Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 93-09; Ocean Bluff; Tentative Map (CT) (28)City of Carlsbad SeptemberTTJTl 993 Planning Department Oceanbluff Partnership 4370 La Jolla ViUage Drive Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 SUBJECT: CT 93-09/HDP 93-09/SDP 93-07/ZC 93-04 - OCEANBLUFF Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan and Zone Change, application no. CT 93-09, HDP 93-09, SDP 93-07, ZC 93-04, as to its completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan and Zone Change, application nos. CT 93-09, HDP 93-09, SDP 93-07, ZC 93-04, complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. (See attached list of issues.) Any issues should 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. If you have any questions, please contact Anne Hysong, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4477, or Jim Davis, extension 4501. Sincere J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:AH:lh c: Gary Wayne Team Leader Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Steve 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161 v ISSUES OF CONCERN: No. CT 93-09/HDP 93-09/SDP 93-07/ZC 93-04 - OCEANBLUFF Planning: 1. More specific guidelines are necessary to address the visual impacts of the subdivision to Palomar Airport Road. 2. All issues previously identified in our September 7, 1993 correspondence. ENGINEERING: 1. The emergency access roadway is not acceptable as shown. Grades and paving have to allow two way use by regular and emergency vehicles in the event that primary access is closed. A 15 foot wide section of D. G. paving with no design grade will not serve two-way traffic for regular and emergency vehicles. We require a paved section, 20 feet wide with acceptable drainage control. We believe that an absolute maximum of 20 percent grade is needed and that the length of 20 per cent grade should be held to short sections, of about 200 feet in length. All grades over 12 per cent need special paving for wheel traction. Engineering believes that constructing an acceptable secondary access along the proposed route is virtually impossible due the amount of grading in an area of habitat and mostly within an SDG&E easement. 2. The proposed primary access of Blackrail Court will not meet the cul-de-sac standard for a single entry since the length is over one half mile. This project has an obligation for a portion of Poinsettia Lane. Therefore engineering believes the primary entry should be Poinsettia Lane. Having a partially improved two lane Blackrail Court could be very useful for the existing land uses but without Poinsettia Lane connecting to another road east or west, development in the area of this project appears to be premature. 3. Along the easterly project frontage the required improvements for Blackrail Court will be half street plus 12 feet of paving. Since the 12 feet of paving is shown on adjacent parcel APN: 215-080-01, we need to have evidence that the owner has reviewed your proposal in detail and accepts: A. The roadway as proposed. B. The drainage outlet as proposed. C. The grading proposed. If permission and ultimately grant deeds cannot be obtained the project must be redesigned. Ocenabluff Partnership September 10, 1993 Page 3 4. Providing an opportunity for a connection for CT 84-32, Cobblestone Sea Village, has not been made. We need to see how CT 84-32 can make the connection and meet City standards. 5. (deleted) 6. The proposal appears to be premature in terms of public facilities proceeding or being concurrent with development, especially as regards circulation and sewer. 7. There appears to be a way to make this project work as regards to circulation: (1) Complete Poinsettia Lane along project's southern boundary (2) make a secondary access through Lot 84 (3) continue Poinsettia Lane east or west to connect to another street connected to the public street system, i.e. either Alga Road or Ambrosia Lane, if Ambrosia Lane has been guaranteed. 8. A letter from the owner(s) permitting the offsite and grading to be on their property is needed. Prior to final map grant deeds will be required. If the grant deeds cannot be obtained, the project must be redesigned.