Loading...
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.