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