HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (39)PUBLIC WORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION
MEMORANDUM
June3, 1999
TO: SENIOR PLANNER - MIKE GRIM
FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Development
CT 98-14, SDP 99-06, PD 98-05, HDP 98-15, CDP 98-68, ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04
POINSETTIA/THOPMSON/TABATA
SECOND COMPLETENESS REVIEW & INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
Engineering Department staff have completed a second review of the above-referenced project
for application completeness and have determined that the application and plans submitted for
the project are complete for engineering issue review. For purposes of state mandated time
lines, the Planning Department has determined that the overall project is still incomplete. Prior
to engineering staff making a determination on the project, the following engineering issues of
concern must be adequately resolved/addressed:
Traffic & Transportation
1. As indicated in the February 19, 1998, preliminary review for this project, staff has
serious concern regarding providing access to the two "Not A Part" (NAP) properties.
Now the "Thompson/Dennis/Green House NAP properties" are part of the project.
However, the Dennis residence is not, and could be developed in the future. The
Tabata NAP property also has future development potential. As previously indicated,
access for the future development of both of these properties must be considered with
this tentative map (TM). To accomplish this, the following must be shown on the TM:
a) Tabata property, north of Poinsettia Lane - Connection from the proposed
terminus of Lemon Leaf Drive through to proposed Lonicera Street, including:
• Public right of way dedication (based on 40'curb to curb/60' row);
• grading;
• half-street + 12' improvements
• utility connection "stubs";
• deed restrictions on lot's 215 through 234, and 235 through 253 for
future street connection.
b) Dennis property, south of Poinsettia Lane - Connection from proposed 'A'
Street, including:
• 56' public right of way dedication (based on 36' curb to curb/56' row);
• grading;
• interim A/C driveway;
• deed restrictions on lot's 23 through 25, 162 and 163, and 174
through 176 for future street connection.
Please be advised, this is a major staff issue of concern and access to these properties
will be a condition of approval for this TM.
CT 98-14, SDP 99-06: POINSEYTIA/THOMPSON/TABATA
SECOND COMPLETENESS REVIEW & INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
M. GRIM MEMO; JUNE 3, 1999
2. Please be advised, the "Tabata connection" referenced above, is also required to meet
the City's Cul-de-sac Standard. The City is now strictly enforcing this Standard, and
since the proposed driveways are not spaced 150' or more apart, a second street
connection must be provided.
3. Thank you for plotting the street profiles on sheet 9 of 14. As previously requested,
however, please also show the intersecting streets on the profiles and plot the Caltrans
vertical sight distance.
4. Thank you for revising the street design to meet City Standards. However, two streets
still must be slightly modified. In accordance with City Standards, 50' tangents must be
shown from the prolongation of the intersection curb lines at the 'DV'E' and 'B'/'F' Street
intersections (on 'D' and 'F' Street).
5. The Easement Table indicates that Easement Item No. 42 (30' City Street and Utility
easement), adjacent to proposed lot 215, will remain; however, sheet 6 of 14 indicates
that it will be vacated. Please be advised, the City will not vacate this existing 30'
easement. Please revise the applicable plan sheets.
6. It seems at some of the proposed intersections that only the City Standard 25' sight
distance sight triangle is being shown (e.g., 'AVI' Street intersection). Caltrans Corner
Sight Distance also must be shown at all intersections. A minimum of 330' of clear sight
line must be shown. Again, look at the proposed 'AVI' Street intersection, the proposed
retaining walls probably obstruct the line of sight. Please verify and revise at all
intersections.
7. Please show the above sight distance sight lines on the Conceptual Landscape plan.
Also please add the following note to the Conceptual Landscape plan:
"Proposed mature landscaping and vegetation encroaching into the sight line can
only have a maximum height of 30 inches and a minimum tree canopy of 8'. Any
proposed monument signs or walls encroaching into the sight line can only have
a maximum height of 30 inches."
Traffic Report Issues
1. Please explain the differences in the ICU/LOS values for the Poinsettia Lane/Aviara
Parkway & Snap Dragon Drive intersections in Table 4-2 of the Traffic Report and page
2 of 2 of the USA update Memorandum (memo) to Greg Linhoff of Standard Pacific
Homes, dated March 3, 1999. Memo Alternative No. 1 should be the same as Table 4-
2. Additionally, page 2 of 3 and figure 3-1 of the Memo do not match. Please verify and
revise as necessary.
2. The memo investigated deleting some of the proposed connections to existing adjacent
developments. Please be advised, staff supports the proposed three connection design
and currently does not support deletion of any of the connections.
3. Please include a "Cumulative Project" trip generation Table in the report for other
projects which are in the vicinity of this project. For example, include, Sambi, Mariner's
Pointe, Parkside, Ocean Bluff, Roesch, Lohf, Cobblestone, etc. Compare these trip
generation rates with Carlsbad Traffic Model TAZ 450, 451, 460 and 464. Does the trip
generation from the TAZ's match the approved projects within those TAZ's? Please
compare and contrast in the report and adjust any LOS as necessary.
CT 98-14, SDP 99-06: POINSetf IA/THOMPSON/TABATA
SECOND COMPLETENESS REVIEW & INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
M. GRIM MEMO; JUNE 3,1999
4. Traffic Report, Figure 5-2, Year 2005, indicates various heavy right and left turn
movements. For example, three legs of the intersection indicate dedicated right turn
lanes to handle the substantial number of turning vehicles. The report indicates that
25% of project traffic will utilize this intersection. Additionally, Figure 6-2, indicates that
there are two dual left turn lanes, as well as, the dedicated right turn lanes. The
appendix indicates that the LOS for this intersection was calculated based on these turn
lanes being installed. This is incorrect. The LOS should be calculated using the existing
intersection lane configuration. Then if the intersection is impacted, these additional
turn lanes would be added as mitigation measures. Therefore, please recalculate the
LOS of this, and any other intersection, with the correct lane configurations, and then
indicate additional turn lanes as mitigation. Please revise the various Figures, Tables
and text in the report to address this issue.
Grading & Drainage
1. Retaining walls are now being proposed on various lots and the Typical Drainage detail
on sheet 2 of 14 now shows a typical retaining wall drainage design. This design is
acceptable, provided that the project Soils Engineer submits documentation that a
reduced flow line around the dwelling unit will function acceptably. Please be advised,
the minimum acceptable distance from any structure to the flow line is 3' and the
minimum distance from the structure to any retaining wall is 5'.
2. The Typical Lot Drainage plan view indicates surface drainage for the proposed lots.
Yard drains can also be proposed with one standard D-27 curb drain. Due to drainage
deficiencies that have recently been occurring in the field, a final lot drainage design must
be included at the tentative map stage of the proposed project. Once a design is
finalized, a Typical Lot Drainage plan view (already shown) and cross-section must be
shown on the tentative map. If the developer is sure that they are not going to use yard
drains then what is submitted is acceptable; however, what is approved on this TM is
what must eventually be constructed in the field. Please be advised, this is a major staff
issue of concern.
3. Some minimum off-site grading is being proposed for the lot southwest of proposed lot
214. What is being planned for this lot? Who owns this lot? Staff will condition that the
existing gate and A/C driveway be removed, curb and gutter be installed along Poinsettia
Lane, at the former driveway, and this area be irrigated and landscaped and included in
the landscape maintenance for this project. Please show this on the TM.
4. Please meet City Standard GS-14 setback requirements along the northeasterly property
boundary north of Poinsettia Lane (see sheet 3).
5. A curb outlet is being proposed at lot 148. Where is the closest curb inlet located in the
adjacent subdivision to the south to catch flows from this outlet? Please investigate tying
this proposed outlet into a storm drain system (see sheet 8).
6. Can the 90° corner handle the flows for the proposed brow ditch at lot's 189/190?
Please indicate the Q (cfs) and V (fps) at this corner for a 2-year storm event (see sheet
8).
7. Due to the potential for constant nuisance water generated by slope irrigation, please tie
the proposed outlet at lot 176 into a storm drain within 'A' Street.
8. Please indicate fail-safe overflow measures at the two sumps located on proposed
Lemon Leaf Drive and Lonicera Street. Vegetated swales, additional inlets and
redundant storm drains could be used (see sheet's 3 & 6).
CT 98-14, SDP 99-06: POINSEIrtlA/THOMPSON/TABATA
SECOND COMPLETENESS REVIEW & INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
M. GRIM MEMO; JUNE 3,1999
9. Whenever a public easement is proposed between two structures, the easement must be
increased to 20' in width. Please revise the proposed 15' easements at lot's 101/102 and
239/240. Also please revise the proposed 10' private storm drain easements at lot's
229/230 and lot 222 to 20' public easements.
10. Please indicate that the existing 1:1 slope adjacent to proposed lot 235 will be re-graded
to a standard 2:1 slope configuration (see sheet 3).
Hydrology Report Issues
1. Please explain the differences in the Basin 'B' existing and developed Q100 flows
between the Crosby, Mead, Benton Report and the Hydrology Report for this project (see
report page 7).
2. Staff has concern over the Basin 'D' analysis methodology. Please more fully explain
why a "weighted" runoff coefficient of .75 was used in a mostly undeveloped area. Also,
please conduct the same analysis using a runoff coefficient of .45, rather than .75, and
compare the existing and developed Q's (see report page 7).
3. Analysis for basin 'F' indicates an existing Q100 of 4cfs. Exhibit 'A' seems to indicate an
existing Q100 of 2.9cfs. Therefore the increase is greater than 2.2cfs in the developed
(6.2cfs) condition. Please verify and revise as necessary. Is an increase of 3.3cfs
acceptable? What is the existing and developed "depth of flow" in the gutter, based on
these figures (see report page 7)7
4. Analysis for basin 'G' indicates a proposed Q100 of 8cfs. Exhibit 'B' indicates various
QIOO's of 1.1, 8.4, and 9.5cfs. Please verify and revise/explain as necessary.
5. Analysis for basin 'I' indicates that an existing brow ditch located south of Poinsettia
Lane, directly east of proposed lot 8, may not have sufficient capacity to carry the
proposed Q100 of 12.1cfs, and that further analysis will be done at the final design stage
of the project. This is unacceptable. The capacity of the existing brow ditch must be
determined now. If a pipe must be installed to handle the proposed Q, environmental
review must be completed at the discretionary stage of the project.
6. Please conduct a Q10 analysis.
Land Title & Mapping
1. Thank you for labeling the easements throughout the plan set and providing the updated
81/2" x 11" Easement Table. Please replace the existing Easement Table with the
revised Table on sheet 2 of 14 of the tentative map (TM). Also, under the easement
Table heading, indicate that this Table is based on the Amended Preliminary Title
Report (PR), dated, February 19, 1999, No. 8351360-U50.
2. Please plot easement Item No.'s 8, 38 and 56 on the TM plan set.
3. The proposed 'A' Street/Poinsettia Lane intersection, and grading, encroaches into City
owned property. Please be advised, the developer may have to acquire fee title to this
property.
4. Does vacating a portion of the existing Open Space/Slope Maintenance easement
(easement #55, see sheet 3) decrease any previous project cumulative open space?
Provide documentation from Planning Department staff regarding this issue.
5. Are the existing Slope Maintenance easements public or private (easement #55, see
sheet 3)?
CT 98-14, SDP 99-06: POINSfrrTIA/THOMPSON/TABATA
SECOND COMPLETENESS REVIEW & INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
M. GRIM MEMO; JUNE 3,1999
6. Please label the proposed Slope Maintenance easements as private (e.g., adjacent to
lot 90, sheet 7).
7. Please increase the frontage width at proposed lot 155 (see TM & SDP sheet 5) to a
minimum of 33'. Slightly relocate the lot 155 property lines to achieve this frontage
width. This will achieve a greater separation between the lot 155 driveway and lot 154
property line.
8. Is the developer planning on recording this map in phases? If so, the phasing (units)
must be indicated on the TM, with the lot numbers consecutively numbered.
9. Please label the "Not a Part" (NAP) Dennis and Tabata parcels as "Remainder Parcels."
Sewer & Water
1. Again, as previously indicated, please show a reclaimed (RC) waterline servicing the
project.
2. Please change all proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) public
easements to a 20' minimum width.
3. In accordance with the City's Master Plan of Sewage and the Wilson Engineering
Project Sewer Analysis, dated, September 10, 1998, please contact CMWD regarding
the construction/funding of Master Sewer Plan facility NBT3A. Provide documentation
of CMWD's response.
4. Regarding item No. 3 above, make sure that CMWD staff take into account that the
project sewer analysis indicates that the "ultimate" system operates at 71% capacity and
that capacity of the system is generally reached at 75-85%. Provide CMWD
documentation on this issue also.
5. At a meeting held on October 8, 1998 with City staff and the developer, the CMWD
District Engineer indicated that he wanted the sewer flow for the portion of the project
being proposed north of Poinsettia Lane to gravity flow to the north. Please review this
with CMWD staff, and provide documentation of the outcome of those discussions.
6. Provide documentation of CMWD approval to relinquish easement item's 39, 44, 45, &
46 (see sheet 3 of the TM).
7. Indicate that CMWD easement item 53 and the existing fire hydrant will be relocated, in
accordance with the Lemon Leaf Drive/Lonicera Street connection (see sheet 3).
8. Contact CMWD to see if they will require a "looped' water system in the Lemon Leaf
Drive/Lonicera Street connection (see sheet 3). Provide documentation from CMWD
regarding this issue.
9. The revised Easement Table indicates that CMWD easement item's 13, 27 and 61 "will
remain," while easement 14 is "vacated." What is the difference? All of these existing
easements go through proposed lots (see sheet 5). Please verify and revise.
Miscellaneous
1. The developer was previously informed that they will be required to pay a fair share of
the Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane Bridge and Thoroughfare District fee prior to
recordation of any final map, in accordance with the Zone 20 Local Facilities
Management Plan (LFMP). Please be advised that since that information was provided,
the estimate for this payment has changed from $540/ADT to $566/ADT.
CT 98-14, SDP 99-06: POINSfrrTIA/THOMPSON/TABATA
SECOND COMPLETENESS REVIEW & INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT
M. GRIM MEMO; JUNE 3,1999
2. Please be advised, the City Council (CC), at the Tuesday, April 27, 1999, CC meeting,
enacted an Urgency Ordinance for traffic mitigation measures for Local Facility
Management Plan (LFMP) Zone's 5, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21. Projects within
these zones are required to sign an agreement to pay a traffic mitigation fee of
$10/ADT. This fee will be collected at issuance of any building permit for a project. This
proposed project is located within LFMP Zone 20.
3. Enclosed for the applicant's review for making the requested revisions is a red-lined
check print of the project. This check print must be returned with the revised plans
to facilitate continued staff review.
If you have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388.
//,/ s ',/'"*"
MICHAEL J. SHlREY '"
Associate Engineer - Land Development
Attachment
c: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Development