HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 02-06; Tavelman Tennis Court; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (9)CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
January 29,2002
TO: Greg Fisher -Assistant Planner
FROM: David Rick -Assistant Engineer
ISSUES AND COMPLETENESS REVIEW
PROJECT ID: PCD 01-02 TAVELMAN TENNIS COURT
2 *I7 CptF
The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project for
completeness and compliance with the previously determined issues. The project is complete for
processing but still has issues that must be addressed. The following is a list of these issues:
1. On the site/grading plan:
a.
b.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
C.
Draw the cross sections to a 1:l scale. It is important not only for measurement
but for illustration purposes for staff and the decision makers.
Explain what “EX. FG” means.
Be consistent in illustrating the slopes between the cross section and site plan.
Include TW/BW elevation on all walls shown on Section A-A and B-B. In addition,
the wall heights near the southwest corner of the lot are illegible. at the
Correct the EX FG at the toe of the slope on Section A-A. The elevation “278.0 is
incorrect.
On the legend, either distinguish between cut and fill slopes with a symbol (do not
use shading) or if all slopes shown are cut, then remove fill.
Where do the stairs located west of the pool lead to? Is the series of retaining
walls that it leads to for planters?
The stairs along the south property line must have a landing every 12 vertical feet
per the Uniform Building Code.
2. Placing the rip-rap at the top of most westerly slope is not an acceptable means of
dissipating the drainage as this design will lead to slope erosion. Propose another
design to handle discharge.
3. The drainage and rip-rap design on the east side of the pad and deck does not work
do to the grade differential. The rip-rap is uphill from the receiving drainage.
Redesign accordingly.
4. If the most westerly slope is graded to 2:1, then the toe of slope must be 2 feet from
property line. Since it appears that this slope is already at 40%, it probably does not
need to be graded and can remain as is.
5. As mentioned previously, the City’s infill grading standards discourages fill between 3
feet and 10 feet in height unless such fill is justified. Because the infill grading
H:LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATAWISC\COMPREV
.
I
*
ordinance also encourages grading sites which are balanced as much as possible,
staff could support fill above three feet in height to reduce the amount of export.
However, to prevent an excessive amount of fill, we would limit the amount of fill to no
higher than 6 vertical feet. Per the standards, the developer is required to submit a
written request with justification to obtain approval for fill above 3 feet. Please submit
said request and revise plans accordingly. Staff would be more than willing to review
schematic plans before revising the final grading plan to help guide the right balance
between the cut and fill and vertical fill limits. The amount of cut, fill and export
resulting from the revised plans will greatly influence our recommendation to the
decision makers.
If you or the applicant has any questions regarding the above, please either see or call me at
extension 2781. 42.d
David Rick
Assistant Engineer - Engineering Development Services Division
H:VIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISCCOMPREV