HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-03; City Council; 17192; Housing for Senior Citizens Ordinance AmendmentCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# 17,192 TITLE:
MTG. 6-3-03 HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
DEPT. PLNe-
ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Q u1 B a
n. a
a
.. z 0 F 0 a
J is z 3 0 0
DEPT.HD. %- fl
CITY ATTY.F
Project application (s)
Environmental Review -
Negative Declaration/Addendum
Zone Code Amendment
Local Coastal Program Amendment
~~
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Administrative Reviewed by and Reviewed by and
Approvals Final at Planning Final at Council
Commission
X
X
X
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2003-141 , ADOPTING a Negative
Declaration and Addendum, based upon the findings contained therein, and INTRODUCE Ordinance
NO. NS-662 , APPROVING an amendment to the regulations relating to housing for senior
citizens contained in the Zoning Ordinance (ZCA 02-04) and Local Coastal Program (LCPA 02-08).
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The project consists of amending Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to 1) amend the
regulations for housing for senior citizens to be consistent with State and Federal law; 2) relocate
said regulations to a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance; 3) amend various sections of the Zoning
Ordinance to reference the new chapter number; 4) amend the Planned Developments regulations
to specify what regulations are or are not applicable to housing for senior citizens; 5) amend the
parking requirement for housing for senior citizens; and 6) amend other various regulations relating
to housing for senior citizens for clarification and consistency.
During the April 16, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, no members of the public spoke in regard
to the project, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to the City
Council adoption of the project Negative Declaration and approval of the proposed Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. The Planning Commission’s vote included a
recommendation to increase the required resident parking for housing for senior citizens to
spaces per every unit, rather than 1 space per unit as was proposed by staff.
Based on Census information and surveys of the parking requirements of other jurisdictions, staff
proposed to the Planning Commission that the current resident parking requirement for senior citizen
housing (1 space per every 2 units) be increased to 1 space per every unit. Five of the
Commissioners (Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, White, and Whitton) expressed that they
believed many senior citizens have more than one vehicle per household, and therefore, more than
1 space per unit should be required. Four of those five Commissioners suggested that 1.5 spaces
?er unit would better meet the parking needs of senior citizens. Commissioner Whitton suggested
that additional research should be done. Commissioner Baker suggested considering a parking ?equirement between 1 space and 1.5 spaces per unit. Commissioner Segall stated that he agreed
Nith staff‘s recommendation for 1 space per unit, but would not vote against the project if a
-ecommendation for 1.5 spaces per unit was made.
Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the proposed project with a modification to increase the required resident parking to 1.5 spaces per unit. The draft ordinance
?as been revised to reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,192
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment, and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration. An Addendum to
the Negative Declaration has been prepared to modify the project description to reflect the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to increase the resident parking requirement to I .5 spaces per unit.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The implementation of the Housing for Senior Citizens regulations on future proposals, development
and monitoring of housing for senior citizens projects will result in a commitment of City staff
resources. However, the proposed amendment will not result in the commitment of more staff
resources than what is currently required to implement the existing senior citizen housing
regulations. Therefore, there will be no increased fiscal impact as a result of the proposed
amendment.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2003-141
2. City Council Ordinance No. NS-662
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5380, 5381, and 5382
4.
5.
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 16,2003
Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 16, 2003.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-141
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A ZONE CODE
AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICPAL CODE
BY REPEALING THE REGULATIONS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN
HOUSING IN SECTION 21.18.045; ADDING CHAPTER 21.84 TO
PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS THAT ARE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 51.2, 51.3 AND 51.4, THE
FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT, AND THE FEDERAL CODE OF
REGULATIONS TITLE 24 SECTIONS 100.300 TO 100.308;
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE CHAPTER 21.84;
AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS REGULATIONS
IN CHAPTER 21.45 TO SPEClFlY WHAT REGULATIONS ARE
OR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO HOUSING FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS; AMENDING SECTION 21.44.020(a)(9) OF THE
PARKING REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE PARKING
REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AND
AMENDING OTHER VARIOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO
HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS FOR CLARIFICATIONS AND
CONS1 STENCY.
CASE NAME: HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: ZCA 02-04 I LCPA 02-08
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on April 16, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment, and recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 3rd day of
JUNE , 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative
Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and at that time
received recommendations, objections, protests, comments from all persons interested in or
opposed to ZCA 02-04 and LCPA 02-08;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
3 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
1
i
,
I
5
1(
11
1;
12
14
15
It
17
ia
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That the Negative Declaration and Addendum are adopted as shown on
Exhibit “ND” and Exhibit “NDA, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based information
presented at the public hearing and contained in Exhibit “PII”, attached to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5380 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
3. That the findings of the Planning Commission, as specified in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5380, are incorporated herein by reference and are the finings of
the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd dayof JUNE
2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None fl
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
!esolution No. 2003-141
-2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE
HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO: ZCA 02-04 I LCPA 02-08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
amend the housing for senior citizens regulations as follows:
An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program to
The State requirements relating to housing for senior citizens were amended pursuant to SB No. 201 1. In order to
reflect the revisions in State law, and to be consistent with Federal law, the City is proposing an amendment to the senior
citizen housing regulations located in Zoning Ordinance Section 21.1 8.045.
In addition, the senior citizen housing regulations are proposed to be relocated from Zoning Ordinance Section
21.18.045 to a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance, which will be dedicated solely to housing for senior citizens
development regulations. Also, various sections of the Zoning Ordinance will be amended to reference the new chapter
number.
.Chapter 21.45 (Planned Developments) of the Zoning Ordinance is also proposed to be amended to clarify which
planned development standards are applicable to housing for senior citizens. The parking requirements for housing for
senior citizens are also proposed to be amended to require 1 resident parking space for every unit (currently 1 space for
every 2 units), and 1 visitor parking space for every 5 units (currently 1 space total).
DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify
any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
[XI
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only the effects that remained to be addressed).
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
9 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ADDENDUM TO THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
HO JSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE, [END
ZCA 02-04 I LCPA 02-08
IE IT
This Addendum to the project Negative Declaration is to modify the project description. On
April 16, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend increasing the senior citizen
housing parking standard to 1.5 spaces per unit, rather than 1 space per unit as recommended by
staff. The modification to the project description is insignificant and does not create any new
significant environmental effect that was not previously identified.
The modified project description is as follows:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program to amend
the senior citizen housing regulations as follows:
The State requirements for senior citizen housing were amended pursuant to SB No. 201 1. In
order to reflect the revisions in State law, the City is proposing an amendment to the senior
citizen housing regulations located in Zoning Ordinance Section 21.18.045.
In addition, the senior citizen housing regulations are proposed to be relocated from Zoning
Ordinance Section 21.18.045 to a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance, which will be dedicated
solely to senior citizen housing development regulations. Also, various sections of the Zoning
Ordinance will be amended to reference the new chapter number.
Chapter 21.45 (Planned Developments) of the Zoning Ordinance is also proposed to be amended
to clarify which planned development standards are applicable to senior citizen housing. The
parking requirements for senior citizen housing are also proposed to be amended to require 4-u
resident parking spaces for every unit (currently 1 space for every 2 units), and 1 visitor parking
space for every 5 units (currently 1 space total).
P 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-662
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY
REPEALING THE REGULATIONS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN
HOUSING IN SECTION 21.18.045; ADDING CHAPTER 21.84 TO
PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS THAT ARE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 51.2, 51.3 AND 51.4, THE
FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT, AND THE FEDERAL CODE OF
REGULATIONS TITLE 24 SECTIONS 100.300 TO 100.308;
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE CHAPTER 21.84;
AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN
CHAPTER 21.45 TO SPECIFY WHAT REGULATIONS ARE OR
ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS;
AMENDING SECTION 21.44.020(a)(9) OF THE PARKING
REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT
FOR HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AND AMENDING
OTHER VARIOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO HOUSING
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS FOR CLARIFICATION AND
CONS I STEN CY.
CASE NAME: HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: ZCA 02-04 and LCPA 02-08
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Section 21.16.016 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
21.16.016 Housing for senior citizens by site development plan.
Housing for senior citizens may be permitted by site development plan issued
according to the provisions of Chapter 21.84 of this title. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter
21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
SECTION 2: That Section 21.18.045 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
21 .I 8.045 Housing for senior citizens by site development plan.
Housing for senior citizens may be permitted by site development plan issued
according to the provisions of Chapter 21.84 of this title. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter
21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
SECTION 3: That Section 21.20.025 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
3
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
21.20.025 Housing for senior citizens by site development plan.
Housing for senior citizens may be permitted by site development plan issued
according to the provisions of Chapter 21.84 of this title. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter
21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
SECTION 4: That Section 21.22.01 5 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
21.22.01 5 Housing for senior citizens by site development plan.
Housing for senior citizens may be permitted by site development plan issued
according to the provisions of Chapter 21.84 of this title. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter
21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
SECTION 5: That Section 21.24.025 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
21.24.025 Housing for senior citizens by site development plan.
Housing for senior citizens may be permitted by site development plan issued
according to the provisions of Chapter 21.84 of this title. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter
21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
SECTION 6: That Section 21.44.020(a)(9) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
(9) Housing for Senior Citizens - Minimum 1.5 covered spaces per every
unit, plus 1 covered space for an onsite manager's unit (when provided) and 1 guest parking
space per every 5 units, subject to approval of a site development plan.
SECTION 7: That Section 21.45.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
E.
F.
"Housing for senior citizens" is defined as specified in Section 21.84.020
of this code.
"Net pad area" means the building pad of a lot excluding all natural or
manufactured slopes greater than three feet in height except intervening manufactured slopes
between split-level pads on a single lot.
G. "Planned development'' means a form of development usually
characterized by a unified site design for a number of housing units, clustering buildings and
providing common open space, recreation and streets.
"Twin-home" means two homes attached by a common wall where each
home and lot or exclusive use area has separate ownership.
H.
SECTION 8: That Section 21.45.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
rdinance No. NS-662 -2- 8
L
I
c
1
E
s
1(
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Community
~ Recreational
Space
TABLE A
PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL USES
(1) When the proje t site is contiguous to a higher intensity land use or an existing project o comparable or higher density.
(2) Only permitted when the proposed project site is contiguous to a lot or lots zoned R-3 R-TI R-P, C-I, C-2, C-M or MI but in no case shall the project site consist of more thar
one lot nor be more than ninety feet in width, whichever is less.
(3) Permitted uses shall be consistent with the master plan.
(4) Refer to Table F for specific uses.
(5) “Housing for senior citizens” is not permitted in R-I and R-2 zones.
SECTION 9: That portions of Section 21.45.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
are amended to read as follows:
Visitor
Parking
On
Private/
Public
Streets
Driveways
1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 units or fraction thereof.
2. 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 units
above IO.
3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 units.
4. In cases where a fractional parking space is required, the required number of
spaces shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole number.
1. Visitor parking may be provided: (1) along both sides of a minimum 34 foot
wide private/public street or (2) in perpendicular bays. When visitor parking is
provided on-street, not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway
entrances and driveway aprons, shall be provided for each parking space,
except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to
driveway aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided.
1. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays.
All projects of more than 10 dwelling units shall provide 200 square feet of
centralized, community recreational space per unit. Projects with 25 or fewer
units shall provide passive or active recreation facilities; projects with more than
25 units shall provide both passive and active recreational facilities with a
minimum of 75 percent of the area allocated for active facilities. Projects of more
than 50 units shall provide recreation facilities for a variety of age groups.
Examples of recreation facilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
Active: Swimming pool with cabana, children’s playground equipment, spa,
tennis court, racquetball court, volleyball court, basketball court,
9 -3- Ordinance No. NS-622
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
Recreation
Area
Parking
requirements for housing for senior citizens).
1 space for each 15 residential lots or fraction thereof for lots located more than
1,000 feet from a centralized community recreation center lot.
Note: Housing for senior citizens is not required to be provided with recreation
area parking.
Recreational
Vehicle
Storage
Resident Parking
Visitor Parking
are amended
1. One 12 feet x 20 feet car garage and 1 covered or uncovered
space per unit
2. Studio units - 1.5 spaces; 4 covered per unit
3. Housing for senior citizens: 1.5 covered spaces per unit, plus 1
1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or fraction
thereof.
2. 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for
covered space for an onsite manager’s unit (when provided).
I. Required for projects with 25 or more units.
2. 20 square feet per unit exclusive of area required for driveways and
approaches.
3. Developments located within master plans or residential specific plans may
have this requirement met by the common RV storage area provided by the
master plan or residential specific plan.
4. The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard
setback and on any public or private streets or any other area visible to the
public. A provision containing this restriction shall be included in the
covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project. All RV storage areas
shall be landscaped to screen vehicles to the maximum extent feasible.
Note: Housing for senior citizens is not required to be provided with recreational
vehicle storage.
SECTION 10: That portions of Section 21.45.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
o read as follows:
lb Irdinance No. NS-622 -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
each 4 dwelling units above IO.
3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 dwelling units.
4. Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 150 ft. as
measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the unit il
could be considered to serve.
5. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays.
SECTION 11: That Section 21.86.020(21) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
(21 ) “Qualifying resident” means a resident as defined in Chapter 21.84 of this
title and Section 51.2 of the California Civil Code.
SECTION 12: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
addition of Chapter 21.84 to read as follows:
Chapter 21.84
Housina for Senior Citizens
21.84.010 Title.
21.84.020 Purpose.
21.84.030 Definitions.
21.84.040 Use Table.
21.84.050 Location Guidelines.
21.84.060 Development Standards and Design Criteria.
21.84.070 lnclusionary Housing Requirements and Density Bonus Provisions.
21.84.080 Application Process.
21.84.090 Findings for Approval.
21.84.100 Additional Requirements.
21.84.1 10 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.
21.84.01 0 Title.
A.
Senior Citizens Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.”
This chapter shall be known and may be cited and referred to as the “Housing for
21.84.020 Purpose.
A. The purpose of the housing for senior citizens regulations is to:
1. Recognize the housing needs of senior citizens;
2. Provide a mechanism and standards for the development of rental or for-
sale housing available to senior citizens;
3. Provide comprehensive standards and regulations to ensure housing is
designed to meet the special needs of senior citizens (Le., physical, social and economic
needs);
Facilitate the establishment of housing for senior citizens within certain
zones subject to the approval of a site development plan;
Comply with state and federal laws prohibiting age discrimination in
housing; and
6. Provide standards and regulations for housing for senior citizens
construed in accordance with California Civil Code Sections 51.2, 51.3 and 51.4, the Federal
Fair Housing Act, and the Federal Code of Regulations Title 24 Sections 100.300 to 100.308.
4.
5.
// lrdinance No. NS-622 -5-
1
1
L
C -
t
r I
e
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.84.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms used herein relating to the provision
of housing for senior citizens are defined as follows:
1. Cohabitant. “Cohabitant” refers to persons who live together as husband
and wife, or persons who are domestic partners within the meaning of Section 297 of the Family
Code.
2. Disability. “Disability” means any mental or physical disability as defined
in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
3. Housinq (Dwellins Unit). “Housing” or “dwelling unit” means any
residential accommodation (rental unit or for-sale unit) designed for occupancy by a senior
citizen or qualifying resident, and each unit having only one kitchen, excluding mobile homes in
a “senior citizen housing development”.
Housinq Communitv. “Housing community” means any dwelling or group
of dwelling units governed by a common set of rules, regulations or restrictions. A portion or
portions of a single building shall not constitute a housing community.
Housins for Senior Citizens. “Housing for senior citizens” means a
housing community:
a. provided under any State or Federal program that the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development determines is specifically designed and operated to assist
senior citizens (as defined in the State or Federal program); or
intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or
older; or
intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age
or older, and where the housing facility is consistent with the definition of a “senior citizen
housing development.”
A.
4.
5.
b.
C.
6. Senior Citizen. “Senior citizen” means:
a.
b.
a person 62 years of age or older; or
a person 55 years of age or older in a “senior citizen housing
7. Senior Citizen Housinq Development. “Senior citizen housing
a residential development developed, substantially rehabilitated,
I.
ii.
development .”
development” means:
or substantially renovated, for persons 55 years of age or older, that has:
by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older.
development”:
age or older in a senior citizen housing development.
a.
at least 35 dwelling units (rental or for-sale units); and
at least 80 percent of the occupied dwelling units occupied
6. The following definitions shall only apply to a “senior citizen housing
“Qualifying resident” means a person 55 years of 1.
2.
Qualifvinq Resident.
Qualified Permanent Resident. “Qualified permanent resident” means:
a. A person who meets both of the following requirements:
i. Was residing with the qualifying resident prior to the death,
hospitalization, or other prolonged absence of, or the dissolution of marriage with, the qualifying
resident; and
ii. Was 45 years of age or older, or was a spouse, cohabitant,
or person providing primary physical or economic support to the qualifying resident.
b. A disabled person or person with a disabling illness or injury who
is a child or grandchild of the qualifying resident or a qualified permanent resident, who needs to
live with the qualifying resident or qualified permanent resident because of the disabling
condition, illness or injury.
Ordinance No. NS-622 -6- I1
r(
I!
L
t
r I
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
R- P
R-T
R-W
RD-M
V-R
P-c
3. Permitted Health Care Resident. “Permitted health care resident” means
a person hired to provide live-in, long-term, or terminal health care to a qualifying resident, or a
family member of the qualifying resident providing that care. The care provided by a permitted
health care resident must be substantial in nature and must provide either assistance with
necessary daily activities or medical treatment, or both.
SDP*
SDP
SDP
SDP **
**
21.84.040 Use Table.
development plan (SDP) in certain zones as indicated in the following table:
A. Housing for senior citizens is permitted subject to the approval of a site
TABLE A
1 R-3 I SDP I
21.84.050 Location Guidelines.
Housing for senior citizens should, whenever reasonably possible, be located
consistent with the following location guidelines:
1. The proposed project should be located in close proximity to a wide range
of commercial retail, professional, social and community services patronized by senior citizens;
or have its own private shuttle bus which will provide daily access to these services;
The proposed project should be located within a reasonable walking
distance of a bus or transit stop unless a common transportation service for residents is
provided and maintained;
The proposed project should be located in a topographically level area;
and
Development of housing for senior citizens at the proposed location
should not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare.
A.
2.
3.
4.
21.84.060 Development Standards and Desiqn Criteria.
A. Housing for senior citizens shall comply with all applicable development
standards of the underlying zone, except those which may be modified herein or as an
additional incentive granted pursuant to Chapter 21.86 of this code.
In the coastal zone, any project processed pursuant to this chapter and Chapter
21.86 of this code shall be consistent with all certified local coastal program provisions, with the
exception of density.
B.
C. Parking shall be provided as follows:
Ordinance No. NS-622 -7- /3
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
1. A minimum of 1.5 covered spaces per every unit, plus I covered space
for an onsite manager’s unit (when provided), and one guest parking space per every 5 units;
2. Whenever possible, parking spaces should be laid out at either a thirty,
forty-five or sixty degree angle; and
3. Required parking spaces shall be available to residents of the project at
no fee.
To the maximum extent feasible, architectural harmony, through the use of
appropriate building height, materials, bulk and scale within the development and within the
existing neighborhood and community shall be obtained.
The building(s) shall be finished on all sides with similar roof and wall materials,
colors and architectural accent features.
Laundry facilities must be provided in a separate room at the ratio of one washer
and one dryer for every twenty-five (25) dwelling units or fractional number thereof. At least one
washer and one dryer shall be provided in every project. Washers and dryers may be coin
operated.
G. A manager’s unit shall be provided in every housing project of 16 or more units
(rental projects only). The manager’s unit shall be a complete dwelling unit and so designated
on all plans.
Housing for senior citizens shall be designed to encourage social contact by
providing a minimum of one common room, which may include, but is not limited to, a
recreation/social room, a common dining facility or a reading/TV room. Common open space
shall also be provided, which may include, but is not limited to, community gardening areas or
open landscaped areas with walkways and seating. Common areas shall be designed to
ensure that they are useful and functional for residents, and shall comply with the following:
1. The minimum amount of common area required in each project shall be
no less than twenty (20) square feet per dwelling unit;
2. Common space excludes all stairwells and any balconies of less than
forty (40) square feet;
3. Unless the building is serviced by an elevator, common rooms shall be
located on the ground floor; and
4. Adjacent toilet facilities for men and women shall be provided.
I. In addition to the common areas described above, additional services and
programs are encouraged, but not required, to be included in all projects to meet the physical
and social needs of senior citizens. Such desirable services and programs may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
D.
E.
F.
H.
1. Social and recreational programs;
2.
3. House cleaning/cooking
4. Inside/outside maintenance services;
5. Emergency and preventative health care programs/services; and
6. Transportation services.
Access to all common areas and housing units within a project shall be provided
without use of stairs, either by means of an elevator or sloped walking ramps.
Entryways, walkways, and hallways in the common areas, and doorways and
paths of access to and within the housing units, shall be as wide as required by current laws
applicable to new multifamily housing construction for provision of access to persons using a
standard-width wheelchair.
Walkways and hallways in the common areas shall be equipped with standard
height railings or grab bars to assist persons who have difficulty with walking, and shall have
lighting conditions that are of sufficient brightness to assist persons who have difficulty seeing. Trash collection containers shall be provided in an easily accessible location and
in manner that requires a minimum of physical exertion by residents. Trash collection
Continuing education, information and counseling services;
J.
K.
L.
M.
Ordinance No. NS-622 -a-
1
c L
L
4
c
r I
E
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
containers shall also be completely screened and located as inconspicuously as possible
Trash enclosures shall be of similar colors and materials as the main building.
bar;
N. Dwelling units shall be provided with the following:
1.
2.
3.
4. Peepholes in entry doors.
The design of a housing for senior citizens should, to the extent practicable
implement the principles of Universal Design as currently established by the Center foi
Universal Design at the North Carolina State University, or any other residential desigr
elements for seniors that may currently be established by the California Department of Aging
Universal Design principles encourage building design with accessible and adaptable feature3
that are universally usable by most people regardless of their level of ability or disability.
Examples of Universal Design are as follows:
1. A dwelling unit should be designed to be accessible or adaptable for
disabled access;
2. An adaptable dwelling unit has all accessible features that a fixed
accessible unit has but allows some items to be omitted or concealed until needed so the
dwelling unit can be better matched to individual needs when occupied; and
3. In an adaptable unit, wide doors, no steps, knee spaces, control and
switch locations, grab bar reinforcing and other access features must be built in. Grab bars,
however, can be omitted and installed when needed. Knee space can be concealed by
installing a removable base cabinet that can be removed when needed. Counter tops and
closet rods can be placed on adjustable supports rather than fixed at lower heights as required
for wheelchair users.
Housing for senior citizens shall comply with all applicable building and housing
codes, and requirements for access and design imposed by law, including, but not limited to, the
Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12101 et seq.), and the regulations of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that
relate to access for persons with disabilities or handicaps. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or reduce any right or obligation applicable under those laws.
Tubs and/or showers equipped with, or adaptable for, at least one grat
Tubs and/or showers equipped with temperature regulating devices;
Slip resistant tub and/or shower bottom surfaces; and
0.
P.
21.84.070 lnclusionary Housinq Requirements and Density Bonus Provisions.
Any market-rate rental or for-sale project constructed pursuant to this chapter
shall be required to comply with the inclusionary requirements for residential developments in
Chapter 21.85 of this code.
Upon written request by an applicant, and in return for his agreement to develop
and operate a project in accordance with this chapter and Chapter 21.86 of this code
(residential density bonus), the final decision-making authority shall allow an increase in the
number of dwelling units permitted per acre (density), provided the request for density bonus
complies with the requirements of Chapter 21.86.
A.
B.
21.84.080 Application Process.
A. Preliminary Review Application - a preliminary review application may be
submitted prior to the submittal of a formal application (note - if the project includes a request
for a density bonus, a preliminary review application is required).
senior units, density bonus units and affordable senior units proposed;
number(s) of the project site;
1. The preliminary review application shall include the following information:
a.
b.
A brief description of the proposal including the total number of
The general plan and zoning designations, and assessors parcel
Ordinance No. NS-622 -9-
1
L
L
C
6
i
E
9
ia
11
12
13
14
15
16
’ 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. A site plan, drawn to scale, which includes: building footprints,
driveway and parking layout, existing contours and proposed grading; and
d. A letter identifying what specific incentives (i.e., density bonus,
standards modifications or financial incentives) are being requested of the city, if any.
After review of the preliminary application, the planning department shall
provide to an applicant a letter identifying project issues of concern to staff, and the incentives
or assistance that the planning director can support when making a recommendation to the final
decision-making authority.
Formal Application - a proposal to develop housing for senior citizens shall be
processed under a site development plan (SDP) application in addition to any otherwise
required application(s) (Le., tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments, etc.). The
site development plan application shall be processed according to the provisions of Chapter
21.06 of this code, excluding Section 21.06.020 (b) (I), (2), (3) and (4). The findings for
approval of a site development plan for housing for senior citizens are specified in Section
21.84.080 of this chapter.
A legal description of the total site proposed for development
including a statement of present ownership and present and proposed zoning;
If a density bonus or other incentives are requested, a letter shall
be submitted signed by the present owner stating how the project will comply with Government
Code Section 65915 and stating what is being requested from the city, (i.e., density bonus,
modification of development standards or other additional incentives);
Site plans and other supporting plans (i.e., a landscape plan,
building elevations and floor plans) as per the City’s application submittal requirements;
A detailed vicinity map showing the project location and such
details as the nearest market, transit stop, park or recreation center, medical faciliti
related uses and services likely to be patronized by senior citizens;
typically furnished apartment, with dimensions of doorways, hallways, closets and cabinets;
areas and accommodations;
2.
B.
1. A completed application shall include the following information:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e. A set of floor plans for each different type of unit indicating
f. A floor plan of the first floor or other floor showing a
g. A monitoring and maintenance plan; and h. Any additional information required as per the City’s
submittal requirements.
If the project involves a request for financial incentives from the City,
any decision on such a request shall be made by the City Council upon recommendation
the Housing Commission. In addition, if the project involves a request for financial
then the City Council shall have the authority to make the final decision on the site de
plan and other related development applications (Le., tentative maps, parcel maps,
developments, etc.), after consideration of a recommendation from the Planning Commissio
At the time of plan submittal for building permits, the ap
submit a set of detailed drawings for kitchens and bathrooms indicating counter and ca
heights and depth, type of pulls, faucets, grab-bars, tub and/or shower dimensions,
handicapped turn space where appropriate.
21.84.090 Findinqs for Approval.
A site development plan for housing for senior citizens shall be approved only
the following findings are made:
1. The project is consistent with the various goals, objectives,
programs of the General Plan, the provisions of Municipal Code Title 21 (Zoning 0
Local Coastal Program (if applicable), andlor the provisions of an applicable mast
plan;
2.
3.
A.
Ordinance No. NS-622 -1 0-
1
I
5
1(
11
1;
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate thg
proposed project;
3. The project is properly related to and will not adversely impact the site
surroundings and environmental settings, and will not be detrimental to existing uses specificall)
permitted in the area in which the proposed project is to be located;
The project shall not result in density or design that is incompatible witt
other land uses in the immediate vicinity, and the project will provide and maintain all yards
setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features determined necessary to provide
compatibility with existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood;
5. The street system serving the proposed project is adequate to proper11
handle all traffic generated by the project; and
6. The request for a density bonus and/or additional incentive(s) is
consistent with the provisions of Chapter 21.86 of this code. (This finding shall only apply tc
projects requesting a density bonus and/or additional incentives).
4.
21.84.1 00 Additional Reauirements.
No housing development constructed prior to January 1 , 1985, shall fail to qualify
as a “senior citizen housing development” because it was not originally developed or put to use
for occupancy by senior citizens.
Any person who, on January 1, 1985, had the right to reside in, occupy, or use
housing that is subject to the provisions for a “senior citizen housing development” in this
chapter and California Civil Code Sections 51.2, 51.3 and 51.4, shall not be deprived of the right
to continue that residency, occupancy, or use as the result of the implementation of this chapter.
Any person who is not 62 years of age or older, and who, on September 13,
1988, had the right to reside in, occupy, or use housing that is restricted to occupancy by
persons 62 years of age or older, shall not be deprived of the right to continue that residency,
occupancy or use as a result of the implementation of this chapter; provided that all new
occupants are persons 62 years of age or older.
D. A developer of housing for senior citizens shall establish a homeowner’s
association, board of directors, or other governing body, and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions or other documents or written policy. Said CC&Rs or other
documents or written policy shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and
recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. At a minimum, the CC&Rs or other documents
or written policy shall set forth the following:
A.
6.
C.
1. Limitations on occupancy, residency or use on the basis of age;
a. Any such limitation shall not be more exclusive than to require
that:
i. each person in residence in each dwelling unit be required
to be 62 years of age or older; or
ii. in a “senior citizen housing development’’ one person in
residence in each dwelling unit is required to be a senior citizen or qualifying resident, and that
each other resident in the same dwelling unit may be required to be a qualified permanent
resident, a permitted health care resident, or a person under 55 years of age whose occupancy
is permitted under California Civil Code Section 51.3 (h) or Section 51.4 (b);
The limitations on occupancy may allow for occupancy of units by
employees of the housing community (and family members residing in the same unit) who are
under 62 years of age, or who do not qualify as a qualifying resident, provided they perform
substantial duties directly related to the management or maintenance of the housing community;
The limitations on occupancy for housing that is intended for, and
solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or older, shall not be less exclusive than to require
that the persons commencing any occupancy of a dwelling unit be 62 years of age or older,
excluding occupancy by persons permitted pursuant to Section 21.84.100C. and D.1 .b, above;
b.
C.
kdinance No. NS-622
17 -1 1-
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
d. In a “senior citizen housing development”, the limitations on
occupancy may be less exclusive than stated above, but shall at least require that the persons
commencing any occupancy of a dwelling unit include a qualifying resident who intends to
reside in the unit as his or her primary residence on a permanent basis;
e. In a “senior citizen housing development”, the limitation on
occupancy may result in less than, but not less than 80 percent, all of the dwellings being
actually occupied by a qualifying resident;
In a “senior citizen housing development”, upon the death, dissolution of
marriage, or upon hospitalization, or other prolonged absence of the qualifying resident, any
qualified permanent resident, as defined in this chapter and Section 51.3 of the California Civil
Code, shall be entitled to continue his or her occupancy, residency, or use of the dwelling unit
as a permitted resident. This provision shall not apply to a permitted health care resident;
3. In a “senior citizen housing development”, a permitted health care
resident shall be entitled to occupy a dwelling unit during any period that the person is actually
providing live-in, long-term, or hospice health care to a senior citizen or qualifying resident for
compensation, which includes the provision of lodging and food in exchange for care;
In a “senior citizen housing development”, upon the absence of the
qualifying resident, a permitted health care resident shall be entitled to continue his or her
occupancy, residency, or use of the dwelling unit only if: a) the qualifying resident became
absent from the dwelling unit due to hospitalization or other necessary medical treatment and
expects to return to his or her residence within 90 days from the date the absence began; and
b) the absent qualifying resident, or an authorized person acting for the qualifying resident,
submits a written request to the owner, HOA, board of directors, or other governing body stating
that the qualifying resident desires that the permitted health care resident be allowed to remain
in order to be present when the qualifying resident returns to reside in the development. The
HOA, board of directors, or other governing body may permit a permitted health care resident to
remain for a period longer than 90 days, but not to exceed an additional 90 days;
In a “senior citizen housing development”, for any person who is a
qualified permanent resident, as defined in this chapter, whose disabling condition ends, the
owner, HOA, board of directors, or other governing body may require the formerly disabled
resident to cease residing in the development, subject to the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 51.3 (b)(3);
In a “senior citizen housing development”, CC&Rs or other documents or
written policy shall allow temporary residency for a guest, who may be less than 55 years in
age, of a qualifying resident, or qualified permanent resident, for periods of time, not less than
60 days in any year, that are specified in the CC&Rs or other documents or written policy.
CC&Rs or other documents or written policies applicable housing for senior
citizens that contain age restrictions, shall be enforceable only to the extent permitted in
California Civil Code Section 51.3, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and the Federal Code of
Regulations Title 24 Sections 100.300 to 100.308, notwithstanding lower age restrictions
contained in those documents.
2.
4.
5.
6.
E.
21.84.1 IO Monitorinn and Reportinq Requirements.
A. To assure compliance with the age requirement of this chapter, all
applicants/owners of housing for senior citizens shall be required to submit, on an annual basis,
an updated list of all project tenants and their age to the City’s Planning Director.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after
its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
Ordinance No. NS-622 - 12- /B
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
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not become
effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until LCPA 02-08 is approved by the California Coastal
Commission. )
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 3rd day of JUNE 2003, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAl N:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Ordinance No. NS-622 -1 3-
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5380
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE BY REPEALING THE REGULATIONS FOR SENIOR
CITIZEN HOUSING IN SECTION 21.18.045; ADDING
CHAPTER 21.84 TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR
HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS THAT ARE CONSTRUED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTIONS 51.2, 51.3 AND 51.4, THE FEDERAL FAIR
HOUSING ACT, AND THE FEDERAL CODE OF
REGULATIONS TITLE 24 SECTIONS 100.300 TO 100.308;
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE CHAPTER 21.84;
AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 21.45 TO SPECIFY WHAT
REGULATIONS ARE OR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO
HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AMENDING SECTION
21.44.020(a)(9) OF THE PARKING REGULATIONS TO
INCREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSING
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AND AMENDING OTHER
VARIOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO HOUSING FOR
SISTENCY.
CASE NAME: HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
SENIOR CITIZENS FOR CLARIFICATION AND CON-
CASE NO.: ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to housing for senior citizens;
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of April, 2003, 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, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff
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
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)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibits “NOI” dated January 31, 2003, “ND” and “PII” dated
January 13,2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative
Declaration for the HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT (ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08), the environmental impacts therein
identified for the project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad;
and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5380 -2-
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of April, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None w R, Chairperson
&&AD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~LZ~~LLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5380 -3 -
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: SENIOR HOUSING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO: ZCA 02-04 / LCPA 02-08
PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE
PROJECTDESCRIPTION: An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and Local
Coastal Program to amend the senior citizen housing regulations as follows:
The State requirements for senior citizen housing were amended pursuant to SB No. 201 1. In order to
reflect the revisions in State law, the City is proposing an amendment to the senior citizen housing
regulations located in Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.18.045.
In addition, the senior citizen housing regulations are proposed to be relocated from Zoning Ordinance
Section 21.18.045 to a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance, which will be dedicated solely to senior
citizen housing development regulations. Also, various sections of the Zoning Ordinance will be
amended to reference the new chapter number.
Chapter 21.45 (Planned Developments) of the Zoning Ordinance is also proposed to be amended to
clarify which planned development standards are applicable to senior citizen housing. The parking
requirements for senior citizen housing are also proposed to be amended to require 1 resident parking
space for every unit (currently 1 space for every 2 units), and 1 visitor parking space for every 5 units
(currently 1 space total).
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on
the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of
Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City
of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those
public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4637.
DATED: JANUARY 3 1,2003
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FEBRUARY 28,2003
PUBLISH DATE JANUARY 3 1,2003
a9 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
23
Exhibit “PII”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 0244/LCPA 02-08
DATE: January 13,2003
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: SENIOR HOUSING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faradav Avenue, Carlsbad,
CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner - (760) 602-
4637
PROJECT LOCATION: Citvwide
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL, PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A
ZONING: N/A
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Propram
Amendment)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The urouosed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment is as follows:
The State requirements for senior citizen housing were amended uursuant to SB No. 2011. In order to reflect the revisions in State law, the Citv is urouosing an amendment to the senior
citizen housing regulations located in Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.18.045.
In addition. the senior citizen housing regulations are proposed to be relocated from Zoning
Ordinance Section 21.18.045 to a new chauter in the Zoning Ordinance, which will be dedicated
solely to senior citizen housing develoument regulations. Also. various sections of the Zoning Ordinance will be amended to reference the new chapter number.
Chapter 21.45 (Planned Develouments) of the Zoning Ordinance is also urouosed to be amended
to clarify which ulanned development standards are applicable to senior citizen housing. The parking -- requirements for senior citizen housing are also urouosed to be amended to reauire 1
resident Darking suace for every unit (currently 1 mace for every 2 units). and 1 visitor uarking
space for every 5 units (currentlv 1 mace total).
The uroiect auulies to urouerties citywide, therefore there is no suecific pro-iect site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
24
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics
0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing
Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources [7 TransportatiodCirculation
u Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities & Service Systems Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
3 sj’
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
IIZ'rlD?
Date
t
3 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine 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 @acted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
0 Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but &I potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 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 adverse effect on the environment.
0 If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In ths case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 27 Rev. 07/03/02
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Sigmficant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than sigmficant; or (4) through the
EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
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 otherwise be determined significant.
5 a Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
0 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
11. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agncultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
UIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
6 Rev. 07/03/02 a?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following detenninations.) Would the
project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
17
0
El
El
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
El
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0'
IXI
IXI
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
0
0
[XI
IXI
IXI
lxl
7 30 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incornrated ImDact ImDact 0 om Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or unpede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
0
0 om
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 urn Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 o[xI Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Q 15064.5?
[See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
$15064.5?
0 0 om
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluatlon)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 om
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated 17 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact Ixl
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
0 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Ixl
0 0
0
IXI
IXI
0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
0 0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
0 0 0
0
iv. Landslides?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IXI 0 0 0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 IXI 0 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
9 3a Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would
the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, withm two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially Significant
Impact
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
El
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
10 33 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ImEt ImKt 0 0 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 ON
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 OIXI Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
0 OH 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 UIx1
11 Rev. 07/03/02 34
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ImGt Imgt D
o 0 u[xI
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 OIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 om j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 OIXI k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 o[xI 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
UIXI m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or 0 0 01XI
wetland waters) during or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 0 om
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
12 3d4 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant Impact 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
Less Than
Significant
Impact 0
No
ImDact
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
0
0
0
0
(xi
0 (xi
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 IXI
txl
(xi
0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
0 0 0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
13 Rev. 07/03/02 31
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant No Impact 0 ImEt ImKt
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0
0
0
0
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) For a project located withm an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 OD f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or workmg
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XU. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 o b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
14 37 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XIV. RECREATION
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
17
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
IXI
No
Impact
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ix1
IXI
IXI
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
15 Rev. 07/03/02 38
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated ImEt ImEt O 0 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or hghways?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 om Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
0 0 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
0 0 om
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
16 Rev. 07/03/02 39
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project fiom existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Be served by a landfill with suficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehlstory?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a 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?)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially Significant
Impact 0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact Ixl
UIXI
0
0
0
Ixl
0
IXI
[XI
0
IXI
17 40 Rev. QllQ3lO2
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
18 41 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that could result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Any future development subject to the proposed
amended development standards will be subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific
basis. No impact is assessed.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
No Impact (b & c) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that could result in substantial damage to scenic resources or degradation of the visual character of any site.
Any future development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that could result in substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Any future
development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future development subject to
the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on
a site specific basis. No impact is assessed.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housmg development standards will not affect any
standard that would cause a conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract.
Any future development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to Mer
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed.
19 4a Rev. 07/03/02
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that could result in changes to the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farmland to
a non-agricultural use. Any future development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. All properties within the city are located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state
non-attainment area for ozone (OJ, and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10
microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San
Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothll areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining
the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, th~s attainment planning
process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans fiom all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on properties throughout
the city. Future development projects relate to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions
that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and
the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
0
0
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area (citywide) is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. Future development project affected by the proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing
standards will be required to be consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
20 Rev. 07/03/02 43
Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing
projects on a citywide basis. The closest air quality monitoring station to properties within the city is in the City of
Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. Long-term emissions
associated with travel generated from future residential development subject to the proposed amended development
standards will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with future residential
development, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental
contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. Any potential impact is assessed as less than significant. .
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fme
particulates. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywlde basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future residential development
subject to the proposed amended development standards would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially
associated with a residential development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or a future residential
development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the contribution to the
cumulative impact fiom a future residential development within the city is considered de minimus. Any potential
impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. As noted above, future residential development subject to the proposed amended development
standards would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. Any future development subject to
the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on
a site specific basis. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in any activity that could create objectionable odors. Any future development subject to
the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on
a site specific basis No impact is assessed.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing
projects on a cimde basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not
affect any standard that would result in an adverse effect on any sensitive habitat or species, or interference with any
native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Any future development subject to the proposed
amended development standards will be subject to fi.uther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific
basis. No @act is assessed.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in a conflict with local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources or the
provisions of any habitat conservation plan. Any future development subject to the proposed amended development
standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is
assessed.
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in an adverse impact to any environmentally sensitive tributary area.
development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed.
Any future ,
CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 5 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of hture senior citizen housing
projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not
affect any standard that would result in a disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical,
archeological, or paleontological resource. However, the city limits of Carlsbad are 'known to contain cultural
22 45 Rev. 07/03/02
resources near the lagoons and surrounding areas. Any future development subject to the proposed amended
development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis,
and will be subject to the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines. No unpact is assessed.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (ai. to a.iii.) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program
Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an
amendment to development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of
future senior citizen housing projects on a citywide basis. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones
within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City.
However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect
Carlsbad. Any future development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis, and will be subject to the UBC earthquake
construction standards. Therefore, any potential adverse effects from the risks associated with earthquakes will not
significantly impact future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, whch will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in exposing people to risks associated with landslides. Any future development subject to
the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on
a site specific basis.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in substantial soil erosion on any site. Any future development subject to the proposed
amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and the City’s
Engineering standards, on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact (c, d & e) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
23 Rev. 07/03/02
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in impacts to unstable or expansive soil conditions. Any future development subject to
the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA,
and the City’s engineering and building standards, on a site specific basis. No qact assessed.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing
projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not
affect any standard that would result in hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Any future
residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to Mer
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in exposing people to hazards associated with an airport. Any future residential
development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
8) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact (g & h) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would interfere with the implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, or
result in exposing people to risk from wildland fires. Any future residential development subject to the proposed
amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific
basis. No impact assessed.
24 Rev. 07/03/02 47
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amounl
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does
not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to
development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior
citizen housing projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development
standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with any water quality standards, impact groundwater
supplies/quality, alter any drainage pattern, impact the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems,
or result in the degradation of water quality. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended
development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
No impact assessed.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, whch will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Any future residential
development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zomng Ordinance, whch will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam
failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Any future residential development subject to the
proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a
site specific basis. No impact assessed.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or
other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list?
The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing
projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not
affect any standard that would result in increased erosion or pollutant discharges into any surface waters, a change to
receiving water quality, or an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives. Any hture residential development
subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in the division of an established community. Any future residential development subject
to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA
on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would conflict with the any City land use plan, policy, or regulation. Any future residential
development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would conflict with the any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Any
future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
26 Rev. OllO3lO2 47
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource. Any future residential development
subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site specific basis. No myact assessed.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing
projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not
affect any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or groundbourne vibrations, or
increase noise levels. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards
will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport. In addition, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport, will ensure that future residential development will
not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the airport. Also, any future residential development subject
to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to fiuther environmental review pursuant to CEQA,
and a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
27 3a Rev. 07/03/02
Less than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and therefore will not directly induce any growth. The
project consists of an amendment to development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, whch will affect the
development of future senior citizen housing projects on a citywide basis. The project may indirectly induce
residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards. However, any future residential
development within the city must comply with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth Management
Program. Because all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) have been planned to accommodate the growth
anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be necessary.
Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
e) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Also, any future residential
development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
No Impact (ai to a.v.) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include
a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing
projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not
affect any standard that would result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of acceptable service rations, response
times or other performance objectives for any public service. Any future residential development subject to the
proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and
on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was adopted.
Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be required to
57 28 Rev. 07/03/02
comply with the performance standards of the Growth Management Program, whch will ensure that future
residential development will not adversely impact any park facilities. Also, any future residential development
subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
Less than Significant Impact- The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not
include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing
projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not
affect any standard that would cause future residential development to significantly impact existing traffic load or
capacity of any street system. In addition, the performance standards of City’s Growth Management Program will
ensure that future residential development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city’s street system.
Also, any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. The impacts traffic load and street capacity
from future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards are less than
, significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less than Significant Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated
three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad
as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS
on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR 78
1-5
Existinv ADT* Buildout ADT*
15-32 “A-C” 28-43
21-50 “A-C” 32-65
1.0-52 “A-B” 29-77
120 “F’ 144
183-198 “D” 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community
plans. The proposed land use and zone change is consistent with the growth projections of the general plan and,
therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of
Service (LOS) “E standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design
capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at
acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any
physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a citywide basis.
The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any standard that
would cause any future residential development to exceed a level of service standard established by the County’s
Congestion Management Program (CMP). Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended
development standards will be subject to fixther environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the CMP on a site
specific basis. Less than significant impact assessed.
29 53 Rev. 07/03/02
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks associated with air
traffic patterns. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would cause a future residential project to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use.
Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to
Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would result in inadequate emergency access. Any future residential development subject to the
proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a
site specific basis. No impact assessed.
9 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. One of the proposed amended development standards is an increase in the required parking for
senior citizen developments, wluch will ensure adequate parking capacity for such projects. In addition, any future
residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
€9 Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance' and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
30 5-3 Rev. 07/03/02
standard that would cause any future residential development to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements.
Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, on
a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact (b, c, d & e) - All public facilities, including ‘water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and
drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any
physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of fkture senior citizen housing projects on a citywide basis.
The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any standard that
would increase the need for, or conflict with the current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment
or drainage facilities. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards
will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No lmpact assessed.
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
€9 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a
proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, or impact the ability to accommodate solid
waste disposal needs within the city. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended
development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
No impact assessed.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California hstory or prehistory. Any future residential
development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
31 8 Rev. 07/03/02 3-q
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for
the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections.
Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards,
habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of
development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-
wide standards. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would conflict with other City or region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations,
including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource
protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a
significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the proposed
Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical
development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a cityHlde basis.
Development of future residential projects subject to the proposed amended development standards would represent
a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As
described above, however, emissions associated with a future residential development would be minimal. Given the
limited emissions potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially
the same whether or not a residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section
15130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed
as less than significant.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two lughway segments in Carlsbad as part of the
regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan,
that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The
proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any standard that would
conflict with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional
circulation system is less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that
future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will not result in a
significant cumulative considerable Impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal
for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to development standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future senior citizen housing projects on a
citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the senior citizen housing development standards will not affect any
standard that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any future
residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to Mer
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed.
32 5-F Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Irmact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
3. Carlsbad MuniciDal Code. Title 2 1. Zoning
4. Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones
5. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mapuine. Studv, November 1992.
33 3-6 Rev. 07/03/02
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5381
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND
TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING THE
REGULATIONS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING IN
SECTION 2 1.18.045; ADDING CHAPTER 2 1.84 TO PROVIDE
REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
THAT ARE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 51.2, 51.3 AND 51.4,
THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT, AND THE FEDERAL
CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 24 SECTIONS 100.300 TO
100.308; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE CHAPTER 21.84;
TIONS IN CHAPTER 21.45 TO SPECIFY WHAT
REGULATIONS ARE OR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO
HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AMENDING SECTION
21.44.020(a)(9) OF THE PARKING REGULATIONS TO
INCREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSING
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AND AMENDING OTHER
VARIOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO HOUSING FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS FOR CLARIFICATION AND
CONSISTENCY.
CASE NAME: HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULA-
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: ZCA 02-04
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code
(Zoning Ordinance) relating to housing for senior citizens; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit “X”, dated April 16, 2003, and attached hereto HOUSING FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ZCA 02-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of April, 2003, 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, analyzing the information submitted by
57
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
staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and
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 HOUSING FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ZCA 02-04, based on
the following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
...
...
...
..I
...
The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 02-04, is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan, specifically it is consistent with the following Housing
Element Objective and Program:
OBJECTIVE 3.4 (SENIOWELDERLY)
Provide additional senior housing for seniors of different income
groups and physical and mental status.
PROGRAM 3.4.a
Continue to implement the current Senior Citizen housing regulations
and continue to require monitoring and reporting procedures to
assure compliance with approved project conditions. Encourage the
provision of a wide-variety of senior housing opportunities, especially
for lower-income seniors with special needs.
The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 02-04, reflects sound principles of good
planning in that it: a) complies with the General Plan; b) ensures consistency with the
California Civil Code regulations, Federal Fair Housing Act, and Federal Code of
Regulations relating to housing for senior citizens; c) ensures consistency between
the various provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program relating
to housing for senior citizens; and d) establishes regulations that seek to ensure the
special housing needs of senior citizens are met in the City of Carlsbad.
PC RES0 NO. 5381 -2- 58
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of April, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
R, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
1, i (1 \&J&+< f \ \ \.&-
MICHAEL J. HCKLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5381 -3- 5-9
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5382
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) BY REPEALING THE
REGULATIONS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING IN
SECTION 21.18.045; ADDING CHAPTER 2 1.84 TO PROVIDE
REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
THAT ARE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 51.2, 51.3 AND 51.4,
THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT, AND THE FEDERAL
CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 24 SECTIONS 100.300 TO
100.308; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE CHAPTER 21.84;
AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 21.45 TO SPECIFY WHAT
REGULATIONS ARE OR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO
HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AMENDING SECTION
21.44.020(a)(9) OF THE PARKING REGULATIONS TO
INCREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSING
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS; AND AMENDING OTHER
VARIOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO HOUSING FOR
SISTENCY.
CASENAME: HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
SENIOR CITIZENS FOR CLARIFICATION AND CON-
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to housing for senior citizens; and
1 ofthe
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City of
Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program and
Zoning Ordinance be in conformance, and therefore, an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program is required in conjunction with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (implementing
ordinance) to ensure consistency between the two documents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carisbad, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application
for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and
40
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
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X”, dated April 16, 2003, attached to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5381 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided for in
Public Resources Code Section 30514 and Article 15, Subchapter 2, Chapter 8, Division 5.5 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (California Coastal Commission Regulations); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of April 2003, 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, analyzing the information submitted by
staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Coastal Commission requirements, the
Local Coastal Program Amendment was subject to a six-week public review period, starting on
January 23, 2003 and ending on March 6, 2003, and the Planning Commission considered all
comments received, if any.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of HOUSING FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - LCPA 02-08, based on
the following findings:
Findin ps:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, East Batiquitos Lagoon, West
Batiquitos Lagoon, and the Village Redevelopment Plan segments of the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that it ensures
consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and does not alter any coastal
dl PC RES0 NO. 5382 -2-
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
zone regulations, land use designations or policies, with which future projects
subject to the senior citizen housing ordinance must comply.
That the proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to
ensure consistency with the proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 02-04).
2.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of April, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None
9,
R, Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Lvw I& -. .b2 J,(( .,
MICHAEL J. HO’LZM~LLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5382 -3-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 16,2003
Application complete date: July 30,2002
Project Planner: Jennifer Coon
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA 02-04LCPA 02-08 - HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - Request for a recommendation to the City
Council to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve a Zone Code Amendment
and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the regulations for housing for
senior citizens to be consistent with State and Federal law, relocate said
regulations to a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance, amend various sections of
the Zoning Ordinance to reference the new chapter number, amend the Planned
Developments regulations to specify what regulations are or are not applicable to
housing for senior citizens, amend the parking requirement for housing for senior
citizens and amend other various regulations relating to housing for senior
citizens for clarification and consistency.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5380, 5381 and
5382, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 02-04) and Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 02-08), based on the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
On January 1,2001 Senate Bill (SB) 201 1 became effective, which amended Sections 51.2, 51.3
and 51.4 of the California Civil Code relating to senior citizen housing. Also, in 1995, an
amendment occurred in the Federal Fair Housing Act and Federal Code of Regulations. Staff is
proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure the City’s regulations for housing
for senior citizens are consistent with State and Federal law.
After reviewing the City’s current senior housing regulations, staff identified the need for
additional amendments to the Zoning Ordinance other than the incorporation of regulations from
State and Federal laws. The additional amendments include the need to create a new chapter for
housing for senior citizens, amend the Planned Developments regulations and increase the
parking requirements for housing for senior citizens.
The Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program (LCP);
therefore an LCP amendment is necessary. However, no portion of the LCP land use plan
document is being amended.
ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Description
The project consists of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
amend the housing for senior citizens regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. The project does not
involve any one particular property; it is an amendment to Zoning Ordinance regulations that
will effect future development of housing for senior citizens on a citywide basis. The project
involves the following:
A. Incorporate regulations relating to housing for senior citizens from the California Civil
Code, Federal Fair Housing Act and Federal Code of Regulations into the City’s existing
senior housing regulations;
B. Relocate the senior housing regulations from Section 2 1.18.045 to a new chapter in the
Zoning Ordinance, which will be dedicated solely to housing for senior citizens;
C. Amend sections of the Zoning Ordinance to refer to the new housing for senior citizens
chapter;
D. Increase the resident parking requirement for housing for senior citizens from 1 resident
parking space per every 2 units to 1 resident parking space per every unit;
E. Increase the guest parking requirement for housing for senior citizens from 1 total guest
parking space to 1 guest parking space per every 5 units;
F. Amend existing senior housing regulations to consolidate the findings for a site
development plan;
G. Other minor amendments to existing regulations relating to housing for senior citizens to
provide clarification and consistency with other code provisions; and
H. Amend portions of the Planned Development regulations (Chapter 21.45) to specify what
regulations are or are not applicable to housing for senior citizens.
Background
The proposed Zone Code Amendment was initiated to ensure that the City’s senior housing
regulations are consistent with State and Federal laws. Effective January 1, 2001, SB 2011
amended sections of the California Civil Code relating to housing for senior citizens, and in
1995, the Federal Fair Housing Act and Federal Code of Regulations were amended.
The amendments to the California Civil Code included various new or revised definitions, which
included a revised definition for “senior citizen housing development.” The amendments also
included development requirements intended to ensure that housing is designed to meet the
physical and social needs of senior citizens.
I4
ZCA 02-04LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDlNANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
Page 3
The amendment to the Federal Fair Housing Act and Federal Code of Regulations involved the
deletion of a requirement for “significant facilities and services” to meet the needs of senior
citizens in senior housing projects that permit persons 55 years of age or older.
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance incorporates the definitions and requirements
as specified in the California Civil Code, and the provisions from Federal law pertaining to
housing for senior citizens.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Incorporation of California Civil Code and Federal law regulations relating
to housing for senior citizens.
The City’s current senior housing regulations provide a mechanism and standards for the
development of housing for senior citizens. The regulations include definitions for what housing
for senior citizens means and definitions for occupants allowed to reside in housing for senior
citizens. Also the current regulations provide minimum development standards to ensure that the
needs of senior citizens are met.
There are approximately eight definitions from the Civil Code being added to the housing for
senior citizens regulations. The most significant of these definitions is that of “senior citizen
housing development,” which now requires a development, which permits persons 55 years of
age or older, to have at least 35 dwelling units to be considered senior citizen housing.
In addition to the definition for “senior citizen housing development,” other definitions being
added from the Civil Code primarily define who qualifies to occupy senior citizen housing (Le.,
“qualified resident,” “qualified permanent resident” and “permitted health care resident”).
The City’s current regulations include definitions from Federal law for housing for senior
citizens. Those definitions are remaining, and are being incorporated with the new definitions
from the Civil Code. As mentioned above, Federal law was amended to no longer require
“significant facilities and services” in housing projects that allow persons 55 years of age or
older. Staff is recommending the City’s current definition of housing for senior citizens be
amended to reflect this change. However, staff recommends that rather than remove the
requirement all together, that the City “encourage” the provision of facilities and services to meet
the needs of senior citizens, but not require it. The standard has been moved from the definitions
to the development standards section of the Housing for Senior Citizens chapter. (See
Comparison Chart Ref. No. 13 and 25 - Attachment 7.)
The format of the definitions has been modified not only to incorporate the definitions from State
and Federal law, but also to clarify that there are two different categories of housing for senior
citizens. One category is housing that is occupied solely by persons 62 years of age or older. In
this category, there is no provision in State or Federal law to allow anyone under 62 years of age,
with the exception of employees of the housing community, to occupy a unit.
The second category of housing for senior citizens is housing that is occupied by persons 55
years of age or older. In this category, State and Federal law have established provisions and
criteria to allow persons less that 55 years of age to occupy a unit. State law calls this type of
b-
ZCA 02-04LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDNANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
Page 4
housing a “senior citizen housing development,” and requires that there be a minimum of 35
dwelling units. Federal law requires housing occupied by persons 55 years of age or older to
ensure that at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55
years of age or older.
In addition to new and modified definitions, there are also approximately five new development
standards for project design from the Civil Code being added to the City’s regulations. The
purpose of these requirements is to ensure that housing for senior citizens is designed to meet the
physical and social needs of senior citizens. These standards require walkways to be designed to
accommodate a wheelchair and be equipped with grab bars and sufficient lighting. Also, trash
collection areas must be provided in a manner that requires a minimum of physical exertion by
residents.
The City’s current regulations require a development to comply with building codes and
handicap access requirements. However, the Civil Code has added an additional standard to
encourage the implementation of the principles of Universal Design in housing for senior
citizens. The principles of Universal Design were established by the Center for Universal
Design at the North Carolina State University. The Universal Design principles consist primarily
of designing housing to be “adaptable” for handicap occupancy.
An adaptable dwelling unit has all accessible features that a fixed accessible unit has but allows
some items to be omitted or concealed until needed so the dwelling unit can be better matched to
individual needs when occupied. Wide doors, no steps, knee spaces, control and switch
locations, grab bar reinforcing and other access features are built-in to an adaptable unit.
However, grab bars can be omitted and installed when needed, knee space can be concealed by a
removable base cabinet and counter tops and closet rods can be placed on adjustable supports
rather than fixed at lower heights. As the Civil Code encourages these design principles, the
City’s regulations are proposed to be amended to also encourage these design principles but not
require them.
The Civil Code also requires housing for senior citizens to establish CC&Rs and other
documents or written policies that set forth the limitations on occupancy or use on the basis of
age. These requirements are also proposed to be added to the City’s regulations. Requirements
for CC&Rs or other written policies would become conditions of approval of a housing for
senior citizens project.
A chart is attached (Attachment 7) that compares the existing senior housing regulations with
those being incorporated from the Civil Code and Federal law. The chart explains what is new,
what is being modified and why. See Comparison Chart (Attachment 7) Ref. No. 14,27, 29, 30
and 65 for new definitions and standards.
B. Relocate the senior housing regulations from Section 21.18.045 to a new
chapter in the Zoning Ordinance.
While reviewing the City’s current senior housing regulations to incorporate the changes in the
State and Federal law, staff identified a need to relocate the regulations from a section within the
R-P Zone chapter (Section 21.18.045) to a new chapter dedicated solely to housing for senior
ZCA 02-04LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
Pane 5
citizens. Creating a new chapter for housing for senior citizens regulations will make the Zoning
Ordinance user-fiiendlier.
Housing for senior citizens is permitted in several residential zones, not just the R-P zone,
therefore, it is not obvious to look in the R-P zone regulations to find development regulations
for housing for senior citizens. The Zoning Ordinance currently has various separate chapters
that apply to one specific type of regulation, which is applicable in various zones (i.e., Child
Care, Parking, Signs, Adult Entertainment, etc.).
Therefore, staff is recommending the regulations for housing for senior citizens be relocated to a
new chapter: A draft of the proposed chapter is attached (see pg. 8 of
Attachment 6).
Chapter 21.84.
C. Amend sections of Zoning Ordinance to refer to new housing for senior
citizens chapter.
By creating a new chapter for housing for senior citizens regulations in the Zoning Ordinance,
several references to the section where the regulations are currently located will become
incorrect. Therefore, it is necessary to amend each reference to the existing section number and
replace it with a reference to the new chapter number (see Comparison Chart Ref No. 76 -
Attachment 7).
D. Increase the resident parking requirement for housing for senior citizens.
After reviewing the current parking requirements for housing for senior citizens, researching
other parking requirements of various city jurisdictions in San Diego County and California, and
reviewing census data on the average number of vehicles owned by senior citizens, staff is
recommending the parking requirements for housing for senior citizens be increased.
Currently, the Parking regulations in the Zoning Ordinance require housing for senior citizens to ‘
provide one resident parking space per every two units. A space for a manager’s unit and one
guest parking space are also required.
Staff is recommending to increase the required parking for residents to one covered space per
every unit. The guest-parking requirement is also proposed to be increased, which is discussed
in section “E” below. The manager’s unit requirement would remain the same (except for a
requirement that the space be covered). Staff is recommending the resident and manager’s
parking spaces be covered, which is consistent with the Planned Developments regulations.
Based upon the current parking requirement (1 space per every 2 units), the average number of
vehicles owned per senior citizen household would be .5. However, information obtained from
SANDAG generated from the 1990 Census (2000 data not yet available), for the CarlsbadSan
Dieguito subregional area, indicates that senior citizens (55 or older) living in multifamily
housing own an average of 1.1 vehicles per household. Senior citizens living in single-family
housing own an average of 1.8 vehicles per household. The following tables list the data
generated from the 1990 Census information.
ZCA 02-04lLCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDlNANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
TABLE 1
MULTI-FAMILYMOBILHOME
TABLE 2
SINGLE-FAMILY
The housing for senior citizens regulations apply more to multifamily housing than single-
family. Although the regulations state that the intent is to provide standards for “rental” or “for-
sale” units, the term “for-sale” applies to condominium units more so than single-family
detached. The intent of the regulations is to meet the special needs of senior citizens who have
chosen not to or are no longer able to live in a typical detached home. In addition, “housing for
senior citizens” is not permitted in the R-1 (One-Family Residential) Zone or the R-2 (Two-
Family Residential) Zone. “Housing for senior citizens” is permitted in the zones that allow
multifamily housing (R-3, R-P, R-T, R-W and RD-M).
The data in Table 2 (single-family) above do not represent the senior citizen population that
would typically live in the type of housing regulated by the housing for senior citizens
regulations. Rather, the data in Table 1 (multifamily) are more representative of the senior
citizens targeted by the regulations.
In addition to the census data, staff also researched the parking standards for senior housing required by numerous city jurisdictions within California, including San Diego County. The
requirements vary from 1 space per every 4 units to 2 spaces per unit. Within San Diego County,
10 out of the 15 cities surveyed do not have special parking requirements for senior citizen
housing, and in those cases the standard residential parking requirement would apply (typically 2
ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDlNANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
City Solana Beach
San Diego
Poway
National City
spaceshit). The parking requirements of the other 5 cities surveyed in San Diego County are as
follows:
Resident Parking Requirement
1 space per unit
1 space per unit
1.2 spaces per unit (includes guest parking in ratio)
Necessary parking determined on a project-by-project basis through a
TABLE 3
CITIES WITHIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SENIOR HOUSING PARKING REOUIREMENTS
Imperial Beach
Planned Development Permit
2 spaces per unit, which may be reduced at the discretion of the Planning Imperial Beach
Planned Development Permit
2 spaces per unit, which may be reduced at the discretion of the Planning I Commission and City Council
In addition to cities within San Diego County, 13 cities outside San Diego County were
surveyed, and the senior housing parking requirements of those cities are as follows:
Dana Point
Duarte
TABLE 4
CITIES OUTSIDE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SENIOR HOUSING PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Citv I Resident Parking Reauiremen t
1 space per unit
1 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit; 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit
Foster City
Irvine
.5 space per bedroom
Parking studv reauired
Long Beach
Los Anneles
1 space per each 2 bedrooms (low rent); or
1 space per each 1 bedroom (market rent)
1 mace Der everv 2 units
Manhattan Beach
Marina
San Dimas
San Mateo
Santa Monica
As indicated in Tables 3 and 4 above, the parking requirements for senior housing in other cities
are varied. There is not one predominant standard. The data obtained from the Census indicate
that an average of 1.1 vehicles are owned per senior citizen multifamily household in the
CarlsbadSan Dieguito area. To accommodate the average number of vehicles owned by senior
citizens (living in. multifamily housing), staff is recommending the current City parking
requirement for housing for senior citizens be increased to 1 parking space per unit, rather than 1
space per 2 units.
1 space per every 2 units
.8 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit and space provided onsite to provide a
minimum .2 space per unit should need arise (equivalent to 1 space per unit)
2 spaces per unit
1 space per every 4 rental units; or 1 space per each for-sale unit
1 space per every 2 units; or
1 mace Der everv 4 units if deed restricted for low/moderate income
Seaside
Temecula
1 space per unit
1 space per every 2 units
ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
Page 8
Staff is not recommending 1.1 spaces per unit, which would match the average exactly, because
the data from the Census indicate that more vehicles are owned per households between the ages
of 55 to 64, which is a relatively young age group and many of these households likely contain
driving age teenagers or young adults who live at home while still in high school or college.
Persons below the age of 62 are not permitted to live in housing restricted solely to persons 62
years of age or older, and persons below the age of 55 are not permitted to live in a “senior
citizen housing development,” unless they are a spouse (age 45 or older) or a disabled
childgrandchild of a senior citizen. Therefore, the average number of vehicles owned per
households in the age groups of 65-74 and 75 or older, which is .95 vehicles per household,
would more likely be representative of the senior population living in housing regulated by the
housing for senior citizens regulations.
Staff considered that there might be instances when a senior citizen household owns more than 1
vehicle per unit. However, there will also be instances when a senior citizen household owns no
vehicle. Therefore, by basing the required parking on the average number of vehicles owned per
senior citizen household, there should be adequate parking available to accommodate everyone.
It is important to consider that there is some rationale behind requiring a lower standard of
parking for housing for senior citizens than for non-senior housing. In an effort to encourage the
development of housing for senior citizens, and other housing for special needs groups (i.e., low
income), some jurisdictions offer reduced development standards, such as lower parking
requirements. In addition, statistics indicate that senior citizens, especially those in older age
groups, own fewer vehicles. Therefore, as indicated in the Tables 3 and 4 above, many
jurisdictions require parking as low as 1 space for every 4 units.
Staff recognizes the need to encourage the development of housing for senior citizens. However,
it is still imperative to require standards that meet the needs of senior citizens, which includes
adequate area to park their vehicles. By requiring a parking standard that would provide parking
for the average number of vehicles owned by senior citizen households, it is more likely the
parking needs for senior citizens will be met. However, a site development plan for affordable
housing andor the City’s Density Bonus regulations provide an opportunity to allow less
restrictive development standards than specified by the Zoning Ordinance. A senior housing
project requesting a density bonus, and/or proposing affordable housing, may be granted
modifications to development standards, like parking. Therefore, if an applicant proposing
housing for senior citizens can justify that fewer parking spaces will adequately meet the needs
of the project, the City has the ability to approve the project through the density bonus provisions
or through a site development plan for affordable housing, without the need to grant a variance.
E. Increase the guest-parking requirement for housing for senior citizens.
Currently, the City’s parking standards require a total of 1 guest parking space for housing for
senior citizens. Staff is recommending the guest parking requirement be increased to 1 space for
every 5 units, which is approximately 35% less than the visitor parking required for non-senior
housing projects (1 space per 2 units for the 1st 10 units and 1 space per 4 units above 10).
As discussed above, staff surveyed the senior housing parking requirements of other city
jurisdictions. Out of the 18 cities that have specific parking requirements for senior housing, 6 of
those jurisdictions have a requirement for guest parking in addition to resident parking, as
70
ZCA 02-04lLCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
Pane 9
indicated in the table below (the other 12 cities either do not have a guest parking requirement or
use the same standard for non-senior housing):
TABLE 5
OTHER CITY JURISDICTIONS
Staff was not successful in finding any statistical data on guest parking demand by housing for
senior citizens. However, the current requirement for a total of 1 guest parking space does not
likely meet the parking demand of guests visiting residents of housing for senior citizens. It is
also not likely that housing for senior citizens generates as much guest parking demand as a non-
senior housing project. Family households with children and teenagers would attract more
visitors than a senior citizen household of one or two senior citizens. However, sufficient
parking should be provided for guests (family, friends, delivery services, etc.) visiting residents
of housing for senior citizens.
The proposed 1 guest parking space for every 5 units is consistent with the requirement of
several other city jurisdictions. The requirement is also less than the guest parking required by
the City for non-senior housing developments (1 space per 2 units for the 1st 10 units, and 1
space per 4 units above 10).
F. Amend existing regulations to consolidate the findings for a site development
plan.
Staff is also recommending that the findings for housing for senior citizens be consolidated with
the findings for a site development plan. Housing for senior citizens is permitted in the R-3, R-P,
R-T, R-W and RD-M zones, subject to the approval of a site development plan (SDP). The
current senior housing regulations specify findings required to be made for approval of housing
for senior citizens, in addition to the findings required for approval of a SDP, which are specified
in Section 21.06.020. Therefore, in the case of housing for senior citizens, there are two separate
sets of findings required to approve one permit (an SDP).
However, the findings required in the housing for senior citizens regulations duplicate or are
similar to the findings for an SDP. To avoid making duplicate sets of findings, for one permit,
staff is recommending that the two sets of findings be consolidated. The proposed amended
regulations state that the findings for approval of an SDP for housing for senior citizens are as
specified in the housing for senior citizens chapter, and the findings in Section 21.06.020 do not
apply. All of the currently required findings will still be required, but the proposed amendment
would consolidate them into one set of findings instead of two. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No.
42, and 55 through 60 - Attachment 7).
ZCA 02-04LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
G. Other minor amendments to existing regulations relating to housing for
senior citizens to provide clarification and consistency with other code
provisions.
Other portions of the existing regulations relating to housing for senior citizens are also proposed
to be amended in order to provide further clarification and consistency with other sections of the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., density bonus requirements in Chapter 21 36). The proposed
amendments are summarized in the following table:
TABLE 6
PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENTS
TO HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS REGULATIONS
Proposed Amendment
The current regulations are referred to as “senior citizen housing” regulations. However,
with the incorporation of the new State definition of “senior citizen housing development,”
and the need to clearly define the difference between the two different categories of senior
housing (Le., solely 62 and over, or 55 and over with provisions for persons less than 59,
staff recommends using the term “housing for senior citizens” to refer to the regulations,
which apply to both categories of housing for senior citizens. Therefore, staff proposes to
modify the terminology where the current regulations use the term “senior citizen housing.”
The current regulations require housing for senior citizens to be located within “two to three
blocks” of transit service. However, it is not clear what the distance of a “block” is. Rather
than specifying an exact distance, staff is recommending a project be required to be located
within a “reasonable walking distance” of transit service. If an exact distance were
specified (Le., ?4 mile), a project would not be permitted if it were slightly outside the
required distance. The proposed requirement (“reasonable walking distance”) will allow the
decision-making authority to have discretion in determining what is “reasonable,” and allow
some flexibility in locating senior housing projects. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 7 -
Attachment 7.)
The current definition of “housing for senior citizens” includes housing ‘provided under
any state or federal program that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
determines is specijlcalli designed and operated to assist elderly persons as defined in the
state or federalprogram. ” This is a Federal Fair Housing Act definition for senior housing.
Staff recommends changing the term “elderly persons” to “senior citizens” to be consistent
with terminology used throughout the housing for senior citizens chapter. (See Comparison
Chart Ref. No. 11 - Attachment 7.)
The common area regulations for housing for senior citizens currently allow the size of a
common room to be reduced if adjacent to outdoor space. Staff is recommending this
provision be deleted. Due to physical limitations or personal preferences, some seniors may
derive more use and enjoyment from an indoor common room than they would fiom
outdoor open space. In addition, outdoor space is not useable during inclement weather.
Therefore, the size of the required indoor common room should not be compromised in
exchange for outdoor space. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 24 - Attachment 7.)
ZCA 02-04LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
TABLE 6, Continued
A manager’s unit is currently “recommended” to be included in senior housing projects.
However, State Housing Law Regulations require a manager to reside upon the premises of
every apartment development that has 16 or more units. Therefore, the housing for senior
citizens regulations are proposed to be amended to require (rather than “recommend”) a
manager’s unit in every project of 16 or more units. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 26 -
Attachment 7.)
The current regulations list the conditions required to grant a density bonus. However,
Chapter 21.86 (Density Bonus) sets forth the requirements for granting a density bonus.
The requirements are duplicated by stating them in the housing for senior citizens
regulations. Stating the requirements in two chapters of the code opens up the possibility
for inconsistencies if the requirements are amended. Therefore, staff recommends the
requirements to grant a density bonus be deleted from the housing for senior citizens
regulations and replaced with a regulation that states a density bonus may be granted if the
project complies with the requirements of Chapter 21.86. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No.
30,31 and 32 - Attachment 7.)
The current regulations state that any project constructed pursuant to the senior housing
regulations and/or requesting a density bonus, shall comply with the inclusionary housing
requirements for residential projects, and shall set aside a minimum 15% of the units to be
affordable to lower income households. Staff recommends removing the reference to a
request for a density bonus fi-om the requirement for compliance with the inclusionary
housing standards.
Any residential project must comply with the inclusionary housing requirements. If a
project requests a density bonus, the percentage of required affordable housing may differ
from the minimum 15% in the inclusionary housing chapter. The regulations already state
that a project must comply with the density bonus chapter if a density bonus is requested.
Also, staff recommends refemng to the inclusionary housing chapter for the percentage
requirement, rather than specifying it in the housing for senior citizens chapter. This will
avoid possible inconsistencies if the inclusionary housing percentage is ever amended. (See
Comparison Chart Ref. No. 34 - Attachment 7.)
Currently, the housing for senior citizens regulations state that a preliminary review
application A preliminary review
application is not typically required prior to submittal of an SDP application, but is
recommended. However, Chapter 2 1.86 (Density Bonus) requires a preliminary application
prior to submittal of a formal application for a project requesting a density bonus.
Therefore, staff is recommending the housing for senior citizens requirements be amended
to specify that a preliminary review application may be submitted prior to a formal
application, but shall be submitted if the project includes a request for a density bonus. (See
Comparison Chart Ref. No. 36 - Attachment 7.)
The housing for senior citizens regulations currently require “building elevations” be
submitted with a preliminary review application. However, to be consistent with the City’s
preliminary review application submittal requirements, “building elevations” are
recommended to be removed from the list of preliminary review submittal requirements.
(See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 39 - Attachment 7.)
be submitted prior to a formal application.
73
ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08 -HU USING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
-
TABLE 6, Continued
The housing for senior citizens regulations currently state that “within thirty days” of
submittal of a preliminary review application, the planning department shall provide a letter
to the applicant identifying project issues. Although staffs policy is to provide written
response within 30 days after a preliminary review application is submitted, it is not a policy
adopted by ordinance (law). Staff makes every attempt to complete review of a preliminary
application within 30 days, however, workloads vary and some projects may require a little
more review time due to complexity. Therefore, staff recommends the requirement to
complete review of a preliminary application within 30 days be removed. (See Comparison
Chart Ref. No. 41 - Attachment 7.)
Staff recommends adding an item to the list of application submittal requirements that
states, “any additional information required as per the City’s application submittal
requirements.” This will ensure applicants are aware that there may be additional submittal
requirements other than those listed in the housing for senior citizens regulations. (See
Comparison Chart Ref. No. 52 - Attachment 7.)
The current regulations state that if an application involves a request for financial
incentives, any action by the Planning Commission shall be advisory, and the City Council
shall have the final decision-making authority. However, the Housing Commission has the
authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council on requests for financial
incentives. Therefore, staff recommends an amendment to clarify if a project involves a
request for financial incentives, any decision shall be made by the City CounciI upon
recommendation from the Housing Commission. Also, if the project involves a request for
financial incentives, the City Council shall have authority to make the final decision on the
SDP and other related development applications, after consideration of a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 42 - Attachment 7.)
The current regulations require an applicant who is requesting a modification of
development standards or other incentives (associated with a density bonus) to submit a
project pro forma demonstrating the standards modification or other incentive is necessary
to make the project economically feasible. Staff is recommending this requirement be
deleted. Pursuant to Chapter 21.86 (Density Bonus), an applicant is not required to
demonstrate that a density bonus is necessary to make a project economically feasible.
Chapter 2 1.86 states that a density bonus shall be granted if an applicant agrees to restrict a
minimum number of units for seniors or as affordable to low income households. (See
Comparison Chart Ref. No. 53 - Attachment 7.)
The current regulations require each project to submit an annual report listing all tenants and
their ages to the Housing and Redevelopment Department (HRD). However, HRD is not
responsible for reviewing or issuing any permit for housing for senior citizens, except in the
case of affordable units or if the project is in the redevelopment area. Therefore, staff is
recommending the annual report be required to be submitted to the Planning Director. (See
Comparison Chart Ref. No. 63 - Attachment 7.)
The definition of a “qualifying resident” in the Density Bonus chapter (Section 21.86.020)
of the Zoning Ordinance is recommended to be amended to refer to the definition contained
in the new housing for senior citizens chapter. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 75 -
Attachment 7.)
ZCA 02-04iLCPA 02-08 -HWUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDhUANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
2
H. Amend the Planned Developments regulations (Chapter 21.45) to specify what
regulations are or are not applicable to housing for senior citizens.
The PD chapter contains a table that lists the residential zones where planned developments
are permitted. The table is proposed to be amended to clarify that housing for senior citizens
is not permitted in the R-1 or R-2 zones. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 68 - Attachment
7.)
The Planned Developments regulations apply to single-family developments with lots or
exclusive use areas of less than 7,500 square feet and condominiums. However, based on the
current intent and purpose statement in the housing for senior citizens regulations, which states
the regulations apply to “rental” and “for-sale” units, staff has made the interpretation that “for-
sale” housing for senior citizens (i.e., condominiums) is not subject to the Planned Development
regulations.
This interpretation was made in consideration of conflicts between the planned developments
regulations and the housing for senior citizens regulations. Some of the development standards
required for planned developments either conflicted with the housing for senior citizens
regulations or did not make sense to require of a senior housing project. For instance, a planned
development is required to provide 200 square feet of community recreational space (passive and
active) per unit. In contrast, the common area required by the housing for senior citizens
regulations is much less and is focused on the needs of senior citizens. Therefore, staff made the
interpretation that the planned development regulations were not intended to apply to housing for
senior citizens.
However, the majority of the development standards required for planned developments would
also be desirable for housing for senior citizens. For instance, a planned development is required
to implement the City’s Liveable Neighborhood Policy, which is intended to establish
pedestrian-fiiendly neighborhoods and buildings designed to add interest and character to a
neighborhood. There are only a relatively few development standards required for planned
developments that should not apply to for-sale housing for senior citizens. Therefore, staff is
recommending that the Planned Developments chapter be amended to specify what standards are
or are not applicable to housing for senior citizens. Note: the planned development regulations
do not apply to apartment developments therefore; they would not apply to “rental” housing for
senior citizens.
The proposed amendments to the Planned Developments regulations are summarized in the table
below:
TABLE 7
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS REGULATIONS
Proposed Amendment
A definition of “housing for senior citizens” is proposed to be added to the Planned
Developments (PD) chapter. Because the definition of “housing for senior citizens” is very
long, and somewhat complicated, staff recommends referencing the definition in the housing
for senior citizens chapter, rather than adding the entire definition in the PD chapter. The
term “housing for senior citizens” will be referred to several times throughout the PD
chapter, and a definition will clarify its meaning. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 67 -
Attachment 7.)
ZCA 02-04LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDlNANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
3
4
The housing for senior citizens parking requirement is proposed to be added to the “General
Development Standards” and “Multiple Dwelling Development Standards” tables in the PD
chapter. (See Comparison Chart Ref. No. 69,73 and 74 - Attachment 7.)
A note is proposed to be added to the “General Development Standards” table to clarify that
the “community recreational space,” “recreation area parking,” and “recreation vehicle
storage” requirements are not applicable to housing for senior citizens. (See Comparison
Chart Ref. No. 70, 71 and 72 - Attachment 7.)
All other requirements for planned developments would apply to “for-sale” housing for senior
citizens.
I. General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program consistency
The proposed Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment will not result in
any inconsistencies with the policies of the General Plan, or the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and Local Coastal Program.
The Housing Element of the General Plan identifies senior citizens as a population group with
special housing needs and specifies an objective to “provide additional senior housing for seniors
of different income groups and physical and mental status.” The Housing Element also specifies
a program “to implement the Senior Citizen Housing regulations.. .,” and to “encourage the
provision of a wide-variety of senior housing opportunities, especially for lower-income seniors
with special needs.” The proposed amendments to the housing for senior citizens regulations are
consistent with the Housing Element goals, objectives and programs and all other policies of the
General Plan.
With regard to consistency with the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed amendment to the housing
for senior citizens regulations will not create any conflicts with other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed amendment will correct existing inconsistencies and ensure that new
inconsistencies do not occur.
With regard to consistency with the Local Coastal Program, as mentioned earlier in this report,
the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The
LCP amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the LCP and Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the provisions of the LCP.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EM Part 11) prepared for this project did not identify any potentially significant
impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is being
recommended for adoption as part of the approval of the proposed Zone Code Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt the recommended Negative Declaration was posted in the
newspaper, and was mailed to the California Coastal Commission and State Clearinghouse for
circulation. No comments were received prior to the preparation of this report.
ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08 -HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS OlZDlN ANCE AMENDMENT
April 16,2003
Page 15
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 80 (Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5381 (ZCA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5382 (LCPA)
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Strike-out and underline version of proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments, including
new Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.84 Housing for Senior Citizens
Comparison chart between current regulations and proposed regulations
JC:sn:mh
77
ATTACHMENT 4
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZCA 02-04 / LCPA 02-08
CASE NAME: HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORIDINANCE AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Promam Amendment to
amend the regulations for housing for senior citizens to be consistent with State and Federal law, relocate
said regulations to a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance, amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to reference the new chapter number, amend the Planned Developments regulations to specify
what regulations are or are not applicable to housing for senior citizens, amend the parking requirement
for housing for senior citizens and amend other various regulations relating to housing for senior citizens for clarification and consistency. The project does not involve development of any property, it is an
amendment to Zoning Ordinance regulations that will effect future development of housing for senior
citizens on a citywide basis.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N/A - The project does not involve development of any property, it is an
amendment to Zoning Ordinance regulations that will affect future development of housing for senior citizens on a citywide basis.
APN: N/A Acres: N/A Proposed No. of LotsNnits: No development proposed.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: N/A - The Droiect does not involve development of any property, it is an amendment to Zoning
Ordinance regulations that will effect future development of housing for senior citizens on a citywide
basis.
NJA
None. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance regulations only.
Density Allowed:
Density Proposed:
Existing Zone:
Proposed Zone:
NJA
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
N/A - The Droiect does not involve development of any property, it is an amendment to Zoning
Ordinance regulations that will effect future development of housing for senior citizens on a citywide
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: NJA Water District: N/A Sewer District: N/A
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration recommended for adoption
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ATTACHMENT 5
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: Citywide
GENERAL PLAN: NIA - Citywide
ZONING: NIA - Citywide
APPLICANT’S NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD
ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: NIA - no development of any site proposed.
QUANTITY OF LAND USE (AC., SQ. FT., DU): NIA - no development of any site proposed
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: NIA - No development proposed
ZCA 02-04 I LCPA 02-08
The project does not propose development of any site, it is an amendment to Zoning Ordinance
regulations that will effect future development of housing for senior citizens on a citywide basis.
Therefore, the project does not impact any local facilities.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Potential Demand in Square Footage = NIA
Library: Potential Demand in Square Footage = NIA
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) NIA
Park: Potential Demand in Acreage = NIA
Drainage : Potential Demand in CFS = NIA
Circulation: Potential Demand in ADT = NIA
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = NIA
Open Space: NIA
Schools: NIA
Sewer: Potential Demands in EDU = NIA
Water: Potential Demand in GPD = NIA
The project does not impact the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance, as
provided for through the “excess dwelling unit bank”.
79
ATTACHMENT 6
HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE VERSION OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
o Section 21.16.016 01-3 Multiple-Family Residential Zone chapter) is proposed to be
amended as follows:
2 1.16.01 6
the provisions of Se&e~ 21 . lo ".
otherwise specified in Chapter 21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
Housing for Sgenior citizen; lwesm-g by site development plan.
Housine for Sgenior citizens may be permitted by site development plan issued according to
Chapter 21.84 of this title. The Unless
m Section 21.18.045 (R-P Residential Professional Zone chapter) is proposed to be amended as
follows:
2 1.18.045
Housing for senior citizens may be permitted bv site development plan issued according
to the provisions of Chapter 21.84 of this title. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter 21.84,
the development standards of this zone shall apply.
Housing for Ssenior citizens lwttsmg by site development plan.
(2) TT
w TT
. ..
..
fIA4 TT ..
(C) TT
(5) $t 2: ~
(2: A**::
..
77 .. . (6
2
3
4
Section 21.20.025 (R-T Residential Tourist Zone chapter) is proposed to be amended as
follows:
21.20.025
Housing for Ssenior citizens may be permitted by site development plan issued according to
the provisions of Seetien 21 .. !W cf th-eede Chapter 21.84 of this title. Tke Unless
otherwise specified in Chapter 21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
Housinp for Sgenior citizen2 lwusisg by site development plan.
a Section 21.22.015 (R-W Residential Waterway Zone chapter) is proposed to be amended as
follows:
21.22.015
the provisions of &kdiem- .. ChaDter 21.84 of this title. Tke Unless
otherwise specified in Chapter 21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
Housinp for Sgenior citizens himg by site development plan.
Housine for Ssenior citizen2 may be permitted by site development plan issued according to
o Section 21.24.025 (RD-M Residential Density-Multiple Zone chapter) is proposed to be
amended as follows:
21.24.025
the provisions of*- .. Chapter 21.84 of this title. The Unless
otherwise specified in Chapter 21.84, the development standards of this zone shall apply.
Housine for Ssenior citizen: heesmg by site development plan.
Housing for Ssenior citizen2 may be permitted by site development plan issued according to
Section 21.44.020(a)(9) (Parking chapter) is proposed to be amended as follows:
(9) Housinp for Senior Citizen2 - Minimum one covered space per every
We units, plus one covered space for an onsite manager’s unit (when provided) and one guest
parking space per every five units, subject to approval of a site development plan.
5
o The following definitions are proposed to be added and modified in Section 21.45.030
Definitions (Planned Developments chapter):
Visitor
Parking
E. “Housing for senior citizens” is defined as specified in Section 21.84.020 of this code. Eg. “Net pad area” means the building pad of a lot excluding all natural or manufactured
slopes greater than three feet in height except intervening manufactured slopes between split-
level pads on a single lot. Fs. “Planned development” means a form of development usually characterized by a unified
site design for a number of housing units, clustering buildings and providing common open
space, recreation and streets.
GIJ. “Twin-home” means two homes attached by a common wall where each home and lot or
exclusive use area has separate ownership.
1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 units or fraction thereof.
2. 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 units above 10.
3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 units. 34. In cases where a fractional parking space is required, the required number of spaces shall be
o An amendment to “Table A” of Section 21.45.040 Permitted zones and uses (Planned
Developments chapter) is proposed as follows:
TABLE A
PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL USES
higher density.
Only permitted when the proposed project site is contiguous to a lot or lots zoned R-3, R-T, R-P, C-1, C-2,
C-M or M, but in no case shall the project site consist of more than one lot nor be more than ninety feet in
width, whichever is less.
Permitted uses shall be consistent with the master plan.
Refer to Table F for specific uses.
“Housing for senior citizens” is not permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones.
(2)
(3)
(4)
IS)
6
On Private/
Public
Streets
Driveways
Community
Recreational
Space
Recreation
Area Parking
Recreational
Vehicle
Storage
rounded to the nearest highest whole number.
1. Visitor parking may be provided: (1) along both sides of a minimum 34 foot wide private/public
street or (2) in perpendicular bays. When visitor parking is provided on-street, not less than 24
lineal feet per space, exclusive of dnveway entrances and driveway aprons, shall be provided
for each parking space, except where parallel parlung spaces are located immediately adjacent
to driveway aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided.
1. Visitor parlung must be provided in parking bays.
All projects of more than 10 dwelling units shall provide 200 square feet of centralized, community
recreational space per unit. Projects with 25 or fewer units shall provide passive or active recreation
facilities; projects with more than 25 units shall provide both passive and active recreational
facilities with a minimum of 75 percent of the area allocated for active facilities. Projects of more
than 50 units shall provide recreation facilities for a variety of age groups. Examples of recreation
facilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
Active: Swimming pool with cabana, children’s playground equipment, spa, tennis court,
racquetball court, volleyball court, basketball court, recreation rooms or buildings,
horseshoe pits, pitch and putt, grassy play areas a minimum of 100 feet by 100 feet and any
other facility deemed by the planning director to satisfy the intent of providing active
recreational facilities.
Passive: Benches, barbecues, community gardens, or grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5%.
1. Credit for indoor recreation facilities shall not exceed 25% of the required centralized community
recreation area.
2. Required recreation areas shall not be located in any required front yard and may not include any
driveways, parking areas, walkways, storage areas, or any slopes of 5% or greater.
3. For single-family or two-family projects of 50 units or more, at least 25 percent of the common
recreation space must be provided as pocket parks. Pocket park lots must have a minimum width
of 50 feet and be located at strategic locations such as street intersections (especially “T-
intersections”) and where open space vistas may be achieved.
Note: These communitv recreational space requirements shall not amlv to housinp for senior
citizens (refer to Chapter 21.84 of this code for common area requirements for housing for
senior citizens).
1 space for each 15 residential lots or fraction thereof for lots located more than 1,000 feet from a
centralized community recreation center lot.
Note: Housing for senior citizens is not required to be provided with recreation area parkinp.
1. Required for projects with 25 or more units.
2. 20 square feet per unit exclusive of area required for driveways and approaches.
3. Developments located within master plans or residential specific plans may have this requirement
met by the common RV storage area provided by the master plan or residential specific plan.
4. The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and on any
public or private streets or any other area visible to the public. A provision containing this
restriction shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project. All RV
storage areas shall be landscaped to screen vehicles to the maximum extent feasible.
Note: HousinP for senior citizens is not required to be provided with recreational vehicle
storage.
7
o An amendment to “Table E” of Section 21.45.080 Multiple-dwelling development standards
(Planned Developments chapter) is as follows:
Standards
Resident Parkmg
Visitor Parking
(Partial )
Table E
Multiple-Dwelling Development Standards
- 1. One 12 feet x 20 feet car garage and 1 covered or uncovered space per unit - 2. Studio units - 1.5 spaces; 1 covered per unit
3. Housing for senior citizens: 1 covered mace per unit, plus one covered space
for an onsite manager’s unit (when provided).
1. 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or fraction thereof.
2. 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 dwelling
3. HousinP for senior citizens: 1 space for each 5 dwelling units. 3. Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 150 ft. as measured in a
logical walking path from the entrance of the unit it could be considered to
serve.
Requirement
units above 10.
45. Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays.
o Section 2 1.86.020 Definitions (Residential Density Bonus or In-Lieu Incentives chapter) is
proposed to amended as follows:
(21) “Qualifying resident” means a resident as defined in Chapter 21.84 of this title and
Section 5 1.2 of the California Civil Code.
o Chapter 21.84 Housing for Senior Citizens is proposed to be added to the Zoning Ordinance
as follows:
Chapter 21.84
Housinp for Senior Citizens
21.84.01 0 Title.
21.84.020 Purpose.
21.84.030 Definitions.
21.84.040 Use Table.
21.84.050 Location Guidelines.
21.84.060 Development Standards and Desipn Criteria.
21.84.070 Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Densitv Bonus Provisions.
21.84.080 Application Process.
21.84.090 Findings for Approval.
21.84.1 00 Additional Requirements.
21.84.1 10 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.
8
83
21.84.010 Title.
“Housinp for Senior Citizens Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.”
A. This chapter shall be known and may be cited and referred to as the
21.84.020 Purpose.
A. The purpose of the housing for senior citizens regulations is to:
1.
2.
3.
Recognize the housinp needs of senior citizens;
Provide a mechanism and standards for the development of rental or
for-sale housinp available to senior citizens;
Provide comprehensive standards and regulations to ensure housing
is desimed to meet the special needs of senior citizens (Le. phvsical, social and economic
needs);
4. Facilitate the establishment of housing for senior citizens within
certain zones subject to the approval of a site development plan;
5. Comply with state and federal laws prohibiting ape discrimination in
housing; and
6. Provide standards and repulations for housing for senior citizens
construed in accordance with California Civil Code Sections 51.2, 51.3 and 51.4, the
Federal Fair Housing Act, and the Federal Code of Repulations Title 24 Sections 100.300 to
100.308.
21.84.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms used herein relatinp to the
provision of housing for senior citizens are defined as follows:
1. Cohabitant. “Cohabitant” refers to persons who live together as
husband and wife, or persons who are domestic partners within the meaning of Section 297
of the Family Code.
2. Disability. ‘4Disability” means any mental or physical disability as
defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
3. Housing (Dwelling Unit). “Housinp” or ‘‘dwellinp unit” means any
residential accommodation (rental unit or for-sale unit) desimed for occupancy by a senior
citizen or qualifying resident, and each unit having only one kitchen, excluding mobile
homes in a “senior citizen housinp development”.
4. Housine Community. “Housing community” means any dwellinp or
group of dwellinp units governed by a common set of rules, repulations or restrictions. A
portion or portions of a sinple building shall not constitute a housing community.
Housing for Senior Citizens. “Housing for senior citizens” means a
housing community:
a. provided under any State or Federal program that the
Secretary of Housinp and Urban Development determines is specifically designed and
operated to assist senior citizens (as defined in the State or Federal program); or
intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or
older; or
intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of
age or older, and where the housing facilitv is consistent with the definition of a “senior
citizen housing development”.
A.
5.
b.
C.
9
88
6. Senior Citizen. “Senior citizen” means:
a.
b.
a person 62 years of ape or older: or
a person 55 years of ape or older in a “senior citizen housing
7. Senior Citizen Housing Development. “Senior citizen housing
a. a residential development developed, substantially
development.”
development” means:
rehabilitated, or substantially renovated, for persons 55 years of age or older, that has:
i.
ii. at least 80 percent of the occupied dwellinp units
The followinp definitions shall only apply to a %enior citizen housing
1. Qualifying Resident. “Qualifying resident” means a person 55 years
2. Qualified Permanent Resident. “Qualified permanent resident”
at least 35 dwelling units (rental or for-sale units); and
occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older.
B.
development”:
of age or older in a senior citizen housinq development.
means:
a. A person who meets both of the followinp requirements:
1. Was residing with the qualifvinp resident prior to the
death, hospitalization, or other prolonged absence of, or the dissolution of marriage with,
the qualifying resident; and
ii. Was 45 vears of age or older, or was a spouse,
cohabitant, or person providing primary physical or economic support to the qualifying
resident.
A disabled person or person with a disabling illness or injury
who is a child or grandchild of the qualifyinp resident or a qualified permanent resident,
who needs to live with the qualifvinp resident or qualified permanent resident because of
the disabling condition, illness or injury.
3. Permitted Health Care Resident. “Permitted health care resident”
means a person hired to provide live-in, long-term, or terminal health care to a qualifving
resident, or a familv member of the qualifyinp resident providing that care. The care
provided by a permitted health care resident must be substantial in nature and must
provide either assistance with necessary daily activities or medical treatment, or both.
b.
- R-3 SDP
R-P SDP* -
21.84.040 Use Table.
development plan (SDP) in certain zones as indicated in the following table:
A. Housing for senior citizens is permitted subiect to the approval of a site
- R-W
RD-M
TABLE A
SDP
SDP
SDP
ZONES WHERE HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS IS PERMITTED
Zone I HousinP for Senior Citizens__]
10
89
** ** V-R
P-c
Note: Housing for senior citizens is prohibited in those zones not indicated.
-
* The citv may approve a site development plan for housing for senior citizens on propertv in the R-
P zone where the Peneral plan applicable to such uropertv permits residential uses. ** Mav be uermitted subiect to the standards of the controlling document (i.e., in V-R zone -
Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan, and in P-C zone - applicable master
plan) and the provisions of this chapter.
21.84.050 Location Guidelines.
Housing for senior citizens should, whenever reasonablv possible, be located
consistent with the followinp location vuidelines:
1. The proposed proiect should be located in close proximitv to a wide
range of commercial retail, professional, social and community services patronized by
senior citizens; or have its own private shuttle bus which will provide dailv access to these
services;
The proposed proiect should be located within a reasonable walking
distance of a bus or transit stop unless a common transportation service for residents is
provided and maintained;
The proposed proiect should be located in a topographicallv level
area: and
Development of housing for senior citizens at the proposed location
should not be detrimental to public health, safetv and eeneral welfare.
A.
2.
3.
4.
21.84.060 Development Standards and Desim Criteria.
Housinp for senior citizens shall comply with all applicable development A.
standards of the underlving zone, except those which may be modified herein or as an
additional incentive eranted pursuant to Chapter 21.86 of this code.
In the coastal zone, any project processed pursuant to this chapter and B.
Chapter 21.86 of this code shall be consistent with all certified local coastal program
provisions, with the exception of density.
Parkine shall be provided as follows: C.
1. A minimum of one covered space per every unit, plus one covered
*ace for an onsite manager’s unit (when provided), and one guest parking space per everv
five units;
2. Whenever possible, parking spaces should be laid out at either a
thirty, forty-five or sixtv degree angle; and
3. Required parking spaces shall be available to residents of the project
at no fee.
D. To the maximum extent feasible, architectural harmony, through the use of
appropriate building height, materials, bulk and scale within the development and within
the existinv neighborhood and community shall be obtained.
The building(s) shall be finished on all sides with similar roof and wall
materials, colors and architectural accent features.
Laundry facilities must be provided in a separate room at the ratio of one
washer and one dryer for every twenty-five (25) dwellinp units or fractional number
E.
F.
11
thereof. At least one washer and one dryer shall be provided in every project. Washers and
dryers may be coin operated.
A manager’s unit shall be provided in every proiect of 16 or more units
{rental projects only). The manager’s unit shall be a complete dwelling unit and so
designated on all plans.
Housing for senior citizens shall be designed to encourage social contact bv
providing a minimum of one common room, which may include, but is not limited to, a
recreation/social room, a common dininp facility or a readindTV room. Common open
space shall also be provided, which may include, but is not limited to, communitv
gardening areas or open landscaped areas with walkways and seating. Common areas
shall be designed to ensure that thev are useful and functional for residents, and shall
comply with the following:
1. The minimum amount of common area required in each proiect shall
be no less than twenty (20) square feet per dwellinp unit;
2. Common space excludes all stairwells and any balconies of less than
forty (40) square feet;
3. Unless the building is serviced by an elevator, common rooms shall be
located on the mound floor: and
4. Adjacent toilet facilities for men and women shall be provided.
In addition to the common areas described above, additional services and
proprams are encouraged, but not required, to be included in all projects to meet the
physical and social needs of senior citizens. Such desirable services and programs may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
G.
H.
I.
1. Social and recreational programs;
2.
3. House cleaning/cooking
4. Inside/outside maintenance services;
5. Emergency and preventative health care programs/services; and
6. Transportation services.
Access to all common areas and housing units shall be provided without use
of stairs, either by means of an elevator or sloped walking ramps.
Entryways, walkways, and hallways in the common areas, and doorwavs and
paths of access to and within the housing units, shall be as wide as required by current laws
applicable to new multifamily housing construction for provision of access to persons using
a standard-width wheelchair.
L. Walkways and hallways in the common areas shall be equipped with
standard heipht railinps or grab bars to assist persons who have difficultv with walking,
and shall have liphting conditions that are of sufficient brightness to assist persons who
have difficulty seeinp.
Trash collection containers shall be provided in an easily accessible location M.
and in manner that requires a minimum of physical exertion by residents. Trash collection
containers shall also be completely screened and located as inconspicuously as possible.
Trash enclosures shall be of similar colors and materials as the main building.
Continuinp education, information and counseling services;
J.
K.
N.
grab bar;
Dwelling units shall be provided with the following:
1. Tubs and/or showers equipped with, or adaptable for, at least one
12
2.
3.
4. Peepholes in entry doors.
The design of housing for senior citizens should, to the extent practicable,
implement the principles of Universal Design as currently established by the Center for
Universal Design at the North Carolina State Universitv, or any other residential desipn
elements for seniors that may currently be established by the California Department of
Aginp. Universal Desipn principles encourape building design with accessible and
adaptable features that are universally usable bv most people regardless of their level of
ability or disability. Examples of Universal Design are as follows:
1. A dwelling unit should be designed to be accessible or adaptable for
disabled access;
2. An adaptable dwellinp.unit has all accessible features that a fixed
accessible unit has but allows some items to be omitted or concealed until needed so the
dwellinF unit can be better matched to individual needs when occupied; and
In an adaptable unit, wide doors, no steps, knee spaces, control and
switch locations, grab bar reinforcing and other access features must be built in. Grab
bars, however, can be omitted and installed when needed. Knee space can be concealed by
installinp a removable base cabinet that can be removed when needed. Counter tops and
closet rods can be placed on adiustable supports rather than fixed at lower heights as
required for wheelchair users.
Housing for senior citizens shall comply with all applicable building and
housing codes, and requirements for access and design imposed by law, including, but not
limited to, the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.), the Americans with
Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and the regulations of Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations that relate to access for persons with disabilities or
handicaps. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or reduce any ripht or
obligation applicable under those laws.
Tubs and/or showers equipped with temperature regulating devices;
Slip resistant tub and/or shower bottom surfaces: and
0.
3.
P.
21 34.070 Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Density Bonus Provisions.
Any market-rate rental or for-sale proiect constructed pursuant to this
chapter shall be required to comply with the inclusionary requirements for residential
developments in Chapter 21.85 of this code.
Upon written request by an applicant, and in return for his aweement to
develop and operate a proiect in accordance with this chapter and Chapter 21.86 of this
code (residential density bonus), the final decision-making authoritv shall allow an increase
in the number of dwelling units permitted per acre (density), provided the request for
density bonus complies with the requirements of Chapter 21.86.
A.
B.
21 34.080 Application Process.
Preliminarv Review Application - a preliminary review application may be
submitted prior to the submittal of a formal apDlication (note - if the proiect includes a
request for a density bonus, a preliminary review application is required).
1. A preliminary review application shall include the following
information:
A.
13
9a
a. A brief description of the proposal includina the total number
of senior units, density bonus units and affordable senior units proposed;
b. The peneral plan and zonina designations, and assessors parcel
numbeds) of the proiect site;
C. A site plan, drawn to scale, which includes: building footprints,
driveway and parkinp layout, existing contours and proposed arading; and
d. A letter identifying what specific incentives (Le., density bonus,
standards modifications or financial incentives) are being requested of the city, if any.
After review of the preliminary application, the planning department
shall provide to an applicant a letter identifying project issues of concern to staff, and the
incentives or assistance that the plannina director can support when making a
recommendation to the final decision-making authority.
Formal Application - a proposal to develop housinp for senior citizens shall
be processed under a site development plan (SDP) application in addition to any otherwise
required application(s) (i.e., tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments, etc.).
The site development plan application shall be processed accordina to the provisions of
Chapter 21.06 of this code, excluding Section 21.06.020 (b) (l), (2), (3) and (4). The findings
for approval of a site development plan for housing for senior citizens are specified in
Section 21.84.090 of this chapter.
2.
B.
1. A completed a lication shall include the followin information:
a.
b.
A legal description of the total site proposed for development
including a statement of present ownership and present and proposed zoning;
If a density bonus or other incentives are requested, a letter
shall be submitted signed by the present owner stating how the proiect will comply with
Government Code Section 65915 and stating what is being requested from the city, (i.e.t
density bonus, modification of development standards or other additional incentives): and
Site plans and other supporting plans (Le., a landscape plan,
buildina elevations and floor plans) as per the City’s application submittal requirements;
A detailed vicinity map showing the proiect location and such
details as the nearest market, transit stop, park or recreation center, medical facilities or
other related uses and services likely to be patronized by senior citizens;
A set of floor plans for each different type of unit indicatinp a
typically furnished apartment, with dimensions of doorways, hallways, closets and
cabinets;
A floor plan of the first floor or other floor showinp any
common areas and accommodations;
application submittal requirements.
If the proiect involves a request for financial incentives from the City,
then any decision on such a request shall be made by the City Council upon
recommendation from the Housing Commission. In addition, if the proiect involves a
request for financial incentives then the City Council shall have the authority to make the
final decision on the site development plan and other related development applications (i.e.,
tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments, etc.), after consideration of a
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g. Any additional information required as per the City’s
2.
14
93
3. At the time of plan submittal for building permits, the applicant shall
submit a set of detailed drawiws for kitchens and bathrooms indicating counter and
cabinet heights and depth, Wpe of pulls, faucets, grab-bars, tub and/or shower dimensions,
and handicapped turn space where appropriate.
21.84.090 Findings for Approval.
A site development plan for housing for senior citizens shall be approved
only if the followinp findinps are made:
1. The proiect is consistent with the various goals, obiectives, policies
and proprams of the General Plan, the provisions of Municipal Code Title 21 (Zoning
Ordinance), the Local Coastal Program (if applicable), and/or the provisions of an
applicable master or specific plan;
The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed proiect;
The proiect is properly related to and will not adversely impact the
site, surroundings and environmental settinps, and will not be detrimental to existing uses
specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed proiect is to be located;
The project shall not result in density or desipn that is incompatible
with other land uses in the immediate vicinity, and the proiect will provide and maintain
all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscapinp, and other features determined necessary to
provide compatibility with existinp or permitted future uses in the neiphborhood;
The street system serving the proposed proiect is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proiect; and
The request for a density bonus and/or additional incen tive(s) is
consistent with the provisions of Chapter 21.86 of this code. (This findinp shall only apply
to proiects requestinv a density bonus and/or additional incentives).
A.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
21.84.1 00 Additional Requirements.
No housing development constructed prior to January 1, 1985, shall fail to
qualify as a “senior citizen housing development” because it was not oripinally developed
or put to use for occupancy by senior citizens.
Any person who, on January 1, 1985, had the right to reside in, occupv, or
use housing that is subiect to the provisions for a’“senior citizen housing development” in
this chapter and California Civil Code Sections 51.2,51.3 and 51.4, shall not be deprived of
the ripht to continue that residency, occupancy, or use as the result of the implementation
of this chapter.
C. Any person who is not 62 years of age or older, and who, on September 13,
1988, had the ripht to reside in, occupy, or use housinp that is restricted to occupancy bv
persons 62 years of ape or older, shall not be deprived of the ripht to continue that
residency, occupancy or use as a result of the implementation of this chapter: provided that
all new occupants are persons 62 years of age or older.
A developer of housinp for senior citizens shall establish a homeowner’s
association, board of directors, or other governing body, and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions or other documents or written policy. Said CC&Rs or other
documents or written policy shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director
A.
B.
D.
15 9cf
and recorded prior to issuance of a buildinp permit. At a minimum, the CC&Rs or other
documents or written policy shall set forth the following:
1. Limitations on occupancy, residency or use on the basis of ape;
a. Any such limitation shall not be more exclusive than to require
that:
1. each person in residence in each dwelling unit be
required to be 62 years of age or older: or
ii. in a “senior citizen housing development” each person
in residence in each dwellinv unit is required to be a senior citizen or qualifying resident,
and that each other resident in the same dwelling unit may be required to be a qualified
permanent resident, a permitted health care resident, or a person under 55 years of age
whose occupancy is permitted under California Civil Code Section 51.3 (h) or Section 51.4
The limitations on occupancv may allow for occupancy of units
by employees of the housing community (and family members residinp in the same unit)
who are under 62 vears of age, or who do not qualify as a qualifyinp resident, provided
they perform substantial duties directly related to the management or maintenance of the
housing community;
The limitations on occupancy for housinp that is intended for,
and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or older, shall not be less exclusive than to
require that the persons commencing any occupancv of a dwelling unit be 62 years of age
or older, excludinp occupancy by persons permitted pursuant to Section 21.84.100C. and
D.l.b, above;
In a “senior citizen housinv development”, the limitations on
occupancy may be less excusive than stated above, but shall at least require that the
persons commencing any occupancy of a dwellinp unit include a qualifyinp resident who
intends to reside in the unit as his or her primary residence on a permanent basis;
e. In a “senior citizen housing development”, the limitation on
occupancy may result in less than, but not less than 80 percent, all of the dwellinps being
actually occupied by a qualifying resident;
In a “senior citizen housing development”, upon the death, dissolution
of marriage, or upon hospitalization, or other prolonged absence of the qualifyinp resident,
any qualified permanent resident, as defined in this chapter and Section 51.3 of the
California Civil Code, shall be entitled to continue his or her occupancy, residency, or use
of the dwellinp unit as a permitted resident. This provision shall not apply to a permitted
health care resident;
In a “senior citizen housing development”, a Permitted health care
resident shall be entitled to occupy a dwellinp unit during any period that the person is
actually providinv live-in, long-term, or hospice health care to a senior citizen or qualifying
resident for compensation, which includes the provision of lodginp and food in exchange
for care;
In a “senior citizen housing development”, upon the absence of the
qualifying resident, a permitted health care resident shall be entitled to continue his or her
occupancy, residency, or use of the dwelling unit only if: a) the qualifying resident became
absent from the dwelling unit due to hospitalization or other necessary medical treatment
and expects to return to his or her residence within 90 days from the date the absence
-
mi b.
C.
d.
2.
3.
4.
16 95
began: and b) the absent aualifving resident, or an authorized person actinp for the
qualifvinp resident, submits a written request to the owner, HOA, board of directors, or
other governinp body stating that the qualifying resident desires that the permitted health
care resident be allowed to remain in order to be present when the qualifving resident
returns to reside in the development. The HOA, board of directors, or other governing
bodv may permit a permitted health care resident to remain for a period Ionper than 90
days, but not to exceed an additional 90 days;
In a “senior citizen housinp development”, for any person who is a
qualified permanent resident, as defined in this chapter, whose disablinp condition ends,
the owner, HOA, board of directors, or other governinp bodv may require the formerly
disabled resident to cease residing in the development, subiect to the provisions of
California Civil Code Section 51.3 (b)(3);
6. In a “senior citizen housing development”, CC&Rs or other
documents or written policy shall allow temporary residency for a mest, who may be less
than 55 years in ape, of a qualifying resident, or qualified permanent resident, for periods
of time, not less than 60 days in any year, that are specified in the CC&Rs or other
documents or written policy.
CC&Rs or other documents or written policies applicable housinp for senior
citizens that contain age restrictions, shall be enforceable only to the extent permitted in
California Civil Code Section 51.3, the Federal Fair Housinp Act, and the Federal Code of
Regulations Title 24 Sections 100.300 to 100.308, notwithstandinp lower age restrictions
contained in those documents.
5.
E.
21.84.1 10 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.
A. To assure compliance with the age requirement of this chapter, all
applicants/owners of housing for senior citizens shall be rewired to submit, on an annual
basis, an updated list of all proiect tenants and their age to the City’s Planning Director.
17
96
m
77
I
_In
- 2 5
Y
9
9 5
8 E
0 Y
E 3 v)
U
U
Y
- @
9
0 > 0
0 a
d
N
E 0
0
rcl 0
a
9
09
3
.I Y
r%
5
5
td r W * .3 b
0 E M
.3
.I v) B
C c
-
7-
n m .I 5 CI .r( b
6
E M .- v)
a E td =g
-i!
E
z
z
E
5 e
c
0 o -
W
d
N
9
09 d
5 I
e, 00 E 4
d N
v, N \o N
W
ld a
0 m
I
d m
8
W d
hl m m IC, In IC,
0 W m W v, W
7
U c C E -e
E
2
E e
4
E
L c
E C
n C n
.. c
I e
W W
I I
I I
I I
0 fz
0
0 0 a !=
0
*
.-
.e
U
M C p
a c. 6 ‘p
!2 v1
m P
U 0
ti3
p! s 3 m
f
Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2003 DRAFT
4. ZCA 02-04/LCPA 02-08 - HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -
Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve
a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the regulations for
housing for senior citizens to be consistent with State and Federal law, relocate said regulations
to a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance, amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
reference the new chapter number, amend the Planned Developments regulations to specify
what regulations are or are not applicable to housing for senior citizens, amend the parking
requirement for housing for senior citizens and amend other various regulations relating to
housing for senior citizens for clarification and consistency.
Mr. Neu introduced Item ##4 and stated that Associate Planner, Jennifer Coon, would make the
presentation.
Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item #4.
Associate Planner, Jennifer Coon, presented the Staff Report as follows. The Item before the Planning
Commission this evening is a request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to amend the City’s senior citizen housing regulations. The City of Carlsbad is the applicant.
The project would apply to the future development of senior citizen housing on a citywide basis. Housing
for seniors is currently permitted in and recommended to remain permitted in the R-3 Multiple Family
residential zone, the Residential Professional, Residential Tourist, Residential Waterway, and the
Residential Density-Multiple zone, all of which permit multiple family housing. Senior housing is also
allowed in the Village Redevelopment Area and in the Planned Community zone subject to the applicable
master plan in those areas.
The proposed Amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance consists of incorporating provisions from State
and Federal law regarding senior citizen housing, increasing the parking requirement for senior housing,
amending the Planned Development regulations, creating a new chapter for the senior citizen housing
standards, amending text for clarification and consistency purposes. With regard to the Local Coastal
Program Amendment, the City Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal
Program. Therefore, an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would also entail an Amendment to the
Local Coastal Program. However, there is no Amendment proposed to the Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan document.
The bulk of the proposed Amendment consists primarily of incorporating provisions from the State
California Civil Code provisions for senior housing that were amended in 2001 and also incorporating
provisions from the Federal Fair Housing Act that applied to senior housing that were amended in 1995.
There are various new and revised definitions from State and Federal law to be incorporated into the
City’s Code that clarify the meaning of housing for senior citizens and define who is allowed to live in a
senior housing project. There are new development standards being incorporated from State law that
ensure the needs of senior citizens are being met, both physical and social.
Federal law defines housing for senior citizens in two different age categories. The first is housing that is
occupied solely by persons who are 62 years of age and older. In this category there is no provision in
Federal or State law to allow persons less than 62 to occupy a unit. The second category is housing that
is occupied by persons 55 years of age and older. In this category, Federal law states that persons under
55 may live there provided that 80% of the occupied units have at least one person who is at least 55 or
older. State law adds to the Federal regulations, and one of the most significant additions is a definition
for “Senior Citizens Housing Development,” which applies to the category of housing for 55 or older. The
most significant part of this definition is that State law now says that there has to be a minimum of 35
units in this category. This is primarily the main difference between the two age categories. In the 62 and
older category, the development would not be required to have a minimum of 35 units. So if a developer
wanted to develop senior housing on a lot that would not accommodate 35 units, the City would have the
ability to allow senior housing as long as they restricted it to persons 62 and older. State law also has
new definitions to further clarify who is allowed to live in a Senior Citizen housing development. Those
definitions include one for a qualified resident, qualified permanent resident, and permitted health care
resident.
Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2003 Page 7
State law also has five new design standards for senior housing that are intended to meet the physical
and social needs of senior citizens. These standards apply to any senior housing development in either
age category. One of those new standards is to encourage that the principle of Universal Design be
incorporated into the senior housing project. Basically, those principles provide criteria to design the units
to be adaptable for handicap occupancy rather than being fixed accessible units. An example of that
would be to design knee space under the counters for wheelchair use, but in an adaptable unit that space
could be enclosed with cabinets that could be removed if it needed to be adapted for handicap
occupancy. State law now also requires that CC&Rs or other governing documents be recorded for each
senior housing project to set forth the age restrictions.
In addition to incorporating State and Federal laws into our code, Staff is also recommending that the
parking requirement for senior housing be increased. Currently, the City requires that resident parking for
senior housing be provided at a minimum of one space for every two units. Staff is recommending that
that be increased to one space for every unit. Staffs recommendation is based on information we
obtained from the 1990 census on the average number of vehicles owned per senior citizen household
and on surveying other parking requirements in other City jurisdictions.
In the Carlsbad/San Dieguito area the census information indicates that there is an average of 1.1
vehicles owned per senior household in the age category of 55 and older in multi-family housing. Staff
also reviewed the census data for the average number of vehicles owned by senior citizens in single- family households, which is approximately 1.8 vehicles per single-family senior citizen household.
However, single-family senior citizen housing is probably not as likely to be developed in the City as multi-
family housing, due to the fact that senior housing is only permitted in those zones that allow multi-family
housing. Staff feels that it is more likely we will see applications for multi-family housing for senior
citizens.
With regard to other City jurisdictions, their parking standards for senior housing vary pretty widely from
about one space for every four units up to two spaces per unit. In San Diego County, 10 out of the 15
cities we surveyed have no special requirement for senior citizen housing parking and in those cases the
standard residential parking requirement would apply, which is usually about two spaces per unit. The
other five cities in the County that did have a standard for senior parking varied from one space per unit to
two spaces per unit. Staff also surveyed 13 cities outside San Diego County and the standards in those
cities varied widely, which indicates that there really is no one predominate parking standard for senior
housing. Therefore, in order to accommodate the average number of vehicles owned per senior
household as indicated by the census data, Staff is recommending that the parking requirement be
increased to one space per unit. We are not recommending the 1 .I space per unit that would match the
census data exactly due to the fact that in the age category of 55-64 the average number of vehicles per
household was higher, which could be due to the fact that that is a relatively young age group and
children could still be living at home, which may result in a higher number of vehicles per household.
Staff felt that the age category of 66-74 and 75 and above probably reflects the population that is more
likely to live in senior housing and the average number of vehicles per household in those age groups
was .95. Therefore, Staff is recommending the one space per unit.
In addition to resident parking, Staff is also recommending that the guest-parking requirement for senior
housing be increased. Currently, the City requires a total of one space for a senior housing project for
guest parking. Staff is recommending that be increased to one guest parking space for every five units,
which is approximately 35% less than the guest parking required for a non-senior housing project. Staff
were only able to find a limited amount of information on guest parking ratios. Six out of the 18 cities
surveyed had a guest parking requirement for senior housing and four out of those six cities require one
space for five units. Two of the cities require one space for two units. Some of the other cities looked at did have a guest-parking requirement for their standard residential, which may apply to senior housing
and that was generally around one space for four units.
Staffs recommendation is based in part on logic that a total of one guest parking space is not likely
adequate to accommodate the guests visiting senior housing. However, a senior housing project
probably won’t generate as much demand for guest parking as a standard residential development where
you have families with kids. However, seniors probably have more than one guest visiting them at any
one given time, so Staff is recommending that the guest parking requirement be increased to one space
Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2003 Page 8
per five units, which is consistent with several other city jurisdictions and is still slightly less than what the
City requires for standard residential guest parking.
In senior projects there is a requirement that they provide one space for a manager’s unit and Staff is not
recommending that requirement be changed. However, it is being recommending that the resident and
managers spaces be required to be covered. There is currently no requirement that they be covered.
Staff is also recommending that the Planned Development regulations be amended to specify which
standards should not apply to senior housing projects. The City’s Plan Development regulations apply to
single-family developments with lots or exclusive use areas of less than 7500 sq ft and to condominium
projects. Therefore, if a senior housing project came in and it was proposed to be a condominium
development or even a small lot single-family development, they would be subject to the Planned
Development regulations. However, there are some Plan Development standards that really don’t make
sense to apply to a senior project, such as the community recreational space requirement, the
recreational area parking standard, and the RV parking requirement. Therefore, Staff is recommending
that the community recreational space, the recreational area parking, and the RV parking requirements
be amended to specify that those standards are not applicable to senior housing. Staff is also
recommending that a definition be added for “Housing for Senior Citizens” and add the proposed parking
requirement to the Planned Development regulations.
Staff also proposes that a new chapter be added to the Zoning Ordinance specifically for the senior
housing regulations. Currently, the senior housing standards are located in the RP Zone chapter.
However, senior housing is permitted in several residential zones, not just the RP Zone. Therefore, it is
not obvious to look there for those standards. Consequently, a new chapter dedicated solely to senior
housing regulations would make the ordinance a little user-friendlier.
A few other various amendments are also proposed that would include consolidating the findings for a
site development plan and a senior housing project into one set of findings rather than two, correcting a
few inconsistencies with other portions of the code, such as our density bonus regulations, and clarifying
the application submittal and review process for senior housing projects.
To summarize, the proposed Amendment involves incorporating State and Federal law provisions for
senior housing into the code, increasing the senior housing parking requirements from half a space per
unit to one space per unit, amending the Planned Development regulations to specify which standards do
not apply to senior housing, creating a new chapter for the senior housing provisions, and amending text
to provide clarification and consistency throughout the code. Therefore, based upon the findings and
information in the Staff Report, Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions Number 5380, 5381, and 5382, recommending to the City Council adoption of
the project Negative Declaration and approval of Zone Code Amendment 02-04 and LCPA 02-08.
Commissioner Segall asked if the City has been out of compliance with the 1995 Federal law and the
2001 State law.
Ms. Coon replied that what was amended in Federal law was to remove the requirement for the provision
of significant facilities and services, such as counseling programs and recreational programs. Staff is still
recommending that they continue to encourage them. By continuing to require the services and
programs, they weren’t out of compliance, because the City can be more restrictive than the Federal law.
With regard to State law, the Code doesn’t have the additional provisions that State law now has.
Commissioner Segall said that he was trying to understand what the significance was of the 35 dwelling
units and calling it a senior citizen housing development. He asked if there are less than 35 units, are
there certain things that a developer can’t do that would make them strive to build 35 units.
Ms. Coon stated that they consulted with an attorney who was involved in drafting the legislation and he
explained that everyone involved in drafting the legislation agreed that 35 units was the minimum number
of units that would be necessary to make a project work and still implement all of the new design criteria.
So that was his rationale for requiring the minimum 35 units. Why it doesn’t apply to the category of 62
and older that Federal law allows, he didn’t really explain.
Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2003 Page 9
Commissioner Segall stated that it was not something that they needed to be concerned about. Ms.
Coon agreed. Commissioner Segall stated that the Planning Commission recently approved the Villa
Francesca project and asked if in terms of residential and guest parking if they would have been in
compliance with this new ordinance on that project the way the Planning Commission approved it.
Ms. Coon stated that to her understanding the resident parking would have met the one space per unit as
they are recommending. Their guest parking would have been a little short of the one per five units.
Commissioner Heineman questioned the idea of entirely eliminating the requirement for RV parking for
seniors. He said that he manages a planned unit development that has an RV parking lot that holds
about eight vehicles, which include RVs owned by people over 60. In fact, a man who is 84 owns one of
the nicest vehicles there. If you take Highway 8 between Carlsbad and Yuma, and go through the many
off-road parking areas, you will see an enormous number of seniors. He thinks somebody has made a
bad guess about the number of people over the age of 62 and their use of RVs.
Ms. Coon explained that the City is trying to encourage developers to build senior housing, and that a lot
of cities have reduced parking requirement standards in order to encourage senior and affordable
housing. They felt that maybe that was one area where they could try to be a little more flexible in terms
of constraints and, thus, get more of the amenities that they’re requiring for senior housing.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he thinks that providing for RV parking for seniors in this age range
should certainly not be ruled out and that eliminating the possibility of RV parking could be a mistake.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he had read the census figures and the findings of the report, but
that his common sense tells him one space per unit is not enough. He said that his relatives in these age
ranges all drive separate vehicles. With a dense 35-unit or more complex, it doesn’t allow any
opportunity to put parking on the street, nor does he believe that this Commission would want to see the
parking migrate onto the streets. He feels that the requirement should be closer to 1.5 spaces per unit.
He said he doesn’t believe that one space per unit is enough and that it is going to force the parking into
guest parking and the rest onto the street.
Commissioner Dominguez also questioned the parking requirement. Additionally, he questioned the
wisdom of allowing senior housing in residential tourist areas and residential professional areas. His
primary concern is about the spillover as well as the potential for noise and activity complaints because
residential tourist areas typically have restaurants, cafes, and other kinds of businesses that cater to a
later-night crowd. Spillover parking from senior housing that uses valued on-street parking spaces may
impinge upon area businesses. He asked for a further discussion of the matter.
Ms. Coon responded to the issue of permitting senior housing in Residential Professional, and Residential
Tourist areas, by saying that the underlying land use designation would have to be a residential
designation to allow any kind of residential development. Permitting senior housing in an urban setting is
beneficial in terms of having seniors located closer to services where they could walk to them rather than
being dependent on their cars to get to those services.
Commissioner Whitton stated that the parking requirement of one space for so many units is an average,
so if one tenant has two cars, there is very likely another tenant who has one or none.
Ms. Coon elaborated that the figure is based on the census average of the age categories of 55 and over.
The actual census average is 1 .I and they narrowed their average down to the age categories of 65 and
over, which is .95. So, it is an average, which could take into account that some seniors may not be able
to drive and may not have a vehicle. But certainly if the
Commission decides that a higher number of parking spaces would be recommended, Staff could amend
the ordinance before it goes to City Council in order to reflect the Commission’s recommendation.
Other seniors may have two vehicles.
Chairperson Baker asked why the manager’s spot does not have to be covered.
Ms. Coon responded that the manager’s spot is recommended to be covered, because the manager’s unit would be a residence and the manager would have a right to have a covered space, as would any
other tenant.
Planning Commission Minutes April 16,2003 Page 10
Chairperson Baker asked if 15% of these units in senior projects are required to be affordable.
Ms. Coon replied that it would be subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance.
Chairperson Baker noted that senior housing is required to have CC&Rs, that a certain kind of project
cannot have anyone living in it over the age of 62, and that the other project has to have 80% of the
occupants be over the age of 55. She asked who in Carlsbad would be the regulatory body that would
enforce this.
Ms. Coon explained that their ordinance requires that each project submit an annual report to the
Planning Director. The report would outline a list of the tenants and their ages. They would review the
list to ensure consistency with the conditions of approval. If they were not consistent, then steps would
be taken through code enforcement to try to work with them to bring them into compliance. Ultimately,
they would be in violation of State and Federal law and could be taken to court.
Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium.
Seeing none, Chairperson Baker closed public testimony
DISCUSSION
Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Montgomery’s suggestion to increase the requirement to
1.5 spaces per unit. She added that that is especially important for a project that allows occupants who
are only 55 years of age because that would include couples where both are working. Whether there are
two cars per household will depend a great deal on where the project is located in town and what the
market value is of the units. The parking needs could be very different from one project to another. She
said that she was also worried that if it is increased to 1.5 and more land is required for parking, then that
makes it that much more difficult to have a project in an infill area where there are density constraints.
This could put more pressure on a developer. She said that she could support increasing the parking
space regulation to 1.5 for the 55-year-old category, and leaving the regulation at one space per unit for
the 62 and older category.
Commissioner Whitton also expressed concern about the parking, but said that he recognizes the serious
need for senior housing. He feels that they need to look ahead, considering that seniors are healthier and
able to drive longer than they used to. He also thought that seniors have recreational vehicles that need
to be considered. He understands that these concerns have to be balanced against the real need for
senior housing.
Commissioner Dominguez agreed with Commissioner W hitton. He felt that by increasing the parking
requirement, they would eliminate some of the potential impacts on the Residential Professional and
Residential Tourist zones, because the spillover parking from the senior housing could really hurt the
surrounding areas. He felt that 1.5 spaces per unit are preferable to one, perhaps with contingent
constraints, if possible.
Commissioner Montgomery questioned Commissioner White’s proposed reduction of spaces in housing
for people 62 and older. He stated that the older adults he knows are much more active than the census
would suggest. He appreciates the difficult balance to provide adequate parking in these projects while
maintaining incentives for developers to build senior housing. Nevertheless, the reality is that the parking
will spill onto the streets if the minimum is set too low and will result in a predictable outcry from neighbors
after the fact when it is irreparable. He prefers 1.5 spaces per unit for senior housing with a possible
reduction in spaces for 62 and older, but is not sure what that number should be.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he favored an increase in the requirement to 1.5 spaces per unit.
He thinks that some space should also be required for RVs, even if it is only one space per 25 units.
Commissioner Segall remarked that he thought the parking needs of a project would depend on the
location of the project, the way it is developed, and who it is trying to attract. Villa Francesca, for
example, was a dense project near an urban center where one space per unit seemed to make sense.
Alternatively, in La Costa where you can’t walk to the market or easily get around without a car, there
Planning Commission Minutes April 16,2003 Page 11
likely would be more cars. He said he thinks people are going to buy units based upon what is available,
with the understanding that there is only one parking space when they buy it. Senior housing units are
generally more dense projects with 35 units or more, so he said he was envisioning that the parking
requirement might vary depending upon location. Therefore, he was not sure that they could say 1.5 is
the right number, or 1.3, or 1.1. Staff did the research, and based upon cities both in and outside of San
Diego County, they came up with a starting point. He expressed concern about setting an arbitrary figure
without having more information on a specific project. He wondered if there was a way to have a sliding
rule, whereby if there are certain criteria, then it is 1 .O and in other locations with different criteria, it would
be 1.5. Regarding the RV storage, it is probably nice to have, but in dense housing for senior citizens
where people can maneuver around and have a sense of community, maybe those people who own RVs
are not the ones that would be able to come into this type of housing, or maybe they would have to park their RVs at some other location. He said that he would not want to mix those two requirements.
Furthermore, in this ordinance all residential units are required to be covered. He asked if all the RV
parking would then have to be covered. If it is all subterranean parking as in Villa Francesca, then you
may not be able to park them down below. He thought that this issue needs to be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis and does not want to set an arbitrary rule unless they have more information on a project.
Chairperson Baker pointed out that the Staff Report states the average number of vehicles owned for
persons 55 and older is 1 .l. She, too, understands that it is a balance between making a project more
attractive and taking up valuable land space with parking that perhaps could be better used elsewhere.
She suggested that they might consider 1.1 or 1.2 spaces per unit.
Commissioner Heineman suggested that the Planning Commission’s misgivings about this issue be
conveyed to the City Council through the Minutes. He stated that he assumed the final requirement has
to be approved by the City Council.
Commissioner Whitton clarified that he did not specifically address any number when he spoke about the
parking spaces. His concern is that they look at the demographics of the future rather than base this
decision on the demographics of the past. He believes that those numbers are available. The figures
presented are based on very old statistics.
Commissioner Segall asked if AARP would be a good source for those statistics. Commissioner Whitton
suggested USC would be a good source. Commissioner Segall agreed with Commissioner Whitton that
seniors are healthier and living longer than ever before and that should be taken into account.
Chairperson Baker asked if the group wished to continue this Item until they obtained more information or
if someone was willing to make a recommendation to send it forward.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he would like to make such a motion to approve this as it was
presented to the Commission, but with the understanding that the City Council will be privy to their
remarks in the Minutes that express the general consensus of the group with regard to parking in
particular.
Chairperson Baker asked if they should make the decision and pass it on rather than passing the buck to
the City Council. Commissioner Heineman felt they should either make the decision with a Minute Motion
or let the Minutes convey the message.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he was afraid that they would just be deferring the decision to the
City Council. He felt that they should take more of a constructive role in the process, adding that if they
were going to err, they should err on the side of being more generous than less generous in the parking
requirements. This is a very important overlapping consideration, partially because of the uses that are
allowed in the various zoning areas, as provided for by the code. He was in favor of. the Planning
Commission deciding this issue, even if they reduced it to 1.4 parking spaces per unit, and then letting the
City Council make the final decision.
Mr. Neu stated that a developer of an affordable housing project has the ability to request a standards
modification. For example, if the Commission decided to apply a higher rate than is being recommended
by Staff, and an applicant came forward and had justification why something less than 1.5 was
appropriate for their project, the Commission could consider that in deliberations on a specific project.
Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2003 Page 12
That is an avenue that is available, although the Commission would still be faced with the position of
deciding if it is appropriate for the site, the surroundings, and the age group of the project.
Commissioner Segall asked if that applied to senior citizen housing as well as affordable housing.
Mr. Neu explained that since all of the housing projects have an inclusionary housing requirement that
would apply, if a project were located in an area where they could buy credits in an existing project to
satisfy their affordable housing obligation, then you potentially could have a senior project that had no
affordable units in it. Currently, and particularly with the senior housing, they are seeing that developers
are attempting to provide their inclusionary housing as part of the project.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Neu if the Commission recommended 1.5 parking spaces per unit to
the City Council, if they could then judge on the merits of any application to reduce that number if the
applicant convinced them that it was warranted.
Mr. Neu confirmed that they could if they were doing the affordable housing as part of their project, and
they would be asking for a standards modification in part to make the project feasible or meet the
affordable objective.
Ms. Coon stated that a senior housing project is also applicable to the density bonus regulations. If a
project were proposing senior housing, then the provisions of the density bonus chapter would apply.
Under that code, standards modification is possible that way, too.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he felt they ought to provide some clear guidance in the plan for
developers, since they can always come down from that number, but they can’t go up. He felt that Ms.
Coon could gather the information to determine if they are on target or if they need to make an
adjustment for the future.
Ms. Coon stated that she did research many of the senior citizens’ housing organizations and had
difficulty finding information on parking standards. However, the reason they are referencing the 1990
census data is because the 2000 census data will not be available until this summer.
Commissioner Segall asked if they set it at 1.1, if they could have a modification to go to 1.5.
Chairperson Baker said that what Mr. Neu indicated was that they could set the number at 1.5, but a
developer could ask for a standards reduction if the project warranted it. They could not increase the
number, but they could reduce it.
Commissioner Segall asked if an applicant presented a project that, based on design and location, they
felt had inadequate parking, if they could tell him to increase it.
Mr. Neu responded that typically in terms of giving the applicant direction, they would start with the
standard in the code and work towards that. For example, Villa Francesca, with the rate that was in place
at the time, which he believes was half a space per unit, the project planner worked with them to increase
it to one per unit because they felt that our rate was really out of date. Staff was able to work with the
developer to go up, but typically for the affordable housing portion of it, it is a case where people are
trying to reduce a project cost in order to make the project more affordable. They want to reduce the
amount of the site devoted to parking, or reduce the setback so more of the site is usable for the
development area of the site. Hence, it tends to go down rather than up in terms of the affordable
component.
Ms. McMahon stated that because a lot of the decisions the Commission makes are what they refer to as
quasi-judicial decisions, the applicant needs to have clear guidance in order to know what is required of
them.
Chairperson Baker asked if 1.5 is the number that everyone is comfortable with as the consensus.
Commissioner Montgomery emphasized that seniors are more active than ever before. He said that
every senior he knows drives. He didn’t feel that they needed to consider the averaging.
Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2003 Page 13
Chairperson Baker asked for a motion recommending that they change the standard to 1.5.
Commissioner Segall asked if there were other issues, such as the RV parking, that they needed to clarify
before proceeding. He stated that he is not supportive of required RV parking for senior housing, but that
if some others were, then they needed to discuss it.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he seconded the idea of the RV parking. He felt that in the type of
units they are talking about that RV parking would be difficult to provide and that it probably should be off-
site, since that is possible. Hence, he did not want to make that a part of this motion.
Commissioner White stated that the RV parking is probably something that should be market driven by
the developer and how he sees his project, and whom he is trying to attract. If he thinks it is desirable,
he will set aside space for RV parking in the project.
Commissioner Heineman noted that there is parking available all around the City for RVs that can’t be
parked on-site.
Chairperson Baker asked if there were any other issues that anyone wished to address. There being
none, Chairperson Baker asked for a motion.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5380, 5381, and 5382
recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and recommending approval
of a Zone Code Amendment ZCA 02-04 and Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 02-08 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein with an Amendment to increase the standard for parking to 1.5 spaces
per unit.
Commissioner Segall added that he will support the motion, but that he felt that one space per unit that
Staff determined through their research had some quantitative value and he felt that arbitrarily picking 1.5
was not necessarily the right way to do this.
Chairperson Baker called for a vote.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
Chairperson Baker and Commissioner Segall thanked Ms. Coon for an excellent presentation and closed
the public portion of the meeting.