HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-06; City Council; 16822; Excess Dwelling Unitsi ,':
,, ."-.
', , ,,~-
:/, ,
/
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL .-
4B# 16,822
- . .. APPOINTMENT OF A 15-MEMBER CITIZENS'
DEPT. HD.
I // LIITG, I-Y-wz COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ISSUE OF EXCESS
DWELLING UNITS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR.' TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY IEPT. CA I COUNCIL I
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
2002-207
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 1 establishing a 15-Member Ad-
Hoc Citizens' Committee to study and report on the issues of excess dwelling units in
the City of Carlsbad.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At its meeting of June 25, 2002, the City Council determined 3-0, (Kulchin-Finnila
absent) to establish a 15-Member Ad-Hoc Citizens' Committee to report on and make
recommendations for amendments to City Council Policy No. 43 regarding the
number and allocation of excess dwelling units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank of
the Growth Management Plan. Pending the completion of the Committee's work and
its report and recommendations, the Council further determined that no dwelling units
from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank exceeding 2,200 units shall be authorized and, if
under that limit, then only in accordance with City Council Policy No. 43. The Council
should satisfy itself that the resolution accurately reflects its intent in this matter.
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.
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. The
Committee shall be funded at $20,000 and shall be given whatever studies, reports,
background material and staff support are reasonably necessary to complete its work.
The costs of these latter items will depend on the activities of the Committee as it
progresses toward completion of its report and recommendations.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2002-207 .
2. Report - "Analysis of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank of the Growth Management
3. RedlinelStrikeout Version City Council Policy No. 43.
Plan".
1
2
?
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-207
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING A 15-MEMBER
CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ISSUE OF
EXCESS DWELLING UNITS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
AND TO MAKE ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, during the fiscal year 2001-2002 Goal Process, a staff
team was formed and tasked with preparing an analysis of the "Excess Dwelling
Unit Bank and the effects of eliminating the excess units; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted City of Carlsbad Council
Policy No. 43, addressing the subject of Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling Unit Bank
and Establishing Policy for Number and Allocation of Proposition E "Excess"
Dwelling Units; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held special meetings on April 17, 2002,
May 15, 2002, and June 19, 2002 to study this issue and to receive a staff report
entitled "Analysis of Excess Dwelling Unit Bank of the Growth Management Plan"
(GMP), which report is attached as Exhibit "2" to AB #16,822 and is incorporated
herein; and
WHEREAS, staff recommended changes to Council Policy No. 43 to
reduce the number of existing, or projected Excess Units from 6,150 to 2,200
thereby eliminating 3,950 units; and
WHEREAS, the issue was calendared for the City Council meeting of
June 11, 2002, and continued to the Council meeting of June 11, 2002, and 1
thereafter, continued to the Council meeting of June 18, 2002 and considered at
the Council meeting of June 25, 2002 and by which the Council received input from
citizens both at the meetings and in letters and verbal communications; and
1
1
<
L
C .
E
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at the meeting of June 25, 2002, determined to appoint
an Ad-Hoc 15-Member Citizens’ Committee to study excess dwelling units in the
City of Carlsbad.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That City Council Policy No. 43 is not amended at this time, and
instead, a 15-member Citizens’ Committee to study excess dwelling units in the City
of Carlsbad is hereby created with the following powers, duties and responsibilities:
a. There is hereby created a 15-Member Ad Hoc Citizens’
Committee to Study Excess Dwelling Units in the City of Carlsbad, who shall be
appointed by the Mayor with the advice and recommendations of City Council
members, and whose members shall be citizens of the City of Carlsbad and shall
be appointed equally from all four quadrants of the City to the maximum extent
practicable.
Julie Baker - Planninq Commission Desiqnee
Carl Miller - Northwest Quadrant
Bud Carroll - Northwest Quadrant
Mario Monrov - Northwest Quadrant
Maw Reclan - Northwest Quadrant
Andrew Chapman - Northwest Quadrant
Mike Howes - Northeast Quadrant
Bob Nielsen - Northeast Quadrant
Sallv Lvons - Southwest Quadrant
Hank Litton - Southwest Quadrant
Nora Georqe - Southwest Quadrant
IIV Roston - Southeast Quadrant
2
1
r L
c
4
c -
€
?
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bill Compass - Southeast Quadrant
Nancv Calverlev- Southeast Quadrant
Jim Craiq - Southeast Quadrant
b. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission, or her
designee, shall be a member of the Committee.
c. The Committee shall select a Chairperson and establish
its own meeting schedule, as necessary and appropriate, to accomplish the work
assigned to it by the City Council.
d. The Committee shall conduct its business in open and
public meetings which shall be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act ("Act", Gov.
Code, 5s 54950 et. seq.) and shall only meet in closed session upon advise of the
City Attorney in accordance with the Act. The City Attorney, or his designee, and
the Planning Director, or his designee, shall be ex-officio members of the
Committee.
e. The Committee shall study excess dwelling units in the
City of Carlsbad and revisions to City Council Policy No. 43 or other appropriate
vehicle to address its recommendations and shall make its written report and
recommendations to the City Council no later than December 1, 2002, after which
time the Committee will be dissolved unless extended by further resolution of the
City Council. If the Citizens' Committee has not completed its work by that time, it
shall, prior to that date, return to the City Council and shall request an extension of
this resolution giving its reasons that an extension is appropriate.
tools, resources, background information and staff report necessary for it to
accomplish these objectives. A budget in the sum of $20,000 is hereby
appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund in order to enable the Committee
to complete its work in a timely manner.
g. No member of the Committee shall participate in any
discussion in which he or she has or is likely to have a conflict of interest. Members
shall consult with the City Attorney if they have reason to believe a conflict will
arise.
f. The Citizens' Committee shall be given all reasonable
3. Pending the Committee's report and recommendation, no
authorization for any excess dwelling units exceeding 2,200 shall be authorized
and, if any within this limitation are authorized, it shall only be in accordance with
existing Council Policy No. 43
Ill/
Ill/
Ill1
3
!
f
I
€
s
1c
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 held on the & day of August, 2002 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila. Nygaard, and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
INE M. WOOD, City Clerk
4
ANALYSIS OF THE EXCESS DWELLING UNIT
BANK OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)
Backaround and Puroose 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
Management Plan, the financial implications if the units were eliminated and potential effects on
any other city programs. This report provides an overview of the team’s findings.
Number of Excess Dwellinq 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 and 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 ComDliance with the Facilitv Standards of the Growth Manaqement 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
Management Plan. The performance standards for some Growth- Management facilities~are~~
defined in terms of~popuiation~(and. therefore, housing). Elimination of all of the 6.150 dwelling
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 1966 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 6
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
Management Standard for library facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all
the excess units were eliminated, a minimum of 89,520 sq. fl. would be needed for a reduction
of 11,520 sq. ft.
Parks - 378.8 acres of park land would be needed to comply with the minimum Growth
Management Standard for park facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all the
excess units are eliminated, a minimum of 335.7 acres would be needed for a reduction of 43.1
acres.
Infrastructure Facilities - The elimination of all excess dwelling units for the Drainage,
Circulation, Sewer Collection, Wastewater Treatment, and Water Distribution Facilities is not
anticipated to significantly change the types and sizes of facilities planned for build-out. In
general, all City infrastructure facilities have been designed, and are programmed in the CIP
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 reviewed on a more detailed level to further confirm this assessment. These Zones include
those with excess du’s greater than 200.
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~bedown sited~awt the rteed bf fwther reduction ktmlikeIy-~- ~~ ~
Financial Analvsis
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 7
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
Revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, utility charges). Although there will be fewer services needed in some areas, such as reduced utility usage and possibly reduced maintenance and
protection services. the per capita operating costs of facilities (Parks and Libraries, for example)
will be greater with fewer property owners paying for a larger share of these facilities than
originally anticipated.
Potential Effects on Other Proorams
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
density for all inclusionary projects has been 15.3 du/ac and the typical starting density
known what will be required for future projects. However, staff notes that the average
has been RLM. with a growth management control point of 3.2 du/ac.
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
proposal, state law requires a minimum bonus of 25% above the base yield, p&
additional economic incentives in return for designating 20% of the project units as low
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 du/ac. 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 pian
designation that has no residential density range assigned by right. Therefore, under
current City law, each new residence in the Village requires allocation of one excess
3
residential units in the Village, 1,000 units were placed in the NW Quadrant Excess
dwelling unit from the bank. Because of this, and to assure the ability to develop
Dwelling Unit Bank when it was first created in 1986.
The Village Redevelopment Master Plan allows residential development up to 19 dulac
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
From time to time, a need arises to amend the general plan land use designation on a
property to another designation. When the proposed change is from non-residential to
residential all of the units that accrue to the property due to the new designation comes
from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Conversions from non-residential to residential will
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 traftic
affordable housing (especially higher density housing) near transit and jobs.
calming principles away from the transit focus areas, preserving habitat, and providing
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
State Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP) funds have been set aside directly to
fund primary arterial construction in cities that have adopted a resolution supporting
smart growth. Increasingly, those jurisdictions that implement smart growth principles
will be in a position to compete more successfully for transportation, affordable housing,
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
requires the ability to change land uses on properties, transfer density from one property
to another, and increase density on other properties. The major tool that has made
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
compliance with specific R-1 zoning allows a slightly higher yield. Units to implement
this provision come from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
4
,/’
Conclusions and Alternatives
Several alternatives are available for dealing with the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. The
alternatives are derived from the conclusionlfindings made by staff as a result of this analysis.
These conclusions are as follows:
1. Although many projects have utilized units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, the
bank continues to get larger and is projected to do the same in the future. Even if
the bank is retained, it is doubtful whether it will ever be used in its entirety due to
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
identified and described in the analysis (e.9. Housing Element and the Village Master
Plan and Capital Improvement Program from eliminating the excess dwelling units as
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
2.200 units TOTAL
5 f
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
Approved Dwelling Units
37,270
2,478 Estimated Future Dwelling Units
Buildout Dwelling Units -1 8,535
Growth Management Plan Dwelling Unit Max
Excess Dwelling Units
54,433
Notes:
1. All dwelling unit numbers are as of March 1, 2001
2. Existing units include all building permits issued 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 ProlectionS in Zones 8. 15 and 25 were reduced by 25% due to significant environmental constraints
-1
Growth Management Excess Dwelling Unit Goal 06/05/2002 /,
4. Transit-oriented, "smart growth" development projects where increased
residential density is being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities,
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. 6. Single family (R4)development in an infill area where the existing, specific R-
zoning of the property allows a slightly higher yield of units than the Genera
Plan designation for the development.
The number of excess units allocated to a particular "qualifying" project shall be a thc
the sole discretion of the city and shall be based on the importance of thc
characteristic possessed by the projects or, where a project possesses rnultiplc
characteristics, the number and importance of the characteristics.
August 6,2002
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MAYOR LEWIS
EXCESS DWELLING UNITS COMMITTEE
The following is a summary of the names the Council has submitted to me regarding their recommendations for
the Excess Dwelling Units Committee, in addition to my recommendations, and the representative from the
Planning Commission. Please let me know if there are any changes to this list.
Mayor Lewis
Carl Miller
Irv Roston
Julie Baker
Northwest Quadrant
Southeast Quadrant
Northwest Quadrant
(Planning Commission)
Mavor Pro Tem Kulchin
Sally Lyons
Bud Carroll
Southwest Quadrant
Northwest Quadrant
Bill Compas Southeast Quadrant
Council Member Finnil:
Mario Monroy Northwest Quadrant - Mike Howes Northeast Quadrant
Nancy Calverley Southeast Quadrant
Council Member Hall
Bob Nielsen
Hank Litten
Northeast Quadrant
Southwest Quadrant
Andrew Chapman Northwest Quadrant
Council Member Nvqaard
Jim Craig
Nora George
Mary Regan
Southeast Quadrant
Southwest Quadrant
Northwest Quadrant
Bv Quadrant:
729-3927
438-1 123
729-4068
931-7725
436-9458
729-3105
729-7242
436-0628
729-1284
436-5357
729-6042
729-8541
929-0 132
930-1207
729-0388
Carl Miller
Julie Baker (P.C.)
Bud Carroll
Andrew Chapman
Mario Monroy
1 Mary Regan
Mike Howes
Bob Nielsen Sally Lyons
Hank Litten
Nora George
Irv Roston
Bill Compas
Nancy Calverley
Jim Craig
mhs
C: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk