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.