HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-14; Mariano; Tentative Map (CT) (8)MEMORANDUM
December 16, 1996
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG
FROM: Associate Engineer - Michael J. Shirey
CT 96-05, SDP 96-06, PUD 96-04, HDP 96-05: MARIANO
COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above referenced project for
application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for the
project are complete and suitable for continued review. Due to current staff work loads,
Engineering Issues of Concern have not been identified at this time. Any engineering issues
which are identified, however, will be forwarded to you within three weeks.
If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
MICHAEL
Associate Engineer - La^cT Use Review
Attachment
c: Assistant City Engineer
Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review
ly-JAdl HENTHORN & ASSOCIJ0ES
5431 Avenida Encinas • Suite J
Carlsbad, California 92008
Fax (619) 438-0981
(619) 438-4090
November 20, 1996
Ms. Anne Hysong
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Mariano - Application Re-Submittal to Address Incomplete Items and Project Issues per
City Letter of June 6, 1996.
Dear Anne:
The attached list responds in order to the items in the City's letter of June 6, 1996 addressed to
Jack Henthorn. These items were either previously addressed with the last submittal, are no
longer applicable, are revised with this submittal or are submitted new as referenced below.
We hope to meet with you to discuss these items in detail in the near future. Please do not
hesitate to call if you have any questions or would like additional information.
cc: PacWest Group, Sam Holty
Hunsaker & Associates, Lex Williman
NOV 2 0 B96
\Sriano -- Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
MARIANO
RESPONSE TO CITY'S INCOMPLETE ITEMS/ ISSUES LIST o n iq
f^T*
PLANNING ITEMS:
^Small Lot Architectural Compliance Exhibits/ Demonstration
Compliance with the Small Lot Architectural Policy No. 44 is demonstrated as
previously submitted on the Site Development Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates,
combined with the Elevations by the Case Group Architects, both dated 4/26/96. A
summary sheet was included with the previous submittal, Architectural Guideline
Compliance Summary, Mariano, April 25, 1996. We are including an updated summary with
this submittal.
The specific story configuration is noted on the Site Development Plan for each unit
along with the building setbacks. With three 2-story units in a row less than 15 feet apart,
the middle unit will be either entirely 1-story (exceeding the policy standards) or 1-story
along one complete side. The depth of the single story portion is at least 10 feet along the
length of the pad and the roof on the single story is substantially lower then that for the 2-
story element as shown on the Elevations for Plan 3 by the Case Group.
2. PUD Justification Analysis
See attached Mariano - Planned Development Justification summary.
3. Recreation Area
a) Summary table - Project Summary table was provided on TM, sht. 6. We revised it to
fit current plan and added notes on cover sheet specifying uses for all lots. We added a
Recreation Summary table on sht 6 of-TM.
b) Detail active/passive amenities -- The passive amenities are detailed with the
Landscape Plans. No active amenities are required/ provided.
c) 15x15 ft rear yards - A 15' x 15' (225 sq. ft.) private recreation area is shown on
revised site plan for each lot, was previously inferred on typical setback exhibits.
d) Recreation requirements for multi-family -- Rec. reqs. for multi-family N/A now.
e) Label sq. ft. for rec. areas on plan and table - Added on plan, Recreation Summary
table, Lot Summary table and cover page Notes were revised.
f) SDG&E letter of permission - We have met w/ SDG&E representative John Hernandez
and made design revisions to be in compliance with their planning guidelines with regard to
facilities/ amenities within the easement. The current plans reflect these modifications. A
"letter of permission" from SDG&E will not be issued until the end of the planning process
along with Final Map review as is typical procedure. The letter of permission is not usually a
condition for "application" completion as they need to review detailed plans, i.e.
improvement plans, etc. prior to the Transmission Engineers being able to fully analyze the
impacts for the long term use of the power-line easements. Enclosed is a letter from Tom
Duncan confirming our status of working toward complying with SDG&E's design standards.
4. Site development plan for affordable housing units
Was previously submitted, not applicable now with the affordable housing proposed as
secondary units.
5. Biology Report
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
riano — Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
The second biology report appeared similar to the first one submitted because "there
were no new issues or information found" according to Anita M. Hayworth, biological
consultant who performed a complete new analysis of the site. She found essentially the
?same plant species and environmental circumstances as the earlier report. She confirmed
the preserved Coastal open space areas are sufficient to address sensitive CSS habitats
onsite,
a) Wetland delineation -- Not necessary. See attached Wetland Determination Report for
the Mariano Project by Dudek & Associates, July 24, 1996.
b) Environmental / biological assessment for trail - No issues of concern. See attached
Biological Assessment of the Trail System for the Mariano Property letter report by Anita M.
Hayworth, Biological Consultant, dated October 4, 1996.
c) Burrowing owl survey - A burrowing owl survey is included, though this species is not
thought to be endangered in this area. No owls were found or expected to exist onsite. No
further study is necessary.
Materials board and color samples for multi-family units
Not applicable now. Multi-family units no longer proposed.
Setback dimensions / distance between structures for multi-family units
No longer applicable since multi-family units are not proposed.
Density calculation
a) Revise summary table - A revised general Density Calculations summary table is
included on the TM and a detailed Residential Density Calculations exhibit with breakdowns
of constrained land is shown on the Constraints Map.
Building coverage information for multi-family units
Submitted on previous plans, but not applicable now with no multi-family units.
Parking summary table
Provided on the Site Plan for all single-family and secondary dwelling units. Includes
visitor parking.
Disclosure Statement
There are no individuals involved with the PacWest corporation or partnership who hold
10% or more of the partnership.
Landscape Plans
a) Maintenance responsibilities -- A full Maintenance Responsibilities exhibit was
submitted previously with the Landscape Plan set. An updated exhibit is included herein to
reflect the changes in Tentative Map and Site Plan.
b) Height of noise wall/sound barrier -- A note limiting the masonry noise wall to a
maximum of 6' is included on current Landscape Plans. Any place the wall needs to be
higher, the engineers included berming on the tentative map.
Elevations & Floor Plans for Apartments
The elevations and floor plans were submitted for the multi-family apartments with the
first submittal. This is no longer applicable.
Constraints Map
See following justifications, revised Constraints Map exhibit, and amended Legend with
related footnote.
Ridgeline -- A Major Ridgeline is shown in the western portion of the site. Area on east
side of Alga Rd. is considered a minor ridgeline or knoll, not a "major" ridgeline. This area
does not warrant the review of the major ridgelines. It is not included in the Zone 20 Specific
Plan, Opportunities and Constraints exhibits/text, or EIR. The EIR states "topography of the
site [Zone 20] can be described as gently rising from the west, culminating in two ridgelines
that run in a north-south direction....The first of these ridgelines dissects the central portion
riano — Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
of the site [Planning Area A, Mariano], while the other ridgeline traverses near its eastern
edge [Planning Area C, Ocean Bluff]" (pg 111-119) and "the topography can best be described
as gently rising from west to the first ridgeline, and leveling onto a mesa that encompasses
much of the central-eastern portion of the site. The mesa contains the second prominent
ridgeline and steep canyons that trend towards the north and south." (pg 11-1)
a) Fault Line - Added approximate location of minor, inactive fault line. See Report of
Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.,
December 21, 1995, esp. sections VI and VII. A geologic map for the area indicates the
presence of a northeast-trending local fault whose approximate projection passes through
the site as shown. This is considered a "minor", "inactive" fault (pgs 8-10, 13) which should
not impact development, given that the standard grading and building recommendations
identified in the report are followed (pg 17).
b) Airport noise symbol -- Added on revised Constraints Map.
c) Distant views -- We added the distant view opportunities directed out from the site as
represented in the Zone 20 Specific Plan, Opportunities and Constraints exhibit.
d) Wetland delineation -- Not applicable. See Wetland Determination Report for the
Mariano Project by Dudek & Associates, July 24, 1996. "No area was dominated by wetland
species" (pg 4). "No ACOE wetland habitat is present onsite" (pg 6) "Because impacts to
ACOE jurisdiction on the Mariano Property are less than one acre, are above headwaters,
and affect no federal-listed species, notification of the ACOE is not required..." (pg 7).
"Because it appears as though no permits are required from the resource agencies, no
mitigation is required" (pg 8).
e) Riparian impacts -- No riparian habitats exist onsite, so no impacts occur. See above
referenced report by Dudek & Associates. "The channels support no riparian vegetation
and there is no evidence of aquatic wildlife, CDFG jurisdiction includes only the
approximately 0.01 acre of mule fat that occurs adjacent to the drainage" (pg 6). These two
very minor clusters do not warrant riparian habitat designation.
f) Dual criteria slope -- Map was amended to highlight all of the slopes of 25%-40% grade
with CSS native habitat. Pursuant to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad LCP and Coastal
Act Section 30240, these areas are preserved in their natural state (placed in a permanent
open space easement). Where necessary a portion is impacted by encroachment to
accommodate the construction of the City's Circulation Element road, Aviara Parkway (Alga
Rd.). See also Zone 20 Specific Plan, Section III.C.lc.1.
"The subject site contains a number of areas with slopes of 25% grade or greater.
However, much of the site has been disturbed by past agricultural activities. As a result,
only two areas of the site meet the dual criteria of containing both steep slopes and coastal
sage/chaparral habitat. The two areas are located in the southern portion of the site and
total approximately 1.6 acres and .2 acres" (Coastal Commission-Staff Report #6-88-531,
Laurel Tree Investment). The Alga Road encroachment has previously been reviewed and
accepted by the City of Carlsbad, California Coastal Commission and State Clearinghouse.
See attached Conditional Negative Declaration information provided.
g) Archeological sites - "No cultural resources were located on the project property" from
Cultural Resources Survey of The Laurel Tree Property by RECON, June 21, 1988 (Section
I.). No significant archeological sites exist onsite. No trace was found of the previously
recorded archeological site, SDJ-6752/W1875, during the field surveys (pg 4). "No further
measures related to cultural resources are necessary" (pg 5).
h) Natural / Manufactured Slopes >40% - The steep slope area, including 40%+ slopes,
in the south-eastern portion of the site does not represent natural topography. See Letter
Report -- Update to Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by Geotechnical Exploration,
riano — Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
Inc., September 26, 1996. These slopes are a previously altered/ manufactured landform
from old agricultural related scraping or quarry use. Over the years after use of the area as
a borrow site, the soil and topography was greatly altered by wind and water erosion.
According to the report, this area should be for stability,
i) Legend - Revised legend to clearly define exhibit, included additions and revisions.
15. Sudan Interior Mission CUP amendment for offsite improvements
Included with this submittal is a copy of the "Permission to Grade" letter by SIM USA to
PacWest, Ltd. for offsite improvements. SIM will file a separate application (i.e. CUP
amendment) for the proposed grading on their site.
ENGINEERING ITEMS:
16. Number of lots / units in apartment project
A lot summary table was shown on previous TM. No condo or apt. project currently
proposed. Total # of lots proposed is shown on TM and Site Plan with a breakdown of uses
proposed in the General Notes and the Project Summary table.
17. APT bv Uses
ADT by separate uses is no longer applicable as project is single-family, but table
regarding project ADT's was included on the Tentative Map.
18. Density in lots or DU/AC
The revised Density Calculations tables show project density in DU/AC. Project density
was previously noted on the Constraints Map and the TM. See Planning Item 8.
19. Location of existing & proposed structures
Topo map shows no buildings existing onsite, all existing buildings w/in 100' are shown
off topo, all proposed structures are shown on the Site Plan. Topo includes southern
structures of SIM property.
20. Adjacent street information
The current street names for the Sambi project have been included, all others were on
the previous plans.
21. All existing or proposed easements shown
All existing and proposed easements are plotted, as shown on last submittal. See
Engineering Issue 12.
22. Streets and utilities clearly identified
All streets and utilities are shown, as on previous plans. Typical street section on front
page of TM, all major streets throughout the project are proposed public.
23. Distance between intersections
Intersection distances are noted on cover sheet of TM.
24. Show street lights and utilities (within / adjacent to project)
All major sewer, water, ... utilities & street lights are shown, as on prior plans.
25. Plot watercourses and drainage facilities (within / adjacent to project)
Proposed pipes were sized pursuant to the hydrology reports for the site. The report
shows a drainage basin taken into consideration. A detailed hydrology analysis and storm
drain system was engineered for the eastern portion of the site as shown in this submittal.
No detention / retention basins are necessary on-site provided the flows are handled in
another manner.
26. Fault line on constraints map
The approximate location of the minor, in-active fault suspected on the site is shown on
the revised constraints map. See Planning Item 14.b).
27. Regional transportation system impacts per SANDAG Mngmt system
riano — Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
The impacts to the SANDAG regional transportation system have been reviewed.
Refer to the previously submitted Transportation Analysis for F.M.Z. 20/ Mariano, prepared
by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. on September 12, 1995. As the Mariano project would
generate less daily and peak hour trips than previously assumed in the FMZ 20 traffic study,
no additional traffic analysis is needed (Page 7). The guidelines for Congestion
Management Project (CMP) Transportation Impact Reports recommends a traffic study only
be prepared for large projects generating over 2,400 ADT's or 200 peak hour trips. Mariano
daily and peak hour traffic volumes are less than the threshold traffic volumes needed for a
congestion Management Program traffic analysis (Pages 11 and 18). The project ADT's are
reduced in this current proposal down to a maximum of 1,810. This assumes all secondary
units are rented with 10 ADT's each. The primary Single-Family units result in only 1,560
ADT's. See Traffic Summary table on TM, Sht 6.
MAJOR PROJECT ISSUES
PLANNING:
1. Hillside Development Issues
1) Grading/ development encroachments into 40% slopes - All 40% slopes are
maintained where possible. Some slopes must be impacted to install Aviara Parkway.
Minor unconnected areas may be impacted. The manufactured area in southeastern
portion of site with steeper slopes, east of Aviara Pkwy and west of SDG&E easement must
be modified due to stabilization issues. See letter report by Geotechnical Explorations, Inc.
dated Sept. 26, 1996. These are allowed pursuant to Zoning Code sections 21.95.070(a)
and 21.95.090(b). A same scale overlay will be provided showing constraints with hillside
conditions for use w/ TM. See Planning Item 14.g) and"i>.
^~2) Manufactured slopes over 30 ft -- A manufactured slope area over 30' is necessary due
to the pre-designed alignment of Aviara Pkwy.
3) Additional cross sections - Cross sections may be provided in subsequent staff review.
4) Use of narrow streets in Planned Development - Project engineers/ designers
evaluated whether the use of substandard streets would accomplish any better PD design.
The constraints for design pre-established on this site by factors such as the alignment of
Aviara Pkwy, intersection spacing, secondary access, etc. pre-set the basic layout.
Substandard streets would not result in any more sensitive site design or reduction in
grading amounts. Mariano's street system must also tie into the public streets provided by
the Sambi project to the south. Standard, public street design is typically preferred by City
Engineering, Planning and Fire Prevention representatives.
The maintenance and HOA requirements associated with private streets could serve to
be a burden for future residents. Often those with private street maintenance
responsibilities (both financial and physical) encourage the gating of their streets for long-
term preservation.
2. Cobblestone Rd south of Cobblestone Dr not needed
This submittal shows removal of southern extension of Cobblestone Rd. Street names
are shown as approved on adjacent Final Maps.
3. Coastal Deed Restricted Areas' encroachments
This project design has been through all of the environmental agencies with prior
submittals. Both sensitive biological habitat areas with >25% slope areas and Coastal Sage
Scrub have been Deed Restricted per previous Coastal Commission action. See copy of
riano -- Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
Coastal staff report included with this submittal. Encroachments are allowed for City
Circulation Element and access roads to developable areas, where no other less
environmentally-damaging alternative exists. No wetland or riparian impacts exist onsite,
see Dudek & Assoc. Biological Report. No additional mitigation measures are required.
See Planning Item 14.g) and i).
4. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
See response above. All 25-40% slopes with sensitive habitat, dual criteria slopes,
have been preserved in Deed Restricted Open Space areas. This is in compliance with the
Mello II LCP provisions. The Constraints Map was modified to more clearly define all dual
criteria slopes by cross-hatching. Some steep slope areas must be encroached into/graded
for construction of Aviara Pkwy and to stabilize the unnatural slopes in the southeast. Also
see comments under Planning Issues 1.1).
5. Agricultural conversion fees
Fees will be paid at appropriate stage of processing.
6. Visual and aesthetic impact
The views from Palomar Airport Road (PAR) have been assessed with regard to Zone
20 EIR. Photos of views from PAR, College Blvd and Flame Tree Lane are included with a
viewshed exhibit for your reference. The window of view to this site from PAR is very short.
The views from PAR and College Blvd. will be buffered by north-facing landscaped slopes.
Other views from adjacent sites are minor i.e. the EIR shows views from the property to the
north along Flame Tree Ln. This is not a primary public street, it is basically an access
driveway. These views can be minimized by proposed landscaping along the project edge
and large unit setbacks from the property line.
7. Private Street "A"
The Sudan Interior Mission (SIM) private access "drive" was shown as 24', consistent
with all previous approvals, adopted plans, and agreements. It is now shown widened to 30'
in per the current PD Ordinance, cul-de-sac policy and City Design Criteria.
8. Offsite grading and improvements
See response to Planning Item #15 and Engineering Issue #22.
9. 15% Open Space encroachment
The "15% of net acreage" area was set aside for open space purposes in the central
canyon. This area encompasses the SDG&E easement. The 50-foot average setback
areas along both sides of the future Aviara Parkway alignment are also included as SPA
open space, as are enhanced slopes with over 25% gradient. The first two serving as urban
"greenbelts" traversing through the SPA (Zone 20 SP EIR, pg III-49). Three adjacent
passive park areas expand this open space region onsite. An additional natural open space
area was added in the south-east portion of the site. This area will expand the natural open
space area and wildlife corridor to the south, shown on the Sambi map.
10. Compliance w/ Zone 20 EIR mitigations
This project was designed to be in compliance with the Zone 20 EIR mitigations. Many
of the items were addressed by additional reports, studies and analyses. See attached
Mariano Environmental Impacts/ Mitigation Compliance document. There may be further
discussion of issues after application items are deemed complete.
ENGINEERING:
11. Sewer & water facilities
Iroariariano — Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
All existing and proposed sewer and water lines required by CMWD were shown onsite,
in Aviara Pkwy and Cobblestone Drive. Additional facilities were added for the Sambi and
Cobblestone projects per their final improvement plans.
12. Preliminary Title Report boundary
All bearings, distances and curve data was shown around the subdivision boundary.
The legal description in the Preliminary Title Report includes the description for the Laurel
Tree parcel to the north then excludes it by "any portion lying within Parcel 1 of Parcel Map
No. 15661". It is a separate parcel which is not part of this application. We can provide you
a copy of PM 15661 if you need.
The area referenced on the title exhibit as Parcel 2, the 60' easement for road ingress
and egress and utility purposes in Laurel Tree Ln, also is offsite and not a part of this
application and hence does not need to be shown north to Palomar Airport Road.
13. Show Cobblestone Road per CT 84-32
Cobblestone Road improvements are shown as proposed by Cobblestone Sea Village
project per Final Map-Improvement Drawings # 345-9A.
14. Submit 1 sheet plan
A composite 50-scale plan on one sheet is included with this submittal. A 40-scale
exhibit would have been too big to print on one sheet.
15. Indicate easements
The relevant onsite easements are indicated on the TM, see Easement Notes on cover
page. A new preliminary title report dated September 24, 1996 is attached.
16. SIM access road, cul-de-sac policy
See Planning Issue #7.
17. Excessive grading
The amount of grading proposed over acres graded for this project is within the
"potentially acceptable" range, consistent with recent approvals on adjacent properties. The
figure for cy/acre graded was modified on the TM to reflect the amounts proposed in this
submittal, exempting grading necessary for Aviara Pkwy. Pursuant to City policy,
circulation-element roads can be deducted from the total amount of grading proposed.
18. Lot drainage detail
Proposed retaining walls were added to the GS-15 lot drainage detail on sheet 1. The
"*as needed" note was revised to read "as approved by Soil Engineer" on this detail and the
typical drainage swale detail.
19. Hydrology / SDG&E flowline
The conditions of the hydrology report were incorporated into the design of the TM.
The drainage of the open space/ power line easement area on the east side of Aviara was
analyzed in detail and a 60" storm drain is now proposed in F Street. The flowline is shown
to handle the drainage pattern so toe of slope erosion does not occur. See Engineering
Item #25.
20. Alga Road traffic signal
The design and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Aviara Pkwy,
Cobblestone Road and "A" street can be provided as needed.
21. "By other" grading, cul-de-sac issue
This project was designed to fit compatibly with adjacent developing subdivisions.
Plans would not accurately reflect up-to-date conditions if they did not incorporate the
existing and proposed developments along each boundary. The existing offsite grading to
the south per the Sambi project's improvement plans will provide the necessary loop
system. The three road connections at the property line (including Aviara Pkwy) are under
construction now.
riano -- Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
The Cobblestone project to the east is also finished with all Final Map, final grading and
improvement plans and is preparing to begin grading and construction. These should be
complete by the time Mariano goes to hearing. The city approved Final drawing #s are
shown on the TM for reference. References to "by others" were removed.
22. Offsite grading "bv others"
See 21. above. The offsite grading along the south border was revised to accomplish
all necessary grading for Mariano onsite in response to Sambi's latest plans. A notarized
letter is provided from SIM USA for necessary offsite grading to the northwest. A copy of
the agreement by PacWest QA-1, Grant of Easements and Declaration of Convenants,
provides for grading along the eastern border.
23. Cobblestone street names
The Cobblestone "Drive" and "Road" names were previously set by the approved
Cobblestone Sea Village project to the east. A name change would impact numerous prior
approvals regarding adjacent properties.
24. Cobblestone Road extension
This submittal shows the knuckling of Cobblestone Road at Cobblestone Drive with the
extension of Cobblestone Rd to the south removed. Adjacent properties to the south/east
have other access and sewer and water sources.
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ISSUES
25. Common open space slopes in PUD lots
The project proposes slope areas to be included in lot areas with a Home-Owners
Association (HOA) maintenance responsibility. These will have an open space/
maintenance easement over them granted to the HOA. This is the preferred market choice
and keeps landscape maintenance of the areas with a clearly defined authority.
26. Cover sheet. Lot #'s
Both Project Summary and Lot Summary tables were included on TM sheet 6 of the
previous submittal. The note referencing lot #'s for each of the types of uses was amended
on the cover sheet to include residential, open space, recreation and RV lots.
27. Lot size compatibility
The lot sizes are compatible with the Emerald Ridge East, Sambi, and Cobblestone
projects. The Laurel Tree and SIM USA multi-family projects are at higher densities. Each
of these projects was approved assuming compatibility with the proposed layout on the
Mariano site. This site is now basically an infill site responding to single and multi-family
residential uses approved on all sides. The Mariano residential lots range in size from the
largest of 30,800 down to 4,920 sq. ft. with most of the lots falling near the 8,000 to 12,000
sq. ft. range.
28. Lots A/B
The previously lettered lots were changed with this submittal to be numbered like the
residential lots. These lots represent subdivided legal parcels like the other lots. Each of
the different recreation/open space/RV lots was more clearly defined in this submittal with
solid lot lines and individual lot numbers.
29. Project numbers/ match-lines
The "96" series project numbers were added to the exhibits and the TM and SDP
match-lines were made more bold and clear.
30. Noise wall heights
ftMffriariano — Resubmittal Letter
Re: City Incomplete Items and Issues of Concern
11/20/96
A typical noise wall cross section was included with the Landscape Plans. A note was
added to state "masonry sound wall - 6' max." and any additional berming needed to make
the sound attenuation wall height was shown in the TM grading. The locations of the sound
walls with top of wall heights is also shown on the TM and SDP.
31. Reduced GP and Zoning map
The General Plan and Zoning reduced exhibit was included in the key map on the TM
cover page for your reference. No changes are proposed to existing designations.
32. Cover sheet notes, gross vs. net acreage
An additional table was added to the TM showing gross and net acreage based on
constrained land. The general note on the cover sheet was adjusted to reference these
totals. The MF/apartment information is no longer relevant.
33. Title Report
See Engineering Issue #15. A new title report is provided with this submittal.
34. Trail details
The trail details and cross sections are designed to follow the SDG&E Guide For
Encroachment On Transimission Rights-Of-Way, Access Road Details, Typical Road Cross
Section, Exhibit #10232-03. The trail will have natural landscaping along both sides for
most of its path, except near "F" Street. No walls or fences are proposed or required for this
alignment. A letter report was included by biological consultant, Anita Hayworth to respond
to environmental impacts of the trail alignment. See Planning Item #5.
35. Lot 2 configuration
The width of Lot 2 meets standards at the front, mid points and toward the rear of the
lot. There is just additional area added onto the very back of the lot. This lot is not
substandard as lot compliance is satisfied within the lot.
36. Tentative map summary table note
The TM note on Sheet 6 regarding square footage and acreage as "approximations
only" was changed per the City's comments.
37. Small Lot Architectural compliance
See Planning Item #1. Small Lot Architectural compliance was demonstrated on the
Architectural plans and by the Summary page included with the previous submittal. This is
shown again with adjustments for revisions with this submittal. Multi-family review is no
longer needed.
38. Zone 20 landscaping consistency
Landscape architects, Nowell + Associates, verified consistency with the Zone 20
landscaping criteria and palettes, as was shown with the previous submittal.
39. Detailed site plan review
It is more appropriate for the detailed site plan review to take place after the application
is deemed complete, including specific plan compliance review.
10
JAC^HENTHORN & ASSOCI
5431 Avenida Enemas • Suite J i ..
Carlsbad, California 92008 """" ""J
Fax (619) 438-0981
(619)438-4090 NQV 2 Q 1998
VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
November 20, 1996 s ••..,-• - —
People traveling along Palomar Airport Road have limited exposure to views of the
project site. Speeds along Palomar Airport Road average 50 miles per hour. Due to the
limited range of the viewshed — approximately 2900 feet — and the curve of the road,
viewing time is limited to a maximum of 39 seconds for westbound traffic and 15 seconds
for eastbound traffic. In addition, since all views from Palomar Airport Road are at
elevations lower than the project site and the surrounding landscape, the impacts of the
views are significantly lessened. See Viewshed Exhibit, photographs 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Views from College Boulevard occur at higher elevations and ,therefore, create more
visibility of the project site. However, the impact of these views are significantly lessened
by the limited range of the viewshed, approximately 1000 feet. This limits exposure of the
views to southbound traffic to 13.5 seconds. Northbound traffic will not have a view of
the project site. See Viewshed Exhibit, photographs 1 and 2. "Views of future
development areas . . . would be available for only brief moments 'in-between' the
intervening canyon walls. Therefore, [the] development may not have a significant visual
impact to motorists along Palomar Airport Road." (Zone 20 EIR).
The project site may be visible from Palomar Airport; however, that area is primarily
occupied by employees of industrial and office businesses who will be spending less time
viewing, and will be less affected by the views. "These views would not be significant
because this viewshed is not considered to be 'visually sensitive'." (Zone 20 EIR).
Views of the site will also be significantly obscured by the surrounding natural landscape
and well as adjacent development. The surrounding landscape limits the exposure of the
project site. Hills on both sides of future Aviara Parkway, between Palomar*Airport Road
and the project site, significantly decrease the range of the viewshed to 1100 feet west of,
1800 feet east, and 1000 feet north of Palomar Airport Road. See Exhibit. Adjacent
existing and future developments, such as the Sudan Interior Mission and the Emerald
Ridge Projects, obscure views of the site from Palomar Airport Road and College
Boulevard as well.
In order to preserve the appearance of the ridgelines and hillsides, housing units are
separated at a minimum of 15 feet for one-story units adjacent to two-story units and 20
feet for two-story units adjacent to two-story units. Unit setbacks, exterior designs,'roof
heights and massing, and earth tone color schemes are varied to lessen visual impacts. To
reduce the potential impacts, all cut and fill slopes shall be landform-graded and
contoured.
JAd(|HENTHORN & ASSOCIJ^ES
5431 Avenida Encinas • Suite]
Carlsbad, California 92008
Fax (619) 438-0981
(619) 438-4090
MARIANO
ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS/ MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
1. Agricultural Conversion
-Will pay Agricultural Conversion fee.
-Will comply with Zone 20 Specific Plan performance criteria to be compatible w/ agricultural uses.
-Improvement plans will show temporary service connections for agricultural use if necessary.
2. Reclaimed Water Use
Improvement plans to show location/ sizing of reclaimed water and urban runoff diversion facilities per
CMWD.
3. Air Quality
Project may be conditioned to:
-Contact NCTD re: coordinating development with locations for transit-related parking facilities.
-Distribute annual information re: public transportation, ride-sharing & pooling per Caltrans / NCTD.
-Water all graded surfaces and haul routes during dry weather.
-Revegetate unpaved areas per landscape plans as soon as possible after grading.
-Restrict construction-related traffic to dust-controlled routes and maintain reduced speeds.
-Limit construction activities during high winds.
-Operate diesel-powered construction equipment per manufacturers' suggested operating instructions.
-Regularly schedule construction equipment maintenance/ tune-ups, and turn off when not utilized.
-Architectural coating and cut-back asphalt applications shall adhere to APCD Rules 67.0 and 67.7.
4. Biological Resources
-Coastal deed restricted open space easement dedicated to preserve sensitive CSS resources onsite.
-Permits for dedication were approved by City of Carlsbad, CDFG and USFWS.
-Habitat restoration is not required as open space easement has been dedicated over entire CSS area.
-Biologically sensitive OS areas are buffered from residential development by building setbacks,
natural and graded slopes and supplemental landscaping.
-Will comply as needed with conditions re: service connections to sewer line per sewer study of
western area.
-Offsite extension of Poinsettia Lane not related to this project.
-Macario Drive alignment impacts not related to this project.
-Permanent desiltation basins not proposed, drainage flows handled by stormdrain system onsite.
-The proposed open space easement includes the area shown as Specific Plan Open Space. A portion
is encroached into for Cobblestone Road grading and improvements to serve the Cobblestone project
and the Mariano site east of the SDG&E easement. Additional area is included in the southeast so no
"patchwork" open space areas or habitat fragmentation will occur.
-Cobblestone Road was set by the Cobblestone Sea Village project. An oversized culvert at this
location through the Mariano project would be an inappropriate condition greatly impacting a previously
approved project. The area to the north of the road is being altered by the Laurel Tree development
and would not provide a significant wildlife corridor.
-Only relevant to DeJong property.
-A burrowing owl report was provided for this site, no owls were found, they are not endangered.
11/19/96
JEH/mka
mariano/eirmatrx. doc
5. Circulation and Traffic
-Appropriate LFMP circulation improvement conditions will be incorporated.
-Infrastructure plans will show temporary road connections for agricultural properties, as needed.
/6. Cultural Resources
* -Additional site investigations concluded that the cultural resource site which was historically recorded
by data recovery onsite is no longer distinguishable.
-Relevant only to Poinsettia Lane, not this project.
7. Land Use and Compatibility
-Will comply with Zone 20 SP performance criteria to be compatible with continued agricultural uses.
-No mitigation measures proposed for affordable (multi-family) housing, project proposes 15% onsite.
-Major commercial shopping areas recently approved along east side of Palomar Airport Road and I-5
intersection will satisfy neighborhood commercial demand.
8. Noise
-Project specific noise study was submitted and proposed plans respond to noise mitigation measures.
-Will record notice that property is subject to overflight impacts & post aircraft noise notification signs.
-Noise study was submitted to City, noise levels will be mitigated to 60 dB CNEL or less.
Pesticide Residue
-Not a concern.
Paleontology
-A paleontologist can be retained to perform inspections of excavations as necessary.
11. Public Facilities Financing
-Zone 20 LFMP Performance Standard will be met.
-The project can be conditioned to comply with the City's standards for solid waste management.
12. Soils/Geology
-Geotechnical investigations of the site were submitted and mitigation measures will be complied with.
13. Visual Aesthetics
-Project shall comply with Zone 20 SP architectural and landscape design standards.
-Manufactured slopes will be landform-graded and contoured, landscape plan shows planted slopes.
-Development along western ridgeline complies with Hillside Devp Guidelines re:visual impacts.
-A percentage of homes proposed along the ridgeline are single-story and have standard height and
^building separations which will reduce the appearance of dense ridgeline development.
-A Viewshed Analysis exhibit was prepared to define the specific visual impacts the project may have.
-The central canyon east of Aviara Pkwy will be preserved in open space, current views of the canyon
from circulation roadways are very brief.
-Poinsettia Lane slopes not related to this project.
11/19/96
JEH/mka
mariano/eirmatrx. doc
JAdpHENTHORN &
5431 Avenida Encinas • Suite J
Carlsbad, California 92008
Fax (619) 438-0981
(619) 438-4090
(CT 95-01/PUD 95-01/SDP 95-02/HDP 95-04) ^n__ _ ~r, ^ „ K RIff*MlaW K X,'* ».^;*<'- •'":• "'r: '>•'•' i'-
The utilization of the Planned Development Ordinance in conjunction with the Tentative
Map for this project allows for a more balanced product across the whole site by the
minor transfer of density from the the west side (RM) to the east side (RLM). Standard
land uses for both of the areas would allow for a much higher density product on the west
side without gaining a better layout on the east side. The development as proposed is
located within the confines of the general development areas on this site which are
established by the alignment of Aviara Parkway, intersection spacing, the SDG&E
easement and open space area, and the grading elevations and roadway alignments set by
adjacent approved projects. Re-designs of the site plan do not result in any significant
changes to the layout of local streets and driveways, parking spaces, recreational open
space facilities, or residential structures.
The Mariano project provides a mixture of one and two-story homes with varied roof lines
and a variety of front building elevations. Five different house plans are provided
including the plan variation with the affordable secondary dwelling unit. Each of these has
three different building elevations options resulting in 12 variations. The curvilinear
roadway system provides for house plotting and front yard setback variations.
The residential local streets in the project are full 60' standard public streets with curb,
gutter, and sidewalks on both sides. This greatly exceeds the Planned Development 30-
foot minimum private street width standard and accomodates roads tying in from adjacent
projects. The homes all have two or three car garages, meeting and exceeding the the
parking and storage requirements of the ordinance. Guest parking is provided on both
sides of the internal public streets. A separate recreational vehicle parking lot provides
adequate onsite storage.
The proposed residential land uses will be compatible in scale, architecture, and building
materials with the proposed single family residences to the west, south, and east and the
multi-family units existing and proposed to the north and south. Most of the perimeter is
enhanced with slope landscaping.
The totaljgossjlensity of the RM area is 4.77 du/ac, well below the growth control point
(GCP) of 6. The total gross density of the RLM area is 2.71, below the GCP of 3.2.
Based on net acreage the RM area as proposed results in a density of 4.8 du/ac. Only with
the net density calculation does the RLM area exceed the GCP to 3.84. Total project net
density is 4.22 du/ac.
MARIANO PROJECT NOV 2 0 1936 {
95-01/SDP 9
MARIANO *•
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT JUSTIFICATION
The following table demonstrates Mariano's compliance with the Planned Development
Ordinance:
Private Street & Driveway Width
Driveway & Street Setback
Building Height
Parking Resident:
Guest:
RV Storage
Storage Space
Recreation Space:
A. Private Passive
B. Common Passive
C. Open Space
REQUIRED
30 feet
5 to 20 feet
30 to 35 feet
2 covered spaces/du
48
3,620
480 cu. ft. per du
31,200
None, SFD
6.43 ac
PROPOSED
60 feet
20 feet
25.5 to 28 feet
2 or 3 -car garage/du
48+
16,730
480 cu. ft+ inside gar.
35,100+
44,940
7.8 ac
November 18, 1996
Mr. Sam Holty
PacWest Group, Ltd.
550 West C Street, Suite 1750
San Diego, C A 92101
Subject: Mariano Project — Offsite Permission to Grade Letter
Dear Mr. Holty:
The Sudan Interior Mission, SIM USA, Inc. is the legal owner of a parcel of land known
as San Diego County Assessor's Parcel #212-040-47.
SIM USA grants permission to PacWest, Ltd. for right of way, slope, easements, grading
and incidental purposes as shown on the tentative map for a residential project known as
Mariano. We are granting the right to grade subject to review and approval of final
grading plans by the City of Carlsbad. We understand that PacWest will grant similar
permission as needed in connection with future grading by SIM USA.
This grading is proposed in connection with an agreement that was signed in 1988 by the
previous property owners, Laurel Tree Investment Company, regarding grading the area
along the SIM property southern line in conjunction with their site grading activities.
Sincerely:
SIM USA,
Signed Iknd
corporated
starized by:
i"Subscribed and Sworn to
Before Me this _\j£jay of
OFFICIAL SEAL ~"%
^•-rNVASS 8
MYCOMM.
San Diego Gas & Electric
An Enova Company
P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112-4150 • 619 / 696-2000
November 18,1996 FILE NO.
Ms. Anne Hysong
Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
Community Development Building
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: Mariano Project
Carlsbad Tract No. 96-05
Dear Ms. Hysong:
We are currently working with Jack Henthorn & Associates to resolve any conflicts with our
existing 150 foot wide overhead electric transmission easements. We will review and comment
on the proposed site grading and improvement plans. Once all of the negative impacts to our
easements/access have been eliminated, SDG&E will issue a "Letter of Permission for Grading"
to the City of Carlsbad.
In the interim, if you have any questions regarding SDG&E land rights, please feel free to call
me at (619) 696-2490.
Sincerely,
Thomas H. Duncan
Property Management Representative
cc: J. J. Hernandez
A. Sotoa
Ms. Melissa K. Allen
Jack Henthorn & Associates
5431 Avenida Encinas, Suite "J"
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
hysonltr.doc
JAd§HENTHORN & ASSOC
5431 Avenida Encinas • Suite f
Carlsbad, California 92008
Fax (619) 438-0981
(619) 438-4090
October 31, 1996
Anne Hysong
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, California 92009
Dear Anne:
SUBJECT: CT 96-05/PUD 96-04/SDP 96-06/HDP 96-05 - MARIANO SUBDIVISION
I am writing in response to your letter of this date regarding the status of the above referenced application.
As you may recall, subsequent to the issuance of the notice of incomplete application, there was a period of
approximately 30 days during which planning department personnel assignments were in the process of
being changed. During this period we were attempting to meet with staff to discuss items contained in the
notice of incomplete application, but were asked to wait pending completion of reassignments.
As you are aware, following your assignment to the project we have been diligently working to resolve the
incomplete items and address the issues identified in the original notice.
Therefore, it is requested that you grant a 30 day extension for the submittal of items referenced in the
City's June 6, 1996 notification.
Thank you for your consideration,
truly yours,
Oack E. Henthorn
JEH:wpc
cc:Gary Wayne
Brian Hunter
Bob Wojick
Mike Shirey
Bobbie Hoder
Don Rideout
Sam Holty
File
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 31, 1996
Melissa Allen
Henthorn & Associates
5431 Avenida Encinas #J
Carlsbad CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 96-05 / PUD 96-04 / SDP 96-06 / HDP 96-05 - MARIANO
SUBDIVISION
On November 6, 1996, the above referenced application will have been on file for six
months (May 6, 1996, to November 6, 1996). Notification was given on June 6,
1996, that the application was incomplete, along with a list of items/information
needed to complete the application, and a notice that failure to resubmit the application
or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be
deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application.
The application is still incomplete. As a result, this letter is notification to you that
unless a request for a 30 day extension is received by November 6, 1996, the
application will be withdrawn per Chapter 21.54.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Zoning
Ordinance:
"When a determination that an initial application is
incomplete has been transmitted to the applicant, the
applicant shall have six months from the date the
application was initially filed to either resubmit the
application or submit the information specified in the
determination. Failure of the applicant to resubmit the
application or to submit the material in response to the
determination within the six months shall be deemed to
constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is
withdrawn or deemed withdrawn a new application must be
submitted."
Please contact me at (619) 438-1161, extension 4477 to apply for a refund of any
unused fees.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSONG
Associate Planner
AH:bk
Gary Wayne
Brian Hunter
Bob Wojcik
Mike Shirey
Bobbie Hoder
Don Rideout
File Copy
Data Entry
Pac West Group, 550 W. C St #1750, San Diego, 92101
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 ®
STANDARD PACIFIC
HOMES
June 17, 1999
Ms. Anne Hysong
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
RE: MARIANO/CT 97-14, Revised CC&R's
Dear Ms. Hysong:
In response to your letter of transmittal dated May 27, 1999, enclosed are two copies the
revised CC&R's for the Mariano project for your review.
The lot number changes have been made to the document to ensure consistency with the
approved Substantial Conformance exhibits.
All requirements of the City of Carlsbad contained in the conditions of approval for the
project are included in Article XXI of the document.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at
(619)292-2299.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES
rey C, Clarke
Project Manager
Enc.
San Diego Division
9335 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123-1010
TEL (619) 292-2200 FAX (619) 292-2260
City of Carlsbad
^ ^V^VB^^^Mi^^V^^H^^^M^^HM^MWPlanning Department
June 6, 1996
Jack Henthorn
5431 Avenida Encinas
Suite J
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 96-05/PUD 96-04/SDP 96-06/HDP 96-05 - MARIANO
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department
has reviewed your tentative tract map, planned unit development, site development plan, and
hillside development permit, application nos. CT 96-05/PUD 96-04/SDP 96-06/HDP 96-05, as to
its completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information
which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted
directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously
and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application
can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of
concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a
determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for
a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months
from the date the application was initially filed, May 6, 1996, to either resubmit the application or
submit the require information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials
necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of
the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be
submitted.
Please contact your staff planner, Eric Munoz, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4441, if you have
any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sine
MICHAEL J. HOL'ZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:EM:kr
c: Gary Wayne
Don Neu
Bob Wojcik
Bobbie Hoder
Clyde Wickham
File Copy, \
Data Entry
PacWest Group, Inc. - Property Owner
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
No. CT 96-05/PUD 96-04/SDP 96-06/HDP 96-05 - MARIANO
INCOMPLETE ITEMS
Several items in this letter reference the previous City incomplete letter for this project
(CT 95-01) dated March 22, 1995 (copy attached). For a complete understanding of
staffs comments on such items, this letter as well as the referenced items in the
previous March 1995 apply. Engineering Department review was performed by Clyde
Wickham at extension 4353.
Planning:
1. Small Lot Architectural compliance exhibits/demonstration per III. C. (p. 6) of the
Planned Development checklist. Specific Plan criteria for architecture will also be
reviewed. This item was also noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22,
1995 for this project (item #14).
2. PUD justification for detached single family development per 21.45.040(6) of the
Zoning Ordinance and III. F. (p. 6) of the Planned Development checklist. This
item was also noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 for this
project (item #23).
3. Recreation Area: Provide summary table showing compliance for all units (SF +
MF units); break down common vs. private and active vs. passive. Indicate
requirements vs. areas being proposed. Passive park on Landscape plans
(sheet 3/14) is noted as active on summary table. Indicate and show in detail
the active/passive amenities being proposed with the recreation areas pursuant
to 21.45.090 (3) and (4). Show individual 15 x 15 ft. private rear yard areas for
the SF units on site plan for each SF unit (also incorporate into the typical
setbacks exhibits) Show compliance with recreation requirements for the multi-
family component of this project. Indicate and accommodate in detail all
amenities (passive vs. active) per the PD ordinance. Label on the recreation
area summary table as well as the subject areas/lots on the plan the area (in sq.
ft.) provided for recreation areas. Elements of this incomplete item have been
previously noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 (item #5). The
location of a recreation area under the SDG&E powerline easement is likely to
be a major project issue that would not be supported by staff or the decision
makers. For a complete application, submit a letter of permission signed by
SDG&E for any and all improvements proposed for the powerline easement area
including the proposed pedestrian trail alignment.
4. The site development plan is incomplete because it does not reflect compliance
with the requirement for inclusionary affordable housing units. Project exhibits
need to show buildings, parking, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, access
points, recreation areas, storage areas, trash enclosure locations, landscaping,
etc. Multi-family development is not reflected on the submitted plans other than
grading the site (lot 157) and building footprints on the landscape plans. This
item was also noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 for this
project (item #10 and Planning Issue #6).
5. Biology report; the report submitted appears to be the same report submitted
with the prior submittal of this project. Staff has the same issues with the biology
report as noted in the prior City review of this project. Review the previous City
letter for a discussion of issues (item #19 of the City incomplete letter dated
March 22, 1995). In addition, provide the following: (1) wetland delineation
mapping/determination, and (2) environmental and biological assessment for the
proposed trail construction and alignment, (3) burrowing owl survey.
6. Provide a materials board and color samples for all proposed buildings. This
was submitted for the SF units but not the multi-family units. This item was also
noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 for this project (item #16).
7. Provide typical or specific setback dimensions for the required front, rear and
side yard setbacks for all structures proposed as well as distance between
structures. The multi-family component of the project does not have this
information associated with it. This item was also noted in the City incomplete
letter of March 22, 1995 for this project (item #3).
8. Density calculation: revise summary table/cover sheet on tentative map to show
density calculated based on the acreage of the appropriate underlying General
Plan designation (RLM vs. RM) and accounting for net acreage (and constrained
land) as opposed to gross acreage. Although somewhat provided with the
Constraints Map, this information needs to be clearly shown/indicated so that the
proposed development can be assessed against actual, mappable areas of the
site containing either the RM or RLM designation. This item was also noted in
the City incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 for this project (item #6).
9. Provide building coverage information for lots with proposed structures. This
was done for the SF units but not the multi-family component of the project. This
item was also noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 for this
project (item #7).
10. For the SF and MF components of the project, provide a parking summary table
indicating the number of spaces required and the number of spaces provided.
Include guest parking vs. resident parking and compact vs. standard spaces.
Also show parking stalls, isle dimensions, driving aisle dimensions and truck
turning radii for all parking areas. This item was also noted in the City incomplete
letter of March 22, 1995 for this project (item #9).
11. Disclosure Statement: list the names and addresses of individuals in the Limited
Partnership. This item was also noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22,
1995 for this project (item #12). It appears that an identical Disclosure
Statement was submitted with this application as with the previous submittal but
with an updated signature date (5/1/96 as opposed to 1/6/95).
12. Landscape Plans: provide/indicate maintenance responsibility for all areas.
Distinguish between common and private maintenance responsibilities. This item
was also noted in the City incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 for this project
(item #21). Common slope areas should have easements over them for
maintenance by the Homeowners Association as opposed to having long
individual lots encompassing these areas which are truly common slope
scenarios. Also ties in to Additional Project Issues #25. On the landscape
plans, also indicate the height of the noise wall/sound attenuation barrier. See
Additional Project Issue #30 as well.
13. Provide elevations (indicating building materials) and floor plans for the
apartment component of the project. This item was also noted in the City
incomplete letter of March 22, 1995 for this project (item #22a).
14. Constraints Map: (1) show the ridgeline (with the "N" symbol) located east of
future Alga Road alignment, west of the SDG&E powerline easement area
starting near the south end of the site (2) locate the fault discussed in the
Geotechnical study (3) provide a description for the symbol "V" (used on the map
to show Airport noise contour lines) for the legend which currently goes up to "U"
for biological habitats; unless the symbol "T" will be used since a special
planning area is involved (airport) (4) demonstrate that no distant views are
associated with the site and therefore does not warrant the "P" symbol to indicate
such distant views; otherwise locate the "P" symbol to correspond with the
distant views associated with the site and used as a factor in the optimum site
design for the site (5) the biological analysis indicated the need for wetland
delineation to determine potential wetlands impacts; evaluate further and note
on the constraints map as appropriate with the "H" symbol (6) similar as above
with respect to potential riparian impacts and the "G" symbol (7) incorporate dual
criteria slope into the legend/constraints mapping (see Planning Issue # (4) (8)
please indicate areas of General Plan and/or Specific Plan open space (9) show
archeological sites (10) certain constraints on the cover sheet legend are noted
as not applicable constraints; please revise this accordingly.
15. If offsite improvements are proposed for the Sudan Interior Mission property,
then an approved CUP amendment for that use must be approved for this
application to be complete; or, a CUP amendment application must be filed
concurrently with this project for this project's current application to be deemed
complete.
Engineering:
16. Number of units to be constructed when a condominium project or community
apartment project is involved: Total number of lots proposed. (ITEM 1H. FROM
TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS)
17. Average Daily Traffic generated by the project broken down by separate uses.
(ITEM U. FROM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS)
18. Proposed density in lots or dwelling units per acre. (ITEM 1L.)
19. Approximate location of existing and proposed building and permanent
structures. (ITEM 2A1.)
20. Name, location and width of existing adjacent streets and alleys. (ITEM 2B2.)
21. Width and location of all existing or proposed public or private easements. (ITEM
2B4)
22. Public and private streets and utilities clearly identified. (ITEM 2B5)
23. Show distance between all intersections and...(item 2B6.)
24. Show all existing and proposed street lights and utilities (sewer, water, major gas
and fuel lines, major electric and telephone facilities) within and adjacent to the
project. (ITEM 2B9)
25. Location .width and/or size of all watercourses and drainage facilities within and
adjacent to the proposed subdivision: show location and approximate size of any
proposed detention / retention basins. (ITEM 2C5)
26. The Fault identified in the geotechnical investigation (Dec. 21, 1996) should be
shown on the constraints map.
27. All projects must evaluate their potential impacts on the regional transportation
system,...as required by the SANDAG Congestion Management System (cmp).
(ITEM 2H.)
MAJOR PROJECT ISSUES
Planning:
1. Hillside Development Issues: (1) grading/development encroachments into 40%
slope areas. As this project's review progresses, ideally staff would like a mylar
overlay of the hillside slope gradients and site constraints to overlay on the
tentative map (with same scales) to further assess this issue (2) manufactured
slopes over 30 feet in height (3) grading quantities will be further reviewed for
hillside development ordinance compliance (3) additional cross sections may be
reviewed in subsequent staff review of this project (4) being a hillside
site/location it appears that the use of narrow streets as allowed by the Planned
Development in combination with small PD lots would yield a sensitive,
supportable site design. The submitted proposal incorporates small lots but with
standard width public streets and roadways which appears to be creating some
significant grading and development impacts.
2. Cobblestone Road; not needed 1000 feet south of Cobblestone Drive. Also
need to check into proposed vs. approved street names in the area.
3. Coastal Deed Restricted Areas' encroachments and sensitive biological habitat
areas; have any consultations occurred with Coastal Commission and/or
resource agency staff regarding biological impacts to the project site and
supportable/feasible mitigation measures or programs with respect to potential
sage, wetland and riparian impacts as well as steep slope impacts?
4. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone; demonstrate compliance with the
provisions of this overlay zone per the Mello II LCP for dual criteria slopes (25-
40% slopes with sensitive habitat, vegetation and/or animal species). Augment
the Constraints Map to reflect 25-40% slopes that are also dual criteria slopes
and subject to further review and specific finding determinations. Please also
see Planning Issue #8 of the City's March 22, 1995 letter.
5. Agricultural conversion fees are involved with this project and need to be
properly assessed and collected for coastal agricultural preservation/mitigation.
6. Visual and aesthetic impact considerations of the project especially from
Palomar Airport Road. Review and satisfy applicable mitigation measures
contained in EIR 90-03, the Zone 20 EIR with regards to aesthetics and visual
impacts from development. Computer enhanced images, additional landscaping
efforts, single story units, etc may be applicable upon further review of the
project against overall mitigation measures for Zone 20 sites.
7. Private Street "A" with a width of 24 feet is not allowed by the Planned
Development Ordinance.
8. Offsite grading and improvements; see Engineering issue #22 and Planning
Incomplete Item #15 for more discussion.
9. Encroachment exists into the central canyon which represents the 15% open
space performance standard for this area in the Zone 20 specific plan as well as
a biological open space and wildlife corridor.
10. Demonstrate compliance with all applicable environmental mitigation measures
as outlined in the Zone 20 Specific Plan EIR (EIR 90-03) and the corresponding
Exhibit "A" dated June 16, 1993 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for Zone 20.
Engineering:
11. Show the sewer and water facilities required by the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District. Adjacent and offsite facilities are not shown.
12. Follow Preliminary Title Report around the subdivision boundary. Indicate aN
bearings, distances and curve data as identified in schedule "A" of the report
parcel 2 is not shown.
13. Show Cobblestone Road as approved per CT 84-32 Substantial Conformance
Exhibit (See March letter).
14. Please submit 40 scale on 1 sheet for staff review.
15. Indicate all easements, with recordation number as identified on the preliminary
title report. Note: the PR is close to being out dated, older than 6 months.
16. The access road to the Sudan Interior Mission violates cul-de-sac policy (see
City Design Criteria).
17. The proposed grading is considered excessive. The acceptable range for the
amount of grading is from 0 - 7,999 cy/acre. This project proposes 13,642
cy/acre which is almost twice the maximum amount considered acceptable.
18. Please include proposed retaining walls to the GS - 15 lot drainage detail on
sheet 1. The "* as needed", note on typical lot drainage detail and on typical
drainage swale detail should be removed.
19. The hydrology report contains information and specifics that should be
accommodated on this tentative map. The open space / power line easement will
need a defined flowline to handle the drainage pattern otherwise toe of slope
erosion will occur.
20. The traffic report identified the need for a traffic signal at Alga Road /
Cobblestone Road - "A" street. This project will be responsible for the design and
installation of this signal (just a comment, will be a condition of approval).
21. An onsite cul-de-sac issue exists because of the "by other" type of design. Each
project must stand alone and cannot depend on adjacent development to carry
them through required standards. The offsite secondary access must be shown
to an existing public street. Another similar issue exists with Alga Road. Do you
intend to build Alga Road offsite to an existing public road? Or do you intend to
construct a lesser width access road as a temporary condition?
22. The offsite grading "by others" is another issue that must be resolved. Again this
project must stand alone, that is it must contain approved offsite grading (submit
notarized letter from the Sudan Interior Mission and other adjacent property
owners), or revise the project design to accommodate all grading onsite.
23. Cobblestone Drive and Cobblestone Road will be a street name nightmare. A
name change will be necessary to rectify this.
24. Cobblestone Drive south of Cobblestone Drive (error on sht. 1) may be an
obsolete design. The adjacent properties need to be shown to a point of
determination as to the need for this road. This issue also applies to the sewer
and water needs of the adjacent properties.
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ISSUES
25. PUD lot sizes and configurations should not encompass native or common open
space slopes or areas. Locate property lines on the tops of slopes (for example,
like Lots 68-76) not beyond the pad area into open/common areas (like Lots 59-
61); ties into creation of common areas/slopes with HOA maintenance as
discussed in Planning incomplete item #12 of this letter. PUD lot size and
configuration requirements (21.45.090 (o) (1-5)) must be maintained/complied
with.
26. Cover sheet: indicate Lot #'s with different uses (RV/residential units/MF lot,
open space areas) to correspond with specific lot numbers.
27. Lot sizes will be reviewed for compatibility with adjacent lot sizes of approved
projects in the area.
28. Lots A/B; subdivision of land, portions, parcels; what is proposed?
29. Put appropriate project numbers on upper right hand corner exhibits; fix
matchline match-ups/some are incorrect.
30. Noise: issue for wall heights over 6 feet. Develop/provide a typical noise wall
cross section (with landscape plan package) whereby the noise attenuation
requirement is attained via a 6 foot high maximum wall and appropriate berming
of the balance of the attenuation/barrier height requirement (example: 9 feet of
attenuation yields 3 feet of vertical berming with a 6 foot wall and corresponding
landscaping/screening)
31. Cover sheet: provide a reduced map showing existing/proposed General Plan
and Zoning designation for the subject site corresponding with the acreages and
site locations that have those designations.
32. Cover sheet/General Note #2; account for constrained land; gross vs. net. Note
#1; add MF/apartment information.
33. Title Report; submitted report is OK but will need new one during processing (6
months current)
34. Provide some more trail details including cross sections through the trail's
alignment showing landscaping, any walls and adjacent open areas,
development, etc.
35. The rear configuration of Lot 2 seems excessively narrow and will be reviewed
further.
36. Change the note on the tentative map summary table (Sheet 6/6) which currently
reads:
"Please note that the square footages and acreages are approximations only
and may vary from that shown after preparation of final plans", to read "Please
note that the square footages and acreages are approximations only and are
subject to substantial conformance review by the City after preparation of final
plans".
37. Building separations/setbacks will be reviewed further in combination with Small
Lot Architectural compliance. Multi-family structures will also be reviewed for
compliance with all applicable standards.
38. Be sure proposed landscaping is consistent with the Zone 20 landscaping
palettes/criteria.
39. A more detailed site plan review including specific plan compliance with
development standards, design criteria, etc. will take place after a complete
application is achieved and major issues appear to be resolved.
JUNES, 1996
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ERIC MUNOZ
FROM:ASSOCIATE ENGINEER - CLYDE WICKHAM
via: Principal Engineer Land Use
via: Assistant City Engineer
MARIANO \ CT 96-05 \PUD 96-04 \ SDP 96-05 \ HDP 96-05
We have reviewed the 2nd submittal of this project from PacWest Ltd., via project engineer,
Hunsaker & Associates. The submittal is considered INCOMPLETE for many of the same
items identified in the March 22 issues and completeness letter signed by Michael
Holzmiller. To keep this project moving forward I have added comments to help the
applicant understand our position of major issues.
ENGINEERING ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION
CT 96-05 \ PUD 96-04 \ SDP 96-05 \HDP 96-05
1. Number of units to be constructed when a condominium project or community
apartment project is involved: Total number of lots proposed. (ITEM 1H. FROM
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS)
2. Average Daily Traffic generated by the project broken down by separate uses. (ITEM
U. FROM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS)
3. Proposed density in lots or dwelling units per acre. (ITEM 1 L.)
4. Approximate location of existing and proposed building and permanent structures.
(ITEM 2A1.)
5. Name, location and width of existing adjacent streets and alleys. (ITEM 2B2.)
6. Width and location of all existing or proposed public or private easements. (ITEM 2B4)
7. Public and private streets and utilities clearly identified. (ITEM 2B5)
8. Show distance between all intersections and...(item 2B6.)
9. Show all existing and proposed street lights and utilities (sewer, water, major gas and
fuel lines, major electric and telephone facilities) within and adjacent to the project.
(ITEM 2B9)
10. Location ,width and/or size of all watercourses and drainage facilities within and
adjacent to the proposed subdivision: show location and approximate size of any
proposed detention / retention basins. (ITEM 2C5)
11. The Fault identified in the geotechnical investigation (Dec. 21, 1996) should be shown
on the constraints map.
12. All projects must evaluate their potential impacts on the regional transportation
system,...as required by the SANDAG Congestion Management System (cmp). (ITEM
2H.)
ENGINEERING ISSUES OF CONCERN:
( * USING THE SAME NUMBERS FROM THE MARCH 22 LETTER)
1. Show the sewer and water facilities required by the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District. Adjacent and offsite facilities are not shown.
2. Follow Preliminary Title Report around the subdivision boundary. Indicate aJJ
bearings, distances and curve data as identified in schedule "A" of the report
parcel 2 is not shown.
3. Show Cobblestone Road as approved per CT 84-32 Substantial Conformance
Exhibit (See March letter).
4. Please submit 40 scale on 1 sheet to staff review.
5. Indicate all easements, with recordation number as identified on the preliminary
title report. Note: the P.R. is close to being out dated, older than 6 months.
6. The access road to the Sudan Interior Mission violates cul de sac policy (see City
Design Criteria) .
7. The proposed grading is considered excessive. The acceptable range for the
amount of grading is from 0 - 7,999 cy / acre. This project proposes 13,642 cy /
acre which is almost twice the maximum amount considered acceptable.
8. Please include proposed retaining walls to the GS - 15 lot drainage detail on
sheet 1. The "* as needed", note on typical lot drainage detail and on typical
drainage swale detail should be removed.
9. The hydrology report contains information and specifics that should be
accommodated on this tentative map. The open space / power line easement will
need a defined flowline to handle the drainage pattern otherwise toe of slope
erosion will occur.
10. The traffic report identified the need for a traffic signal at Alga Road /
Cobblestone Road - "A" street. This project will be responsible for the design
and installation of this signal (just a comment, will be a condition of approval).
11. An onsite cul-de-sac issue exists because of the "by other" type of design. Each
project must stand alone and cannot depend on adjacent development to carry
them through required standards. The offsite secondary access must be shown
to an existing public street. Another similar issue exists with Alga Road. Do you
intend to build Alga Road offsite to an existing public road? Or do you intend to
construct a lesser width access road as a temporary condition?
12. The offsite grading "by others" is another issue that must be resolved. Again
this project must stand alone, that is it must contain approved offsite grading
(submit notarized letter from the Sudan Interior Mission and other adjacent
property owners), or revise the project design to accommodate all grading
onsite.
13. Cobblestone Drive and Cobblestone Road will be a street name nightmare. A
name change will be necessary to rectify this.
14. Cobblestone Drive south of Cobblestone Drive (error on sht. 1) may be an
obsolete design. The adjacent properties need to be shown to a point of
determination as to the need for this road. This issue also applies to the sewer
and water needs of the adjacent properties.
TJE^WICKHAM
Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
c: CITY ENGINEER
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER, LAND USE DEVELOPMENT
SENIOR PLANNER, DON NEU
FILE: CT 96 - 05
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
May 13, 1996
/x
PacWest Group, Inc.
550 W. "C"St. #1750
San Diego CA 92101
SUBJECT: CT 96-05 - MARIANO
Enclosed is a request for refund for Tentative Tract Map Permit No. CT 96-05 in the
amount of $30.
Please sign the Request for Refund and return all copies for immediate processing to:
Attn: Brand! King
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad ca 92009
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
BRANCH-KING
Senior Office Specialist
c: File
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894