage structure through/below stairs to swale." Engineering staff must be able to actually review a design parameter like this, rather than just reading a note. So, at a minimum, areas that are being submitted for actual entitlement must be submitted as design quality plans, at a 1" = 20' or 40' scale, for staff to be able to adequately review them. 2. As previously requested, please indicate the project's Average Daily Traffic (ADT) per San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) criteria. Submitting a letter stating that there is no increase in ADT may be acceptable, but the ADT still must be indicated on the actual site plan. Since this is a Master Plan (MP) amendment, and a traffic report was conducted with the original MP, a letter submitted from the previous traffic engineer indicating that there are no changes, or that there is less traffic than was generated for the previous MP, will be acceptable. The letter should reference the previous traffic report, and a copy of the previous report should be submitted. 3. As previously requested, please indicate discretionary review applications RP 99-14 and CDP 99-49 on the site plan. (The applicants re-submittal letter stated that this information was indicated in the Phase 1, 3 & 8 "title block," however staff could not locate it.) Additionally, this information should be indicated on every sheet of the site plan, not just certain individual sheets. * 4. As previously indicated, the easement information that was shown as part of the first check was from the 1996 submittal. This time, the easement information shown was from a Preliminary Title Report (PR) dated Januarv 10. 1994. The information that needs to be shown is from the PR that was submitted with the original 1999 project dated August 11, 1999. Also, the 1994 PR was copied onto a plan sheet (sheet C-2). This is unnecessary. Therefore, what needs to be done is, fully and accurately plot the easements on the site plan, and, show each easement's recording information, from the 1999 PR, either in an easement table with corresponding numbers next to the easement, or, at each easement, in plan view. 5. Thank you for showing the existing fire hydrant locations. However, as previously requested, proposed street light standards still need to be shown (as well as proposed improvements). Items Needed to Complete Appiication RP99-14/CDP99-49 Page 3 Engineering staff suggests that the applicant set-up a meeting with redevelopment, and include planning and engineering, to discuss all of the project completeness and plan preparation issues in one setting. Engineering staff will make themselves available for any meeting. Housing & Redevelopment: The Housing and Redevelopment Department has completed its second review of the subject project for application completeness. The following changes are suggested to make the plans more readable and clarify some issues: 1. To make the site plan more readable please remove all underiying information or place on a separate sheet. The site plan need only contain the required information outlined on the original checklist. 2. Amendment to Architectural Design Guidelines should include a statement clarifying if the amended guidelines completely replace the original guidelines or only amend those sections addressed in the amendment. A single document is strongly encouraged to avoid confusion in the future. Carlsbad Municipal Water District: Comments received by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District are as follows: "From our review of the submitted documents, no public facilities are proposed to serve the new dormitories. Therefore, CMWD has no comments on the subject project. If a new water service or sewer lateral is proposed and not shown, CMWD will comment on the new connections." Fire Department: Comments received by the Fire Department are as follows: 1. All proposed new buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet in area must be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 2. Per the Carisbad Municipal Code, automatic fire sprinklers must be installed throughout an existing building if the area of that building is increased, ahd, the building area resulting from that increase exceeds 10,000 square feet. 3. Details of proposed building areas, emergency access, building set-backs, dimensions, and other important architectural details are not clear. 4. Additional emergency access and fire hydrants will be required. Building Department: Comments received by the Building Department are as follows: The plans are somewhat vague as to content, so these comments should not be construed as complete building department plan review comments. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MEMORANDUM March 22, 2000 TO: MANAGEMENT ANALYST - LORI ROSENSTEIN FROM: Associate Engineer - Development Services Division RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY 1999 - MPA & DORMITORIES SECOND COMPLETENESS REVIEW • Engineering Department staff have completed a second review of the above-referenced project for application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for the project are still incomplete and unsuitable for continued review due to the following incomplete items: incomf 4\ As previously indicated, in general, the plans need to be brought up to site plan 1/ submittal quality. These plans are acceptable for an overview of the entire project site. But since the applicant is proposing actual construction of buildings, the plans must be able to be reviewed for engineering issues of concern. To accomplish this, the plans must have a design element to them. They do not have to be full construction improvement drawings, but they do need more legible detail. The applicant did supply additional information on the existing plan sheets, but there is still not enough detail to enable standard engineering review. For example, sheet AS-3 indicates, "drainage structure through/below stairs to swale." Engineering staff must be able to actually review a design parameter like this, rather than iust reading a note. So, at a minimum, areas that are being submitted for actual entitlement must be submitted as design quality plans, at a 1" = 20' or 40' scale, for staff to be able to adequately review them. As previously requested, please indicate the project's Average Daily Traffic (ADT) per San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) criteria. Submitting a letter stating that there is no increase in ADT may be acceptable, but the ADT still must be ^^I^JM if)*^'indicated on the actual site plan. Since this is a Master Plan (MP) amendment, and a jfbAji^yi ® traffic report was conducted with the original MP, a letter submitted from the previous 'C/?C(^K^»<rt.' "^^^^^^ engineer indicating that there are no changes, or that there is less traffic than * was generated for the previous MP, will be acceptable. The letter should reference rthe previous traffic report, and a copy of the previous report should be submitted. ^ iV V'^'N/- •^^ previously requested, please indicate discretionary review applications RP 99-14 l^^Yi/t^i JrS* and CDP 99-49 on the site plan. (The applicants re-submittal letter stated that this A^Vklfl^'"^ information was indicated in the Phase 1, 3 & 8 "title block," however staff could not ^ ^ \|^^ locate it.) Additionally, this information should be indicated on every sheet of the site plan, not just certain individual sheets. RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARiVIY/NAVY ACADEIMY 1999 2 SECOND COIWPLETENESS REVIEW L. ROSENSTEIN lUIEIVIO; lUIARCH 22, 2000 * ^, As previously indicated, the eel^ment information that was shown as part of the first )/\!0V^ / \ check was from the 1996^jg1jbmittal. This time, the easement information shown was V\*^w^u£ from a Preliminary Tit|j8<Report (PR) dated Januan/ 10, 1994. The information that ^ i i » needs to^gsSto-Wn^i^MF the PR that was submitted with the original 1999 project \VldV(S^X%j dated-August 11, 1^9^/ Also, the 1994 PR was copied onto a plan sheet (sheet C-2). Thigio unnacoQsstry Therefore, what needs to be done is, fully and accurately plot r:^^x^l^ the easements on the site plan, and, show each easement's recording information, ' from the 1999 PR, either in an easement table with corresponding numbers next to ^Vt^ the easement, or, at each easement, in plan view. 9. Thank you for showing the existing fire hydrant locations. However, as previously V requested, proposed street light standards still need to be shown (as well as .proposed improvements). As previously requested, existing topography and structures and proposed grading contours must be cleariy shown. For example, the existing campus plan is incorrect. It already shows the Phase 1 improvements, instead of the modular buildings. Also, there are no elevations indicated on the contour lines on the existing campus plan. On sheet AS-3, handwritten spot elevations have been shown around the Phase 1 building, all at an elevation of 50.84'. How is this area supposed to drain? Are the numerous numbers, located on the Phase 1 site plan (sheet AS-3), spot elevations? Also one arrow labeled "drainage" is insufficient to show actual drainage pattems for the site. Please see Issue No. 1 above, regarding plan preparation. Please provide documentation that the project architect/engineer is coordinating with City design consulting engineer, Doug Helming, of Helming Engineering, Inc., regarding the Army/Navy Mountain View improvements and the City's Carisbad Boulevard street and bridge improvements. Design information for the Carisbad Boulevard improvements must be shown on the site plan irVt-W- €-0^ «3^vtX C^iPc^A- ^/ Even though the applicant is amending^the MP, hydrology informalran does not h&'je<2Av^'>h^^ to be submitted or shown on the plans at this time. However, hydrology information ^yvsiy will be required when an application for discretionary review for the property located "i^VL i i \ / on the west side of Ocean Street (proposed Phase 4) is processed. I^TTZ) d H^>IAJ. For the above reasons, specific engineering issues of concern still could not be addressed. Engineering issues will be reviewed once the above information is submitted and the application is deemed complete. However, so that the project can keep moving fonrt/ard, and as a courtesy to the applicant, the following is a major issue that should be looked at and worked on now. RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARIVIY/NAVY ACADEIMY 1999 SECOND COIWPLETENESS REVIEW L. ROSENSTEIN MEIVIO; MARCH 22, 2000 Major Issue of Concern The approved Phasing Plan, and project Conditions of Approval, require the developer to install street improvements (including under-grounding of overhead utilities) concurrent with any development. The current proposal indicates that the ^ installation of street improvements does not occur until Phase 3. This proposal does \\ /A^ not meet City Code and is not in accordance with what was previously agreed to with *^ /Op^ . the Army/Navy Academy (as indicated by the previous Engineering Conditions of \/ V l\P Approval), and therefore, cannot be supported by staff. Street improvements must Y)r [1"^ \\^ installed concurrent with any development. - \n K Since the first phase of development is along Pacific Avenue, the improvement k rtC (requirement is to improve all of Pacific Avenue (including under-grounding of vt? IY /• iN^overhead utilities) along with any requisite transitions. This is a standard (p \ " Jl improvement requirement, in accordance with City Code, and again, must be ^^brK'^ K completed concurrent with development. Subsequent phasing will also have to include street improvements along the street where the development is proposed. Additionally, the improvements must be shown on the site plan, in plan and typical section views. (y^C^^ Engineering staff suggests that the applicant set-up a meeting with redevelopment, (0 V \f{^"^ include planning and engineering, to discuss all of the project completeness and ^ \ ^ Wk'^I^T'lan preparation issues in one setting. Engineering staff will make themselves \0 ^^^^j;?^^^''^'^'^ ^'^^ meeting. or the applicant have any questions, please either e-mail or call me at 602-2747. MICHAEL J. SHIREY Associate Engineer - Development Sen/ices Division c: Deputy City Engineer - Development Services Division \ M tBP/Architecture Architecture Planning Interiors Management RECEIVED February 10, 2000 „ . , f f FEB 1 0 2000 Housmg and Development Department City of Carlsbad CRY OF CARLSBAD 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B HOUSING & R|DEyELOPMENT Carlsbad, CA 92018 DEPARTMENT Attn: Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst Re: RP99-14/CDP99-49 Resubmittal Response Army and Navy Academy tBP P/N 99014.00 Dear Ms. Rosenstein: In response to the City of Carlsbad's comments dated October 29, 1999, we resubmit the following as our written responses: ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. Quality of drawings: We have provided separate CADD site plans for Phase 1, Phase 3 and Phase 8. These plans include more detailed information as requested. 2. Traffic Information: The Academy acknowledged that the Average Daily Traffic will not be increased by the project(s) in a separate letter to Lori Rosenstein. 3. Drawing Size: Per conversations with Mike Shirey and Lori Rosenstein, drawings will be as foUows: A. Site and building plans wiU be submitted for planning and construction permits on 30" x 42" drawings sheets. B. Street improvement plans will be submitted to the City engineering at a future time for construction permits on 24" x 36" drawing sheets. 4. Application Number. Phase 1, Phase 3 and Phase 8 site plans have numbers indicated in the Sheet Title Block. 5. Easement Information: We included a recent Encumbrance Plat and Title Report in our drawing resubmittal. 6. Street Lights and Fire Hydrants: Per review of the City's standards, we indicated the following on our site plan drawings: Street Lights: New street lights are indicated with street improvements in Phase 3 and Phase 8. 2300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA 92663-3799 • Phone: (949) 673-0300 • Fax: (949) 673-9267 Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst Housing and Development Department City of Carlsbad Page 2 of 3 Fire Hydrants: Existing street and on-site fire hydrants are indicated. Due to locations of the proposed dormitory buildings and existing fire hydrants, we indicate no new fire hydrants. 7. Grading Information: Indicated on site plans. 8. Grading Quantities: Revised on Sheet AS-1 project data. 9. See Comment #8 10. See Comment #8 11. Hydrology Report: Per a conversation with Mike Shirey, we indicated on the Phasing Plan (Sheet AS-2), which Phases are for site plan approval (Phase 1, Phase 3 and Phase 8). Mike's concem is for approval conditions of Phase 4 (property on the ocean side of Ocean Street). 12. Traffic Study: See comment #2. 13. Soils Report: We have submitted two (2) copies of a soil report with our resubmittal documents. 14. Application Process: No comment. 15. Review Note: No comment. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMENTS 1. Application Fee: I spoke to Lori and clarified that the $400 fee was submitted to the City. She researched her file and found the receipt. 2. Application Signature: Academy provided with resubmittal. 3. Application Signature: Academy provided with resubmittal. 4. Application Signature: Academy provided with resubmittal. 5. Application Signature: Academy provided with resubmittal. 6. Drawing Date: Added to drawings. ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY Inspiring Excellence Since 1910 February 3, 2000 City of Carisbad 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92018 ATTN: Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst RE: Traffic Information Request Planning Submittal Comment Dear Ms. Rosenstein: This letter is in response to the City Engineering Department's Comment No. 2 (average daily traffic information). The Army and Navy Academy reviewed the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the design submitted to the City for our Master Plan Amendments. The submitted design does not increase the ADT from the previous Master Plan approved by the City. If 1 can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (760) 729-2385. sincerely, Stephen A. Miller President Post Office Box 3000 Carisbad, CA 92018 (760) 729-2385 Fax (760) 434-1890 www.army-navyacademy.com tltv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department October 29, 1999 ROBERT MORALES TBP ARCHITECTURE 2300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NOV 0 2 1999 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY (RP99-14/CDP99-49) Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Housing and Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments has reviewed your Major Redevelopment Permit, application no. RP 99-11, and Coastal Development Permit, application no. CDP 99-49, as to their completeness for processing. The applications are incomplete, as submitted. The attached list includes information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to the Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted to the Redevelopment Office, the City has an additional thirty (30) days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the appiication will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, September 29, 1999, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Mike Shirey, Engineering Department Mike Grim, Planning Department Kelly Efimoff, Carlsbad Municipal Water District Mike Smith, Fire Department 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ® LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. RP99-14/CDP99-49 Engineering: Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness and have determined that the appiication and plans submitted for the project are incomplete and unsuitable for continued review due to the following incomplete items: 1. In general, the plans need to be brought up to site plan submittal quality. These plans are acceptable for an overview of the entire project site. But since the applicant is proposing actual construction of buildings, the plans must be able to be reviewed for actual engineering issues of concern. To accomplish this, the plans must have a design element to them. They do not have to be full construction improvement drawings, but they do need to be much more than hand drafted schematics. So, at a minimum, areas that are being submitted for actual entitlement must be submitted as design quality plans for staff to be able to adequately review them. 2. Please indicate the project's Average Daily Traffic (ADT) per San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) criteria. 3. Please submit the project on standard 24" x 36" plan sheets. Use match/cut lines if necessary. 4. Please indicate discretionary applications RP 99-14 and CDP 99-49 on the site plan. 5. The easement information that was submitted is from the 1996 submittal. This information must be updated in accordance with the current Preliminary Title Report (PR). Additionally, in 1996, the format that this information was submitted in was acceptable because nothing was being constructed. Now that actual buildings are being proposed, this information must be more cleariy shown (See Issue No. 1 above). 6. Please clearly show ail existing and proposed street light standards and fire hydrants. 7. Existing topography, vegetation, structures, etc., and proposed grading contours must be clearly shown. 8. Grading quantities must be more cleariy indicated. For example, what is the row irudicated as "Whole Project" representing? 9. Please show spot elevations, finished grade, and finished floor elevations. 10. Please indicate existing and proposed on-site drainage patterns. 11. Please label the 100-year flood line and/or wave run-up elevations. Provide a hydroiogy report regarding this information. 1 2. If traffic volumes are over 500 ADT, please submit a traffic study. 13. Please submit a preliminary soils report. 14. Please be advised, depending on how the applicant wishes to process this application, some of the above information may not be required. However, if the existing Master Plan and Phasing plan are being amended, then this information must be submitted. Items Needed to Complete /^^ication RP99-14/CDP99-49 Page 2 15. For the above reasons, engineering issues of concern could not be addressed. Engineering issues will be reviewed once the above information is submitted and the appiication is deemed complete. Housing & Redevelopment: The Housing and Redevelopment Department has completed its review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following missing or incomplete items: 1. Additional fees must be submitted for the Coastal Development Permit. The additional fee amount is $400. 2. The property owner's signature is required on page 2 of the Land Use Review Application #24. 3. The property owner must complete #4 of the Disclosure Statement. 4. The applicant must complete #1 of the Disclosure Statement. 5. The applicant's signature is required on page 2 of the Disclosure Statement. 6. Include date of preparation and revisions on all plans. 7. Reference project application numbers (RP99-14 and CDP99-49) on site plan and project data sheet. 8. On project data sheet, show City of Carlsbad as sewer district providing service to the site. 9. Correct spelling of Crean Hall under proposed campus data. 10. Site plan must Include the following: • Location of all permanent structures within 100' of site; • Setback dimensions for required front, rear, and side yards for three new _ dormitories; Bearings and distance of each exterior boundary line; • Distance between buildings and/or structures; 1 1. Building floor plans should include a chart with the square footage of the various rooms. 12. Any existing plans that were part of the original Master Plan, but do not include proposed changes should not be attached at this time. 13. Amendmentto Architectural Design Guidelines should include the following: • An introductory paragraph stating the purpose and intent of the amendment. • How the amendment seeks to modify the existing design guidelines (identify the most significant changes to the existing guidelines). Items Needed to Complete AW^ication RP99-14/C0P99-49 Page 3 • Building Form and Massing: clarify if doors and windows are to be deep set or "slightly recessed". This appears to be a discrepancy between existing design guidelines and the proposed amendment. • Specific examples are needed under Building Form and Massing and Scale, Rhythm and Proportion. • Roof Forms: Clarify if parapeted flat roof forms are still acceptable. • Window: Clarify is windows are to be recessed or not; Clarify if mullions are to be encouraged or not; Specify types and colors of acceptable window frames. • Openings: Clarify if upper levels are still encouraged to be stepped back and reduced in size. • In general, it is not clear if the oniy elements of the existing design guidelines that are to be amended are those identified in the Amendment to Architectural Design Guidelines. Additional detail is needed to show the relationship between the existing design guidelines and the proposed amendment. Planning: The Planning Department has completed its review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete and unsuitable for further review because more complete and legible plans are needed to review the development project. In addition, a complete and accurate project description is requested identifying what it is the Academy seeks to accomplish with this submittal. Project description should include proposed timing on the current phase of the project. Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department December 6, 2001 ROGER CELLINI, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PO BOX 3000 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 SUBJECT: RP 99-14/CDP 99-49 - Army and Navy Academy Dormitory. Dear Roger: This letter is written to clarify the condition added to this project by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission at the recommendation of the Design Review Board relating to the construction of the dormitory building and completion of the parking lot on Mountain View Drive. This condition states: "To mitigate impacts to the surrounding area from construction activity, construction of the parking lot at the northwest corner of Mountain View Drive and Carisbad Blvd. shall be completed first, except for final surfacing, then used as a staging area for construction of the dormitory building." This condition requires that the parking lot at Mountain View Drive must be completed, except for final surfacing, prior to building construction activity on the dormitory site. This condition would allow you to grade the dormitory site before completion of the parking lot. The intent of this condition is to ensure that the parking lot serves as a staging area for construction vehicles and building materials related to the construction of the dormitory. It is not its intent to apply to grading activity on the dormitory site. I hope this provides you with clarification. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, CITY QECARLSBAD LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst c: Mike Shirey, Project Engineer 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^ PUBLIC WORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION MEMORANDUM October 28, 1999 TO: MANAGEMENT ANALYST - LORI ROSENSTEIN FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Development RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY 1999 - DORMITORIES COMPLETENESS REVIEW Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for the \/..W'' —:—I — . gj^j unsuitable for continued review due to the following , _ J^f/*^ project are incomplete ^ih'^ incomplete items: L JK^ WV. w ^ general, the plans need to be brought up to site plan submittal quality. These plans are acceptable for an overview of the entire project site. But since the applicant is proposing actual construction of buildings, the plans must be able to be reviewed for actual engineering issues of concern. To accomplish this, the plans must have a design element to them. They do not have to be full construction improvement drawings, but they do need to be much more than hand drafted schematics. So, at a minimum, areas that are being submitted for actual entitlement must be submitted as design quality plans for staff to be able to adequately review / them. ^w\^^^<^Y(.^^^'S:•\^(fe.^^^•<^/^, JL» «M Please indicate the project's Average Daily Traffic (ADT) per San Diego Association ,of Governments (SANDAG) criteria.-^^ f^S-/ I y /Please submitihe protect on standard 24" x 36" plan sheets. Use match/cut lines if , ^ necessary.//^^^^^ ^''©^gV^'S'?^''^^ ^^'^^ ^"^V^^^ • ./^t^ Please indicate discretionary applications RP 99-14 and CDP 99-49 on the site plan. ^ The easement information that was submitted is from the 1996 submittal. This information must be updated in accordance with the current Preliminary Title Report (PR). Additionally, in 1996, the format that this information was submitted in was acceptable because nothing was being constructed. Now that actual buildings are being proposed, this information must be more cleariy shown (See Issue No. 1 above).WVv/S-h \JC<L. Ao^ l| ^^cj^ ,<^c^<Ar f^^ '^Zt.^^i'^Z^^.^'Q 2L. —. Please cleariy show all exisffng and proposed stre^ liohf standards and f\f6 , ^ I hy^nts. ^y^af fo Sho^^ ^t. ^ <p / -TcZc/r^'-th^^'d'^'^ }L. «M Existing topography, vegetation, structures, etc., and proposed grading contours must be cleariy shown. 8: Grading quantities must be more clearly indicated. For example, what is the row ^ indicated as "Whole Project" representing? Please show spot elevations, finished grade, and finished floor elevations. RP 99-14, CDP 99-49: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY 1999 COMPLETENESS REVIEW L. ROSENSTEIN MEMO; OCTOBER 28,1999 ZZ >Ki. Please indicate existing and proposed on-site drajngggpatterns. V^^V^^A^OV^^ wave run-up) elevations. Provide ^^<rPlease label the(100-year_flo^ line and/ * hydrology report regarding iRisinformation. "y^f traffic volumes are over 500 ADT, please submit a traffic study. |lXPIease submit a preliminary soils report. "iJ^^Jop^ (^)P\ease be advised, depending on how the applicant wishes to process this iv^^ # \\ application, some of the above information may not be required. However, if the existing Master Plan and Phasing plan are being amended, then this information must be submitted. ^^For the above reasonsj(^ngineering issues of concern could^not be addressed!)^"^ Engineering issues will be reviewed once the above information is submitted and the application is deemed complete. ^ l^owifv/^^rj $ow\.«L w«:^-^or-\f;^wtt<, /<%tC.' If you have any questions, please call me at extension 4388. ^ ^ | MICHAEL J. SHIREY Associate Engineer - Land Development c: Deputy City Engineer - Land Development CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LAND USE REVIEW June 5, 1995 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - JEFF GIBSON FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review VIA: Assistant City Engineer CUP 94-02, RP 94-02 ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project and is recommending: X That the project be approved subject to the conditions as listed on the attached sheet. That the project be denied for the following reasons: X The following is a final Land Use Review project report for inclusion in the staff report for this project. LAND USE REVIEW SECTION PROJECT REPORT PROJECT ID: CUP 94-02, RP 94-02 PREPARED BY: Michael J. Shirey PROJECT NAME: Army/ Navy Academy APPROVED BY: Master Site Plan LOCATION: West Side of Carisbad Boulevard, between Cypress Avenue and Pacific Avenue. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Establish conceptual Master Plan for future campus renovation and Redevelopment Permit purposes. ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION: Traffic and Circulation: Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 1400 Traffic Study Performed by: Robert Kahn/John Kain & Associates Comment: One previous traffic issue associated with this project was the proposed street vacation of Cypress Avenue. However, since the street vacation proposal has been withdrawn, any traffic issues which were associated with the street vacation request have been eliminated. Engineering Department staff investigated the Cypress Avenue/Carisbad Boulevard intersection for operational deficiencies because of concerns expressed by Mayor Lewis and several citizens at the first public hearing for the proposed project. A number of criteria were used in this analysis, including: traffic counts, traffic collision statistics, corner sight distance determination and geometric alignment/operation investigation. Although all of the criteria are important for the analysis, and were investigated, the two major criteria that govern if the intersection operates in an acceptable manner are corner sight distance and traffic collision historical data. The following is a discussion of these two important criteria. The required corner sight distance for this intersection is 330 feet. Both field and improvement plan review was conducted which indicated that the existing sight distance is approximately 500 feet to the north and 450 feet to the south. These distances exceed the corner sight distance required for this intersection. One item which potentially could limit the corner sight distance at this intersection is the presence of any high growth of vegetation in the raised medians along Carlsbad Boulevard. Vegetation has been planted within these raised medians. However, this vegetation has been, and, is routinely trimmed to mitigate any sight distance deficiency. LAND USE REVIEW SECTION PROJECT REPORT Page: 2 ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY J. GIBSON MEMO; JUNE 5, 1995 In regards to the traffic collision history for this intersection, staff researched the reported traffic collisions from January 1, 1991 through June 1, 1995. Within this time period, there has been only one (1) reported traffic collision (September 24, 1992). This indicates that the intersection is operating in an acceptable manner without any current deficiencies. It can be concluded that the Cypress Avenue/Carlsbad Boulevard intersection operates within acceptable limits. Additionally, the first intersection south of the Cypress Avenue/Carisbad Boulevard intersection, the Carlsbad Boulevard/Beech Avenue intersection, is scheduled for improvement. These improvements are part of the construction program for the Washington Street Commuter Rail Station and will include the installation of a traffic signal. Since this intersection and scheduled traffic signal is immediately south of the Cypress Avenue/Carlsbad Boulevard intersection, installation of this traffic signal should only enhance the already acceptable operation of the Cypress Avenue/Carlsbad Boulevard intersection by creating additional gaps in the flow of traffic. Sewer: Sewer District: Carlsbad Sewer EDU's Required: Utilizing High School @ 1 EDU/30 pupils and Faculty Housing @ 1 EDU/unit: 304 pupils = 10.13 ^- Faculty Housing = 7 Total EDU's = 17.13 Comment: At this time, prior to a future Redevelopment Permit, no major sewer issues are associated with this proposed project. Water: Water District: Carisbad EDU's Required: 17.13 GPD Required: 17.13 * 220 gpd = 3768.6 LAND USE REVIEW SECTION PROJECT REPORT Page: 3 ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY J. GIBSON MEMO; JUNE 5, 1995 Comment: At this time, prior to a future Redevelopment Permit, no major water issues are associated with this proposed project. Gradmg: Quantities: Cut = 0 cy ; Fill = 0 cy (See comment below.) Permit Required: NO Off-site Approval required/obtained: N/A Hillside Grading Requirements met: N/A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Performed by: N/A (See comment below.) Comment: At this time, prior to a future Redevelopment Permit, no major grading issues are associated with this proposed project. No soils/geotechnical report was submitted for this proposed project; therefore, prior to issuance of any future Redevelopment Permits a soils/geotechnical report must be submitted when a future project application is submitted. Additionally, with a future application submittal, all grading quantities must be identified. Drainage and Erosion Control: Drainage Basin: A Preliminary Hydrology Study Performed by: N/A (See comment below.) Erosion Potential: N/A (See comment below.) Comment: At this time, prior to a future Redevelopment Permit, no major drainage issues are associated with this proposed project. No hydrology study was submitted for this proposed project; therefore, prior to issuance of any future Redevelopment Permits a hydrology study must be submitted when a future project application is submitted. The hydrology study must investigate the effect of potential "wave action", as identified in the FEMA maps for any development that is proposed on the west side of Ocean Street. LAND USE REVIEW SECTION PROJECT REPORT Page: 4 ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY J. GIBSON MEMO; JUNE 5, 1995 Land Title: Conflicts with existing easement: YES (See comment below.) Easement dedication required: YES (See comment below.) Site boundary coincides with land title: NO (See comment below.) Comment: At this time, prior to a future Redevelopment Permit, no major land title issues are associated with this proposed project. However, prior to issuance of any future Redevelopment Permits a number of Land Title/Mapping issues still must be resolved with regards to: property boundary information for Parcels A & F, and. Preliminary Title Report (PR) Schedule B item No.'s 5 & 16. Improvements: Off-site improvements: NO Standard Variance Required: NO Comment: As a Condition of Approval for any future Redevelopment Permits, full frontage street improvements will be required. As a Condition of Approval for this application, however, this project will be required to complete the street/infrastructure improvements as indicated in Redevelopment Permit (RP) 92-04. RP 92-04 was for the construction of a dormitory facility at the northeast corner of the Cypress Avenue/Ocean Street intersection. The frontage improvements along Cypress Avenue were required as a condition of approval for the project. These improvements were subsequently bonded for, however, the improvements were never constructed. The reason they were not constructed was that the potential existed for Cypress Avenue to be vacated in the future. Since the Cypress Avenue street vacation request has been withdrawn, these improvements must now be installed to fulfill that condition of approval for RP 92-04. These improvements, as well as any improvements which shall be required with future redevelopment permits, are necessary to provide for roadways and infrastructure that will meet the demand on facilities for the Academy and the surrounding area, and, to bring these facilities into compliance with City Standards. ^ CUP 94-02; RP 94-02 ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY - CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Engineering Conditions: 1. The future development of the Army/Navy Academy shall be accomplished In accordance with the Phasing Plan as indicated in the Army/ Navy Academy Master Site Plan and the Improvement Phasing Program, as indicated below. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the construction of any facilities within a given phase, at a minimum infrastructure/roadway frontage improvements shall be required to be Installed along the boundary/frontage of that given phase to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and in accordance with the followmg: Improvement Phasing Proqram Phase's 1 and 6 Full improvements to both sides of Cypress Avenue from Garfield Street to Carlsbad Boulevard. Full improvements to Garfield Street along the Phase 1 and 6 frontage. Phase's 2. 7. 8 and 9 Full improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Ocean Street to Mountain View Drive, and, full improvements to the south side Mountain View Drive from Pacific Avenue to Carlsbad Boulevard. Phase 5 Full improvements to the north side of Mountain View Drive along the Phase 5 frontage. Phase 2 Full improvements to the east side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue to Cypress Avenue, and, along the Phase 6 frontage. Phase 3 Full improvements to the west side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue to the south side of Cypress Avenue. Phase 4 Full improvements to the north side of Beech Avenue along the Phase 4 frontage. CUP 94-02; RP 94-02 A.WTIY/NAVY ACADEMY PAGE: 2 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL * All undergrounding of overhead utilities shall be completed in accordance with the Improvement Phasing Program as indicated above. * The above Improvement Phasing Program shall take precedent over the Army/Navy Master Plan - Phasing Plan. In accordance with the above Improvement Phasing Program, full improvements shall include but not be limited to the following: • Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk. • A/C or PCC roadway pavement widening. • Installation of handicap ramps. • Storm Drain facility improvements. • Sewer facility improvements. • Water facility improvements. • Installation of Street Light Standards. • installation of Fire Hydrants. • Undergrounding of Utilities. If the City Engineer determines that the general health, safety and welfare of the public is not being provided for with the construction of roadway/infrastructure frontage improvements for a given phase under development, then the City Engineer can require additional roadway/infrastructure frontage improvements outside of that given phase. 2. The Cypress Avenue frontage, from Ocean Street to approximately the easterly edge of pavement of Garfield Street, shall be improved in accordance with the Conditions of Approval for Redevelopment Permit (RP) 92-4 and City improvement drawing 328-06 within six months of approval of this Redevelopment Permit (RP 94-02) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-02). If these infrastructure improvements are not completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within this time limit, then this approval shall become null and void. City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department May 19, 1999 Robert Morales tBP Architecture 2300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663-3799 SUBJECT: Preliminary Review of Army & Navy Academy Dormitory, Parking & Street Improvements (PRE 99-33) APN: 203-041-01 A preliminary review of your project was completed on May 18, 1999. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminarv review does not represent an in-depth analvsis of vour proiect. Additional issues of concern mav be raised after vour application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Housing 8t Redevelopment: 1. Some elements of the architectural design are inconsistent with the approved Design Guidelines for the Army & Navy Academy. Design elements and materials should include: Smooth, white, hand troweled, exterior plaster finish with clean, crisp, corners and detailing. A flat roof as the primary form with the use of hip roofs as secondary forms providing a break in an otherwise horizontal building design. Hipped roof forms that are low sloped with clay or authentic looking concrete barrel tile roofs. Thick walled continuous arcades and covered walkways on the lower level forming a strong base for the building. # Punched square or rectilinear openings at the upper levels stepped back from the lower base. Arched openings on the lower level and rectilinear openings on the upper level. Thick and massive columns and archways comprised of stone, concrete block, or wood and covered with a smooth application of exterior plaster or stucco. Horizontal pipe rails to emphasize the building's linear form. Deep set doors and windows to use shade and shadow as a design feature. Special attention to entry features. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 PRE 99-33;• ARMY &NA v , ACADEMY DORMITORY 05/19/99 PAGE 2 2. Care should be taken in the design of all sides of the building incorporating architectural articulation and design elements from the Design Guidelines. 3. The applicant has expressed an interest in maintaining the current building design and using similar architecture on future buildings. This will require a Master Plan Amendment and approval of new Design Guidelines. 4. The Master Plan indicates a maximum enrollment of 350 students and 100 employees with facilities to accommodate 302 resident students and 48 daytime students. The Master Site Plan shows that there are facilities equipped to accommodate 296 beds presently on campus with a maximum build out of 304 beds. The proposed project includes the demolition of a residential building designed to house 28 students and the construction of a new dormitory to house 80 students. The proposed project increases the number of students living on campus to 348 (296-28-f 80 = 348) and is inconsistent with the Master Plan. The proposed project's inconsistency with the Master Plan leaves the applicant with two possible options: a) Remove additional residential facilities to bring the number of beds back down to 304; or b) Process a Master Plan Amendment to increase resident student enrollment. This will require additional environmental review and possibly the need for additional parking. Planning: 1. In accordance with Design Review Board Resolution No. 233, Planning Condition No. 9, the proposal shall require a new Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit. These actions will require environmental review. 2. The proposal must comply with all conditions of approval of CUP 94-02, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3797. 3. According Planning Commission Resolution No. 3797, Planning Condition No. 5, prior to approval of grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain a Coastal Devetopment Permit from the California Coastal Commission for that portion of the site outside the Village Redevelopment Area. If this has not been accomplished, the applicant should consult the Coastal Commission as to whether they or the City should process a Coastal Development Permit (the City now has Coastal permit authority in the project area). Engineering: All street improvements will require improvement plans, agreements, and bonds to be posted. PRE 99-33; ARMY & NA . f ACADEMY DORMITORY 05/19/99 PAGES The undergrounding and relocation of overhead utilities should take place concurrently with or preceding the improvements to the street. The applicant must coordinate with SDG&E for this work. If there is any grading proposed, quantities of cut fill, import, and export should be shown on the plan. V- The City will be doing work on the Carlsbad Boulevard bridge over the railroad tracks in the near future. The applicant should coordinate with the Design and Planning Section of Engineering for their work on Carlsbad Boulevard. , Improvement plans may be processed at any time. There is no need to wait for final action on the discretionary land use permits. The improvement plan application and submittal check list are available from the Engineering Department. Building: 1. Proposed building must meet access regulations for handicapped provisions of the California Building Code. It appears there have not been allowances for this. This preliminary review does not constitute a complete review of the proposed project, additional items of concern may be identified upon formal project application submittal. Please contact Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813 if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director DF:LR:lr c: Bob Wojcik, Engineering Dept. Mike Grim, Planning Dept. Mike Smith, Fire Dept. Pat Kelley, Buiiding Dept RECEIVED NOV 2 7 2000 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WATER SUPPLY CALCULATIONS ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY City of Carlsbad, California NACK & PEZESHKI ENGINEERING 300 Carlsbad ViUage Drive, Suite 205 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-720-1205 October 26, 2000 Piy?E TAG END NODES ELEV. (FT) NOZ. (K) PT (PSI) DISC. (GPM) Q (GPM) VEL (FPS) DIA (IN) HW (C) F.L./FT ttfflGTH (FT) PRESS. SUM. (PSI) Pipe: 1 16.80 1 PL 4.17 PF 0.73 1 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 49 24.0 -9.14 -0.119 TL 6.17 PV 0.32 Pipe: 2 16.80 1 PL 7.17 PF 1.09 49 24.0 -9.14 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 3 24.0 -10.23 -0.119 TL 9.17 PV 0.32 Pipe: 3 16.80 1 PL 6.42 PF 1.00 2 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 48 24.0 -11.14 -0.119 TL 8.42 PV 0.32 Pipe: 4 16.80 1 PL 3.33 PF 0.63 48 24.0 -11.14 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 3 24.0 -11.78 -0.119 TL 5.33 PV 0.32 Pipe: 5 33.60 1.5 PL 1.75 PF 0.58 3 24.0 -11.78 -6.10 120 FTG T PE - 4 24.0 -12.36 -0.060 TL 9.75 PV 0.25 Pipe: 6 16.80 1 PL 1.42 PF 0.41 5 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 50 24.0 -8.81 -0.119 TL 3.42 PV 0.32 Pipe: 7 16.80 1 PL 717 PF 1.09 50 24.0 -8.81 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 4 24.0 -9.91 -0.119 TL 9.17 PV 0.32 Pipe: 8 50.40 1.5 PL 1.42 PF 1.19 4 24.0 -12.36 -9.15 120 FTG T PE - 9 24.0 -13.54 -0.126 TL 9.42 PV 0.56 Pipe: 9 16.80 1 PL 6.42 PF 1.00 6 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 9 24.0 -11.14 -0.119 TL 8.42 PV 0.32 Pipe: 10 67.20 1.5 PL 1.75 PF 2.09 9 24.0 -13.54 -12.21 120 FTG T PE - 70 24.0 -15.64 -0.215 TL 9.75 PV 1.00 Pipe: 11 16.80 1 PL 1.25 PF 0.39 7 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 70 24.0 -8.80 -0.119 TL 3.25 PV 0.32 Pipe: 12 84.00 1.5 PL 1.50 PF 3.08 70 24.0 -15.64 -15.26 120 FTG T PE - 10 24.0 18.72 -0.324 TL 9.50 PV 1.57 Page 1 of 7 PIPE TAG END NODES ELEV. (FT) NOZ. (K) PT (PSI) DISC. (GPM) Q (GPM) VEL (FPS) DIA (IN) HW (C) F.L./FT L^GTH (FT) PRESS. SUM. (PSI) Pipe: 13 16.80 1 PL 2.08 PF 0.49 8 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 51 24.0 -10.63 -0.119 TL 4.08 PV 0.32 Pipe: 14 16.80 1 PL 3.08 PF 0.60 51 24.0 -10.63 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 10 24.0 -11.23 -0.119 TL 5.08 PV 0.32 Pipe: 15 100.80 2 PL 8.33 PF 2.05 10 24.0 -18.72 -10.30 120 FTG T PE - 15 24.0 -20.77 -0.112 TL 18.33 PV 0.71 Pipe: 16 16.80 1 PL 2.92 PF 0.58 13 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 15 24.0 -10.73 -0.119 TL 4.92 PV 0.32 Pipe: 17 117.60 2 PL 1.42 PF 1.70 15 24.0 -20.77 -12.02 120 FTG T PE - 16 24.0 -22.47 -0.149 TL 11.42 PV 0.97 Pipe: 18 16.80 1 PL 1.08 PF 0.37 14 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 52 24.0 -8.78 -0.119 TL 3.08 PV 0.32 Pipe: 19 16.80 1 PL 3.25 PF 0.62 52 24.0 -8.78 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 16 24.0 -9.40 -0.119 TL 5.25 PV 0.32 Pipe: 20 134.40 2 PL 1.58 PF 2.21 16 24.0 -22.47 -13.73 120 FTG T PE - 17 24.0 -24.68 -0.191 TL 11.58 PV 1.27 Pipe: 21 16.80 1 PL 2.67 PF 0.56 12 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 53 24.0 -10.70 -0.119 TL 4.67 PV 0.32 Pipe: 22 16.80 1 PL 6.42 PF 1.00 53 24.0 -10.70 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 17 24.0 -11.70 -0.119 TL 8.42 PV 0.32 Pipe: 23 151.20 2 PL 2.33 PF 2.92 17 24.0 -24.68 -15.45 120 FTG T PE - 18 24.0 -27.60 -0.237 TL 12.33 PV 1.60 Pipe: 24 16.80 1 PL 5.00 PF 0.83 11 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 54 24.0 -9.24 -0.119 TL 7.00 PV 0.32 Page 2 of 7 PIPE TAG END NODES ELEV. (FT) NOZ. (K) PT (PSI) DISC. (GPM) Q (GPM) VEL (FPS) DIA (IN) HW (C) F.L./FT CBS^fGTH (FT) PRESS. SUM. (PSI) Pipe: 25 16.80 1 PL 7.17 PF 1.09 54 24.0 -9.24 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 18 24.0 -10.33 -0.119 TL 9.17 PV 0.32 Pipe: 26 168.00 2 PL 4.83 PF 4.27 18 24.0 -27.60 -17.16 120 FTG T PE - 20 24.0 -31.87 -0.288 TL 14.83 PV 1.98 Pipe: 27 16.80 1 PL 1.25 PF 0.39 71 23.0 5,65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 20 24.0 -8.80 -0.119 TL 3.25 PV 0.32 Pipe: 28 184.80 2.5 PL 1.83 PF 1.60 20 24.0 -31.87 -12.08 120 FTG T PE - 21 24.0 -33.48 -0.116 TL 13.83 PV 0.98 Pipe: 29 16.80 1 PL 1.33 PF 0.40 19 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 55 24.0 -10.54 -0.119 TL 3.33 PV 0.32 Pipe: 30 16.80 1 PL 2.92 PF 0.58 55 24.0 -10.54 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 21 24.0 -11.12 -0.119 TL 4.92 PV 0.32 Pipe: 31 201.60 2.5 PL 1.67 PF 1.86 21 24.0 -33.48 -13.18 120 FTG T PE - 24 24.0 -35.34 -0.136 TL 13.67 PV 1.17 Pipe: 32 16.80 1 PL 2.25 PF 0.51 22 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 56 24.0 -10.65 -0.119 TL 4.25 PV 0.32 Pipe: 33 16.80 1 PL 6.42 PF 1.00 56 24.0 -10.65 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 24 24.0 -11.65 -0.119 TL 8.42 PV 0.32 Pipe: 34 218.40 2.5 PL 1.58 PF 2.14 24 24.0 -35.34 -14.28 120 FTG T PE - 25 24.0 -37.48 -0.158 TL 13.58 PV 1.37 Pipe: 35 16.80 1 PL 3.83 PF 0.69 23 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 57 24.0 -9.10 -0.119 TL 5.83 PV 0.32 Pipe: 36 16.80 1 PL 7.17 PF 1.09 57 24.0 -9.10 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 25 24.0 -10.19 -0.119 TL 9.17 PV 0.32 Page 3 of 7 ETAG ND DES ELEV. (FT) NOZ. (K) PT (PSI) DISC. (GPM) Q (GPM) VEL (FPS) DIA (IN) HW (C) F.L./FT C**(fGTH (FT) PRESS. SUM. (PSI) Pipe: 37 235.20 3 PL 177.17 PF 14.32 25 24.0 -37.48 -10.68 120 FTG T PE - 58 24.0 -51.80 -0.075 TL 192.17 PV 0.77 Pipe: 38 235.20 3 PL 19.33 PF 1.96 58 24.0 -51.80 -10.68 120 FTG E PE - 67 24.0 -53.76 -0.075 TL 26.33 PV 0.77 Pipe: 39 16.80 1 PL 1.92 PF 0.47 26 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 59 24.0 -8.87 -0.119 TL 3.92 PV 0.32 Pipe: 40 16.80 1 PL 2.00 PF 0.48 59 24.0 -8.87 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 28 24.0 -9.35 -0.119 TL 4.00 PV 0.32 Pipe: 41 16.80 1 PL 2.67 PF 0.56 27 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 28 24.0 -10.70 -0.119 TL 4.67 PV 0.32 Pipe: 42 33.60 1.5 PL 1.75 PF 0.58 28 24.0 -10.70 -6.10 120 FTG T PE - 29 24.0 -11.28 -0.060 TL 9.75 PV 0.25 Pipe: 43 16.80 1 PL 1.67 PF 0.44 35 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 60 24.0 -10.58 -0.119 TL 3.67 PV 0.32 Pipe: 44 16.80 1 PL 6.75 PF 1.04 60 24.0 -10.58 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 29 24.0 -11.62 -0.119 TL 8.75 PV 0.32 Pipe: 45 50.40 1.5 PL 1.67 PF 1.22 29 24.0 -11.62 -9.15 120 FTG T PE - 30 24.0 -12.84 -0.126 TL 9.67 PV 0.56 Pipe: 46 16.80 1 PL 2.83 PF 0.58 36 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 61 24.0 -8.98 -0.119 TL 4.83 PV 0.32 Pipe: 47 16.80 1 PL 9.83 PF 1.41 61 24.0 -8.98 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 30 24.0 -10.39 -0.119 TL 11.83 PV 0.32 Pipe: 48 67.20 1.5 PL 1.33 PF 2.00 30 24.0 -12.84 -12.21 120 FTG T PE - 31 24.0 -14.84 -0.215 TL 9.33 PV 1.00 Page 4 of 7 PIPE TAG END NODES ELEV. (FT) NOZ. (K) PT (PSI) DISC. (GPM) Q (GPM) VEL (FPS) DIA (IN) HW (C) F.L./FT t«i*GTH (FT) PRESS. SUM. (PSI) Pipe: 49 16.80 1 PL 6.00 PF 0.95 38 23.0 5.65 8.84 168 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 62 24.0 -9.36 -0.119 TL 8.00 PV 0.32 Pipe: 50 16.80 1 PL 775 PF 1.16 62 24.0 -9.36 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 31 24.0 -10.52 -0.119 TL 9.75 PV 0.32 Pipe: 51 84.00 2 PL 1.50 PF 0.92 31 24.0 -14.84 -8.58 120 FTG T PE - 32 24.0 -15.76 -0.080 TL 11.50 PV 0.50 Pipe: 52 16.80 1 PL 1.92 PF 0.47 72 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 32 24.0 -8.87 -0.119 TL 3.92 PV 0.32 Pipe: 53 100.80 2 PL 1.58 PF 1.30 32 24.0 -15.76 -10.30 120 FTG T PE - 33 24.0 -17.06 -0.112 TL 11.58 PV 0.71 Pipe: 54 16.80 1 PL 2.75 PF 0.57 37 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 63 24.0 10.71 -0.119 TL 4.75 PV 0.32 Pipe: 55 16.80 1 PL 7.75 PF 1.16 63 24.0 -10.71 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 33 24.0 -11.87 -0.119 TL 9.75 PV 0.32 Pipe: 56 117.60 2 PL 1.50 PF 1.71 33 24.0 -17.06 -12.02 120 FTG T PE - 34 24.0 -18.77 -0.149 TL 11.50 PV 0.97 Pipe: 57 16.80 1 PL 1.25 PF 0.39 73 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 64 24.0 -10.53 -0.119 TL 3.25 PV 0.32 Pipe: 58 16.80 1 PL 2.67 PF 0.56 64 24.0 -10.53 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 34 24.0 -11.08 -0.119 TL 4.67 PV 0.32 Pipe: 59 134.40 2 PL 5.75 PF 3.00 34 24.0 -18.77 -13.73 120 FTG T PE - 39 24.0 -21.77 -0.191 TL 15.75 PV 1.27 Pipe: 60 16.80 1 PL 1.67 PF 0.44 74 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 39 24.0 -8.84 -0.119 TL 3.67 PV 0.32 Pipe: 61 151.20 2.5 PL 3.17 PF 1.21 39 24.0 -21.77 -9.89 120 FTG T PE - 40 24.0 -22.98 -0.080 TL 15.17 PV 0.66 Page 5 of 7 PIPE TAG • END NODES ELEV. (FT) NOZ. (K) PT (PSI) DISC. (GPM) Q (GPM) VEL (FPS) DIA (IN) HW (C) F,L./FT L^GTH (FT) PRESS. SUM. (PSI) Pipe: 62 16.80 1 PL 2.75 PF 0.57 44 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 65 24.0 -8.97 -0.119 TL 4.75 PV 0.32 Pipe: 63 16.80 1 PL 9.58 PF 1.38 65 24.0 -8.97 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 40 24.0 -10.35 -0.119 TL 11.58 PV 0.32 Pipe: 64 168.00 2.5 PL 1.67 PF 1.33 40 24.0 -22.98 -10.99 120 FTG T PE - 41 24.0 -24.31 -0.097 TL 13.67 PV 0.81 Pipe: 65 16.80 1 PL 1.50 PF 0.42 43 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 66 24.0 -10.56 -0.119 TL 3.50 PV 0.32 Pipe: 66 16.80 1 PL 7.00 PF 1.07 66 24.0 -10.56 -6.87 120 FTG E PE - 41 24.0 -11.63 -0.119 TL 9.00 PV 0.32 Pipe: 67 184.80 2.5 PL 1.58 PF 1.57 41 24.0 -24.31 -12.08 120 FTG T PE - 42 24.0 -25.88 -0.116 TL 13.58 PV 0.98 Pipe: 68 16.80 1 PL 2.58 PF 0.55 45 27.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE 1.30 42 24.0 -10.69 -0.119 TL 4.58 PV 0.32 Pipe: 69 201.60 2.5 PL 1.83 PF 1.88 42 24.0 -25.88 -13.18 120 FTG T PE - 47 24.0 -27.77 -0.136 TL 13.83 PV 1.17 Pipe: 70 16.80 1 PL 1.75 PF 0.45 46 23.0 5.65 8.84 16.8 6.87 120 FTG E PE (0.43) 47 24.0 -8.85 -0.119 TL 3.75 PV 0.32 Pipe: 71 218.40 3 PL 179.83 PF 12.66 47 24.0 -27.77 -9.92 120 FTG T PE - 67 24.0 -40.43 -0.065 TL 194.83 PV 0.66 Pipe: 72 453.60 4 PL 1.00 PF 1.30 67 24.0 -53.76 -11.59 120 FTG T PE - 68 24.0 -55.06 -0.062 TL 21.00 PV 0.90 Pipe: 73 453.60 4 PL 4.42 PF 0.89 68 24.0 -55.06 -11.59 120 FTG E PE - 69 24.0 -55.96 -0.062 TL 14.42 PV 0.90 Pipe: 74 453.60 4 PL 13.00 PF 1.42 69 24.0 -55.96 -11.59 120 FTG E PE 6.06 75 10.0 -57.38 -0.062 TL 23.00 PV 0.90 Page 6 of 7 PIPE TAG END NODES ELEV. (FT)- NOZ. (K) PT (PSi) DISC (GPM) Q (GPM) VEL (FPS) DIA (IN) HW (C) F.L./FT tSffiCTH (FT) PRESS. SUM. (PSI) Pipe: 75 453.60 4 PL 3.33 PF 0.82 75 10.0 -57.38 -11.59 120 FTG E PE - 76 10.0 -58.20 -0.062 TL 13.33 PV 0.90 Pipe: 76 453.60 4 PL 13.08 PF 1.43 76 10.0 -58.20 -11.59 120 FTG E PE - TOR 10.0 -59.63 -0.062 TL 23.08 PV 0.90 Pipe: 77 453.60 4 PL 13.00 PF 1.42 TOR 10.0 -59.63 -11.59 120 FTG E PE 5.63 BOR (3.0) -61.05 -0.062 TL 23.00 PV 0.90 Pipe: 78 453.60 4 PL 6.42 PF 0.67 BOR (3.0) -61.05 -11.59 150 FTG E PE - UG1 (3.0) -61.73 -0.041 TL 16.42 PV 0.90 Pipe: 79 453.60 6 PL 3.33 PF 0.04 UG1 (3.0) -61.73 -5.15 150 FTG PIV PE - UG2 (3.0) -61.76 -0.006 TL 6.33 PV 0.18 Pipe: 80 453.60 6 PL 10.17 PF 0.14 UG2 (3.0) -61.76 -5.15 150 FTG E PE - UG3 (3.0) 61.90 -0.006 TL 24.17 PV 0.18 Pipe: 81 453.60 6 PL 2.25 PF 0.19 UG3 (3.0) -61.76 -5.15 150 FTG CHK PE - UG4 (3.0) -61.96 -0.006 TL 34.25 PV 0.18 FIXED PRESSURE DEVICE, 453.60 GPM Pipe: 82 453.60 6 PL 2.25 PF 0.36 UG4 (3.0) -61.90 -5.15 150 FTG DCHK+4E PE (2.60) UG5 3.0 -62.26 -0.006 TL 63.25 PV 0.18 Pipe: 83 453.60 6 PL 26.67 PF 0.23 UG5 3.0 -61.96 -5.15 150 FTG E PE 2.60 SOR (3.0) -62.19 -0.006 TL 40.67 PV 0.18 Page 7 of 7 SPRINKLER SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Date: September 26, 2000 Project: Paloma Elementary School Building: Typical Classroom Building 0.10/1500 WATER SUPPLY DATA SOURCE NODE TAG STATIC PRESS. (PSI) RESID. AVAIL. TOTAL REQ'D PRESS. FLOW PRESS. DEMAND PRESS. (PSI) (GPM) (PSI) (GPM) (PSI) SOR 90 na 995 84.44 553.60 62.19 AGGREGATE FLOW ANALYSIS: TOTAL FLOW AT SOURCE TOTAL HOSE STREAM ALLOWANCE AT SOURCE OTHER HOSE STREAM ALLOWANCES TOTAL DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE SPRINKLERS 553.60 gpm 100.00 gpm 0.00 gpm 453.60 gpm NODE ANALYSIS DATA TAG E ELEVATION NODE PRESS. DISCHARGE (FT) TYPE (K=) (PSI) (GPM) 1 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 2 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 3 24.00 -11.78 - 4 24.00 -12.36 - 5 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 6 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 7 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 8 24.00 -10.63 - 9 24.00 -13.54 - 10 24.00 -18.72 - 11 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 12 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 13 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 14 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 15 24.00 -20.77 - 16 24.00 -22.47 - 17 24.00 -24.68 - 18 24.00 -27.60 - 19 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 20 24.00 -31.87 - 21 24.00 -33.48 - 22 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 23 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 24 24.00 -35.34 - Page 1 of 3 25 24.00 -37.48 - 26 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 27 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 28 24.00 -10.70 - 29 24.00 -11.62 - 30 24.00 -12.84 - 31 24.00 -14.84 - 32 24.00 -15.76 - 33 24.00 -17.06 - 34 24.00 • -18.77 - 35 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 36 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 37 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 38 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 39 24.00 -21.77 - 40 24.00 -22.98 - 41 24.00 -24.31 - 42 24.00 -25.88 - 43 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 44 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 45 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 46 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 47 24.00 -27.77 - 48 24.00 -11.14 - 49 24.00 -9.14 - 50 24.00 -8.81 - 51 24.00 -10.63 - 52 2400 -8.78 - 53 24.00 -10.70 - 54 24.00 -9.24 - 55 24.00 -10.54 - 56 24.00 -10.65 - 57 24.00 -9.10 - 58 24.00 -51.80 - 59 24.00 -8.87 - 60 24.00 -10.58 - 61 24.00 -8.98 - 62 24.00 -9.36 - 63 24.00 -10.71 - 64 24.00 -10.53 - 65 24.00 -8.97 - 66 24.00 -10.56 - 67 24.00 -53.76 - 68 24.00 -55.06 - 69 24.00 -55.96 - 70 24.00 -15.64 - 71 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 72 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 73 27.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 Page 2 of 3 74 23.00 5.65 8.84 16.80 75 10.00 57.38 - 76 10.00 58.20 - TOR 10.00 59.63 - BOR (3.00) 61.05 - UG1 (3.00) 61.73 - UG2 (3.00) 61.76 - UG3 (3.00) 61.76 - UG4 (3.00) 61.90 - UG5 3.00 61.96 - SOR (3.00) 62.19 - Page 3 of 3 Pressure Flow Pressure Flow 90 0 62.19 553.60 80 995 84.44 553.60 City Water Supply Curve (0 a. 3 0) m 100 90 i-90- 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 84.44, 62.19 80 -•-City Water -•-Demand 200 400 600 800 1000 Flow (gpm) 1200