HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-14; City Council; 12735; Second Dwelling UnitsCl---’ OF CARLSBAD - AGEF-+A BILL ,‘.
- .VY
4B # Mi r/c?5 TITLE: SECOND DWELLING UNITS UlTG. 6/14/94 CITY OF CARLSBAD - ZCA 92-04
3ECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the Council concurs, both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9q-/r8 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director: INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-ae.3 , APPROVING ZCA 92-04; and ADOPT Resolution No. 94-/s'? processing Second Dwelling Units. setting the application fee for
ITEM EXPLANATION
On April 6, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval (5-2; Betz, Erwin) of a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 92-04) to the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21, Zoning) to: (1) add a definition for Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allow the development of Second Dwelling Units through administrative permit in the residential zones of the City and (3) amend the regulations for the development of Second Dwelling Units.
The major revisions to the City's existing Second Dwelling Unit regulations include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Delete the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for Second Dwelling Units and allow Second Dwelling Units which are proposed upon single family residential lots of 7500 square feet or greater to be processed and approved administratively through the Planning Director, and second dwelling units proposed on single family residential lots which are smaller than 7500 square feet to be processed through a planned unit development permit.
Allow Second Dwelling Units to be approved on residential lots which are smaller than 7,500 square feet in area.
Increase the maximum permitted floor area for a Second Dwelling Unit from 350 SF to 640 SF. This revision will enable the development of 1 bedroom Second Dwelling Units.
Allow the required parking space for a Second Dwelling Unit to be satisfied through tandem parking in the driveway of the primary residence.
Delete all occupancy requirements (including restrictions on the number and age of occupants) for Second Dwelling Units.
Consistent with Housing Element Program 3.7.b., the above-noted revisions to the Zoning Ordinance are recommended for the purpose of encouraging and facilitating the development of Second Dwelling Units.
The primary reason for encouraging the development of Second Dwelling Units is that they provide an inexpensive affordable housing alternative which can be fully integrated into market-rate developments and evenly distributed throughout the City. This
.
.c
c
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
affordable housing alternative will help the City to achieve its lower-income housing objectives, and could be extremely attractive to residential developers with an inclusionary mandate to build affordable dwelling units.
This Second Dwelling Unit ZCA has undergone two public hearings before the Planning Commission (3/2/94 and 4/6/94). Revisions made to the second dwelling ordinance based upon input from the Planning Commission at the public hearing of March 2, 1994 include the following:
1. Deleting the inclusionary housing requirement for second dwelling units; and
2. Adding new development standards to regulate the permitted location for second dwelling units upon single family residential lots which are smaller than 7500 square feet in area.
On April 6, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance with these recommended revisions and one additional revision as follows:
1. Allowing Second Dwelling Units within the R-P, R-T, R-W and R-D-M zones, on lots which are developed with detached single-family residences, through administrative permit.
These revisions have been incorporated into the Ordinance.
Please see the attached staff reports to the Planning Commission for additional details regarding this zone code amendment to the City's Second Dwelling Unit regulations.
On April 6, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on August
19, 1993.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be administrative costs to the City associated with processing application requests for Second Dwelling Units. Accordingly, staff is recommending the adoption of a $250.00 application fee for Second Dwelling Units. This application fee should cover City administrative costs for processing Second Dwelling Units, and is equal to the fee charged for processing administrative variances within the City.
EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. SW 58 2. City Council Ordinance No. //C 28.3 3. City Council Resolution No. 9Y-/53 4. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3542 and 3543 5. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated March 2, 1994 and April 6, 1994. 6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 2, 1994 and April 6, 1994
c
L 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-158
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF ‘TITLE 21, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO (1) ADD A DEFINITION FOR SECOND DWELLING UNIT, AND (2) MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES OF THE CITY. CASE NAME: SECOND DWELLING UNIT ZONE CODE AMENDMENT c ASE NO:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission did, on March 2, 1994 and April 6,
1994, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to
consider said request: and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial
study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission
considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3542, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the
City Council in this matter and that the Negative Declaration is
hereby approved.
. . .
. . .
. . .
l . .
* 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
14th day of JUNE , 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
Z, City Clerk KAREN R. KUNDTZ, nt City Clerk (SEAL)
-2-
A
. 1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2
ORDINANCE NO. NS-783
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS TO: (1) ADD A DEFINITION FOR SECOND DWELLING UNIT, (2) ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECOND DWELLING UNITS THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT IN THE R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2, R-3, R-P, R-T, R-W, AND RD-M ZONES AND AREAS DESIGNATED BY A MASTER PLAN FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS IN THE P-C ZONES OF THE CITY, AND (3) AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE R-A, R-E, R-l, R- 2, R-3, R-P, R-T, R-W AND RD-M ZONES AND AREAS DESIGNATED BY A MASTER PLAN FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS IN THE P-C ZONES OF THE CITY. CASE NAME: SECOND DWELLING UNIT ZONE CODE AMENDMENT ZCA 92-04 CASE 0:. N
WHEREAS, any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the
reation of second units in single-family and multi-family
,esidential zones consistent with the provisions of California
;overnment Code Section 65852.2;
WHEREAS, it is a program of the Housing Element of the
!ity's General Plan to examine the existing Second Dwelling Unit
rection of the City's Municipal Code to explore means of better
ncouraging and facilitating the development of this alternative
nd affordable housing type.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
lees ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad
[unicipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.04.303 to
.ead as follows:
g "2 . Second dwelling unit means a residential dwelling unit which .s attached or detached from the primary dwelling unit on a lot, nd which provides complete.independent living facilities for one r more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for .iving, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same 'arcel as the single-family or 'lprimary" dwelling is situated."
- 1 . SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21.42, Section
2 21.42.010(11) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, containing the
3 requirements for creation of second dwelling units through
4 Conditional Use Permit is hereby repealed and subsequent Sections
5 of this Chapter are renumbered accordingly.
6 SECTION 3: That Title 21, Chapter 21.10 of the Carlsbad
7 Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.10.015 to
8 read as follows:
9 c “2 .lO 0 (a) The p;blic good is served when there exists in a city, 10 housing which is appropriate for the needs of and affordable to all members of the public who reside within that city. 11 other needs, Among there is in Carlsbad a need for affordable rental housing. Therefore, it is in the public interest for the City to 12 promote a range of housing alternatives in order to meet the affordable rental housing needs of its citizens. This section is 13 intended to provide a rental housing alternative by establishing a procedure to create new second dwelling units. 14 (b) The provisions of this Section shall apply to single family zones R-A, R-E, and R-l, areas designated by a master plan 15 for single-family detached dwellings in P-C zones and lots within multi-family zones R-2, R-3, R-P, R-T, R-W, and RD-M, which are 16 developed with single-family residences. (c) Second Dwelling Units: Second dwelling units require an 17 administrative permit. Application submittal and review shall include the following requirements: 18 (1) Application submittal for an administrative permit: The completed application for an administrative permit shall 19 include the following information: (A) The name(s) of the owner(s): 20 (B) The address of the dwelling units: (C) The assessor's parcel number: 21 (D) A general floor plan of the second dwelling unit; 22 (E) A scaled drawing showing the lot dimension, the location of the primary and second dwelling unit, location of 23 all vehicular parking, and the total square footage of both units: (F) The consent of the applicant to the physical 24 inspection of the premises prior to the issuance of the
administrative permit; 25 (G) Description and location of water and sanitary (sewer) services;
26 (H) An applicant signed declaration that the application for the second dwelling unit is not in conflict with 27 existing conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's)
applicable to the title of the subject property: and
28 .
2
-
. (I) Any other information required by the Planning Director,for a proper review of the application. (2) Administrative permit procedures: The ministrative permit for a second dwelling unit shall be recessed as follows: (A) An applicant requesting an administrative ermit for a second dwelling unit shall so indicate at the time he application is filed. (B) Upon acceptance of a complete application and ayment of the required fees for a second dwelling unit, the anning Director shall give written notice by mail or personal elivery to all property owners within three hundred feet of 'the bject property, as shown on the latest egualized assessment at least fifteen days prior to a decision on an application. ified may file written eard within ten days after ailing or personal delivery of the notice. If a written eguestto be heard is filed, the Planning Director shall schedule hearing and provide written notice to the applicant and the eguest at least five days prior to the hearing. The hearing is ot a public hearing and may be informal. g Director's decision on ond dwelling unit shall be days of the date of the he shall render his decision
1 announce his applicant and the letter the facts and reasons which in ke the granting or denial the provisions inistrative conditions ector may impose on the The letter shall be sent to any person who at the hearing. by the Planning Director of an second dwelling unit shall be given subsection (c)(3) are satisfied. (G) Any decision of the Planning Director pursuant o this Section may be appealed by any person to the Planning ommission in accordance with Section 21.54.140 of this Code. (H) Amendments to administrative permits for econd dwelling units may be considered on the same criteria and nder the same procedures as original applications pursuant to his Section. (3) Review of an administrative permit: In order to second dwelling unit, the
property must continually or the second dwelling unit. or purposes of this subsection, "ownerW shall include a lessee if in dwelling and the second
.
- -
.
.
I 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(B) The second dwelling unit shall either be attached to the main dwelling unit and located within the habitable area of the main dwelling unit or detached from the main dwelling unit and located on the same lot as the main dwelling unit. (C) The second dwelling unit must meet the setback, lot coverage, and other development standards applicable to the zone, which are not addressed within this subsection. (D) Attached second dwelling units shall conform to the height limits applicable to the zone and detached second dwelling units shall be limited to one story, except that second dwelling units constructed above detached garages shall 'be permitted, and shall conform to the height limits applicable to the zone. (E) Garage conversions are prohibited unless replacement off-street garage parking is provided concurrently and in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 21.44 of this title. (F) Second dwelling units shall not be permitted on a lot or parcel having guest or accessory living quarters, or a residential care facility. Existing guest or accessory living quarters may be converted into a second dwelling unit provided that all zoning and structural requirements are met. (G) One additional paved off-street (covered or uncovered) parking space shall be provided for the second dwelling unit and shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.44 of this title. The additional parking space may be provided through tandem parking (provided that the garage is setback a minimum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback. (H). Adequate water and sewer capacity and facilities for the second dwelling unit must be available or made available. (I) All necessary public facilities and services must be available or made available. (J) The second unit may be rented and shall not be sold separately from the main dwelling unit unless the lot on which such units are located are subdivided. The lot upon which the second unit is located shall not be subdivided unless each lot which would be created by the subdivision will comply with the requirements of this title and Title 20; and further provided, that all structures existing on each proposed lot will comply with the development standards applicable to each lot. (K) The total area of floor space'for an attached or detached second unit shall not exceed 640 square feet. (L) The second dwelling unit shall be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling unit, in terms of appearance, materials, and finished quality, and on sides adjacent to streets, the appearance of a single family dwelling shall be retained. (M) A second dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this section shall be allowed to exceed the permitted density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to be a residential use consistent with the density reguirements of the General Plan and the zoning designation for the lot.
4
A
- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(W The size of the lot upon which a second iwelling unit is proposed shall not be less than the minimum lot size required of the zone.
(0) The Planning Director shall not approve the idministrative permit unless he finds that the second dwelling lnit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and :one in which the property is located. (P) The maximum monthly rental rate for a second lwelling unit shall be affordable to low income households. The nonthly rent shall not exceed an amount equal to 30 percent of the gross monthly income of a low-income household, adjusted for lousehold size, at 80 percent of the San Diego County median income.
entrance. (Q) The second dwelling unit shall have a separate
SECTION 4: That Title 21, Chapter 21.08 of the Car&bad
rlunicipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.08.015 to
read as follows:
11 Q Unit bv Administrative Permit. "21.08.015. Second Dwel 'n Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative lennit issued according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015 of :his Title. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
SECTION 5: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09 of the Carlsbad
lunicipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.09.025 to
read as follows:
"21.09.025. Second Dwellina Unit bv Administrative Permit. Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative lermit issued according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015 of :his Title. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
SECTION 6: That Title 21, Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad
lunicipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.38.025 to
read as follows:
"21.38.025. Second Dwellina Unit bv Administrative Permit. Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative lermit issued according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015 of :his Title in areas designated by a master plan for single-family letached dwellings. For second dwelling units proposed on standard lots (minimum 7500 sq.ft. in area) which are developed with detached single family residences, the development standards )f Chapter 21.10 shall apply. For second dwelling units proposed
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on substandard lots (less than 7500 sq.ft. in area) which are developed with detached single family residences, the development standards of Chapter .21.45 shall apply.
SECTION 7: That Title 21, Chapter 21.12 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.12.015 to
read as follows:
c "21.12.015. Second Dw Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative permit issued according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015 of this Title on lots which are developed with detached single-family residences. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
SECTION 8: That Title 21, Chapter 21.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.16.017 to
read as follows:
"21.16.017. Second Dwellina Unit bv Administrative Permit. Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative permit issued according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015 of this Title on lots which are developed with detached single-family residences. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
SECTION 9: That Title 21, Chapter 21.45, Section
21.45.090 of the ‘Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
addition of Subsection 21.45.090(p) to read as follows:
"(PI Second dwelling units may be permitted on lots which are developed with detached single family residences according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015(c), and subject to the following additional requirements: (1) All second dwelling units within a single family residential planned unit development shall be required to either be approved as part of the planned unit development application or through an amendment to the planned unit development application.
(2) All second dwelling units shall comply with the.development standards of this chapter with the following exception:
(i) Second dwelling units shall be setback the same distance from the front and side property lines as the primary dwelling unit on the lot. (ii) Second dwelling units shall be setback a minimum of ten feet from the rear property line.
6
.
. 1 . .
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
(iii) Second dwelling units shall not be ,ermitted to be located within any portion of the lot which is :ountedtowards satisfying recreation requirements for the primary residence. (iv) For detached seconddwellingunits, :he distance between the primary dwelling unit and the second twelling unit shall be not less than ten feet.
SECTION 10: That Title 2-1, Chapter 21.44, Section
!1.44.020(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
amendment of Subsection (1) and (2) to read as follows:
"Residential. (1) Standard-Single Family, R-l, R-A, E-A and RE zones. Wo car garage with the following exceptions: One additional paved off-street (covered or incovered) parking space shall be provided for a second dwelling lnit and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. The additional parking space may be provided through tandem parking :provided that the garage is setback a minimum of twenty feet from :he property line) or the front yard setback.ll (2) Planned Unit Developments and Condominiums --- Two standard covered parking spaces. Exception: studio --- 1.5 ;paces/unit, one covered/unit and second dwelling unit --- 1 ;pace/second unit, covered or uncovered. The parking space for a ;econd dwelling unit may be provided through tandem parking :provided that the covered parking spaces for the primary dwelling lnit are located within a two-car garage and the garage is setback L minimum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front rard setback. In addition, parking areas for guest parking must ,e provided as follows: 0.5 spaces for each unit up through ten inits, 0.3 spaces for each unit in excess of ten units. Credit lor visitor parking may be given for frontage on local streets :hat meet public street standards for detached single-family residential projects subject ,to the approval of the planning :ommission; not less than twenty-four lineal feet per space exclusive of driveway entrances and driveway aprons shall be jrovided for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons, then :wenty lineal feet may be provided.fV
SECTION 11: That Title 21, Chapter 21.44, Section
!1.44.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
amendment of Subsection (a)(l) to read as follows:
"(a). The following general requirements shall apply to all ,arking spaces and areas:
(1) Size and Access. Each off-street parking space shall have an area of not less than one hundred seventy square leet exclusive of drives or aisles and a width of not less than zight and one-half feet. Subject to the approval of the Planning
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-
Director, up to a two-and-one-half foot overhang may be permitted. Each space shall be provided with adequate ingress and egress. Aisles to and from parking stalls shall not be less than: (A) Fourteen feet wide for thirty and forty-five degree parking;
parking.
(B) Eighteen feet wide for sixty degree parking; (C) Twenty-four feet wide for ninety degree
Circulation within a parking area must be such that a car entering the parking area need not enter a street to reach another aisle and that a car need not enter a street backwards. This provision shall not apply to off-street parking required for one and two-family dwelling units. When the required parking space for one- family, two-family or multiple-family structure in any residential zone is not to be provided in a covered garage, each such required car space shall be not less than two hundred square feet in area and shall be so located and/or constructed that it may later be covered by a garage structure in accordance with the provisions of this title, with the following exception:, second dwelling unit."
SECTION 12: That Title 21, Chapter 21.08, Section
21.08.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
amendment of paragraph (1) to read as follows:
"(1) Each dwelling unit shall have a two-car garage, with a minimum dimension of 20 feet square, which is architecturally integrated with and has an exterior similar to the dwelling unit, with the following exceptions: One additional paved off-street (covered or uncovered) parking space shall be provided for a second dwelling unit and shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.44 of this title. The additional parking space may be provided through tandem parking (provided that the garage is setback a minimum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback.ff
SECTION 13: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section
21.09.140 to read as follows:
"21.09.140. Parkina. Notwithstanding parking requirements of Chapter 21.44, not fewer than two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each residence. The required two spaces shall be covered by a garage or carport, and the driveway adequately paved with either concrete or asphalt cement prepared over adequate base. The following is an exception to the two parking space requirement: (1) One additional paved off-street (covered or uncovered) parking space shall be provided for a second dwelling unit and shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.44 of this title.
8
l The additional parking space may be provided through tandem parking (provided that the garage is setback a minimum of twenty 2 feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback."
3 SECTION 14: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09 of the
4 Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section
5 21.09.190, paragraph (1) to read as follows:
6 "(1) Each dwelling unit shall have a two-car garage, with a minimum dimension of twenty feet square which is 7 architecturally integrated with and has an exterior similar to the dwelling unit with the following exception: 8 One additional paved off-street (covered or uncovered) parking space shall be provided for a second dwelling unit and 9 shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.44 of this title. The additional parking space may be provided through tandem 10 parking (provided that the garage is setback a minimum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback." 11 SECTION 15: That Title 21, Chapter 21.10, Section 12 21.10.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the 13 amendment of paragraph (1) to read as follows: 14 "(1) Each dwelling unit shall have a two-car garage, 15 with a minimum dimension of twenty feet square which is architecturally integrated with and has an exterior similartothe 16 dwelling unit with the following exception: One additional paved off-street (covered or uncovered) 17 parking space shall be provided for a second dwelling unit and shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.44 of this title. 18 The additional parking space may be provided through tandem parking (provided that the garage is setback a minimum of twenty 19 feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback."
20 SECTION 16: That Title 21, Chapter 21.45, Section
21 21.45.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
22 amendment of Subsection (c) to read as follows:
23 "(c) Resident Parking. All units must have at least two full-sized covered residential parking spaces, except for studio 24 units which shall be provided with a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit, for which one space per unit shall be covered, and second dwelling' 25 units which shall be provided with one space (covered or uncovered) per second unit. The parking space for the second 26 dwelling unit may be provided through tandem parking (provided that the covered parking spaces for the primary dwelling are 27 located within a two-car garage and the garage is setback a minimum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front 28 yard' setback. In cases where a fractional parking space is
9
.
L
1
2
3
4
5
-6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
required. The required number of spaces shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole number."
SECTION 17: That Title 21, Chapter 21.18 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section
21.18.046 to read as follows:
"21.18.046. Second Dwellina' Unit bv Administrative permit. Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative permit issued according to the provisions of section 21.010.015 of this title on lots which are developed with detached single-family residences. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
SECTION 18: That Title 21, Chapter 21.20 of the
Zarlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section
21.20.026 to read as follows:
g "21.20.026. Second permit. Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative permit issued according to the provisions of section 21.010.015 of this title on lots which are developed with detached single family residences. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
SECTION 19: That Title 21, Chapter 21.22 of the
Zarlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section
21.22 to read as follows:
"21.22 016. Second Dwellina Unit bv Administrative Permit. Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative permit issued according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015 of this title on lots which are developed with detached single-family residences. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
SECTION 20: That Title 21, Chapter 21.24 of the
Zarlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section
21.24.026 to read as follows:
"21.24.026. Second Dwellina Unit bv Administrative Permit. Second dwelling units may be permitted by an administrative permit issued according to the provisions of Section 21.010.015 of this title on lots which are developed with detached single-family residences. The development standards of this zone shall apply."
10
14
L
I 1 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective
2 thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify
3 to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at
4 least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
5 within fifteen days after its adoption.
6 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
7 Carlsbad City Council on the day of , 1994,
8 and thereafter
9 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of
J
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
I 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
LPPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
tONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
4TTEST:
1LETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
.
11
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 94-159
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN APPLICATION FEE FOR PROCESSING SECOND DWELLING UNITS THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has amended it's Municipal
!ode (Title 21) to allow the development of second dwelling units
:hrough administrative permit: and
WHEREAS, in order to cover City administrative costs for
zocessing second dwelling unit application requests, an
application fee is necessary, and
WHEREAS, the coststothe City associatedwith processing
tdministrative application requests for second dwelling units will
,e similar to the costs for processing administrative variance
application requests.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
!ity of Carlsbad as follows:
"1. That the dollar value of the application fee for
brocessing a second dwelling unit through administrative permit
shall be $250.00; and
2. This application fee shall become effective 60 days
lfter the adoption of this resolution: and
3. The dollar value of this application fee shall be
-eviewed on a regular basis and updated by resolution of the City
!ouncil as necessary."
. .
. .
. .
. _.
c .
. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
1 City Council of the city of Carlsbad, California, on the 14th
2 day of JUNE I 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
3 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
4 II NOES: None
5 ABSENT: None
6
7
a
9 IP TTEST:
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -2-
EXHIBIT 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P-G COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3542
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR
SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES OF
THE CITY.
CASE NAME: SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE
AMENDMENT
CASE NO: ZCA 92-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of March, 1994, and
on the 6th day of April, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND”, dated August 19, 1993, and “PII”, dated August
11, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant impact on the environment.
. . . .
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of April, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber; Noble;
Welshons & Hall.
NOES: Commissioners: Betz & Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING CGMMISSION ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. ~LZMKLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3542 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Zone Code Amendment to be implemented Citywide.
PRWECT DESCRPTI ON: A Zone Code Amendment to modify the development standards
and processing requirements for second dwelling units in the
residential zones of the City.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4445.
.
DATED: AUGUST19,1993
CASENO: ZCA 92-04 Planning Director
CASENAME: SECOND DWELLINGUNITSZCA
PUBLISH DA'TE:AUGUST19,1993
CDD:lh
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, California 92009-1578 - (619) 438-l 161 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. ZCA92-04
DATE: AUGUST11.1993
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SECOND DWELLING UNIT ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD. CA 92009
(619) 438-1161 X 4445
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL ZONES OF THE CITY.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to detetmine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be
checked to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These ,lindings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES&” and ‘YES-insig”
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would othetwise be determined significant.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .
6ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
big) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or srream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9.
10.
11.
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
YES NO
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
-2-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT L
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
big) (insig)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
NO
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? x
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMANENVXRONMENT
x
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire!, emergency or other
public services?
YES YES NO
big) ’ (insig)
X
X
-3-
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .
tiLL THE PROPOSAL DI~RJXTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2s.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
big) (insig)
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air trai%?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
4-
. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sip) (insig)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of Califomia history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage 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
endure well into the future.)
3s. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
NO
x
x
X
X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
California Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local govemments to adopt an ordinance stating
the conditions (standards and regulations) under which Second Dwelling Units would be permitted.
The City of Carlsbad currently has an ordinance (Section 21.42.010(11) of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code) which allows the development of Second Dwelling Units within the R-A, R-E, R-l and P-C zones,
subject to specific conditions, and requiring the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This project will
amend Carlsbad’s existing Second Dwelling Unit ordinance to encourage and facilitate the development
of Second Dwelling Units within the City. The amendments proposed include: (1) adding a definition
for a Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allowing the development of Second Dwelling Units through
administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2, R-3 and P-C zones and (3) modifying the existing
development standards for Second Dwelling Units.
This project is not a specific development, but rather an amendment to an implementing chapter of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance, which may affect certain future residential developments. In that it
implements, Section 65852.2 of State Law, it is deemed consistent with the General Plan.
This project is also consistent with the City’s Housing Element (Program 3.7.b.) in that it facilitates
the development of Second Dwelling Units.
Second Dwelling Units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(a) and
15303(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
l-4.
5 - 8.
9 - 10.
11.
As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Zone Code Amendment, no changes in
topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils, or alteration of deposition
pattern will occur. No geological impacts will result from this Zone Code Amendment.
In that, no physical, site-specific development is proposed as part of this Zone Code
Amendment, no impacts to air quality or climatological indices are expected.
No site-specific development is proposed with this ZCA. Therefore this Zone Code
Amendment will not deplete any natural resources or other form of energy.
This Zone Code Amendment is strictly administrative. As such, no site-specific project
processed pursuant to this Zone Code Amendment is proposed. Only a site-specific environmental review for a particular project could identify the existence of a significant archeological, paleontological, or historical stnrcture or object on site. Thisisan
administrative, non-project Zone Code Amendment, therefore, it has no impact on historical
resources.
12 - 16. Because this Zone Code Amendment proposes no actual development, no impacts to the
diversity of flora or fauna condition of ecosystems, or agricultural areas or farmlands are anticipated.
-6-
- _-
@JMAN EIWIRONMENT
17. No actual site-specific development is proposed as part of this project. This Zone Code
Amendment does not directly affect land use patterns as it only establishes the guidelines and
procedures under which a Second Dwelling Unit may be applied for. The Second Dwelling
Unit ordinance will not directly alter the present or planned land use of a specific area.
Pursuant to State Law (Section 65852.2) Second Dwelling Units are a permitted use and are
categorically exempt from CEQA.
18 - 22. The Second Dwelling Unit Zone Code Amendment is not associated with any specific
development. It will not substantially affect utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services. The proposed program will not alter or result in the need for sewer, solid
waste, hazardous waste or other systems. The proposed amendment will not increase noise
levels, light or glare or deal with hazardous substances.
23 - 24. The density of any residential area within the City will not be directly affected by this
proposed Zone Code Amendment, since it is strictly administrative. Although a Second
Dwelling Unit would be permitted within specific residential zones of the City, Second
Dwelling Units would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and are categorically exempt
from CEQA.
25 - 30. The proposed amendment will not substantially affect parking, generate substantial traffic, or
alter existing transportation systems. This proposed Zone Code Amendment is not affiliated
with any specific development project and will not interfere with emergency evacuation
response plans or increase traffic hazards to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
31. In that no specific development is proposed with this Zone Code Amendment, no scenic vistas
will be obstructed and aesthically offensive views will not be created by the implementation
of the proposed Zone Code Amendment.
32. The proposed Zone Code Amendment will not affect the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities.
33 - 36. Since this project does not propose any site specific development, and as indicated above, does
not effect geological, biological, human, or cultural resources, neither long term or
cumulative, no signifkant environmental impacts will result from this project.
_A
.
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed’project, and
g) no project alternative.
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant adverse
impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public
Resources Code Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A “sign&ant effect”
is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impacts. If the project has “NO” significant impacts
than there is no substantial adverse impacts and no justification for requiring a discussion of
alternatives, (There is no alternative to no substantial adverse impact). This project has no significant
impacts therefore no alternatives are required.
-8-
DETERMINATION (To Be’Completed By The Planning Department) I .
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
x t find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signiflcant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
- I fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
5 - /3,.-G ‘3
Date
m
Signature
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORINGPROGRAM(IFAPPLICAE3~
-9-
APPiICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
- THIS IS TO CERT@Y THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
CD:lh
-lO-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSXON OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDING
VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 21, OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR
SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES OF
THE CITY.
CASE NAME: SECOND DWELLING UNIT ZONE CODE
AMENDMENT
CASE NO: ZCA 92-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of March, 1994, and
on the 6th day of April, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of ZCA 92-04, according to Exhibit “Xc’, dated April
6, 1994, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Findings:
1. This Zone Code Amendment implements Housing Element Program 3.7.b.
2. This Zone Code Amendment, to modify the development standards and processing
requirements for second dwelling units, is consistent with the various elements of
the General Plan.
3. This Zone Code Amendment implements State Government Code Section 65852.2.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a reg-ukr meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of April, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber; Noble;
Welshons & Hall.
NOES: Commissioners: Betz & Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
V MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3543 -2-
EXHIBIT 5
APPLKhi ION COMPLETE DATE:
JANUARY 10. 1992
STAFF PLANNER: CHRIS DECERBO
0 5
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 2,1994
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ZCA 92-04 - SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT -
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration and an amendment to various
chapters and sections of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21) to: (1) add
a definition for Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allow the development of Second
Dwelling Units through administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2 and
R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached
dwellings in the P-C zones of the City, and (3) amend the requirements for
the creation of Second Dwelling Units in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2 and R-3
zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached
dwellings in the P-C zones of the City.
I. RECOMMENDATION
.
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3542
recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3543 recommending APPROVAL of ZCA 92-
04, based on the findings contained therein, and recommending that the City Council direct
staff to subsequently open up the six week public review period to amend the City’s six
Local Coastal Program segments accordingly.
II. PROJECI’ DEXRIPTI ON AND BACKGROUNQ
California Government Code Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 allow local governments to
adopt an ordinance stating the conditions (standards and regulations) under which Second
Dwelling Units would be permitted. In the absence of a local ordinance, the law
establishes State criteria which, if met by a Second Dwelling Unit applicant, require the
locality to grant a permit for the unit. Ccnsistent with Section 65852.1 and 65852.2 of
the California Government Code, the City of Carlsbad currently has an ordinance (Section
21.42.010(11) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) which allows the development of Second
-
ZCA 92-04
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
MARCH 2, 1994
Dwelling Units within the R-A, R-E, R-l and P-C zones, subject to specific conditions, and
requiring the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
While the City’s existing second dwelling unit ordinance does satisfy the basic requirements
of Government Code Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2, the ordinance was clearly not set up
with the objective of promoting or encouraging the development of second dwelling units.
Specifically, the existing second dwelling unit zoning standards which require a minimum
lot size of 7500 square feet, that one additional paved off-street parking space be provided
outside of the required setback areas, that the second dwelling unit be attached to the
primary residence, and limits the floor area to 350 square feet and the occupancy to two
people, at least one aged 60 or more, does not provide sufficient flexibility or incentive to
facilitate the development of second dwelling units. Under the existing ordinance, only one
permitted second dwelling unit has been developed within the City.
A Second Dwelling Unit is a residential unit which is located on the same lot as a primary
dwelling unit. It provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons,
including permanent facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Second
Dwelling Units are also referred to as “granny flats”, “accessory apartments”, or “in-law
apartments”.
Housing Program 3.7.b (Alternative Housing) states that the City will examine the existing
Second Dwelling Unit section of it’s Municipal Code (Section 21.42.010(11) to explore
means of better encouraging and facilitating the development of affordable Second
Dwelling Units.
Second Dwelling Units provide many benefits to a community which include: allowing
persons who require companionship or non-specialized assistance (i.e.; the elderly or
handicapped) to continue living independently in their homes; facilitating family ties
between generations; making more efficient use of residentially zoned land; and enabling
homeowners with declining or fixed incomes to supplement their income. However,
Second Dwelling Units also offer an excellent means for achieving affordable housing
without significantly impacting the character of predominantly single-family neighborhoods
and communities.
Potential concerns associated with the development of second dwelling units include:
(1) The change in the character of single family neighborhoods, resulting from
the over-concentration of second dwelling units;
(2) An increase in parking and traffic problems; and
(3) An overload on public facilities.
-
ZCA 92-04
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
MARCH 2, 1994
These concerns, which have been addressed in the proposed ordinance revision, are
discussed later in this report.
The primary objective of promoting the development of Second Dwelling Units is the
provision of an inexpensive affordable housing alternative. Second Dwelling Units are
relatively inexpensive to develop (in comparison to conventional rental units) because they
do not require additional land and infrastructure costs. Experience has demonstrated that
Second Dwelling Units can provide affordable housing with little or no subsidy. Because
of this, the second dwelling unit provides an affordable housing alternative which can be
fully integrated into a market-rate development, and evenly distributed throughout the
City. This affordable housing alternative will help the City to achieve it’s lower-income
housing objectives and could be extremely attractive to infill residential builders with
limited inclusionary requirements (m-lieu fees or 1 or 2 affordable units).
Consistent with Housing Program 3.7.b., this project is a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 92-
04) to the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21, Zoning) to: (1) add a definition of a Second
Dwelling Unit, (2) amend the existing requirements for the creation of Second Dwelling
Units and (3) to allow the development of Second Dwelling Units through administrative
permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2, and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for
single-family detached dwellings in the P-C zones of the City.
III. ANALYSIS
Included below is an analysis of the major planning issues associated with each proposed
revision to the City’s Zoning Ordinance relating to the development of Second Dwelling
Units. Reference can be made to Exhibit ‘X’ to review in detail all text revisions.
Planninn Issues
11 What is the definition of a Second Dwelling Unit?
2) What revisions to the City’s Second Dwelling Unit requirements are recommended
to encourage the development of Second Dwelling Units?
3) Can Second Dwelling Units be counted towards meeting the City’s lower-income
Regional Housing Needs?
41 Are Second Dwelling Units considered a dwelling unit under Growth Management?
5) Is the proposed Zone Code Amendment consistent with the General Plan?
C
ZCA92-04
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
MARCH 2, 1994
PAGE 4
Discussion
Definition of Second Dwh Unit
Although the term “Second Dwelling Unit” is included in Section 21.42.010(11)(A) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, it is currently undefined. Accordingly, this term and definition
is proposed to ,be added to Chapter 21.04 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance. As
proposed, a “Second Dwelling Unit” is defined as a residential dwelling unit which is
attached or detached from the primary dwelling unit on a lot and which provides complete
independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions
for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family
or primary dwelling is situated. This definition is consistent with the “second dwelling
unit” definition of State Law (Section 65852.2).
Pronosed Revisions to Second Dwellim Unit Reauirements
Table “A” provides a summary of the City’s existing Second Dwelling Unit requirements and
revisions which are recommended to encourage/enable the development of affordable
Second Dwelling Units. Each revision proposed is discussed below.
Subsection 21.42.010(1 l)(A) currently allows the development of Second Dwelling Units
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP requirement provides
the City with considerable review authority regarding Second Dwelling Unit proposals.
However, the CUP process, which requires a full public hearing, may discourage
homeowners from pursuing CUP’s for Second Dwelling Units within the City. This is
evidenced by the fact that there exists only one legal Second Dwelling Unit in the City
which has been approved through Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the City’s existing
development standards do not encourage the development of second dwelling units. The
City’s Building Department does however estimate that there exists up to 100 other non-
permitted accessory residential structures within the City which either exist as or could be
converted to Second Dwelling Units.
In view of this existing situation, staff is recommending that Title 21 be amended to allow
Second Dwelling Units through administrative permit instead of Conditional Use Permit.
This administrative permit process would provide the City with adequate oversight without
unduly restricting the ability of homeowners to obtain permits. The proposed
administrative permit process for Second Dwelling Units would be very similar to the City’s
estabiished procedures for Administrative Variances (Chapter 21.51 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) and would: (1) provide a mechanism for creating new Second Dwelling
Units subject to the approval of the Planning Director, and (2) require that adequate public
notice (i.e.; direct mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed Second
Dwelling Unit) be given for any administrative permit for a Second Dwelling Unit.
ZCA 92-04
SECONDDWELLINGUNITSZONECODEAMENDMENT
MARCH 2, 1994
PAGE5
Staff is also recommending that a new subsection (21.45.090(p)) be added to the Planned
Unit Development Chapter of the Municipal Code to allow second dwelling units within
single family planned unit developments (PUD’s). Second dwelling units proposed within
existing single family PUD’s shall be required to process an amendment to the existing
PUD. All second dwelling units approved within single family PUD’s processed and
approved on or after the effective date of this subsection, shall be required to either be
approved as part of the PUD application, or shall be approved subsequently through
amendment to the PUD application.
In order to mitigate the concern regarding the change in character of single family
neighborhoods associated with the over concentration of second dwelling units within these
neighborhoods, a provision has been incorporated into the administrative permit section
(21.10.020(~)(3)(M)) which requires the Planning Director to find that such use will not
be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
Pen&ted Zones.
Subsection 21.42.010(11) currently allows the development of Second Dwelling Units
within the R-A, R-E, R-l, and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached
dwellings in P-C zones. However, Section 65852.2(c) of State Law, relating to Local
Second Unit Ordinances, specifies that no local agency shall adopt a Second Unit ordinance
which totally precludes second units within single-family and multi-family zoned areas
unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing
opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on
the public health, safety, and welfare would result from allowing second units within
single-family and multi-family zoned areas. In order to comply with this provision of State
Law, Title 21 is recommended to be amended to allow the development of Second Dwelling
Units on lots within the R-2 and R-3 multi-family zones which are developed with detached
single family residences.
Minimum Lnt Size.
Subsection 21.42.010(11)(A)(2) currently stipulates that the minimum lot size required
for the development of a Second Dwelling Unit is 7,500 square feet. In order to enable
Second Dwelling Units to be developed on smaller residential lots (i.e. small lot planned
unit developments or undersized lots in the redevelopment area) it is recommended that
the minimum lot size for the development of a Second Dwelling Unit must be the minimum
lot size required by the zone. For small lot planned unit developments (PUD’s), the
minimum lot size would be the lots as approved in the original application for the project.
The concern associated with the potential overdevelopment of smaller residential lots with
Second Dwelling Units will be adequately mitigated by the overall requirement that Second
Dwelling Units must comply with the height, setback, lot coverage and other development
standards applicable to the underlying zone.
ZCA 92-04
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
MARCH 2, 1994
Attached or Detached/De&p
Subsection 21.42.010(11)(A)(10) currently stipulates that a Second Dwelling Unit must
be attached to the main single-family residence. To provide additional options for the
development of Second Dwelling Units, this subsection is recommended to be amended to
allow an attached or detached Second Dwelling Unit. However, an attached or detached
Second Dwelling Unit must still meet the height, setback, lot coverage, and other
development standards of the applicable residential zone and on sides adjacent to streets,
maintain the appearance of a single family detached dwelling unit.
Floor Area.
Subsection 21.42.010(11)(A)(3) currently stipulates that a Second Dwelling Unit may add
no more than 350 square feet of floor area to the main unit. For reference, the floor area
of a typical two car garage is 400 square feet. A typical studio unit could be
accommodated in 400 square feet. It is recommended that this maximum floor area
standard be increased to 640 square feet. The objective of increasing the maximum
permitted floor area to 640 square feet is to enable the development of 1 bedroom Second
Dwelling Units. The flexibility to produce a larger Second Dwelling Unit (which would
need to comply with all of the development standards of the applicable underlying zone)
would provide additional housing opportunities to other special needs groups such as single
parents with children.
PdiIlg.
Subsection 21.42.010(1 l)(A)(S) currentlyrequires one additional paved off-street (covered
or uncovered) parking space per Second Dwelling Unit. This parking space is not
permitted to be located within the front, rear or sideyard setback areas required of the
underlying zone. This standard has effectively prohibited the development of legal second
dwelling units upon most single family residential lots within the City. The revision
proposed would allow the required Second Dwelling Unit parking space to be satisfied
through tandem parking in the driveway of the primary residence, provided that the garage
is setback a minimum of twenty feet from the front property line, or in the front yard
setback. This parking alternative would enable the development of Second Dwelling Units
within the City and provides an important economic incentive to homeowners pursuing the
development of a Second Dwelling Unit.
While this parking alternative may be unsightly, Second Dwelling Units would not create
parking and traffic congestion problems any worse than what can occur in the legal
circumstance of a large family with several cars (more than 2) or a communal living
arrangement in which three or more unrelated individuals share a house and each has a
CX.
occupancy Restrictions.
Subsection 21.42.010(11)(A)(11) currently stipulates that the occupancy of a Second
Dwelling Unit is limited to two persons, at least one person of which is sixty years of age
or older. This provision is consistent with Section 65852.1 of State law. Clearly, the City’s
existing Second Dwelling Unit ordinance is primarily a “Granny” housing ordinance. To
ZCA 92-04
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 1 MARCH 2,1994
provide housing opportunities for others (including lower-income or handicapped
households), this subsection is recommended to be amended to delete any occupancy
requirements.
Staff is not recommending that the occupancy of Second Dwelling Units be limited
exclusively to lower-income households because this requirement would restrict the ability
of this product type to serve other special needs groups. However, the requirement that
Second Dwelling Units not exceed 640 square feet in floor area and comply with the
development standards of the underlying zone will effectively limit the ability to achieve
more than one bedroom in a Second Dwelling Unit. Currently, the average monthly rental
rate for a one bedroom apartment in Carlsbad would be affordable to a two-person low-
income household.
Garage Conversions.
Second Dwelling Units can be created by a number of different ways (i.e. adding a
detached accessory structure, adding to an existing residential structure, or partitioning
floor space within an existing structure). One of the most common and least expensive
ways to create a Second Dwelling Unit is through the conversion of an existing garage.
In fact, many of the existing non-permitted accessory residential units within the City are
converted garages. With reference to this existing problem, a provision is recommended
to be added to the proposed Second Dwelling Unit standards to prohibit garage conversions
unless replacement garage parking is provided.
Guest Livi~@Accessory Living Quarters. A provision is recommended to be added to the Second Dwelling Unit standards to prohibit
the development of Second Dwelling Units on a lot or parcel which has an existing guest
or accessory living quarter or residential care facility. The intent of this provision is to
ensure that residential lots cannot be developed with multiple accessory residential
structures. However, an existing guest or accessory living quarter may be converted to a
Second Dwelling Unit, subject to compliance with all Second Unit standards.
Second Dwellim Units as Lower-Income Housina,
The City’s Housing Element concludes that there exists a considerable demand for housing
affordable to lower-income households. The City’s Housing Element specifies that the
City’s actual Regional Share need between July 1991 and June 1996 is 2,509 new lower-
income units. As discussed earlier in this report, Second Dwelling Units are cost effective
to produce and provide affordable housing with little or no subsidy. Discussions with the
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) confirmed that new
Second Dwelling Units can be counted towards meeting the City’s Regional share need for
lower-income housing provided that:
(1) thedw 11’ e mg unit provides complete independent living facilities including provisions
for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, and
-
ZCA 92-04
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
MARCH 2, 1994
(2) the City can demonstrate that the rent charged is affordable to lower-income
households.
The proposed definition of a Second Dwelling Unit would meet the State criteria for a
dwelling unit listed in (1) above. In addition, implementation of a proposed Rental Stock
Monitoring Program (Program 1.4 of the Housing Element) by the City will provide the
necessary rental rate information to enable a determination of unit affordability.
Growth Mananement Promam.
California Government Code Section 65852.2 states that “a Second Dwelling Unit shall not
be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall
be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and
zoning designations for the lot. Second Dwelling Units shall also not be considered in the
application of any local ordinance, policy or program to limit residential growth.”
Consistent with these provisions, Second Dwelling Units would be allowed to exceed the
Growth Control Point of the applicable General Plan designation. In order to comply with
the Citywide and quadrant dwelling unit caps under Proposition E, all Second Dwelling
Units would have to come out of the City’s excess unit bank. The requirement that
adequate water and sewer capacity and facilities for the second dwelling unit must be
available or made available (Subsection 21.10.020(c) (3)(G)) should prevent any
overburdening of facilities after a second unit is approved.
consistencvwiththeGendPlan
The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth a goal, objective and program which
are supported by the amendments of the Second Dwelling Unit section of the City’s Zone
Code, including the following:
GOAL 3 - (Groups with Special Needs, Including Low and Moderate Income
Households)
Sufficient new, affordable housing opportunities in all quadrants of the City
to meet the needs of groups, with special requirements, and, in particular,
the needs of current lower and moderate income households and a fair share
proportion of future lower and moderate income households.
OBJECTIVE 3.7 - (Lower Income Development and Incentives)
Provide incentives, housing type alternatives, and City initiated developments
and programs for the assistance of lower-income households.
PROGRAM 37.b - (Alternative Housing)
Consider development standards for alternative housing types, such as hotels,
managed living units, homeless shelters, and farm worker housing alternatives which would assist in meeting the City’s share of housing for low
ZCA 92-04
SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
MARCH 2, 1994
PAGE 9
and very low income households. Authorize alternative housing projects
through a Conditional Use Permit or Special Use Permit. The City will also
examine the existing Second Dwelling Unit Section of its Municipal Code
(Section 21.42.010(11)(A)) to explore means of better encouraging and
facilitating the development of affordable second units.
Consistent with the intent of this goal, objective, and program, the proposed amendments
to the Second Dwelling Unit section of the City’s Municipal Code would: 1) provide for
affordable housing opportunities for a wide variety of households, including, lower-income, handicapped and senior; 2) provide affordable housing incentives and alternatives; and 3)
encourage and facilitate the development of Second Dwelling Units. In that this zone code
amendment implements this goal, objective and program of the City’s Housing Element, it
is consistent with the General Plan.
Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this zone code amendment, to modify the
development standards and processing requirements for Second Dwelling Units, will not
have a significant impact on the environment and therefore has issued a negative
declaration. The environmental analysis concluded that since: (1) this zone code
amendment is not associated with any specific development project; (2) will not directly
result in any signXcant physical, biological, or human environmental impacts and (3)
Second Dwelling Units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15302(a)
and 15303 (a) of the CEQA guidelines, no project specific impacts are anticipated. There
were no letters of comment received during the public review period for this Negative
Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3542
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3543
3. Table “A” Summary of Second Dwelling Unit Revisions.
CDD:lh
AUGUST 17,1993
. -TTACHMENT 3
a . TABLE ‘A”
SUMMARY OF SECOND DWELLING UNIT REVISIONS
c
‘ermitted Zones
Areas designated for single family
detached dus by master plan in P-C
ininimum Lot Size
Architecturally compatible with existing
single family residence
Ievelopment
Standards
Must meet the height, setback, lot
coverage, and other development
Must meet the height, setback, lot coverage,
Garage Conversions
Accessory Living
Quarters
Not Addressed
-
PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS DE CERBO &j$&
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I. RECOMMENDATION
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 6, 1994 0 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZCA 924 - SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT -
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration and an amendment to various
chapters and sections of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21) to: (1) add
a definition for Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allow the development of Second
Dwelling Units through administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2 and
R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached
dwellings in the P-C zones of the City, and (3) amend the requirements for
the creation of Second Dwelling Units in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2 and R-3
zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached
dwellings in the P-C zones of the City.
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3542
recommending APPROVAL, of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3543 recommending APPROVAL of ZCA 92-
04, based on the findings contained therein, and recommending that the City Council direct
staff to subsequently open up the six week public review period to amend the City’s six
Local Coastal Program segments accordingly.
II. DISCUSSION
On March 2, 1994, ZCA 92-04 was heard before the Planning Commission. After the staff
presentation, public testimony and Planning Commission discussion, the Commission voted
(7-O) to continue the item to April 6, 1994 to enable staff to research and respond to
specific Commission concerns. These concerns included the following:
1. Proposed inclusionary housing requirements for Second Dwelling Units (in-
lieu fee/deed restrictions);
2. Allowing Second Dwelling Units on single family residential lots which are
less than 7,500 square feet in area;
ZCA 92-04 - SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6, 1994
3. Allowing tandem parking for Second Dwelling Units; and
4. The adequacy of the City’s Excess Unit Bank to accommodate the
development of Second Dwelling Units.
In response to these Planning Commission concerns, the following Ordinance revisions are
proposed:
Inclusionarv Housing Reouirements
Delete the requirement for Second Dwelling Unit owners to pay the Inclusionary Housing
In-Lieu Fee ($11,485) or deed restrict the Second Unit (rent and occupancy) as affordable to lower-income households. Instead, staff is recommending that Subsection
21.10.015(~)(3)(P) be amended to stipulate that “The maximum monthly rental rate for
a second dwelling unit shall be affordable to lower-income households”. This provision
would not be placed as a deed restriction on the Second Dwelling Unit, nor would it be
monitored or enforced by the City, except on a complaint basis. It would however require
that the owner provide the City with the prospective rental rate for the Second Dwelling
Unit upon application for a building permit. The unit and rental rate will be reported to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Provided that the
prospective rental rate for the unit is affordable to lower-income households, then the unit
can be counted towards meeting the City’s Regional Share Need for lower-income housing.
Second Dwelling Units on lots smaller than 7500 square feet in area
Add new development standards to the Planned Development Chapter of the Municipal
Code (Chapter 21.45) which will regulate the placement of Second Dwelling Unit
structures upon lots developed with detached single family residences through a Planned
Unit Development permit. Specifically, the new Second Dwelling Unit development
standards proposed to be added as Section 21.45.090(p)(O)(3) include the following:
1. Second dwelling units shall be setback the same distance from the front and
side property lines as the primary dwelling unit on the lot;
2. Second dwelling units shall be setback a minimum of ten feet from the rear
property line;
3. Second dwelling units shall not be permitted to be located within any portion
of the lot which is counted towards satisfying the recreation requirements for
the primary residence; and
4. For detached second dwelling units, the distance between the primary
dwelling unit and the detached second dwelling unit shall be not less than
ten feet.
ZCA92-04-SECONDDWELLINGUNITSZONECODEAMENDMENT
APRIL 6,1994
With the addition of these development standards, staff concludes that it would be difficult
to achieve a detached Second Dwelling Unit upon a single family residential lot which is
smaller than 7,500 square feet in area. The development of attached Second Dwelling
Units on smaller single family residential lots, either through partitioning floor space within
the existing structure or adding on to the existing structure (See Exhibits “A” and “B”),
would however be feasible. Any proposal to develop a Second Dwelling Unit on a single
family residential lot approved through a Planned Unit Development (PUD), would either
have to be approved as part of the PUD or approved subsequently through an amendment
to the PUD application. In either situation, the proposal would be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
Tandem Parkinn for Second Dwelling Units
As previously discussed with the Planning Commission, the existing Second Dwelling Unit
parking standard, of one additional paved off-street parking space, which must be located
outside of the required front, rear and sideyard setback areas, has effectively prohibited the
development of Second Dwelling Units upon most single family lots within the City. The
recommendation to allow Second Dwelling Unit parking requirements to be satisfied
through tandem parking in the driveway of the primary residence or in the front yard
setback is necessary to enable the achievement of Second Dwelling Units within the City.
Based upon the finding that Second Dwelling Units would not be feasible to develop upon
most single family residential lots within the City without this parking standards
modification, staff does not recommend any revision to the proposed tandem parking
standard for Second Dwelling Units.
Adeauacv of the Citv’s Excess Unit Bank to Accommodate Second Units
The Planning Commission requested that staff provide them with an update of the City’s
Excess Unit Bank for purposes of evaluating the impact that Second Dwelling Units would
have on the Bank. There currently exists around 2,000 units within the City’s Excess Unit
Bank. These excess units exist as a consequence of residential projects being approved at
lower densities than permitted. Based upon this historical and ongoing trend
(notwithstanding the City’s Inclusionary mandate), staff believes that the Excess Unit Bank
will be sufficient to meet our affordable housing objectives without exceeding the Citywide
and quadrant dwelling unit limitations of the Growth Management Plan.
Although the General Plan specifies that any dwelling unit which is approved above the
permitted density of the applicable General Plan designation shall need to come out of the
Excess Unit Bank, it is important to keep in mind that not all Second Dwelling Units will
need to come out of the Excess Unit Bank. For instance, residential developers proposing
to satisfy their 15% inclusionary housing requirement through the development of Second
Dwelling Units upon 15% of the lots of a proposed detached single family residential
project would not likely require a density bonus. This conclusion is based upon an
economic finding of the State Legislature, and confirmed by other jurisdictions which have
ZCA 92-04 - SECOND DvVELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
ApRlL 6,1994
considerable experience with the development of Second Dwelling Units, that Second
Dwelling Units do provide affordable housing with little or no subsidy. Likewise, Second
Dwelling Units approved on lots for which the permitted density is not exceeded would not
have to come out of the Bank.
In summary, the primary impact to the Excess Unit Bank associated with the development
of Second Dwelling Units would be from single family homeowners, without an
inclusionary mandate, who are pursuing the development of Second Units. There is no
certainty regarding the number of units within the City’s Excess Unit Bank which would
be allocated for Second Dwelling Units, however, a national survey of jurisdictions that
permit Second Dwelling Units concluded that, “about one Second Dwelling Unit will be
created per thousand single family homes,which exist in the City, per year”. Based upon
this ratio, the City, which currently has around 13,000 single family homes would realize
13 Second Dwelling Units per year.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3542
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3543
3. Exhibits “A” and “B”
4. Staff Report, dated, March 2, 1994.
CD:Vd
March 15, 1994
EXHIBIT “A”
6000 SF LOT
2700 SF PRIMARY UNIT
625 SF SECOND UNIT
60 I
b ATTACHED SECOND UNIT F PARTITIONING FLOOR
v-w--- - I
I
I Y.1 Y J \
GARAGE
EXHIBIT “6”
3825 SF LOT
1575 SF PRIMARY UNIT
360 SF SECOND UNIT
45 I
b ATTACHED SECOND UNI’ T ADDING ON FLOOR
-I-- -I--
--w--- --w---
T- T-
5’
EXHIBIT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 1994 PAGE 8
Motion was made by Commissioner Hall, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 3627, 3628, and 3629, approving amendments SDP
89-14(A), SUP 90-01 (A), and PUD 90-02(A), based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, including the deletion of Finding #3 and Condition #3 of
Resolution No. 3627.
Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
ZCA 92-04 - SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT - For recommendation of
approval of a Negative Declaration and an amendment to various chapters and sections of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21) to: (1) add adefinition of Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allow the
development of Second Dwelling Units through administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2
and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single family detached dwellings in the
P-C zones of the City, and (3) amend the requirements for the creation of Second Dwelling Units in
the R-A, R-3, R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single family
detached dwellings in the P-C zones of the City.
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, reviewed the definitions and reasons for amending the second dwelling
unit regulations. The code is being revised in order to encourage and facilitate the development of
affordable second dwelling units which provide many benefits to the community. He stated that the revised
ordinance will require an administrative permit rather than a CUP for second dwelling units. This process
is similar to the process used for administrative variances. Staff feels this amendment is consistent with
the Housing Element and recommends approval.
Commissioner Hall asked Mr. DeCerbo to repeat the fee structure for Second Dwelling Units. Mr. DeCerbo
replied that there would be an in-lieu fee of $11,485 as approved by the City Council, or else deed restrict
the unit as affordable housing.
Commissioner Hall inquired if he felt the City Council intended to place that fee on an auxiliary structure.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that the existing lnclusionary Ordinance indicates that any projects of six or fewer
units approved through maps, parcel maps, Planned Unit Developments, or CUPS, would have to satisfy
the inclusionary requirement by paying an in-lieu fee. Staff has used that wording verbatim. The objective
is to get more affordable housing going. It is hoped that a person wanting to build might look at the size of
the fee and choose to deed restrict rather than pay the fee.
Commissioner Hall feels that a deed restriction will scare people off rather than encourage them. Mr.
DeCerbo replied that a deed restriction is not problematic. It only requires that the home owner sign an
agreement to rent only to low income households; the rent would not exceed the amount that a low
income household could afford to pay. Commissioner Hall disagrees and feels that the deed restriction will
do the opposite of what staff is hoping for.
Commissioner Hall inquired what a Second Dwelfing Unit of approximately 640 s.f. would cost to construct.
Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector, replied that a stand alone structure from the ground up would
probably cost in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 per foot. Commissioner Hall stated that this works out to
approximately $30,000. Mr. Kelley replied these are hard costs and would not include the cost of any City
permits. If the structure was an add-on rather than stand alone, it would be much cheaper, perhaps
one-third of that amount.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if signing the deed restriction would require the unit to be rented. Mr.
DeCerbo replied that there would not be a requirement to rent--only that if it is rented, it must be to
someone who qualifies as low income.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CORRECTED
March 2, 1994 PAGE 9
Mr. Wayne commented that there are many ways to build a unit. For example, the unit could be built as a
guest house and converted at a later date by adding a kitchen. However, once the unit qualifies as a
second unit, it must be restricted to low income or the in-lieu fee must be paid.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if there is a potential for abusing the number of people residing in a
second dwelling unit. Mr. Kelley replied that the housing code is a function of State law. Local
jurisdictions are the enforcement agency for the Uniform Housing Code and they cannot be more
restrictive unless there are geographic or topographic reasons. Recent court decisions which have tried to
create findings to have a more restrictive occupancy requirement have failed the courts. The ruling which
came down is that there are no good topographic or climatic or geographic reasons why any jurisdiction
have more stringent housing requirements than the State code. An example would be a one bedroom unit
comprising 500 s.f.. You can legally sleep five people in a living room that is 225 sf.. You could also sleep
three people in a 10 ft. x 12 ft. bedroom. You cannot sleep in the kitchen, bathroom, hall, or closet.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, commented that ft‘v%YiS the City’s current ordinance is based on a
very specific government code section that allows you to restrict a senior citizen second dwelling unit to
one or two persons. When the City of Santa Ana’s l‘16rXWg occupancy ordinance was invalidated, it
involved the city trying to evict a family of five from a one bedroom apartment. The 4th District Appellate
Court reasoned that a decision in favor of the city would criminalize a level of occupancy density which the
State has determined to be safe. Further, it would force larger families out of their dwellings and into
communities which do follow the Uniform Housing Code and could only result in increased homelessness
and exacerbate housing shortages statewide.
Commissioner Betz inquired how the occupants of second dwelling units fit into growth management
numbers. Mr. DeCerbo replied that if a unit is built, it comes out of the bank. The growth management
plan is a dwelling unit cap rather than a population cap. The number of occupants is never regulated
under the growth management ordinance.
Commissioner Betz stated that she cannot support the concept of this ordinance because there are
elements of it which are unworkable, e.g. tandem parking and garage conversions to name a few. She
thinks the ordinance has a great potential for abuse.
Commissioner Hall inquired about lot coverage and setbacks. Mr. DeCerbo replied that a second dwelling
unit would have to meet all standards of the underlying zone.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about zero lot lines. He would have a hard time allowing a second
dwelling unit on a lot less than 7,500 s.f.. Mr. DeCerbo replied that there is a permitted building envelope
on every lot. A second dwelling unit would have to be built within the building envelope and cannot
encroach into the setback area.
Commissioner Schlehuber is also concerned about the growth management program. He would like
someone to come and talk to the Commission about the bank and reserves, etc. He is worried that the
number of bonuses being granted will run out and there will be nothing left.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the population were 8 persons in each unit, how would it affect the City
standards. Mr. Wayne replied that a standard household size is recalculated every ten years through the
census. If this were a real problem, it would start to show up and it could mean that the City would have to
increase some of the services and facilities over what was planned. Every indication is that household size
is on the decline and is projected to decline through the year 2000. Staff does not envision this as a
problem. All of the units will not be coming out of the bank because some of the existing lots are under
utilized. The only way we could have a problem is if we started to increase densities above the growth
control point.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 1994 PAGE 10
Commissioner Welshons inquired if we have looked at any of the older areas that this ordinance could
affect. Mr. Wayne replied that the Commission should view this as just another tool box for affordable
housing.
Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Sharon R. South, 101 So. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, Director of Business Services for the
Encinitas Union School District, addressed the Commission and read the contents of a letter to the
Planning Commission dated March 2, 1994. The Encinitas Unified School District opposes ZCA 92-04
because there could be significant adverse impacts upon their school district’s service and facilities. A
copy of the letter Ms. South read is on file in the Planning Department.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m.
Deputy City Attorney Hirata advised the Commission that she feels staff has correctly analyzed the CEQA
legislation. Homeowners who build second dwelling units would be required to pay school fees. Ms.
South’s arguments are the same ones the Carlsbad Unified School District is making in their litigation
against the City. Small living units are categorically exempt from EIR requirements. She could not go into
further detail due to the lawsuit.
Commissioner Erwin stated that second dwelling units started out as granny flats and they are now
evolving into subsidized housing. He understands that it is the law and we must follow it, but he has a
problem with minimum lot sizes. He is also not especially happy about the removal of age restrictions and
the CUP requirement. He thinks that when we tell a homeowner that they have to pay an $11,000 fee to
the City to build the unit, or rent only to low income households, that there won’t be many units actually
built.
Commissioner Schlehuber has some problems but he doesn’t think tandem parking is the worst thing.
There are many homes near his office which utilize tandem parking and it seems to work out okay. He is
not convinced that 7,500 sf. lot sizes are the best but he is happy they have to meet all code sections.
Commissioner Schlehuber will probably support it.
Commissioner Betz cannot support it for the reasons she stated before. She thinks it is much too
restrictive in the deed situation and she objects to the whole thing.
Commissioner Hall stated that Commissioner Erwin had addressed many of his concerns. He thinks this is
a tool we need to meet our affordable housing quotas. He feels there will be many hurdles to overcome in
order to build one of the units. He hopes the Commission doesn’t vote this down totally. He thinks that
staff should work on it some more and bring it back. He feels it should be given consideration for the
affordable housing value.
Commissioner Welshons likes the suggestion to rework some of the concerns. One of her concerns is
what happens when a deed restricted house is sold. She would like to know how this will be dealt with.
She agrees with Commissioner Hall that this is a tool we can use. She would like to see it come back.
Commissioner Noble can support it. He thinks the $11,000 fee will preclude anything being built. He
thinks that very few will deed restrict their units for low income housing. There are many granny flats in his
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 1994 PAGE 11
neighborhood and he has never seen any problems. Many times college students will room together.
Commissioner Noble believes that this type of housing fills a definite need.
Chairman Savary disapproves of being able to stack so many people to a small space. She thinks the
schools have a good point. She would like to see it come back.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that if we send it back, staff might want to look at removing the
deed restriction requirement. He thinks we might get more affordable units by letting it be voluntary. The
homeowner should also have the ability to buy out his contract at some point.
Commissioner Hall inquired if staff has enough direction on what the Commission is looking for. Gary
Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that he wants the Commission to know that staff may not be
able to satisfy some of their concerns. If there was some way to keep the rents down, there might not have
to be a deed restriction. He understands the concerns about minimum lot size, banking, garage
conversions, and the level of the administrative permit versus having it come to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Schlehuber doesn’t feel that lot size is a big issue because you can’t get a second unit on a
4,000 s.f. lot. He does feel that the bank is a big issue although he knows that everyone won’t be satisfied
with everything.
Gary Wayne commented that Commissioner Noble lives on a 6,000 s.f. lot and he would not be able to
build a second unit. He thinks that lot size and meeting the required setbacks will preclude many people
from being able to build second units.
Commissioner Welshons would like to see this come back with more visual information. She would also
like to have the concerns of the Encinitas Unified School District addressed as much as possible. Ms.
Hirata replied that she may be unable to elaborate fully due to the pending litigation with the Carlsbad
Unified School District.
Commissioner Hall would like to see a slide presentation showing the various assumptions.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that there is tandem parking all over the City. Staff could take at
least 20 pictures with tandem parking.
Commissioner Erwin thinks tandem parking is different when everyone lives in the same structure rather
than separate structures. His concern is what is the next step. He believes people will start applying for
variances because the law is unworkable.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to continue ZCA
92-94 to April 6, 1994 so that staff will have an opportunity to rework the amendment.
VOTE: 7-O
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
6)
zones.
ation of approval of a
ial living units and an
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this zone code
amendment speaks to two different items. The first issue is the bank, which Commissioner Schlehuber is
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 2
legal analysis.”
rch 16, 1994 on page 12,
“Ms. Hirata disagrees with Mr. Krupp’s
prove the Minutes of the
ABSTAIN: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. ZCA 92-4 - SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT - Request for approval of a
Negative Declaration and an amendment to various chapters and sections of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code (Title 21) to: (1) add a definition for Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allow the development of
Second Dwelling Units through administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2, and R-3 zones.
and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached dwellings in the P-C zones of the
City, and (3) amend the requirements for the creation of Second Dwelling Units in the R-A, R-E,
R-l, R-2, and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached
dwellings in the P-C zones of the City.
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on March 2, 1994
this Zone Code Amendment pertaining to second units was heard by the Planning Commission and they
voted for a continuance to enable staff to research and respond to concerns regarding inclusionary
housing requirements for second dwelling units, second dwelling units on smaller single-family residential
lots of less than 7,500 s.f., tandem parking for second dwelling units, and the impact of second dwelling
units on the excess dwelling unit bank. In response to these concerns, staff is recommending the following
ordinance revisions:
* lnclusionary Housing Requirement - Staff recommends the deletion of the requirement for second
dwelling unit owners to either pay the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee or deed restrict the second unit as
affordable to lower income households. Instead, staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to
stipulate that the maximum monthly rental rate for a second dwelling unit shall be affordable to lower
income households. This provision would not be placed as a deed restriction on second units, nor would
it be monitored and enforced by the City, except on a complaint basis. It would, however, require that
the owner provide the City with prospective rental rate information for the second unit, upon application
for a building permit. The proposed rental rate would then be reported to the State Department of
Housing & Community Development during our yearly report to the State. Provided that the rental rate
is affordable, it would be counted towards satisfying the City’s regional share housing needs. He noted
that staff has been advised by HCD that they will count second dwelling units in their calculation as long
as the rental price meets the affordable criteria.
* Second Dwelling Units on Smaller Single-Family Lots - Staff recommends the addition of new
development standards to the planned development chapter of the municipal code which would regulate
the placement of second units on single-family lots less than 7,500 s.f. as follows: (1) all second
dwelling units shall be set back the same distance from the front and side property lines as the primary
unit on the lot; (2) the second dwelling unit shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the rear property
line; (3) second dwelling units shall not be permitted to encroach into the recreation area of the primary
residence and (4) for detached second dwelling units, the distance between the
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 3
primary dwelling unit and the detached dwelling unit shall not be less than 10 feet. He showed diagrams
on the overhead of where a second dwelling unit could be placed on various sized lots under 7,500 s.f.
He also showed a photo of the only granny flat now existing in the City.
* Tandem Parking - Mr. DeCerbo stated that the present requirement for one additional parking space to
be located outside of the setback areas has prohibited the development of second dwelling units. Staff
recommends that the parking requirement be changed to allow tandem parking to satisfy the parking
requirement. He showed several photos of tandem parking now existing throughout the City.
* Excess Unit Bank - There are currently 2,000 units in the City’s Excess Unit Bank. These excess unit
exist as a consequence of residential projects being approved at lower densities than permitted. Based
on this historical trend, staff believes that the units in the Bank are sufficient to meet our affordable
housing objectives without exceeding the dwelling unit limitations of the Growth Management Plan.
Commissioner Welshons inquired what kind of agreement the homeowner would have to sign saying that
the second dwelling unit is affordable. Mr. DeCerbo replied that no agreement would be signed. The
homeowner would only need to provide the City with the prospective rental rate upon application for a
building permit.
Commissioner Welshons inquired what would happen when a complaint is received. Mr. DeCerbo replied
that the City would then have the option of enforcing the rental rate.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if that means that today we won’t enforce it but tomorrow we might.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the City couldn’t selectively enforce the rental rate.
Zone code enforcement is on a complaint basis. Our ordinance stipulates that the rent for a second
dwelling unit must be affordable. If the homeowner rents the unit for more than the affordable rate, it
would be considered a zone code violation, which is enforceable. However, enforcement is on a complaint
basis.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he thinks this will be good because the units are small, and the
affordable rental rate is relatively high. He doesn’t think a homeowner would realistically be able to get a
higher rent than the affordable rate because of the size of the unit. For instance, the average rental rate for
a one bedroom apartment is $556 per mo. However, the affordable rental allowance for two person
occupancy is $673 per mo. Commissioner Schlehuber feels the ordinance is well written and doesn’t think
there is anything to be lost. He thinks it is a win-win situation.
Commissioner Hall commented that the average second dwelling unit will house a child, mother, or maid
so, in all probability, there may be no rent paid at all. He also thinks it will be a win-win situation.
Commissioner Welshons doesn’t understand the requirement to rent to only low income. Mr. DeCerbo
replied that this is necessary to ensure that second dwelling units qualify as affordable housing.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the reference to low income also includes very low income. Mr.
DeCerbo replied that the mandate is only for 80% of the median income.
Commissioner Betz stated that if a second unit is built on a new lot, she would rather see an extra parking
+ace provided for in the plans--perhaps a three car garage; she is not in favor of tandem parking in this
instance. Furthermore, she noted that second dwelling units can only be single story. She inquired about
the possibility of having a parking garage located under a living unit. Mr. DeCerbo replied that it is possible
to have a detached garage with a living unit above it.
Commissioner Betz would like to see more flexibility if the lot is large enough. Gary Wayne, Assistant
Planning Director, replied that unique situations could be handled with a variance.
i
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 4
Commissioner Betz stated that variances are very exclusive and hard to get. If a lot is large enough, she
feels the ordinance should allow some flexibility.
Commissioner Hall stated that the other complaint might be having a neighbor peer out a back window at
you while you are in your back yard around the pool. In order to protect the privacy of neighbors, he
doesn’t think added height should be allowed.
Commissioner Schlehuber thinks that a second dwelling unit with two floors and parking below would look
like a Spite House. He is still convinced that tandem parking is a good idea.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how services and facilities would be calculated and addressed for these
second dwelling units which are created after the local facilities management plans (LFMPs) are in place.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that the LFMPs are broken up into critical and non-critical facilities. For instance,
sewer, water, and roads would be critical facilities associated with the preservation of health, safety, and
welfare. Those have all been planned with excess capacity above the Proposition E caps. Second
dwelling units would not exceed those caps.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if fees are collected for second dwelling units. Mr. DeCerbo replied yes;
public facilities fees would have to be paid for each second unit when the permit is pulled. Those fees
would go into the capital improvement project (CIP) budget for freeway interchanges, roads, libraries, City
administration, parks, etc.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff had any comments on the letters received from Fieldstone
(dated April 6, 1994) and the Ladwig Design Group (dated March 31, 1994). Mr. DeCerbo replied that the
Ladwig letter requested second dwelling units in the R-P, R-T, R-W, and RD-M zones. Staff can support
that on lots which have single-family residences. As far as the request for gravel paving is concerned,
staff explained to Mr. Ladwig that this requirement applies only to the rural estate zone with minimum one
acre lots and 70 ft. front yard setbacks. Staff feels that concrete and asphalt paving are needed to prevent
erosion. Mr. Ladwig understands the reasoning and concurs with staff.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Fieldstone letter requests that second dwelling units of less than 500 sf. not be
counted as a unit under growth management. Staff does not have the authority to exclude these units
from counting as dwelling units under growth management since they would be equipped with bath and
kitchen facilities.
Chairman Savary stated that the public hearing had been closed at the previous meeting but she reopened
it for new comments only.
Sharon South, Director of Business Services for the Encinitas Union School District, 101 So. Ranch0
Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, addressed the Commission and stated that she is concerned about possible
impacts to the district since the requirement for senior citizen occupancy was replaced with no age
restriction. She feels that many of the units on larger lots could house parents with small children.
Brooks Worthing, 1136 Larkspur Lane, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a small
builder. He has had three requests over the years about the granny flat concept but the fees which were
required stopped the projects cold. He likes the idea of this concept being loosened up because it is a
good solution to the affordable housing shortage. He thinks it will be self-policing and that the units won’t
be rented anywhere near the maximum unless it is on a view site in La Costa.
Robert Ladwig, 1947 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 108, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and urged the
Commission to support the revised ordinance. He thinks staff did an excellent job in researching what
other cities have done regarding second dwelling units. He would be happy to answer questions, if any.
MINUTES G
c /?
l .
c
.
l
PROOF OF PUBLlCATlON . (2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to of interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
Blade-Citizen
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the City of Oceanside and qualified for
the Ctty of Oceanside and the North County Judicial
district with substantial circulation in Bonsall, Fallbrook,
Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Vista and Carlsbad, County of San Diego, and which newspaper has been adjudge{
a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of June 30.1989, case number 171349;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
June 4, 1994
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
tfated at O,c,esx&side.#jijzwnia. this 6 day
Y
BLADE-CITIZEN Legal Advertising
1722 South Hill Street P.O. Box 90
Oceanside, CA 92054 (619) 433-7333
This space is for the County Clerk’s Fifing Stamp
3of of Publication of
~
Notice of Public Hekring
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZCA 92-4
SECOND DWELLING UNITS - "GRANNY FLATS"
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, June 14, 1994, to consider approval of a Negative Declaration and amendments to various chapters and sections of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to: (1) add a definition for Second Dwelling Unit; (2) allow the development of Second Dwelling Units through administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single- family detached dwellings in the P-C zones of the City: and (3) amend the requirements for the creation of Second Dwelling Units in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached dwellings in the P-C zones of the City of Carlsbad.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department, at 438-1161, ext. 4445.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: June 4, 1994 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
- h
- . .- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, March 2, 1994, to consider an amendment to various chapters and sections of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21) to: (1) add a
definition for Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allow the development of Second Dwelling Units
through administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones and areas designated
by a master plan for single-family detached dwellings in the P-C zones of the City, and (3)
amend the requirements for the creation of Second Dwelling Units in the R-A, R-E, R-l, R-2
and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached dwellings
in the P-C zones of the City of Carlsbad.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after February 24,1994. If you
have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (619) 438-
1161, ext. 4445.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 92-04
CASE NAME: SECOND UNITS (“GRANNY FLATS”)
PUBLISH: FEBRUARY 18,1994
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
CD:vd
h
(Form A)
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice ZCA 92-04 - SECOND
DWELLING UNITS - CITY OF CARLSBAD, for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the Council meeting of .
Thank you.
MARTY ORENYAK MAY 2, 1994
Assistant City Manager Date
Attachments
_-
k ZCA 92-04 SECOND DWELLING
CARLSBAD UNIP SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
DR GEORGE MANNON SUPT DR LARRY MAW, SUPT 801 PINE AVENUE 270 W. SAN MARCOS BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
DR PATRICIA CLARK WHITE 101sRANcHosANTAFERD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA COUNTY WTR DIST VALLECITOS WTR DISTRICT SAN DIEGO COUNTY 196OLACOSTAAV 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD DEPT OF PLANNING CARISBAD CA 92009 sANIwmcos CA 92069 5201 RUFFIN RD STE “B”
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEFT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DIST
CI’IY OF ENCINITAS CI’IY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF SAN MARCOS
505 S. WLCAN AV 320 N HORNE ST 105 W RICHMAR AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3633 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEFT OF FISH % GAME
330 GOLDENSHORE X50
LONG BEACH CA 90802
AR-I-0 J. NUUTINEN
4920 CAMPUS DR
NEWFORTBEACH CA 92660
-*
. : - /- . -
‘.
rr
c .
2
.
: ‘. .
. . . . . . ,
.
: ‘. “.-.,
. , ,; . .,. .I