HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-39; Lohf Subdivision; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (7)City of
June 25, 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 Department and Engineering Departments have reviewed the resubmittal of
your Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Coastal
Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit, application no. CT 97-15/ZC 97-
OG/LCPA 97-08KDP 97-39/HDP 97-16, as to the remaining issues of concern.
Some issues remain. These issues, listed below, must be- resolved prior to scheduling the
project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing
the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic
information required for the application.
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.
MJH:ivlG:mh
Attachments
c: Gary Wayne
Dennis Turner
Clyde Wickham
File Copy
Melissa Allen, Jack Henthorn and Associates
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @
ISSUES OF CONCERN
No. CT 97-l 5/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08KDP 97-39/HDP 97-l 6 - LOHF PROPERTY
Planning:
1. The proposed Zone Change from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential
with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-Q) is not appropriate for the natural open
space areas. As stated in the previous issues letter, dated April 6, 1998, the native
habitat should be zoned Open Space (O-S), similar to the rezoning completed in
conjunction with the Pavoreal subdivision. Please submit a Zone Change exhibit
reflecting these changes.
2. The Planning Department received your “Request to Purchase Off-site Affordable
Housing Credits”, dated May 12, 1998. Please be advised that any off-site
affordable housing concept must be reviewed and approved by the Combined
Project Review Committee and the Housing Commission prior to taking the project
to the Planning Commission and City Council.
3. According to the revised biological report, the extent of habitat was verified but not
staked or flagged in the field. Verifiable fencing and flagging must be installed and
certified by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer prior to issuance of any clearing or
grading permits. While these areas were verified, the delineation of these areas was
deleted from the tentative map and not shown on the landscape plans: It appears
that, on the tentative map, the habitat boundary line is still faintly drawn but not
labeled. This information is important in evaluating direct and indirect habitat
impacts, including, but not limited to, fire suppression. Please delineate this verified
habitat boundary on the site plan and landscape plan.
The proposed mitigation for removal of the mature oak tree at IO:1 is acceptable,
however an attempt to relocate the oak tree would be preferred. In either case, the
proposed planting area within the native habitat should be identified in the
environmental review and on the landscape plans.
According to the revised biological report, the biological reconnaissance surveys
conducted in August, 1997 were adequate to identify the location and extent of all
sensitive plant species and evaluate any potential impacts to those plants, to the
California gnatcatcher and to the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Considering the
recent rains and that several sensitive species have been more prevalent within
Carlsbad, updated spring surveys are necessary. These surveys should focus on all
sensitive plant species with special attention to brodiaea and thornmint.
No discussion regarding potential off-site impacts of infrastructure was included in
the environmental documents. Of particular concern is the proposed drainage
structure along the southern edge of the development that drains into the Southern
maritime chaparral area. According to the Hydrology Report, the loo-year storm
runoff would total 14.4 cubic feet per second and a velocity of 30 feet per second
before dissipation. Please review the impacts of this drainage on the surrounding
habitat, with special attention to the existence of highly-erosive soils and
compliance with the NPDES requirements for storm water runoff quality.
,- -
4. As stated in the previous issues letter, dated April 6, 1998, the project is located in
the Coastal Zone and is therefore subject to the provisions of the old Hillside
Development Ordinance. According to Section 2 1.95.06O(j)( I), the maximum
height for any cut or fill slope is 30 feet. The project proposes slopes up to 45 feet
tall, which are unacceptable. In addition, any slope adjacent to the existing slopes
on the Plaza Paseo Real property must be setback, using a bench similar to that for
the adjacent Pavoreal property.
5. The proposed fire suppression plan, as shown on the landscape plan, is mostly
acceptable in that it reduces future development impacts on the residential pads
while minimizing habitat alteration for fire suppression thinning. The exact
delineation is not clear, however, given the fading of the underlying topography and
manufactured slopes. Please enhance the landscape plan to clearly show the
proposed underlying topography and extent of development, as well as the fire
suppression zones.
6. The project site is located in the Mello II segment of the City’s Local Coastal
Program and is subject to those provisions regarding development of steep slopes
with native habitat (also known as dual-criteria slopes). The project proposes
development in several areas with dual-criteria slopes. In accordance with Policy 4-
3(b) of the Mello II segment, please provide proof that removal of the proposed
development on the dual-criteria slopes would preclude any reasonable use of the
property. Please also provide a tabulation of the total slope area of dual-criteria
slopes and the amount of proposed encroachment into these slopes.
Engineering:
1. The previous correspondences address access top adjacent properties as a
completeness item. It remains as a major issue from an engineering standpoint that
is critical to the design of this project. The adjacent access proposed has neither
been approved nor denied. Staff has met with Ms. Steiner and the Saska’s
regarding their access; they are not satisfied with the current proposal.
Access to the Saska’s property should be located near station 208 + 30 which
appears to be at grade with Poinsettia Lane. The driveway location would still be
located on or across Ms. Steiner’s property and would require an easement or right-
of-way to use. (It appears that this is where the Saska’s would like the access).
Access to Ms. Steiner’s property should be modified to use the temporary cul-de-sac
at the subdivision boundary rather than the setback situation proposed. Offsite
grading is anticipated and should be shown to accommodate her access. The
adjacent lots (52 & 53) should be complete and require no future modification of
grade or drainage. The proposed buffer/drain (City Standard GS 14) is acceptable.
It is suggested that you raise the proposed grades of lots 50 through 55 to meet the
existing terrain of your neighbor.
For both Ms. Steiner and the Saska’s, show utility relocation or extension as
required. Please also show the utilities and services included in the alignment of
Poinsettia lane.
There is no comment regarding access to the Kevane property at this time. There is
a biological resource study underway on the property in conjunction with the
proposed subdivision (CT 98-04) and the results will likely determine areas of
development and access.
2. The temporary cul-de-sac “A” street should extend to the subdivision boundary.
There should be no future grading or improvements required to extend the street.
Sewer, water and public utilities can also be extended to the subdivision boundary in
all areas.
3. The Traffic Engineer submitted a report to discuss the impacts of this project on
surrounding roadways. The report was silent on the connection to Mimosa Drive.
Staff anticipates a substantial amount of public discussion on this connection and
consider the connection a benefit to the adjacent subdivision. The connection was
anticipated and dedicated when the subdivision was created. Figure No. 1 of the
report show no connection and figure 2 shows the connection. Tables 1, 2, 4 and
figures 3 and 4 should also be revised. Staff’s concerns have been relayed to Bill
Darnell directly and we understand that corrections or an addendum to the report
are being prepared.
4. Please provide utility information: sewer, water and proposed or existing service
connections. Extend or loop these services to the subdivision boundary as required.
Check with CMWD for design and facility routing information.
5. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the proposed drainage system.
Indicate other drainage systems proposed (e.g. energy dissipaters and off-site check
dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and erosion protection. The Soils
Engineer states that the terrain is “characterized by a fairly highly erosion potential”
adjacent and downstream of this site in three places:
6.
l East of Dove Lane and “D” Street;
l Lot 77 and west through View Point open space lot; and
l Southwest of “B” Street.
The proposed drainage pattern will require special approval from the City Engineer.
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. The Soils Engineer states
that he supported the design but made no mention about roof, landscape or yard
area drains as a future addition. The Engineer said the soils are highly erosive and
that he had limited control over future uses or deviations. Staff believes that if the
approved deviations were identified (included in the CC&Rs) then the chance of
failure or loss of control would be reduced.
7. The applicant should be aware of the City’s position to develop Poinsettia Lane
concurrent with development of this project. A “future improvement” condition will
not be supported.
8. The proposed phasing plan needs additional work. Access, grading, sewer, water,
utilities and proposed models should be addressed.