HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-01; Poinsettia Shores; Tentative Map (CT) (11)MARCH 22, 1994
TO: ERIC MUNOZ
FROM: Associate Engineer, Davis
VIA: Principal Civil Engineer, Land Use
COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
CT 94-01, POINSETTIA SHORES
The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project for application
completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are complete and suitable for
continued review.
In addition, the Engineering Department made a preliminary review of the project for
Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior
to conditioning of the project are as follows:
1. We need to see the striping plan for Avenida Encinas from the easterly line of Windrose
Circle to the match line of the exhibit submitted. The plan should address the following:
A. The taper in the northerly curb line as shown on the tentative map is not
sufficient in length. The CalTrans recommended taper length for a lane drop at
40 mph is 320 feet.
B. A transition of the bike lane is needed in order to cross over the parking lane and
align itself with it's location on the two lane roadway going northeasterly from
Windrose Circle.
2. The master tentative lot lines, as shown, may have to change when the further
subdivision of the master tentative takes place. We see at least three possible reasons for
making this statement and all derive from an initial review of the proposed further
subdivision of this master tentative map, as is shown on the alternative drainage exhibit.
The three reasons follow:
A. Lot 4 will violate cul-de-sac standard in number of units.
B. The angled entry from Windrose Circle into Lot 2 remains an issue. Having
Street "R" make a close to radial intersection with Windrose Circle is required
by City Standards. We suggest Street "R" intersect at Navigator Circle.
H:\UBRARY\ENO\WPDATA\DAVIS\CT941POI.SHR
3. Sheet 12 of the constraints exhibit shows the "old" location of the siltation basin outlet
structure. The tentative map shows the structure in the "new" location. Please make all
exhibits consistent.
4. The alternative drainage study required by the City Council is incomplete. The following
items of information need to be shown:
4 Show how the initial invert elevation was determined.
4 Is the initial elevation consistent with the needs of the future drain which is the
northerly portion of drain DA as shown on the Master Drainage Plan?
4 What is the peak flow in the future northerly DA line and into this system?
4 Does the discharge used in alternate basin sizing include the above flow (DA
north)?
4 Does the discharge used include the east side post development or existing flow?
4 Clarify the dam height. The table states a 4 foot high spillway. Elevation of basin
is shown as 13.0 feet. Does this mean the spillway elevation is 17 feet?
4 What is the dam crest elevation?
4 Please separately identify the various flow components used in basin sizing. Show
the assumptions used, bearing in mind that retention time for grain size 0.074 is
required. State the retention time needed and that it is obtained in the alternate
basin design.
• We need a profile of the proposed drain as per Zone 9 in order to make a
comparison with the profiles in this alternate study.
The alternative drainage exhibit is being returned for the requested information to be added.
Also attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please forward this plan set to the
applicant for corrections and changes as noted. The applicant must return this plan set with the
corrected plans to assist us in our continued review.
If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension
4500.
H:\LfflRARY\ENG\WPDATA\DAVIS\CT941POLSHR