Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-04; Jefferson Chinquapin Streets Project; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (8)January 19,1998 Jan Kalicki 262 Camino Calafia San Marcos, CA 92069 SUBJECT: CT 96-OWCDP 97-04/SDP 97-22 - JEFFERSON-CHINQUAPIN Attached is a list of issues of concern to staff for the above referenced project. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling for a public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for this application. ELAINE BLACKBURN Associate Planner c: Bobbie Hoder 7 File 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 1610 FAX (760) 438-0894 @ ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. Current drainage problems exist along the southerly and westerly portions of the area where drainage from the southerly end of existing Linmar is conveyed northerly to Tamarack behind the existing houses. This is resulting in frequent calls to the City Street Section to clear standing water caused by various debris that has been carelessly dumped. In addition, trees within the area are causing the asphalt trench to rise. Will drainage. be redesigned to continue southerly down the extension of Linmar to Chinquapin? 2. Will the street areas adjacent to the new development be undergrounded? (To include Jefferson and Chinquapin; existing Linmar is already undergrounded) If yes, this would be the appropriate time to upgrade the existing street lighting system within the area. Additional undergrounded street lights could be added to Linmar at Chinquapin, mid-block at Linmar, and at the comer of Jefferson and Chinquapin. All existing street lights, as shown on plans, currently consists of street lights mounted on power poles and fed by overhead electric lines. 3. Engineering improvement plans, when submitted, should show all existing utilities and structures within the area of the street improvements; power poles, street signs, existing trees, etc., with removal or relocation instructions for contractor or other party/parties. 4. The proposed project providing 15 single-family residences exceeds the General Plan density allowed for the property. The City’s General Plan designates this property as RLM (Residential - Low/Medium Density) which has a range of O-4 dwelling units per net developable acre and a Growth Control Point of 3.2 units per net developable acre. Assuming that the entire site is considered developable, you would be allowed a total of 10.88 units (to be at the Growth Control Point) or a total of 13.6 units (to be at the top of the density range). In addition to this, inclusionary housing regulations would require that 15% of those units (1.63 or 2.04 units) would have to be “affordable” units. The proposed project appears to be at a density of 4.41 dulac (without counting the proposed second dwelling units), thus exceeding both the Growth Control Point and the density range. The General Plan allows projects to exceed the Growth Management Control Point subject to special findings which ensure provision of adequate public facilities and that the number of units does not exceed the unit cap for the quadrant. However, there is no provision for exceeding the density range. Also, the units proposed beyond the Growth Control Point would have to be taken from the excess dwelling units bank for the quadrant. City Council Policy No. 43 establishes guidelines and findings for such requests. These guidelines give first preference to units being taken to provide affordable housing and second preference to housing for the-elderly. There is no certainty that the proposed project (containing second dwelling units) would satisfy the criteria of Policy 43 necessary to be approved. 5. Should the project be approved, it would be conditioned to require you to process an affordable agreement prior to Final Map approval. 6. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA Part I) provided does not address the potential environmental impacts from the greenhouses on the site. You will need to provide a detailed soils testing and analysis report prepared by a registered soils engineer. This report must evaluate the potential for soil contamination on the site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals and should identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high concentrations in the soil. 7. Landscape/Water Conservation Plan comments are called out on the enclosed red- lined checkprint.