The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 98-19; Roesch Property Residential Subdivision; Tentative Map (CT) (19)PUBLIC WORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION MEMORANDUM May6, 1999 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - ANNE HYSONG FROM: Associate Engineer- Land Development CT 98-19, CDP 98-86, SDP 99-05, ZC 98-12, HDP 98-21, LCPA 98-09: ROESCH INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above-referenced project for engineering issues of concern. Engineering issues which must be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project are as follows: [Engineering Issues of Concent: Traffic & Transportation 1. City Standards require that driveway widths use only a maximum of 40% of a lot's frontage. Lot's 10, 16, and 21 seem to exceed this maximum width. Please verify and revise. 2. City Standards require that the top of the "X" of any driveway be located a minimum of 3' away from the adjacent property line. Lot's 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 do not seem to meet this Standard. Please verify and revise. 3. Please reconfigure the proposed dwelling unit (D/U) on Lot 1 so that the driveway is located substantially away from the Regatta Road/Brigantine Drive intersection. (Basically, re-orientate the D/U 180°.) Please also reconfigure the proposed D/U on Lot 9 for the same reason. 4. Please plot a Caltrans Corner Sight Distance sight line of 275' at the southwest corner of the Regatta/Brigantine intersection. Plot this sight line on the tentative map (TM). Site Development Plan (SDP) and Conceptual Landscape Plan (CLP). Please plot a 150' stopping Sight Distance sight line at the Regatta/Street 'A' intersection. Also plot this sight line on the TM. SDP and CLP. 5. Please add the following note to the CLP: "Proposed mature landscaping and vegetation encroaching into any 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 any sight line can only have a maximum height of 30 inches." 6. Please actually show a preliminary design for the off-site transition to the existing half- street improvements on Brigantine Drive. CT 98-19, CDP 98-86, SDP 99-05, HDP 98-21, LCPA 98-09, ZC 98-12: ROESCH 2 INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT A. HYSONG MEMO; MAY 6,1999 7. Please indicate where the Fernandez parcel, located to the south of this proposed project, might gain future site access. Additionally, since there is only a minimal distance to complete the full Brigantine Drive improvements to Poinsettia Lane, please contact Fernandez to see if they would be willing to participate in completing the street at this time through a joint funding and/or construction effort. 8. In accordance with City Standards, please show a 50' tangent section on Regatta Road, from the prolongation of the Brigantine Drive curb line. 9. 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. 10. Please be advised, this project is also located within the boundary of Bridge and Thoroughfare District (B&TD) No. 2, Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane, and will be required to pay a B&TD fee estimated at $566/ADT, prior to recording a Final Map for the project. Water Facilities 1. Please check with an Associate Engineer at the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) to see if they will require the waterline to be a "looped" configuration. Supply engineering staff with documentation to this effect. Drainage & Hydrology Report 1. The Typical Lot Drainage plan view and sections indicate the potential for a 3' rather than 5' surface flow line around the proposed D/U's. Submit documentation from the Soils Engineer that this design is acceptable. The proposed design seems to indicate that positive surface flow can be maintained. However, due to drainage deficiencies that have recently been occurring in the field, yard drains can be proposed with one (1) San Diego Regional Standard (SDRS) D-27 curb outlet. If the developer anticipates any yard drains, a final design must be included at the tentative map stage of the proposed project and shown on the Typical Lot Drainage plan view. Please be advised, what is approved as part of this TM and SDP is what must eventually be constructed. 2. The positive fail-safe overflow, located between Lot's 14 and 15 is being shown as 1% in the wrong direction. Please verify and revise. 3. The proposed storm drain configuration is somewhat confusing. The TM & SDP indicate "preferred and alternative" alignments, and relocation of structures. Additionally, the TM & SDP does not match the Ocean Bluff/Catellus approved grading plans (e.g., adjacent to Lot 96 on sheet 3 of 7 of DWG. 360-3A). Please revise per the Ocean Bluff plans and show the proposed configuration. Is there some reason for alternatives? 4. In accordance with Issue No. 3 above, the Hydrology Study is also confusing and must be updated to reflect a proposed design. Again, is there some reason for alternatives? 5. Please analyze pre and post developed Q-10 in the Hydrology Study. Identify impacts and recommend mitigation measures to meet Mello II requirements (i.e., no greater developed Q than existing, exiting the site). CT 98-19, CDP 98-86, SDP 99-05, HDP 98-21, LCPA 98-09, ZC 98-12: RoHiCH 3 INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT A. HYSONG MEMO; MAY 6,1999 6. The Executive Summary of the Hydrology Study mentions "runoff from bench drain." What is this referring to? Soils & Grading 1. Please setback the top of the slope along the easterly subdivision boundary line, in accordance with City Standard GS-14 (unless the slope was already constructed this way for Ocean Bluff). 2. Please clearly show the existing Ocean Bluff/Catellus grading and the proposed project grading on the TM & SDP. Show clearly how these two grading scenarios match along the project's easterly boundary line. Land Title & Mapping 1. Where is the Lot 14/15 side property line? Also, the 20' easement must be on one (1) lot. 2. Please relocate the side property lines for Lot's 9, 10, 11 and 12 to the top of the proposed slope. Msce//aneoi/s 1. Please label the top right corners of the TM & SDP as SDP 99-05. (Currently it states SDP XX.) 2. I do not believe that someone can "vacate" an Agreement. The Engineer of Work may want to re-word these statements on sheet 1 of the TM & SDP regarding PR item's 10 & 11. Regarding the Roesch/Catellus private slope Agreement, supply documentation that Catellus agrees to relinquishing any slope rights. Regarding item 11. the public sewer reimbursement Agreement, provide documentation of the status of this Agreement regarding Catellus' and the City's interests and obligations. 3. Please make sure that any revisions that are made on one plan are also made to any applicable plan sets. 4. Red-lined check prints are enclosed for the applicant's use in making the requested revisions. These check prints must be returned with the plan revisions to facilitate continued staff review. If you have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4388. ^'•2; MICHAEL J. . „ _, Associate Engineer - LanthDevetopmeht Attachment c: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Development