HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 04-11; Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)(To be completed by staff)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ^\t>^^^>H^ ^ ^AVk M\^^
2. APPLICANT: k AK TLAN>V3 t lO>gy ^
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: C^SO^ ''^TA'p^ .^TRfer ^
4. PROJECT DESCRPTION: yK^V-^J^yJS&^ -gfelgtVi L>K)VTTM>^-
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mifigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
I I Population and Housing Q 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 Q Noise | | Recreation
m fiECaVEO
I j Mandatory Findings of Significance
MAY 25 2004
1 Rev. 06/2000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no 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
Overriding 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. 06/2000
• 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 "Potenfially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declarafion 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 Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to detemiine 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
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (
)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (
)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(
)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (
)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (
)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• n
• u
• ^
• • M
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (
)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directiy or
indirectiy (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
(
)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (
)
•
•
•
•
• B
• 0.
n • • s
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (
)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (
)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
(
e) Landslides or mudflows? (
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(
g) Subsidence of the land? (
)
)
soil
• • • S
• • •
• • •
• • • ><,
• • •
• • •
• • • ^
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attactied)
h) Expansive soils? (
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
(
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • • K[
• • • Kl
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? (
)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (
)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (
)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (
)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (
)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 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? (
•
•
•
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • s
• • a
• • El
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(
)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (
)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(
)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(
)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(
)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(
)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
(
)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• M
• M
•
•
•
•
• • • ^
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) Wetiand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(
)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( )
VIIL 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? (
)
• • • IS
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X.
• • • X
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (
)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• n
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (
)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (
)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?(
)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (
)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (
)
• • • K
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ^
• H
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(
)
•
•
•
•
• n
• s
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:
a) Fire protection? (
b) Police protection? (
c) Schools? (
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(
e) Other governmental services? (
)
)
• • •
• • • K.
• • • X
• • • X,
• • •
xn. 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) Coimnunications systems? (
) •
•
•
• • a
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
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? (
)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorp)orated
• • IE
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • El
• • •
• • •
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?
(
)
• • • El
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • E
• • • X
• • •
Rev. 06/2000
Karnak Planning & Design, Inc.
Robert Richardson, Planner
2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, Ca 92008
(760) 434-8400 Fax (760) 434-8493
e-mail: karnakarch(g).aol.com
October 12, 2005
To: City of Carlsbad .
Housing and Redevelopment Department 6%f 21
Attention: CliffJones
-Van Lynch, Pldiiiiing
David Rick, Engineering
Reference: Application Review
Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Proiect Redevetopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
The following is a response to the Review Comments, Dated June 24. 2005.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Housinq & Redevelopment:
Item 1:
Staff is aware of the efforts made to date to meet with surrounding owners of property to address
any concerns they may have. Any feasible changes have been made to the plans and a listing
attached hereto describes changes made.
Item 2:
The masonry wall between the properties to the east and the south has been noted on the plans
as being 6'-0" high above the sidewalk level on this project side of the wall. Refer also to the
listing of changes attached hereto. Please note that the wall height will be less than 6'-0" on the
Ocean Mist side (M. Bovenzi proiect) as our grade has been lowered.
Item 3:
Please refer to the attached plans for storage areas with dimensions noted and scheduled.
Item 4:
Please refer to the enclosed 11x17 sheets showing the colored elevations as requested.
Item 5:
Please refer to the Color and Finishes board included with this response.
Engineering:
Item 1:
We contacted the Engineering Department and were told that they do not have such an
application. Kathleen Farmer gave us the name and telephone number of Michael Bliss of the
Parks Department and Cliff Jones affirmed that we should speak with Michael. We are awaiting
information and/or papenvork from Michael with regard to the specific trees in question.
Item 2:
Please refer to civil drawings for line of site triangles.
Item 3:
Please refer to the plans included with this response. Name of civil engineer has been revised.
Item 4:
Please refer to the plans included with this response.
Item 5:
Please refer to the civil drawings and response in the plans included with this response.
Thank you,
Mike Flintjer Project Manager
Karnak Planning & Design
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevetopment Department
June 24, 2005
ROBERT RICHARDSON
KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
2802 STATE ST, STE C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Subject: Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 &CDP 04-30
Dear Robert:
The items requested from you eartier to make your administrative redevelopment permit
application no. RP 04-11 and coastal development permit CDP 04-30 complete have
been received and reviewed by the Housing & Redevelopment Department and all other
appropriate departments. It has been determined that the application is now complete
for final processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already
begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this
communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that
you clarify, amplify, correct, or othenA/ise, supplement the basic information required for
the application.
In an effort to continue to process the application in the most expeditious manner as
possible, a list of issues identified by staff during the project review period has been
included with this correspondence. These issues must be resolved prior to staff making
a final determination on the project.
Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up
a meeting to discuss the application.
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director
David RicK, Engineering
2965 Roosevelt St., ^te. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^
ISSUES OF CONCERN
RP04-11
Housing & Redevelopment:
1. Applicant must make a good faith effort to address the adjacent neighbors concerns
before staff makes a recommendation on the project. As we have previously
discussed. Housing & Redevelopment staff, the applicant/property owner, and the
architect will meet with adjacent property owners to the south, north, and east to
discuss their development concerns if any. Housing & Redevelopment staff will
attend these meetings to document issues of concern raised. The results of these
meetings may result in staff requesting additional modification to the design of the
project to address concerns, as determined by staff to be appropriate.
2. As you are already aware, a typical condition of approval of the project will be that
the proposed project shall have a solid masonry wall installed along common lot lines
(since the project has a non-residential component). The height of the walls is an
issue still to be discussed with the property owner to the south. This discussion must
occur before staff can make a final recommendation on the project.
3. Please indicate the dimensions as well as the total amount of tenant storage space
for each unit This will help to relieve any ambiguity of the amount of tenant storage
space provided.
4. Please provide staff with colored elevations, which depict the proposed project with
the adjacent developments drawn in.
5. Staff never received a construction materials board. Please submit a construction
materials board and color samples with next submittal.
Engineering:
The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project for
compliance with the previously determined issues. The project still has issues that must be
addressed. The following is a list of these issues:
1. All trees removed within the public right-of-way require separate approval through
the General Services Division of the Public Works Department. Since a tree and
a shrub/tree that is in the right-of-way are identified for removal, contact the
General Services Division to begin the permit process. Provide evidence that this
process has either begun or is completed. Althouah vour previous response letter
indicated that a copv of the application was sent with vour iast submittal. I did not
receive a copv.
2. Adjust the triangular site distance at the street Intersection on sheet 4 of the
Engineering plans and Sheet 2 of the landscape plans. The hypotenuse of the
triangle shall connect at points along the street curb 25 feet from the beginning of
curb return in each direction away from the intersection of Oak Street and Lincoln
Avenue. The triangular area is still not properiy measured from the BCR.
3. Correct the name of the Civil Engineer listed on Sheet 01.0. According to the
tentative map, Conway and Associates, not La Costa Engineering, is the Civil
Engineering firm.
4. Please provide a separate sheet to the tentative map which shows, at minimum,
the westerly portion of the future development of the northeasterly abutting lot.
Copies of the approved plans (CT 04-18 Ocean Mist Condominiums) are on file
at the City for your viewing. Include any adjusted grades. Grading and
improvement plans are currently under City review and processes.
5. Staff recently realized that there is a conflict between the CT 04-18 Ocean Mist
Condominium project and the subject development The sidewalk for CT 04-18
Ocean Mist Condominiums is approved noncontiguous with the curb. The Lincoln
and Oak Mixed Use project has sidewalk contiguous with the curb on Oak
Avenue. The Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use project sidewalk will need to be
redesign to be noncontiguous with the curb. Considering that staff has already
had you redesign the sidewalk from noncontiguous to contiguous, if redesign at
this time is to burdensome we can accept the design as currently shown and
condition the project that the redesign be shown in the final improvement plans
and the approved tentative map mylar. Regardless, do revise, as necessary, the
top of curb and flow line elevation at the easterly curb and gutter terminus to
match the approved elevations for the Ocean Mist Condominium Project.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact David Rick at
(760)602-2781.
Karnak Planning & Design, Inc.
Robert Richardson, Planner
2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, Ca 92008
(760) 434-8400 Fax (760) 434-8493
e-mail: kamakarch@aol.eom
May 26, 2005
To: City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Attention: Ciiff Jones
Van Lynch, Planning
David Rick, Engineering
Reference: Plan Check for Application
Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Proiect Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
The following is a response to the Review Comments, Dated March 28. 2005.
List of Items Needed To Complete The Application
RP04-11
Housing & Redevelopment:
Item 1:
Piease refer to the plans submitted with this response for the CT05-03 on each
sheet.
Item 2:
The line of sight from the roof decks is a matter that is being finalized in meetings
with the property owners to the east and to the south of the site. A minor revision
has been made to the Roof Deck #5 to show a screen wall on the east-facing
side. No other revisions to the pians have been required and an agreement is
close.
Item 3:
Please refer to the pians accompanying this response. The grading has been
revised to meet the requirement for a basement ievei parking garage/retaii
space. Please refer aiso to the civii engineer's responses included with this
response.
Item 4:
Please refer to the sheets 01.0, L1.0 and Ll .1 of the pians included with this
response for landscape percentages.
Item 5:
Piease refer to sheets A5.2 and AA3.0 in the plans included with this response -
the drawings were not totally coordinated in the previous issue.
Item 6:
Please refer to the color palette and color elevations included with this response.
Engineering:
Itemi:
The permit process for tree removal shall be started concurrently with the
submittal ofthis response. See copy of application attached.
Item 2:
Piease refer to the pians included with this response for the CT05-03 added to
sheets as required.
Item 3:
Please refer to the civil engineer's responses and drawings submitted with this
response. Please also refer to sheet AS1.0 for relocated No.5 leader note.
Item 4:
A ietter from Waste t\/lanagement was submitted with the previous submittal
stating that they have no problem with the trash room location and will service
the location as shown on the plans.
Item 5:
Please refer to the civil engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 6:
Piease refer to the civil engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 7:
Please refer to the civil engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 8:
Please refer to the civii engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 9:
Please refer to the civii engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 10:
Piease refer to the civii engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 11:
Piease refer to the civil engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 12:
Piease refer to the civii engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 13:
Please refer to the civil engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Item 14:
Piease refer to the civil engineer's drawings and responses for this item.
Thank you,
iVtike Flintjer Project Manager
Karnak Pianning & Design
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevetopment Department
March 28, 2005
ROBERT RICHARDSON
KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
2802 STATE ST, STE C
CARLSBADCA 92008
Subject: Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
Dear Robert:
Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carisbad. The Housing and
Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments, has
reviewed your Redevelopment Permit, application No. RP 04-11, as to its completeness
for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. The attached list includes information that
must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted
directty to the Housing & Redevetopment Office. Att 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 application
will be initiated. 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 (750) 434-2813, if ycu have any questions or v»'ish to set up
a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director
David Rick, Engineering
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^
LIST OF ITEIVIS NEEDED
TO COIVIPLETE THE APPLICATION
RP04-11
Staff has completed a review of the subject project for application completeness. The
application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete at this time. The following
additional items are required to find the application complete: (Please note, the issues
are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.)
Housing & Redevetopment:
1. Please add the assigned CT number CT05-03 to the tentative map.
2. As was stated previously, staff has a concern about the proposed roof decks and the
downward visibility they will have into adjacent properties. Due to concerns that the
Housing & Redevelopment Department has received from adjacent property owners
on the proposed project sine the latest submittal. Staff shall require the property
owner and architect to meet with the surrounding neighbors to address their
concerns. Staff will require letters from adjacent property owners documenting their
opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final
determination on the proposed project. A good faith effort shall be made to address
neighbor concerns before proceeding with the project.
3. As stated previously, staff has concerns about combination retaining wall/fences.
Please be aware that the combination retaining wall and fences along property lines
shall not exceed six feet as measured from the exterior of the property. Please show
the proposed fencing on top of the retaining wall and indicate the highest point of the
combination retaining wall/fence. Show the fence on cross sections A-A and B-B.
Please note that the building department requires a minimum fence height of 36
inches from the interior of the property.
4. Please indicate on the landscape plans (Sheets Ll .0 & Ll .1) the percentages each
landscaped area equates to the overall property. Please demonstrate the
percentage of any and all proposed landscaped planters, open space pocket and/or
connections, roof gardens, balconies, patio and/or outdoor eating areas and how
they equate to the minimum 20% open space requirement devoted to landscaped
pedestrian an'.snities.
5. Please explain why the distance between the door to the entrance of roof deck 5 to
the end of the roof deck is different on sheets A5.2 & A3.0.
6. Staff never received a construction materials board or colored elevations. Please
submit a construction materials board and color samples with next submittal. Staff
shall require the applicant to provide digital drawings depicting the elevations of the
proposed project with the adjacent properties in the elevations as well (including any
recently approved building plans of adjacent properties). On the elevations, roof
heights shall be clearly indicated. These digital images will help to demonstrate the
project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Engineering:
1. All trees removed within the public right-of-way require separate approval through
the General Services Division of the Public Works Department. Since a tree and
a shrub/tree that is in the right-of-way are identified for removal, contact the
General Services Division to begin the permit process. Provide evidence that this
process has either begun or is completed.
2. Add CT 05-03 in the upper right hand corner of the map.
3. Connecting the trash room to the sanitary sewer is permissible with a trap primer.
However, do not connect the drain within the parking lot to the sanitary sewer.
Engineering staff has evaluated the codes that were sited in the previous letter
and determined that Section 15.12.055 does not preclude the discharge of runoff
to the public storm drain system. Because Encinas Wastewater has informed us
not to accept such connections and the City prefers to treat runoff pollutants prior
to entrance to the public storm drain system just as an exposed parking lot,
redirect connection to the storm drain as originally requested by staff. Show said
connection and incorporate structural BMP to treat runoff within the parking lot.
As currently proposed, the oil water separator is an acceptable means of
treatment. Revise note 10 on sheet 1 of the tentative map and revise "Parking
area runoff" on page 4 of 5 of the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP) accordingly. Also, on sheet ASI .0 align the No. 5 leader note with the
trench drain.
4. Locate the trash bins in a location accessible for pick-up. Trash trucks will not be
able to enter the covered parking. Suggest placing near either driveway
entrance.
5. Adjust the triangular site distance at the street intersection on sheet 4 of the
Engineering plans and Sheet 2 of the landscape plans. The hypotenuse of the
triangle shall connect at points along the street curb 25 feet from the beginning of
curb return in each direction away from the intersection of Oak Street and Lincoln
Avenue.
6. On the street cross sections on sheet 4 of the offsite improvements, where base
material should be or appears to be a note states that it is AC. Please review and
correct as necessary.
7. Add a note to the plan that clearly designates all onsite sewer as private and
privately maintained.
8. Will a fence be proposed on top of the perimeter retaining wall? If so, show on
cross sections A-A and B-B and indicate height. Also, per these cross sections, it
appears that the drainpipes will be placed in an open trench. Is this correct?
Trench should be filled.
9. On sheet 2 of the engineer's plans, correct the storm drain rim elevation for Delta
11. The plan reads 49.40 but the table reads 49.50.
10. Specify the pipe diameter of the new water service lines and sewer. The water
should be 1 inch each and the sewer 6 inch.
11. Under heading number 4 of the sheet index, change upper floor to ground level.
12. On sheet 1 of the tentative map, change EDU's under "Projected Sewer Use" from
2 existing EDU's to 1.55 EDU's.
13. Add a legend to the plans.
14. One of the Storm Water Management Plan's cover sheets states that the project
consists of 15 units and does not site CT 05-03. I removed the same sheet found
after the appendices in the other report. Please make sure any future revised
reports are corrected accordingly.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact David Rick at
(760) 602-2781.
Landscaping:
Landscape comments are forthcoming and will be sent under a separate cover.
Conway & Associates, In^
Civil Engineers./Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412
2525 Pio Pico Drive • Suite 102 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753-1453 • Fax (760) 635-0839
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Monday, May 23, 2005
TO: Kamak Architecture & Planning
Attn: Robert Richardson
2804 State Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
FROM: Michael Pasko
PROJECT: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Building
SUBJECT: Engineering Responses to March 28, 2005 City Review Letter
In response to the March 23, 2005 City Carlsbad review comments, our TM-related response items are
listed below. The numbering on this memo corresponds to the March 23, 2005 City review letter. Note
that all other not listed herein are Architectural response items.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
1. All sheets: City CT 05-03 number noted in upper-right comer of sheet.
3. Sheet 2: perimeter retaining wall/barrier/fence requirements noted on Section A-A and Section B-B.
ENGINEERING
2. All sheets: City CT 05-03 number noted in upper-right corner of sheet.
3. Sheet I: per City direction, parking garage floor drain connection to public storm drain shown, work
note 10 modified, oil-water separator called out at inlet point; trash room floor drain connection to
sanitary sewer shown, work note 14 added, oil-water separator called out at inlet point; Page 4 of
pSWMP: parking garage floor drain connection to public storm drain with oil-water separator noted.
5. Sheet 2: corner sight distance triangle reconfigured per City comment.
6. Sheet 4: Oak Avenue typical street section pavement requirements revised per City review comment.
7. Sheet I: on-site utility maintenance note added for private sanitary sewer and private storm drain
systems.
8. Sheet 2: perimeter retaining wall/barrier/fence requirements noted on Section A-A and Section B-B;
drainage system piping reconfigured per City comments.
9. Sheet 2: rim elevation for storm drain item 11 revised.
10. Sheet 1: work item no. 6-1" water service noted, work item no. 7 - 6" sewer service noted, work item
no. 15 - 6" fire service noted; Sheet 2: fire, sewer & water service sizes noted on plan.
11. Sheet 1 & Sheet 2: sheet index item 4 description revised to "ground floor level and first (upper) floor
level."
12. Sheet 1: under "projected sewer use" heading, existing project EDU's noted as 1.55.
13. Sheet 5: plan legend added.
14. pSWMP: the previous SWMP version (January 10, 2005) and the current version (May 20, 2005)
correctly identifies the project's unit count, the current version cites the city GT 05-03 number.
cc: Russell Bennett Page 1 of 1
h:\04-008 rib tm\wordproc\karnak050523m.doc
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
March 28, 2005
ROBERT RICHARDSON
KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
2802 STATE ST, STE C
CARLSBADCA 92008
Subject: Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
Dear Robert:
Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carisbad. The Housing and
Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments, has
reviewed your Redevelopment Permit, application No. RP 04-11, as to its completeness
for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. The attached list Includes information that
must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted
directty to the Housing & 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 application
will be initiated. 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,
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director
David Rick, Engineering
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @
LIST OF ITEIVtS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
RP04-11
Staff has completed a review of the subject project for application completeness. The
application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete at this time. The following
additional items are required to find the application complete: (Please note, the issues
are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.)
Housing & Redevetopment:
1. Please add the assigned CT number CT05-03 to the tentative map.
2. As was stated previously, staff has a concern about the proposed roof decks and the
downward visilDility they will have into adjacent properties. Due to concerns that the
Housing & Redevelopment Department has received from adjacent property owners
on the proposed project sine the latest submittal. Staff shall require the property
owner and architect to meet with the surrounding neighbors to address their
concerns. Staff will require letters from adjacent property owners documenting their
opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final
determination on the proposed project. A good faith effort shall be made to address
neighbor concerns before proceeding with the project.
3. As stated previously, staff has concerns about combination retaining wall/fences.
Please be aware that the combination retaining wall and fences along property lines
shall not exceed six feet as measured from the exterior of the property. Please show
the proposed fencing on top of the retaining wall and indicate the highest point of the
combination retaining wall/fence. Show the fence on cross sections A-A and B-B.
Please note that the building department requires a minimum fence height of 36
inches from the interior of the property.
4. Please indicate on the landscape plans (Sheets Ll .0 & Ll .1) the percentages each
landscaped area equates to the overall property. Please demonstrate the
percentage of any and all proposed landscaped planters, open space pocket and/or
connections, roof gardens, balconies, patio and/or outdoor eating areas and how
they equate to the minimum 20% open space requirement devoted to landscaped
pedestrian amenities.
5. Please explain why the distance between the door to the entrance of roof deck 5 to
the end of the roof deck is different on sheets A5.2 & A3.0.
6. Staff never received a construction materials board or colored elevations. Please
submit a construction materials board and color samples with next submittal. Staff
shall require the applicant to provide digital drawings depicting the elevations of the
proposed project with the adjacent properties in the elevations as well (including any
recently approved building plans of adjacent properties). On the elevations, roof
heights shall be cleariy indicated. These digital images will help to demonstrate the
project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Engineering:
1. All trees removed within the public right-of-way require separate approval through
the General Services Division of the Public Works Department. Since a tree and
a shrub/tree that is in the right-of-way are identified for removal, contact the
General Services Division to begin the permit process. Provide evidence that this
process has either begun or is completed.
2. Add CT 05-03 in the upper right hand corner of the map.
3. Connecting the trash room to the sanitary sewer Is permissible with a trap primer.
However, do not connect the drain within the parking lot to the sanitary sewer.
Engineering staff has evaluated the codes that were sited in the previous letter
and determined that Section 15.12.055 does not preclude the discharge of runoff
to the public storm drain system. Because Encinas Wastewater has informed us
not to accept such connections and the City prefers to treat runoff pollutants prior
to entrance to the public storm drain system just as an exposed parking lot,
redirect connection to the storm drain as originally requested by staff. Show said
connection and incorporate structural BMP to treat runoff within the parking lot.
As currently proposed, the oil water separator is an acceptable means of
treatment. Revise note 10 on sheet 1 of the tentative map and revise "Parking
area runoff" on page 4 of 5 of the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP) accordingly. Also, on sheet ASI .0 align the No. 5 leader note with the
trench drain.
4. Locate the trash bins in a location accessible for pick-up. Trash trucks will not be
able to enter the covered parking. Suggest placing near either driveway
entrance.
5. Adjust the triangular site distance at the street intersection on sheet 4 of the
Engineering plans and Sheet 2 of the landscape plans. The hypotenuse of the
triangle shall connect at points along the street curb 25 feet from the beginning of
curb return in each direction away from the intersection of Oak Street and Lincoln
Avenue.
6. On the street cross sections on sheet 4 of the offsite improvements, where base
material should be or appears to be a note states that it is AC. Please review and
correct as necessary.
7. Add a note to the plan that cleariy designates all onsite sewer as private and
privately maintained.
8. Will a fence be proposed on top of the perimeter retaining wall? If so, show on
cross sections A-A and B-B and indicate height. Also, per these cross sections, it
appears that the drainpipes will be placed in an open trench. Is this correct?
Trench should be filled.
9. On sheet 2 of the engineer's plans, correct the storm drain rim elevation for Delta
11. The plan reads 49.40 but the table reads 49.50.
10. Specify the pipe diameter of the new water service lines and sewer. The water
should be 1 inch each and the sewer 6 inch.
11. Under heading number 4 of the sheet index, change upper floor to ground level.
12. On sheet 1 of the tentative map, change EDU's under "Projected Sewer Use" from
2 existing EDU's to 1.55 EDU's.
13. Add a legend to the plans.
14. One of the Storm Water Management Plan's cover sheets states that the project
consists of 15 units and does not site CT 05-03.1 removed the same sheet found
after the appendices in the other report. Please make sure any future revised
reports are corrected accordingly.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact David Rick at
(760) 602-2781.
Landscaping:
Landscape comments are forthcoming and will be sent under a separate cover.
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 2005
Karnak Planning & Design, Inc. HOBSITOMEOSIENT
Paul Longton, Architect * Robert Richardson, Planner O^TMr^
2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, Ca 92008
(760) 434-8400 Fax (760) 434-8493
e-mail: karnakarch(g)aol.com
February 16,2005
To: City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Attention: Cliff Jones
Van Lynch, Plaiming
David Rick, Engineering
Reference: Application Review
Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Proiect, Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
The following is a response to the Review Comments, Dated December 15,2004.
List of Items Needed To Complete The Application
RP04-11
Housing & Redevelopment;
Item 1;
The Tentative Map Application has been done prior to this review. The appropriate fees
shall be prepared and submitted along with this response.
Item 2;
The line of sight from the roof decks is a matter that has been finalized in meetings with
the property ovmers to the east and to the south of the site. A minor revision has been
made to the Roof Deck #5 to show a screen on the east-facing side. No other revisions to
the plans has been required and an agreement has been reached.
Item 3:
Please refer to the plans accompanying this response. The entry landings have been
lowered and brought forward to effect a covered entry area and a lower grade level. The
civil drawings have been revised to suit the lowered entry landings.
Item 4:
Please refer to the enclosed letter from the trash service conceming the trash area location
and service to/from that location.
Item 5:
Please refer to sheet AS 1.1, Signage Plan and to sheet A4.1, West Elevation. A sign area
has been indicated on the building above the retail/commercial space. The monument
sign shall be a building sign not specific to the retail/commercial space.
Item 6:
Please refer to the color palette and color elevations included with this response.
Engineering:
Item 1;
Please refer to the civil drawings and response included in the plans with this response.
Item 2;
Application for a tentative map has been made prior to now. The fee is included with this
response. The CT number has not been received from the city to date.
Item 3:
The permit process for tree removal shall be started concurrently with the submittal of
this response.
Item 4:
Please refer to sheet Ll .0. All trees have been moved out of the right of way and all shrub
material in the right of way shall be kept under 30" in height. A nimiber of the big palms
were deleted from the plan.
Item 5:
Please refer to the plans included with this response. Grade levels and entry landings
have been lowered 2'-8", thereby lowering the overall height of the retaining wall and the
attendant fill.
Item 6:
Please refer to the plans included with this response. The civil drawings address the drain
issues. The floor drains have been removed from the storage and utility rooms and kept
only for the trash receptacle room.
Item 7:
Please refer to the civil drawings and response in the plans included with this response.
Item 8:
Please refer to the plans and civil engineer's response included with this response.
Item 9;
Trash tmcks will not enter the parking garage. The bins will be rolled from the trash
receptacle room to the west end of the building where the trash tmck will receive them.
The garage floor is essentially level per the preliminary grading plan included with this
response and should not cause a problem for trash removal.
Item 10:
Please refer to the plans included with this response.
Item 11:
Please refer to the SWMP and to civil engineer's responses.
Item 12:
Please refer to the plans and civil engineer's response included with this response.
Item 13:
Please refer to the plans and civil engineer's response included with this response.
Item 14:
Please refer to the plans and civil engineer's response included with this response. See
also sheet Cl.O.
Item 15:
Please refer to the plans and civil engineer's response included with this response.
Fire:
No comments were received with this review or since receipt of this review.
Thank you,
Mike Flintjer Project Manager
Kamak Planning & Design
Conway & Associates, Inc.
Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Enginccring Contractors AB412412
2525 Pio Pico Drive • Suite 102 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753-1453 • Fax (760) 635-0839
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Friday, Febmary 11, 2005
TO: Kamak Architecture & Planning
Attn: Robert Richardson
2804 State Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
FROM: Michael Pasko
PROJECT: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Building
SUBJECT: Engineering Responses to December 15, 2004 City Carlsbad Letter
Below are items responded to on the Civil TM only - all other items are Architectural response items. Also,
note that the numbering on this memo corresponds to the December 15, 2004 City Carlsbad Letter which
differs from the previous City memo dated June 21, 2004.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
All items are Architectural response items.
FIRE
None.
BUILDING
None.
ENGINEERING
1. Add not to plans: Done.
2. Add CT nimiber to upper right hand comer: Place-holder for CT no. added to all sheets (CTno. not
yet assigned by City).
3. Permit for tree removal: Architectural response item.
4. Landscape plan direction: Architectural response item.
5. Proposed 5' fill along PL: Done (All grades on Sly and E'ly property lines were reduced2 '8").
6. Trash receptacle connection to sewer and drains in storage & utility room: Architectural response
item.
7. Place all water meters in R-O-W: Done.
Check valves on private property: Done.
5' separation between sewer and water laterals: Done.
8. Oil - water separator: Item Requires Further Discussion (Our interpretation of City code that the
basic oil-water separator arrangement shown on the drawings is correct and we request that City staff
address the application of the requirements of the U.B.C, Section 311.2.3.1, (Building Dept.) and
Carlsbad Grading and Drainage Ordinance, Section 15.12.055, (Engineering Dept.) to this project -
code sections attachedfor reference).
Sheet AS 1.0 item 5 note: Architectural response item.
9. Trash bin locations: Architectural response item.
cc: Russell Bermett Page 1 of 2
p:\04-008 rib tm\wordproc\karnak050211m.doc
Conway & Associates, Inc.
Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412
2525 Pio Pico Drive • Suite 102 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753-1453 • Fax (760) 635-0839
10. Remove triangular site distance lines at driveways: Done.
11. Correct APN in SWMP: Done.
Address heavy metal pollutant potential & BMP in SWMP: Done.
12. Change driveway entrances to G-14A: Done.
13. Change project data water use rates: Done.
14. Add street vacation note: Done (notes added to Sheet 3 plan, note already on street sections).
Sheet Cl.O: Architectural response item.
15. Street base at curb: Done (street sections modified).
cc: Russell Bennett Page 2 of 2
p:\04-008 rib tm\wordproc\kamak05021 Im.doc
# #
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
December 15, 2004
ROBERT RICHARDSON
KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
2802 STATE ST, STE C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Subject:
Dear Robert:
Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
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 Redevelopment Permit, application No. RP 04-11, as to its completeness
for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. The attached list includes Information that
must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted
directly to the Housing & Redevetopment Office. Atl 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 application
will be initiated. 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 miy office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or v»'i3h to set up
a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
Van Lynch, Planning
David Rick, Engineering
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
RP04-11
Staff has completed a review of the subject project for application completeness. The
application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete at this time. The following
additional items are required to find the application complete: (Please note, the issues
are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.)
Housing & Redevelopment:
1. As stated in the June 21, 2004 letter A tentative map (TM) will be required for the
proposed subdivision. Apply for a tentative tract map and add the assigned CT
number within the upper right hand corner of the map. The TM application package
can be obtained from the Planning counter in our Faraday Ave. offices. The
application fee for the TM is $6,200 plus $110 per unit or lot (whichever is greater).
Please make the check payable to the "City of Carisbad".
2. As was stated previously, staff has a concern about the proposed roof decks and the
downward visibility they will have into adjacent properties. Staff will require letters
from adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the
overall project prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project.
3. As stated In the June 21, 2004 letter, staff has concerns about combination retaining
wall/fences. Please be aware that the combination retaining wall and fence along
the southeriy property line (shown on sheet A-5) shall not exceed six feet as
measured from the exterior of the property. Staff suggests the entries of the units be
brought out closer to the property line, thus reducing the heights of the walkways and
reducing the height of the retaining wall.
4. Please provide staff with a letter from the garbage service describing how the
garbage area will be serviced.
5. Please clarify whether or not monument signage will act as building signage for the
retail space. Note that monument signage counts against overall total signage. For
more signage information please contact staff.
3. Staff never received a construction materials board and color samples. Please
submit a construction materials board and color samples with next submittal.
Engineering:
1 Add the following note to the plans: "This is a tentative tract map of a
condominium project as defined in Section 1350 of the Civil Code of the State of
California. The project contains a maximum of 6 airspace residential
condominium units and 1 commercial retail unif.
2 Apply for a tentative tract map and add the assigned CT number within the upper
right hand corner of the map.
3 All trees removed within the public right-of-way require separate approval through
the General Services Division of the Public Works Department. Since a tree and
a shrub/tree that is in the right-of-way are identified for removal, contact the
General Services Division to begin the permit process.
4 On the landscape plan, remove all trees and shrubs over 30 Inches in height
from the public right-of-way.
5 What is the reason for the proposed 5 feet of fill between the garages and
southerly property line? Provide justification for the proposed fill. Can the amount
of fill be reduced? Contact the neighboring property owner to the southeast and
inform them of your plans to raise the grade and add a retaining wall. It would be
beneficial to receive their input early in the process. It appears that the fill is
proposed to provide the landing for the split-level stairs but other designs need to
be explored. Also, the response letter from Karnak Planning and Design dated
November 16 states under Engineering Item 3 that the engineer responded (with
justification?) to the above but I was not able to tind his response. Revise the
grading quantities on the tentative tract map to include this fill. Grading quantities
between the tentative map and sheet 01.0 are inconsistent.
6 Do not connect the trash receptacle room to the sanitary sewer. Why are drains
needed In the storage and utility room? What will be stored here? Also, how deep
is the proposed sewer lateral behind Units 2, 3 and 4. Future access needs to be
considered. Excavation could be difficult If the pipes are deeper than the garage
floor due to the close proximity to the condos and retaining wall. Specify that the
sewer lines are private and are to be privately maintained up to the right-of-way
boundary. Will the sewer located within the westeriy driveway be abandoned?
7 Place all water meters in the public right-of-way. Locate all check valves on
private property. Keep all water laterals 5 horizontal feet from sewer laterals.
Less than a 5-foot separation Is proposed at the northern corner of the lot.
Provide a legend to identify the various water facility symbols used.
8 Connect the inlet with oil/water separator to the storm drain rather than the
sewer. Plot the drain connection. Revise note 10 on sheet 1 of the tentative map
and revise "Parking area runoff' on page 4 of 5 of the preliminary Storm Water
Management Plan (SWMP) accordingly. Also, on sheet AS1.0 align the No. 5
leader note with the trench drain.
9 Locate the trash bins in a location accessible for pick-up. Trash trucks will not be
able to enter the covered parking. Suggest placing near either driveway
entrance.
10 Remove the triangular site distance lines from the driveways. The triangular site
distance only applies to the street intersection.
11 Correct the Assessors Parcel Number on page 1 of the SWMP. Also, include
heavy metals as a potential pollutant and describe BMP mitigation for said heavy
metals.
12 Design the driveway entrances to SDRSD G-14(A) which includes sidewalk
transitions around the dip in the driveway.
13 Under "Project Data - projected water use" the average potable water use states
1,660 GPD and 1,562 GPD. Which is It?
14 Add Street Vacation note and information on Sheet 3 "Existing conditions".
Vacation is per CC Resolution No. 2003-043 Instrument No. 210328, recorded
2/25/03.
15 Street base must extend 6 inches beyond the curb and gutter (See City Standard
GS-1). Plot accordingly on Sheet 4, Proposed Offsite Improvements and Sheet
Cl.O.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact David Rick at
(760) 602-2781.
Fire:
Fire Department comments are forthcoming and will be sent under a separate cover.
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
March 22, 2006
•
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA31W0
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL .MITIGATION
Ms. Deborah Fountain
Director
crrY OF CARLSBAr)
HOUSING AND REDFVE1.0FMENT DEPARTMENT
2963 Roosevelt St.
Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE; IJNCOl ,N AND OAK MIXFD USE PROIECf
Dear Ms, Fountain:
Jt has come to my attention that Mike Bovenzi has provided you with a portion ot some
information that my office had provided him at his request, and is inferring that thi.s intormation
constitutes Planning Systems' critici-sm of the proposed development profect referenced above.
Pleaise be advised that wc were hired by Mr. Bovenzi in januarv 2{W5 to counsel him regarding
liow to best infiuence the entitlement process so that the referenced project (which is evidently
located next d(X>r to the Bovenzi residence) design would be more acceptable to him. To this end,
per his request, we provided him vvith a IV) page draft fetter which he could consider sending to
the City over his signature. This draft letter articulated a list of his coricern.**, and indicates a
desire on his part to be in\'oh ed in the public process.
Unfortunately, it is apparent that Mr. Bovenzi has instead characterized this draft letler as a
planning analysis of the project conducted Planning Systems This is not what the draft letter
is, or was intended to be. I note also that Mr. Bovenzi evidently did not provide the Citv with the
second page of the draft letter, which emphasizes that a mutually cooperative approach to
influencing the de.sign is desired hv Mr, Bovenzi.
Please note that Planning Systems does not have any specific objections to the proposed project.
Feel free to share this letter with the City Council if you believe helpful in understanding
Planning Systems' minor role with this project.
S/ficj?relv,
^CL/\yyyy'-^
Paul J. Klukas
Director of Planning
cc: I cmi [ Jageman
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD^ CA 92(M»8 • (760) 93L0780 • FAX Om) mSlU * iiifb@planniiigsyst«ins.iiet
RECEIVED
IJAH 0 4 2005
. ^, . « ^ . . CITYOFCARLSBAD
Karnak Planning & Design, Inc. HOiiSiNG&REOEVEmpiyiENr
Robert Richarclson, Planner DEPARTIVIENT
2802 State Street, Suite C, Carisbad, Ca 92008
(760) 434-8400 Fax (760) 434-8493
E-mail: karnakarch(S).aol.com
January 3,2006
To: City of Carisbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Attention: Cliff Jones
Van Lynch, Planning
David Rick, Engineering
Reference: Application Review
Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Proiect. Redevelopment Pemfiit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
The following is a response to the plan mark-up and comments from a meeting between Cliff
Jones and Karnak P & D in December 2005.
Cover Sheet Cl.O:
Itemi:
Parking required for retail space revised from 7 to 6 per Cliff Jones' instruction that the required
parking amount is rounded downward below .5. Parking total therefore revised to 21 and the total
parking proposed is again 1 over requirement or 22 spaces total.
Item 2:
First and Second Floor Balcony decks square footages have been broken out separately from
total deck and roof deck total as requested by Cliff for ease of calculating recreational space.
Item 3:
Noticing requirements were submitted prior to this response and approved by Cliff. Sign
proposals were received back from Palomar Sign and approved by Robert Richardson and
Palomar Sign notified as of 1/3/05.
Item 4:
Noise study or Acoustic Report is in progress. Bids were received, reviewed and the company
selected has been notified. The Acoustic Report will follow under separate cover.
Sheet A4.0. Exterior Elevations:
Itemi:
The notation regarding the line showing the height ofthe roof pitch at 4 in 12 has been removed
for clarity from sheet A4.0. Please note that all sheet keyed notes have been located properiy for
their specific item. Please also note that roof pitches are 5 in 12 as required.
Attachments to this response include the two (2) mailing label and radius map types, the ten (10)
print sets folded to 8 !^ x 11, the replacement full-color 24 x 36 elevations showing the black
awnings as requested by Cliff Jones, the 8 V2 x 11 black and white set of plan prints and a CD
containing the jpeg files for the color site plan and elevations as required. The 8 74 x 11 color and
finish sample board and the
Please also find atiached the redlined print set as requested.
Thank you.
Mike Flintjer
Project Manager
Karnak Planning & Design
RECEIVED
X^cO^ 2m
Karnak Planning & Design, Inc. GITY OF GARLSBAD
Robert Richardson, Planner ^^SS,?i2Si,^™^^
2802 State Street, Suite C, Carisbad, Ca 92008 DEPARTMENT
(760) 434-8400 Fax (760) 434-8493
e-mail: karnakarch@aol.eom
November 29, 2005
To: City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Attention: Cliff Jones
Van Lynch, Planning
David Rick, Engineering
Reference: Application Review
Lincoln & Oak IVIixed Use Proiect. Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
The following is a response to the Review Comments, Dated November 10. 2005.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
RP04-11
Housing & Redevelopment:
Itemi:
There are no setbacks shown on Cl.O as the site plan has been revised to a key plan. The
Tentative Map setback has been revised to show the setback at the same location as the site
Item 2: /
Please refer to sheets Cl .0 and Al .0 for garage level storage cubic foot schedule. All required
cubic footage is located on the ground level. The existing storage area has been revised to show
three storage rooms and the extra parking space has been revised to show three storage spaces.
All storage rooms shall have a secure, locking door. The cubic foot total shown for each unit is
substantially above the required amount of storage space.
Item 3:
Please refer to sheet Ll .0, Landscape Plan for added enhanced concrete driveways matching the
site plan and the ground floor plan.
Item 4:
Please refer to sheet ASI .1 for the revised linear footage and square footage figures for allowed
and proposed signage. The linear footage is actually 30'-4" along Lincoln and 74'-0" along Oak.
Item 5:
Please refer to sheet ASI .0 and/or sheet Al .0 for setbacks. Setback dimensions have been
deleted from Al.l and A1.2 as they are unnecessary repetition.
Item 6:
Please refer to sheets A4.0 and A4.1 along with A5.0, A5.1 and A5.2. The roof pitch was already
5:12. There was a notation and a horizontal line showing only the peak level ofthe 4:12 pitch in
lieu of the direction by Redevelopment to show the lower pitch. No variance will therefore be
required.
Item 7:
Please refer to the drawings provided with this response. Grade lines have been thickened for
clarity and the call-outs have been checked for accuracy of the pointer arrows.
Item 8:
The Eariy Public Notification Package process has been started with inquiries to sign companies.
The mailing label package has been ready and will be presented following the final review of this
submittal package so that the print sets submitted may be the most current and correct plans.
The color rendered elevations in full 24" x 36" fonnat have been run and will be included in the
submittal of the mentioned documents and plans.
Landscaping:
The Landscaping comments were received 11/21/05. The plans were red-lined and there were no
written comments. A list of responses for the red-line comments follows below.
Itemi:
Spelling was checked and any required revisions made for all plant and tree names.
Item 2:
The trees designated as type "A" and "E" have been revised from "Ligustrum Japonicum" to
Ligustrum Lucidum" which is available in the 24" box size.
Item 3:
The ground cover type 5 was revised from "Gazania Uniflora Leucolaena" to "Rosmarinus
Officinalis" at 18" on centers.
Item 4:
Plant counts were checked and revised as required. Any plant type without a quantity was
checked and if none are represented on the plan an "N/A" replaced the" -" mark or a notation
was added as to location.
Please find attached the red-lined landscape prints as requested.
Thank you.
Mike Flintjer
Project Manager
Karnak Planning & Design
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
November 16, 2005
ROBERT RICHARDSON
KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
2802 STATE ST, STE C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Subject: Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 &CDP 04-30
Dear Robert:
This letter is a follow-up to my previous letter to you, dated November 10, 2005, in which issues
of concern raised by the Housing & Redevelopment Department following a review of the
revised plans were identifled. In addition to the items listed in my previous letter, the following
issues of concern related to the preliminary landscape plans must be addressed. The issues of
concern are indicated on the redlined landscape plans. Please return the redlined landscape
plans with next submittal.
Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813 if you have any questions regarding the information
contained in this letter.
Sincerely,
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
C: File
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
November 10, 2005
ROBERT RICHARDSON
KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
2802 STATE ST, STE C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Subject: Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, Redevelopment Permit
RP 04-11 & CDP 04-30
Dear Robert:
The purpose of this letter is to address issues of concern raised by the Housing &
Redevelopment Department following a review of the revised plans submitted on
October 21, 2005. The issues of concern are attached for your review. These issues
must be addressed prior to staff making a formal recommendation on the project.
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,
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director
Russell Bennett, Property Owner
File
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^
Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use
11/10/2005
Page 2 of 2
ISSUES OF CONCERN
RP04-11
Housing & Redevelopment:
1. Setbacks on Sheet C1 do not match plans. Setbacks appear to be 8'-3" for the front
yard (Lincoln Street) and 7-7" for the side yard (Oak Avenue). Please fix tentative
map sheet 1 as well.
2. The PD ordinance (24.5) requires 480 cubic feet of separate storage space be
provided per unit. If all storage space is located In one location, this space may be
reduced to 392 cubic feet. Please correct sheets 01 & A1.
3. Please depict enhanced entry driveway on landscape plan.
4. On sheet AS1.1 please correct the building frontage and the sign area allowed.
Commercial building frontage along Lincoln Street is 29 feet and building frontage
along Oak Avenue is 74.5 feet. Remove approximate monument sign stmcture
language.
5. Please correct the street side yard setback (Oak Avenue) indicated on Sheet Al .2.
6. Please remove 4:12 roof pitch lines and make them 5:12. A 4:12 roof pitch line will
require a variance.
7. Please clearly indicate existing grade, finished grade, and garage level on all
elevations and section detail. Staff found it difficult to differentiate between the lines.
8. Please complete the Early Public Notification Package.
Landscaping:
1. Comments on the landscape plans are forthcoming and will be sent under a
separate cover.
Engineering:
Engineering Department does not have any further comments.
Karnak Planning & Design
Robert Richardson, Planner
2802 State Street, Suite C, Carisbad, Ca 92008
(760) 434-8400 Fax (760) 434-8493
e-mail: karnakarch@aol.eom
November 7, 2005
IViichael Bliss
City of Carisbad Parks Tree Division
1166 Carisbad Village Drive
Carisbad, CA 92008
Reference: New l\/lixed Use Project at 3112 Lincoln on the
Southeast corner at Oak
Subject: Tree Removal Application/Approval
Dear IViichael;
Thank you for following up our eariier October 24 telephone conversation so quickly with the
research and decision for our site referenced above.
You mentioned in our conversation that the trees involved (please refer to the attached digital
photograph) were not a cause for concern and could be removed with no problem. The
existing IVIonterrey Pine has had lopsided pruning and dead wood, causing it to be unbalanced
and not fit for saving. All other small trees are really overgrown shrubs to be removed.
In accordance with your finding today concerning the removal of tree(s) at or in the right of way
for the referenced site, we do not have a need for an application or other official clearance to
do the work required for clearing the site preparatory to grading work.
Thank vo
IVIiKB Flintjer
Project IVianager
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Prepared by:
Michael Holzmiller
Planning Consultant
Retired Carlsbad Planning Director
INTRODUCTION
As requested by the Community Development Director, I have analyzed the mixed use
project proposed on the property located at the southeast comer of Lincoln Street and
Oak Avenue. This analysis is based on my personal and professional opinions, judgment
and observations. In order to complete this analysis, I visited the site and surrounding
neighborhood, I reviewed a set of the proposed plans and I reviewed the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual to determine compliance of the
proposed project with the Plan.
GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
LUSE-The project does constitute a mixed use project within the context of the
Village Master Plan. I believe the location and extent of the commercial component is
appropriate and I feel having some residential portions of the project on the ground floor
immediately adjacent to neighboring residential uses makes sense in order to buffer the
commercial component. In my opinion, the project complies with the Master Plan which
requires the ground floor of mixed use projects to be "devoted" to commercial uses.
2.INTENSITY-The proposed project is an intense development, perhaps overly
intense for the existing neighborhood which presently consists primarily of single and
two-story residential stmctures and a single-story commercial building across the street.
However, the area is in transition, the project is located in the Tourism Support District
which is one of the more intense districts in the Master Plan and where intensity of
development is encouraged and the project is very similar in intensity to a number of
other mixed use projects recently approved by the city. The density of the project is
14.89 dwelling units per acre which is about the mid-range of density for most attached
dwelling unit developments in the city and, therefore, probably not the source for the
perceived intensity of the project. However, the units are large for that density with at
least half of the units containing more than 3,000 sq. ft. of interior floor space.
Determinations on intensity are usually judgmental calls because different people,
including different planners working for the same city, have varying opinions on what is
too intense. Perhaps, some of the suggestions made in this analysis under the specific
findings section can help in addressing the intensity issue.
3.DEVEL0PMENT STANDARDS-The Village Master Plan contains development
standards and I could find only one instance where non-compliance with a standard is
open to interpretation and that involves the requirement to provide 20% open space. This
is discussed in more detail in the specific findings section of this analysis. Otherwise, my
review determined that the project meets all standards. Some of these standards provide
for ranges but the city has been given the authority without violating any legal standard to
approve the project at any point within the range. The fact that the project is proposed at
the mid to upper end of the range for most of the standards probably is the basis for the
concem about overall intensity noted above but it does not mean that the development
standards are being violated. As long as the city can make the findings contained in the
Master Plan, the standards are being properly enforced.
4.DESIGN-The Village Master Plan also contains also contains design "guidelines" a
number of which are subjective and open to personal opinion and interpretation. I
personally and professionally feel that the project complies with the overall intent and in
most cases, the specific wording of the design guidelines. I believe a fine job has been
done with the proposed architecture with a lot of relief and interesting elements and that
it is consistent with the desired "village" architectural style approved on other projects in
the Redevelopment Area. Any suggestions made in the specific findings section of this
analysis are only meant to address the perceived intensity and neighborhood
compatibility issue and not the architectural design of the proposed project.
SPECIFIC FINDINDS AND OBSERVATIONS
LSection II of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual contains
allowable land uses by District. The proposed project is located in District 9 which allows
residential use if it part of a mixed use project also containing conmiercial. The project
does qualify as a mixed use project. The Master Plan further states that "the ground floor
of all approved mixed use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses". I believe the
key term here is "devoted". Does that mean that the entire ground floor space(100%)
must be commercial. In my opinion, that is not the case and devote means that a
substantial commercial component must be located on the ground floor. If you subtract
out the two required driveways on Oak and Lincoln, the commercial component
comprises over two-thirds of the building frontage along the two streets. Since the
proposed project is immediately bounded by residential on the east and south, I think a
better planning approach is not to have 100% of the ground level for commercial use and
instead have, as the project proposes, an edge of the residential component next to the
east and south property line. If it is desirable to increase the frontage of commercial, a
suggestion would be to further extend the commercial space along Lincoln Street and
Oak Avenue to the edge of each one of the driveways.
2.Section II of the Master Plan also contains universal standards for all development
in the Redevelopment Area. The importance of this part of the Master Plan needs to be
noted. For all development standards where a range has been established by the Master
Plan rather than a specific standard, the city has the authority to allow a project to be
approved anywhere in the range upon the making of findings related to the project. These
findings are listed on pages 97 and 98 of the Master Plan. Approving a project at the
maximum or the minimum of the range does not constitute a deviation, variance or
violation of the standards. District 9 which the proposed project is located in has a range
for development standards relating to building coverage and building setbacks.
3.Section II of the Master Plan provides development standards based upon the
District in which the proposed project is located. The Lincoln and Oak mixed use project
is located in District 9 which is established as a Tourism Support Area thereby requiring
a commercial component to the project but also containing standards that allow a more
intense development than permitted in some of the other districts. The individual
development standards for District 9 include setbacks, open space, building coverage,
building height and parking and these can be found on page 117 of the Master Plan. An
analysis of the project and compliance with these standards follows:
A. Setbacks-The project proposes a minimum 8'3" setback along the front yard
setback on Lincoln Street. The Master Plan allows for a range of 5' to 20'. Therefore, the
proposed project meets the setback standard with the required findings. It is my
professional opinion, however, that while the lower end of the range is appropriate for the
commercial component that the maximum 20' setback be required the residential
component (the side of the residential garages) located next to the southem property line.
This would provide more compatibility and a better buffer for the neighboring properties.
The same reasoning would apply to requiring the maximum setback for the residential
component (again the side of the garages) located on the street sideyard along Oak
Avenue adjacent to the easterly property line. The proposed setback at this location also
presently meets the standard with the required findings however compatibility could be
enhanced with an increased setback. Finally, the Master Plan allows a range of 5' to 10'
for the side yard and 5' to 15' for the rear yard. The project proposes 7' for both. I think
that is acceptable if a masonry wall is constmcted along these property lines, the
windows in the upper stories are treated to create privacy for adjoining properties and the
setbacks are increased for the sides of the residential garages along both street frontages
as discussed above.
B. Open Space-The Master Plan requires a minimum of 20% of the property to be
maintained as open space. The project proposes to meet this standard by providing a
public, hardscaped area next to the entrance to the conmiercial part of the project and by
counting the private decks. The use of private decks to meet the open space requirement
is open to professional and practical interpretation. It is my professional opinion that the
private decks should not be counted and that any open space used to meet this
requirement should be available to the general public or at least, in common, to all the
residents of the project. For example, if a deck was provided for common use by all the
residents of a project even though it was not for general use by the public, I believe it
should count toward the open space requirement. However, an open space feature that
could only be privately used by one occupant should not be counted. It is my suggestion
that additional, non-private open space (approximately 4%) be provided in the project. It
would also be my suggestion to delete the low level walls that enclose a portion of the
public, hardscaped area in front of the commercial entrance and that just benches be
provided to make this more area more visually open and available for public use.
C. Building Coverage-The project is proposed at the higher end of the allowable
building coverage and this meets the standard if the city makes the required findings.
D. Building Height-The Master Plan permits building heights to 45' in District 9 and
the elevations for the project show that the project complies with this standard. Most of
the surrounding residential projects are two-story and do not exceed 35'in height.
However, given the requirement for the subject project to provide a commercial
component on the ground floor, I believe that three stories with the additional height
allocation is warranted. I would suggest that every effort be made make the southerly and
easterly elevations as compatible as possible with adjoining properties through the use of
such things as enhanced landscaping and walls and the special treatment of upper story
windows.
E.Parking Requirements-The project meets the parking standards contained in Chapter
6 of Section II of the Master Plan.
4.The final part of Section II of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual that I
analyzed for conformance of the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project was the Design
Guidelines. Not all the guidelines are applicable and many are open to subjective
judgment and personal opinion. The guidelines are not development standards that apply
in the same way to every project and a proposed project is not expected or legally
required to comply with every guideline because they are not all applicable. However,
based on my review, I believe the proposed project is in overall compliance with the
intent and/or the specific wording of the applicable guidelines as follows:
A. The Design Guidelines begin with 10 basic design principles for which the city
must be satisfied that the project applicant "has made an honest effort to conform to".
The 10 principles are listed on page 119 on the Village Master Plan. I believe a
substantial and acceptable effort has been made to conform to all the applicable design
principles. One design principle worth noting since the overall project appears to be
intense in relation to the surrounding neighborhood is Principle #4 which states "Intensity
of development shall be encouraged." Conformance with this principle provides a basis
for the city to make the findings required for development standards relating to building
coverage and setbacks. This principle needs to be balanced, however, with the fact that
the neighboring properties to the south and east are not in the Village Redevelopment
Area and not subject to this design principle and, therefore, design features need to be
incorporated to buffer and make compatible the intensity of development.
B. Most of the specific Design Guidelines relate to architectural design and, as a mixed
use project, the applicable ones include building forms, roof forms, building facades, and
commercial storefronts. Conformance was found with the following architectural
guidelines:
(a) .Building forms-The elevations of the building provide for variety and diversity, the
upper levels are stepped back and simple building forms consistent with the "village"
architecture of other newer buildings in the Redevelopment area are used.
(b) .Roof forms-Sloping, gable roofs with dormers are proposed.
(c) .Building facades-Fagade projections and recesses are provided and all sides of the
building are visually treated with surface ornamentation and other detail elements.
(d) .Commercial storefronts-Most of the elevation of the commercial component of the
project is devoted to window space with very little blank wall space.
There is one other section of the Design Guidelines that is worthy of some discussion.
This relates to the design of parking. The guidelines encourage below grade or
underground parking for commercial and large residential projects whenever it is
feasible. Although I believe it would be ideal if underground parking could be used for
this project in order to enhance compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, it has
been my experience that the city has never forced a project applicant to provide
underground parking if the project can otherwise meet all of the city's parking and other
development standards. Underground parking is usually proposed when it is the
applicant's own desire to provide it or because it is essential to developing the project in
conformance with the city's parking requirements and other development standards.
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
The conclusion of my analysis is that the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project complies
with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment
Master Plan and Design Manual (a)with the exception of my personal, professional
interpretation of the 20% open space standard and (b)if the city makes the required
findings for building coverage and building setbacks. Based on my analysis, the
following suggestions for project revisions are offered for staff consideration:
1.Increase the public open space component of the project by approximately 4%.
2.Extend the commercial space along Lincoln Street and Oak Street to the edge of the
access driveway on each street.
3.Increase the setback for the residential component (sides of garages) to the
maximum of the range adjacent to the southerly and easterly property lines.
4.Eliminate the low level wall that encloses a portion of the public open space area in
front of the commercial entrance and replace with a few benches.
These suggestions will require revisions to the proposed plans for the project. It is my
feeling that the revisions could be accomplished by reducing the size (square footage) of
a couple of the units.
Raeourca
Oevelopment
Corporatton
CIVIL ENC3INEEKING • SURVEYINO • PLANNING
2410 Stromberg Circle, Carlsbad, CA 92008
TEL: (760) 942-1106 FAX: (760) 730-3059
Email: brian@rdc2000.com
March 27, 2006
Page 1 of 2
City of Carisbad
Hoqsing and Redevelopment Commission
1200 Carisbad Village Drive
Carisbad, CA 92008
Re: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project
RP 04-11, CDP 04-30, CF 05-03
Ladles and Gentlemen of the Commission,
I am the Civil Engineer of record for the project presently under construction Immediately adjacent to
the east ofthe above referenced project (Ocean Mist Condominiums, CF 04-18, CDP 04-36) owned by Sandra
Bovenzi and represented by Michael Bovenzi. At the request of my clients, I have reviewed the project
conceptual plans for the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project and have specifically looked at the proposed ground
level elevations proposed on the plans as represented on the Tentative Map and Conceptual Grading Plan. Mr.
Bovenzi requested my review of the plans and elevations specifically to review with him his concern that the
finish floor and ground level grades are higher than necessary for the project to function with respect to
drainage and sewer Issues, and that the higher elevations create un-necessary privacy issues for the adjacent
properties to the east and south.
I am very familiar with the existing conditions at the Bovenzi site and the adjacent surrounding
properties. My firm has provided and recent aerial topographic survey of the project site and surrounding
properties as a normal part of our design efforts for the Bovenzi and I have personally visited the adjacent
properties. I have provided grading and drainage design for the Bovenzi project. Including designing finish
grades, storm drain elevations and sewer elevations for that project. As a result of my specific knowledge of
the Bovenzi site and my review ofthe proposed referenced project, I agree with Mr. Bovenzi's opinion that the
Lincoln/Oak project is designed at elevations that are higher than necessary by at least two feet and possibly as
much as three feet. The Ocean Mist project was designed to keep the yard grades along the westerly boundary
at or near the existing ground elevations adjacent to the Lincoln/Oak project. Surface drainage (including storm
water management features) and sewer elevations function well with the yards at these elevations. In my
opinion, based on my limited review ofthe Lincoln/Oak plans, that project could be lowered so that the exterior
spaces along the westeriy and southeriy boundaries could be maintained at or near the existing grades, rather
than three feet above as indicated on the concept plans. Stair steps to Lincoln Avenue at the southwesteriy
corner and Oak Avenue at the northeasteriy corner could be eliminated or minimized, and surface drainage
could be achieved at a minimum slope to a high point at the southeasteriy corner very near the existing
elevation and the adjacent Ocean Mist project yard elevations. This would cause two favorable results: 1) the
adjacent grades along the Lincoln/Oak easteriy boundary would be lowered enough so that the proposed 6 foot
privacy fence would provide a real 6 foot privacy barrier rather than a three foot barrier as proposed that would
look directly into the Ocean Mist westeriy yards; and 2) the proposed 9 foot fence along the southerly boundary
would be reduced to about 6 feet high.
March 27, 2006
Page 2 of 2
It had been my intention to appear In person at the scheduled March 28, 2006 hearing to make these
comments in person and to be available to answer questions regarding these Issues, and I wish I could do so as
Mr. Bovenzi has requested. I have a commitment to meet with a group of parents planning the Carisbad High
School Band's upcoming trip to Washington DC and for this reason I cannot attend the Redevelopment
Commission hearing. I would urge the Commission to take one of two actions with respect to these Issues: 1)
either reject the staff's proposed approval of the project and request that the applicant re-desIgn the project so
that the proposed lower level grades are much closer to the existing grades, or 2) postpone your possible
approval of the project so that the applicant can specifically explain why the apparently higher elevations are
necessary and give Mr. Bovenzi a chance to review those issues with me.
As always, I respect your dedication to the quality of life and development In the City of Carisbad and as
a City resident I appreciate your time and effort very much.
Please feel free to call me If you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Brian Donald
Project Engineer