1 Questions Received and Staff Responses After Publishing the NC

Questions Received and Staff Responses After Publishing the NC/PC Agenda Report 1. Does the City have alternative sites available to make up difference if the NC amendments are not approved? - No, the City does not have any alternative sites that could replace the 19 affordable units that would be provided as a result of the NC amendments, which means that such a decision would result in a net loss of affordable units in violation of State Housing law. 2. Could you include the acreage for each of the lots noted in a table in the staff report – the 16 parcels in NC zone and 4 parcels in PC zone? - A column showing acreage has been added to the table in the staff report below. Note that Attachment I to the staff report includes a map that shows the location of each parcel. APN Owner Address Acreage NC Zone 1 299-071-02-00 NCTD N/A 4.44 2 299-100-50-00 City of Del Mar N/A 0.02 3 299-100-49-00 Marten, RT 2236 Jimmy Durante Blvd. 0.42 4 299-100-30-00 Matthews, Erin 2148 Jimmy Durante Blvd. 0.38 5 299-100-28-00 Read Family LLC 2126 Jimmy Durante Blvd. 0.51 6 299-100-29-00 Stonebreaker Trust 2132 Jimmy Durante Blvd. 0.51 7 299-100-27-00 Knorr, Donna Trust 2120 Jimmy Durante Blvd. 0.90 8 299-071-06-00 Bungalows LLC 2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd. 2.12 9 299-071-07-00 Westech Realty 2002 Jimmy Durante Blvd. 1.42 10 299-100-48-00 Watermark LP N/A 1.55 11 299-100-47-00 Watermark LP N/A 1.13 12 299-100-32-00 City of Del Mar N/A 0.04 13 299-100-33-00 NCTD N/A 0.68 14 299-100-34-00 2201 Del Mar LLC 2201 San Dieguito Drive 1.13 15 299-100-35-00 Scarab Group 2195 San Dieguito Drive 0.26 16 299-100-36-00 S.C. Edison N/A 0.23 PC Zone 1 300-200-24-00 Newberry, Douglas 832 Camino del Mar 0.18 D.M. Building 0.56 2 300-222-31-00 853 Camino del Mar Group LLC 3 300-222-32-00 Ocean 8 View LLC 322 8th Street 0.26 4 300-222-33-00 Wuotan LLC 807 Camino del Mar 0.30 1 3. Of the 16 NC parcels in the table above, could you provide a breakdown by acreage of “realistic” development potential for housing? - The City will need to demonstrate to State HCD that the adequate sites it has identified to accommodate its required 5th Cycle very low/low units have realistic potential of future development. - Of the 16 parcels, staff has identified four parcels that would achieve the City’s requirement and have realistic potential of future housing in the next eight years. These parcels include 2002 Jimmy Durante Blvd, 2126 Jimmy Durante Blvd, 2148 Jimmy Durante Blvd, and 2236 Jimmy Durante Blvd. The two “Watermark” sites have not been included. - Acreage breakdown follows: 15.73 ac = 16 parcels totals - 5.41 ac = 4 parcels not developable due to constraints (2 NCTD lots at 4.44ac + 0.68 ac and 2 City of Del Mar lots at 0.02 ac + 0.04 ac) - 2.68 ac = 2 parcels identified as “Watermark” site - 2.12 ac = 1 parcel with recently renovated buildings at 2010 JDB not considered feasible to adding housing in the next 8 years - 2.8 ac = 4 parcels not considered feasible to adding housing in the next 8 years (2132 JDB at 0.51 ac, 2120 JDB at 0.90 ac, 2201 San Dieguito Dr at 1.13 ac, 2195 San Dieguito Dr at 0.26 ac) = 2.72 ac = 4 parcels considered to have realistic potential of future housing (2002 JDB at 1.42 ac, 2126 JDB at 0.51 ac, 2148 JDB at 0.38 ac, and 2236 JDB at 0.42 ac) NC Parcels Acreage & Potential Feasible (4 parcels), 2.72 ac or 17% Constrained (4 parcels), 5.41 ac or 34% Not Feasible (4 parcels), 2.8 ac or 18% Not Feasible (1 parcel), "Watermark", 2.12 ac or 14% 2.68 ac or 17% 2 4. How many actual units are anticipated in the NC/PC zone if these amendments pass? Is it hundreds of units? - Here is a table of the units anticipated to occur over the next 8 year cycle within the NC and PC zones as a result of the proposed allowance for housing. You can see that we are expected to get exactly what we need in terms of the 22 required affordable units for the 5th Cycle. Also, the combined total maximum for both zones is still less than the number of units within the existing Del Mar Woods multi-dwelling unit complex in the RM- South zone. There are only two projects that would be facilitated by the amendments that are expected to exceed 10 units. The rest will likely be 4-8 units total. 5. Would the amendments result in ‘20 units per lot’ because the density of the zone would be changed to allow 20 dwelling units per acre? - No, the density standard is a ratio of the number of dwelling units compared to the size of a lot. One acre is equivalent to 43,560 square feet. The density of 20 du/ac is the minimum density that the State will recognize as a zoning action to create adequate sites. - In the NC zone, there are only two property owners with lots that could support a project with new housing that would result in more than 10 units/lot. - In the rest of the NC zone and Pc zone future housing development would be much smaller clusters of 4-8 units per lot, which would include a requirement for one of those units on each lot to be set-aside for rental to a household that meets the income criteria for low income, very low income, or extremely low income. 6. Would the amendments increase the allowable development intensity of the zone in conflict with the Del Mar Community Plan? - No, the existing development standards of the NC and PC zones are not changing. Compliance with the existing height, floor area ratio, lot coverage, and setbacks will 3 continue to be required. By comparison, the allowed occupancy of a commercial use is much higher than the occupancy of a dwelling unit the same size. - Also, all future applications for housing development must comply with all applicable plan policies, development standards, and permit procedures. 7. Do we know how much FAR/lot coverage "headroom" there is in the NC and/or PC, i.e. how much new housing can be added without demo or remodel? - 46 dwelling units total, including 11 affordable units on privately owned vacant parcels: o Watermark parcels 2.3 acres (30 market rate/10 affordable) o 2236 Jimmy Durante Blvd parcels 0.34 acres (5 market rate/1 affordable) - In the PC Zone, all four parcels are already developed and would require redevelopment. 8. What is the maximum number of lots that could be created by subdivision under the current NC zone? - Any proposed Subdivisions would require discretionary map approvals. - The lot size development standards are the same for the NC zone and PC zone: minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet; and each lot must have at least 35 feet of street frontage, at least a width of 50 feet and at least a depth of 90 feet. - This means that the existing lots in the NC zone could request discretionary approval to be subdivided. However, at the project level, analysis would occur to determine how the proposed subdivision would affect the developable area and whether the requested subdivision would be consistent with the Community Plan and zoning. Parcels constrained with environmentally sensitive resources (i.e. NCTD owned parcel) are less likely to be allowed to be subdivided. The two City owned parcels in the NC zone contain existing public sidewalks and could not be subdivided. - Subdivisions will have affordable housing requirements imposed upon approval of the subdivision map (in lieu fee payment per lot created) and also when housing development is proposed (a set aside of affordable units on-site for each proposed development). Note that single dwelling unit development is not a permitted use in NC (proposed or existing). 9. At one dwelling unit (DU) per lot under current zoning allowances, what is the potential number of units that could be added to the NC and PC zone now? - The current provision allows for one dwelling unit to be developed accessory to an existing permitted use on-site with parking required per the R2 zone. There are eight parcels in the NC zone with existing commercial uses that could develop a DU per this 4 provision, so the potential number is 8 DUs max as an accessory residential use to existing commercial development. - In the PC zone there is potential for 4 DUs max as units accessory to existing office development on-site (one on each of the four parcels). 10. Am I right that under the scenario above (at buildout with all DUs), we could end up with a significant number of dwelling units (DUs) (+ Accessory Dwelling Units); however, by obtaining one DU at a time under current zoning, none would be restricted to set aside affordable units? - That is correct that none of the dwelling units allowed per the zone’s accessory provision of one dwelling unit per lot would be required to be affordable.

Load more