Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-11; City Council; 16791; Council Policy No. 43 Amendment4 AB# 16,791 MTG. 6-.11-02 DEPT. PLN CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL m: CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 43 AMENDMENT EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. CITY MGR a RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2002-174 , REVISING City Council Policy No. 43 which would 1) reduce the number of existing and future projected excess dwelling units under the Growth Management Plan to 2,200 units and 2) establish criteria for the use of any of the excess units. ITEM EXPLANATION: As part of the fiscal year 2001-02 goal process, a team was formed and tasked with preparing an analysis of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and the effects of eliminating the excess units. The analysis included arriving at the number of excess units, the effects on City facility requirements, particularly those required by standards contained in the City's Growth Management Plan, the financial implications if the units were eliminated and potential effects on any other city programs. Staffs analysis has now been completed and is attached to this Agenda Bill as Exhibit "2. Staff will provide an overview of the analysis at the City Council meeting when this item is considered. In its report, Staff presented three alternatives for Council consideration: 1) Eliminate the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in its entirety, 2) Retain the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in its entirety, and 3) Retain a portion of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank by reserving some of the units for certain city programs that rely specifically on the excess units to function effectively. The City Council reviewed Staffs analysis and alternatives at a workshop held on February 20, 2002, and requested staff to bring forward Alternative No. 3 for formal Council consideration. Staff has determined that there are presently 4,903 units in the excess dwelling unit bank and that an additional 1,247 units could be added to the bank in the future for a total of 6,150 units. Alternative No. 3 proposes to eliminate 3,950 units from the bank but to retain 2,200 existing units for City programs that are either mandated by other agencies or are part of adopted plans and that rely heavily on the excess units for implementation. The details of this alternative are contained in the attached staff analysis. Staff has reviewed all of the city ordinances, plans and documents that could potentially be affected by eliminating units from the bank pursuant to Alternative No. 3 and has determined that implementation can be achieved by a comprehensive revision of existing City Council Policy No. 43 which establishes the guidelines for allocation of excess units. The revised policy would identify the reduced number of units in the bank and would establish the criteria for allocation of the units to the city programs that rely on use of the units. The revised policy is provided as an exhibit to the City Council Resolution for this item. An alternative implementation approach, although more complicated and time consuming, would be to direct staff to process a formal amendment to the General Plan to reduce the residential buildout of the city by the number of dwelling units eliminated from the excess dwelling unit bank. If the Council decides to select this alternate approach, staff should be directed to return with the necessary documents. One final item discussed at the previous Council workshop had to do with placing the reduction of dwelling units on the November 2002 election as a ballot measure. If the City Council wishes to have this matter voted on by the citizens, your action would be to direct the City Attorney to return with documents for consideration by the Council of a ballot measure for the November 2002 election to amend the General Plan to reduce the maximum buildout residential units in the City of Carlsbad I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,791 by 3,950 units. Alternatively, if the Council wishes to approve the revised Policy No. 43 now but have it‘s decision ratified by the voters, your action would be to adopt Resolution NO. 2002-174, City Council of placing a measure on the November 2002 ballot ratifying the action of the City revising Policy No. 43 and direct the City Attorney to return with documents for consideration by the Council revising Policy No. 43. ENVIRONMENTAL: Amendments to City Council policies which are not related to a specific project are not considered projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore are exempt from environmental review (CEQA Section 15378). A Notice of Exemption will be filed once the City Council takes action. If the City Council decides to place this matter on the November 2002 election as a ballot measure, staff will analyze whether additional environmental review is warranted. FISCAL IMPACT: As described in detail in the report entitled “Analysis of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank of the Growth Management Plan”, elimination of excess dwelling units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank will not have any significant fiscal impact on the city. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2002-174 , with Attachment “A - Revised Policy 2. Report - “Analysis of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank of the Growth Management Plan” 3. Redline/Strikeout Version City Council Policy No. 43. No. 43 I < 1( 1’ 1: 1: 11 1: 1( 1’ 1) l! 2( 2: 2: 2: 2r 2: 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO: 2002-174 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REVISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 43 REGARDING THE NUMBER AND ALLOCATION OF DWELLING UNITS FROM THE EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, City Council Poli,cy No. 43 currently contains the Couhcil’s policy regarding the criteria for allocation of “excess” dwelling units from the Growth Management ~ Plan’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank; and WHEREAS, the City Counci! has determined to revise Policy No. 43 to establish the number of units in the Excess ‘Dwelling Unit Bank and the characteristics a project shall possess in order to qualify for allocation of excess units; and dwelling units projects; and COPY. . . .. . . .. .... J =? 1 1 L c f , I s 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of day of , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, (SEAL) age 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2002-174 -2- \ 4 Attachment “A” ”REVISED COUNCIL POLICY 43” Page 1 of 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD Policy No. 43 Date Issued Effective Date Supersedes No. COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Cancellation Date General Subject: Proposition E “Excess” Dwelling Unit Bank Specific Subject: Establishing Policy for Number and Allocation of Proposition E “Excess” Dwelling Units Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, EmDloyee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE To establish the City Council’s policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of “excess” dwelling units which have become available as a result of residential projects being density control points of the Growth Management Plan approved by voters on November 4, approved and constructed with less dwelling units than would have been allowed by the 1986, as Proposition E. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS dwelling units contained in the excess dwelling unit bank. It is the policy of the City Council It has been determined that as of March 2001, there are 6,150 existing or projected excess to eliminate 3,950 units from the bank and, as a result, reduce the excess unit bank to 2,200 units. I STATEMENT OF POLICY Although it is not mandatory to use the excess dwelling units, the City Council authorizes consideration of allowing the excess units to be allocated to future “qualifying,” residential projects. In order to “qualify” for an allocation of excess units, a project shall possess one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Housing Development for lower-income households where a density increase is requested pursuant to state law or to implement the city mandated 15% low-income requirement of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. 2. Senior citizen housing. 3. Housing located in the Village Redevelopment Area or the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. 4. Transit-oriented, “smart growth” development projects where increased residential density is being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment 5. Projects approved for a land use change from non-residential to residential or projects opportunities and commercial support services. 6. Single family (R-1) development in an intill area where the existing, specific R-I containing a mix of residential and non-residential. zoning of the property allows a slightly higher yield of units than the General Plan designation for the development. 5 Page 2 of 2 The number of excess units allocated to a particular "qualifying" project shall be at the sole discretion of the city and shall be based on the importance of the characteristic possessed by the projects or, where a project possesses multiple characteristics, the number and importance of the characteristics I EXHIBIT “2” ANALYSIS OF THE EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) Backaround and PurDose of Analvsis As part of the fiscal year 2001-2002 goal process, a team was formed and tasked with preparing an analysis of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and the effects of eliminating the excess units. The analysis included arriving at the number of excess units, the effects on City facility requirements particularly those required by standards contained in the City’s Growth any other city programs. This report provides an overview of the team’s findings. Management Plan, the financial implications if the units were eliminated and potential effects on Number of Excess Dwellina Units The number of units that exist now and the number that is projected to be added to the bank in the future is shown on Exhibit “A. The total is 6,150 dwelling units. The units are shown by each of the 25 Local Facility Management Zones, by quadrant and citywide. The units are spread pretty evenly by quadrant: NW - 1,881 units, NE - 1,124 units, SW 1,736 units and SE - 1,409 units. The Excess Dwelling Unit Bank was derived by adding the number of existing units, approved units end future projected units for each Facility Zone and then, subtracting that number from the maximum number of units allowed by the Growth Management Plan for each zone. Effects on Compliance with the Facilitv Standards of the Growth Manaaement Plan One of the questions about the elimination of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank has to do with the implications to the demand for facilities, especially those that are subject to the City’s Growth defined in terms of population (and, therefore, housing). Elimination of all of the 6,150 dwelling Management Plan. The performance standards for some Growth Management facilities are units existing and projected to be in the bank would result in a reduction in the buildout population of approximately 14,254 persons (2.3178 x 6,150). The Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council in 1986 determined the amount of facilities which would be needed at buildout of the city based on utilization of all the potential units allowed by the Growth Management Plan including all excess dwelling units. If fewer housing units are allowed by eliminating the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, then there would be a corresponding reduced demand for these facilities relative to the Growth Management Standards and the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan. The following Growth Management Facilities were examined in terms of the reduced level of facilities needed in order to comply with the GMP standards if the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank was eliminated: Administrative Facilities Libraries Parks Drainage Circulation Sewer Collection System Wastewater Treatment Capacity Water Distribution System 1 7 Administrative Facilities - 189,450 sq. ft. of administrative space would be needed to comply with the minimum Growth Management Standard for administrative facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all of the excess units were eliminated, a minimum of 167,850 sq. ft. would be needed for a reduction of 21,600 sq. ft. Libraries - 101,040 sq. ft. of library space would be needed to comply with the minimum Growth the excess units were eliminated, a minimum of 89,520 sq. ft. would be needed for a reduction Management Standard for library facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all of 11,520 sq. ft. Parks - 378.8 acres of park land would be needed to comply with the minimum Growth excess units are eliminated, a minimum of 335.7 acres would be needed for a reduction of 43.1 Management Standard for park facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all the acres. Infrastructure Facilities - The elimination of all excess dwelling units for the Drainage, Circulation, Sewer Collection, Wastewater Treatment, and Water Distribution Facilities is not general, all City infrastructure facilities have been designed, and are programmed in the CIP anticipated to significantly change the types and sizes of facilities planned for build-out. In based on the maximum number of dwelling units possible in the City. Because the reduction of du’s is generally spread over the entire City the overall reduction is not expected to be large enough to impact the size of planned facilities. Specific LFMP Zones are currently being those with excess du’s greater than 200. reviewed on a more detailed level to further confirm this assessment. These Zones include Below is a summary of the possible impacts to facilities that are being further assessed: Water Distribution - A reduction in storage capacity may warrant the reduction of planned reservoirs. Sewer Collection - The South Agua Hedonda Interceptor is the only major sewer collection system that may be impacted. However, studies have already concluded that this interceptor will be down sized and the need for further reduction is unlikely. Financial Analysis In order to understand the impact on financing and constructing future facilities, it is important to understand the City’s approach to: 1) Determining the type and size of facilities needed for buildout, and 2) Ensuring that sufficient funds are available to pay for these facilities. When determining the type and size of facilities needed to meet future growth demands, facilities sufficient to meet, or exceed, the needs of any potential future development are selected and sized. This approach of slightly over designing facilities is often prudent based on the economies of scale associated with construction, and the increased cost of retrofitting structures already in place, and is especially true for infrastructure facilities such as sewer collection and water distribution. The approach to estimating future revenues to pay for facilities is based on the assumption that the minimum number of dwelling units will be constructed. Fees from dwelling units, which have a probability of not developing, are excluded from projected revenues. As a result, the CIP funding program does not include revenues from excess dwelling units. 2 g The result of this conservative financing approach has shown that we expect to have sufficient funds available to build all facilities as currently shown in the Capital Improvement Program, even if the excess units are eliminated. This means that the city could decide to build the facilities even though they would exceed what would be required by the standards of the Growth Management Plan and even though the excess dwelling units are eliminated. If certain facilities are scaled down, some of the fee programs may need to be revised. A reduction in residential development equates to fewer tax-payers, and thus, reduced General needed in some areas, such as reduced utility usage and possibly reduced maintenance and Revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, utility charges). Although there will be fewer services will be greater with fewer property owners paying for a larger share of these facilities than protection services, the per capita operating costs of facilities (Parks and Libraries, for example) originally anticipated. Potential Effects on Other Proarams A. Housing Programs The City has produced approximately 970 lower-income housing units in recent years, requiring approximately 500 units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Therefore, on average, each lower income unit required approximately 0.5 units from the bank in the form of density bonuses. Some projects have needed more and some less. Some multi-family projects have needed up to 2 bank units for each affordable unit. It is not known what will be required for future projects. However, staff notes that the average density for all inclusionary projects has been 15.3 dulac and the typical starting density has been RLM, with a growth management control point of 3.2 dulac. State housing law requires each jurisdiction to have a density bonus ordinance that will grant units for low, moderate or senior housing. Under current Carlsbad law all density bonus units must come from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. For a low-income housing additional economic incentives in return for designating 20% of the project units as low proposal, state law requires a minimum bonus of 25% above the base yield, income. (i.e. the minimum bonus equates to 1.25 Excess Dwelling Units per lower- income housing unit.) Carlsbad has often granted additional density in lieu of cash for the “additional incentives”. An important legal issue is whether or not Carlsbad would have to grant State law density bonuses for affordable, moderate and senior housing even if there were no Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Two major points in the State certification review of the City’s 1990 and 1999 housing elements were: a) Carlsbad’s lack of higher density zoned land, and b) the dwelling unit limitation. HCD wanted more land zoned for densities up to 30 dulac. HCD was persuaded to approve the City’s Housing Element by showing how the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank would allow granting density bonuses for affordable housing anywhere in the City. In 1991, HCD required the City to approve its inclusionary housing ordinance and density bonus ordinance prior to certifying the Housing Element. The mechanics of both ordinances depend, in part, on utilization of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. B. Village Redevelopment Area The entire Village Redevelopment Area is designated “V” (Village), a general plan designation that has residential density range assigned by right. Therefore, under current City law, each new residence in the Village requires allocation of one excess 3 9 dwelling unit from the bank. Because of this, and to assure the ability to develop residential units in the Village, 1,000 units were placed in the NW Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit Bank when it was first created in 1986. The Village Redevelopment Master Plan allows residential development up to 19 du/ac throughout much of the Plan area. In particular, the Plan anticipates significant residential development on approximately 300 properties in the four districts nearest the Village Commuter Rail Station. If just these latter properties were developed with homes, and awarded an additional 25% affordable housing density bonus, the Village would need up to 2,000 units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. It is not likely that all of these properties will develop in this manner, but some degree of residential development is likely and anticipated by the Master Plan. Residential development will not occur in the Village Redevelopment Area without retaining some of the excess units or, as an alternative, rezoning some of the Village properties to a residential use prior to eliminating the bank. C. Land Conversions property to another designation. When the proposed change is from non-residential to From time to time, a need arises to amend the general plan land use designation on a from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Conversions from non-residential to residential will residential all of the units that accrue to the property due to the new designation comes not be possible without units in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. D. Regional Smart Growth “Smart Growth” calls for placing lower densities at a distance from transit corridors and higher densities nearer transit corridors, creating transit destinations along the corridors (jobs, and shopping), utilizing pedestrian-friendly design principles, implementing traffic calming principles away from the transit focus areas, preserving habitat, and providing affordable housing (especially higher density housing) near transit and jobs. incentives for projects incorporating smart growth principles. For example, $35 million of In order to foster smart growth in the region, SANDAG is beginning to create financial fund primary arterial construction in cities that have adopted a resolution supporting State Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP) funds have been set aside directly to will be in a position to compete more successfully for transportation, affordable housing, smart growth. Increasingly, those jurisdictions that implement smart growth principles and other infrastructure funds available through SANDAG and the State of California. Carlsbad does many of these things already. However, to do some of the others to another, and increase density on other properties. The major tool that has made requires the ability to change land uses on properties, transfer density from one property these types of changes possible has been the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. If the bank is eliminated the City’s ability to effectuate this component of smart growth will be limited. E. R-I Development In Northwest Quadrant The General Plan currently allows standard, single family (R-I) development to exceed the GMP control points by 25% primarily on infill lots in the northwest quadrant when this provision come from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. compliance with specific R-I zoning allows a slightly higher yield. Units to implement 4 Conclusions and Alternatives alternatives are derived from the conclusion/findings made by staff as a result of this analysis. Several alternatives are available for dealing with the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. The These conclusions are as follows: 1. Although many projects have utilized units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, the the bank is retained, it is doubtful whether it will ever be used in its entirety due to bank continues to get larger and is projected to do the same in the future. Even if development trends, environmental regulations and compliance with the city’s strict quality development standards. 2. All of the City’s planned facilities as identified in the Capital Improvement Program can be adequately funded even if the excess units are not used. The financial implications of not building the excess units are minimal. 3. Because the city is about three-fourths developed, there are not many large remaining areas where the excess units can be accommodated. They would most likely be used primarily in limited locations within larger vacant areas of the City. 4. There are some implications to other city programs besides the Growth Management Plan and Capital Improvement Program from eliminating the excess dwelling units as identified and described in the analysis (e.g. Housing Element and the Village Master Plan). These implications need to be discussed and considered in making a decision regarding the excess units. Based upon these findings and conclusions, three alternatives for dealing with the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank are presented for consideration. Alternative I - Eliminate the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in its entirety. This would potentially reduce the residential buildout of the city by 6,150 dwelling units (approximate population reduction of 14,250). As a follow-up decision, the City Council would need to determine whether there should be a corresponding reduction in the facilities planned to accommodate the eliminated units. As mentioned previously, the financial effects of deciding to build all of the facilities originally planned are minimal even though they would not be required to meet Growth Management Standards. Alternative 2 - Retain the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in its entirety. Although it is not anticipated that all of the units will ever be requested, the facilities to serve these units have been planned for and financed, the units are utilized to assist in implementing other city programs and it does provide the most flexibility for the future. Alternative 3 - Retain a portion of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank by reserving some of the units for specific city programs such as affordable housing and residential development in the Village but eliminate the rest of the units from the bank. This would address the effects identified in this analysis on other city programs that in the past utilize the excess units. Staffs analysis has determined that the reservation of the following number of units would address the effects: Housing Program - 1,000 units Village Residential - 800 units Future Land Conversions/Miscellaneous - 400 units TOTAL 2,200 units 5 This alternative would result in eliminating approximately 4,000 potential dwelling units from the buildout of the city (approximate population reduction of 9,270). 6 EXHIBIT “A” Existing Dwelling Units Amroved Dwellina Units 37,270 2.478 E&nated Future bwelling Units 8,535 Buildout Dwelling Units -1 Growth Management Plan Dwelling Unit Max 54,433 Excess Dwelling Units -1 Notes: 2. Existing units include all building permits issued as of March 1, 2001. 1. All dwelling unit numbers are as of March 1, 2001. 4. Future unit projections in Zone 14 were reduced by 10% due to actual unit yield trends. 3. Future unit projections in Zones 8. 15 and 25 were reduced by 25% due to significant environmental constraints. Growth Management Excess Dwelling Unit Goal 06/05/2002 J3 EXHIBIT “3” “REDLINEISTRIKEOUT VERSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 43” Page 1 of 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Proposition E “Excess” Dwelling Unit &&Allocation Specific Subject: -Establishing GAehwxiPolicy for Number and Allocation of Proposition E “Excess” Dwelling Units .. Policy No. 43 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, EmDlovee Bulletin Boards, Press, File I PURPOSE To establish 1 Council’s policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of “excess” dwelling units which have become available as a result of residential projects being the density control points of the Growth Management Plan approved by voters on approved and constructed with less dwelling units than would have been allowed by November 4, 1986, as Proposition E. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS It has been determined that as of March 2001, there are 6,150 existing or projected excess dwelling units contained in the excess dwelling unit bank. It is the policy of the City Council to eliminate 3,950 units from the bank and, as a result, reduce the excess unit bank to 2,200 units. STATEMENT OF POLICY the excess units to be allocated to future “qualifying,” residential projects. In order to “qualify” for an allocation of excess units, a project shall possess one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Housing Development for lower-income households where a density increase is requested pursuant to state law or to implement the city mandated 15% low- income requirement of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. 2. Senior citizen housing. 3. Housing located in the Village Redevelopment Area or the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. HUO~I*~-~-~C,~-il~-,~l-~~~.~ 1. residential density is being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, Transit-oriented, “smart growth” development projects where increased employment opportunities and commercial support services. 5. Projects approved for a land use change from non-residential to residential or projects containing a mix of residential and non-residential. 5, Single family (R-I) development in an infill area where the existing, specific R-I zoning of the property allows a slightly higher yield of units than the General Plan designation for the development. The number of excess units allocated to a particular “qualifying” project shall be a the the sole discretion of the city and shall be based on the importance of the characteristic possessed by the projects or, where a project possesses multiple characteristics, the number and importance of the characteristics. 2. 1 /5 Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Council Meeting of June 11, 2002 - Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Agenda Bill 16,791 - City Council Policy No. 43 Amendment Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers: As you know, JPI has been interested in developing the Sunny Creek site for some time The purpose of this letter is to request that you support Alternative 3 set forth in Agenda Bill 16,791 relative to the future of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank ("Bank"), and support the proposed amendments to City Council Policy No. 43. As you recall, at the March 5,2002 City Council public hearing, Council directed staff to consider planning the Sunny Creek site with a mixed-use (residential and commercial) development. Alternative 3 and the amendments to City Council Policy No. 43 would enable that planning process to continue. For your information, JPI has been pursuing the design of a mixed-use development on the Sunny Creek site; we have met on numerous occasions with staff and submitted and received comments on a preliminary plan for the site. We are now in the process of redesigning the site to address comments received from staff. The proposed development will meet two of the six qualifying characteristics (4 and 5) for the allocation of excess dwelling units and we believe would be a good candidate for allocation of excess dwelling units. Therefore, we respectfully request that you support Alternative 3 and adopt Resolution No. 2002-1 74 amending City Council Policy No. 43. Thank you for consideration of our request. very truly yours, I Heidi W. Mather Regional Development Manager Cc: Lorraine Wood, City Clerk Ray Patchett, City Manager Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director 8910 University Center Lane Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92122-1029 (858) 458-1200 Fax (858) 458-1716 www.jpi.com June 13.2002 Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Council Meeting of June 11,2002 - Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Agenda Bill 16,791 ~ City Council Policy No. 43 Amendment Continued to June 18,2002 Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers: Thank you for your thought provoking questions of staffwith regard to Alternative 3 set forth in Agenda Bill 16,791 relative to the future of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank ("Bank"), and the proposed amendments to City Council Policy No. 43. As stated in my letter dated June 11,2002, JPI supports the staff recommendation. I would like to state for the record, however, that a mixed-use development on the Sunny Creek site may include up to 250 dwelling units, dwelling units that would have to come out of the excess dwelling unit bank. We anticipate coming forward to City Council by next June or July. Based on staffs comments regarding how the recommended number of 2200 units was calculated, it is possible that not enough units were attributed to projects approved for a land use change and that the overall number of units should be increased. There was also no discussion as to the timing of available units. We would hope that a large enough pool of units would be currently available to accommodate our proposed development and others. I would also like to make a correction to my letter of June 11,2002. I stated that the proposed development on the Sunny Creek site would meet two of the six qualifying characteristics for the allocation of excess dwelling units when in fact it would meet three of the six qualify characteristics (1,4 and 5). Very truly yours, Heidi W. Mather Regional Development Manager Cc: Lorraine Wood, City Clerk Ray Patchett, City Manager Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director 8910 University Center Lane Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92122-1029 (858) 458-1200 Fax (858) 458-1716 www.jpi.com JUNE 18,2002 TO: CITY COUNCIL VIA: City Manager FROM: Planning Director AGENDA ITEM #9 - EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK Planning staff could support the following changes to Number 6 of the qualifying factors in revised Council Policy No, 43 in order to address the issue presented by Jack Henthorn at last weeks Council meeting (new wording is underlined and highlighted): 6. Single family (R-I) development in an infill area where the existing, specific R-1 zoning of the property allows a slightly higher yield of units than the General Plan designation for the development @-) the develoDmcnt meets all subdivision and zoninq standards and- lot sizes are compatible with adjmat subdivided property; @2I6 From: <markser@aol.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> U Mayor Date: Thu, Jun 20,2002 1058 AM city Coud I% IO91 Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 CONTACT US city M.nepr A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed City Attom and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. Below, please find the information that was submitted: AGENDA ITEM I b-awa- Cyr- First Name: Mark Last Name: Serepca Address: 1230 Plum Tree Road City: Carlsbad State: CA Zip: 92009 Country: USA E-mail: markser@aol.com Message: Please vote to reduce future growth in the housing "bank." Carlsbad is already showing signs of overcrowding. Thank you for your consideration. User details: Mozillal4.0 (compatible; MSlE 5.5; AOL 7.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.903 I web browser 152.163.201.66 I ip address I hostname June 24,2002 Honorable Mayor Claude Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 and Members of the City Council Reference: AI3 #16,791 - City Council Policy No. 43 Amendment (Excess Dwelling Unit Bank) I am submitting this correspondence as a private citizen to express my concerns regarding this issue. I would recommend reducing the existing bank to 1,000 units (for atotal projected 2,247 excess units at buildout). Reducing the excess dwelling unit bank will force more thoughtll distribution and allocation of units. I also recommend that this issue not be further politicized by placing it on the ballot. The community depends on it’s City Government to do the right thing and act on it’s behalf when dealing with complex administrative policy issues. Additionally, I would point out that the Carlsbad Planning Commission’s input was totally precluded in the discussions leading to this agenda item. The Planning Commission, as a primary citizens advisory body deliberating on these and related matters, appears trivialized when it is obviated in the process. I had planned to be available this evening to present my ideas, however, a family emergency has called me out of town. Res-ly submitted, 4378 Adams Street,Carlsbad, CA 92008 TELEPHONE MESSAGE June 25.2002 TO: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR SEENA TRIGAS RE: EXCESS DWELLING UNITS Planning Commission Chair Seena Trigas called to leave the following message for the Mayor and City Council. She indicated that some members of the Commission asked her to convey to the City Council that they are unhappy with the fact that they were not asked to participate in the discussion of the Excess Dwelling Units issue at any level. Some of them feel that since they deal directly with development issues in the City, that they should have been contacted for their input. Apparently this item was "informally" discussed at the Commission's recent workshop, but since it was not listed as an actual agenda item, no formal action was taken. mhs c: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk I L Subject: Agenda item 13 .-Policy 43 amendment Honorablc Mayor and City Council: My partner and I have have been diligent!y attempting to process a residential development on property that we have owned for thirty years. In fact, *.ve cuneotly have in application to subdivide the propmy on file with rhe City. The development would be cousistent with the existing General Plan derignatio~~, although we are reqnasting to exceed the Growth Control Point as QU iufill project surrdd by highar density development. The property is designated Residential Low (0 to 1.5 dwelling units per acre) and IS currently zoued L-C (Lin~ited Control). Wc arc includulg m attachment showing the surrounding land use'and development confikwations. We have cooperated with the Ciry, the wildlife agencies and the C:oestal Conunission to resolve issues related to the construcfior. of Aviara Parkway south of Palomar Airport Road, by supporting the estahlinhmt uf a11 Hh4P wildlife oomdor PCfOCs our property. In addition we have cooparatzd With the Ciry and the developers who coqsmcttd the Laurel Tree apamncnt projcct by ganting easements and selling property to allow for the completion of 138 affordable apanment wits. concerned that the proposed language in Council Policy statenlent 43 daes not recognize th.e.infil1 stntus of our property, as well ak other L-C designated properties with ResidmtiA Low and Residential Low Medium land use classificsrtions that have yet to be rezoned. Thcse propcaies ate often sunoundrd by much hidm land use intensities and mvimmentnl constraints. 'Ihese are issues thkt can often be addressed with only slight modifications to yield. Item 6 ofproposed Council Policy 43 appcars to limir the flexibiliry found in the (ienaal PI^, to existing ~-1 properties. k~ fact, the staff ryon states that tbjs provision relates primarily to the Northwest Quadrant, with misting R-1 zoning. 'The General Plan Imguage do.% not mako this distinctisn. We we reaurstine fhat the Council consider a slight modification to item 6 to be consistent with the existing General Plan language. We are enclosing a proposal showing: the misting Gend Plan language, the rccammendation in the proposedrevision ta Policy 43, and 6 our proposed innwage. We feel that the modification to the language would pro\idc the Council with much nceded flexibility to address unique circumstances related to L-C zoned proparries with lower dcnsity land use designations. Thank you for your consideration. . GENERAL PLAN LANGUAGE (Land Use Element - Page 15) “In those exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent with the land use designation but would permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low and low-medium density residential classifications, the City may find that the project is consistent with this element if it is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs expressed herein and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the maximum allocation.” STAFF PROPOSED LANGUAGE 6. Single Family (R-I) development in an infill area where the existing, specific R-1 zoning of the property allows a slightly higher yield of units than the General Plan designation for the development. PROPOSED MODIFICATION (with strikeout) 6. Single Family (R-1) development in an infill area where the base zone of the property allows a slightly higher yield of units than the General Plan growth control point would accommodate where stdl yield would not exceed the maximum ofthe apl>licable General Plan range.. X W 3 d) -1 'cd bn 0 4 5 d s 0 A4 b 033 5 d cd m d) 0 2 0 > d cd F4 '0 cd cd 9 0 z 0 -4 d 5 d 0 cd *d c, 5 d cd d 0 id c, cn F4 cd 0 m 5 m cn d) 0 8 0 s 5 0 0 d c, k H 'a 2 0 E' H + ... ... a- * md * 0 3 n m m 0 0 wx A 0 A 0" WU' Y m L+ . 24 cdo b I bs) .s dm F1 2 c, 4 F1 cct s V 0 m m 01 ce I m c II 0 rl N Ln m I rl 00 N Pi? U I N d n U + + nm 00 0 0 eui W I m Ln m n W n I U rl m h v) v) Q) W x W rn S CI v) W II II x u I v) v) Q) W x W Q) L 3 CI 3 LL I I n d 0 0 nl di = W L z U M 0 m Ti4 M co N d- M In In mi co- co I\ Tr Ni N rl rli h N 00' rl m M d W 2 I M h rli 3 I v) 0 c6 F4 k 42 2 3 8 a" W 0 d .... d) k 04 Frr d) m c, 0 d) F4 ‘L 00m r\m m .. mm ‘a d 0 a m 0 k Q) I\ s d *d E Q) F4 II m d) 0 cd ’0 I 2 m m 0 N *d m W d cd 0 ba W d cd z d ‘PC I I E E I 0 0 F4 LH !=I 00 c,c, AA uu 00 zz mm I 7 0 6 1 .H & I aJ aJ c, E i a 0 Q) + a c! 0 c, k Q) c, c, ii m Q) m E 0 cd Q) rp m % E a 0 s b. m 'P rl d) Q 4 .-I 4 ? 4 m 0 m m '6 .4 c, rl d) d) m 3 Td *rl m d) k Td d) 0 m d 4 0 k 2 d) 24 P u k 24 d) n .. d) "I 4: a u 0 4 c a 0 7\ rl 0 1 I a 6) E a 0 0. 1 m d) m 00 i4-w m d) fr I d) 1 n 4 c., d 8 d) a * E *+ 0 Td d) c, 4 8 m d- b 0 -4 1 0 1 -4 2 3 0 u Td F1 8 4 0 v) rl d n 0 v) OI m' U - 0 0 N N' v) U I- L 1 QI L 3 U 3 LL b 0 aJ 3 L CI 3 LL L 0 1- U W 3 PL - 0 \o h 0 k & . m Ti m 0 0 a 3 0 - * N Ln 01 rl Nii I - m 00 d v) 0 0 N N' rn 47 rl 0 rl 0 h N M h' aJ Is! c m s 0 0 2 0 m + n 0 0 00 U 0 Ln h aJ Is! e m s V z" n 0 0 N 2- -0' 0 0 47 U 0 0 N d Ln 0 v) 0 N' M rl N 014 0 N N M OII - W 4 0 k L ~ 0 aJ " I 0 n Q 0 n w m a3 Ti m 0- m m m m Ti- 0 m m m d= 0 0 m 0 00' ll " " " " 0 0 0 r\' 4 4 0 0 m N a- 4 0 0 m m 4 Ti- 0 0 m 0 N 00'