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