Loading...
Item 4 - TPM 89-16 Rahi Nikravesh - - AGENDA R..--20RT SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - James L. Bowersox, City Man~ 'ROM: INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~~ Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ing service~Uù6l DATE: January 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 89-16, Rahi Nikravesh, Applicant. ABSTRACT A request to create four residential parcels from a 2.83 acre site near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, north of the Scripps Poway Parkway within the RS-2 zone. After the October 18, 1994 continuance, staff met with the applicant to attempt resolution of issues raised in the agenda report, including a recommendation to reduce the number of parcels to three. When additional time was needed by the applicant, the hearing was continued from the November 15, 1994 meeting to January 3, 1995, A letter from the applicant and the extent of the remedial grading needed for either a three parcel or a four parcel map has led to a modified staff recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental initial study has been prepared for this application. Issuance of a -- Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is recommended per the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 30 property owners in the project area and to the Southwest Poway Homeowners Association. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Parcel Map 89-16 for four parcels subject to the findings and conditions in the attached proposed reso 1 uti on. ACTION - I 1 of 63 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 ~ AGENDA REPOR~ CITY OF POW A Y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James l. Bowersox, City Man~ INITIATED BY: John D, Fitch, Assistant City Manage~ Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ing Service~ Stephen A. Streeter, Principal Planner DATE: January 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel MaD 89-16. Rahi Nikravesh. ADDlicant: A request to create four residential parcels from a 2.83 acre site near the southwest corner of 01 d Stone Road and 01 d Pomerado Road, north of the Scripps Poway Parkway within the RS-2 zone. APN: 317-241-50 & 320-011-22 (ptn.) BACKGROUND This request is to create four residential parcels from a 2.83 acre site near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, immediately north of the Scripps Poway Parkway. After the October 18, 1994 continuance, staff met with the applicant to attempt resolution of issues raised in the agenda report, including a recommendation to reduce the number of parcels to three. When additional time was needed by the applicant, the hearing was continued from the November 15, 1994 meeting to January 3, 1995. A letter from the applicant and the extent of the remedial grading needed for either a three parcel or a four parcel map has led to a modified staff recommendation. FINDINGS The minimum parcel size required by the RS-2 zone is 20,000 square feet. A lot width of 100 feet and lot depth of 150 feet is also required. Parcel sizes proposed range from 22,400 to 44,000 net square feet with net pad areas of 10,600 to 17,500 square feet. Since the original application date, the applicant has submitted a dozen or more revised tentative maps to respond to staff concerns for an acceptable grading design for four parcels. A three parcel design was submitted early on that fitted well for this site given the topography and site constraints with roadways bordering three sides (one a major roadway). With an overa 11 slope of r ACTION, l ) 2 of 63 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 -- -- -- Agenda Report January 3, 1995 Page 2 approximately 19%, this site is steeper than usual for RS-2 property and, therefore, it is has been very difficult to achieve the maximum density under that zone while meeting all of the general plan requirements. The conclusions of the geotechnical investigation are summarized in Attachment E, excerpts from the report, Potent i ally compress i bl e 1 ands 1 ide depos its, topsoil and colluvium are present at the site. These soils are not considered suitabl e for structural loads or support of fill soils in their present condition. Remedial grading measures such as removal and recompaction will be necessary to mitigate this condition. The City's geotechnical consultant has indicated that the amount of remedial grading for the site is comparable for a three or four parcel map. He reached his conclusions based on two field trips to the site, reviewing the September 1984 and July 1993 Leighton and Associates reports and consultation with the Engineering Services staff, the principal engineer with Leighton and Associates, and the applicant. If the final grading plan looks markedly different than the pl an reviewed with the geotechn i ca 1 report, reanalysis by Group Delta is recommended. Since the Friars formation soils in the vicinity have failed due to landslide activity, redesigning the grading to show 3:1 slopes would not offer sufficient safety, Buttressing the landslides or complete removal of the soil mass is necessary. Because reduction of the number of lots will, therefore, not reduce the amount of disturbance to the site, the proposed map meets the minimum area and dimension requirements for the site, staff is recommending approval of the four-lot design, Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the minor development reviews for Parcels 1 and 2 be processed as hillsidejridgeline properties that receive approval by the City Counci 1, This step would ensure that houses and improvements on those parcels are appropriate in size and sensitivity to the topography. Properties to the west are within the hillsidejridgeline areas. A site-specific noise study may show it to be desirable, though not mandatory, to provide additional sound attenuation by installing an 8 foot high soundwall to match the soundwall in the vicinity to the west. Mr. Nikravesh has taken issue with this requirement believing that the sound wall should be installed by the Redevelopment Agency or City since the vacant residential property would eventually be occupied; however, standard procedure is to protect existing residential development from noi se impacts, but requi re future residential development to provide noise protection where needed. The final delay that occurred in scheduling this tentative map with the City Council was awaiting the completion of a boundary adjustment (BA 91-11). On May 10, 1994, the City Council approved the boundary adjustment for the transfer of approximately 15,000 square feet of Redevelopment Agency property in exchange for an easement on the Persepolis Partners (Rahi Nikravesh) property for the Scripps Poway Parkway. After consultation with the City Attorney and the Director of Engineering Services, it was determined the boundary adjustment needed to be concl uded and recorded before the tentati ve parcel map coul d proceed so that the Redeve 1 opment Agency woul d not be a co-app 1 i cant for the tentat i ve map. JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 3 of 63 Agenda Report January 3, 1995 Page 3 In conclusion, staff can support four parcels with the additional safeguards of the hillsidejridgeline review, with the understanding that the remedial grading will be extensive for either three or four parcels, and the final grading plan must adhere to the tentative grading pl an or reanalysis by the City's geotechnical consultant must occur, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental initial study has been prepared for this application. Issuance of a Negati ve Decl arat i on with mit i gat i on measures is recommended per the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT None. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Publ ic notice was publ ished in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 30 property owners in the project area and to the Southwest Poway Homeowners Association for the original hearing date which was then continued to November 15, 1994 and January 3, 1995. RECOMMENDATION It i s recommended that the Ci ty Counci 1 adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Parcel Map 89-16 for four parcels subject to the findings and conditions in the attached proposed resolution, JLB:RWQ:JDF:SAS:kls E: \C!Tn PLANN I NG\ REPORT\2TPM8916 , AGN Attachments: A. Resolution B. Environmental Initial Study C. Negative Declaration D. November 1994 Letter from Rahi Nikravesh E. October 18, 1994 Agenda Report JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 4 of 63 -- RESOLUTION NO. P- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 89-16 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 317-241-50 & 320-011-22 (PTN.) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 89-16, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Rahi Nikravesh, applicant, Persepolis Partners, owner, for the purpose of subdividing the real property located near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, north of the Scri pps Poway Parkway situated in the City of Poway, County of San Di ego, State of California, into four single family parcels, regularly came before the City Council for public hearing and action on January 3, 1995; and WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 89-16 meets the requirements of the RS-2 zone; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning Services has recommended approval of the parcel map, subject to all conditi ons set forth in the Planning Services Department report; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and cons i de red sai d report and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: Environmental FindinQs: The Ci ty Counc il fi nds that the project wi 11 not have a significant adverse i mpact on the envi ronment and hereby issues a Negat i ve Decl arat ion with mitigation measures per the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2: FindinQs: 1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan in that a residential land use is proposed by this application. 2. The design or improvements for the tentative parcel map are consistent with or are condit i oned to be consistent with all applicable general and specific plans, in that required improvements adhere to the development standards of the City of Poway Development Code and Subdivision Ordinances. 3. The site is physically suitabl e for the type of development approved, in that the site will be completely graded with remedial work in accordance with a geotechni ca 1 report to create four suitable building sites. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development approved. It contains four single-family parcels on 2.83 net acres, which is a density of one parcel per 0.71 acre, where 20,000 square foot parcels (about 0.5 acre) are permitted. The lot sizes and configurations all conform to the minimum RS-2 zoning standards. JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 5 of 63 Resolution No. P- Page 2 5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat, in that the site has been previously disturbed, some trees will be retained and others will be replaced with comparable trees. 6. The tentati ve parcel map is not likely to cause public health problems because City water and sewer systems will be provided to serve the new parcels. 7. The design of the tentative parcel map does not conflict with any easements by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the approved subdivision. Conditions that are also mitigation measures are marked with an "*". Section 3: Citv Council Decision: The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map 89-16 subject to the following conditions: Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit in writing that all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein. 2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 3. The app 1 i cant shall comply with the 1 atest adopted Uni form Buil di ng Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. For each new residential dwelling, the applicant shall pay Permit, Plan Check and Inspection Fees and School Fees at the establ i shed rate (i n accordance with City-adopted policy and/or ordinance). LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 1. A Master Plan of the existing on-site trees shall be provi ded to the Planning Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits and prior to grading, to determine which trees shall be retained, *2. Existing on-site trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be maintained in a horticulturally acceptable manner. Dead, decaying, or JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 6 of 63 - Resolution No, P- Page 3 - potenti ally dangerous trees shall be approved for removal at the discretion of the Planning Services Department during the review of the Master Plan of existing on-site trees. Living trees which are approved for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree bas is as requ i red by the Pl anni ng Servi ces Department. RECREATION The developer shall pay the Park Fee at the established rate at the date of final inspection, or the date of the Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs later, ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REQUIRED *1. Development review or minor development review shall be accomplished prior to issuance of a building permit. The mi nor development revi ews for Parcels 1 and 2 will be processed as hillside/ridgeline properties that receive approval by the City Council. 2. The developer shall provide a noise display board in the sales office to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. The display shall include the site plan and noise study information. *3. Worki ng drawi ngs shall i ncl ude a certi fi cat ion by a recogni zed acousti ca 1 expert that the requirements of the City of Poway's Noise Ordinance will be met. A sound wall of up to eight feet in height may be required along the Scri pps Poway Parkway frontage per the recommendati ons of a noi se analysis prepared for this property. 4. At the completion of construction, and prior to occupancy, interior and exterior CNEL shall be determined by field testing at developer's expense. Tests to be conducted by a recognized acoustical expert. No occupancy permits shall be granted until Condition G-7 is met to the satisfaction of the Building Code (latest adopted edition) "Sound Transmission Control". COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES. EXISTING STRUCTURES Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with appropriate grading practices and the Uniform Plumbing Code. GRADING *1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, approved grading plan and geotechnical report, and accepted grading practices. 2. The grading plan shall contain a certificate signed by a registered civil engineer that the grading plan has preserved a minimum of 100 square feet so 1 ar access for each dwell i ng uni t and for each future bui 1 di ng site within the subdivision. 7 of 63 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 Resolution No. P- Page 4 3. A geotechn i ca 1 report shall be prepared by a qual ified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check, 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Engineering Services Departments and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit, whichever comes first. *5. The final grading plan, prepared on a standard size sheet of mylar, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Engineering Services Departments and shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6. A pre-blast survey of surrounding property shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to any rock blasting. Seismic recordings shall be taken for all blasting and blasting shall occur only at locations and levels approved by the City Engineer. 7. All new slopes shall be a minimum of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), 8. A final compaction report sha 11 be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Site grading shall be certified by the project civil engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 10. If pad elevations increase by greater than two feet in height from those approved on the tentative map, City Council approval will be required. 11. Non-supervised nor non-engineered fill is specifically not allowed. Rock disposal areas shall be graded in comp 1 i ance with City-approved soi 1 s investigations and recommendations and grading plans. 12. Erosion control, including, but not 1 imited to desiltation basins, shall be installed. The developer shall make provisions to insure the proper maintenance of all erosion control devices throughout their intended life. 13. The tops and toes of all graded slopes shall be constructed with a five foot mi nimum setback from any open space area. 14. During 9rading, the site shall be excavated to competent soil lying below the landslide slip plane as a minimum and under the supervision of a soils engi neer. Thi s may extend to a depth of 45 feet or more below the existing ground surface, STREETS AND SIDEWALKS 1. Reciprocal access and maintenance agreements shall be provided insuring access to all parcels over pri vate roads, dri ves or parki ng areas and maintenance thereof to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 2. Street striping and signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 I 8 of 63 - Resolution No, P- Page 5 - 3. All street structural sections shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Engineering Services. 4. Street improvement plans and any other public utility lines, prepared on standard size sheets of mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for approval by the Di rector of Engi neeri ng Servi ces. Pl an check and inspection expenses shall be paid by the developer. 5, Street improvements that include, but are not limited to: Sidewalks ----- Cross gutter -Å- Dri veways ----- Alley gutter ----- Wheel chair ramps ...x....- Street pavi ng ----- Curb and gutter ----- Alley paving ----- Bus shelter/turnout shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the units to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 6. All damaged off-site publ ic works facil ities, including parkway trees, shall be repai red or rep 1 aced prior to exoneration of bonds and improvements, to the satisfaction of the Department of Engi neeri ng Services. 7. Prior to any work being performed in the publ ic right-of-way, an -- encroachment permit shall be obta i ned from the Engineering Services Department and appropriate fees paid, in addition to any other permits required. 8. The roadway taper on Old Stone Road shall be 50 feet. 9. The maximum grade break on streets or driveways shall be 8% in 20 feet, 10. Dri veways, both new and exi st i ng di sturbed by construct i on, shall be constructed or reconstructed to Regional Standard G-14. DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL 1. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of all surface water originating within the subdivision, and all surface waters that may flow onto the subdivision from adj acent 1 ands, shall be required. Said drainage system shall include any easements and structures as required by the Director of Engineering Services to properly handle the drainage. 2. The Master Plan of Drainage Fee shall be paid at the established rate in accordance with Drainage Ordinance at the date of final inspection or at the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. 3, Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks shall requi re a speci a 1 des i gn approved by Engi neeri ng Servi ces. 4. A drainage study shall be submitted to Engineering Services which analyzes the downstream impact of the drainage from this site. It shall determine whether or not the existing facilities are adequate. JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 I 9 of 63 Resolution No, P- Page 6 UTILITIES 1. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground. 2. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving utility companies and the Director of Engineering Services. 3. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and undergrounding of existing public utilities as required, 4. Water, sewer, and fi re protect i on systems plans shall be des i gned and constructed to meet requirements of the City of Poway and the County of San Diego Department of Health. 5, Property shall be annexed to the sewer improvement area prior to acceptance of property for sewer service. 6. The appl icant shall pay for a water system analysis to establish the proper size and location for the public water system. The amount will be determined by the cost of the analysis and shall be paid when a grading plan is submitted. 7. Within 30 days after receiving approval of the tentative parcel map, the applicant shall apply for a Letter of Avail abi 1 i ty (LOA) to reserve sewerage availability and post with the City, a nonrefundable reservation fee equal to 20% of the appropriate sewerage connection fee in effect at the time the LOA is issued. 8. Developer shall construct a lighting system conforming to City of Poway standards at no cost to the public, subject to the following: a. Cut-off luminaries shall be installed which will provide true 90 degree cutoff and prevent projection of light above the horizontal from the lowest point of the lamp or light emitting refractor or device. b. All fi xtures shall use a clear, low pressure sodium vapor light source. c. Advance energy charges and Di stri ct engi neeri ng charges shall be paid by the developer. d. Annexation to the 1 i ght i ng district shall be accomplished and evidence of annexation shall be accomplished at the time of final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs later. 9. Cable television services shall be provided and i nsta 11 ed underground. The developer shall notify the cable company when trenching for utilities is to be accomplished. 10. Existing telephone, gas, electric, and all other public utilities and appurtenances shall be shown on the grading/private improvement plans. JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 10 of 63 - Resolution No. P- Page 7 - 11. All on-site private sewer mains shall be constructed to standards for public sewers and shown on the grading/private improvement plans. 12. Prior to occupancy, the sewer and water systems serving the project shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY SERVICES. 1. Where driveway access exceeds 15%, a residential fire sprinkler system will be required to be installed in a new single-family dwelling. 2. One new fire hydrant is to be placed on the access road /easement leading to parcels 2 and 3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS 1. All provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance of the Poway Municipal Code shall be met as they relate to the division of land. 2. Prior to final map approval, all dedications shall be made and easements granted as required. 3. The tentative map approval shall expire on January 3, 1997. Application for time extens i on must be recei ved 90 days pri or to expiration in accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4. All appropriate fees shall be paid. These include, but are not limited to, drainage, sewer, water, park, school, etc. Drainage fees paid when grading permit is issued, sewer and water fees paid at building permit, the remainin9 fees paid at occupancy. 5. Inclusionary housing fees shall be paid in accordance with fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, this 3rd day of January, 1995. Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: - MarJorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 11 of 63 ,. ~. CITY OF POWAV INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: September 9 1994 APPLICANT: Rahi Nikravesh/Persepolis Partners PROJECT: Tentative Parcel MaD to create four Darcels PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, north of ScriDps poway Parkway I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Fact-based explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE ~ 1. Sol Is and Geology. Will the proposal have significant Impacts In: a. Unstable ground conditions or In changes in -L geologic relationships? - - b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or -L burial of the soil? - - c. Change In topograDhy or ground surface / contour Intervals? - - d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical ./ features? - - e. Any potential Increase In wind or water erosion of sol Is, affecting either on- or ./ off-site conditions? - - 1. Changes In erosion, siltation, or ./ deposition? - - - g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landsl ides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar V hazards? - - 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant Impacts In: a. Changes In currents, or the course In direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ./ ephemeral stream channels? - - b. Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of / surface water runoff? - - c. Alterations to the course or flow of V' flood waters? - - d. Change In the amount of surface water In ./ any body of water? - ~- e. Discharge Into surface waters, or any alter- ,/ action of surface water quality? - - - ATTACHMENT B JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 I 12 of 63 -- , ~ Environmental Study Checklist Page 2 - YES MAYBE NO f. Alteration of groundwater ./ characteristics? - - - g. Change In the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions, or with- drawals, or through Interference with an aquifer? ~ Quality? - - Quant I ty? - - h. The reduction In the amount of water otherwise L available for public water supplies? - - i. Exposure of people or property to water - - /' related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant Impacts In: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from ~ mobile or Indirect sources? - - Stationary sources? - - b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with the attainment of appll- ./ - cable air quality standards? - - c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement moisture / or temperature? - - 4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant results In: a. Change In the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number .,/ of endangered species of plants? - - - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, / rare, or endangered species of plants? - - c. Introduction of new or disruptive species / of plants Into an area? - - d. Reduction In the potential for agricultural V production? - - 5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results In: a. change In the characteristics of sDecles, Including diversity, distribution, or -L numbers of any species of animals? - - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, V -- rare, or endangered species of animals? - - c. Introduction of new or disruptive sDecles '~-' of animals Into an area, or result In a barrier to the mitigation or movement of / animals? - - d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish JAN 3 191r ITEM 4 13 of 63 or wildlife habitat? - -- m.. ., Environmental Study Checklist Page 3 YES ~ NO 6. Population. [Will the proposal] have significant results In: a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, dlstri- but Ion, density, diversity, or growth rate of / the human population of an area? - - - b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, / or create a demand for additional housing? - - 7. Socio-Economlc Factors. Will the proposal have significant results In: a. Change In local or regional soclo-economic characteristics, Including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and prop- / erty values? - - - b. Will project costs be equitably dlstrl- buted among project beneficiaries, I :e., ¡/' buyers, taxpayers, or project users? - - - 8. Land Use and Plannln¥ Considerations. Will the proposal have slgnlf cant results In: a. A substantial alteration of the present or ¡/ planned land use of an area? - - b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern- / mental entities? - - c. An Impact upon the Quality or QUantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive / recreational opportunities? - - 9. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results In: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular ¡/' movement? - - b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for / new street construction? - - - c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or V demand for new parking? - - d. Substantial Impact upon existing transpor- ¡/' tatlon systems? - - - e. Alterations to present patterns of clrcu- latlon or movement of people and/or ./ goods? - - - f. Alteration to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit, ----.../ or air traffic? - g. Increases In traffic hazards to motor / vehicles, bicYClists, or pedestrians? - - - JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 14 of 63 - . Environmental Study Check I ist Page '" YES MAYBE NO 10. Cultural Resources. WI II the proposal have signIfIcant impacts In: a. A disturbance to the Integrity of archaeo- logical, paleontological, and/or historical -L resources? - - 11. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. WI II the proposal have sIgnificant results In: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential -L health hazard? - - b. Exposure of people to potential health L hazards? - - c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous \/'" substances In the event of an accident? - - d. An Increase In the number of Indlvldùals or species of vector or parthenogenic organisms -L or the exposure of people to such organisms? - - e. Increase In existing noise levels? ./ - - -- 1. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous ./ noise levels? - - - g. The creation of objectionable odors? ./ - - h. An increase in' right or glare? - - V" 12. Aesthetics. WI II the proposal have significant results In: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic / vista or view? - - b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive v' si te? - - c. A conflict with the objective of designated ./ or potential scenic corridors? - - - 13, Utilities and Publ Ic Services. Will the proposal have signIfIcant need for new systems, or alter- atlons to the following: / a. Electric power? - - - b. Natural or packaged gas? - - L c. Communications systems? - - -L d. Water supply? - _ ./ ..- e. Wastewater facilities? ./ - ---:11""." - 1. Flood control structures? - - -L g. Sol Id waste facilities? - ,/ - v' h. Fire protection? 15 of 63 - - - ITEM 4 JAN 31995 I ,_. " '. Environmental Study Checklist Page 5 YES I.4AYBE ~ I. Police protection? - - / j. Schools? ./ - - "7 k. Parks or other recreational facilities? - - - I. l.4alntenance of public facilities, Including / roads and flood control facilities? - - 7 m. Other governmental services? - - - 14. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant Impacts In: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or L energy? - - b. Substantial increase In demand upon existing -/ sources of energy? - - - c. An Increase In the demand for development of V new sources of energy? - - d. An Increase or perpetuation of the con sump- tlon of non-renewable forms of energy. when feasible renewable sources of energy are ¡/ available? - - e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable / or scarce natural resources? - - - 15. l.4andatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wlld- life populatIon to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate Important examples of the major periods ./ of the California history or prehistory? - - b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term Impact on the environment Is one which occurs In a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term Impacts will V endure we II Into the future.) - - c. Does the project have Impacts which are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the Incremental effects of an Individual project are considerable when -~ viewed In connection with the effect of past projects, and probable future V' projects.) - - - 16 of 63 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 _. -- - Environmental Study Checklist Page 6 d, Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either --L directly or indirectly? - II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Le" of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures,) SEE ATTACHED PAGES III, DETERMINATION D On the basis of this initial evaluation: D I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signnicant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, ,- EJ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signnicant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED, D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, DATE: 9-9-94 SIGNATURE: ~? revised 12-16-94 TITLE: PRINCIPAL PLANNER e: \ city\planning"eport\tp1 m8916, eis - -< JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 17 of 63 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. SOILS and GEOLOGY a ,b, c, g, Geotechnical constraints for the project site are Tertiary Friars Formation soils and landslides, The July 1993 report by Leighton And Associates summarizes the soils and landslide issues, Group Delta, the City's geotechnical consultant, has reviewed the 1993 report, as well as the 1984 report by the same consultants, and found their findings and recommendations to be in order, MITIGATION: Implement geotechnical remedies outlined in 1993 Leighton and Associates report, e,g. buttressing areas subject to landslides or removing the soil mass completely and replacing it with stable soils, 2. HYDROLOGY b, c, The property lies uphill and outside of the Beeler Creek floodway, 4, FLORA a, b, Biological surveys were conducted for oaks and other plant species, Coast live oaks and scrub oaks are the predominant tree species, The understory consists of various plant species, including goldenbush, curly dock, toyon, Australian saltbush, lemonade berry bush, flattop buckwheat and deerweed, MITIGATION: A Master Plan of the existing on-site trees shall be provided to the Planning Service::: Department to determine which trees shall be retained, Existing on-site trees shall be retaineL wherever possible and shall be maintained in a horticulturally acceptable manner, Living trees which are approved for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis as required by the Planning Services Department. 5, FAUNA d. The value of the chaparral and oak woodland habitat has been greatly reduced by past occupation of the site, grading that has occurred, the presence of three roadways and residences in the vicinity, MITIGATION: Refer to #4, 7, SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS b, The public service costs will be covered by conditions of approval with fees for impacts such as traffic mitigation, sewer, water, schools and parks, 8, LAND USE and PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS a, b. The number of parcels created on this site has been thoroughly analyzed, Four parcels could be reasonable within the RS-2 zone with proper grading design and siting the future residences into the hillside and lower slopes, The topography, soils conditions and larger parcel sizes in the surrounding area were reviewed in determining appropriate density for this site, JAN 3 1995 lïEM 4 18 of 63 - -- Nikravesh TPM 89-16 Environmental Evaluation - Page 2 The Subdivision Map Act (Section 66474 findings) and poway General Plan policies were thoroughly reviewed, Pertinent general plan policies are: Goal 1 of the poway General Plan reads: "It is the goal of the City of poway to preserve Poway's unique and desirable character as 'The City in the Country' and to maintain high quality design and environmental standards in all new development and redevelopment", Staff finds that the proposed parcel map can be found to be consistent with this goal due to the amount of grading and resulting slopes required for this site with either three or four parcels, General Plan Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, Strategy 18 for Hillside Developments requires "a visual impact analysis for slopes in excess of 15 percent to determine the most suitable building pad locations", The visual impact of the proposed subdivision design and associated grading will be reviewed by the City Council as hillside/ridgeline reviews for the higher elevation parcels (1 and 2), Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, Strategy 19 for Hillside Developments "limits grading to the greater of 35,000 square feet or 50 percent of the site for projects that have a slope between 15 to 19,9 percent", Although the site contains slopes in this range, it is not within the official Hillside Ridgeline area, In addition, the proposed grading is required by work necessary to stabilize slopes, - Goal 1, Policy D - Grading, Strategy 2 requires "rounded natural appearing slopes and variable slope atios". The tentative map does not fully incorporate these concepts, The final grading plan should address and implement a design that is sensitive to the site topography and surrounding residential properties, Goal VIII, Policy B - Geologic Hazard states that "the community should be protected against the hazards associated with geologic formations, particularly landslides, through proper land use policies and mitigation", Strategy 4 requires that development within unstable slope and landslide areas will be prohibited unless adequate measures are taken to protect against slippage, The recommendations of the engineering geologist for geologic hazard mitigation and the soils engineer for soil related issues would stabilize the soils, MITIGATION: The minor development reviews for Parcels 1 and 2 will be processed as hillside/ridgeline properties that receive approval by the City Council. Also, any major revisions to the final grading design will be subject to further analysis by the City's geotechnical consultant. 9. TRANSPORTATION b, g. Old Stone Road will be upgraded from its intersection with Old Pomerado Road to the westerly parcel frontage, The driveway access to the parcels on the cul-de-sac have been redesigned to respond to concerns of the Engineering Services and Safety Services Departments, - JAN 31995 ITEM 4 19 of 63 Nikravesh TPM 89-16 Environmental Evaluation Page 3 10. CULTURAL RESOURCES The evaluation of the old rock house was studied and documented as part of the Alternate 8A Environmental Impact Report (EIR), The August 1989 "Evaluation of Historic Significance for Kresling- Tilbury House, 11880 Pomerado Road, Poway, California" is summarized in that document. The report concludes that the house had some local significance as part of the Big Stone development and the history of cobblestone architecture in San Diego County of the 1920s and 1930s, Architectural drawings, photodocumentation and the history presented in the report constituted the extent of the mitigation efforts required, MITIGATION: If some unforeseen cultural resources are unearthed during grading, a standard note on grading plans requires monitoring the site during grading and ceasing operations until evaluation is conducted by qualified archaeologists/historians, 11, HEALTH, SAFETY, and NUISANCE FACTORS f, The construction of Scripps Poway Parkway has had an effect on the southerly boundary of this property, The noise factor will have some bearing on this property though not to a degree that warranted mitigation as part of the construction by the Redevelopment Agency and the City, The future unattenuated noise contours show a 60 dBA (A-weighted decibels) CNEl (Community Noise Equivalent level) reading for the southerly boundary of this property, An earlier version of the report showed noise contours of 65 dB or higher, but the final topography when the road is completed had not bee accounted for in the noise modeling, A short length of soundwall was authorized by the City Council in September 1992 for construction at the head of a gully above Old Stone Road, the 60 dBA CNEl is close to property lines, A site-specific noise study may show it to be desirable, though not mandatory, to provide additional sound attenuation by installing an 8 foot high soundwall to match the soundwall in the vicinity to the west. Mr. Nikravesh has taken issue with this requirement believing that the sound wall should be installed by the Redevelopment Agency or City since the vacant residential property would eventually be occupied; however, standard procedure is to protect existing residential development from noise impacts, but require future residential development to provide noise protection where needed, MITIGATION: A sound wall of up to eight feet in height shall be constructed along the Scripps poway Parkway frontage per the recommendations of a noise analysis prepared for this property, 12, AESTHETICS b, The extensive grading, proposed slope height and visibility of the site from adjacent roadways and properties requires sensitive development on the site for the future residences, MITIGATION: See # 1 and #8, JAN 31995 rs¡;;v¡ 4 20 of 63 - Nikravesh TPM 89-16 Environmental Evaluation Page 4 13, UTILITIES and PUBLIC SERVICES h. Fire protection response times are affected by the length and grade of the driveways. MITIGATION: Where driveway access exceeds 15%, a residential fire sprinkler system will be required to be installed in a new single-family dwelling, This requirement should be recorded with the title report to for disclosure to prospective property owners, e:lcitylplanninglreport\tpm8916,eis _. JAN 31995 ITEM 4 21 of 63 CITY OF POW A Y DON HIGGINSON, ~"'Y"' SUSAN CAU.ERY, DcpulY "3YOI MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmcmb., ROBERT EMERY, Coun<ilmcmbc, ßETrY I<EXFORO, Coun<ilmcmb" CITY OF POWA Y NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1, Name and Address of Applicant: Rahi Nikravesh 12840 La Tortola, San Dieqo CA 92129 2, Brief Description of Project: A request to create four residential parcels from a 2,83 acre site near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, north of the Scripps Powav Parkwav within the RS-2 zone. 3, In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of poway has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required, 4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of poway are on file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of Poway, 5, This decision of the City Council of the City of poway is final. Contact Person: Steve Streeter Phone: (619) 679-4293 Approved by: Date: Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph,D" AICP ~-'-'~ ATTACHMENT C JAN 3 1995 ITëM 4 City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive 22 of 63 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7R9, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400 ~ CITY OF POWAY .- DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES MRS REBA WRIGHT-QUASTLER Ii, L;, G:" ",' ~'o i.- 13325 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE POWAY CA 92074-0789 NO" 2 1 1994 Attn: Mr. Stephen A Streeter, AICP . é-OC:: \:', Subject: TPM 89-16 Dear Steve: I received the Agenda Report about the subject TPM dated October 18, 1994, and have a number of concerns about the issues raised. The intention has always been to comply with the poway General Plan. The following should clarify the concerns addressed in the Staff Report. 1. There is a misconception that prior to the Boundary Adjustment, the subject property was not subdividable to four (4) lots, Please see attached two alternatives previously submitted, which shows this property was subdividable to four lots, prior to the Boundary Adjustment. 2. The report indicates that the grading is inconsistent with Goal 1, Policy C and D and Goal VIII, Policy B of the Poway General Plan. It is my understanding that the Hillside Development policy is established to minimize disturbance of natural terrain and provide guidance to a creative design for development of hillside properties. Indeed, the City of Poway has been in the forefront of this stewardship in protecting its resources. As this property had been graded several times prior to our acquisition (Please refer to Attachment D), it can not be considered natural terrain. Therefore, applying prominent ridgeline hilltop policy on this property would not be applicable. In addition, any grading required to remedy the landslide problem will disturb 70% of the site, regardless whether the TPM consists of 3 or 4 lots. - ~<. JAN 3 1995 ITëM 4 ATTACHMENT D ?, of 63 The TPM is in compliance with the Hillside Development, Goals, policies and requirements. The TPM has avoided mass grading by proposing split level foundations, even in areas where they are not required, but suggested. The four lot subdivision will utilize views and result in more manageable and maintainable interior and exterior slopes. Pad elevations are selected to be close to the average of contours across each pad. The open space area adjacent to the southerly property line creates additional openness for the individual lots, as well as an overall view of the development from public streets. Most importantly it has been designed with consideration of neighboring properties to ensure visual and functional compatibility with the surrounding properties. Having taken all of the constraints into consideration, the proposed TPM demonstrates the best alternative design for the site. Please reconsider the TPM with the additional clarification I have presented, prior to your recommendation to the City Council. I am confident that we can work together to meet all of our needs. Should there be any question, please contact me at 538-1417. ;;:Z/~ Rahi Nikravesh 12840 La Tortola San Diego Ca 92129 ,<, JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 'I 24 of 63 - ~ " - ¡¡;; i ¡ ! i !d¡ -- ¡ ¡ ,: I; ;;!, ~; Ê I' ¡ ¡! ~ ¡, , I;m:! !!!!!!ìt ii m ; ;;. , m ¡. ,.,,¡_!..= ¡I I" . ¡. ! i:! ,:¡¡¡!il!¡ I ¡¡ m ;" Ii :¡¡ , !~.~. '" 0'1"""1 .! ",,¡ ¡p "", , ",. ¡¡,¡¡Iii"~ . i ¡¡¡ii' II';; ¡' ~. """"i; , !aid ,1;¡ I I '0 Z~'.'..m' Z ~ <: :;s ¡¡.d>< <: I,.,If$ ~O <~ ¡¿, ¡¿, Þi10 :>- -Þ-< . E-< E-< <- ~ÿ Z Þi1 E=o 25 of 63 ITEM 4 ! ~ .-. ,,~ ~ ',¡ ~ 1 . ,I!: ~"":"\ \Í ; ~ I , I ',~, .' . 'i '. ~-' ".; r /~",. ¡;g¡ 0~ -~ r-o, ~ ~ . !Io., . -,.. W '. '< II. t i i:S' . 'J~,>- ( - ,- Ii., '\ . ~ l- I :6'5 . i I; m~ , ii" ¡ p,. : " . ,0,.:; '.! .. : -.: ¡;; ,j;.,;. " .. d i ~: ~ ~~; i n iI n ¡; I ~i~!i ~¡:~ !~ I~! '. '!If :!..¡¡,¡,¡,~, '!:;¡;¡i¡,g1~i;¡; ¡;!¡!I...;j!!!~~~!!' ¡ ¡ !i~i¡ ~E, IE !;i ~ . .;"""'" 0 Z , Z .;. "". 1 95 ITë:\l 4 r . ','d V 4 ITEM 4"' 26 of 63 _-om_- ------- ------------------------------------------- I - '1 .- AGENDA ,.¿PORT SUMMARY TO: ~"."bJ. ".~, '"' _b."~ cay c,""", FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana INITIATED BY: John D. Fi tch, Assi stant èity Managelfl't- & Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~ Stephen A. Streeter, Principal Planner DATE: November 15, 1994 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel MaD 89-16. Rahi Nikravesh. ADDlicant: A request to create four residential parcels from a 2.83 acre site near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, north of the Scripps Poway Parkway within the RS-2 zone. APN: 317-241-50 & 320-011-22 (ptn.) ABSTRACT This item was continued from the October 18, 1994 City Council agenda to November 15, 1994 to allow Mr. Nikravesh to meet with Planning Services staff. After a recent meeting with the applicant, he has requested additional time to attempt resolution of issues raised in the agenda report and discussed further in the meeting with staff. The applicant proposed submitting written responses and graphics by November 4, 1994. Staff recommends that this item be continued to January 3, 1995. - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW None. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE None. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council continue this item to January 3, 1995. ." ACTION Continue to January 3, 1995. 5-0. ~- ~/h) Marie Lofton, Deputy City Clerk -<-- - II ATTACHMENT E JAN 3 199) II C.n ..,. 27 of 63 AGENDA~ «EPORT SUMMARÇ' \ Pr(\ - ß'i - I ~ TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ ~ INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~\!r Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ing Services DATE: October 18, 1994 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 89-16, Rahi Nikravesh, Applicant. ABSTRACT A request to create four residential parcels from a 2.83 acre site near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, north of the Scripps Poway Parkway within the RS-2 zone. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental initial study has been prepared for this application. Denial of this tentative map for four parcels does not require action per the California Environmental Qua 1 ity Act. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 30 property owners in the project area and to the Southwest Poway Homeowners Association. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny Tentative Parcel Map 89-16 subject to the findin9s in the attached proposed resolution. ACTION -,. JAN 3 1995 flaM 4 28 of 63 OCT 18 1994 ., eM .6 - r GENDA REPORT ~ CITY OF POW A Y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ /I INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Managert11~ ~ Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Service Stephen A. Streeter, Principal Planner DATE: October 18, 1994 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel MaD 89-16. Rahi Nil<ravesh. ADDlicant: A request to create four residential parcels from a 2.83 acre site near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, north of the Scripps Poway Parkway within the RS-2 zone. APN: 317-241-50 & 320-011-22 (ptn.) BACKGROUND This request is to create four residential parcels from a 2.83 acre site near the southwest corner of Old Stone Road and Old Pomerado Road, immediately north of the Scripps Poway Parkway. Staff recommends denial of this application and resubmittal of a tentative map with three parcels. Tentat i ve Parcel Map 85-02 was approved by the City Counc i.l on June 4, 1985 to create two parcels of 1.15 and 1.31 net acres from this 2.55 acre site. An amendment to the TPM was approved by the City Council on April 15, 1986 to modify some conditions of the prior approval. The tentative map was never finaled. The property is an L-shaped property that encompasses 2.83 acres. A boundary 1 i ne adjustment approved by the City Counc i 1 on May 10, 1994 enlarged the property from 2.58 acres by trans ferri ng some surplus City ri ght-of-way from the Scripps Poway Parkway in exchange for dedication of right-of-way for the cul-de- sac on Old Pomerado Road. The elevations for the site range from 598 feet on Parcel 2 to 500 feet near Old Pomerado Road. The site is currently vacant. The original tentati ve parcel map submi tta 1 was for three parcels. In the intervening time, numerous revisions have been made to try to achieve a reasonable parcel design for four parcels. ACTION: "'. Il \ 29 of 63 - Agenda Report October 18, 1994 Page 2 FINDINGS The minimum parcel size required by the RS-2 zone is 20,000 square feet. A lot width of 100 feet and lot depth of 150 feet is also required. Parcel sizes proposed range from 22,400 to 44,000 net square feet with net pad areas of 10,600 to 17,500 square feet. Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act requires as follows: "A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the des i gn of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildl ife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the des i gn of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision..." In this case, it would be appropriate to make findings "a", "b", "c" and "d" above and, hence, to deny the proposed map. Goal 1 of the Poway General Plan reads: "It i s the goal of the City of Poway to preserve Poway' s uni que and desirable character as 'The City in the Country' and to maintain hi9h qual ity design and environmental standards in all new development and redevelopment". Staff finds that the proposed parcel map cannot be found to be consistent with this goal because of the amount of grading required and the slopes that will be created. Genera 1 Plan Goal 1, Pol icy C - Site Design, Strategy 18 for Hillside Developments requires a visual impact analysis for slopes in excess of 15 percent to determine the most suitable building pad locations. The submitted visual impact analysi s has not demonstrated that the vi sual i mpact of the proposed subdivision design and associated grading will be acceptable. ~~- - JAN 3 Wi lieM It \ 30 of 63 OCT 181994 M - ~'1 - ~ I Agenda Report - October 18, 1994 Page 3 Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, Strate9Y 19 for Hillside Developments limits grad i ng to the greater of 35,000 square feet or 50 percent of the site for projects that have a slope between 15 to 19.9 percent. Although the proposed pad areas fall within this limitation, this proposal requires grading of virtually the entire site. The grading design incorporates a slope rangi ng from approximately 25' to 30' in height for 400' along the western side of proposed parcel 3, the northern side of proposed parcel 2 and the southwestern corner of proposed parcel 1. In addition, there is a 25' high slope across the south eastern i 110' of proposed parcel 2. The northern edge of proposed parcel 1 meets Old Stone Road with a 20' slope. Goal 1, Policy D - Grading, Strategy 2 requires rounded natural appearing slopes and variable slope ratios. The tentative map does not fully incorporate these concepts. The grading plan would need to address and implement a design that is sensitive to the site top09raphy and surrounding residential properties. Goal VIII, Pol icy B - Geologic Hazard states that the community should be protected against the hazards associated with geologic formations, particularly landslides, through proper land use policies and mitigation. Strategy 4 requires that development within unstable slope and landslide areas will be prohibited unless adequate measures are taken to protect against slippage. While the recommendations of the engineering geologist for geologic hazard mitigation and the soils engineer for soil related issues would stabilize the soils, they require disturbance to the entire site and the creation of extensive slopes. If fewer parcel s were created, shallower slopes and less disturbance would be possible. The conclusions of the geotechnical investigation are summarized in Attachment E, excerpts from the report. When the City's geotechnical consultant was conducting soil borings along the Scripps Poway Parkway, a landslide slip plane was discovered at a depth of 45 feet. Since these soil borings were adjacent to th i s project site, staff requi red an update of the consultant fi rm' s 1984 report. Potentially compressible landslide deposits, topsoil and colluvium are present at the site. These soils are not considered suitable for structural loads or support of fi 11 soil s i n thei r present cond i t i on. Remedial grading measures such as removal and recompaction will be necessary to mitigate this condition. This site is not suitable for a four-parcel subdivision. Through all the dozen or more revised tentative maps that have been submitted over the past few years, there has not been an acceptable grading design for four parcels. As shown in Attachment D , a three parcel design fits well for this site given the topography and site constraints with roadways bordering three sides (one a major roadway). With an overall slope of approximately 19%, this site is steeper than usual for RS-2 property and, therefore, it is not possible to achieve the maximum density under that zone while meeting all of the general plan requirements. In his "Vi sual Impact Analysis for TPM 89-16", the appl icant expresses an intention to request a variance from rear yard setback requirements for parcels 3 and 4. This perceived need suggests that the proposed map is not appropriate. JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 31 of 63 OCT 18 1994 ITEM b ,11'"1 .--. Agenda Report October 18, 1994 Page 4 The construction of Scripps Poway Parkway has had an affect on the southerly boundary of this property. The no i se factor wi 11 have some beari ng on thi s property though not to a degree that warranted mitigation as part of the construction by the Redevelopment Agency and the City. The future un attenuated noise contours show a 60 d8A (A-weighted decibels) CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) reading for the southerly boundary of this property. An earlier version of the report showed noise contours of 65 dB or higher, but the final top09raphy when the road is completed had not been accounted for in the noise modeling. A short length of soundwall was authorized by the City Council in September 1992 for construction at the head of a gully above Old Stone Road, the 60 dBA CNEL is close to property lines. Further study may show it to be desirable, though not mandatory, to provide additional sound attenuation by installing an 8 foot high soundwall to match the soundwall in the vicinity to the west. Mr. Nikravesh has taken issue with this requirement believing that the sound wall should be installed by the Redevelopment Agency or City since the vacant residential property would eventually be occupied; however, standard procedure i s to protect exi st i ng residential development from noise impacts, but require future residential development to provide noise protection where needed. In conclusion, staff believes that denial of the four parcel tentative map is warranted due to the excessive grading required, the poor soils and the fact that the slope of the property is steeper than normal for the RS-2 zone. Th us, a reduced density is recommended. Staff believes the best course of action at this point is for the City Council to deny this four parcel tentative map and provide input to the applicant of conceptual support for a three parcel tentative map similar to the original submittal. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental initial study has been prepared for this application. Denial of thi s tentati ve map for four parcel s does not requ ire act i on per the Cali forn i a Environmental Quality Act. It is recommended that the initial study be held in abeyance and used for a resubmittal of a three parcel land division that complies with the General Plan and with the Poway Municipal Code. FISCAL IMPACT None. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 30 property owners in the project area and to the Southwest Poway Homeowners Association. RECOMMENDATION It i s recommended that the City Counc il deny Tentat i ve Parcel Map 89;16 subject to the findings in the attached proposed resolution. JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 32 of 63 OCT 1 8 1994 ITEM.6 ~! .. ~ - - Agenda Report - October 18, 1994 Page 5 J LB: RWO: J OF: SAS: k 1 s E,\(IT\\PlANNINGIREPORT\TPH8916.Abl< Attachments: A. Resolution B. Surrounding Zoning and Location Map c. Tentative Map D. Prior Tentative Map E. Excerpts from July 1993 Geotechnical Report F. Group Delta Consultants Review of Lei9hton and Associates 1984 and 1993 documents G. Letter from Leighton and Associates about Review of Tentative Parcel Map H. Visual Impact Analysis Submitted by Mr. Nikravesh - -- ~<. JAN 3 1995 lTaM 4 OCT 1 8 1994 ITEM 6 33 of 63 RESOLUTION NO. P- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 89-16 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 317-241-50 & 320-011-22 (PTN.) WHEREAS, Tentati ve Parcel Map 89-16 submitted by Rahi Ni kravesh, appl icant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Poway, County of San Di ego, State of Ca 1 i forni a into four parcel s, regul arly came before the City Council for public hearing and action on October 18, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: FindinQs: 1. The proposed project is not consistent with the Poway General Plan in that it does not maintain high quality design and environmental standards and is not consistent with specific policies and standards as follows. 2. The design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Poway General Plan in that: A. The average slope across the property is approximately 19 percent. Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, Strategy 18 for Hillside Developments requires a visual impact analysis for slopes in excess of 15 percent to determine the most suitable building pad locations. The submitted visual impact analysis has not demonstrated that the vi sua 1 impact of the proposed subd i vi si on des i gn and assoc i ated grading will be acceptable. 8. Goal 1, Policy C - Site Design, Strate9Y 19 for Hillside Developments limits grading to the greater of 35,000 square feet or 50 percent of the site for projects that have a slope between 15 to 19.9 percent. Although the proposed pad areas fall within this limitation, this proposal requires grading of virtually the entire site. The grading design incorporates a significant amount of slope ranging from approximately 25' to 30' in height. C. Goal 1, Policy D - Grading, Strategy 2 requires rounded natural appearing slopes and variable slope ratios. The tentative map does not fully incorporate these concepts. The 9rading plan would need to address and implement a design that is sensitive to the site topography and surrounding residential properties. D. Goal VIII, Policy B - Geologic Hazard states that the community should be protected against the hazards associated with geologic formations, particularly landslides, through proper land use policies and mitigation. Strategy 4 requires that development within unstable slope and landslide areas will be prohibited unless adequate measures are taken to protect against slippage. While the recommendations of the en9ineering geol09ist for geologic hazard mitigation and the soils engineer for soil related issuQ&.stabilize the soils, they require disturbance to the entire site and the creation of extensive slopes. JAN 3 1995 ITEi\t 4 i 34 of 63 OCT 18 1994 ITEM Ó ~ - I Resolution No. Page 2 (' 3. The subject property i s not phys i ca 11 y suitable for the type of single-family development which is proposed because the four parcel design requires excessive grading on the site to create sufficient pad areas. Slopes up to 30 feet in height are proposed. 4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development because its average slope of approximately 19% is steeper than usual for RS-2 property and all of the tentative map proposals which have been submitted which created more than three parcels resulted in unacceptable grading. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Counci 1 does hereby deny proposed Tentative Parcel Map 89-16. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, this 18th day of October, 1994. Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: ,r- MarJorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby cert ify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, No. , was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 1994, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MarJorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk City of Poway ~. JAN 3 1995 1'1 ¿;'d 4 35 of 63 OCT 18 1994 ITEM .6 I ~I ISRE SPRINGS E9 SURROUNDING ZONING AND LOCATION MAP NORTH rV2mU. 1....1. , 8704 1,348 2.8i8 4.044 8,382 ., AReAS SHOWN ON THE lAND use AN!) ZONING PlAN ARE APPROXlIoIAT1ONS AND SHOI.JlD NOT Be USED TO DETERMINE 6PEClAC CAlCULATIONS 01' NET AAEA 3 1995 17:::" 4 . - . . . JAN .,ATTACHMENT B OCT 18 1994 . ITEM 6 36 of 63 L < }, ~ ~ ~ -".- ~ ' ,: I " . < t ~~~,~,~, III I c ~ ; ;,':=< '.;' ! '" ~ ~ : if r ![II I,.. ~~ f ~ I~J! !!;;1 c ~ , Ei88'S ¡.. I.!. ;;~, },~\ - ~"" I ., ¡HII" . . , - ,~<'"r ( '. ",. iP", 1 i ~ ~ r,'." : .1' "I. ,,'- I' ~ h '::'¡'I" 'I": nl' .' ~ Eì :I!,' I¡"¡ . t ~i. ..g,~g, H,,:'p, ¡ ~r'¡ '! ""';¡""""!" !8"" II! ~"Et:~~ :."'-H ~':ií! ¡.,; . .I..~:!! :; .'p¡ni" GI '.li'!" ¡iI"'I':: ~ ¡. ~ r~ :;¡d~ ~~ :¡-,I ;>;~ Ii ;:,1 "",' ~.... ¡fi.,pr,'!, §! ~6!h ~" !!¡¡);¡¡¡ ~ ¡. ;, HIIBrlH ë' ;!!,!; H!. - t, '~ "fl u. -....-...,.. ;'~! 11¡:: , ¡It", -- \ ~ \ 'I T--~r , I . ! I 'J' ~ 'T-- i I II: ~I ,: I I U ¡!¡ llB'r i' I r, ,I, I ( ¡!: I' i il: - -A I m /"'~ I' ~ w -';::\ I ~ , ~~ I .~ ~ ~C) ~~ "'" ~~ C>::C) ~ [;:~ h ~h ~~ ~\j I 4 I 37 of 63 ~ ~.&Ð-- ' - ---- I =, ~ ~~ ,'I: '~. ... ' ,~~¡ .J' ¡;; . ~. ,'J, . -1 ~ .. '.. '. I t ¡ '¡ii .~ (, ~;i, ~"~ I '. ~ =. "" ~ 0 ~" . . ." g ¡ Ii:; . ~ ¡: _."¡ Ë';;ï!l¡ ¡¡I¡ '~'~Ç:. ~ i ;";1;1 ;11;; 2 hr . t ¡! ! ¡ ,¡ m,' ¡ '.! (¡'~"!;""ï' ,'," ¡5, ., <~ I if: .;; d H H H !! ¡ i m!i 1m ~ ¡~ m . - ~ I I !I! --- ~ n ! ~ ! ~ ~ :: é 1 !th i ¡g" I; 1" :::> z - ~. """"~mç 2; -- 995 ITeM 4 38 of 63 D 4 ITEU 6 ,*w - -- - LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATEs, INC Geotechnical and Environmental Engineeñng Consultants , SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, 2.8-ACRE SITE LOCATED WEST OF OLD POMERADO ROAD, POW A Y, CALIFORNIA -- July 1, 1993 Project No. 4920878-02 Prepared For. MR. RAHI NIKRA VESH 12840 La Tortola ~c San Diego, California 92129 3 1995 rrë~ 4 JI\N OCT 18 1994 ITEM b I l ATTACHMENT E 39 0 f 63 MURPHY CAN"iON ROAQ SUITE B205, SAN DIEGQ CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030' (800) 447-2626 00( (619) 292-0771 4920878-m 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation at the subject property. The purpose of the investigation was to identify and further evaluate the geotechnical conditions present at the subject site and to provide conclusions and geotechnical recommendations regarding the proposed development. Our scope of services for the investigation included the following: 8 Review of relevant geotechnical literature and stereoscopic aerial photographs (Appendix A). 8 Field reconnaissance of the existing onsite geotechnical conditions. , 8 Subsurface exploration consisting of drilling, logging, and sampling of two additionallarge-diameter borings. The borings were excavated to depths ranging from 40 to 51 feet, logged by our geologists and backfilIed. Three borings had been previously drilled by Leighton and Associates (Leighton) in the northern portion of the site. Logs of all borings are included in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1, Geotechnical Map. 8 Laboratory testing of samples obtained from our exploratory borings. The results of laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C. 8 Geologic and engineering analysis of data obtained from our investigation and laboratory test results. 8 Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for site development. JAN 40 of 63 . 1. OCT 18 1994 ITt:M 6 4920878-02 2.0 BACKGROUND 1be subject site is an irregular-shaped parcel of land, the northern portion of which extends onto an area identified in 1983 by the City of Poway as possibly being affected by landsliding. In 1984, two exploratory borings were drilled by Leighton in the northern portion of the site with a third boring in Old Stone Road to evaluate these concerns. The material encountered in these borings consisted of fill soils filling an old drainage along Old Stone Road, and a weathered conglomerate material with a silty sand matrix and scattered amounts of roots and rootlets. Because of the weathered nature of this material and topography of the area, this material was interpreted as colluvium/slopewash. Geotechnical rerommendations for site development were not provided as part of this investigation. , Subsequent to this initial study, the City of Poway retained another consultant (Geopacifica) to perform a geotechnical investigation for the proposed South Pbway Parkway. This roadway was proposed along the southern property boundary. As part of this investigation, one additional boring was drilled along the southerly property line. The materials encountered in this boring were also identified as slopewash that were interpreted as extending across a large portion of the site. A rerommendation for the treatment of these soils was provided in Geopacifica's report. Their rerommendation called for complete removal of surficial soil deposits, including slopewash. Based on verbal communication with Mr. Jim Knowlton of Geopacifica, we understand that during grading of the adjacent South Poway Parlcway, observations by the geotechnical consultant identified an area of ancient landsliding that likely extended onto the subject property. In order to evaluate the landslide, two additional borings were drilled. The approximate locations of these borings were provided by Mr. Knowlton and are shown on the geotechnical map included with this report. A map showing the exact locations and logs of the borings has not yet been provided. Again based on verbal communication with Mr. Knowlton, we understand these additional borings encountered landslide deposits. Remedial grading for South Poway Parkway included the removal of landslide deposits underlying the roadway. Because of this new information indicating ancient landsliding along the southern property boundary, it was our opinion that additional investigation was necessary to evaluate the possible extent of any onsite landsliding. This supplemental investigation included the drilling of two additional large- diameter borings and review of all readily available data. Based on our discussions with Geopacifica and boring information, it was determined that an ancient landslide exists on the property. The materials previously identified in the northern portion of the site as slopewash have been reinterpreted to be weathered landslide deposits in the toe area of an ancient landslide. JAN 31995 , 41 of 63 -2- OCT 18 1994 I.t;M b - 4920878-02 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of an irregular-shaped property (roughly L-shaped) that encompasses 258 acres. Topographically, the entire site slopes downward toward the northeast. Site elevations range from a high of 598 feet mean sea level (IDSI) in Parcel No.2 to a low of 500 feet IDSI adjacent to Old Pomerado Road The site is currently vacant, however, previous site grading has resulted in the placement of undocumented fill soils in several areas. Adjacent to the southern property line is a fill slope that was constructed during the grading of South Poway Parkway. This offsite fill area has been documented and tested by others although an as-graded report is not available for review at this time. , 3.1 Prooosed Develooment Based on our review of the site grading plan, we understand that the site will be rough graded to produce four residential lots. Proposed slopes are designed at gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) to maximum heights of 30 feet. We also understand that the proposed residential structures are to connect to the City of Poway sewer system. ~... JAN 3 1995 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 42 of 63 -3- ITEM b OCT 18 1994 - - j 4920878-02 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our supplemental subsurface exploration program was performed during May of 1993, and consisted of the excavation of two large-diameter borings to a maximum depth of 51 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map (plate 1). The purpose of this program was to evaluate the physical characteristics of the onsite soils pertinent to the site development. The borings were logged and sampled by geologists from our firm. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the soils encountered were obtained for laboratory testing. The locations of previous borings drilled on the site are also shown on the Geotechnical Map. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B with the exception of two borings drilled by Geopacifica. The location of these borings is based on verba! communication. Logs of these borings have not yet been made , available to Leighton. Subsequent to logging and sampling, ail borings were backfilled. Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the moisture, density, and strength of the subsurface soils. A discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix C. Moisture and density test results are provided on the boring logs (Appendix B). 43 of 63 .4. 4920878-ü2 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDmONS 5.1 Geolo2Ïc Units Formational materials of the Stadium Conglomerate and Friars Formation and surficial units consisting of ancient landslide debris, topsoil/colluvium, and undocumented fill were observed during our investigation of the site. Each of the geologic units are descn'bed below. 5.1.1 Stadium Conl!lomerate (MaD Svmbol Tst) > The Stadium Conglomerate was observed in cut areas adjacent to the site. As observed, this unit consisted of a dense moderately well-œmented conglomerate. Cobbles within this unit generaUy ranged from 3 to 6 inches with the matrix comprised predominantly of silty sand. 5.1.2 Friars Formation (Man Svmbol - TO The subject site is underlain at various depths by bedrock: materials of the Friars Formation. This unit, as encountered on the site, consists primarily of light gray and green-gray to off-white, dense to very dense, silty to relatively clean, quartz-rich sandstone with interlayers of siltstone and claystone. These units are typically moderately to well indurated and competent Locally, claystones in the formation are highly sheared and fractured. Soils within this formation have an expansion potential that ranges from low to high. 5.1.3 Ancient Landslide (Man Svmbol Ols) An ancient landslide was encountered and mapped as covering a large portion of the site. The landslide appears to extend off site in several areas. A portion of the landslide was reportedly removed and recompacted adjacent to South Poway Parkway. The soils which compromise the landslide mass general1y consisted of light to dark: brown silty sands with abundant gravel and cobbles. In areas, the material was locally clayey. The landslide debris varied from loose to medium dense with the near-surface soils being very weathered, jumbled, and similar in appearance to the topsoil on site. The near-surface soils are also moderately porous and considered to be potentially compressible. The upper portions of the landslide deposits will require removal and recompaction. 5.1.4 ToosoiVColluvium (Unmanned) A relatively thin veneer of topsoil/colluvium mantles a majority of the site. In general, these soils consist of medium to dark: brown to dark: gray-brown, moist, medium stiff, ~... JAN 3 1995 ITE^, -5- OCT 1 8 1994 ITEM /:) 44 of 63 - - 4920878-02 silty to sandy clay. These soils are considered compressible in their present state and will require removal in areas proposed for support of fill and/or other structural improvements. 5.1.5 SID~h~aDS~bol-~) Siopewash material underlies the existing fill soils along Old Stone Road. These soils consist of light to dark brown clay and clayey sand. These soils are considered potentially compressible and should be removed in areas proposed for fill and/or structural improvements. , 5.1.6 Undocumented Fill (MaD S~bol - Afu) Undocumented fill exists in various portions of the site. These soils are associated with previous site grading. In their present state, a1J undocumented fill soils are considered to be unsuitable for structural support or for the support of additional fill soils. Any undocumented fill not removed by planned grading should be completely removed in areas proposed for fill and/or structural improvements. 52 Ground Water Minor ground water seepage was noted on the site during our investigation. In Boring LB-l, light ground water seepage was encountered at approximate depths of 39 and 44 feet below the existing ground surface. The area of observed seepage roughly coincides with the bottom of the landslide. Ground water is not anticipated to present a significant Concern to the project upon completion of site development, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. , JAN 3 1995 11'ï:i\t 4 45 of 63 .6- OCT 181994 ITEM.6 " 4920878-02 6.0 FAULTING. SEISMICITY AND UOUEFACTION 6.1 Faultin!! A review of available geologic literature pertaining to the subject property (Appendix A) indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the property. Evidence of faulting was not encountered during our investigation of the site. However, relatively minor, inactive faulting is common in the Friars Formation and may be encountered during site grading. The nearest known active regional fault is the Rose Canyon fault (located approximately 13 miles west of the subject property). Included on Figure 2 are the location of active regional , faults and approximate epicentral area and magnitude of earthquakes recorded during the period of 1769 to 1973. 6.2 Seismicitv The subject site can be considered to be a seismically active area, as can all of southern California. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. Table I (rear of text) indicates probable seismic events that could produce ground shaking at the site. Included in the table are the distances to the causative faults, maximum cred1òle and maximum probable earthquakes, Richter earthquake magnitudes, expected peak/repeatable horizontal ground accelerations (RHGA), and estimated period and duration of ground shaking. The fault most likely to affect the site with ground shaking is the Rose Canyon faulL A maximum probable earthquake of magnitude 6.0 on the fault could produce a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration of approximately O.2Ig at the site. The effects of seismic shaking may be minimized by adhering to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 63 Liauefaction Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong Vlòratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that saturated, granular soils are susceptJòle to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by Vlòratory motion. Liquefaction is generaIly known to occur only in saturated or near-saturated soils at relatively shaIlow depths. The bedrock units encountered on site are not considered liquefiable due to their high density characteristics and lack of a high ground water table. ~.. JAN 3 1995 ITï:M 46 of 63 -7- nr.r 1 R 1QQA ITJ:U ¡.., -- - - 4920878-02 "\ 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that proposed development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the subject project The following is a summary of the main geotechnical factors which will require consideration prior to site development 8 Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. , 8 The maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration on the site is estimated to be approximately 0.21g based on a maximum probable earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.0 on the Rose Canyon fault. 8 The site is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of the Eocene-aged Friars Formation. Soils derived from the Friars Formation are anticipated to have a potential for expansion ranging from low to high. Should expansive soils be present within 3 feet of proposed finish pad grades after grading, special foundation and slab considerations for expansive soils may be necessary (Section 8.1). 8 Potentially compressible landslide deposits, topsoil and colluvium are present at the site. These soils are not considered suitable for structural loads or support of fill soils in their present condition. Remedial grading measures such as removal and recompaction will be necessary to mitigate this condition (Section 8.1.4). These soils are anticipated to have a low to medium potential for expansion." 8 The undocumented fill soils should be completely removed in areas of planned grading. Undocumented fill which contains a high percentage of trash may not be suitable for use as filL 8 Ground water seepage was encountered in Boring LB-l at depths of 39 and 44 feet. However, the potential for future ground water and/or seepage problems for the completed project should be minimal provided the recommendations of this report are followed. 8 Ancient landslide deposits exist on the site. Construction of earthen buttresses will be required to provide an adequate factor of safety (Section 8.3). In the toe areas of the slide, the landslide debris is relatively thin and potentially compressible. Complete removals will be required in these areas. In addition, removal of a compacted fill mat will be required in areas not completely removed by site grading. ~ JAN 3 1995 I1ï:M 4 .8. ITEM Ó ,.'jl'! 47 of 63 OCT 18 \994 4920878-02 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be peñormed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix E. 8.1.1 Site PreDaration , Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of suñace and subsuñace obstructions, including any existing debris resulting from the removal of existing structures or improvements, and stripped of vegetation. Removed vegetation and debris should be disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable, compacted fill materiaL 8.1.2 Fill Placement The onsite soils are anticipated to be reusable as fill material provided they are free organic materials and debris. All fills should be brought to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-78). The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not =ding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the obseiV8tion of a qualified geotechnical consultant Materials placed within 4 feet of finished grade should consist of low expansive soils and contain no rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. It is recommended that oversize materials generated, if any, be placed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix E). Fills placed on natural slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into firm, natural ground (Appendix E). 8.1.3 Removal of Existim! Undocumented Fill All undocumented fi11s are considered potentially compressible and not suitable for structural support All undocumented fi11s within the limits of proposed grading should be entirely removed. .,.. ,JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 48 of 63 -9- /'IroT 1 R 1QQ4 ITEM b .., -- - 4920878-m 8.1.4 Removal of Comnressible Soils The site is mantled by approximately 10 to 15 feet of potentially compressible landslide deposits in Parcels 1 and 3. These soils should be removed to competent, firm, formational materials in areas of proposed grading. Approximately 10 feet of material should be removed below design grades in Parcel 2 to provide a uniformly compacted fill mat. Topsoil, colluvium, and slopewash should be completely removed. The actual depth and extent of required removals should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist during grading. Localized deeper removals may be anticipated during grading. , 8.1.5 Overexcavation of Transition Lots To minimize the potential for differential settlements between cut-fill transitions (daylight lines) the entire cut portion of transition lots should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grade elevation and replaced with properly compacted fill (see Appendix E for Transition Lot Detail). The overexcavation should extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the building pad area. 8.1.6 Gradinl! of ExDansive Soils The onsite soils derived from proposed excavations are anticipated to consist predominantly of silty sands and silty clays with abundant cobbles in the landslide debris. Significant amounts of moderately to highly expansive soils are also likely to be generated from excavations made in the topsoil/colluvia1 soils. It is our recommendation that moderately to highÍy expansive soils encountered during grading operations be placed at least 4 feet below finish grade, if possible. Should expansive soils be encountered within 4 feet of finish pad grade, special foundation designs will be required (Section 8.7). As an alternative, lots exposing expansive soils at finish pad elevations (as determined during grading) can be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 4 feet and replaced with nonexpansive, compacted fill). 8.2 Slone StabilitY Where free of adverse geologic structures (Le. landsliding, out-of-slope bedding), cut and fill slopes to maximum heights of approximately 30 feet will be grossly and surficially stable at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We recommend that all excavations and cut slopes be observed and mapped by an engineering geologist during grading operations to verify that the soil and geologic conditions ençountcred do not differ significantly from those assumed in our analysis. Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation as soon as possible after grading to minimize any potential for erosion. ~.' 49 of 63 - 10 - JAN 3 1995 H¡::M 4 ,,~- ." --~ 4920878-02 Berms should be provided at the top of fill slope$, and brow ditches constructed at the top of cut slope$. Lot drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on slope faces is minimi7.ed. The outer portion of fill slope$ should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back to the finish slope, or backrolled in increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a sheepsfoot roller as the fill is raised and then trackwalked. In slope$ where seepage is present, drainage should be provided as shown in Appendix E. Slope$ which require special remedial drainage wi11 be evaluated and recommendations provided by the geotechnical consultant during grading. 8.3 Landslide Stabilization The following recommendations are provided for stabiliZation of the onsite landslide and proposed fill slopes. The required criteria for the as-built design is an overall static factor of safety of 1.5, and the provision of surface and subsurface drainage to minimize the potential of future rise in ground water levels within the landslide areas. Based on these: criteria, our analysis, which is included as Appendix D, indicates that these: slides may be effectively stabilized by construction of earth-fill buttresses with the approximate dimensions indicated on Figures 2 through 4, and Plate 1. The ground water levels shown on the figures represent the existing ground water profile. Some revision to the proposed buttress designs may be anticipated during grading following field observations of exposed cuts into landslide materials. 8.3.1 Buttress Kev Buttress keys should extend at least 5 feet into undisturbed form!ltional materials as observed during grading by the engineering geologist. Buttress key back cuts should be inclined at an overall inclination of about 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Bencl¡ing should be provided as indicated in Appendix E. Buttress keys should be mapped and evaluated by the engineering geologist prior to placement of the buttress filL The recommended minimum buttress key widths are provided on Plate 1 and Figures 2 through 4. Buttress fills should conform with the specifications for fill soils descn'bed in Section 8.1.2 8.3.2 Buttress Back Cut Our analysis indicates that buttress back cuts wi11 be temporarily stable at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). However, back cut alope failures and surficial sloughing may be anticipated. Any slide debris or 1oose soils, which may be deposited in the buttress key areas due to reactivation of the alope, slope failures or surficial sloughing should be removed per the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of buttress filL Where =sive sloughing or failures are noted during grading, it may be necessary to lay slopes back to a flatter inclination than 1:1. ~ JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 50 of 63 - 11 - HeM J:¡ nf'T 1 R ,qQ4 - '"""' \ ¡ 4920878-02 8.33 Buttress Subdrains To minimize future ground water rise in the slide areas, subdrains should be provided in the buttress areas as indicated in Figures 2 through 4. Buttress subdrains should be continuous along the length of the keyway and be connected to a suitable nonerosive outlet, such as the lowest adjacent storm drain. Details for subdrains are provided in Appendix E. 8.3.4 Protection of Adjacent Procertv The limits of the ancient landslide extend off site. Along the western margin, the , landslide appears to extend under an existing residence. In order to minimize the potential for backcut failures in this area, we recommend that site construction be scheduled to complete the work in as short a time frame as possible. Based on observations of the engineering geologist, it may also be necessary to work extended hours during buttress construction. The contractor should review his construction schedule with the geotechnical engineer prior to excavating the back cut. We also recommend that at least one month prior to site grading that one to two slope inclinometers be installed along the property line to allow for monitoring of possible soil movement. The time frame prior to construction is to allow time to establish a baseline of data. It would also be desirable to document any existing distress to the adjacent structure. It is our opinion that the likelihood of reactivation of the offsite portion of the landslide is relatively low. It has been our experience, however, that documentation of any movement or lack of movement and levels of existing distress is prudent. 8.4 Surface Drainal!e Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The subject structures should have appropriate drainage systems to collect roof runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structure toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient from the structure. Planters should not be designed below grade unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and pipe drains are made. In general, ponding of water should be BYOided adjacent to the structures. In order to help reduce the potential for excessive erosion of graded slopes, we recommend berms and/or swales be provided along the top of the slopes and lot drainage directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is min;m;7M. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in aœordance with the latest Qty of Poway grading ordinances. ~...' JAN 3 1995 rri:M 4 51 of 63 -12 - ITEM b nr.T 1 8 1994 4920878-02 8.5 Trench Excavation and Backfill Excavation of trenches in the Friars Formation and surficial soils can generally be accomplished with light backhoe equipment, although localized cemented areas may require heavy ripping or jackhammering. The onsite soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of rock fragments over 6 inches in dimension, organic matter, and debris. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (AS1M Test Method DI557-78). ,8.6 Preliminary Foundation and Slab Desilffi Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils occurring within 3 feet of finished pad grade will have a low potential for expansion. This should be evaluated by performing expansion tests on the finished grade soils, as necessary, during grading. Special foundation design for expansive soils is discussed in Section 8.7. 8.6.1 Foundations We anticipate that the proposed buildings will be of one- and/or Iwo-story, wood- frame construction and utiliz.c conventional, continuous, or isolated-spread footings. For one- and/or two-story residential structures, footings bearing in firm, natural soils or properly compacted fill should extend a minimum of 12 inches (18 inches for two- story) below the lowest adjacent finished grade. A1. this depth, footings founded in firm, natural soils or properly compacted fill soils may be designed using an allowable soil-bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square fooL This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. Continuous perimeter footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches for one-story buildings and 15 inches for two-story buildings. Isolated-spread footings, should have a minimum width of 24 inches. The maximum total and differential bearing-induced settlements for footings designed in this manner should be negligible. Foundations should be reinforced by placing a No.4 rebar at the top and bottom of footings and in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. 8.6.2 Floor Slabs Floor slabs should have a minimum thickness of4 inches and be reinforced with 6x6-10/10 welded-wire mesh placed midheight in the sJab. Considering the inherent difficulty in placing welded-wire mesh at slab midheight, we offer an alternate reinforcement of No.3 rebars at 18 inches on center (each way) to reduce slab cracking. ~.._-. JAN 3 1995 ITaM 4 52 of 63 - 13 - OCT 18 1994 ITEM iJ - - 4920878-02 Care should be taken by the contractor to insure that mesh or reinforcing bars are placed at slab midheight. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (S.E.>30) over a 6-mil (or heavier) moisture barrier, which is, in turn, underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand. A slipsheet should be utilized if a crack-sensitive floor covering is planned directly on the slab. Our experience indicates that the use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. However, some drying shrinkage cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high temperature at the time of placement of concrete, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot dry, andlor windy weather conditions during placement > and curing. Cracking due to temperature and. moisture fluctuations can also be expected. In order to minimize the potential for slab cracking, slab areas should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations of Table 2 8.6.3 Lateral Earth Pressures If retaining walls are utilized on the site, the following recommendations should be applicable. - Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive leve~ granular soils may be designed for an active equivalent fluid weight of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained waIls (nonyielding) should be designed to retain an additional uniform pressure of 5xH pounds per square foot (where H = height 'of wall in feet). The total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. The above value assumes a level backfill and free-draining conditions. Nonexpansive backfill should extend behind wal1s for a distance of HI2 (where H = wall height) for the entire height of wall If nonexpansive materials are not available on site, import soils or wall redesign will be required. Cantilever wal1s retaining nonexpansive backfill with a backfill angle of 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) should be designed for an active equivalent fluid weight of 55 pounds per cubic foot. If restrained wal1s are proposed with sloping backfill, the geotechnical engineer should be notified for appropriate recommendations. Drainage should be provided as indicated in Appendix E (Retaining WaIl Drainage Detail). Any surcharge from adjacent loadings should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent maximum dry density and in accordance with the recommendations contained in Appendix E. ~.'.' JAN 3 1995 f¡"¿M 4 53 of 63 - 14 - OCT 18 1994 ITEM Ó {\ 4920878-02 8.6.4 Lateral Load Resistance Footings or slabs in natural soils or compacted fill may be designed for a passive lateral-bearing pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of.30 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. 8.7 Foundation and Slab Desirn for ExDansive Soils Potential damage to buildings founded in expansive Soils may be mitigated by use of reinforced , slabs or post-tensioned slabs. Table 2 provides recommeo¡1ations for slab and footing design founded directly on expansive soils. Expansive foundation soils should be presoaked as recommended in Table 2 prior to placement of concrete. Effort should be made to prevent large moisture content variations of the underlying expansive soils by providing positive drainage away from the building. 8.8 SloDe Setback Recommendations We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. This distance is measured from the bottom outside edge of the footings, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 5 feet and need not be greater than 10 feet. We should note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining waIls, pools, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. 8.9 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by field reconnaissance, exploratory borings, and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Leighton. We recommend that all cut slopes be geologically mapped for the presence of potentiaIIy adverse geologic conditions by an engineering geologist from Leighton during grading. All grading operations should be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Grading plans and final project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. ~"'.' JAN 3 1995 ITEM 4 54 of 63 .15. OCT 18 tl94 ITEM .6 - ,. _I I \) .. l8.u ) - ~!" I ' HB ~.m' ~ ~ ail" . ,u, ~. (01 ."" . il i~¡. ~ I ¡3 .!¡~! ~ I";'" ~æl~- . . .... -,to,C'- . ,: ¡ ~ ~j I,m ;i~~i~l:i ¡ i!ljI ~;i '='" .~...~~B~ .¡~; ... ~I'" ~§; ~ _,.'~~~¡h!§¡ ;im I¡¡ ~~!~~ "'.. . . ,...' . ..' '.' . ' ~m ~I-... 11.¡hl'~.!~ ¡ !;~..~.. ih~1 i= ~ - ...H.h¡Ë ' ii!~~ .' ~ ; . ........;: . ,'~: t¡~! ~ , - .-.=r (]) - . ,Up - t " I I I I "'~'" ¡ ~"': ~~~ I Ii..!!! a~~"" ) ¡¡¡:;..iR' ~~H jli~ :t~~1s! ~"" ~~~ :.. ~ - ' ø - \ ," 55 of 63 ; i- --_.. - -~- ¡ jAM 3 1995 Hi:M 4 OCT 18 1994fTEM 6 I Wallar F. Crampton GROUP ,~ ~...rA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9ouTy R. Bevier Enginoers and Geologists PhIlip C. Birtdlahn 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 Btaven R. Smillie San Diego, CA 92123 W<¡llard E. Garner Maldww W. Eckert Tel (619) 573-1777 Fax (619) 573-0069 Project No. 1466-45 August 13, 1993 CITY OF POWAY Engineering Department P.O. Box 789 poway, California 92064 Attention: Mr. Mark S. weston Director of Engineering Services, City Engineer GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS 2.8 ACRE SITE, WESTERLY OF SOUTHEAST END OF OLD POMERADO ROAD CITY OF POI,A Y, CALIFORNIA GentleMen: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the report entitled: . "SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, 2.8-ACRE SITE LOCATED WEST OF OLD POMERADO ROAD, POWAY, CALIFORNIA," dated July 1, 1993, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. Our review was performed in accordance with our Consultant Agreement for geotechnical services, for the city of poway, dated October 27, 1992. , SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our review was three-fold: 1. Render an opinion of the adequacy of the scope of work performed by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (L&A)¡ 2. Render an opinion of the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn by L&A, based on the data presented; and ~<".. ATTACHMENT F JAN 3 1995 rìi:M 4 I 56 of 63 nr.T 18 1994 ITEM Ó -, ~ , CITY OF POWAY August 13, 1993 Project No. 1466-45 Page 2 3. Identify any additional questions of a geotechnlcal nature that should be addressed before the City issues a development permit. Our scope of work consisted of an on-site visual reconnaissance on July 30 and August 3, 1993, a review of the above-referenced report, and a review of related geotechnical reports (including a 1984 report on the same property) and pertinent available geologic and geotechnical literature including historic aerial photographs covering the subject area. Additionally, we have discussed the project with the owner, Mr. Rahi Ni}:ravesh, with !1r. Stan Helenshmidt, Principal Engineer of L&A, and with Hssrs. Mark Weston and Gordon Dobler of the Department of Engineering Services, City of Poway. 'A list of the documents reviewed is included as Appendix A, References. CONCLUSIONS 1. It is our opinion that L&A has' adequately analyzed the signlficant soil and geologic conditions at the subject site. 2. In our opinion, based on the data presented, the conclusions drawn by L&A are reasonable and in accordance with generally accepted procedures of prudent geologic and geotechnical engineering practice. 3. In our opinion, there are no additional questions of a geotechnical nature that should be addressed before the City issues a development permit. LIMITATIONS Our opinions and recommendations are based only on a review of - available documents, our on-site reconnaissance, ,<)I')g the consultant's report. We have performed no subsurface JAN 3 1995 ITï:M 4, 'I ; 7 of 63 OCT 18 1994 ITEM b CITY OF POWAY August 13, 1993 Project No. 1466-45 Page 3 investigations and have no direct knowledge of .the actual subsurface conditions. Very truly yours, GROU'iL~ON$U~^NTS. INC. ~.;2.ÄJl2 walter F. crampton Braven R. Smi 11 ie R.C. E. 23792, R.G. E. 245 C.E.G. 207 WFC/BFS/cah n-,' JAN 3 1995 IT¡:M 4 ,I 58 of 63 ITEM.6 OCT 18 1994 I I - - .- APPENDIX A REFERENCES .- - ~ , JAN 3 1995 IT~M 4 I 59 of 63 nr.T 1 8 1t q4 ITEM 6 , 1 CITY OF POI'¡A Y August 13, 1993 Project No. 1466-45 Page 4 REFERENCES 1. Kennedy, M. P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, Poway Quadrangle: Callfornia Division of Mines and Geology, Bulleting 200, 56 p., map scale 1"+2000'. 2. U.S. Department of Agricultural, steriographic aerial photograph Nos. AXN-14M-37 through 91, and AXN-10M-98 through 102. Documents Provided bv the City of Powav 1. Leighton and Associates, July 1, 1993, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, 2.8 Acre Site Located west of Old Pomerado Road, Poway, California, Project No. 4920878-02. 2. Leighton and Assoclates, September 19, 1984, Geotechnical Investigation for possible .Landslide, Lot 50, 240 pornerado Road and Old Stone Road, Poway, California, Project No. 4840197-01. ~"-" JAN 3 1995 ITi:M 4 I 60 of 63 nr.r 1 R 1004 IT¡:U " ._, - I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATEs, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants August 31, 1994 R E r. ,;, í \i r;: ' ....." [ c' ... '. Project No. 4920878-02 AUG~, 1 1994 To: Mr, Rahi Nikravesh 1284Q La Tortola "" .. ,- ,..... ' San Diego, California 92129 çol./"""',,, .ç c;':""" Subject: Review of Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 89-16, City of Poway Reference: Leighton and Associates, Ine., Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, 28-Acre Site Located West of Old Pomerado Road, Poway, California, Project No. 4920878-02, dated July 1, 1993 In accordance with your request we have reviewed the Revised Tentative Map with revisions dated - February 4, 1994 (revised grades) and July 12, 1994. The purpose of our review was to determine if the grades shown on the revised map would significantly alter the geotechnical recommendations for the project. Based on our review, it appears that the changes in design primarily consist of a change to split level lots with relatively minor reconfigurations of major slopes. The recommended remedial grading is still required with some minor revisions. It appears that actual remedial grading quantities may actually be somewhat reduced with the new design. We recommend that once final grading plans are prepared the buttress designs be finalized and then shown on the grading plans. If you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. RespectfuIIy submitted, LEIGHrON AND ASSOCIATES, INe. ~~195) Director of Geology MRS/kr Distribution: (2) Addressee ..- ^' ," JAN 3 1995 rraM 4 H ATTACHMENT G OCT 18 1994 ITEM 6 61 of 63 - RECEIVED city of poway 13325 civic Center Drive AUG 1 7 1994 Poway CA 92074-0789 CiTY O~ POW A Y Attn: Mr. PLAN!\!!NG DEPT. stephen A streeter, AICP RE: Visual Impact Analysis for TPM 89-16 , Dear steve: The followings are in response to your request of Visual Impact Analysis, in your correspondence dated July 1, 1994: 1. The Northerly property line along the Oldstone Road: The Oldstone Road, along the frontage of lot 1, is sloped approximately +12% in the westerly direction. The existing terrain of lot 1 has a gentle slope from the Old stone Road. The proposed street improvement consist of widening the Old Stone Road to half width of 12 feet and a 3 feet bench area prior to sloping at 2:1 slope. The slopes will be landscaped and irrigated. The landscaping of the slope shall enhance the impact it. would have created, otherwise. 2. The westerly property lines of lot 1 and 2: These parcel are generally bellow the two existing homes. The proposed grading should not adversely impact these dwellings. The area near southerly property line of lot 2, will be graded, provided Mr. Harry Rogers, the adjacent property owner, would grant us permission to grade. In our opinion the dressing of the slopes is an enhancement two both parcels. 3. The easterly and northerly property lines of parcels 1 and 3, and the existing dwelling: The cut slopes for the existing dwelling has been encroaching on lot 1 and 3 with a slope of approximately 2:1 as it can be depicted from the existing contours. The grading will begin at 5 feet offset from the property lines, at the rate of 2:1 maximum. These slopes will also be landscaped and irrigated. ~._.. J !.N 3 1995 rr~M 4 62 of 63 OCT 18 'B94 ITEM /) )\'T"T')\(,HMF:N'T' H ...-. -- -- - 4. The easterly property line along the Old Pomerado Road: The existing 2:1 slope will be increased by approximately 5 feet in height and landscaped and transitioned smoothly onto the embankment of the Scripps poway parkway. Our intent is to request for backyard set back variances for parcels 3 and 4. The parcels are adjacent to the open space on the south side. If granted, it will create additional buffer between parcels 3 and 4 and the existing dwelling to the north. The other benefit will be to shield the houses from the sound from scripps Poway Parkway. , 5. The southerly property lines for parcels 2,3 and 4: The proposed slopes will be transitioned onto the embankment slopes of the Scripps poway Parkway. The high noise level and the visual impact of the vehicles is an intrusion on this community. These impact is not a contribution of this 4 parcel subdivision. Therefore, its mitigation should not be responsibility of ours. Sincerely, !i:z- a~ 4: _. ¡::;í i N:iJa:a~ ~.- - JAN 3 1995 lï~M 4 63 of 63 ITEM .6 OCT 18 1994 I