Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 00-01; Laguna Village; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)February 29, 2000 To: Lori Rosenstein From: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner RE: RP 00-01 - Laguna Village Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. The following Issues have been Identified by the Planning Department: 1. The proposed density of 20.2 du/ac. is over the growth management control point for the RH density allocated to the Village Redevelopment Area. In order to exceed a density of 19 du./ac, one excess dwelling unit from the northwest quadrant will need to be allocated to this project in accordance with Council Policy No 43. 2. The project will require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A noise study will be required since the project proposes a residential use within the 60 dB(A) CNEL or greater noise contour. Noise mitigation measures will need to be incorporated into the project approval. 3. The project will require the purchase of 2.47 affordable housing credits or the provision of 2.1 affordable units within the project. 4. The project requires submittal of a tentative tract map application for the proposed 14 unit condominium. 5. Pursuant to Chapter 21.35.120, the project will need to comply with all ofthe regulations of the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45). The following items will need to be incorporated into the project in order for the proposal to be in compliance with the Planned Development regulations. a. Both common active and private passive open space is required at the rate of 200 square feet per unit. 50% of the required area shall be common active open space and may include the spa area. Private open space may be in the form of balconies with a minimum dimension of 6' x6'. b. Building setbacks from open parking spaces shall not be less than 5 feet. c. All open parking areas shall be screened by either a view-obscuring wall or fencing. d. All projects containing ten or more units must provide RV storage space at the rate of 20 square feet for each unit, exclusive of driveways and approaches. 6. Pursuant to the District 4 Redevelopment Area requirements, it appears that a six foot high decorative masonry wall will need to be constructed between the site and the commercial lot to the south. 7. Design Issues: The height limit in the District 4 allows buildings up to 45' when residences are located above parking areas. However, the 4 story structure seems massive and incompatible with the scale ofthe surrounding uses. Reducing the building to three stories would be more compatible with surrounding development and would be similar in scale to the project located east of the subject property on Roosevelt. As an alternative to deleting a story, would it be possible to partially submerge the parking area in order to reduce the appearance of the four stories? In order to reduce the mass ofthe building, each story should be stepped back a minimum of 5-10 feet from the lower levels. The incorporation of roof elements on the lower levels would also help to bring the building into a more human/pedestrian oriented scale. The building should incorporate architectural features such as pop- outs, dormers, and multi-paned windows for additional articulation and interest. Stone or upgraded building materials should be located around the perimeter of the lower level to add interest to the blank walls surrounding the enclosed parking area. The grass-crete back-up area within front setback may be an issue with the engineering department. Parking spaces located within the parking garage must have a minimum dimension of 8 !4 feet, exclusive of the supporting columns or posts. A backup distance of 24 feet shall be maintained in addition to a minimum 5 feet turning bump-out located at the and of any stall series. c: Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner Page 1 From: Pat Kelley To: Lori Rosenstein Date: 2/15/0010:14AM Subject: RP 000001 Comments The parking structures need H-cap accessible parking per California Building Code 1118A.1 It also appears they will need a minimum of two accessible spaces - one in each structure. If it's assigned parking, they can demonstrate that there can be van accessible parking installed in each garage at the request of the residents. This can greatly affect the height of the first floor. Van accessible parking is required to be 8'2" clear. Hanging plumbing and ducts for ventilation make this harder to achieve. This may complicate the overall height ofthe building. Please advise the architect ofthis concern. No other comments. I will send the drawings back Pat RECEIVED Memotandum "i"'" TO: Management Analyst, Lori Rosenstein FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: March 7, 2000 RE: RP 00-01, Laguna Village COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently considered Incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items. 1. A subdivision "Tentative Map" is required for the proposed condominium portion of the project. The applicant or his Engineer should submit a separate map for this action. The specific requirements are identified in the subdivision application submittal package, (attached for reference). Please show all current information. 2. The application should include a cross section of the adjacent roadways that serve this project ( Roosevelt Street & Laguna Drive and the proposed driveways ). The 24' driveways appear to be too narrow for the proposed use and for adequate vehicle access. From our initial review we recommend that the design use 1 30' wide driveway and split into 2 onsite. 3. The application should show all proposed utilities to serve this use, i.e. Sewer, water and storm drains as well as gas, cable and electric service. All services and meters must be located clear of proposed driveways and sidewalks. 4. Existing improvements, curb, gutter AC paved roadway and concrete sidewalk should be shown. Proposed improvements and alignment should also be shown. Perhaps a separate sheet can be used for this detail to avoid clutter and crowding of information. The offsite alignment of Roosevelt Street and the vertical alignment of Laguna Drive is a concern for sight distance and for City Design Standards. The alignment and right of way for Roosevelt Street should be shown. The specific information and area for the proposed street vacation on Roosevelt should be identified. 5. Specific Drainage information must be provided to support the proposed storm drain system. Existing capacity and preliminary calculations for the proposed site plan design should be provided. Additionally, staff has completed a review of the project for Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to scheduling of this project for a hearing are as follows: 1. The proposed hammer-head turn outs as Grass-Crete may not be clear for everyday use. Paved turnouts will be more visible and perhaps other methods of discouraging parking can be used. 2. The Edge condition around this project is unclear a 100' boundary condition should be shown, including buildings and drainage patterns. 3. The proposed grading to develop this project should be reviewed. The quantities appear to be significantly less than what is shown on sheet 2 of the site plan. 4. The proposed driveways do not meet current City Standards for project access (ref. Page 22 through 27 of City Engineering Design Criteria, attached for your use). A single driveway would fit the existing condition with less conflict than that as proposed. If you or the applicant have any questions regarding the above, please either see or call me at (760) 602-2742. CLYDE WICKHAM Associate Engineer Development Services Division c: Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, Development Services Division Attachment TorTRoienstein'" ^ From: Mikhail Ogawa To: Lori Rosenstein Date: 4/12/00 11:37AM Subject: Laguna Village - RP 00-01, CMWD 99-C508 Lori, I am sorry these comments are so late. I just received the project package last Monday. The following are CMWD comments: 1) The developer shall provide individual potable water meters for each condominium unit. 2) The developer shall design the landscaping to be irrigated with recycled water in accordance with CMWD standards and City ordinances. 3) The developer shall be aware that all public sewer, potable and recycled water pipelines, and fire hydrants shall be contained within public right of way or within a 20-foot wide easement dedicated to the City of Carlsbad or CMWD. 4) No dead end fire hydrant runs longer than 150 feet will be allowed. A "looped" water system may be required. The developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine the proper location of fire hydrants and sprinkler systems. 5) The developer shall provide the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities with estimated potable and recycled water demands in gallons per minute and sewer flows in millions of gallons pers day. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 2762. I Tori l^osenstein - Laguna Village Condo^K^OO-01) Page 1 From: Lori Rosenstein To: Barbara Kennedy Subject: Laguna Village Condos (RPOO-01) Hi Barbara! One of the unresolved issues regarding the above referenced project is the front yard setback. The Village Master Plan establishes a front yard setback of 0-10 feet in District 4. The PD Ordinance requires 20 feet. Furthermore, the regulatory framework for the Village Master Plan establishes all permitted land uses and development stanards for those properties within the Village Redevelopment Area. When a development standard or other regulation is not specifically identified in the Village Master Plan then the appropriate reference document is the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Master Plan Page 93). Based on this reference, it is the position of the Housing and Redevelopment Department that the appropriate setback standard to apply to the subject property is the front yard setback established in the Village Master Plan. Debbie asked that this question be processed through Michael and Gary for their interpretation. Can you please help me with this and let me know the Planning Department's position on this matter as soon as possible? Thank you! Lori REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST Date: February 10, 2000 V Planning Department - G. WAYNE Water District - B. PLUMMER Engineering Department - B. WOJCIK Landscape Plancheck Consultant - L. BLACK Police Department School District Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District City Attorney Fire Department - M. SMITH To Departments: Subject: RP 00-01 The attached plans and corresponding redevelopment pennit application have been submitted by Wave Crest Resorts for property located at 539 Laguna Drive. Please review the attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your comments to my office by February 28, 2000. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: PermitNo.: Applicant: Brief Description of Proposal: Assigned staff member: Lagima Village, 539 Lagima Drive RP 00-01 Bill Behun, architect The proposed project consists of a 14 unit condominium project over enclosed parking. Lori Rosenstein Please attach all comments and/or conditions and inform the Housing & Redevelopment in writing if there are no additional comments and/or conditions fi-om your department. Comments and conditions sent via e-mail are greatly appreciated. REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST Date: Febmary 10, 2000 Planning Department - G. WAYNE Water Distri }t}ct - B. City Ot Pi;liMMER Engineering Department - B. WOJCIK Landscape Plai^cli^ck , ( v Consultant - L. Bl Police Department School District Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District City Attorney V Fire Department - M. SMITH To Departments: Subject: RP 00-01 The attached plans and corresponding redevelopment permit application have been submitted by Wave Crest Resorts for property located at 539 Laguna Drive. Please review the attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your comments to my office by February 28,2000. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: PermitNo.: Applicant: Laguna Village, 539 Laguna Drive RP 00-01 Bill Behun, architect Brief Description of Proposal- Assigned staff member: The proposed project consists of a 14 unit condominium project over enclosed parking. Lori Rosenstein Please attach all comments and/or conditions and inform the Housing & Redevelopment in writing if there are no additional comments and/or conditions firom your department. Comments and conditions sent via e-mail are greatly appreciated. MELVIN DALTON McGEE ARCHITECT RECEIVED F £ B 0 7 '^MH 1530 West Lewis Street San Diego, CaKfomia 92103 MDJ iQ?Ur P^f^f^l-SBAD Tel (619) 299-9111 HUUSING & REDEVELOPMENT Pax (619) 260-1112 Memo To: *Lori Rosenstein, Mgt. Analyst, City of Carlsbad From: Bill Behun Data: February 4, 2000 Prajaet: Laguna Village Condominiums cc: Bill Canepa @ Wave Crest Resorts, Vince @ Sowards & Brown • Urgant • For Raviaw • Piaasa Commant • Othan a Commants: 1) The 10 plans for the initial submittal for Laguna Village were submitted on Wednesday, February 2 for the Major Redevelopment Application. Paul Godwin from the Planning Department took in the submittal. 2) Our Civil Engineer asked me to verify that a Tentative Tract Map is indeed the additional plans needed by the city to further process the project. I verified with Paul that a Tentative Tract Map is required. I asked Paul (for the civil engineer) what will be required to be shown on the Tentative Tract Map for this project. Paul gave me the APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS (copy enclosed). Paul said since this project is in the redevelopment area, they cannot tell us what would be required to be shown. Paul said you would be the person to tell us. 3) The Tentative Tract Map Application looks almost identical to the Application Checklist used for the Major Redevelopment submittal. It appears almost all of the items required fbr the Tentative Tract Map have already been dor\e for the Major Redevelopment submittal, vi/e discussed submitting the Tract Map later, since most of the work has already been done, perhaps it should be submitted now? What is your advice to expedite the project. 4) Would you check off what is required for the Tentative Tract Map application. Also, please review the Major Redevelopment submittal. Are there any additional items needed (specifically from parts 2,3 and 4 ofthe application checklist)? 5) Finally, now that a project is proposed, what is the process/timeline for this project? We want to prepare a iist of tasks, other fees and timeline so no items are forgotten. Thanks for your assistance. Citv ofCarlsbad FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/6/00 TIME SENT: 6:00 D.m. No. of pages transmitted (including fax transmittalpage): ^ No. of pages transmitted (including fax transmittalpage): ^ TO: Bill Behun COMPANY: McGee/Behun Architects PHONE: (619)299-9111 FAX: (619)260-1112 FROM: Lori Rosensteln DEPT: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPIMENT PHONE #: (760) 434- 2813 FAX#: (760)720-2037 E-MAIL #: Irose(gci.carIsbad.ca.us Bill: Once again, I apologize for the delay in getting this letter to you. As you know, I was waiting for Engineering comments which I expected to receive by the end of today. Since those comments were not received, I am forwarding the letter of completion for Laguna Village to you with the understanding that Engineering comments will be sent under a separate letter. The original is being sent via regular postal service with all attachments and enclosures. Please call me at the aboVe listed telephone number if you have any questions. This written message is for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged, and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this message is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, then the recipient is prohibited from reading or using this message in any way. If you have received this message by mistake, please call us immediately and destroy the telecopy message. Housing & Redevelopment Department • 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B • Carlsbad, California 92008 Citv of Carlsbad FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/8/00 TIME SENT: 12:15 D.m. No. of pages transmitted (inciudina fax transmittal oaae): 3 No. of pages transmitted (inciudina fax transmittal oaae): 3 Bill Behun FROM : Lori Rosenstein TO COMPANY: McGee/Behun Architects PHONE: (619)299-9111 FAX: (619)260-1112 DEPT: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PHONE #: (760) 434- 2813 FAX#: (760)720-2037 E-MAIL #: Irose@ci.carIsbad.ca.us Bill: I have attached the Engineering comments as promised to you in my letter dated March 3, 2000. The original is being sent via regular postal service with all attachments and enclosures. Once again, I apologize for the delay in getting these to you. Thank you for your continued patience. Please call me at the above listed telephone number if you have any questions. This written message is for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged, and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this message is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, then the recipient is prohibited from reading or using this message in any way. If you have received this message by mistake, please call us immediately and destroy the telecopy message. Housing & Redevelopment Department • 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B • Carlsbad, California 92008 Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department March 3, 2000 BILL BEHUN c/o MDM ARCHITECT 1 530 WEST LEWIS STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 SUBJECT: LAGUNA VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS (RPOO-01) 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 00-01, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to 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. The second list represents issues of concern to staff. 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 application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, February 2, 2000, 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 c: Clyde Wickham, Engineering Department Barbara Kennedy, Planning Department Bill Plummer, Carlsbad Municipal Water District Mike Smith, Fire Department Pat Kelley, Building Department Larry Black, Landscape Plancheck Consultant 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. RPOO-01 Planning and Housing & Redevelopment: The Planning Department and Housing & Redevelopment Department have completed their 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. The proposed density of 20.2 du/ac. is over the growth management control point (19 dwelling units per acre) for the RH density allocated to the Village Redevelopment Area. In order to exceed a density of 19 du./ac, a density bonus or density increase must be granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Please review said chapters of the Municipal Code (attached) and provide written justification stating how the project qualifies for either a density bonus or density increase. 2. The project will require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A noise study will be required since the project proposes a residential use within the 60 dB(A) CNEL or greater noise contour. Noise mitigation measures will need to be incorporated into the project approval. 3. The project will require the provision of 2.1 affordable units within the project. An off- site solution will be considered by staff if the applicant can demonstrate satisfaction of the inclusionary housing requirement through the processing of a combined project. At the present time, there is no affordable housing project within the northwest quadrant which would allow the purchase of credits to meet the inclusionary housing requirement. However, the Redevelopment Agency is considering recommending the establishment Tyler Court Apartments as a combined project. Timing of the project processing and the City Council's position on this proposal is uncertain at this time. 4. The project requires submittal of a tentative tract map application for the proposed 14 unit condominium. 5. Pursuant to Chapter 21.35.120, the project will need to comply with all of the regulations of the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45). The following items will need to be incorporated into the project in order for the proposal to be in compliance with the Planned Development regulations. a. Both common active and private passive open space is required at the rate of 200 square feet per unit. 50% of the required area shall be common active open space and may include the spa area. Private open space may be in the form of balconies with a minimum dimension of 6' x 6'. Please provide an exhibit showing adherence to this standard. b. Building setbacks from open parking spaces shall not be less than 5 feet. c. All open parking areas (guest parking) shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by either a view-obscuring wall or fencing. 0-Items Needed to Complete AppinStlon RPOO-01 Page 2 d. All projects containing ten or more units must provide RV storage space at the rate of 20 square feet for each unit, exclusive of driveways and approaches. At the present time there is no exemption for this requirement and the use of off-site storage has only been accepted for Master Planned communities that combine required RV storage areas. RV storage space may be provided off-site provided the property to be used as storage is part of the redevelopment permit application and no other development may occur on this property without an amendment to such permit. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission must find evidence that such off-site storage is suitable and not detrimental to the surrounding properties of such storage area. 6. Pursuant to the District 4 Redevelopment Area requirements, a six foot high decorative masonry wall will need to be constructed between the site and the commercial lot to the south. 7. Site plan modifications: a. Modify required parking calculation to show Planned Development Ordinance standard for parking. That is, two covered resident spaces per unit and five guest parking spaces for the first 10 units, plus one space for every four dwelling units above 10. b. * Add a calculation for building coverage percentage based on Carlsbad Municipal Code definition (see attached). Engineering: Engineering comments will be sent under separate copy. ISSUES OF CONCERN No. RPOO-01 In addition to the items listed above necessary in order to complete your application, City staff has made a preliminary review of the project for issues relative to the design and construction of the proposed project. The following issues need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to conditioning of the project: Planning and Housing & Redevelopment: 1. Design Issues: a. The height limit in the District 4 allows buildings up to 45' when residences are located above parking areas. However, the 4-story structure seems massive and incompatible with the scale of the surrounding uses. Reducing the building to three stories would be more compatible with surrounding development and would be similar in scale to the project located east of the subject property on Roosevelt and the proposed apartment building located immediately west of the subject property. As an alternative to deleting a story, would it be possible to partially submerge the parking area in order to reduce the appearance of the four stories? b. In order to reduce the mass of the building, each story should be stepped back a minimum of 5-10 feet from the lower levels. The incorporation of roof elements on the lower levels would also help to bring the building into a more human/pedestrian oriented scale. The building should incorporate architectural features such as pop- outs, dormers, and multi-paned windows for additional articulation and interest. Stone or upgraded building materials should be located around the perimeter of the lower level to add interest to the blank walls surrounding the enclosed parking area. c. The grass-crete back-up area within front setback may be an issue with the Engineering Department. d. Parking spaces located within the parking garage must have a minimum dimension of 8 72 feet, exclusive of the supporting columns or posts. A backup distance of 24 feet shall be maintained in addition to a minimum 5 feet deep back out area located at the end of any stall series. e. The Village Master Plan encourages projects which have a strong street presence and reduce pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. Staff strongly encourages a design with only one curb cut on Laguna Drive and the main entrance closer to the public street. Building Department: The Building Department has raised the following issues of concern: 1. The parking structures need handicapped accessible parking per California Building Code 1118A.1. It also appears they will need a minimum of two accessible spaces - one in each structure. If parking is assigned, applicant must demonstrate that there can be van accessible parking installed in each garage at the request of the residents. This can greatly affect the height of the first floor. Van accessible parking is required to be 8'2" clear. Hanging plumbing and ducts for ventilation make this harder to achieve. This may complicate the overall height of the building. Please advise the architect of this concern. Issues of Concern RPOO-01 Page 2 Landscape Plancheck: The City's Landscape Plancheck Consultant has completed the initial review of the Preliminary Landscape Plan. Corrections and suggestions have been included on Sheets 1, L-1, 8, and 9. A red-lined check print set containing staff's comments is enclosed for your use. Please make the required changes to the Landscape Plan and resubmit the revised plans to the Housing and Redevelopment Department for further review. The enclosed red- lined check print set must be returned with the modified plans to assist staff in its continued review of the project. Citv of Carlsbad FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/8/00 TIME SENT: 3:30 D.m. No. of pages transmitted (includinq fax transmittal page): 3 No. of pages transmitted (includinq fax transmittal page): 3 TO: Bill Behun COMPANY: McGee/Behun Architects PHONE: (619)299-9111 FAX: (619)260-1112 FROM: Lori Rosenstein DEPT: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PHONE #: (760) 434- 2813 FAX#: (760)720-2037 E-MAIL #: Irose@ci.carlsbad.ca.us Bill: The Engineering Department has revised their comments. Attached please fmd the revised comments. Please disregard the letter faxed to you earlier today. Please call me at the above listed telephone number if you have any questions. This written message is for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged, and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this message is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, then the recipient is prohibited from reading or using this message in any way. If you have received this message by mistake, please call us immediately and destroy the telecopy message. Housing & Redevelopment Department • 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B • Carlsbad, California 92008 Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department March 8, 2000 BILL BEHUN c/o MDM ARCHITECT 1 530 WEST LEWIS STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 SUBJECT: LAGUNA VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS (RPOO-01) As promised in my letter to you dated March 3, 2000, I am following up with the Engineering Department's comments as they pertain to the above referenced project. Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently considered incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items. 1. A subdivision "Tentative Map" is required for the proposed condominium aspect of the project. The applicant or his Engineer should submit a separate map for this action. The specific requirements are identified in the subdivision application submittal package, (attached for reference). Please show all current information. 2. The application should include a cross section of the adjacent roadways that serve this project ( Roosevelt Street & Laguna Drive and the proposed driveways ). The proposed driveways appear to be in conflict with standards for access and with the adjacent (Radio Station) driveways on Laguna Drive. We prefer the use of a single 30' wide driveway aligned across from the existing radio station driveway and parking lot. 3. The application should show all proposed utilities to serve this use, i.e. sewer, water and storm drains as well as gas, cable and electric service. All services and meters must be located clear of proposed driveways and sidewalks. 4. Existing improvements, curb, gutter AC paved roadway and concrete sidewalk should be shown. Proposed improvements and alignment should also be shown. Perhaps a separate sheet can be used for this detail to avoid clutter and crowding of information. The off-site alignment of Roosevelt Street and the vertical alignment of Laguna Drive is a concern for sight distance and for Citv Design Standards. The alignment and right of way for Roosevelt Street should be shown. The specific information and area for the proposed street vacation on Roosevelt should be identified. 5. Specific drainage information must be provided to support the proposed storm drain system. Existing capacity at the point of connection to the public storm drain should be provided. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @ March 8, 2000 RPOO-01 Page 2 In addition to the items listed above necessary in order to complete the application, staff has completed a review of the project for Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to scheduling this project for a public hearing are as follows: 1. The proposed drainage swales should contain a minimum gradient of 1%. The adjacent drainage patterns must be shown and provided for. All inlet areas or drainage sump conditions should have a fail-safe overflow to prevent flooding of adjacent property or buildings. 2. The edge condition around this project is unclear. Typically, a 100' boundary condition should be shown, including driveways, buildings and drainage patterns. From the scale provided, we understand a full 100' condition may not be feasible, provide as much as possible. 3. The proposed multiple driveway design should be reconsidered to comply with current City Standards for project access (ref. Page 22 through 27 of City Engineering Design Criteria, attached for your use). A single driveway would fit the existing condition with less conflict than that which is proposed. 4. Sight distance corridors must be provided at Roosevelt Street and at the proposed driveways. The clear area is a 25' triangular area measured from EC to BC and from apron flair of driveway. Nothing over 30" in height should be proposed in the sight distance corridor area. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter, please contact Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer at (760) 602-2742. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Clyde Wickham, Engineering Department Barbara Kennedy, Planning Department Bill Plummer, Carlsbad Municipal Water District Mike Smith, Fire Department Pat Kelley, Building Department Larry Black, Landscape Plancheck Consultant Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department April 13, 2000 BILL BEHUN c/o MDM ARCHITECT 1 530 WEST LEWIS STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 SUBJECT: LAGUNA VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS (RPOO-01) This letter is intended as a follow-up to my last letter, dated March 3, 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 (CMWD) following their review of the plans dated February 2, 2000: 1. The developer shall provide individual potable water meters for each condominium unit. 2. The developer shall design the landscaping to be irrigated with recycled water In accordance with CMWD standards and City ordinances. 3. The developer shall be aware that ail public sewer, potable and recycled water pipelines, and fire hydrants shall be contained within public right-of-way or within a 20- foot wide easement dedicated to the City of Carlsbad or CMWD. 4. No dead end fire hydrant runs longer than 150 feet will be allowed. A "looped" water system may be required. The developer shall meet with the Fire Marshall to determine the proper location of fire hydrants and sprinkler systems. 5. The developer shall provide the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities with estimated potable and recycled water demands in gallons per minute and sewer flows in millions of gallons per day. If you have any questions regarding the comments contained in this letter please contact either Mikhail Ogawa of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District at (760) 438-2762 or my office at (760) 434-2813. Sincerely, LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst c: Clyde Wickham, Engineering Department Barbara Kennedy, Planning Department Mikhail Ogawa, Carlsbad Municipal Water District 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 Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department August 3, 2000 MEL MCGEE McGEE / BEHUN ARCHITECTS 1530 WEST LEWIS STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 SUBJECT: Comments on Conceptual Revisions for Laguna Village (RPOO-01) APN: 203-101-30 At your request, staff reviewed the conceptual revisions for Laguna Village (RPOO-01). Listed below are the issues and/or comments raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of this review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. This conceptual review does not represent an in-depth analvsis of the proiect. Additional issues of concern mav be raised durinq the formal plan review process. Planninq: 1. The site plan layout does not meet the requirement of a 10-foot building separation between units. Consider attaching the units either in pairs or clusters. 2. The common open space areas should be contiguous so that a more aesthetically pleasing and useable space is provided in the rear corner of the parcel. In order to achieve this, it is recommended that units 8 and 9 be eliminated or relocated so that they are contiguous with the street facing units. 3. In order to reduce the mass of the buildings, the third story should be stepped back significantly from the second floor level (facing the street). Perhaps a balcony could be incorporated above the second floor. In addition, one-story elements (such as a covered porch or first story roof element) should be incorporated into the building elevation facing the street. The applicant should review the architectural design guidelines for PUD's. 4. Consider providing a secondary access point for the project, as this is generally a big issue for the City Council. Would it be possible to provide shared driveways along both the west and south property lines of the project? This could prove to be a benefit for the adjacent properties as weli. 5. Is there any possibility for developing the property to the west in conjunction with this development proposal? Housinq & Redevelopment: 1. The proposed project density is a great improvement to the overall project and will easier to prove neighborhood compatibility than the original design. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^ RPOO-01 Laguna Villagi 8/3/00 PAGE2 2. Stepping back of the third story element is strongly encouraged. The incorporation of an outdoor deck may be a workable solution. 3. In accordance with Section 21.85.040 G. of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, "the design of inclusionary units shall be reasonably consistent or compatible with the design of the total project development in terms of appearance, materials, and finished quality". The proposed inclusionary unit looks radically different from the other eight units. A higher level of compatibility is strongly encouraged. 4. The "row-house" design seems to be a good solution for this site. Additional comments on architectural consistency with the Village Design Guidelines will be made following preparation of building elevations. 5. The conceptual plans were not circulated to the Fire Department. At this time, conformance with the Fire Department's emergency access standards is unknown. Engineering: 1. The adjacent access, across the street, and to the west should be shown. The driveways either need to share & align or need to work with adequate spacing, so left turns are offset and not potential head-on's. 2. The curve at Unit # 7 could be a reciprocal or gated access to the adjacent commercial site. We would leave the easement details and the gate as a private matter between property owners but circulation, access, and truck turn around would be improved. 3. Technically, driveways over 150' long require a bulb or hammerhead turn-around. 4. Separate sewer, water and utilities will be required. This review does not constitute a complete review of the proposed project; additional items of concern may be identified upon formal project review. Please contact me at (760) 434-2813 if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. Sincerely, LORI ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Clyde Wickham, Engineering Dept Barbara Kennedy, Planning Dept 7-05-200 2:02PM FROM MDM ARCHITECT 6192601112 P. 1 r. McGEE/BEHUN ARCHITECTS MM Transmittal WELVIN DALTON MeGEE WILLIAM BEHUN 1 530 WEST LEWIS STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92)03 TELEPHONE: 419.299.911 I FACSIMILE: 619.260.1 112 To: Lori Rosenstein From: Mei McGee —1 i Projocfc Laguna Viltage, Carlsbad i Oate: July 5, 2000 1 i RB: Revised Scheme i CC: File I WE ARE SENDING: • Shop Drawing i • Change Order j • Prints • Originals • Specifications • Samples • Copy of Letter 1 Copies: Date: No. of Pages: De9criptior>: 1 7-5-00 i 3 concept plans i VIA: • Mail i • Hand X Fax 7«i^ tzo J7 • other TRANSMITTED: • For Approva) { xFor Review & Comment i \— • For Your Use & Info. • As Requested • Submit/Resubmit copies for Review/Distribution • Other • Romarlw; Lori, Here is the latest conceptual plan for the sjte: 9 units, freestanding except for frie unit attached to the low-income unit. I will call you tonxsnrow to discajss. Thank yjou. CL (M (D CM 0) f-O LLJ I- t—I I O < CL © oj © s (M I in I 1^ ^/J-^i/^/^ ^'^^^ McGEE / SEH UN ARCHITECTS 1530 weST LEWIS STREET SAN DiEGO CA 92 103 TBIEFMONE: 419.299.9111 FACSIMILE: 619.260.1112 ©COrVRISMT JOOO 0^ f^r ^ 7-05-200 2:04.PM FROM MDM ARCHITECT 6192601112 P. 3 tt I I McOEB/tEHUN ARCHITECTS 1530 WEST LEWIS STUEET SAN DiEGO CA 92103 TELEPHONE: 619,299.9111 FACSIMILE: 619.260.1112 ©corrRioHT 2000 Citv of T^arlsbad FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 8/3/00 TIME SENT: 5:30 p.m. No. of pages transmitted (inciudina fax transmittal oaae): 3 No. of pages transmitted (inciudina fax transmittal oaae): 3 TO: Mel McGee FROM: Lori Rosensteln COMPANY: DEPT: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PHONE: (619)299-9111 PHONE #: (760) 434- 2813 FAX (619)260-1112 FAX#: (760) 720-2037 E-MAIL #: lrose@ci.carisbad.ca.us Mel: I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. Thank you for your patience! Lori This written message is for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged, and non-disclosable infonnation. If the recipient of this message is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, then the recipient is prohibited from reading or using this message in any way. If you have received this message by mistalce, please call us immediately and destroy the telecopy message. Housing & Redevelopment Department • 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B • Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST Date: July 6, 2000 V Planning Department - B. KENNEDY Water District V Engineering Department - C. WICKHAM Landscape Plancheck Consultant Police Department School District Building Department North County Transit District City Attorney Fire Department To Departments: Subject: RP 00-01 The attached conceptual site plan has been submitted by Wave Crest Resorts for property located at 539 Laguna Drive. The architect is requesting general comments on the "new" site plan. Please take a look at the plans and e-mail me your general issues of concern by Friday, July 14th. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: Permit No.: Laguna Village, 539 Laguna Drive RP 00-01 Applicant: Bill Behun, architect Brief Description of Proposal: Assigned staff member: 9 unit condominium project with attached two car garages. Lori Rosenstein ^^..p^.p^...^^^^^ I I I K„r_r_^^ From: Barbara Kennedy To: Lori Rosenstein Date: 7/13/00 4:25PM Subject: RP 00-01 Here are my comments. Looks like they are heading down the right path with a few modifications. BK CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE REVIEW TO: tattrre Rosenstein, Management Analyst July 13, 2000 FROM: Associate Planner - Barbara Kennedy RE: RP 00-01 - Laguna Village The Planning Department has completed its review of the above referenced project and is recommending the following qeneral comments: 1. The site plan layout does not meet the requirement of a 10 foot building separation between units. Consider attaching the units either in pairs or clusters. 2. The common open space areas should be contiguous so that a more aesthetically pleasing and usable space is provided in the rear corner of the parcel. In order to achieve this, it is recommended that units 8 and 9 be eliminated or relocated so that they are contiguous with the street facing units. 3. In order to reduce the mass of the buildings, the third story should be stepped back significantly from the second floor level (facing the street). Perhaps a balcony could be incorporated above the second floor. In addition, one story elements (such as a covered porch or first story roof element) should be incorporated into the building elevation facing the street. The applicant should review the architectural design guidelines for PUD'S. 4. Consider providing a secondary access point for the project as this is generally a big issue for the Planning Commission and City Council. Would it be possible to provide shared driveways along both the west and south property lines of the project? This could prove to be a benefit for the adjacent properties as well. 5. Is there any possibility for developing the property to the west in conjunction with this development proposal? From: Clyde Wickham To: Lori Rosenstein Date: 7/25/00 8:58AM Subject: Re: Laguna Village RPOO-01 Yes! I'm sorry i am so late... I do have comments 1. The adjacent access, across the street, and to the west should be shown. The driveways either need to share & align or need to work with adequate spacing, so left turns are offset and not potential head-on's. 2. The cun/e at Unit # 7 could be a reciprocal or gated access to the adjacent commercial site. We would leave the easement details and the gate as a private matter between property owners but circulation, access, and truck turn around would be improved. 3. Technically, driveways over 150' long require a bulb or hamerhead turn-around. 4. Separate sewer, water and utilities will be required. Thats all for now..Thanks again for asking »> Lori Rosenstein 07/24/00 02:53PM »> Hi Clyde! Do you have any initial comments and/or concerns regarding the conceptual revisions to the above referenced project? Lori JANUARY 29, 2001 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund (Laguna Village RPOO-01) Wavecrest Resorts LLC has submitted the attached letter requesting an official withdrawal of all land use permit applications submitted for property located at 539 Laguna Drive (APN 203-101-30). The applicant is requesting a refund in the amount of $3,330.00 for fees paid in association with the processing of Major Redevelopment Permit No. RPOO-01. The applicant has acquired the adjacent property and has submitted a preliminary review application for the combined property. Pending the outcome of the preliminary review, a formal development application submittal is likely to be forthcoming. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the application fees outlined above. I am therefore requesting your assistance in processing the refund request. In addition, please let me know if I need to enter this information into Permits Plus or if it will be taken care of during the refund process. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. As always, I appreciate your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Barbara Kennedy, Planning Clyde Wickham, Engineering Pat Kelley, Building Mike Smith, Fire WIVECREST RECEIVED 829 Second Street, Suite A Encinitas, California RESORTS LLC 92024 (760) 753-2440 JAN 26 2001 FAX: (760) 753-2423 CITYOFCARLSBAD HOUSING &REOEVEU}PMgNT DEFWRTMENT 1/26/01 Lori Rosenstein City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Re: Application #RP 00-01 Laguna Village At 539 Laguna Dr. Carlsbad Dear Lori, We are hereby requesting a withdrawal of the above referenced application and are requesting a full refund of filing fees. We will be filing a new application shortly for a revised project that will include the adjacent property at 519 Laguna Drive. Bill Canepa 2001 JANUARY 29, 2001 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund (Laguna Village RPOO-01) Wavecrest Resorts LLC has submitted the attached letter requesting an official withdrawal of all land use permit applications submitted for property located at 539 Laguna Drive (APN 203-101-30). The applicant is requesting a refund in the amount of $3,330.00 for fees paid in association with the processing of Major Redevelopment Permit No. RPOO-01. The applicant has acquired the adjacent property and has submitted a preliminary review application for the combined property. Pending the outcome of the preliminary review, a formal development application submittal is likely to be forthcoming. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the application fees outlined above. I am therefore requesting your assistance in processing the refund request. In addition, please let me know if I need to enter this information into Permits Plus or if it will be taken care of during the refund process. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at X2813. As always, I appreciate your assistance on this matter. fe LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Barbara Kennedy, Planning Clyde Wickham, Engineering Pat Kelley, Building Mike Smith, Fire WIVECREST RECEIVED 829 Second Street, Suite A Encinitas, California RESORTS LLC 92024 (760) 753-2440 [JAN 26 2001 FAX: (760) 753-2423 CITYOFCARLSBAD HOUSING &RE0EVELOPMiNT DEWM^TMENT 1/26/01 Lori Rosenstein City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Re: Application #RP 00-01 Laguna Village At 539 Laguna Dr. Carlsbad Dear Lori, We are hereby requesting a withdrawal of the above referenced application and are requesting a full refund of filing fees. We will be filing a new application shortly for a revised project that will include the adjacent property at 519 Laguna Drive. Sincerely, Bill Canepa FlPtt:: RP000001 Address: 1539 LAGUNA DR CBAD Status: WITHDRWN OVVNER: WAVE CREST RESORTS LLC Date: 02/02/2000 M Fee Piocessing for RP000001 Fee Summarv Calculated Fees: ( Additional Fees; T Total Fees: | $3.330.00 $0.00 Details $3,330.00 Paynnents: Balance: $3,330.00! I Details 1 $0.00 Include deferred payments in Fee Details: f" Include Trust transactions in Payment Details: f WamB' Backstop r" All Fees Detail Item tt Description Fee Amount Pmt Amount Balance Account Code '— 220 MINOR/MAJ PMT $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 00132104305 '— 280 ENVIRONMENTAL $1,030.00 $1,030.00 $0.00 00132104812 '— 290 APPEAL/DETER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 00132104813 _— 310 NOTICE FEES $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 00132104817 _— 330 PLNG MISC DEV FEES $0.00 ' JO.OO $0.00 00132104819 _— 1110 RD-MINOR/MAJ PMT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 80100004305 jgQStaitl giGroup... I g|Docum...| QfeSnaglt-l E'PERM...| C;^Projecul CvType:... | C3>FeePf...| [? N^@<£ic|S8:54AM 1,0 3o 3.3 39 00/ 3A/o I, 0 So - ^-z>o lypm RP Vers: 9801 Redevelopment Permit Sub-Type; MAJRP {Projecll m m RPtt:: Status: Date: RP000001 -Address: 1533 LAGUNA DR CBAD WITHDRV/N QWNER: jWAVE CREST RESORTS LLC 02/02/2000 Backstop r' Scrcfin;: Dtscr m. Fee Processing for RP000001 Fee Summary Calculated Fees: j $3,330.00| | Dgtaij£...J Additional Fees: I $000] LD£tgj!£.J Total Fees: I $3,330.00 Payments: Balance: $3,330.00 Details $0.00 Include deferred payments in Fee Details: f Include Trust transactions in Pa^iment Details: f" Pa^Jment History Deferred Entered Time Type Method Amount Posted Notation (Posted) 02/02/2000 12:00 AM Payment Check $500.00 02/02/2000 Paid 02/02/2000 12:00 AM Payment Check $500.00 02/02/2000 Paid 02/02/2000 12:00 AM Payment Check $2,830.00 02/02/2000 (Posted) 02/02/2000 12:00 AM Payment Check $2,830.00 02/02/2000 jgQStaitl ^GroupWi...| BMicro$of...| BPERMI... | i::3.Activities...| C]> Type: R... | ITl. Fee Pro... | taaSnaglt/32| |N?<{lc^®I3© 10:34 AM Proiect Title: 1 LAGUHA VILLAGE Descriplion: |14 UNIT CONDO PROJECT Address: 1539 LAGUNA"DFt^BAD Parcel: 1203-101-30-001 iWAVE CREST RESORTS LLC Applicant: IBEHUN BILL Pri Planner: IKENNEDY H/R Staff: ROSENSTEIN Action: Action Date: Appeal Date: H/R Dir I f /—I Resolutions: Pri Engineer: IWICKHAM PIng Area: 1 ] DRB Env. Determ: [ City CncI • CUE / i Ordinarice: Applied: 102/02/2000 Complete: / / Expires: I / / Withdrawn: 101/26/2001 Response: =:[zo: !!i^Stait| g^GrouD... I gPlDocum...! {&iSnaglu| ffl'PERM...| i::^.Project...j Cl^^Type:... | C^^GENE... | | f N^@<Eie|S J>G)[1© 8:58AM City of Carlsbad Planning Department INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Fomi - Part I will be used to determine what type of environmental documentation (i.e." Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your application, per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the infonnation you provide is critical for purposes of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project. Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is checklist that is merely checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes" or "no" answer. This is especially important when a Negative Declaration is being sought. The more infomiation provided in this fonn, the easier and quicker it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II. FEB 0 2 2000 CITY OF CARLSBAO PLANNING DEPT 2075 Las Palnnas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 ENVmONMENTAL^IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: CA<^<^V^ V X^^H^ . 2. APPLICANT: mim0mmmmm^ i^s^m LLG 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: ^CO^^IO , <>U ITg A &M6|M\TAS; CA. ^2<P^4- C^bo^l^^-^f^o 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: UNIT ^<?rOOOMI?silO/V\ f^U>M;Or rofO^ISTlKlg^ <s>f : 1- 4-UVEUBOjLpiKifcS W'tH AlJ gLBVATDe./Ev^|fe.Y CORE CpfOfjECTllOfc^ tl/f^ SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check- any of the environmental factors listed below that would bc potentially affected by this project.- This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages." I I Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services I I Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems I I Geological Problems []] Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics I I Water Q Hazards Q Cultural Resources I I Air Quality Noise Q Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Enviromnental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Oveniding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Oveniding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in "reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the forni under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents mtx^ he referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incoiporated Less Than Significan t Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? |—i (Source #(s): (CAjH^l^ftO gBq^V- MftVTEj?. flAiJ, 9l6Tjl»W 4- b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or i—| policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 4r project? (^A(ZU«»>/VO P^PtlBU.M<KTRI.fVhvJ , Oi^f. 4^ (Cf^MP-PKT-4-) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( C/^A^P~PISP4^ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( CfM9- P»Sr)4— • • •, II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( CftMP- P^^^)4" b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (gitE 14 Vftc/Jrwr LOT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No Impact • m III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? ( ) a) b) c) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? . ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) • • • m • • • • • • m • • • v: • • • K • • • X • • • • • • • • • m • • • • • • 0 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) id) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? , ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation'^ ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ' b) Hazards to safety from design feamres (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • •. • • m • • • Q • • • H • • • • 0 • • • B • • • m • • • y • • • y. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • 7. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may he referred to and attached) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigatioa Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • • • • m • • • • • • • • • s VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Resuh in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard ih areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? ( ) a) b) c) Police protection? ( Schools? ( ) • • • ^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m • • • 9 • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e). Other govemmental services? ( ) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • • • • 0 • • a • • • a • • • IS • • • 12 • . • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m • • • (S B • • • (S B • • • H • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact • s • ^ • • ^ XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In.this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact'" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Oveniding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concunent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or afe included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all hreeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 9 Rev. 03/28/96 are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concunent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions ofproject approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96