Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-39; Lohf Subdivision; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (2)4-W-P P City of Carlsbad April 6, 1998 Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing Suite 107 2385 Camino Vida Roble Carlsbad CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 97-15/X 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16 - LOHF PROPERTY The Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Coastal Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit application no. CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08KDP 97-39/HDP 97- 16, as to its completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below us the item still needed in order to deem your application as complete. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. In addition, staff still has issues of concern with the proposal. These issues, listed below, must be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 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. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, Planning Director MJH: MG:kc c: Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @ LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. CT 97-l 51ZC 97-061LCPA 97-081CDP 97-391HDP 97-l 6 - LOHF PROPERTY 1. The previous letter addressed access to adjacent properties as a completeness item. It remains the only item from an engineering standpoint that is considered incomplete. Feasible access to all adjacent undeveloped property must be shown for this project to be considered complete. The alignment plan for Poinsettia Lane should show any existing and approved drawings or projects that control points of connection. The adjacent undeveloped properties have access issues that are directly affected by this design. To the west (CT 98-04, Kevane) access and proposed subdivision should be shown. The project engineer for that project has discussed an alternate alignment of Dove Lane west of your proposed intersection. The revised (3/10/98) alignment of Poinsettia Lane looks satisfactory but access to adjacent undeveloped land has not been shown. Staff believes that Steiner would take access from the proposed Cul De Sac and Saska could take temporary access from a point on Poinsettia Lane where it almost meets grade, 350’ west of El Camino Real. Again this needs to be shown and the property owners should be contacted. The properties north and west of this project have not discussed access and staff is not sure if it is a problem or not. As an issue, horizontal and vertical alignment data will be required. Existing topography and constraints information could help decide if access is or is not feasible. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The proposed Zone Change from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-Q) is appropriate for the areas proposed to be developed. The remaining native habitat areas should be rezoned to Open Space (OS), similar to the rezoning completed in conjunction with the Pavoreal subdivision to the south. Please provide a Zone Change exhibit reflecting these changes. 2. As stated in the previous issues letter, dated November 5, 1997, the single family subdivision is subject to the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Should you desire to explore providing off-site affordable housing, this concept must be reviewed by the Combined Project Review Committee prior to taking the project to the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. Staff still recommends that this process begin as soon as possible. 3. The project site is located within Core Area #6 of the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan. According to that plan, development in Zone 21 should be restricted to existing agricultural areas and previously disturbed habitat areas. As CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08KDP 97-39/HDP 97-l 9 - LOHF PROPERTY APRIL 6, 1998 mentioned in the November 5, 1997 issues letter, historic aerial photos indicate that native habitat has already been removed from the property and staff cannot support any additional habitat removal. To ensure that the existing habitat remains intact, please submit a survey of the existing habitat boundaries, as determined by a certified biologist and surveyed by a registered civil engineer or land surveyor. Please also stake and flag these habitat areas in the field and certify that the staking follows the surveyed mapping. Field surveys of the site revealed a mature oak tree in the middle of the project site that was not addressed in the biological report. This mature oak tree would be considered a significant biological resource and must be preserved, transplanted or mitigated. Mitigation for removal or death of the oak tree is typically at a ratio of 1O:l because of the high mortality rate of oak saplings. Please revise the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to include this resource and the proposed preservation or mitigation. Please also revise the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to include the potential environmental impacts for all off-site improvements (such as sewer, water, storm drain, etc.) that are not included in the Poinsettia Lane alignment. The earlier design indicated drainage into the Southern Maritime chaparral canyon in the southwest portion of the site, however there is no mention of this drainage in the indirect impact analysis of the EIA. This issue should be addressed. It also appears that some smaller oaks exist along the eastern boundary of the project site, adjacent to other native habitat areas. Development in this area should be sensitive to these resources and involve contour grading designed to mimic natural topography. Staff also recommends that you conduct new biological surveys of the property in light of the recent weather patterns, the timing of the previous survey (August), and the listing of the Quino Checkerspot butterfly. Please contact Don Rideout of the Planning Department for recommended survey periods for the butterfly. 4. The proposed grading scheme requires encroachment into native habitat areas and creates slopes over 30 feet high. While the Hillside Development Ordinance was recently revised, these revisions have not been approved by the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, the new Hillside Development Ordinance is not effective in the Coastal Zone and your proposal will be reviewed under the old ordinance. The latest preliminary design study, dated March 10, 1998, did not include earthwork volumes. If grading volumes of 8,000 cubic yards per acre of development or greater, are proposed, justifications for these volumes is necessary pursuant to section 21.95.060(4)&(5). The proposed slope heights over 30 feet are not acceptable and must be redesigned. In addition, any slope adjacent to the existing slopes on the Plaza Paseo Real property must be setback, using a bench similar to that used for the adjacent Pavoreal development. 5. The proposed development is adjacent to native habitat and therefore subject to the Fire Suppression Guidelines as contained in the City’s Landscape Manual. This requires a minimum of 60 feet of defensible space, consisting of three, 20 foot wide zones. Zone 1 requires low, ornamental landscaping and Zone 2 requires heavy - CT 97-l 5/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-19 - LOHF PROPERTY APRIL 6, 1998 PAGE 4 thinning of native habitat. Considering that no additional habitat can be lost on site, Zones 1 and 2 must be accommodated within the proposed development are-a. The City may allow some Zone 3 encroachment into the natural open space, depending upon the existing habitat quality and location of sensitive species. Engineering: Traffic and Circulation: I. Considering the Steiner access issue, the proposed cul de sac should be graded and extended to the subdivision boundary. A temporary cul de sac from the City Standards is more appropriate and will fit within the standard width proposed. Sewer, Water and utilities can also be extended to the subdivision boundary. 2. The project Traffic Engineer should consider buildout conditions and the ultimate need (warrant analysis) for a traffic signal at Poinsettia Lane and Dove Lane. Sewer and Water: 3. Please provide utility information, sewer, water and proposed or existing service connections. Check with CMWD for design and facility routing information. Drainaae: 4. On the Hydrology Map label all outlets or basin junctions with “0” values and velocity of proposed drainage. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the proposed headwalls, inlets, or junction structures. Indicate other drainage systems proposed (energy dissipaters and check dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and potential erosion protection. Revise or submit an addendum to the soils report that addresses the errosiveness of the natural terrain south and west of this site (lot 17). 5. In the hydrology study consider the run off draining down Dove Lane thru the Shopping Center, the Seaport subdivision and to Batiquitos Lagoon. The proposed increased runoff from development as it affects capacity downstream could be an issue and diversion or retention may be required. 6. The proposed drainage pattern will require special approval from the City Engineer. The Soils Report submitted is silent on the less than standard positive drainage away from the proposed footings. Typically we see a letter of support from the Soils Engineer and the inclusion of rear and side yard drains where positive drainage is restricted. Miscellaneous: 7. The engineer submitted (2) tentative maps and a Poinsettia Lane Alignment plan that are all different than each other. We like the general alignment of Poinsettia Lane but require additional information for access and approved projects mentioned above. The connection to existing Mimosa Dr. is also acceptable as shown on the Poinsettia Lane Alternative “B” plan. P - CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-l 9 - LOHF PROPERTY APRIL 6, 1998 PAGE 5 8. The issue of loading Dove Lane with access from homes as shown on the Alternative “B” plan is also approved in conceot, although points of access, turnarounds or width of lots, and conflicts with intersections will be discussed. 9. We did not review the conflicting tentative maps at this time and await a complete submittal.