Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-15; Lohf Property; Tentative Map (CT) (6)Darnell &ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 1997 TO: Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing PROM: Bill E. Darnell, P,E. D&A Ref. No: 970906 RE: Lohf Property - Dove Lane Extension With Right In/Out Access to Pobsettia Lane , Based on our November 10, 1997 letter report regarding estimated.traffic volumes on streets in the Lohf property, I have estimated daily traffic volumes with right in/out access to Poinsettia Lane and without the Mimosa connection. The resulting volumes on A Street, C Street and Dove Lane are as follows: A Street Poinsettia Lane to B Street « 910 ADT B Street to C Street = 1094 ADT C Street A Street to Dove Lane - 867 ADT Dove Lane South of B Street = 705 ADT. Based on this analysis, each of the streets within the Lohf property will have traffic volumes less than the 1200 ADT City of Carlsbad criteria for streets with direct property frontage/access. cc: Melissa Allen, Jack Henthom & Associates Lex Willamen, Hunsaker & Associates 090flpoin.m«m\97-11 1202 KEtTNER BLVD • SUITE 6200 * SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 • PHONE: 619-233-9373 3 HUGHES AVENUE • SUITE 105 • IRVINE, CA 92718 • PHONE; 7U-766-2690 FAX: 619-233-4034 20 39yd ONI oossy « TGt-wa t>e0t>eej6T9 09:01 RECEIVED NOVEMBER 17, 1997 MOV t 8 1997 MR. DAVE HAMMER HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 DEAR MR. HAMMER, WE WERE TOLD TO SEND YOU A COPY OF OUR OCTOBER 24, 1997 LETTER TO WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING/CITY OF CARLSBAD, REGARDING THE 100 FOOT FURTHER SOUTH MOVEMENT OF THE SUGGESTED ALIGNMENT OF POINSETTIA LANE(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP OF THE LOPF PROPERTY). THE CITY OF CARLSBAD SUGGESTED WE CONTACT YOU DIRECTLY, AS YOU ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE AGREED UPON SOUTHERLY POINSETTIA LANE ADJUSTMENT. PLEASE CONTACT US IN RESPECT TO THIS CHANGE, AS WE ARE CONCERNED THAT MATTERS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DRAWING UP THE NEW TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. THANKING YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE AND WOULD ASK YOU TO CALL, (760)438-2459, SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. RESPECTFULLY, GREGORY SASKA ENCL: ONE LETTER CC: ROBERT J. WOJCIK, P.E. CITY OF CARLSBAD ^/ CLYDE E. WICKHAM. A.E. CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES 5431 Avenida Encinas • Suite J Carlsbad, California 92008 Fax (760) 438-0981 (760) 438-4090 AGENDA POINSETTIA LANE EAST COORDINATION MEETING DATE: November 10, 1997 TIME: 10:30 A.M. LOCATION: Community Development Building, City of Carlsbad PARTICIPANTS: Fred Arbuckle, Scot Sandstrom, Dave Hammar, Dave Hauser, Bob Wojick, Clyde Wickham, Mike Grim, Brian Hunter, Don Neu, Don Rideout, Jack Henthorn I. Introduction & History II. Recent activity III. City interest in coordinating alignment IV. Environmental processing V. Concurrent project processing VI. West of El Camino off site - district funding VII. East of El Camino on site - project cost VIII. Timing Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM DATE: November 10, 1997 TO: Scott Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housin FROM: Bill E. Darnell, P.E. D&A Ref. No: 970906 RE: Lohf Property - Dove Lane Extension Based on our November 4, 1997 letter report regarding estimated traffic volumes on Dove Lane through the Lohf property, I have estimated the projected traffic volumes on each street within the Lohf subdivision. Attachment A contains a copy of the tract map with the forecasted volumes with and without the connection to Mimosa. A review of the attachment shows that A Street, between Poinsettia Lane and B Street, will have 1,387 daily vehicles with Mimosa and 1,287 daily vehicles without its connection to the Lohf property. A Street, between B Street and C Street, will have 1,473 daily vehicles with the Mimosa connection, and 1,373 daily vehicles without the Mimosa connection. C Street, between A Street and Dove Lane, will have 1,234 daily vehicles with the Mimosa connection and 1,134 daily vehicles without the connection. Further review of the volumes show the remaining streets in the Lohf subdivision will have traffic volumes less than 1,200 daily vehicles. Comparing the forecasts to the City of Carlsbad standards of 1,200 ADT or less for unrestricted access and to limited access when the traffic exceeds 1,200 ADT, shows the following: 1. A Street - Poinsettia Lane to B Street - Exceeds 1,200 ADT - No direct access needed 2. A Street - B Street to C Street - Exceeds 1,200 ADT, limited access possible 1008west.mem\97-11 1202 KETTNER BLVD « SUITE 6200 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 • PHONE: 619-233-9373 3 HUGHES AVENUE • SUITE -105 • IRVINE, CA 92718 • PHONE: 714-768-2590 FAX: 619-233-4034 - Two lots (32 & 33) with direct access, access to lot 23 can be taken to C Street 3. C Street - A Street to Dove Lane - Exceeds 1,200 ADT with Mimosa, limited access may be permitted - Below 1,200 ADT without Mimosa connection, direct access okay - Nine lots affected 4. Dove Lane south of C Street -Below 1,200 ADT In summary, one segment of A Street (B to C Street) and C Street (between A Street and Dove Lane) will have traffic volumes exceeding the City's 1,200 ADT limit. However, the two segments only slightly exceed the City's standards and because of the low volume over 1,200, should be an argument to allow an exception. cc: Melissa Allen, Jack Henthorn & Associates Lex Willaheim, Hunsaker & Associates TENTATIVE TRACff MAP City Of Carlsbad, California Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING November 4, 1997 Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107 Carlsbad, CA 92009 D&A Ref. No: 970906 Subject: Dove Lane Extension Implications Dear Mr. Sandstrom: Pursuant to your request, I have researched the data provided by Melissa Allen to formulate an understanding of the magnitude of traffic volumes on Dove Lane within the project. A traffic study prepared by LL&G for the shopping center and library identified 15,370 daily trips being generated. Of this total, it is estimated that 5 % could use Dove Lane to reach Poinsettia and points west. Therefore a direct connection of Dove Lane to Poinsettia would result in 769 daily vehicles. In addition, there is the potential of 60 dwelling units across from the library that would generate approximately 480 daily trips. Of this total, 10% could be expected to use Dove Lane to reach Poinsettia Lane. The only additional traffic that might be added to Dove Lane is traffic from Mimosa Drive if it is connected to Dove Lane. The amount of traffic should be less than 200 vehicles per day, with 100 oriented to Poinsettia and 100 towards El Camino Real. To determine the potential future traffic volumes on Dove Lane, I have prepared Table 1 summarizing the expected traffic on Dove Lane. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF DOVE LANE TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO/FROM >• Plaza Real and Library »• Future Residential on east side of Dove > Mimosa Extension K Lohf, Property TOTAL DOVE LANE LOCATION SOUTH OF POINSETTIA 769 48 200 666 1583 SOUTH OF BOUNDARY 769 48 100 114 1031 1202 KETTNER BLVD • SUITE 6200 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 • PHONE: 619-233-9373 3 HUGHES AVENUE • SUITE 405 • IRVINE, CA 92718 • PHONE: 714-768-2590 FAX: 619-233-4034 Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing November 4, 1997 Page 2 Based on the information in Table 1, traffic on Dove Lane will range from 1031 to 1583 vehicles. The City of Carlsbad criteria for local streets identifies 1200 ADT as the upper limit of no restriction on direct access. Above 1200 ADT limited access could be approved. Depending on the project layout, it appears that it may be feasible to design the subdivision to keep traffic near the 1200 limit. The amount will depend on the final project site plan. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/ld 0906sand.ltr\97-11 cc: Dave Hammer, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego Lex Willamen, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego Melissa Allen, Jack Henthorn & Associates iv \upit~H City of Carlsbad Planning Department November 5, 1997 Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing Suite 107 2385 Camino Vida Roble Carlsbad CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16 - LOHF PROPERTY Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit, , application no. CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16, as to its issues of concern. Listed below are the issues of concern to Planning and Engineering Department staff. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincen MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH: MG:kr Gary Wayne Brian Hunter Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Jack Henthorn & Associates 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (01 9) 438-O894 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16 - LOHF PROPERTY Planning: 1. The site is zoned Limited Control (L-C). With the proposed single family development, a Zone Change to R-1-7,500-0 is appropriate. A Site Development Plan showing the location and appearance of the proposed single family homes will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The single family subdivision is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and must provide its fair share of affordable housing. The proposed unit count of 76 homes requires at least 11 affordable units. Please indicate where these affordable housing units will be located. Should you wish to pursue an off-site provision of affordable housing, then the procedure described in City Council Policy No. 57 applies. Since the off-site option (in the form of a draft Affordable Housing Agreement) must be reviewed by the Combined Project Review Committee prior to taking the project before the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council, it is recommended that this process begin as soon as possible. 3. At a preliminary meeting it was indicated that no habitat encroachment was proposed, however the biological report shows encroachment at two large locations. Based upon historic aerial photographs of the site, it appears that some of the native habitat has been cleared since 1988. Staff cannot support any additional habitat clearing on this site. Please revise the extent of development to eliminate all habitat encroachment(s). Also, the proposed drainage system empties directly into the natural canyon containing sensitive habitat. Please reduce the area of this catchment basin to the greatest extent possible and design the energy dissipation to reduce flows to at or below the natural volumes. The potential impacts and any necessary mitigation for this drainage scheme should also be addressed in the environmental analysis. 4. The project site contains slopes over 15 feet in height and steeper than 15 percent inclination, therefore it is subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. According to the submitted Constraints Analysis, the proposed development would encroach into slopes of over 40 percent inclination, which is not acceptable. These steep slopes appear to be part of the surrounding slope system, therefore they must be preserved. In addition, the project proposes slopes over 30 feet in height. This does not meet the maximum slope height provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The total graded area shown on the Sheet 3 of the Constraints Map (29.6 acres) does not match the graded area shown on Sheet 1 of the Tentative Map (29.2 acres). Using the former graded area, grading volumes lie only 7 cubic yards per acre away from the potentially acceptable range. Using the latter graded area, the project is within the potentially acceptable range. Since there is a discrepancy in the graded area calculations, and since either way the project is within 7 cy/ac of the potentially acceptable range, written findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading should be submitted for review. Considering that there are fill slopes exceeding the maximum slope height allowed by the Hillside Ordinance, it will be difficult for staff to support the proposed grading volumes. 5. Based upon recent discussions with the City Attorney's office, all manufactured slopes sloping downhill to open space lots should be part of that open space lot, to be maintained by the project's homeowner's association. Please revise the proposed lot lines to accommodate this requirement while still meeting the 7,500 square foot minimum. 6. Considering the above and below comments, it appears that a project redesign is needed. Therefore, the submitted landscape plans were not forwarded to the City's consultant landscape planchecker for comments. Engineering: Traffic and Circulation: 1. Please revise the traffic study to address the connection and impacts to Mimosa Drive. Specifically what amount if any could be anticipated to use this connection, and what amount if any will travel north to Poinsettia Lane for school, library,, shopping, and freeway access. We believe this connection will be a balance with equal amounts using the road in either directions. 2. It appears that the proposed project could work with Mimosa Drive and Dove Lane as access and that Poinsettia would be a future or large capital development involving other districts. Ideally the alignment proposed could be graded to daylight offsite to benefit the adjacent land owners at the same time of this development. 3. The 2 parcels east and north of Poinsettia Lane have commented on the proposed plan. They both agree that the road should move south about 100' to not severe their property as shown. 4. The project Traffic Engineer should consider buildout conditions and the ultimate need (warrant analysis) for a traffic signal at Poinsettia Lane and Dove Lane as well as at Aviara Parkway And Mimosa Drive. The could be an addendum to the Traffic report submitted. Sewer: 1. Please indicate proposed or existing sewer system from the proposed project to public sewer facilities. Again, consider downstream capacity. Drainage: 1. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the site drainage at the outfall or end of the system. Indicate other drainage systems proposed (energy dissipaters and check dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and potential erosion protection. Revise or submit an addendum to the soils report that addresses the errosiveness of the natural terrain south and west of this site (lot 17). 2. In the hydrology study indicate the amount naturally draining into the Shopping Center system to Seaport and Batiquitos Lagoon, and the proposed increased runoff from development as it affects capacity downstream. 3. The proposed drainage swale and distance from building shown in detail on sheet 1 (less than std.) should include area or yard drains and should be supported by the soils engineer. Miscellaneous: 1. Please try to work through the access issues from Mimosa Drive and Dove Lane without a violation of City Standards. A separate workshop can be set-up to address the issues and solutions so that we can go forward with a plan that meets all the needs of the community. Perhaps a base map of the area from El Camino Real to Ambrosia and from the terminus of Mimosa Drive to north of this site could be used to show only the proposed roadways and not the proposed lots. 2. Attached is a red-lined check print of the proposed project for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print must be returned with the project revisions to facilitate continued staff review. RECEIVED] OCT 2 0 199? j BY: ---.T_-J October 16, 1997 Scott Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing Suite 107 2385 Camino Vida Roble Carlsbad CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16 - LOHF PROPERTY Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit, application no. CT 97-15/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached is a list of 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. A list is issues of concern to staff will follow under a separate correspondence. 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, September 18, 1997, to either resubmit the application or submit the required 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, Michael Grim, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4499, if yoJfhave any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH: M<3;kr Gary Wayne Brian Hunter Mike Shirey Bobbie Hoder Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • .(760). 438-1161 » FAX (760) 438-0894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. CT 97-1 5/ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16 1 . A preliminary drainage study (Item III A.) is required as part of the subdivision application submittal. Please note comments in the issues section of this review and on the red-lined checkprint. 2. Please submit alignment information for Poinsettia Lane. Include existing, or approved projects and adjacent access information. Horizontal and vertical alignment will be required as well as existing topoqraphy and constraints information. 3. The approved project to the south (Pavoreal) included a continuation of Mimosa Drive. The preliminary reviews by this office also identified the requirement to extend this existing road. Show Mimosa Drive extended through this subdivision. As previously mentioned, A circuitous alignment is recommended to discourage a short cut to Aviara Parkway. 4. Please revise plans to include Dove Lane as a collector through to Poinsettia Lane. The city standards identify access to collectors as being limited, subject to approval. This road should be unloaded or have no driveways backing out onto it. 5. Please provide utility information, sewer, water and proposed or existing service connections. There will be an issue with the proposed dead-end water service near Poinsettia Lane. 6. It appears that the typical lot drainage detail on sheet 1 should include reference to the pad elevations of each lot to meet requirement C-3 of the subdivision application package. 7. I Show the distance between all proposed intersections. The proposed Dove Lane intersection is to close to El Camino Real. 8. Show the required sight distance corridors at all intersections. ISSUES OF CONCERN Please revise the traffic study to address the connection and impacts to Mimosa Drive. Specifically what amount if any could be anticipated to use this connection, and what amount if any will travel north to Poinsettia Lane for school, library, shopping, and freeway access. We believe this connection will be a balance with equal amounts using the road in either directions. 2. It appears that the proposed project could work with Mimosa Drive and Dove Lane as access and that Poinsettia would be a future or large capital development involving other districts. Ideally the alignment proposed could be graded to daylight offsite to benefit the adjacent land owners at the same time of this development. 3. The 2 parcels east and north of Poinsettia Lane have commented on the proposed plan. They both agree that the road should move south about 100' to not severe their property as shown. 4 The project Traffic Engineer should consider buildout conditions and the ultimate need (warrant analysis) for a traffic signal at Poinsettia Lane and Dove Lane as well as at Aviara Parkway And Mimosa Drive. The could be an addendum to the Traffic report submitted 5. Please indicate proposed or existing sewer system from the proposed project to public sewer facilities. Again, consider downstream capacity. 6. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the site drainage at the outfall or end of the system. Indicate other drainage systems proposed (energy dissipaters and check dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and potential erosion protection. Revise or submit an addendum to the soils report that addresses the errosiveness of the natural terrain south and west of this site (lot 17). 7. In the hydrology Study indicate the amount naturally draining into the Shopping Center system to Seaport and Batiquitos Lagoon, and the proposed increased runoff from development as it affects capacity downstream. 8. The proposed drainage swale and distance from building shown in detail on sheet 1 (less than std.) should include area or yard drains and should be supported by the soils engineer. 9.1 Please try to work through, the access issues from Mimosa/ Drive and Dove Lane without a violation of City Standards, A separate workshop can be set- up to address the issues and solutions so that we can go forward with a plan that meets all the needs of the community. Perhaps a base map of the area from El Camino Real to Ambrosia and from the terminus of Mimosa Drive to north of this site could be used to show only the proposed roadways and not the proposed lots. 10. Attached is a red-lined check print of the proposed project for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print must be returned with the project revisions to facilitate continued staff review. eo PW?»G DEPARTMENT October 16, 1997 City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Mimosa Drive Dear Planning and Engineering Members: This letter responds to your request that homeowners of Pavoreal provide further input justifying why Mimosa Drive should not be extended beyond its current end point. Backgrojjjnd Western Pacific Housing has proposed a fifteen acre subdivision consisting of 70-75 single family homes adjacent to our community Pavoreal. Pavoreal consists of 90 homes located directly behind the Vons Shopping Center at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway. Presently, Mimosa Drive provides direct access to all 90 homes in Pavoreal but dead ends at its northernmost point - the point adjacent to the proposed Western Pacific subdivision. Significantly, Pavoreal was approved by the City of Carlsbad under this configuration and no time limits were ever set as to when, if ever, Mimosa would be extended. For over five years the community of Pavoreal has functioned as approved without incident. We, the homeowners of Pavoreal, strongly object to any extension of Mimosa Drive beyond its current end point due to serious health and safety issues such an extension would create in our community. We adamantly believe that the health and safety of our community, as well as the potential risks such an extension would create in the proposed subdivision, take priority over the negligible convenience such an extension might afford. rjLJ^ In our meeting with City representatives on October 6th, we were informed that the City's rationale for extending Mimosa beyond its current end point is based on two factors: (1) convenience; and (2) emergency access. As we will demonstrate, neither objective - convenience or emergency access - is effectively achieved by extending Mimosa Drive beyond its current end point.1 1. Pavoreal was not Required to Have Two Access Roads to Gain City Approval As noted earlier, the community of Pavoreal was approved over five years ago by the City of Carlsbad with one access road. At the time of approval, and certainly given the depressed real estate situation at the time, there was absolutely no guarantee that a new development would be built next to Pavoreal within the next five to ten years. Hence, the City of Carlsbad must have legitimately and rationally believed that the Pavoreal street plan was safe before it gave approval for the development to be built. 2. Mimosa Offers Convenient and Emergency Access as Currently Designed Convenience The wide streets of Pavoreal, and Mimosa Drive in particular, provide convenient and safe access. Because the vast majority of homes in Pavoreal are actually located closer to the current entrance point off Aviara Parkway, there is little to nothing to gain in convenience by providing a second exit route from the Community. Besides, no one in the community wants a second access route to get to the Vons Plaza. It is totally unnecessary. Emergency Access In the event of an emergency, the streets of Pavoreal are broad enough to provide access for at least two side by side fire trucks (and possibly a third). Only in the most unlikely situation (perhaps an asteroid?) would the entire street ever become completely blocked off. Even then, emergency vehicles could likely access the interior of Pavoreal by driving up on the sidewalks. In addition, Pavoreal has an active Homeowner's Association that enforces rules against curbside parking thus insuring that Pavoreal's wide streets are safely kept open. The Bottom Line We are unwilling to trade the imminent and foreseeable danger that extending Mimosa poses to our children, for the remote and highly unlikely possibility that the street itself would become entirely blocked off. Its important to note that the question of whether or not to extend Mimosa Drive - either for convenience or emergency access - does not involve the proposed development. The new development is planned with two, and potentially three, access roads. Hence, the inquiry into whether Mimosa Drive should be extended must be made solely in relation to its impact on Pavoreal. 3. Extending Mimosa would Have Several Adverse Effects on Pavoreal Extending Mimosa Drive into the new subdivision would have the following negative consequences on the health, safety and enjoyment of living in Pavoreal: a. Increased traffic in the community - Almost all traffic from the new development would traverse Mimosa Drive because it would provide the shortest route to such destinations as Aviara Elementary, Aviara Junior High, and Interstate 5. City representatives told us that one factor justifying the extension of Mimosa Drive is that the extension would decrease traffic on Mimosa. With all due respect, this is untenable. Common sense and logic dictate that traffic on Mimosa would increase (as the numerous points made below will amply illustrate) if the road is extended into the new community. Pavoreal is prepared to do a traffic study (which we believe is a completely unnecessary expense) to prove that such an extension would cause increased traffic on Mimosa. b. Increased rush hour traffic - Both morning commuters and evening commuters would utilize Mimosa Drive as a shortcut to the new development. Morning commuters are typically in a rush to school or work. Evening commuters are typically less observant after a day at work. Both types pose inherent safety risks. c. Vons Plaza Shortcut - Shoppers, Moviegoers, and Library visitors would use Mimosa as a shortcut to and from Vons Plaza. Much of the traffic (especially that coming from the Movie theater) would constitute noisy late night commuters rushing through our community to get home. d. Driveways - Mimosa has driveways the entire length of the street. This is not the type of configuration traffic engineers envision for streets designed to carry traffic beyond a neighborhood. Significantly, the City is requiring the new subdivision to configure Dove Lane so that driveways are not installed along the entrance to the new community. e. Mimosa invites speed - The steep, straight grade of Mimosa encourages those using it to travel at a fast rate of speed. Given the fact that many commuters from the new development using Mimosa would likely be rushing to work or school, the increased speed poses a high risk of danger to our children. f. Decreased Property Values - Extending Mimosa would have the foreseeable effect of decreasing property values in the community due to the increased traffic, noise, and danger. Thank you for this opportunity to submit itemized reasons why Mimosa Drive should not be extended beyond its current end point. We trust that the City of Carlsbad values the health and safety of our community as much as we do. The sole benefit gained by extending Mimosa into the new subdivision is the creation of a convenient, but otherwise unnecessary shortcut to commuters outside our community. It does nothing but create unnecessary risks for us. Accordingly, we strongly urge the City of Carlsbad to recognize that health and safety are compelling reasons not to extend Mimosa. Respectfully Submitted, Don Holmes President Pavoreal Homeowners Association cc: Carlsbad City Council MEMORANDUM OCTOBER?, 1997 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER-MIKE GRIM From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review CT 97-17, CDP 97-39, HDP 97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF PROPERTY COMPLETENESS REVIEW Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items: 1. A preliminary drainage study (Item III A.) is required as part of the subdivision application submittal. Please note comments in the issues section of this review and on the red-lined checkprint. 2. Please submit alignment information for Poinsettia Lane. Include existing, or approved projects and adjacent access information. Horizontal and vertical . alignment will be required as well as existing topography and constraints information. 3. The approved project to the south (Pavorial) included a continuation of Mimosa Drive. The preliminary reviews by this office also identified the requirement to extend this existing road. Show Mimosa Drive extended through this subdivision. As previously mentioned, A circuitous alignment is recommended to discourage a short cut to Aviara Parkway. 4. Please revise plans to include Dove Lane as a collector through to Poinsettia Lane. The city standards identify access to collectors as being limited, subject to approval. This road should be unloaded or have no driveways backing out onto it. 5. Please provide utility information, sewer, water and proposed or existing service connections. There will be an issue with the proposed dead-end water service near Poinsettia Lane. 6. It appears that the typical lot drainage detail on sheet 1 should include reference to the pad elevations of each lot to meet requirement C-3 of the subdivision application package. 7. Show the distance between all proposed intersections. The proposed Dove Lane intersection is to close to El Camino Real. 8. Show the required sight distance corridors at all intersections. CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP 97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF PROPERTY COMPLETENESS REVIEW MIKE GRIM MEMO; OCT. 1, 1997 Additionally, staff has conducted a review of the project for engineering issues of concern. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project are as follows: Traffic and Circulation: 1. Please revise the traffic study to address the connection and impacts to Mimosa Drive. Specifically what amout if any could be anticipated to use this connection, and what amount if any will travel north to Poinsettia Lane for school, library, shopping, and freeway access. We believe this connection will be a balance with equal amounts using the road in either directions. 2. It appears that the proposed project could work with Mimosa Drive and Dove Lane as access and that Poinsettia would be a future or large capital development involving other districts. Ideally the alignment proposed could be graded to daylight offsite and to the benefit of adjacent land owners at the same time. 3. The 2 parcels east and north of Poinsettia Lane have commented on the proposed plan. The both agree that the road should move south about 100' to not severe their property as shown. Sewer 1. Please indicate proposed or existing sewer system from the proposed project to public sewer facilities. Indicate inlet elevations at the building and public sewer connection point. Again, consider downstream capacity. Drainage: 1. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the site drainage at the outfall or end of the system. Indicate other drainage systems proposed (energy dissapators and check dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and potential erosion protection. Revise or submit an adendum to the soils report that addresses the errosiveness of the natural terrain south and west of this site (lot 17). 2. In the hydrology study indicate the amount naturally draining into the Shopping Center system to Seaport and Batiquitos Lagoon, and the proposed increased runnoff from development. A closer look could find a better sollution without offsite improvements. 3. The proposed drainage swale detail on sheet 1 should include area or yard drains and should be supported by the soils engineer. This is the standard exception approved by the City Engineer. CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP 97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF PROPERTY COMPLETENESS REVIEW MIKE GRIM MEMO; OCT. 1, 1997 Miscellaneous: 1. Please try to work through the access issues from Mimosa Drive and Dove Lane without a violation of City Standards. A separate workshop can be set-up to address the issues and solutions so that we can go forward with a plan that meets all the needs of the community. Perhaps a base map of the area from El Camino Real to Ambrosia and from the terminus of Mimosa Drive to north of this site could be used to show only the proposed roadways and not the proposed lots. 2. Attached is a red-lined check print of the proposed project for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print must be returned with the project revisions to facilitate continued staff review. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. CLYDE WICKHAM Associate Engineer- Land Use Review c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer, Land use Review Division , October 29, 1997 . CO1SBTP. Attendees: Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Don Neu, Senior Planner Mike Grim, Associate Planner Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer A. The Poinsertia Lane Assessment District: Dave Hauser Boundary Status Environmental Issues B. The Lohf Subdivision: (CT 97-15) Clyde Wickham & Mike Grim Boundary Status Issues C: The Villages of La Costa: (PRE 97-51) Clyde Wickham & Don Neu Boundary Status Issues D: Previous Projects and Approvals: Aviara / Poinsertia Hills / Etc.. The "District Plan"... Environmental Approvals... E: Roles: Who Will work on the Alignment west of El Camino Real? Reimbursements? Who will work on these? Who Will work on the Alignment east of El Camino Real? Reimbursements? Who will work on these? F: The Alignment of Poinsertia Lane: Discussion: Issues - up ... Ajssignjm.ejn.tiS CITY OF CARLSBAD PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO. 2 (AVIARA PARKWAY-POINSETTIA LANE) LEGEND PARCELS EXEMPT FROM FEE AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS APPROVED OR IN PROCESS 215-070-16 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS PROPOSED ROADS EXISTING ROADS ZONE BOUNDARY (FULL OR PARTIAL ZONE) - FEE DISTRICT BOUNDARY N - ,215-080-24 215-080-01 215-070-10 .,..= „-,„ .0 ,215-070-23215-070-18 12|5-070-08 -O70-B9 215-080-04 215-080-24 ', \ 215-07<J-«&215-080 215-070-06 215-080-21215-080-19 214-170-58214-170-59 215-050-21 --. --... 214-170-72 214-170-75 215-040-215-040-09 • .\> xxvcv\\x\:„•:;\« 215-050-62- v> .\vEi5-o5b-ii-\\N\\\\V ,\v • • 214-140-?r NORTH NO SCALE NOTE: |1) The •llgnmtnl ol Polniettlt Lan* shown In Zone 21 wit only uied for coil estimating purpoim. Th» ictual illgnment In Zone 21 will be determined *t • later date. Prtpired by: Galen N. Peterson. ConniMng Engineer. |I1*| 417.7000 Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING September 18, 1997 Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Roble Suite 107 Carlsbad, CA 92009 D&A Ref. No: 970906 Subject: Traffic Analysis for Development of 76 Single Family Housing Units Dear Mr. Sandstrom: In accordance with your authorization, we have prepared this letter report addressing the cumulative impact of developing the proposed 76 single family project. Figure 1 is a vicinity map depicting the project location. Figure 2 presents the project's site plan. ZONE 21 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN The project is located within the City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21. The Circulation Element of Zone 21 identifies impacted roadways and intersections to be analyzed in conjunction with proposed development of a project. The impacted roadways and intersections are: Roadways 1. El Camino Real Camino Vida Roble to Poinsettia Poinsettia to Alga Road 2. Poinsettia Lane El Camino Real to Alga Road Alga Road to Batiquitos Drive Batiquitos Drive to Paseo del Norte Paseo del Norte to 1-5 3. Alga Road Poinsettia Lane to Batiquitos Drive Batiquitos Drive to El Camino Real 1202 KETTNER BLVD • SUITE 6200 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 • PHONE: 619-233-9373 3 HUGHES AVENUE • SUITE 405 • IRVINE, CA 92718 • PHONE: 714-768-2590 FAX: 619-233-4034 Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 2 Intersections Poinsettia Lane at: 1-5 Southbound Offramp 1-5 Northbound Offramp Paseo del Norte Batiquitos Drive Alga Road at: Poinsettia Lane Batiquitos Drive El Camino Real at: Alga Road : Poinsettia Lane The majority of these roadways and intersections are analyzed annually by the City of Carlsbad. The latest analysis dated December 12, 1996 researched the existing Level of Service for roadways and intersections. Aviara Parkway was not examined, however we have assembled existing traffic volume data and corresponding levels of service. Table 1 summarizes the existing roadways daily traffic volume and peak LOS. Review of Table 1 shows that each of the roadways presently operate at LOS A. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE Roadway Segment El Camino Real »• Camino Vida Roble to Poinsettia *• Poinsettia to Alga Road Poinsettia Lane >• Batiquitos Drive to Paseo del Norte > Paseo del Norte to 1-5 Aviara Parkway > West of El Camino Real Average Daily Traffic 25,150 25,150 15,105 16,100 Peak LOS A A A A Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page3 The 1996 Traffic Monitoring Program has analyzed several of the Zone 21 impacted intersections. Table 2 presents the results of these analyses. Review of Table 2 shows that each intersection is operating at LOS C or better and in most cases they are operating at LOS A. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Poinsettia Lane at: > 1-5 Southbound Offramp >• 1-5 Northbound Offramp > Paseo del Norte > Batiquitos Drive El Camino Real at: »• Aviara Parkway >• Camino Vida Roble AM ICU 0.38 0.39 0.44 - 0.49 0.53 LOS A A A B1 A A PM ICU 0.50 0.41 0.40 - 0.63 0.54 LOS A A A C1 B A 1 unsignalized intersection PROJECT TRAFFIC Trip Generation Rates Trip generation potential for the proposed project is based on daily and peak hour trip generation rates published by SANDAG. Utilizing these rates and the proposed project characteristics, estimates of daily and peak hour traffic volumes can be calculated. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation rates and volumes for the proposed project. Table 3 shows that the proposed project will generate a total of 760 average daily trips with 61 trips in the AM peak hour and 76 in the PM peak hour. Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 4 TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION RATES & CALCULATIONS Trip Generation Rates Land Use Single Family Dwelling Units Intensity 76 DU Daily Trip Generation Rate 10 Trips/ Dwelling Unit AM Peak Hour Percentage of Daily (In:Out) 8%(3:7) PM Peak Hour Percentage of Daily (In: Out) 10% (7:3) Trip Generation Land Use Single Family Dwelling Units Total Daily Trips 760 AM Peak Hour Trips (In: Out) 61 (18:43) PM Peak Hour Trips (In: Out) 76 (43:23) TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project trip distribution is based on directional distribution patterns presented in the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan. The distribution patterns are presented in Table 4. Also presented in Table 4 is the resulting project distribution. 1 Figure 3 presents the distribution of project related daily, AM and PM traffic. PROJECT IMPACTS The impacts of adding 760 daily vehicles to the surrounding street system is considered insignificant when compared to the existing level of service. Table 5 has been prepared showing existing LOS, project traffic and existing plus project LOS. Review of Table 5 shows that each roadway will continue to operate at LOS A with the addition of the project. p Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 5 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Roadway Segment El Camino Real: »• Dove to Palomar Airport Rd * Dove to Aviara Pkwy > south of Aviara Pkwy Aviara Parkway: » east of El Camino Real »* west of El Camino Real Poinsettia Lane: »• west of Alga Road »• east of Paseo Del Norte > east of 1-5 >• west of 1-5 Interstate 5: >• north of Poinsettia Ln > south of Poinsettia Ln Dove Street: *• Project to El Camino Real Project Trip Percentage 15% 85% 10% 5% 70% 70% 70% 68% 3% 30% 35% 100% Project Traffic Daily 114 646 76 38 532 532 532 517 23 228 266 760 AM Peak 9 52 6 3 43 43 43 41 2 18 21 61 PM Peak 11 65 8 4 53 53 53 52 2 23 27 76 Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 6 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Roadway Segment El Camino Real: *• Camino Vida Roble to Poinsettia Ln (Future) > Poinsettia Ln to Aviara Poinsettia Lane: *• Batiquitos Dr to Paseo del Norte Aviara Parkway: > west of El Camino Real Existing Condition ADT 25,150 25,150 15,105 16,100 LOS A A A A Project 1 Traffic ADT 114 646 532 532 Existing Plus Project Condition ADT 25,264 25,796 15,637 16,632 LOS A A A A ADT = Average Daily Traffic LOS = Level of Service CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Any project which generates 2,400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak hour trips will be subject to enhanced CEQA review. The proposed project will generate 760 daily and 63 AM peak and 76 PM peak vehicles. This level of traffic generation is less than the CMP thresholds, therefore, enhanced CEQA review is not required. TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS The project proposes a four way intersection with Poinsettia Lane approximately 950 feet west of El Camino Real. Examination of this intersection for traffic signal control warrants concluded that the 76 single family units would not warrant a traffic signal. The minimum daily volume on the side street to warrant a signal is 850 daily vehicles. The proposed project would have a maximum of 345 vehicles entering the intersection from the south and 35 vehicles entering from the north. Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS > The proposed development of 76 single family dwelling units will generate 760 daily and 63 AM peak and 76 PM peak hour trips. »• The existing impacted roadways and intersections within Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan are presently operating at acceptable levels of service. »• The proposed project does not exceed CMP thresholds requiring enhanced CEQA review. > The need for traffic signal control at the project's intersection with Poinsettia Lane (future) was analyzed and determined to not warrant a traffic signal. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/ld/bh 0906SAND.LTR/97-09 PROJECT SITE Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC.FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Darnell &ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN PROJECT SITE LEGEND: XXX/YYY/ZZZ - DAILY/AM/PM TRAFFIC Q O Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 3 PROJECT RELATED DAILY / AM / PM TRAFFIC I-UJ Oa. arlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-9291 • FAX (619)729-9685 ...a world class district September 10, 1997 RECEIVED State of California qrn jo inn-i Department of Real Estate DCr ' ° l33' 107 South Broadway, Room 7111 CITY OF CARL9RAH Los Angeles, CA 90012 PUNNING DEPT. Re: Project Name: Dove Lane (Lohf) Property Subdivision Developer: Western Pacific Housing Location: APN# 215-050-59 and 18 Project Size: 83 Lots Carlsbad Unified School District has reviewed the above project and its impact on school attendance areas in this District. At this time, the schools of attendance for this project are: Aviara Oaks Elementary School (K-6) 6900 Ambrosia Lane Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 (619) 434-0686 Valley Junior High School (7-8) 1645 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (619) 434-0602 Carlsbad High School (9-12) 3557 Monroe Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (619) 434-1726 The Governing Board wishes to advise the Department of Real Estate and residents of Carlsbad that at present the Carlsbad Unified School District elementary schools are operating at full capacity. It is possible, therefore, that the students generated from this project may not attend the closest neighborhood school due to overcrowded conditions and, in fact, may attend school across town. You should also be aware that there are no school buses for regular student transportation from home to school. The Governing Board wishes to also inform you that conditions imposed upon new development within the City of Carlsbad requires mitigation of school impacts. John\H. Blair ;tant Superintendent, Business Services Developer 09/09/97 15:57 RECQfcl - 6199291601 September HI, 1997 NO.750 002 Mr. Scot SandBtrnm Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Ruble, Suite 107 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Reference: Interim Letter Report of Significance Testing at CA-SD1-819S, Dove Lane/Lohf Property, Carlsbad, California (RECON Number 2942A) 4241 Jutland DrivB. Suite 201 San Diego. CA 82117-3653 619/270-5066 fax 270-5414 , Dear Mr. Sundscrotn: This letter is provided as an interim update of our findings during significance testing at CA-SDI- 8195, a prehistoric site located on the Lohf property in Carlsbad, California. The field portion of the archneologitnl assessment of CA-SDl-8195 was conducted between August 22 and August 28. 1997. The sice was found to have been significantly altered by rccerii historic land use practices with the result uf limited research value. No further work is recommended for (his site. A review of previous cultural resource studies thai have been completed [at & number of projects in the vicinity was made prior to commencement of the current field investigations. The survey report that was prepared by Galley^" and Associates (Gallegos and Kyle 1997) was reviewed lot informa- tion regarding the status of this site. The Gallcgos report indicated that this previously recorded site was pre&ant over most of tha subject property. There wn# some variation with regard to (lie distribu- tion of surface debris, with areas identified as having high, moderate, and sparse quantities of archaeological materials. This property has a long history of agricultural use and there are a number of existing structures on the property. A more detailed presentation of the sampling at this Kite will be presented in a technical report following (ho completion of the laboratory analysis and special studies. Out finding* and ci>nulasioo6 regarding the significance of this site are presented below. These conclusions are based on an intensive pedestrian survey, surface collection, and the excavation of six sample units and nine shovel test pits (STPs). Final placement of the site materials within the regional chronology awaits completion of radiocarbon analysis. Additional source information for some of the recovered "exotic" lithic source materials will also be included in the final report The field investigation at CA-SDl-8195 waa designed to determine the content, structure, integrity, and age of this cultural resource. These areas of interest arc necessary oleituuiu in determining the potential that the artifacts and ccofocts from this site may have in addressing important areas of research into the prehistoric period* represented in San Diego County and in Carlsbad. CA-SDl-8195 is recorded as occupying the majority of the north- to .south u-ending ridge which is in the central portion of the subject property. As indicated by the Qallegos report, virtually all of the subject property displays at least a light density scatter of fragmented marine shell which is attributed to prehistoric cultural activity. Along the east-facing slope of this ridge is a smaller area of scattered marine shell which is described as moderate density. The greatest density of cultural material wax observed within the northern and southern ends of the study area, where darker soil; artifacts, and higher concentrations of marine shell were all visible at the surface. The areas which displayed die greatest quantity of surface cultural debris and dark soil were selected as the locations for archaeo- logical excavations. Archaeological sampling was concentrated on the knoll at the north of the area and at the southern limits of the ridge, along the southern boundary of the study area. Z0 NdOHlNBH L£'-Zl 866T/S0/0T B9/-08/97 15:5? RECON -» 6199291601 NO. 750 D03 Mi. Scot Sandstrom Page 2 September 8, 1997 Methods The southern and northern loci occupy the far ends of the same ridge feature. These loci are sepa- rated by three houses and their associated yards, drives, landscaping, and parking areas. Much of this constructed area has been altered by the cfcailon of terraces, banks, and spoil locations. The condition of the intervening area is highly disturbed and the amount of cultural debris is character- ized as trace. The scattered marine shell fragments in this central area was considered to be the result of secondary deposit and not of specific research interest. The fieldwork consisted of an intensive survey of the project parcel, identification of areas of archaeological concentration, surface collection, and subsurface sampling with STPs and onc-mucr unite A site datum wax established at the northern knoll and a grid was established over this area. Unit Locations were selected based on indications of the cultural deposit and excavated 10 (he contact with the underlying substratum. A total of five sample units were excavated at the northern knoll. A series of STPs was excavated to evaluate the accuracy of the surface observations and establish the Mub.iurfacc extent of the site deposit. The sample unit excavations yielded cultural material and representative section views of ihc site's stratigraphy. The southern locus was inspected and was found to retain a darker soil color similar to what was observed at 'lie northern knoll. An increased quantity of cultural material was also observed within this southern extent. One sample unit was excavated at this lotus to obtain data to allow subsequent interpretations of integrity, structure, content, and age-in this portion of (he silc. The southwest comer of this sample unit was established as a subdatum. A aerie:* of three STPs and surface artifacts were mapped in reference to this point. All of the sample units were oriented on true north and excavated in 10-centimctcr contour incre- ments. Shovel test pits were probes of 25 centimeters x 50 centimeters and were also excavated in 10-centimeter increment. All excavated soil was passed through one-eighth-inch wire mesh to facilitate (he observation and collection of cultural materials. The recovered items were labeled with appropriate provenience information and returned Co the RECON lab for cleaning and analysis. Results The field iAVisUgaflous at CA-SDI-8195 indicate that the recorded resource is localized as two areas of primary cultural deposit located at opposite ends of me central ridge which dominates the project area. House construction and associated alterations and upkeep have disturbed and redistributed the cultural debris, severely compromising the scientific value of these materials. Based on the concen- tration patterns and upon the soil discoloration, the two primary areas of deposit have been smeared and archaeological materials have been redepositcd variously across the knoll. There appears to be two primary areas where prehistoric habitation occurred wilh the remaining area of the project exhibiting cultural materials that are the result of secondary deposition. The archaeological deposit ar both loci has been churned to the maximum depth of deposit, which was determined to be 40 centimeters, Agricultural activity and bioturbation have mixed the cultural materials. The artifact- and ecofact-bearing soil is a uniform medium to dark brown, sandy loam. Underlying the cultural layer is a consolidated sand.ftunc deposit which has been impacted by rodent burrows and by agricultural implements. The upper, archaeological deposit is A jandy sediment mixed with marine shell fragments, artifacts, and decomposed! organic material creating a darkened w>U;ra(ion in (he soil. Quantitative results of the recovery arc hot available as yet: however, the variety of arti tactual material recovered includes projectile points, ground stone implement*. Ti/.on Brawn Ware ceramics, and flakes and angular waste, from chipped stone tool manufacture. Exotic lithic materials such a* obsidian and chalcedony were recovered from both loci. £0 39Vd NdOHlN3H IB&B8£WBL IE'-ZI 8661/90/01 09/08/97 15:58 RECON - 6199291601 NQ_75a Mr. Scar. Sandstrorn Page 3 September 8, 1997 Preliminary interpretations of the resource based on the types jind variety of recovered cultural materials suggest that these areas were temporary campsites datine K> the Lara Period of prehistory. These campn may have been veiled oa wore Chun one occasion. Marine shellfish species were consumed for food and site occupants produced and/or maintained (heir stone to<>1 kit on-sitc. There are also indications that plant materials were ground. This campsite is similar in location selection, content, and function with several other sites in (he Baiiquitus Lagoon system which have been dated tu the Late Period, One such site is located less than 1,000 feet to the mnthwcsi sad was sampled during work for the Aviara development. Interpretation The preliminary interpretation* of this resource area thai ate provided abovo are based on a cursory review of the recovered cultural debris and Were formulated prior to the completion of radiocarbon analysis. CA-SDI-8195 haa been significantly disturbed by recent land use practices and activities. The original aiie deposits hava been churned, destroying any Vertical patterning, and have been smeared over «larger area, then they originally occupied. The results of these alterations are 10 greatly limit the research value of this sites. Disturbed contexto like thoito present ai CA-SDI-8195 typically do not produce the reliable associative data necessary for answering questions of more than a general nature. In general terms, the information gained from sampling this site will provide addi- tional evidence ufLucs Prehistoric settlement within the Batiquitos study area and will provide addi- tional insight into some of the activities of these Late Prehistoric human populations; however, ihe research value of thi.s silo has been several/ limited by the redistribution and routing »r anifaci- bearing strata. Baaed on the completed work, CA-SDI-8195 i» a site that occupies two distinct loci, with residual archaeological materials having been moved through a variety of actions, across a Larger portion of the project property. Sampling within the loci produced evidence of a Late Prehistoric occupation during which a variety of tasks were undertaken, Additional sampling at rhis site would only serve to enlarge (he collection of preserved materials but would not; add significantly to our understanding of prehistoric human activity. This silo ia considered to be a (ion-significant resource, and no further work is recommended. The technical report fur this testing program will be completed within three ssoll O. Collett :acologist ROC:sh Reference Cited Callages, Dennis R., and Carolyn E. Kyle 1997 Draft Kfctarical/Archiieologicai Survey for the Dove Lane Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Western Pacific Housing. Gallegos &. Associates. August. 3Dtfd NdOHlN3H T8608£f09i Lf-Zl 866T/90/0T f San Diego Natural History Museum Balboa Park • San I>iego Society ol'N.iiural Hislory • Hstablishet! IS74 28 August 1997 RECEIVED Mr. Scot C. Sandstrom SEP 1 8 1997 Western Pacific Housing CITY OF CARLSBAD 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107 _. . kl..,k,« nervr Carlsbad, CA 92009 PLANNING DEPT. RE: Paleontological Resources: Dove Street Project, City of Carlsbad Dear Scot: This letter report summarizes the results of my field walkover on 28 August 1997 of the above referenced project site. The report also draws on reviews of the site-specific geotechnical report prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. and on more general published (Eisenberg and Abbott, 1985) and unpublished (Wilson, 1972) geological reports for the coastal North County area. According to the geotechnical and geological reports the bedrock unit exposed on the project site is middle Eocene in age and referable to either the Santiago Formation or the Scripps Formation. During the field walkover, exposures of Eocene sedimentary rocks were seen in several regions of the site. The best exposures occur along the western portion of the site and consist of light gray and yellow-white, fine- and medium-grained, cross-bedded sandstones. Fossils were observed in several outcrops and consisted of fragmentary remains and impressions of plants, including leaves, stems, and seeds. Preservation ranged from very poor to moderate. The cross-bedded sandstones containing these fossil remains have not be precisely dated, but based on correlations with other areas in coastal San Diego County it is suggested that the fossils are approximately 45-48 million years old. The discovery of moderately preserved fossils in weathered bedrock exposures indicates that grading operations will probably encounter better preserved and more abundant fossils during development of the project site. Post Office Box 1390 • San Diego, California 92112 • Telephone: 619-232-3821 • Fax:619-232-0248 * Accredited by the American Association ot Museums~o i'nmcJ no H coded I'jpt-r Mitigation of the predicted construction-related impacts can be accomplished through implementation of a paleontological resource mitigation program. This program should include the following elements: [1] attend any pre-construction meetings; [2] monitor grading operations and inspect cuts for unearthed fossil remains; [3] salvage remains as they are uncovered; [4] screenwash selected sites (if discovered) for recovery of small fossil remains; [5] document the stratigraphic and geologic context of salvaged fossil remains; [6] remove fossils from the project site; [7] clean, repair, and sort salvaged fossils for eventual donation to SDNHM; [8] prepare a final report summarizing the results of the mitigation program. This report will include a discussion of methods employed, fossils recovered, geologic . context of fossil remains, and significance of mitigation program. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me at (6 19)232-3 82 l,ext. 232. Sincerely, f\ - O-y*vJL<^ Thomas A. Demere, Ph.D. Curator, Department of Paleontology Director, Department of Paleontological Services References Cited: Eisenberg, L.I., and P.L. Abbott. 1985. Eocene lithofacies and geologic history, northern San Diego County. In, P.L. Abbott (ed.), On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in northern San Diego County. San Diego Association of Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook, pp. 19-35. Wilson, K.L. 1972. Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of California, Riverside, 135 p. MEMORANDUM JULY 6, 1997 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - MIKE GRIM From: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP 97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF PROPERTY (4th) PROJECT REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a 4th review of the above-referenced project. The application and plans were checked and returned to the applicant just a few days before the re- submittal. The plancheck recently re-submitted did not include a checkprint and did not respond to the items of the previous review. There are issues that remain to be resolved prior to staff recommendation or support of this project We recommend a return of this plan as incomplete. Some of these comments are repeated from previous correspondence (dated March 18,1998)... 1. The previous letter(s) addressed access to adjacent properties as a completeness item. It remains as a major issue from an engineering standpoint and is critical to the design of this project. The adjacent access (; Kevane) as proposed, has not been approved nor denied at this point. Staff has met with Mrs. Steiner and the Saskas regarding their access. • Specifically, the access to Saskas should be near station 208+30 which I believe is at grade to Poinsettia Lane. This driveway location would still be located on or across Mrs. Steiners property and would require an easement or right of way to use. (This is where we believe the Saskas want it to be located.) • Access to Mrs. Steiner's house is an improvement as shown. 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 Buffer / drain proposed is acceptable, (City Std GS14). AilMuHaestioi To the west, (CT 98-04, Kevane) the double point of access has been shown and there is no comment at this time. We understand that there is a bio - habitat study under way and the results will determine areas of development and access. A detail should be provided to show and clarify the (4) proposed access issues to: Mrs. Steiner, the Saskas, as well as the western subdivision boundary on Poinsettia Lane and the knuckle on "B" street, Kevane. >W?CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDF^7-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF^ROPERTY The proposed phasing plan needs additional work. Access, grading, sewer, water and utilities, should be shown for each phase. If models are proposed, they should be addressed. The proposed subdivision design violates City Cul De Sac standards (length). Without construction of Poinsettia Lane only a few phases could comply. The City's position is to condition Poinsettia Lane to be constructed with development of this project from El Camino Real to the western boundary of this subdivision. The terminus of improvements will be at the western boundary and off site slope and drainage easements will be required. As stated, reimbursement will be available from Bridge and Thoroughfare District #2. The Alignment plan for Poinsettia Lane seems a bit limited in that horizontal and vertical data is unclear. The plan & profile on sheet 4 be clarified to show that the proposed alignment meets design standards and can join the existing improvements. I believe the proposed alignment and intersection of "A" street is on a curve, a violation of City design standards. The proposed alignment should show the adjacent impacts and driveway locations. The future improvement condition where "others" are expected to grade and improve streets within this subdivision is not acceptable. All improvements are required to be constructed on site concurrent with this development. For Mrs. Steiner, the Saskas, and Kevane, show utility relocation or extension as required. The alignment of Poinsettia Lane will also include utilities and services within the roadway, these should be shown. 2. Please provide utility information, sewer, water and proposed or existing service connections. Extend or loop services to subdivision boundary as required. Check with CMWD for design and facility routing information. 3. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the proposed drainage system. Indicate other drainage systems proposed (energy dissipaters and off site check dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and erosion protection. The soils Engineer stated that the terrain is "characterized by a fairly highly erosion potential" adjacent and downstream of this site we are concerned with 3 places: •East of Dove & "D" Street, •Lot 77 and west through View Point open space lot, •South west of "B" Street The Civil Engineer and the soils Engineer should concur on the erosive velocity and design parameters for mitigation and protection. The proposed energy dissipaters should be addressed and the velocity and prevention criteria from outlets should be added to hydrology as mitigation for the downstream erosion issue. Specific conditions for final design will be added if the concept is feasible. CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP"97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHPPROPERTY The proposed lot 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 said he supported the design but said nothing about roof, landscape, or yard area drains as a future addition. The Soils Engineer said the soils are highly erosive and that he had limited control over future uses or deviations. We believe that if the approved deviations were identified (included in the CC&R's) then the chance of failure or loss of control would be reduced. Again, the project as submitted is considered incomplete and is being returned. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. Associate Engineer - Land Use Review c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer, Land use Review Division City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 27, 1997 Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107 Carlsbad CA 92009 SUBJECT: LOHF PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION - PRE 97-39 APN: 215-050-59,-18 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on June 19, 1997. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning: 1. Most of the site is designated RLM (Residential Low Medium Density), while portions of the site is designated RM (Residential Medium Density). The proposed development of 75 units is within the maximum allowed by these General Plan designations, given the submitted constraints analysis. 2. The property is zoned L-C (Limited Control), therefore requiring a Zone Change prior to, or concurrent with, other discretionary permits. Given that the proposal involves vacant single family lots over 7,500, a zone change to R-1-7,500 would be appropriate. Since the property is zoned L-C in the Mello I Local Coastal Program, an amendment must be made to the LCP as well. 3. The proposed subdivision would also require a Tentative Tract Map and a Coastal Development Permit. These permits could be processed concurrent with the Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment. All discretionary actions would need Planning Commission and City Council hearings. In addition, the Local Coastal Program Amendment would require Coastal Commission approval. The subsequent development of the vacant lots with single family homes would then necessitate approval of a Coastal Development Permit. 4. The project would be required to provide its fair share of affordable housing. Please consult the Housing and Redevelopment Division regarding housing alternatives. 5. The project site contains native habitat. A biological report must be submitted with the Tentative Tract Map/Coastal Development Permit application to evaluate potential impacts. The site may also contain archeological resources and will require an archeological report prior to grading. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 LOHF PROPERTY RESloRllAL SUBDIVISION - PRE 97-39 JUNE 27, 1997 PAGE 2 6. The lot geometry on several cul-de-sac lots does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Standard lots require a minimum of 35 feet frontage on cul-de-sacs and the standard lot width, as measured at the front yard setback line, is 60 feet. For panhandle lots, the minimum frontage for the access portion of the lot is 20 feet. The Planning Department has a policy regarding the allowed geometry of panhandle lots. One of the principle criteria requires the buildable area of the panhandle to be behind the standard lot fronting on the street. Several of the proposed lots do not meet this requirement, please revise. Engineering: 1. The alignment of Dove Lane should re reconsidered. This collector is a signalized intersection at El Camino Real and is intended to serve additional properties to the west. Eventually the road will ber connected to Poinsettia Lane. The recommended alignment is shown on the enclosed checkprint. 2. Since Dove Lane is a collector street, no lots should front on or take access off of Dove Lane, as shown on the submitted plan. 3. If a cul-de-sac is proposed for Mimosa Street, it should be shown. Typically a developer gains lots with the use of a cul-de-sac design. The adjacent project left a grade and alignment to serve this project, this circulation opportunity should be capitalized upon. 4. Drainage issues should be considered up front. The downstream condition is sensitive and could cause reconsideration of this design. 5. Grading was not shown, therefore no comments are being made. Please return the enclosed red-lined checkprint with any subsequent submittals. If you have any questions you may contact Mike Grim at (760) 438-1161, extension 4499. Sino E. WAYf Ass/stant Planning Director GEW:MG:kr Michael J. Holzmiller Bobbie Hoder Chris DeCerbo Clyde Wickham File Copy Data Entry Memorandum TO:" Associate Planner, Mike Grimm FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: June 26, 1997 RE: PRE 97 - 39, Lohf Property We have completed our review of the preliminary design identified above. Our previous comments still apply. To facilitate this review I have repeated those comments and since the design has changed added a few new ideas. Please incorporate these comments in your letter to the applicant. Comments / Concerns: 1. The alignment of Dove Lane should be reconsidered. This collector is a signalized intersection at El Camino Real and is intended to serve additional properties to the west. Eventually the road will connect to Poinsettia Lane, (from previous submittal) I have noted our recommended alignment on the plan submitted. 2. Dove Lane, being a collector should not have lots fronting or taking access as shown. 3. If a cul de sac is proposed for Mimosa Street it should be shown. Typically a developer gains lots with the use of cul de sac design. The adjacent project left a feasible grade and alignment to serve this (your) project. It would be a shame to not use it. (new comment) 4. Drainage issues should be considered up front. The downstream condition is sensitive and could cause reconsideration of this design. 5. Grading was not shown on the most recent submittal. If you have any questions or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this project, give me a call at extension- 4353. CLYtDEVj/VICKHAK Associate EngineerLand Development Division HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES 5431 Avenida Enemas • Suite J Carlsbad, California 92008 Fax (619) 438-0981 (619) 438-4090 June 16, 1997 Mike Grim Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Subject: Lohf Property Preliminary Review Dear Mr. Grim: The applicant, Western Pacific Housing, is proposing to develop 75 single family dwelling units on two parcels totaling 36.71 acres located in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. The two parcels, APN #s 215-050-59 and 215-050-18, are currently zoned as Limited Control (L-C) and are currently designated as Residential Low-Medium (RLM) and Residential Medium density (RM). Lot sizes will range from 7,500 to 17,000 square feet. The applicant anticipates submitting a Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Environmental Impact Assessment at a later date. The General Plan Land Use designation on the site is mostly RLM with the exception of a small area at the northeast portion of the site designated as RM. The line dividing the two designations has been established on the basis of the natural topography which indicates that the location for the delineation line is within a drainage area on the easterly portion of the site. This location conforms to existing and anticipated surrounding land uses and is consistent with General Plan policies. A secondary access to the site is not required because the 40-foot curb- to-curb local streets do not exceed a one-half mile distance from the -1- project's entrance to the most remote point, thus the design meets the requirements of the City's cul-de-sac policy. The preliminary site plan is designed around the existing environmental and biological constraints. Although a formal environmental assessment has not been performed as of this date, we have consulted with a biologist to determine which areas of the site should be avoided due to environmental constraints. The applicant anticipates purchasing 11.25 affordable housing credits at an offsite location such as the Villa Loma Project, or such other site as may be available at the time of development. The following table illustrates the site constraints known at this time. General Plan Category Gross Acres 40%+ Slopes 25% to 40% Slopes (Area/ 2) Power Line Easements Major Circulation Net Acres Control Point Max Units RLM 36.00 0.70 0.95 0.22 1.90 32.23 3.20 103.10 RM 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.0 3.0 TOTALS 36.50 0.70 0.95 0.22 1.90 32.73 106.14 Please contact us with your comments or questions at (760) 438-4090. Very truly yours, Daniel A. Friedlander encl: Preliminary review fee ($120.00) Preliminary review checklist Preliminary review application 3 site plans -2- 3 slope analysis plans 3 preliminary title reports -3- MEMORANDUM JUNE 18, 1997 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER-MIKE GRIM From: Associate Engineer — Land Use Review CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP 97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF PROPERTY COMPLETENESS REVIEW Engineering Department staff have completed a 3rd review of the above-referenced project for .application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently complete from an Engineering standpoint. There are issues that remain to be resolved prior to staff recommendation or support of this project. Some of these comments are repeated from previous correspondence (dated March 18,1998)... 1. The previous letter(s) addressed access to 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 not been approved nor denied at this point. Staff has met with Mrs. Steiner and the Saskas regarding their access. Again, they are not satisfied with your design. • Specifically, the access to Saskas should be near station 208+30 which I believe is at grade to Poinsettia Lane. This driveway location would still be located on or across Mrs. Steiners property and would require an easement or right of way to use. (This is where we believe the Saskas want it to be located.) • Access to Mrs. Steiners should be modified to use the temporary cul de sac at the subdivision boundary, instead of pulled back as shown. 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 Buffer / drain proposed is acceptable, (City Std GS14). As a suggestion, you may want to raise the proposed grades of lots 50 - 55 to meet the existing terrain of your neighbor. • For both Mrs. Steiner and the Saskas, show utility relocation or extension as required. The alignment of Poinsettia Lane will also include utilities and services, these should be shown. • To the west, (CT 98-04, Kevane) access has been shown and there is no comment at this time. We understand that there is a bio - habitat study under way and the results will 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 improvement required to extend the street. Sewer, Water and public utilities can also be extended to the subdivision boundary in all areas. CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP 97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF PROPERTY 3. The Traffic Engineer submitted a report to discuss the impacts of this project on surrounding roadways. He was silent on the connection to Mimosa Drive. We anticipate 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. I think we agree on this issue but the traffic report is silent. Figure 1 shows no connection and figure 2 has the connection shown. Table 1 and table 2, figure 3, figure 4 and also table 4 should be revised. I have called Bill Darnell to relay my concerns. Today I understand he has produced a correction or an addendum to the report. 3. Please provide utility information, sewer, water and proposed or existing service connections. Extend or loop services to subdivision boundary as required. Check with CMWD for design and facility routing information. 4. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the proposed drainage system. Indicate other drainage systems proposed (energy dissipaters and off site check dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and erosion protection. The soils Engineer stated that the terrain is "characterized by a fairly highly erosion potential" Adjacent and downstream of this site, 3 places: •East of Dove & "D" Street, •Lot 77 and west through View Point open space lot, •South west of "B" Street 5. 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 said he supported the design but said nothing 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. We believe that if the approved deviations were identified (included in the CC&R's) then the chance of failure or loss of control would be reduced. 6. The applicant should be aware of the City's position to develop Poinsettia Lane concurrent with development. A "future Improvement" condition will not be supported. 7. The proposed phasing plan needs additional work. Access, grading sewer, water utilities, and proposed models should be addressed. If you or/fheNappHcant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. Associate Engineer - Land Use Review c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer, Land use Review Division MEMORANDUM MARCH 18, 1997 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - MIKE GRIM From: Associate Engineer -- Land Use Review CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP 97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF PROPERTY COMPLETENESS REVIEW Engineering Department staff have completed a 2nd review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete item: 1. The previous letter addressed access to adjacent properties as a completeness item. It remains the only item from an engineering standpoint that is considered incomplete. Feasible access to all adjacent undeveloped property must be shown for this project to be considered complete. The alignment plan for Poinsettia Lane should show any existing and approved drawings or projects that control points of connection. The adjacent undeveloped properties have access issues that are directly affected by this design. To the west (CT 98-04, Kevane) access and proposed subdivision should be shown. The project engineer for that project has discussed an alternate alignment of Dove Lane west of your proposed intersection. The revised (3/10/98) alignment of Poinsettia Lane looks O.K. but access to adjacent undeveloped land has not been shown. I believe Steiner would take access from the proposed Cul De Sac and Saska could take temporary access from a point on Poinsettia Lane where it almost meets grade, 350' west of El Camino Real. Again this needs to be shown and the property owners should be contacted. The properties north and west of this project have not discussed access and we are not sure if it is a problem or not. As an issue, horizontal and vertical alignment data will be required. Existing topography and constraints information could help decide if access is or is not feasible. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project are as follows: Traffic and Circulation: 1. Considering the Steiner access issue, the proposed cul de sac should be graded and extended to the subdivision boundary. A temporary cul de sac from the City Standards is more appropriate and will'fit within the standard width proposed. Sewer, Water and utillities can also be extended to the subdivision boundary. 2. The project Traffic Engineer should consider buildout conditions and the ultimate need (warrant analysis) for a traffic signal at Poinsettia Lane and Dove Lane. CT 97-15, CDP 97-39, HDP"97-16, LCPA 97-08, ZC 97-06 : LOHF*PROPERTY Sewer and Water: 3. Please provide utility information, sewer, water and proposed or existing service connections. Check with CMWD for design and facility routing information. Drainage: 4. On the Hydrology Map label all outlets or basin junctions with "Q" values and velocity of proposed drainage. Please show the terminus or end treatment of the proposed headwalls, inlets, or junction structures. Indicate other drainage systems proposed (energy dissipaters and check dams). Consider downstream capacity problems and potential erosion protection. Revise or submit an addendum to the soils report that addresses the errosiveness of the natural terrain south and west of this site (lot 17). 5. In the hydrology study consider the run off draining down Dove Lane thru the Shopping Center, the Seaport subdivision and to Batiquitos Lagoon. The proposed increased runoff from development as it affects capacity downstream could be an issue and diversion or retention may be required. 6. The proposed drainage pattern will require special approval from the City Engineer. The Soils Report submitted is silent on the less than standard positive drainage away from the proposed footings. 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. Miscellaneous: The engineer submitted (2) tentative maps and a Poinsettia Lane Alignment plan that are all different than each other. We like the general alignment of Poinsettia Lane but require additional information for access and approved projects mentioned above. The connection to existing Mimosa Dr. is also acceptable as shown on the Poinsettia Lane Alternative "B" plan. The issue of loading Dove Lane with access from homes as shown on the ...Alternative "B" plan is also approved in concept, although points of access, turnarounds or width of lots, and conflicts with intersections will be discussed. We did not review the conflicting tentative maps at this time and await a complete submittal. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. ICKHAM Associate Engineer - Land Use Review c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer, Land use Review Division Memorandum TO: Associate Planner, Mike Grimm FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: February 20, 1997 RE: PRE 97 - 07, Richard & Linda Lohf Project We have completed our review of the preliminary design identified above. To facilitate this review I have attached a redline of the preliminary design by Skip Hammann. I have also listed our concerns below. Please incorporate these comments in your letter to the applicant. Comments / Concerns: 1. The alignment of Dove Lane should be reconsidered. This collector is a signalized intersection at El Camino Real and is intended to serve additional properties to the west. Eventually the road will connect to Poinsettia Lane. 2. Dove Lane, being a collector should not have lots fronting or taking access as shown. 3. Mimosa Street looks a little tight for vehicle visibility issues. The sight distance corridors should be drawn at all intersections and the lots fronting Mimosa should be checked also. 4. Adjacent access to the west could be realigned to split the property line, if the neighbor agrees. At the least, if this alignment is correct, sidewalks and parkway could be removed untill future development. A 32' single loaded street could also be considered as an interuim condition. 5. Drainage issues should be considered up front. The downstream condition is sensitive and could cause reconsideration of this design. 6. Grading looks O.K., except again the south west area is sensitive and may require redesign. 7. The cul-de-sac's shown are schematic and should be redrawn to City standards. JWIPKHAM Associate Engineer Land Development Division City of Carlsbad Planning Department February 19, 1997 Richard and Linda Lohf 1425 Via del Corvo San Marcos CA 92065 SUBJECT: LOHF RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION - PRE 97-07 APN: 215-050-18 and-59 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on February 13, 1997. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning: 1. The project site is zoned L-C (Limited Control) and designated RLM (Residential Low Medium Density) in the General Plan. Therefore, a Zone Change to R-1-Q (Single Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay) must be processed prior to, or concurrent with, the Tentative Tract Map. The Q Overlay zoning will mandate the processing of a Site Development Plan (SDP) prior to construction of any units. This SDP may be processed concurrently if the building siting, elevations and floor plans are shown. 2. The property contains many steep slopes and is subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. A Hillside Development Permit must be processed with the Tentative Tract Map. A copy of the existing hillside development regulations is enclosed, however the City is currently processing an amendment to those regulations. It is recommended that you monitor the progress of this amendment as it will affect the development of your site. Current regulations generally prohibit grading in areas of over 40 percent inclination and manufacturing slopes over 30 feet in height. 3. The project site lies within the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and will require a Coastal Development Permit. The permit may be processed concurrent with the map and other permits. The applicable policies restrict development on slopes with inclinations over 25 percent, especially those containing native habitat, and conformance with these policies will be necessary. 4. The project site contains native habitat. A biological report will be required with the Tentative Tract Map review to assess impacts. If the habitat is sensitive, or contains sensitive species, preservation or off-site mitigation may be necessary. The project 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (G19) 438-O894 LOHF RESIDENTIAL SIMBIVISION FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 2 site may also contain an archeological site and will require preliminary site investigations. 5. The residential subdivision is subject to the City's Inclusionary housing Ordinance and must provide its proportionate share of.affordable housing. Enclosed is a guide to affordable housing production in Carlsbad. Engineering: 1. The alignment of Dove Lane should be reconsidered. This collector is a signalized intersection at El Camino Real and is intended to serve additional properties to the west. Eventually the road will connect to Poinsettia Lane. 2. Dove Lane, being a collector should not have lots fronting or taking access as shown. 3. Mimosa Street looks a little tight for vehicle visibility issues. The sight distance corridors should be drawn at all intersections and the lots fronting Mimosa should be checked also. 4. Adjacent access to the west could be realigned to split the property line, if the neighbor agrees. At the least, if this alignment is correct, sidewalks and parkway could be removed until future development. A 32' single loaded street could also be considered as an interim condition. 5. Drainage issues should be considered up front. The downstream condition is sensitive and could cause reconsideration of this design. 6. Grading looks O.K., except again the south west area is sensitive and may require redesign. 7. The cul-de-sac's shown are schematic and should be redrawn to City standards. Please contact Mike Grim at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499 if you have any questions. Sincerely, E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:MG:kr c: Michael J. Holzmiller Bob Wojcik Bobbie Hoder Clyde Wickham Chris DeCerbo Data Entry