Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-21; City Council; 18487; Density Bonus AmendmentsDEPT. PLN I CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL RECOMMENDED ACTION: A= 187 MTG. 312 1/06 That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-794 , APPROVING amendments to the Density Bonus and lnclusionary Housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (Zone Code Amendment - ZCA 04-1 0); and ADOPT Resolution No. 2006-065 , ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and APPROVING an amendment to the term "density bonus program" in the General Plan (General Plan Amendment - GPA 05-14), and amendments to the Local Coastal Program to apply the amendments specified in ZCA 04-10 within the Coastal Zone (Local Coastal Program Amendment - LCPA 04-17), based upon the findings contained therein. TITLE: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT GPA 05-14IZCA 04-IOILCPA 04-1 7 ITEM EXPLANATION: The project consists of an amendment to: 1) the definition of the term "density bonus program" in the Land Use Element of the General Plan; 2) the Density Bonus regulations in the Zoning Ordinance; and 3) the lnclusionary Housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure consistency between the City's density bonus regulations and State density bonus law. Project Item NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM GPA 05-14 ZCA 04- 1 0 LCPA 04-1 7 In general, California's density bonus law requires local jurisdictions to grant a density bonus (residential units above the maximum allowed density) when a developer seeks and agrees to construct a minimum percentage of a project's units as affordable to lower- or moderate-income households. Density bonus law also requires local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance that implements State density bonus law. On January I, 2005, an amendment (SB 181 8) to the State's density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) became effective. Following the enactment of SB 1818, a second amendment to density bonus law was approved (SB 435), which became effective on January 1,2006. RA = Recommended adoption/approval X = Final City decision-making authority = Requires Coastal Commission approval ** = Will not become effective within Coastal Zone until Coastal Commission approves LCPA 04-17 The changes in density bonus law, established by SB 1818 and SB 435, require a substantial amendment to the City's density bonus regulations to ensure consistency with State law. The primary changes in the State's density bonus law include: 1) a reduction in the percentage of affordable housing required to qualify for a density bonus (e.g., the % of units required to be affordable to lower-income households was reduced from 20% to m), and 2) a new formula for granting increases in the amount of density bonus (ranging from a minimum 20% bonus up to a maximum 35%). Other changes in the density bonus law are discussed in Exhibit 6. Coastal Commission ** Planning Commission RA RA RA RA City Council X X X X PAGE 2 The City's Density Bonus and lnclusionary Housing regulations currently allow the affordable units provided to qualify for a density bonus to also count toward satisfying the City's lnclusionary requirement (City's lnclusionary regulations require 15% of a project's units to be affordable to lower income households). As a result of the changes made to density bonus law, the City will achieve fewer units affordable to lower-income households than what the lnclusionary regulations require (if the City continues to allow the affordable units provided to qualify for a State density bonus to count toward satisfying the City's lnclusionary requirement). Staff is recommending the City's Density Bonus and lnclusionary regulations be amended to no longer allow the same affordable units to satisfy both density bonus and lnclusionary requirements. Staff recommends the City's regulations specify that to qualify for a state density bonus the applicant will be required to provide affordable dwelling units (equal to the amount required by density bonus law) in addition to those required by the City's lnclusionary requirements. The purpose of staffs recommendation is to ensure the City is able to fully implement the City's lnclusionary requirements when a State density bonus is requested (see Exhibit 6 for additional analysis). On February 1, 2006, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to consider the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two Commissioners absent) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Scott Malloy, representing the BIA, submitted a letter dated February 1, 2006 (Exhibit 4) expressing opposition to staffs recommendation. Mr. Malloy also expressed the BIA's concerns during the Planning Commission hearing. The BIA opposes staffs recommendation to no longer allow the same affordable units to satisfy both density bonus and lnclusionary requirements. Mr. Malloy stated that staffs recommendation would result in a disincentive for developers to utilize State density bonus law, and that the BIA supports the "state density bonus program for affordable housing as a voluntary and incentive-based program." In the BIA's letter (Exhibit 4), Mr. Malloy suggested an alternative to staffs recommendation as follows: When a developer requests a State density bonus: 1. The affordable units provided to qualify for a density bonus would also count toward satisfying the City's lnclusionary requirement; and 2. The City could specify that "at a minimum" the 15% lnclusionary requirement must be met. This suggestion is inconsistent with the State's density bonus law, and with the City's lnclusionary Housing regulations, as follows: The City's 15% lnclusionary requirement applies to the total number of project units (base units + additional units granted though a density increase). Therefore, to achieve the City's 15% lnclusionary requirement would require that 15% of the "density bonus units" (the additional units granted above the maximum allowed density) be affordable to lower income households. State density bonus law specifically prohibits this (the law states that the "density bonus unitsJ' cannot be included when calculating the number of units required to be affordable). The BIA's alternative is not consistent with density bonus law. The City's lnclusionary regulations allow the City to grant increases in density as an "offset" to the cost of providing affordable housing. However, the lnclusionary regulations specify that to receive an increase in density (or other offset), the developer would need to provide a preferable product type or affordability in excess of the minimum lnclusionary Housing requirements. In other words, an increase in density could be granted if a developer provided PAGE 3 more than the minimum 15% lnclusionary requirement. The BIA's alternative would require the City to grant a density bonus when a developer provides only the minimum 15% lnclusionary requirement. This is not consistent with the City's lnclusionary regulations. Although the BIA has indicated that staffs recommendation is not consistent with the intent of the State's density bonus law, the State's analysis of SB 435 provides clarification of the intent of the law (last paragraph on page 3 of Exhibit 5). The State's analysis indicates that the language at the beginning of the law, which states a city must grant a density bonus when an applicant "seeks and agrees to construct" affordable housing, is intended to clarify that the "density bonus provisions only apply when either: 1) a local government does not have an lnclusionary housing ordinance or 2) an applicant proposes to include affordable units over and above those required by a locally adopted lnclusionary ordinance." Staffs recommendation would require an applicant to provide affordable units "over and above" those required by the City's lnclusionary ordinance, which is consistent with the State's analysis described above. 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 and Addendum. FISCAL IMPACT: The only anticipated fiscal impact would be from staff time required to complete the amendment process through the Coastal Commission, and to process future development proposals subject to the amended regulations. EXHIBITS: I. City Council Ordinance No. NS-794 2. City Council Resolution No. 2006-065 3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5878, 5879, 5880 and 6022 4. Letter from Scott Malloy (BIA), dated February 1,2006 5. Senate Bill Analysis for SB 435, prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development 6. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, February 1, 2006 7. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated February 1, 2006. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Jennifer Jesser, (760) 602-4637, jjess@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-794 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE 3 MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING 4 ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA 5 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65915 THROUGH 65917, AND THAT THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY 6 HOUSING REGULATIONS DO NOT CONFLICT. CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENTS 7 CASE NO.: ZCA 04-10 8 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: 9 SECTION 1: That the list of sections at the beginning of Chapter 21.85 is 10 amended to read as follows: 11 Sections: 21.85.010 Purpose and intent. 12 21.85.020 Definitions. 21.85.030 Inclusionary housing requirement. 21.85.035 New master plans or specific plans. 21.85.040 Affordable housing standards. 21.85.050 Calculating the required number of inclusionary units. 21.85.060 Inclusionary credit adjustment. 21.85.070 Alternatives to construction of inclusionary units. 21.85.080 Combined inclusionary housing projects. 16 21.85.090 Creation of inclusionary units not required. 21.85.100 Offsets to the cost of affordable housing development. 17 21.85.110 In-lieufees. 21.85.120 Collection of fees. 21.85.130 Preliminary project application and review process. 21.85.140 Affordable housing agreement as a condition of development. 21.85.145 Agreement processing fee. ~ft 21.85.150 Agreement amendments. 21.85.155 Expiration of affordability tenure. 21.85.160 Pre-existing approvals. 21.85.170 Enforcement. 22 21.85.180 Savings clause. 21.85.190 Separability of provisions. SECTION 2: That Section 21.85.010.A.1 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to 74 read as follows: 25 1. Require that a minimum of fifteen (15%) percent of all approved residential development be restricted to and affordable to lower-income households; subject to adjustment based on the granting of an inclusionary credit; 27 SECTION 3: That Section 21.85.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended 28 to read as follows: /I 21.85.020 Definitions. Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: A. "Affordable housing" means housing for which the allowable housing expenses paid by a qualifying household shall not exceed a specified fraction of the county median income, adjusted for household size, as follows: 1. Extremely low-income, rental or for-sale units: the product of 30% times 30% of the county median income, adjusted for household size; 2. Very low-income, rental and for-sale units: the product of 30% times 50% of the county median income, adjusted for household size; 3. Low-income, for-sale units: the product of 30% times 80% of the county median income, adjusted for household size; and 4. Low-income, rental units: the product of 30% times 70% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. B. "Affordable housing agreement" means a legally binding agreement between a developer and the city to ensure that the inclusionary requirements of this chapter are satisfied. The agreement establishes, among other things, the number of required inclusionary units, the unit sizes, location, affordability tenure, terms and conditions of affordability and unit production schedule. C. "Allowable housing expense" means the total monthly or annual recurring expenses required of a household to obtain shelter. For a for-sale unit, allowable housing expenses include loan principal and interest at the time of initial purchase by the homebuyer, allowances for property and mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners association dues and a reasonable allowance for utilities as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (24CFR982). For a rental unit, allowable housing expenses include rent and a utility allowance as established and adopted by the city of Carlsbad housing authority, as well as all monthly payments made by the tenant to the lessor in connection with use and occupancy of a housing unit and land and facilities associated therewith, including any separately charged fees, utility charges, or service charges assessed by the lessor and payable by the tenant. D. "Affordable housing policy team" shall consist of the community development director, planning director, housing and redevelopment director, administrative services director/finance director, and a representative of the city attorney's office. E. "Combined inclusionary housing project" means separate residential development sites which are linked by a contractual relationship such that some or all of the I inclusionary units which are associated with one development site are produced and operated at a separate development site or sites. F. "Conversion" means the change of status of a dwelling unit from a purchased unit to a rental unit or vice versa. G. "Density bonus" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 21.86.020.A.7 of this title. H. "Extremely low-income household" means those households whose gross income is equal to or less than thirty (30%) percent of the median income for San Diego County as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I. "Financial assistance" means assistance to include, but not be limited to, the subsidization of fees, infrastructure, land costs, or construction costs, the use of redevelopment set-aside funds, community development block grant (CDBG) funds, or the provision of other direct financial aid in the form of cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation, by the city of Carlsbad. J. "Growth management control point" shall have the same meaning as provided in Chapter 21.90, Section 21.90.045 of this title. K. "Incentives or concessions" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 21.86.020.A.7 of this title. L. "lnclusionary credit" means a reduction in the inclusionary housing requirement granted in return for the provision of certain desired types of affordable housing or related amenities as determined by the city council. M. "lnclusionary housing project" means a new residential development or conversion of existing residential buildings which has at least fifteen (15%) percent of the total units reserved and made affordable to lower-income households as required by this chapter. N. "lnclusionary unit" means a dwelling unit that will be offered for rent or sale exclusively to and which shall be affordable to lower-income households, as required by this chapter. 0. "Income" means any monetary benefits that qualify as income in accordance with the criteria and procedures used by the city of Carlsbad housing and redevelopment department for the acceptance of applications and recertifications for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, or its successor. P. "Low-income household" means those households whose gross income is more than fifty (50%) percent but does not exceed eighty (80%) percent of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Q. "Lower-income household" means low-income, very low-income and extremely low-income households, whose gross income does not exceed eighty (80%) percent of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. R. "Market-rate unit" means a dwelling unit where the rental rate or sales price is not restricted either by this chapter or by requirements imposed through other local, state, or federal affordable housing programs. S. "Offsets" means concessions or assistance to include, but not be limited to, direct financial assistance, density increases, standards modifications or any other financial, land use, or regulatory concession which would result in an identifiable cost reduction enabling the provision of affordable housing. T. "Residential development" means any new residential construction of rental or for-sale units; or development revisions, including those with and without a master plan or specific plan, planned unit developments, site development plans, mobilehome developments and conversions of apartments to condominiums, as well as dwelling units for which the cost of shelter is included in a recurring payment for expenses, whether or not an initial lump sum fee is also required. U. "Target income level" means the income standards for extremely low, very low and low-income levels within San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and adjusted for family size. V. "Total residential units" means the total units approved by the final decision making authority. Total residential units are composed of both market rate units and inclusionary units. W. "Very low-income household" means a household earning a gross income equal to fifty (50%) percent or less of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. SECTION 4: That Section 21.85.040.A of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: A. All residential developments are subject to and must satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter, notwithstanding a developer's request to process a residential development under other program requirements, laws or regulations, including but not limited to Chapter 21.86 (Residential Density Bonus) of this code. If an applicant seeks to construct affordable housing to qualify for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions of 1 Chapter 21.86 (Residential Density Bonus), those affordable dwelling units that qualify a residential development for a density bonus are in addition to, and do not count toward 2 satisfying, the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter. 3 SECTION 5: That Section 21.85.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended 4 to read as follows: 5 21.85.050 Calculating the required number of inclusionary units. Subject to adjustments for an inclusionary credit, the required number of lower-income 6 inclusionary units shall be fifteen (15%) percent of the total residential units, approved by the final decision-making authority. If the inclusionary units are to be provided within an offsite 7 combined or other project, the required number of lower income inclusionary units shall be fifteen (15%) percent of the total residential units to be provided both onsite and/or offsite. 8 Subject to the maximum density allowed per the growth management control point or per specific authorization granted by the planning commission or city council, fractional units for 9 both market rate and inclusionary units of .5 will be rounded up to a whole unit. If the rounding calculation results in a total residential unit count which exceeds the maximum allowed, neither 10 the market rate nor the inclusionary unit count will be increased to the next whole number. Example 1: Total residential units = 15% Inclusionary units plus 85% Market rate units. If the final decision making authority approves 100 total residential units, then the Inclusionary requirement equals 15% of the "Total" or 15 units (100 * .15 = 15). The allowable market rate 12 units would be 85% of the "Total" or 85 units. Example 2: If the inclusionary units are to be provided offsite, the total number of inclusionary units shall be calculated according to the total number of market rate units approved by the final decision-making authority. If 100 market rate units are approved, then this total is divided by .85 which provides a total residential unit count (100 •*• .85 = 117). The 15% requirement is applied to this "Total" (117 units) which equals the inclusionary unit requirement 15 (117 x .15 =17.6 units). 16 SECTION 6: That Section 21.85.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended 17 to read as follows: 18 21.85.060 Inclusionary credit adjustment. Certain types of affordable housing are relatively more desirable in satisfying the city's state-mandated affordable housing requirement as well as the city's housing element goals, 2Q objectives and policies, and these may change over time. To assist the city in providing this housing, developers may receive additional (more than one unit) credit for each of such units provided, thereby reducing the total inclusionary housing requirement to less than fifteen (15%) percent of all residential units approved. A schedule of 22 inclusionary housing credit specifying how credit may be earned shall be adopted by the city council and made available to developers subject to this chapter. 23 SECTION 7: That Section 21.85.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended 24 to read as follows: 25 21.85.100 Offsets to the cost of affordable housing development. 26 The city shall consider making offsets available to developers when necessary to enable residential projects to provide a preferable product type or affordability in excess of the 27 requirements of this chapter. Offsets will be offered by the city to the extent that resources and programs for this purpose are available to the city and approved for such use by the city council, 28 -4- and to the extent that the residential development, with the use of offsets, assists in achieving the city's housing goals. To the degree that the city makes available programs to provide offsets, developers may make application for such programs. Evaluation of requests for offsets shall be based on the effectiveness of the offsets in achieving a preferable product type andlor affordability objectives as set forth within the housing element; the capability of the development team; the reasonableness of development costs and justification of subsidy needs; and the extent to which other resources are used to leverage the requested offsets. Nothing in this chapter establishes, directly or through implication, a right to receive any offsets from the city or any other party or agency to enable the developer to meet the obligations established by this chapter. Any offsets approved by the city council and the housing affordability to be achieved by use of those offsets shall be set out within the affordable housing agreement pursuant to Section 21.85.140 or, at the city's discretion in a subsequent document. Furthermore, developers are encouraged to utilize local, state or federal assistance, when available, to meet the affordability standards set forth in Sections 21.85.030 and 21.85.040. SECTION 8: That Section 21.85.130.B of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: B. Within thirty days of receipt of the preliminary application by the planning director for projects not requesting offsets or inclusionary credit adjustments, or ninety days for projects requesting offsets or inclusionary credit adjustments the department shall provide to an applicant, a letter which identifies project issues of concern, the offsets and inclusionary credit adjustments that the community development director can support when making a recommendation to the final decision-making authority, and the procedures for compliance with this chapter. The applicant shall also be provided with a copy of this chapter and related policies, the pertinent sections of the California codes to which reference is made in this chapter and all required application forms. SECTION 9: That Section 21.85.140.A of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: A. Developers subject to this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with this chapter by executing an affordable housing agreement prepared by the city housing and redevelopment director and submitted to the developer for execution. Agreements which conform to the requirements of this section and which do not involve requests for offsets andlor an inclusionary credit, other than those permitted by right, if any, shall be reviewed by the affordable housing policy team and approved by the community development director or his designee. Agreements which involve requests for offsets andlor an inclusionary credit, other than those permitted by right, shall require the recommendation of the housing commission and action by the city council as the final decision-maker. Following the approval and execution by all parties, the affordable housing agreement with approved site development plan shall be recorded against the entire development, including market-rate lotslunits and the relevant terms and conditions therefrom filed and subsequently recorded as a separate deed restriction or regulatory agreement on the affordable project individual lots or units of property which are designated for the location of affordable units. The approval and execution of the affordable housing agreement shall take place prior to final map approval and shall be recorded upon final map recordation or, where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for such lotslunits. The affordable housing agreement may require that more specific project andlor unit restrictions be recorded at a future time. The affordable housing agreement shall bind all future owners and successors in interest for the term of years specified therein. SECTION 10: That Section 21.85.140.B.l of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 1. The number of inclusionary dwelling units proposed, with specific calculations detailing the application of any inclusionary credit adjustment; SECTION 11 : That Chapter 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21.86 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS AND INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS Sections: 21.86.01 0 Purpose and intent. 21.86.020 Definitions. 21.86.030 lnclusionary housing. 21.86.040 Density bonus for housing developments. 21.86.050 Incentives and concessions for housing developments. 21.86.060 Waiver or reduction of development standards. 21.86.070 Density bonus and incentives for condominium conversions. 21.86.080 Housing developments with child day care centers. 21.86.090 Density bonus housing standards. 21.86.1 00 Affordability tenure. 21.86.1 10 Application process. 21.86.120 Findings for approval. 21.86.1 30 Density bonus housing agreement. 21.86.140 Agreement processing fee. 21.86.150 Separability of provisions. 21.86.01 0 Purpose and intent. A. The public good is served when there exists in a city, housing which is appropriate for the needs of and affordable to all members of the public who reside within that city. Among other needs, there is in Carlsbad a need for housing affordable to lower-income households and senior citizens. Therefore, it is in the public interest for the city to promote the construction of such additional housing through the exercise of its powers and the utilization of its resources. B. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide a means for granting density bonuses, and incentives or concessions to developers for the production of housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households, and senior citizens. C. It is the purpose of this chapter to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the housing element of the city's general plan. D. It is the purpose of this chapter to implement Sections 65915 through 65917 of the California Government Code. E. Nothing in this chapter is intended to create a mandatory duty on behalf of the city or its employees under the Government Tort Claims Act and no cause of action against the city or its employees is created by this chapter that would not arise independently of the provisions of this chapter. F. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act. 21.86.020 Definitions. A. Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: 1. "Affordable housing" means housing for which the allowable housing expenses paid by a qualifying household shall not exceed a specified fraction of the county median income, adjusted for household size, as follows: a. Extremely low-income, rental and for-sale units: the product of 30% times 30% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. b. Very low-income, rental and for-sale units: the product of 30% times 50% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. c. Low-income, rental units: the product of 30% times 60% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. d. Low-income, for-sale units: the product of 30% times 70% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. e. Moderate-income, for-sale units: allowable housing expenses shall not be less than 28% of the gross income of the household, nor exceed the product of 35% times 110% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. 2. "Allowable housing expense" means the total monthly or annual recurring expenses required of a household to obtain shelter. For a for-sale unit, allowable housing expenses include loan principal and interest at the time of initial purchase by the homebuyer, allowances for property and mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners association dues and a reasonable allowance for utilities as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (24CFR982). For a rental unit, allowable housing expenses include rent and a utility allowance as established and adopted by the city of Carlsbad housing authority, as well as all monthly payments made by the tenant to the lessor in connection with use and occupancy of a housing unit and land and facilities associated therewith, including any separately charged fees, utility charges, or service charges assessed by the lessor and payable by the tenant. 3. "Child day care center" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 21.83.020.D of this title. 4. "Common interest development" means any of the following (as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code): a. A community apartment project. b. A condominium project. c. A planned development. d. A stock cooperative. 5. "Conversion" means the change of occupancy of a dwelling unit from owner- occupied to rental or vice versa. 6. "Density bonus" means an increase over the maximum allowable residential density as specified by the land use element of the general plan in effect at the time of application submittal. 7. "Density bonus dwelling units" means those residential units granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, which are above the maximum allowable residential density of the project site. 8. "Density bonus housing agreement" means a legally binding agreement between a developer and the city to ensure that the density bonus requirements of this chapter are satisfied. The agreement establishes, among other things, the number of target dwelling units and density bonus dwelling units, the unit sizes, location, affordability tenure, terms and conditions of affordability and unit production schedule. 9. "Development standard" means site or construction conditionslrequirements that apply to a housing development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, master or specific plan, or other city requirement, law, policy, resolution or regulation. 10. "Extremely low-income household" means those households whose gross income is equal to or less than 30% of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 11. "Housing development" means one or more groups of projects for residential units, consisting of the following: a. The construction of 5 or more residential units; or b. A subdivision or common interest development consisting of 5 or more residential units or unimproved lots; or c. A project to either substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use, or substantially rehabilitate an existing two-family or multiple-family dwelling structure(s), where the result of rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. 12. "Incentives or concessions" means such regulatory incentives or concessions as stipulated in State Government Code Section 65915(1), to include, but not be limited to, the reduction of site development standards or zone code requirements, approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project, or any other regulatory incentive which would result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to enable the provision of housing affordable to the designated income group or qualified (senior) resident. 13. "Income" means any monetary benefits that qualify as income in accordance with the criteria and procedures used by the city of Carlsbad housing and redevelopment department for the acceptance of applications and recertifications for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, or its successor. 14. "Low-income household" means those households whose gross income is more than 50% but does not exceed 80% of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 15. "Lower-income household" means low-income, very low-income and extremely low-income households, whose gross income does not exceed 80% of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 16. "Market-rate unit" means a dwelling unit where the rental rate or sales price is not restricted either by this chapter or by requirements imposed through other local, state, or federal affordable housing programs. 17. "Maximum allowable residential density" means the maximum density of the density range allowed by the residential general plan designation(s) applicable to a project site. 18. "Moderate-income household" means those households whose gross income is more than 80% but does not exceed 120% of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 19. "Qualifying resident" means a resident as defined in Chapter 21.84 of this title and Section 51.2 of the California Civil Code. 20. "Target dwelling unit" means a dwelling unit that will be offered for rent or sale exclusively to and which shall be affordable to the designated income group or qualified (senior) resident, as required by this chapter. 21. "Total units" means the number of dwelling units in a housing development, excluding the density bonus dwelling units. 22. "Very low-income household" means a household earning a gross income equal to 50% or less of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 21.86.030 lnclusionary housing. A. All housing development projects are required to provide affordable housing units in accordance with chapter 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing). If an applicant seeks to construct affordable housing to qualify for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions .of this chapter, those affordable dwelling units that qualify a housing development for a density bonus are in addition to, and do not count toward satisfying the lnclusionary Housing requirements of chapter 21.85. 21.86.040 Density bonus for housing developments. A. The decision-making body shall grant one density bonus, as specified in Section 21.86.040.B, and incentives or concessions, as set forth in Section 21.86.050, when an applicant of a housing development of at least 5 units seeks and agrees to construct at least any one of the following: 1. A minimum of 10% of the total units of the housing development as restricted and affordable to lower-income households; or 2. A minimum of 5% of the total units of the housing development as restricted and affordable to very low-income households; or 3. A senior citizen housing development as defined in Section 21.84.030.A.7 of this title and Section 51.3 of the California Civil Code, or mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the California Civil Code; or 4. A minimum of 10% of the total units in a common interest development restricted and affordable to moderate-income households, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. B. When an applicant seeks and agrees to construct a housing development meeting the criteria specified in Section 21.86.040.A, the decision-making body shall grant a density bonus subject to the following: 1. The amount of density bonus to which a housing development is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentages established in Section 21.86.040.A, as follows: a. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.1, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: TABLE A DENSITY BONUS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WlTH UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOW- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Percentage of Low-Income Units (Minimum 10% required) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Percentage of Density Bonus to be Granted (Additional 1.5% density bonus for each 1 % increase above the 10% minimum) 20 21.5 23 24.5 26 27.5 29 30.5 32 33.5 35 b. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.2, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: TABLE B DENSITY BONUS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNITS AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Percentage of Very Low-Income Units 5 6 7 8 Percentage of Density Bonus to be Granted 20 22.5 25 27.5 -9- c. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.3, the density bonus shall be 20%. d. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.4, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: 2. The amount of density bonus to which a housing development is entitled shall no1 exceed 35%. 3. The applicant may elect to accept a lesser percentage of density bonus than specified in Section 21.86.040.B. 4. If a housing development includes a combination of target dwelling unit types thal meet two or more of the criteria specified in Section 21.86.040.A, the applicant shall elect one applicable density bonus. TABLE C DENSITY BONUS FOR COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNITS AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE-INCOME Percentage of Moderate-Income Units 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 HOUSEHOLDS Percentage of Density Bonus to be Granted 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 C. When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other housing development approval donates land to the city, as provided for in this subsection, the applicant shall be entitled to a density bonus for the entire development, as follows: TABLE D 1. A density bonus granted pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed 35%. 2. If an applicant seeks both the density bonus required pursuant to this subsection and Section 21 .86.040.A, both density bonuses shall be granted up to a maximum combined density bonus of 35%. 3. An applicant shall be eligible for the density bonus described in this subsection only if all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is donated and transferred to the city no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or housing development application, b. The developable acreage, zoning classification and general plan land use designation of the land being donated are sufficient to permit construction of the units affordable to very low-income households in an amount not less than 10% of the number of residential units of the proposed development, c. The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate zoning classification and general plan land use designation, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure, d. The land shall have appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the affordable units feasible, e. No later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or housing development, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of the very low-income housing units on the transferred land, except that the city may subject the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2 of the California Government Code if the design is not reviewed by the city prior to the time of transfer. DENSITY BONUS FOR LAND DONATION Percentage of Very Low-Income Units Percentage of Density Bonus to be Granted f. The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with Section 21.86.100, which shall be recorded on the property at the time of dedication. g. The land is transferred to the city or to a housing developer approved by the city. The city may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the developer. h. The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the city agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. F. In cases where an applicant requests a density bonus of more than what is specified in this section, the city council may grant the requested additional density bonus, subject to the following: 1. The project meets the requirements of this chapter. 2. The additional density bonus shall be considered an incentive, in accordance with Section 21.86.050 of this chapter. 3. The city council may require some portion of the additional density bonus units to be designated as target dwelling units. G. The city council may grant a proportionately lower density bonus than what is specified by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this chapter. H. The density bonus dwelling units granted pursuant to this chapter shall not be included when determining the number of housing units required by this chapter to be reserved for income restricted households. I. When calculating the density bonus, or the required number of target dwelling units, any calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole unit. J. For the purposes of calculating a density bonus, the residential units in a housing development do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. K. The density bonus units shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for lower-income households are located. L. A density bonus housing agreement shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits (i.e., tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments, condominium permits, site development plans and redevelopment permits) for all housing developments that request a density bonus and incentives or concessions. The relevant terms and conditions of the density bonus housing agreement shall be filed and recorded as a deed restriction on those individual lots or units of a project development which are designated for the location of target dwelling units. The density bonus housing agreement shall be consistent with Section 21.86.130 of this chapter. 21.86.050 Incentives and concessions for housing developments. A. When an applicant requests a density bonus pursuant to Section 21.86.040.A, the decision-making body shall grant incentives or concessions, subject to the following: 1. An applicant shall submit a proposal for any specific incentives or concessions requested pursuant to this section. 2. The decision-making body shall grant the incentive(s) or concession(s) requested by the applicant unless, based upon substantial evidence, either of the following findings are made in writing: a. The incentive or concession is not required in order to provide for affordable housing as defined in Section 21.86.020.A.l. b. The incentive or concession would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. As used in this paragraph, and as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the California Government Code, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 3. The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions: a. One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10% of the total units for lower-income households, at least 5% for very low-income households, or at least 10% for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. b. Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20% of the total units for lower-income households, at least 10% for very low-income households, or at least 20% for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. c. Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30% of the total units for lower-income households, at least 15% for very low-income households, or at least 30% for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. 4. An incentive or concession may include any of the following: a. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements (excluding State Building Standards), that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. A reductionlrnodification to standards or requirements may include, but is not limited to, a reduction in minimum lot size, setback requirements, andlor in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required. b. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing development if i) commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development; and ii) the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing development and the existing or planned future development in the area where the proposed project will be located. c. Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. d. The city council may, but is not required to, provide direct financial incentives, including the provision of publicly owned land, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 5. The applicant shall show that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. 21.86.060 Waiver or reduction of development standards. A. In addition to the incentives or concessions permitted by Section 21.86.050, an applicant may seek a waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Chapter. 1. The applicant shall show that the requested waiver or reduction of development standards is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. 2. The applicant shall provide evidence that the development standard(s) requested to be waived or reduced will have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Chapter; and B. The decision-making body shall grant the requested waiver or reduction of development standards, unless, based upon substantial evidence, any of the following findings are made in writing: 1. The waiver or reduction of development standards is not necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. 2. The development standard(s) requested to be waived or reduced will not have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Chapter. 3. The requested waiver or reduction of development standards would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. As used in this subsection, and as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the California Government Code, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 21 .86.070 Density bonus and incentives for condominium conversions. A. When an applicant proposes to convert apartments to condominiums, the decision-making body shall grant either a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value, as set forth in Section 21.86.050.A., if the applicant agrees to provide the following: 1. A minimum of 33% of the total units of the proposed condominium conversion project as restricted and affordable to low-income or moderate-income households; or 2. A minimum of 15% of the total units of the proposed condominium conversion project as restricted and affordable to lower-income households. B. For purposes of this section "density bonus" means an increase in units of 25% over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion. C. For purposes of this section, "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require the city to provide monetary compensation, but may include the waiver or reduction of requirements that might otherwise apply to the proposed condominium conversion project. D. The density bonus dwelling units shall not be included when determining the number of housing units required to be reserved for income restricted households. E. When calculating the density bonus, or the required number of target dwelling units, any calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole unit. F. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that the city approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. G. An applicantldeveloper proposing to convert apartments to condominiums shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives under this section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other incentives were provided under Sections 21 .86.040 and 21 .86.050. H. A density bonus housing agreement shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits (tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments and condominium permits) for all condominium conversion proposals that request a density bonus or other incentives. The relevant terms and conditions of the density bonus housing agreement shall be filed and recorded as a deed restriction on those individual lots or units of a project development which are designated for the location of target dwelling units. The density bonus housing agreement shall be consistent with Section 21 .86.1 30 of this chapter. 21 .86.080 Housing developments with child day care centers. A. When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of Section 21.86.040.A, and includes a child day care center that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the following provisions shall apply: 1. The decision-making body shall grant either of the following: a. An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child day care center; or b. An additional incentive or concession that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child day care center. 2. The decision-making body shall require, as a condition of approval of the housing development, that the following occur: a. The child day care center shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the target dwelling units are required to remain affordable, pursuant to Section 21.86.100; and b. Of the children who attend the child day care center, the children of very low-, lower-, or moderate-income households shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required for very low-, lower-, or moderate-income households pursuant to Section 21.86.040.A. 3. Notwithstanding any requirement of this section, the decision-making body shall not be required to provide an additional density bonus, incentive or concession for a child day care center if it finds, based on substantial evidence, that the community has an adequate number of child day care centers. 21.86.090 Density bonus housing standards. A. Required target dwelling units shall be constructed concurrent with market rate dwelling units unless both the final decision-making authority of the city and the developerlapplicant agree within the density bonus housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development. B. Whenever feasible, target dwelling units and density bonus dwelling units should be built on-site (within the boundary of the proposed development) and, whenever reasonably possible, be distributed throughout the project site. C. Whenever feasible, target dwelling units should be located on sites that are in proximity to, or will provide access to, employment opportunities, urban services, or major roads or other transportation and commuter rail facilities (i.e., freeways, bus lines) and that are compatible with adjacent land uses. D. Whenever feasible, target dwelling units should vary in size and number of bedrooms, in response to affordable housing demand priorities of the city. E. Density bonus projects shall comply with all applicable development standards, except those which may be modified as an incentive or concession, or as otherwise provided for in this chapter. In addition, all units must conform to the requirements of the applicable building and housing codes. The design of the target dwelling units shall be reasonably consistent or compatible with the design of the total project development in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality. F. No building permit shall be issued, nor any development approval granted, for a development which does not meet the requirements of this chapter. No target dwelling unit shall be rented or sold except in accordance with this chapter. G. Upon the request of the applicant, the parking ratio (inclusive of handicap and guest parking) for a housing development that conforms to the requirements of Section 21.86.040.A shall not exceed the ratios specified in Table E, below. If the applicant does not request the parking ratios specified in Table E or the project does not conform to the requirements of Section 21.86.040.A, the parking standards specified in Chapter 21.44 shall apply. 1. If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. 2. For purposes of this section, a housing development may provide "on-site" parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. 3. The applicant may request additional parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this section, subject to the findings specified in Section 21.86.050.A.2. TABLE E PARKING RATIO FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS Dwelling Unit Size 0-1 bedrooms 2-3 bedrooms On-Site Parking Ratio 1 space per unit 2 spaces per unit -15- I 4 or more bedrooms 2.5 spaces per unit 21.86.1 00 Affordability tenure. A. All low- and very low-income dwelling units that qualified the housing project for a density bonus shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated group for a period of at least 30 years, or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. B. All moderate-income dwelling units directly related to the receipt of a density bonus for a common interest development shall be subject to the following: 1. The initial occupant(s) of the target dwelling unit(s) shall be persons and families of moderate-income, and the units shall be offered at an affordable housing cost that does not exceed the allowable housing expenses for a moderate-income household. 2. Unless in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law, the target dwelling unit(s) shall be subject to an equity sharing agreement that specifies: a. Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. b. Upon resale, the city shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall then be used within 3 years for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote homeownership. i. For the purposes of this subsection, the city's initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household, plus the amount of any down payment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value. ii. For the purposes of this subsection, the city's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. 3. If the city provides a direct financial contribution to a common interest development through participation in cost of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of construction, the target dwelling unit(s) shall remain affordable to the designated income group for at least 30 years. C. For rental projects, the city or its designee shall have a one-time first right of refusal to purchase any project containing affordable units offered for sale at the end of the minimum tenure of affordability. The first right of refusal to purchase the rental project shall be submitted in writing to the housing and redevelopment director. Within 90 days of its receipt, the city shall indicate its intent to exercise the first right of refusal for the purpose of providing affordable housing. 21.86.1 10 Application process. A. The granting of a density bonus, incentive or concession, pursuant to this chapter, shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zone code amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zone change, or other discretionary approval. B. Preliminary Application. A preliminary application may be submitted prior to the submittal of any formal development application for a housing project that includes a request for a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s). The preliminary application should include the following information: 1. A brief description of the proposal including the number of target dwelling units and density bonus units proposed; 2. The zoning, general plan designations and assessors parcel number(s) of the project site; 3. A site plan, drawn to scale, which includes: building footprints, driveway and parking layout, existing contours and proposed grading; and -16- 4. A letter identifying what specific density bonus, incentives or concessions (e.g., standards modifications, additional density bonus, or fee waiver, etc.) are being requested of the city . 5. The planning department shall provide to an applicantldeveloper, a letter that identifies project issues of concern and the procedures for compliance with this chapter. C. Formal application. A request for a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s), pursuant to this chapter, does not require a discretionary approval. The request shall be processed as part of the development applications for a housing development, as otherwise required in other sections of this code (e.g., site development plan, tentative map, parcel map, planned unit development, conditional use permit, redevelopment permit, etc.). 1. If the project involves a request for direct financial incentives from the city, then any action by the planning commission on the application shall be advisory only, and the city council shall have the authority to make the final decision on any discretionary permits related to the project. 2. The following information shall be included with the development application(s) required for the project: a. A legal description of the total site proposed for development of the target dwelling units including a statement of present ownership and present and proposed zoning; b. A letter signed by the present owner stating what specific density bonus, incentives, or concessions (e.g., standards modifications, additional density bonus, or fee waiver, etc.) are being requested from the city; c. A detailed vicinity map showing the project location and such details as the location of the nearest commercial retail, transit stop, potential employment locations, park or recreation facilities or other social or community service facilities; d. Site plans, designating the total number of units proposed on the site, including the number and location of target dwelling units and density bonus dwelling units, and supporting plans per the application submittal requirements; e. In the case of a request for any incentive(s) or concession(s), a pro forma for the proposed project to justify the request, in accordance with the provisions of section 21.86.050; f. In the case of a request for a waiver or reduction of development standards, pursuant to section 21.86.060, a pro forma for the proposed project showing that the waiver or reduction is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible, and evidence that the development standard being waived or reduced will have the effect of precluding the construction of the development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. g- In the case of a condominium conversion request, a report documenting the following information for each unit proposed to be converted: i. the monthly income of tenants of each unit throughout the prior year, and 11. the monthly rent for each unit throughout the prior year, and iii. vacancy information for each unit throughout the prior year. 21.86.1 20 Findings for approval. A. When a project involves a request for a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s), the following findings shall be made as part of the approval of the development application(s) required for the project: 1. The project is consistent with the provisions of this chapter. 2. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions; 3. In cases where an applicant requests a waiver or reduction of development standards, pursuant to section 21.86.060, the requested waiver or reduction of development standard(s) is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. 4. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s), and/or waiver(s) or reduction(s) of development standards, if any, will not result in an adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the California Government Code, to the public health and safety, the environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or, if the request will result in an adverse impact, then the request may be approved if the following finding is made: a. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. 5. In cases where an applicant requests to convert apartment units to condominiums, the condominium conversion project shall not result in a reduction in the affordable housing stock for lower-income groups, as of most recent inventory. 21.86.1 30 Density bonus housing agreement. A. Applicantsldevelopers, requesting a density bonus, incentives or concessions pursuant to this chapter, shall demonstrate compliance with this chapter by executing a density bonus housing agreement prepared by the city housing and redevelopment director and submitted to the developer for signature. B. Density bonus housing agreements for projects involving a request for direct financial incentives from the city shall be subject to city council approval; otherwise, the agreement shall be subject to the approval of the community development director. C. Following the approval and the signing by all parties, the completed density bonus housing agreement, with approved site development plan, shall be recorded against the entire development, including market-rate lotslunits; and the relevant terms and conditions therefrom filed and recorded as a deed restriction or regulatory agreement on those individual lots or units of a property which are designated for the location of target dwelling units. D. The approval and signing by all parties of the density bonus housing agreement shall take place prior to final map approval, and the agreement shall be recorded concurrent with the final map recordation or, where a map is not being processed, prior to issuance of building permits for such lots or units. E. The density bonus housing agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest. F. A density bonus housing agreement for a housing development or condominium conversion project processed pursuant to this chapter shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. The number of density bonus dwelling units granted; 2. The number and type (e.g., restricted to lower- or moderate-income households) of target dwelling units proposed; 3. The unit size(s) (square footage) of target dwelling units and the number of bedrooms per target dwelling unit; 4. The proposed location of the target dwelling units; 5. Schedule for production of target dwelling units; 6. Incentives or concessions provided by the city; 7. Where applicable, tenure and conditions governing the initial sale of for-sale target units; and 8. Where applicable, tenure and conditions establishing rules and procedures for qualifying tenants, setting rental rates, filling vacancies, and operating and maintaining units for rental target dwelling units. 9. Where applicable, requirements for other documents to be approved by the city, such as marketing, leasing and management plans; financial assistancelloan documents; resale agreements; and monitoring and compliance plans. 21.86.140 Agreement processing fee. A. The city council may establish by resolution, fees to be paid by the applicant to defray the city's cost of preparing andlor reviewing all density bonus housing agreements. 21.86.1 50 Separability of provisions. A. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 12: That the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5879 constitute the findings of the City Council. Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill 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 fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not become effective within the City's Coastal Zone until LCPA 04-17 is approved by the California Coastal Commission.) INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the & day of March 2006, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 2006-065 A RESOLUTION OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT; AND APPROVING SAID GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IN CONCEPT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT. CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT CASE NO.: GPA 05-1 4lZCA 04-1 OILCPA 04-1 7 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on February 1, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-14), Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-10) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-17) to amend the term "density bonus program" in the Glossary of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and amend the density bonus and lnclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve consistency between the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and State Law. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5878, 5880, and 6022 recommending to the City Council that the Negative Declaration and Addendum be adopted, and GPA 05-14 and LCPA 04-17 be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 21st day of March 2006 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: a4 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5878, 5880 and 6022 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. 3. That the Negative Declaration and Addendum are adopted as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5878 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 4. That the amendment to the General Plan (GPA 05-14), as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6022, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall formally be approved with GPA Batch No. 1 of 2006. 5. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA 04-17), is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5880, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 6. That the approval of LCPA 04-17 shall not become effective until it is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval becomes effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 21s t day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ,,\\11I1111,, to sBAD~,,, 2 +! .... "... 2 .,, P 6 <,;:....3/(5 -: -. @' ,%., 42 =$:-:.+Zz, . -r. 0- - :-.2., - "* 2 :if% - ' m= > z =y- k> *. _ ;a . >= '0 <> (SEAL) #(,#. , :,ox 'J!111,11\\ EXHIBIT 3 -- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5878 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE TERM "DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IN THE GLOSSARY OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND AMEND THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING - REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND THAT THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS ARE COMPATIBLE. CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT CASE NO.: GPA 05-14 / ZCA 04-10 / LCPA 04-17 WHEREAS, the Planning ~irector' has prepared an amendment to the General Plan and Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of February 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and a. 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, J anud considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration and Addendum. - -. - 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 ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration (Exhibit "ND") and Addendum (Exhibit "A") according to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (Exhibit "NOI") dated March 14, 2005, and the EIA Part I1 (Exhibit "PII") dated March 10, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: . .- 1. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and Addendum for the DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT (GPA 05-14, ZCA 04-10 and LCPA 04-17), the environmental impacts therein identified for the project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 2. The Negative Declaration and Addendum have 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 3. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 4. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of February 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez and Heineman ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5878 -2- , ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT GPA 05-14 / ZCA 04-10 / LCPA 04-17 This Addendum to the project Negative Declaration is to modify the project description. The modification to the project description is insignificant ai~d does not create any new significant -- environmental effect that was not previously identified. The modified project description is as follows: The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment consist of amending the term "density bonus program" in the Glossary of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and amending the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure the Density Bonus regulations are consistent with California Government Code Sections 6591 5 through 6591 7, and that the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations are compatible. The project applies to regulations that are applicable to properties citywide. There is no specific project site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. DATE: December 13,2005 DON NEU Assistant Planning Director -0 +w .. city NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION . - CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT CASE NO: ZCA 04- 10 / LCPA 04- 17 PROJECT LOCATION: NOT SITE SPECIFIC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment consist of amendments to the Density Bonus and hclusionary Housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure the Density Bonus regulations are consistent with California Government Code Sections 6591 5 through 659 17, and that the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations are compatible. PROPOSED DETERiMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the project described above 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 (EIA 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 (EIA 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 approvalladoption 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. PUBLIC *REVIEW PERIOD March 14,2005 through April 13.2005 PUBLISH DATE March 14. 2005 fl 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600. FAX (760) 602-8559 wwwg&&@ge~o)a.us @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: ZCA 04-10LCPA 04-1 7 DATE: March 10.2005 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NLTMBER: Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner - (760) 602- 4637 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Not site-specific 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Same as Lead Agency, above. 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NIA - not site-specific 7. ZONING: NIA - not site-specific 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Program Amendment) 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION1 ENVIRONMENTAL SE'ITING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment consist of amending the Density Bonus and Inclusionaw Housinn regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure the Density Bonus regulations are consistent with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917, and that the DensiW Bonus and Inclusionaw Housing regulations are compatible. The proiect applies to regulations that are applicable to properties citywide. There is no specific proiect site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. 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. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources ~azards/'Hazardous Materials 0 Population and-Housing . . Air Quality HydrologyiWater Quality Public Services Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Recreation Cultural Resources Mineral Resources TransportationiCirculation Mandatory Findings of Utilities & Service Systems Significance DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. U 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. U I fmd that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) tias 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. U I fmd 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. 3-/0--05 Plan~f r Signature L, Date - Assistant Planning Director's Signature Date 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. Th~s checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. - 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. "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. "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. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an "EIA-Part 11", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &l 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. 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 Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 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. J Ifdhere 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. Rev. 07/03/02 -. An EIR be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (I) 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 significant; or (4) through the EIA-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, whch would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 07/03/02 74 V Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic hghway? (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 agricultural 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Ti& . Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact . .... [XI [XI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agncultural 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) [XI Rev. 07/03/02 3J Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significht No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [7 substantially to an existing or projected air quality IXI violation? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for whch the project region is O.m 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) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? q El (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species El identified as a czndidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or Pegulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) - -- b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural q c&unity 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) Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact c) 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? Less Than Signific'5ht Im~act (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) d) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change . in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) ly b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.5? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifikt No Impact Incorporated Imt Imgt d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (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: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo IXI 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? IXI iv. Landslides? El (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? . IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the IXI project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) J 1SI 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) - - e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the IXI use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Less Than Signific'h Impact - No Impact a) 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) - .- 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) 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) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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 arrport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or worlung in the project area? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people xesiding or working in the project area? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental ~valuatio;) Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 intennixed with wildlands? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the pro~ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Impacts to groundwater quality? Potentially Significant Less Thai Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Significant - No &act Incorporated Im~t Imgt (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the El course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the J 4ourse 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned IXI stormwater drainage systems or substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? . Less Than Significpht Incorporated Impact Impact -.. (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a '~ederal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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 ,wetland waters) during or following construction? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? (See Discussion of Environmental ~valuatibn) Rev. 07/03/02 41 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? (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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a lcnown mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: Y 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)' b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signific'kt - No Impact Incorporated I Imgt (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Signifiskht Impact IXI Impact (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) n e) For a project located within an airport land use plan U 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) 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 IeveIs? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XII. 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)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (See Discussion afEnvironmenta1 Evaluation) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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 whlch 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated v) Other public facilities? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XIV. 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XV. TRIrWSPORTATION/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 vehcle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Signifidant - No Impact Impact IXI [XI IXI IXI IXI IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 4'4. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifikt No Impact Incorporated Im~t Im~t b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county - .- congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) d) 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) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) IXI g) 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: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (See Discussion ef Environmental Evaluation) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve.the -project &om existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? - .. . (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XVII. 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluadon) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumillatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental 2ffects 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?) Potentially Significant Less Than Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Significiint . No Impact Incorporated Imnt Im~t (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human El beings, either directly or indirectly? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 XWI. EARLIER ANALYSES STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 specifies that the enviromental-impact assessment may be used to determine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or other appropriate CEQA process, which of a project's effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, the Discussion of ~nvironkental Evaluation on the attached sheets should identify the following: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. - b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. . -. . C) Impacts not adequately addressed. Identify which effects, if any, from the above checklist were not adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, and should, therefore, be analyzed in a later EIR or negative declaration. - d) 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 whch they address site-specific conditions for the project. Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic-vista? 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? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? - No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that could: a) adversely effect a scenic vista; b) substantially damage scenic resources; c) degrade the visual character of any site; or d) create substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site- specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose- or affect any regulation that could: a) result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use; b) conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract; or c) result in changes to the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to fbrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State* law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: Y a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that could conflict or obstruct . -- implementation of the regional air quality plan. All properties within the city are located in the San ~ie~o'~ir Basin, which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for pakticulate 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 foohll areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this 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). Rev. 07103102 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 from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP wss 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. Future development projects relate to the SIP andlor 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 15125(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: 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. As previously mentioned, the proposed amendments involve text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and do not include a proposal for physical development of any property. Furthermore, the project does not propose any change that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. Future development projects that are subject to the amended regulations will be reviewed for consistency with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? No Impact - 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 biei recorded recently. The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not involve physical development of any site nor any changes to air quality planninglstandards. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested Gcentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? . - - No Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary ~dusin~ regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that could result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Rev. 07/03/02 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental reviek pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial numbeFof people? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in an activity that could create objectionable odors. Any future de$elopment proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? c) 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? d) 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 dkvelopment proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the pioject, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. J * 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Rev. 07/03/02 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not inclide a pIoposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in an adverse impact to any environmentally sensitive tributary area. P;ny future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse chnge in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §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? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in a disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations 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. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? J Q iv. Landslides? No Impact - 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 with the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in parts of the City. All development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to requirements such as the Uniform Building Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects are not significant. The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations, however, do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure or landslides. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a 22 Rev. 07/03/02 development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. ? .. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inciusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in substantial soil erosion on any site. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City's Engineering standards on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to'be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a -. development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? 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? 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? No Impact (c, d & e) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in impacts to unstable or expansive soil conditions. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City's engineering standards on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? a. 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? J No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific -. -- basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact (e & f) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that wquld result in exposing people to hazards associated with an airport. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistknt with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. g ) 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would interfere with the implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, or result in exposing people to risk f?om wildland fires. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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 amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? f) 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? J * g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do . -- not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? 24 Rev. 07/03/02 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? _ ' 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 (h, i, j & k) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, whch are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 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)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impacf- The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? 2 5 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with any land - use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NO Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with the any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significani adverse impact on the environment. . - 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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 J '4 levels existing without the project? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would . ,_ result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? Rev. 07/03/02 9 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, whlch are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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)? Less Than Significant Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and therefore will not directly induce any growth. The amended regulations may indirectly induce higher densities on residential properties. However, the growth that may indirectly be induced by the amended regulations will be required to be consistent with the City's growth projections contained in the Growth Management Program, whlch ensures adequate public facilities and infi-astructure are constructed to serve existing and future development. Therefore, any growth induced indirectly by the amended regulations will be consistent with the growth planned for the city. In addition, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. PUBLIC SERVICES - a) 11 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: 1. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in adverse Rev. 07/03/02 impacts to the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service (fire & police protection, schools, parks and other public facilities). Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to. CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environm'ent. 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site. As part of the City's Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was adopted. Any future residential development subject to the amended regulations will be required to comply with the performance standards of the Growth Management Program, which will ensure that future residential development will not adversely impact any park facilities. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a signLficant adverse impact on the environment. 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? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal . for physical development of any site. A performance standard for traffic is part of the City's Growth Management Program. Future development that is subject to the amended regulations will be required to comply with thls performance standard, which ensures future development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city's street system. In addition, future development will be subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Carnino 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 '. designatedyoads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 "A-c" 28-43 El Carnino Real 21-50 "A-c" 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 "A-B" 29-77 SR 78 120% "F" 144 1-5 183;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 hlghways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. 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 bghways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. This project proposes no physical development of a property. Further, it does not propose to change or add a standard that would affect levels of service as established by the CMP. Any future residential development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the CMP on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a simcant adverse impact on the environment. 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 amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in a change in air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks associated with air traffic patterns. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would cause a future project to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to fiu-ther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact (e & f) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the envirdnment. J g) ' Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal . -- for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further envirohmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Rev. 07/03/02 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would cause future development to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations 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. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would increase the need for, or conflict with the current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. 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. Any future residential development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to the City's Growth Management Program, and further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, or impact the ability to accommodate solid waste disposal needs within the '. city. Any fiture residential development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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? 30 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 communityi 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. Any future residential development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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?) No 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 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. Development of future residential projects subject to the amended regulations may represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, emissions associated with a future residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not a residential development is implemented. With regard to circulation, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Carnino Real and Palomar Alrport Rd.) and two highway 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 amendments will not affect any policies or standards that would conflict with City or region-wide standards. Also, the proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of ary site; therefore, the project will not result in an individually or cumulatively considerable environmental impact. Any future residential development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to fiu-ther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The alliended regulations, which are being amended to be consistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. C) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on '. human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact - The amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would cause substantial - - - adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any future residential development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. The amended regulations, whlch are being amended to be conkistent with State law, do not obligate the city to approve a development project if the project, or a requested incentive associated with the project, would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Rev. 07103102 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 Imvact Revort 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 Municipal Code. Title 2 1. Zoning 4. Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones 5. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mavvinp Study, November 1992. Rev. 07/03/02 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5879 -.-. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND THAT THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS ARE COMPATIBLE. CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 04-10 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 density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit "X," dated February 1, 2006, and attached hereto DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT - ZCA 04-10; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of February 2006, 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 Zone Code Amendment. J * 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 DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT - ZCA 04-10, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 04-10, is consistent with the General Plan in that the density bonus regulations assist in achieving the Housing Element goals and objectives to implement State density bonus law, and to provide housing to "groups with special needs, including low and moderate income households". The density bonus regulations directly implement State density bonus law, and provide incentives to developers to build housing for senior citizens, and housing affordable to lower, very low, or moderate income households. 2. The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 04-10, reflects sound principles of good planning in that it: a) ensures consistency with State law; b) implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan; and c) ensures internal consistency between the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. ' PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of February 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez and Heineman ABSTAIN: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5879 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5880 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND THAT THE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS ARE COMPATIBLE. CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT CASE NO.: LCPA 04- 17 - - WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations; and 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 Carlsbad, "Applicant," has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and * WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local ~oasdl Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit "X," dated February 1,2006, attached to Planfiing - Commission Resolution No. 5879 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided fbr in Public Resources Code Section 30514 aid 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 1st day of February 2006, 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 .t 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 Commiss.ion requirements, the Local Coastal Program Amendment was subject to a six-week public review period, starting on March 11, 2005 and ending on April 22, 2005, and the Planning Commission considered all comments received, if any. 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 DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT - LCPA 04-17, based on the following findings: Findings: 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 and West Batiquitos Lagoon 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 ionflict with any coastal zone regulations, land use designations or policies, with which development must comply. 2. That the proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to ensure consistency with the proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-10). PC RESO NO. 5880 -, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of February 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson ~ontgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez and Heineman ABSTAIN: ATTEST: !dm% DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5880 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6022 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE TERM "DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IN THE GLOSSARY OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ENSURE THE DEFINITION OF THE 9 TERM IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT CASE NO.: GPA 05-14 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as citywide ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit "B," dated February 1,2006, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT GPA 05-14 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of February 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cprnission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: J A) That the above recitations are true and correct. - - - B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT GPA 05-14, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The proposed amendment to the term "density bonus program" in the Glossary of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as shown on Exhibit "B", is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated February 1, 2006, including, but not limited ti the following: a. The proposed amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with the definition of "density bonus" in State density bonus law; and b. The proposed amendment will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and c. The proposed amendments will not conflict with any other policy, goal, objective, or program of the General Plan not being amended. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of February 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez and Heineman ABSTAIN: ATTEST: s DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6022 Exhibit "8" February 1,2006 . Land Use Element <- sible space include: improving the natural capability of residents to visually survey the public areas of their residential environment; enhancing spheres of territorial influence within which residents can easily adopt proprietary attitude; and, enhancing safety through the strategic geographic locations of intensively used community facilities. DENSITY BONUS F?RSWM A density increase ef ~t kasGX%, granted pursuant to Sections 65915 throunh 65917 of the California Government Code, which is over the etbawiw maximum allowable residential density of the u+xb=#+applicable residential land use designation 7. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS Open space lands which are constrained or prohibited from development including beaches, lagoons, wetlands, other permanent water bodies, riparian habitats and steep slopes. GMP See Growth Management Plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMIPLAN (GMP) A comprehensive approach to land use planning now and in the future. I links residential, commercial and industrial development directly to the availability of public services and facilities. It sets limits on the total number of housing units to be built and increases the total amount of open space to be preserved in the City. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ZONE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN LCP '* LFMP LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (PLAN) (LCP) A geographically-defined area in the City, the boundaries of which were based upon logical facilities and improvements planning relationships. Under the City's Growth Management Plan, there are 25 zones and a plan for facilities and improvements is required for each zone before development can occur. A comprehensive, citywide program which identifies how the city can preserve the diversity of natural habitats and protect rare and unique biological resources. J See Local Coastal Program. See Local Facilities Management Plan. A specifically prepared land use plan for the portion -- of the city located within the Coastal boundaries as 3 defined by the State Coastal Act. The plan must address the protection of coastal resources and public access to the coastline. LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (LFMP) Shows how and when the following facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate development within the zone will be installed or Page 42 Amended September 13,2005 9201 Spectrum Center Blvd., Suite 110 San Diego, CA 921 23-1 407 EXHIBIT 4 www. biasandiego.org PRESIDENT Horace Hogan II Brehm Communities VICE PRESIDENT Scott Brusseau Newport National Corp. TREASURER / SECRETARY Paul Barnes Shea Homes IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Scot Sandstrom Richmond American Homes of California CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Paul A. Tryon AFFILIATES California Building Industry Association National Association of Home Builders National Association of Industrial and Office Properties February 1,2006 Ms. Jennifer Jesser City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Density Bonus Amendments to Zoning Code Chapters 21.85 and 2 1.86 (ZCA 04- 10) Dear Ms. Jesser: Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the density bonus amendments to the city's zoning ordinance to implement the State Density Bonus Program enacted with the passage of Senate Bill 435 in October of 2005. The Building Industry Association supports the state density bonus program for affordable housing as a voluntary and incentive-based program. The state program was intended to work in cities with and without inclusionary housing programs. Section 2 of Senate Bill 435 states: Section 65915 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65915. (a) ?+%en an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the production of housing units and child care facilities asprescribed in this section. All cities, counties, or cities and counties shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented (emphasis added). In essence, Senate Bill 435 requires all local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance that implements the state density bonus program. Based on our review, however, we are concerned that the proposed amendments to Carlsbad's Inclusionary Housing and Residential Density Bonus zoning chapters do not adequately implement the state density bonus program. Instead, the amendments have the potential to make the state's program a disincentive, which we believe is not consistent with the state's intent. BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY We recognize the concern that implementation of the state density bonus schedule in lieu of the city's inclusionary housing requirements would potentially result in fewer affordable units being produced than would otherwise be produced under the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. A simple example illustrates this: Example 1 : State's requirements are less than the city's requirements Base Density: 100 units Density Bonus: 20 units (20%) Total Density: 120 units (Base Density + Density Bonus) City's Inclusionary Requirement: 0.15 x 120 units = 18 units (15% of total density) State's Inclusionary Requirement: 0.10 x 100 units = 10 units (10% of base density) I Under this example, eight (8) fewer inclusionary units would be built. In fact, the city's inclusionary housing requirement is greater than the state's requirement until the state's inclusionary requirement is equal to or greater than about 21% of the base density (36.5% density bonus-see Table A; also see attachment A to this letter). The following example illustrates a case where the city's inclusionary requirement would essentially equal the state's requirement: Example 2: State's requirements equal or exceed the city's requirements Base Density: 100 units Density Bonus: 38 units (38 %) Total Density: 138 units (Base Density + Density Bonus) City's Inclusionary Requirement: 0.15 x 138 units = 2 1 units (1 5% of total density) State's Inclusionary Requirement: 0.22 x 100 units = 22 units (22% of base density) It is our position that this simple mathematical dilemma can be resolved by requiring all projects that utilize the state density bonus program to at a minimum meet the city's inclusionary housing requirements. The proposed zoning code amendments, however, state that no credit will be given for meeting the city's requirements by meeting the state's requirements, thus making the state's program a disincentive to use7. In example 1 above, the total inclusionary housing requirement for the project would be 28 units (23.3%), far in excess of just complying with the city's inclusionary requirements of 15%. This makes utilization of the state's program a disincentive. Example 3 below better illustrates this fact: Example 3: Meet state's requirements plus city's requirements Base Density: lo0 units Density Bonus: 20 units (20 %) Total Density: 120 units (Base Density + Density Bonus) City's Inclusionary Requirement: 0.15 x 120 units = 18 units (1 5% of total density) State's Inclusionary Requirement: 0.1 0 x 100 units = 1 0 units (1 0% of base density) Total Inclusionary Requirement: 28 units (23.3% of total density; 28% of base) At the very least, all projects should get credit toward meeting the city's inclusionary housing requirements by utilizing the state density bonus program. At the same time, by requiring all projects to at a minimum meet the city's requirements, no overall reduction in affordable housing production would occur with implementation of the state density bonus program. To that end, we propose the following amendments to resolve this and ensure that the state density bonus program is an incentive. Ch. 2 1.85.040.A Inclusionary Housing, Affordable Housing Standards A. All residential developments are subject to and must satisfl the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter, notwithstanding a developer's request to process a residential development under other program requirements, laws or regulations, including but not limited to Chapter 21.86 (Residential Density Bonus) of this code. If an av~licant seeks to construct affordable housing to qualifv for a density bonus in accordance with the vrovisions of Chapter 2 1.86 (Residential Density Bonus), those affordable dwelling units that aualifi a . . residential develovment for a densitv bonus shall P count toward satisfiing the inclusionarv housing reauirements of this chavter provided. however. that all projects utilizing a densitv bonus in accordance with Cha~ter 2 1.86 at a minimum meet the inclusionarv housin~ reauirements of this cha~ter (the citv's inclusionarv housin~ requirements). The state's density bonus program was intended to be an additional tool to stimulate the creation of more affordable housing. It is intended an incentive-based program. Implementation of the state's program through local ordinances must maintain this quality in order to be consistent with the purpose and intent of Senate Bill 435. We believe our revisions to the draft zoning code amendments shown above will achieve this while still preserving the requirements of the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. Very truly yours, Public P'ol&cy Advocate Attachment A Cc: North County Board of Directors Carlsbad Planning Commission Marcela Escobar Eck, Planning Director Attachment A Example: Affordable Housing Created Under State Density Bonus Ordinance Equals Affordable Housing Created Under Carlsbad Inclusionary Housing Ordinance BD = Base Project Density DB% = Density Bonus (as a percentage of base density) TD = Total Project Density = BD x (l+DB%) CIH% = Carlsbad Inclusionary Housing % = 15% of TD SIH% = State Inclusionary Housing % (as % of base density) Under this example: CIH% xTD =SIH% xBD or ... (1) 0.15 x TD = SIH% x BD and.. . (3) SIH% = 0.15 x (1 + DB%) (eliminating BDfiom both sides, solvingfor SIH%) From Table A (State Low-Income Density Bonus Schedule) (4) DB% = 1.5 x SIH% + 0.05 or.. . (5) SIH% = (DB% - 0.05)/1.5 so.. . (6) (DB% - 0.05)/1.5 = 0.15 x (1 + DB%) (equation (3) = equation (5) ) or.. . (7) (DB% - 0.05) = 0.225 x (1 + DB%) = 0.225 + 0.225 x DB% or.. . DBO/o = 0.275/(1-0.225) = 35.5 O/o = 36.5% (see Table A) 02.01.06 BIA Letter to Carlsbad on State Density Bonus Ordinance Implementation SB 435 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 5 SB 435 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 435 (Hollingsworth) As Amended August 18, 2005 Majority vote SENATE VOTE : 32-1 HOUSING 5 - 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7 - 0 I~yes: l~ullin, Garcia, Baca, I I~alinas, Torrico I I I~yes:I~alinas, Emmerson, De La I I I orr re, Mount j oy, Lieber , 1 I I~ation, Wolk I ]-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------] I~ays:l~ancock I I I I I I I ................................................................. I APPROPRIATIONS 18 - 0 ................................................................. I~yes: I~hu, Sharon Runner, Bass, I I Berg, Calderon, Emmerson, I I I I I ~aynes, Karnette, Klehs, I I I I I ~eno, Nakanishi, Nation, I I I I loropeza, Laird, Saldana, I I I I I~alters, Yee, Mullin I I I I I I SUMMARY : Makes technical changes to last year's legislation relating to density bonus law. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides legislative intent language indicating that local governments should encourage higher density housing in urban areas with adequate infrastructure to serve the housing. 2)Clarifies that the percentage of affordability, for purposes of determining the applicable density bonus, is calculated by dividing the number of affordable units by the total number of units before any density bonus is applied. 3)Provides that the density bonus for senior developments applies to senior mobilehome parks as well. SB 435 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 2 of 3 SB 435 Page 2 4)Alters the density bonus for moderate-income units by expanding it to all common interest developments, as opposed to just condominium or planned developments, and also by requiring that the units be for sale as opposed to rented by the developer. 5)Clarifies that a project applicant can only receive one density bonus and requires the applicant to choose which density bonus he/she is seeking when the project meets the affordability thresholds for more then one income category. 6)Clarifies that upon resale of a moderate-income unit, the local government shall recapture both the initial subsidy and a proportionate share of appreciation, unless it conflicts with another funding source or law. 7)Clarifies that a local government must grant incentives and concessions only to applicants for a traditional density bonus, not to applicants for a land donation density bonus. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, any costs to local governments should be minor and would be non-state-reimbursable because local building departments are authorized to charge fees to cover their services. COMMENTS : To help address the affordable housing shortage, the Legislature enacted the density bonus law to encourage development of more low- and moderate-income housing units. The density bonus law that was created in 1979 was found by housing advocates to be ineffective because the incentives were generally insufficient to attract the interest of developers. In order to make density bonuses more attractive and better meet California's housing needs, the Legislature has twice made significant changes to density bonus law, most recently with SB 1818 (Hollingsworth), Chapter 928, Statutes of 2004. Existing law now requires a city or county to grant a density bonus, prescribed parking requirements, concessions and incentives, as well as waivers of "development standards" upon the developer's request. Existing law provides that a developer is entitled to such benefits when, on the developers own initiative, affordable housing is included as part of a market rate project, unless the city makes written findings that the concessions, incentives or waivers of development SB 435 Page 3 standards are either not required to provide for affordable http:Ninfo.sen.ca.gov/pub/bi11/senlsbb04O 1 -0450Isb-435-cfa-200508 19-1 53208-asm- fl... 02/13/2006 7b SB 435 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3 of 3 housing; and/or such request would have an adverse effect on health and safety, the environment, or a historical resource. SB 1818 has only been part of density bonus law since January 1, 2005, but has already created a significant amount of confusion and disagreement. SB 435 attempts to clarify and clean up some of the gray areas in SB 1818. Amendments taken in the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development on June 15, 2005, removed controversial provisions that went beyond the scope of a clean-up bill. It should be noted that the language added on June 21, 2005 which states that a local government must provide a density bonus and incentives or concession only when an applicant "seeks and agrees to construct" was intended to clarify that these density bonus provisions only apply when either: 1) a local government does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance or 2) an applicant proposes to include affordable units over and above those required by a locally adopted inclusionary ordinance. That amendment was adopted by the Assembly Housing Committee to clarify that issue. Analysis Prepared by : Hugh Bower / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0011871 http:/linfo.sen.ca.go~lp~b/billlsen/sb~O4Ol-O45Olsb~435~cfa~2OOO8 19-1 53208-asm- fl... 0211 312006 77 ,- The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 6 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION . , P.C. AGENDA OF: February 1,2006 Item No. @ Application complete date: November 10, 2004 Project Planner: Jennifer Jesser Project Engineer: N/A 1 SUBJECT: GPA 05-14/ZCA 04-10/LCPA 04-17 -DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT - Request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the term "density bonus program" in the General Plan, and amend the density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency with California Government Code Sections 659 15 through 659 17. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5878 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6022, 5879 and 5880 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-14), Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-10) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-1 7), based on the findings contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION State density bonus law requires the City to grant a density bonus if a developer seeks and agrees to provide a specified percentage of units for senior housing, or as affordable to lower, very low, or moderate-income households. On January 1, 2005, an amendment (SB 1818) to the State's density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) became effective. Following the enactment of SB 1818, a second amendment was introduced (SB 435) to fbrther clarify the provisions of State density bonus law. SB 435 was approved and became effective on January 1, 2006. The changes in the density bonus law, established by SB 1818 and SB 435, require a substantial amendment to the City's density bonus regulations to ensure consistency with State law. The , primary ch'anges in the State's density bonus law include: 1) a reduction in the percentage of affordable housing required in order to qualify for a density bonus, 2) new provisions for granting additional density bonuses up to a specified maximum (35%), and 3) new criteria that - - define the number of concessions a project is entitled to based on the amount of affordable housing provided. Another change to the City's regulations that has resulted from the changes in State density bonus law is in how the density bonus regulations relate to the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements. Based on the analysis of SB 435, prepared by State Housing and Community Development staff and dated August 18, 2005, City staff is recommending that if an applicant seeks a density bonus per state law, then the affordable dwelling units provided to qualify for a GPA 05-1 4lZCA 04- 1 OLCPA 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDhNT February 1,2006 ...+. state density bonus will not count toward satisfying the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements (i.e. to qualify for a state density bonus the applicant will be required to.provide affordable dwelling units in addition to those required by the Inclusionary Housing requirements). In addition, minor amendments to the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing chapter of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to ensure consistency with the density bonus regulations. The "Analysis" section of this report provides a more detailed explanation of the amendments that have occurred to State density bonus law and the recommended changes to the City's density bonus regulations. Because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program (LCP), a LCP amendment is necessary. However, no portion of the LCP land use plan document is being amended. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Description The project consists of the following: A. Amend the term "density bonus program" in the Glossary of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to ensure consistency with the State definition of "density bonus"; and B. Amend Chapter 21.86 (Density Bonus) to ensure consistency with State law; and C. Amend Chapter 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing) to ensure there is no conflict with the provisions of Chapter 21.86 (Density Bonus). Background As mentioned above, amendments to the State's density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) became effective on January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2006. To ensure that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent with State law, staff is proposing an amendment to the City's density bonus regulations. 4 The inclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are related to the density bonus regulations in that both sets of regulations (Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing and Chapter ,- .- 21.86 - Density Bonus) specify a minimum amount of affordable housing to be provided by residential projects. Any project requesting a density bonus must also comply with the inclusionary housing requirements. The City's current density bonus regulations specify that the affordable dwelling units provided to qualify a project for a density bonus also count toward satisfying the inclusionary housing requirements. Staff is proposing to amend the Inclusionary Housing chapter and the Density Bonus chapter to no longer allow the affordable housing provided to qualify for a density bonus to count toward meeting the inclusionary housing requirements. I - GPA 05- 14lZCA 04- 1 O/LCPA 04- 1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT February 1,2006 Page 3 IV. ANALYSIS The following analysis consists of: Proposed General Plan Amendment. The relationship and differences between density bonus law and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Changes that have occurred in density bonus law and the proposed changes to the City's density bonus regulations. Proposed amendment to the Inclusionary Housing Chapter. Consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program. A. General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment is a minor change to the defmition of "density bonus program" in the Glossary of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Currently, the term is defined pursuant to the old State definition of "density bonus" (i.e. a density increase of at least 25% over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density.. .). The proposed amendment will modify the General Plan definition to be consistent with the new State definition of "density bonus" (more information on the new definition is contained below). B. Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Before providing an analysis of all the changes that have occurred to State density bonus law, this section provides an analysis of the relationship and differences between the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and State density bonus law. 1. Relationship and differences between inclusionary housing: and density bonus regulations a. Required percentage of affordable housing. The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires all new residential development (rental and for-sale) to provide 15% of the total project units as affordable to lower-income households. State density bonus law requires that a density bonus must be granted if a developer "seeks and . agrees to construct" senior citizen housing, or a minimum percentage of the project units as affordable to lower-, very low-, or moderate-income households. . .- The City's current density bonus regulations specify that the affordable units provided to qualify .- a project for a density bonus will count toward satisfying the City's inclusionary housing requirements. Prior to January 1, 2005, this provision did not conflict with the City's ability to implement its inclusionary housing requirements, because the old density bonus law's minimum percentage of affordable housing (20% for lower-income households) required to receive a density bonus was higher than the City's inclusionary housing requirement (1 5%). However, as discussed in more detail in section "C" below, the percentage of affordable housing required to qualify for a State density bonus has been reduced to 10% of a project's units GPA 05- 14IZCA 04-1 OLCPA 04- 17 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDWNT February 1,2006 Page 4 affordable to lower-income households (the requirements for the very low- and moderate-income categories have also been reduced). The percentage of units required by the new density bonus law (10%) is now lower than that required by the City's inclusionary housing requirements (1 5%). b. "Density increase" vs. "density bonus". The inclusionary housing requirements and the density bonus regulations also differ in how they refer to an increase in the maximum allowed density for a project. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance refers to the granting of density above the maximum allowed as a "density increase", and the density bonus regulations refer to the increase as a "density bonus". Unlike the density bonus regulations, a "density increase" is not guaranteed through the inclusionary housing ordinance, but is rather negotiated as a potential "offset" to the cost of providing affordable housing. In contrast, density bonus law requires that a "density bonus" be granted when a minimum amount of affordable housing or senior housing is provided. c. Calculating required number of affordable units In addition, the inclusionary housing and density bonus regulations differ in terms of the number of project units on which the affordable unit percentage is based. The percentage of affordable units required by the inclusionary housing ordinance (1 5%) is calculated against the combined total of all project units, including any "density increase". In contrast, the density bonus regulations base the required affordable unit percentages on the total project units before the "density bonus" is granted. State density bonus law specifies that the density bonus units shall not be used when calculating the number of required affordable units. This difference in calculating the number of units in a project required to be affordable was not of great concern prior to January 1,2005, because of two reasons: 1. The City received very few requests from applicants for a State density bonus because the State's requirement for housing affordable to lower-income households (20%) was greater than the City's inclusionary requirement (1 5%), and . . 11. Even though the "density bonus" units could not be included in the calculation to determine the number of units that were required to be affordable, by meeting the density bonus law requirement of 20% of the project units affordable to lower-income households, a project would still meet the City's 15% lower-income requirement (even if the density bonus units could be included in the 15% inclusionary calculation). .- ... Table A provides an example of how the affordable housing requirements were calculated pursuant to the old density bonus law in comparison to the City's inclusionary housing requirements (note: in Tables A and B the 15% inclusionary requirement is based on "total project units" that include an assumed "density increase", which is meant to illustrate how a project with the same number of total units would be calculated pursuant to the inclusionary requirements vs. the density bonus requirements): i , GPA 05- 14JZCA 04- 1 OILCPA 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT February 1,2006 Pane 5 TABLE A AFFORDABLE HOUSING CALCULATIONS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING VS. OLD DENSITY BONUS LAW I Project Base Units I Density ) Total I I (before any density I increase I project I Calculation to determine the number of units required to be affordable ] increase or bonus) Requirements 15% x 125 = l'%unit3 affordable to lower-income The affordable housing requirements of the new density bonus law and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would be calculated as follows: or bonus Requirements " 'I .I -5i. 20%2 x fi = 20unlt.i affordable to lower-income households units I I Per Inclusionary Housing I Per ad Density Bonus households As indicated in Table B, above, the new density bonus law could result in the City not being able to fully achieve it's inclusionary housing requirements for three reasons: 25-unit density increasehonus is based on the amount of density bonus required by the old density bonus law (25% bonus) for a - project that provided the minimum 20% of the base units as affordable to lower-income households. Old density bonus law required a min. 20% of the project units to be affordable to lower income households, which exceeded the 15% required to meet Inclusionary regulations. TABLE B AFFORDABLE HOUSING CALCULATIONS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING VS. NEW DENSITY BONUS LAW 1. Density bonus law does not allow the density bonus units to be included when calculating , the number of units in a project that are required to be affordable, and Project Base Units (before any density increaselbonus) 100 - . * 11. New density bonus law requires a lesser percentage of units to be affordable to lower- income households (10%) than that required by the City's inclusionary housing .--. .-- requirements (1 5%), and iii. The City's current density bonus regulations allow the affordable units provided to qualiQ a project for a density bonus to count toward satisQing the inclusionary housing requirements. =unit density increasefbonus is based on the amount of density bonus required by the new density bonus law for a project that provide 15% of the base units as affordable to lower-income households. New density bonus law requires min. 10% of the project units to be affordable to lower income households, but 15% is required to meet Inclusionary regulations. Density increase1 bonus 28l - Total project units 128 - Calculation to determine the number of units required to be affordable Per Inclusionary Housing Requirements fV*S.Sll 15% x 128 = f-9-un1ts affordable to lower-income households Per Nz Density Bonus Requirements 15%~ x 100 = ;f"5@niis affordable to lower-income households I I GPA 05-14/ZCA 04-10LCPA 04-17 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT February 1,2006 Page 6 2. Proposed amendment to ensure City can fully implement the Inclusionarv Housing Ordinance when a State density bonus is requested. In the list above, "i" and "ii" are clearly specified in State density bonus law. However, "iii" is not clearly specified in State law, and is an interpretation of how the density bonus law relates to the City's inclusionary housing regulations. Since SB 18 18 became effective (January 1, 2005), and during the review of SB 435, there has been discussion between local governments and the State in regard to how the density bonus law can be implemented when a local government has an inclusionary housing ordinance. The language in density bonus law that states a density bonus must be granted when an applicant "seeks and agrees" to construct affordable housing, has been interpreted by some local governments to mean that the density bonus law does not apply to the affordable housing required by an inclusionary housing ordinance. These local governments have interpreted the words "seeks and agrees" to refer to the construction of affordable housing provided at the sole initiative of the applicant, and does not include the construction of affordable housing that is required by a local jurisdiction as part of an inclusionary housing ordinance. When originally drafted, SB 435 proposed to eliminate the words "seeks and agrees" from density bonus law, and instead state that a density bonus must be granted when an applicant "provides" the specified amount of affordable housing. Many local governments opposed SB 435 because removal of the words "seeks and agrees" would preclude them from making the interpretation stated above. During the State legislature's review of SB 435, the words "seeks and agrees" were added back to the law for the following reasons, as stated in the Bill Analysis prepared by State Housing and Community Development Staff, dated August 18, 2005: It should be noted that the language added on June 21, 2005 which states that a local government must provide a density bonus and incentives or concession only when an applicant "seeks and agrees to construct" was intended to clartfi that these density bonus provisions only apply when either: 1) a local government does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance or 2) an applicant proposes to include affordable units over and above those required by a locally adopted inclusionary ordinance. As applicable to the City of Carlsbad, the statement above indicates that the legislative intent of adding of the words "seeks and agrees to construct" back in to the density bonus law was to clarify that the law can be interpreted as only being applicable when an applicant proposes .-- affordable housing above and beyond the affordable housing required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City's density bonus regulations be amended to no longer allow the affordable units.provided to qualify a project for a density bonus to count toward satisfying the inclusionary housing requirements; and rather, specify that: All residential development projects are required to provide affordable housing units in accordance with chapter 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing). If an applicant seeks to construct affordable housing to quallJL for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, those affordable dwelling units that qualifi a I GPA 05-1 4IZCA 04- 1 OLCPA 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT February 1,2006 residential development for a density bonus are in addition to, and do not count toward satisfiing the Inclusionary Housing requirements of chapter 21.85. An applicant would not be required to provide additional affordable housing above the inclusionary housing requirements, unless the applicant requested a State density bonus. Based on this new provision, the following table provides an example of how the required number of affordable units would be calculated to satisfy the inclusionary requirements and to qualify for a State density bonus: TABLE C AFFORDABLE HOUSING CALCULATIONS TO MEET INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFY FOR A DENSITY BONUS (CUMULATIVE) 25 lower-income units 1 20-unit density bonus is based on the amount of density bonus rewired by the new density bonus law for a project that provides 20' - - . - 10% of the base units as affordable to lower-income househoids (in -addition to the- 15% required to meet incl;sionary Project Base Units (before any density increaselbonus) requirements). * "Density bonus" units cannot be included when calculating the number of dwellings required to be affordable. In this example, the 15% inclusionary requirement would only apply to the project base units. Density bonus project units 120 - As discussed earlier, and as indicated in Table B, the new density bonus law could result in the City not being able to fully implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance when a "density bonus" is requested. However, based on staffs recommendation to require (cumulatively) the 15% inclusionary requirement and the affordable housing required to qualify for a density bonus, as indicated in Table C, the resulting number of affordable units would exceed the 15% inclusionary requirement (even if the density bonus units could be included in the 15% inclusionary calculation). Calculation to determine the number of units required to be affordable affordable to lower-income households Since the adoption of the City's inclusionary housing ordinance in 1993, the City has rarely utilized the density bonus law regulations. This is likely due primarily to the fact that the ,- .-- percentage of affordable housing required under the inclusionary housing ordinance was less than the State's density bonus requirements (prior to January 1, 2005, density bonus law required 20% of project units to be affordable to lower-income households), and that through the inclusionary housing regulations the City can negotiate "density increases" (sometimes greater than the minimum allowed by density bonus law). However, the granting of a "density increase" is not required nor guaranteed by the inclusionary housing regulations. To Meet Inclusionary Housing Requirements 15% x m2 = $s?hijii&$ affordable to lower-income households To Qualify For A Density Bonus 10 O/o x 100 = ~~%"n"i'$$ Total units affordable to lower- income households: 15 units (Lnclusionary) + 10 units (for density bonus) = GPA 05-1 4lZCA 04-1 O/LCPA 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDhcNT February 1,2006 Pane 8 C. Changes to State Density Bonus Law and Amendment to City Density Bonus Regulations. An analysis of the changes made in the State's density bonus law, which are proposed to be reflected in Chapter 21.86 of the Zoning Ordinance, is as follows: 1. Minimum percentage of affordable units and density bonus. Under the new density bonus law, the minimum number of affordable units that a developer must provide in order to receive a density bonus, and the minimum required density bonus have both been reduced from prior density bonus law. Table D, below, indicates how the affordable housing and density bonus requirements have changed as a result of the new density bonus law. With regard to moderate-income households in a "condominium project", SB 435 expanded the provision to apply to "common interest developments", rather than just "condominium projects". Common interest developments include condominium projects, planned developments, community apartment projects, and stock cooperatives. The State definitions for each of these types of developments are proposed to be added or referenced in the City's density bonus regulations. 2. Housing provided for senior citizens. In addition to the changes noted in Table D, the requirement for providing housing for senior citizens has changed. Density bonus law prior to January 1, 2005 specified that if a developer agreed to provide 50% of the total project units for senior citizens, a 25% density bonus must be granted. New density bonus law has reduced the density bonus to 20%, and has eliminated the - -- requirement for 50% of the units be for senior citizens. Instead, the new law states that a "senior citizen housing development" qualifies for the density bonus. On January 1, 2001, a new definition for "senior citizen housing development" was added to the State Civil Code, which specifies the minimum number of units (35) required to qualify as a senior citizen housing development, and the percentage of those units required to be occupied by a senior citizen (80%). I GPA 05- 14/ZCA 04- 1 OILCPA 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDhcNT February 1,2006 Also, SB 435 added to this category a "mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons". The density bonus law now states that the City must grant a 20% density bonus for such developments. 3. New requirement to grant an additional density bonus. In addition to the required minimum density bonus indicated in Table D (under the columns for "New Law as of January 1, 2005"), the new density bonus law requires the City to grant an additional density bonus (up to a maximum 35%) when a developer builds more than the required minimum number of affordable units. Table E summarizes the amount of additional density bonus to be granted depending on the percentage and type of affordable housing provided: TABLE E ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS I 1 increase in low-income units above the 10% minimum. I 1 Additional Density Bonus for Increase in Affordable Units An additional 1.5% density bonus (up to a maximum 35%) shall be granted for each 1% [ ( increase in moderate-iniome units above the 10% minimum. - 2 3 State density bonus law and the proposed amendment to the City's density bonus provisions include a separate table for each type of affordable housing (i.e. low, very low, and moderate), which specifies the exact amount of density bonus to be granted for each 1% increase in affordable housing provided. As an example, Table F indicates the amount of density bonus to be granted for each 1% increase in low-income housing: An additional 2.5% density bonus (up to a maximum 35%) shall be granted for each 1% increase in very low-income units above the 5% minimum. An additional 1% density bonus (up to a maximum 35%) shall be granted for each 1 % TABLE F DENSITY BONUS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Percentage of Low-Income Units Provided (Minimum 10% required) Percentage of Density Bonus to be Granted (Additional 1 .5% density bonus for each 1% increase above the 10% minimum', GPA 05-14/ZCA 04-10LCPA 04-17 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT February 1,2006 Pane 10 The density bonus law prior to January 1, 2005 did not specify a maximum density bonus, only that a minimum density bonus of 25% (in most cases) must be granted. This left the granting of additional density bonuses up to each jurisdiction. The new law provides a specified maximum density bonus (35%), and specifies the amount of additional density bonus to be granted in exchange for more affordable housing. 4. One density bonus for proiects with multiple affordable unit types. SB 435 clarified that an applicant is only entitled to one density bonus, and must specify which density bonus they are seeking, when a project meets the affordability requirements for more than one income group (e.g., a project that provides 10% of the units affordable to low-income households, and another 5% affordable to very low-income households). 5. Additional density bonus for land donation. The new density bonus law also includes a new provision to grant a density bonus when a developer of a housing development donates land to the City for residential use. There is a list of criteria that the donated land must meet, including appropriate zoning, adequate size, and adequate public facilities, so as to accommodate the development of units affordable to very low- income households in an amount not less than 10% of the number of units in the proposed development. If the donated land meets all of the criteria then the City must grant a minimum 15% density bonus. Also, if the land can accommodate more than 10% of the number of units in the project, an additional 1% density bonus shall be granted for each 1% increase in units accommodated above 10% of the project units (up to a maximum of 35%). If the developer of the housing development also provides affordable housing that qualifies for the standard 20% density bonus, an additional density bonus for a land donation may be granted up to a combined maximum of 3 5%. 6. Incentives and concessions. Another change resulting from the new density bonus law pertains to the incentives and concessions the city must grant in addition to granting a density bonus. "Incentives and concessions" include reductions in development standards or other zoning requirements, mixed use zoning, and any other incentive that would result in cost reductions to enable the development of affordable housing. The old density bonus law specified that a jurisdiction must grant a density bonus and at least one concession or incentive. The new density bonus law still requires the granting of incentives - or concessions, but the law no longer specifies that "at least one" incentive or concession be -= provided. As of January 1,2005, any project that meets the minimum criteria for a density bonus is entitled to one incentive or concession (note: SB 435 clarifies that incentives and concessions are not required for projects that receive a density bonus for a land donation). If the project provides affordable housing that is twice or three times more than the minimum requirements,. the number of incentives or concessions to be granted increases up to a maximum of three incentives or concessions, as follows: a. One incentive or concession for projects that provide the minimum required affordable housing (i.e. 10% of the units affordable to lower-income households, or 5% of the units [ I GPA 05- 14fZCA 04- 1 OILCPA 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT February 1,2006 Pane 11 affordable to very low-income households, or 10% of the units in a common interest development affordable to moderate-income households). b. Two incentives or concessions for projects that provide at least double the minimum required affordable housing (i.e. 20% of the units affordable to lower-income households, or 10% of the units affordable to very low-income households, or 20% of the units in a common interest development affordable to moderate-income households). c. Three incentives or concessions for projects that provide at least triple the minimum required affordable housing (i.e. 30% of the units affordable to lower-income households, or 15% of the units affordable to very low-income households, or 30% of the units in a common interest development affordable to moderate-income households). As with the minimum required density bonus, the old law only specified the minimum number of incentives or concessions required to be granted, and left the granting of more incentives up to each jurisdiction. The new law now provides a formula and requirement to grant additional incentives or concessions when additional affordable housing is provided. 7. Continued affordability. The continued affordability requirements for lower- and very low-income units have not changed. Both the old and new density bonus law required that the city ensure that units restricted to lower- and very low-income households remain affordable to the designated income group for a minimum 30 years. The City's inclusionary housing regulations require rental units affordable to lower-income households to remain affordable for 55 years, and for-sale units to be affordable to lower-income households for 30 years. The new law's continued affordability requirements for moderate-income units in a common interest development have changed. The new law specifies that the city must ensure that the initial occupants of moderate-income units meet the income qualifications. However, upon resale the units may be sold at the current market value (unless the city provided a direct financial contribution to the housing development). The seller would retain the down payment, the value of any improvements, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The city would recapture its proportionate share of appreciation (unless in conflict with another funding source or law), and those funds must be used within three years to provide lower- or moderate- income housing. If the city provides a direct financial contribution to a housing development, moderate-income units would be required to remain affordable to moderate-income households for a minimum 30 years (pursuant to Government Code Section 65916). 8. Development standards. The new law defines "development standard" as site or construction conditions that apply to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, master or specific plan, or other city requirement, law, policy, resolution or regulation. The new law also specifies that the city may not impose a "development standard" that makes it infeasible to construct the housing development with the proposed density bonus, affordable units, and requested incentives or concessions. GPA 05- 14/ZCA 04-1 OILCPA 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDklCNT February 1,2006 Pane 12 A new parking standard was also established by the new law for density bonus projects. As of January 1, 2005, upon the request of the applicant, the parking ratio (inclusive of handicap and guest parking) for a housing development (entire housing development, not just the affordable units) meeting the density bonus affordability requirements shall not exceed the following: TABLE G I 4 or more bedrooms 2.5 spaces per unit NEW STATE LAW PARKING STANDARD FOR DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS If the applicant does not request the parking standard specified in Table G, the residential parking requirements specified in Chapter 21.44 of the Zoning Ordinance will apply to the project. The City's existing parking standards for residential development vary between single- family development, apartments, and condominiums, as follows: Dwelling Unit Size 0 to 1 bedroom 2 or 3 bedrooms On-Site Parking Ratio 1 space per unit 2 spaces per unit I [ 0 to 1 bedroom I 1.5 spaces per unit TABLE H CITY'S PARKING STANDARDS Development Type Single-family & Detached Condos Apartments Dwelling Unit Size All Condominiums (attached) The State's parking standard (compared to the City's) in most cases would be: a) less for units with 0 to 1 bedroom; b) the same for units with 2 or 3 bedrooms; and c) greater for units with 4 , or more bedrooms. Also, the State's parking standard does not require the spaces to be enclosed or covered, nor does it require additional spaces for guest parking. Parking Ratio 2 spaces per unit (garage) 2 + bedrooms Guest parking Guest parking -7- The new density bonus law also states that, in addition to the parking standards specified in Table D, an applicant may request other reductions or modifications to the City's parking standards as an incentive or concession to ensure that it is financially feasible to construct the affordable units. 2 spaces per unit .5 space per unit up to 10 units + .25 mace Der unit for each unit over 10 units. 0 bedrooms (studio) 1 + bedrooms .5 space per unit up to 10 units + .25 space per unit for each unit over 10 units. 9. Density bonus for housing developments with child care facilities. 1.5 spaces per unit (1 coveredlunit) 2 spaces per unit (1 space garage + 1 covered or uncovered mace) State density bonus law also requires an additional density bonus or incentive be granted if a housing development complies with the minimum affordability requirements, and includes a /- i GPA 05-14lZCA 04-1 O/LCPn 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDblfiNT February 1,2006 Page 13 child care facility. This requirement was added to State density bonus law through a previous amendment (AB 305 - effective January 1, 2004), and is now proposed to be added to the City's density bonus regulations. In summary, if a housing development meets the minimum requirement for affordable units, and includes a child care facility, the City must grant an additional density bonus (in an amount of residential square feet equal or greater to the amount of square feet in the child care facility), or an additional incentive that contributes to the economic feasibility of the child care facility. The child care facility must remain in operation as long as the units are required to remain affordable, and the percentage of children attending the facility who are from low-, very low-, or moderate- income households must equal the percentage of units required for the same income groups. Also, the City is not required to grant an additional density bonus or incentive for a child care facility if the City finds that there are adequate child care facilities in the city. 10. Other amendments to densitv bonus regulations. a. Definitions. Several definitions in the Density Bonus chapter of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be amended or added to be consistent with State density bonus law and the State's definitions for the various income groups. Most notably, the Density Bonus chapter definition for "maximum allowable residential yield" currently refers to the "growth management control point" as the maximum allowable density. However, State law defines "maximum allowable residential density" as the maximum density allowed by the density range applicable to the project. The "growth management control point" is not the maximum of the residential density ranges specified in the General Plan. Therefore, the definition is proposed to be amended to reference the ''maximum" density allowed by the applicable residential general plan designation. b. Conversion of apartments to condominiums. Government Code Section 65915.5 specifies requirements for granting a density bonus or incentive when a developer proposes to convert apartments to condominiums. This section of density bonus law was not amended as part of the most recent law amendments (SB 18 18 and SB 435). However, staff is proposing to modify new Section 21.86.060 (21.86.040 currently) of the density bonus regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to more accurately reflect the wording used in the Government Code. The requirements are not changing, but the wording and format is being modified for consistency with State law. c. Consistency with Inclusionary Housing requirements (Chapter 2 1.85) The following sections in the Density Bonus chapter- (21.86) are being modified for consistency with the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing chapter (21.85): Density Bonus Housing Agreement (current section number 21.86.100 - new section number 2 1.86.130). 0 Agreement Processing Fee (section number 2 1.86.140). r - GPA 05-1 4lZCA 04- 1 O/LCPn 04- 17 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDPVdNT February 1,2006 The following sections are proposed to be deleted from the density bonus regulations for consistency with the inclusionary housing regulations: 21.86.050 Combined Density Bonus Housing Projects (since affordable units provided to qualify for a density bonus no longer count toward the inclusionary requirements, this section is no longer necessary) 21 36.1 10 Density bonus resale agreements. 2 1.86.120 Eligibility requirements. 2 1.86.130 Management and monitoring. All of the sections listed above are not part of State density bonus law. They were originally added to the density bonus regulations when the inclusionary housing regulations were established. Although staff is recommending that the affordable units required for a density bonus no longer be counted toward meeting the inclusionary housing requirements, the requirements listed above (i.e. housing agreements and fees) should be consistent. In March 2000, the Inclusionary Housing chapter was amended, which included amendments and deletion of the sections in the Inclusionary Housing chapter that matched those noted above from the Density Bonus chapter. However, the Density Bonus chapter was not amended at that time. The proposed code amendment will ensure the sections listed above are consistent in both chapters (Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing). e. Application process and findings for approval. The section in the Density Bonus chapter specifying the application process is proposed to be reformatted for clarification. Also, per State law, the application process section is proposed to be amended to specify that a request for a density bonus does not require a discretionary approval, and shall be processed as part of the development applications for a housing development. A separate section is being added to specify findings required to grant a density bonus (in addition to those required for other permits associated with the project). The findings are as follows ("i" and "ii" are required per State density bonus law): i. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s) are necessary to make the project , eccmomically feasible and provide for affordable housing costs; . . 11. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will not result in an adverse impact to the public health and safety, the environment, or on any real property that is listed in the .- .-- California Register or Historical Resources, unless, there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households; . . . 111. In cases where an applicant requests to convert apartment units to condominiums, the condominium conversion project shall not result in a reduction in the affordable housing stock for lower-income groups, as of the most recent inventory. I GPA 05- 14/ZCA 04- 1 O/LCPw 04- 17 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDhLNT February 1,2006 Page 15- D. Amendment to the Inclusionary Housing Chapter Because the inclusionary housing and density bonus regulations are closely related it is important to ensure that the definitions and terminology between the two sets of regulations are not conflicting. For example, currently the inclusionary housing regulations define the term "incentive" differently than the density bonus regulations. In density bonus law, "incentives" is in part defined as a reduction in development standards or other zoning regulations that would result in project cost reductions to enable the provision of affordable housing. The inclusionary housing regulations define "incentives" as a reduction in the percentage of required affordable units in return for the provision of more desirable types of affordable housing. To ensure that there is no confusion about the meaning of the term "incentives" when applying the inclusionary housing and density bonus regulations to a project, staff is recommending the term "incentives" be replaced in the Inclusionary Housing chapter with the term "inclusionary credit." Minor amendments to other definitions in the Inclusionary Housing chapter are also proposed to ensure consistency with State law definitions and avoid conflicts with the density bonus regulations. E. General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program consistency. The purpose of the proposed General Plan, Zone Code and Local Coastal Program Amendments is to ensure consistency with State density bonus law and internal consistency between the density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations. The proposed amendments will not result in any inconsistencies with the policies of the General Plan, or other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program not being amended. The proposed amendment is consistent with General Plan Housing Element Goal 3 to provide housing to "groups with special needs, including low- and moderate-income households." The density bonus regulations provide incentives for developers to build housing for senior citizens, and housing affordable to lower-, very low-, and moderate-income households. Housing Element Program 3.7.a (Density Bonus), which is an implementing program for Goal 3, specifies that the City shall implement the density bonus regulations in Chapter 21.86 of the Zoning Ordinance, consistent with State density bonus law. The program also refers to the d density bonus requirements that were in effect prior to January 1, 2005 (i.e. minimum density bonus and affordable unit percentages). The program will be updated to reflect the new density bonus law requirements as part of the current Housing -Element Update. The proposed -- ..- . amendment to the density bonus regulations is consistent with the primary intent of the Housing Element program to implement State density bonus law. 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. I GPA 05- 14/ZCA 04-1 O/LCPw 04-1 7 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDkENT February 1,2006 Pane 16 - V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The initial study (EIA Part 11) prepared for this project did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration and Addendum have been prepared and are 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5878 (Negative Declaration) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6022 (GPA) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5879 (ZCA) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5880 (LCPA) 5. Strike-out and underline version of proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments STRIKE-OUTKJNDERLINE VERSION OF .*. ZCA 04-10ILCPA 04-17 -DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT '-- The list of sections in Chapter 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing) is proposed to be amended as follows: Sections: 21.85.010 21 .85.020 21.85.030 21.85.035 21.85.040 21.85.050 21.85.060 21.85.070 21.85.080 21.85.090 21.85.100 21.85.1 10 21.85.120 21.85.130 21.85.140 21.85.145 21.85.150 21.85.155 21.85.160 21.85.170 21.85.180 21.85.190 Purpose and intent. Definitions. Inclusionary housing requirement. New master plans or specific plans. Affordable housing standards. Calculating the required number of inclusionary units. ~Inclusionarv credit adjustment v. Alternatives to construction of inclusionary units. Combined inclusionary housing projects. Creation of inclusionary units not required. Offsets to the cost of affordable housing development. In-lieu fees. Collection of fees. Preliminary project application and review process. Affordable housing agreement as a condition of development. Agreement processing fee. Agreement amendments. Expiration of affordability tenure. Pre-existing approvals. Enforcement. Savings clause. Separability of provisions. Section 21.85.010.A.l (Inclusionaq Housing, Purpose and intent) is proposed to be amended as follows: 1. Require that a minimum of fifteen (1 5%) percent of all approved residential development be restricted to and affordable to lower-income households; subject to adjustment based on the granting of . . an inclusionarv credit; Section 21.85.020.C (Inclusionary Housing, Definitions) is proposed to be amended as follows: C. "Allowable housing expense" means the total monthly or annual recurring expenses . required of a household to obtain shelter. For a for-sale unit, allowable housing expenses include loan principal and interest at the time of initial purchase by the homebuyer, allowances for property and mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners association dues and a reasonable allowance for utilities as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations J24CFR982) 1 .- ... Rqyam. For a rental unit, allowable housing expenses include rent and a utility allowance as established and adopted by the city of Carlsbad housing authority, as well as all monthly payments made by the tenant to the lessor in connection with use and occupancy of a housing unit and land and facilities associated therewith, including any separately charged fee's, utility charges, or service charges assessed by the lessor and payable by the tenant. Section 21 A5.020.G (Inclusionary Housing, Definitions) is proposed to be amended as follows: G. "Density bonus . . " shall have the same mean in^ as defined in Chapter 21.86 of this title. 1- . . Section 21.85.020.H (Inclusionary Housing, Definitions) is proposed to be amended as follows: H. "Extremely low-income household" means those households whose gross income is equal to or less than thirty* (305%) percent of the median income for San Diego County as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. New Section 21 A5.020.K (Inclusionary Housing, Definitions) is proposed to be added as follows: K. "Incentives or concessions" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 21.86.020.A.7 of this title. Existing Section 21.85.020.K (Inclusionary Housing, Definitions) is proposed to be amended as follows, and all subsequent definitions re-alphabetized in alphabetical order: . "-Inclusionarv credit" means a reduction in the inclusionary housing requirement granted in return for the provision of certain desired types of affordable housing or related amenities as determined by the city council. Section 21.85.040.A (Inclusionary Housing, Affordable housing standards) is proposed to be amended as follows: A. All residential developments are subject to and must satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter, notwithstanding a developer's request to process a residential development under other program requirements, laws or regulations, including but not limited to Chapter 21.86 (Residential Density Bonus) of this code. If an applicant seeks to construct affordable housing to qualifv for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21.86 (Residential Density Bonus), those affordable dwell in^ units that qualify a residential development for a density bonus are in addition to, and do not count toward satisfying, the inclusionarv housing requirements of this chapter. Section 21.85.050 (Inclusionary Housing, Calculating the required number of inclusionary units) is proposed to be amended as follows: 21.85.050 Calculating the required number of inclusionary units. Subject to adjustments for kee&ke+an inclusionaw credit, the required number of lower- income inclusionary units shall be fifteen (15%) percent of the total residential units, approved by the -- ..- final decision-making authority. If the inclusionary units are to be provided within an offsite combined or other project, the required number of lower-income inclusionary units shall be fifteen (1 5%) percent of the total residential units to be provided both onsite andlor offsite. Subject to the maximum density allowed per the growth management control point or per specific authorization granted by the planning commission or city council, fractional units for both market rate and inclusionary units of .5 will be rounded up to a whole unit. If the rounding calculation results in a total residential unit count which exceeds the maximum allowed, neither the market rate nor the inclusionary unit count will be increased to the next whole number. Example 1: Total residential units = 15% Inclusionary units plus 85% Market rate units. If the final decision making authority approves 100 total residential units, then the Inclusionary requirement equals 15% of the "Total" or 15 units (1 00 x .15 = 15). The allowable market rate units would be 85% of the "Total" or 85 units. Example 2: If the inclusionary units are to be provided offsite, the total number of inclusionary units shall be calculated according to the total number of market rate units approved by the final decision- making authority. If 100 market rate units are approved, then this total is divided by .85 which provides a total residential unit count (100 + .85 = 117). The 15% requirement is applied to this "Total" (1 17 units) which equals the inclusionary unit requirement (1 17 x .15 = 17.6 units). Section 21.85.060 (Inclusionary Housing, Incentive credit adjustment to the inclusionary requirement) is proposed to be amended as follows: 21.85.060 ~Inclusionaw credit adjustment v. Certain types of affordable housing are relatively more desirable in satisfying the city's state- mandated affordable housing requirement as well as the city's housing element goals, objectives and policies, and these may change over time. -To assist the city in providing this housing, developers may receive additional (more than one unit) credit for each of such units provided, thereby reducing the total inclusionary housing requirement to less than fifteen (15%) percent of all residential units approved. A schedule of inclusionary housing iwm&w credit specifying how credit may be earned shall be adopted by the city council and made available to developers subject to this chapter. Section 21.85.100 (Inclusionary Housing, Offsets to the cost of affordable housing development) is proposed to be amended as follows: 21.85.100 Offsets to the cost of affordable housing development. The city shall consider making offsets available to developers when necessary to enable residential projects to provide a preferable product type or affordability in excess of the requirements of this chapter. Offsets will be offered by the city to the extent that resources and programs for this purpose are available to the city and approved for such use by the city council, and to the extent that the residential development, with the use of offsets, assists in achieving the city's housing goals. To the degree that the city makes available programs to provide offsets, developers may make application for such programs. Evaluation of requests for offsets shall be based on the effectiveness of the offsets in achieving a preferable product type andlor affordability objectives as set forth within the housing element; the capability of the development team; the reasonableness of development costs and justification of subsidy needs; and the extent to which other resources are used to leverage the requested offsets. Nothing in this chapter establishes, directly or through implication, a right to receive any offsets from the city or any , other party'or agency to enable the developer to meet the obligations established by this chapter. Pwjeds . . Any offsets approved by the city council and the housing affordability to be achieved by use of those offsets shall be set out within the affordable housing - -- agreement pursuant to Section 21.85.140 or, at the city's discretion in a subsequent document. Furthermore, developers are encouraged to utilize local, state or federal assistance, when available, to meet the affordability standards set forth in Sections 21.85.030 and 21.85.040. Section 21.85.130.B (Inclusionary Housing, Preliminary project application and review process) is proposed to be amended as follows: B. Within thirty days of receipt of the preliminary application by the planning director for projects not requesting offsets or iffeeRtive inclusionarv credit adjustments, or ninety days for projects requesting offsets or iiwe&ke inclusionarv credit adjustments the department shall provide to an applicant, a letter which identifies project issues of concern, the offsets and kwi&ve inclusionarv credit adjustments that the community development director can support when making a recommendation to the final decision-making authority, and the procedures for compliance with this chapter. The applicant shall also be provided with a copy of this chapter and related policies, the pertinent sections of the California codes to which reference is made in this chapter and all required application forms. -- -- a Section 21.85.140.A (Inclusionary Housing, Affordable housing agreement as a condition of development) is proposed to be amended as follows: A. Developers subject to this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with this chapter by executing an affordable housing agreement prepared by the city housing and redevelopment director and submitted to the developer for execution. Agreements which conform to the requirements of this section and which do not involve requests for offsets and/or iiwe&w an inclusionarv credit, other than those permitted by right, if any, shall be reviewed by the affordable housing policy team and approved by the community development director or his designee. Agreements which involve requests for offsets and/or ime&ks an inclusionarv credit, other than those permitted by right, shall require the recommendation of the housing commission and action by the city council as the final decision-maker. Following the approval and execution by all parties, the affordable housing agreement with approved site development plan shall be recorded against the entire development, including market-rate lots/units and the relevant terms and conditions therefrom filed and subsequently recorded as a separate deed restriction or regulatory agreement on the affordable project individual lots or units of property which are designated for the location of affordable units. The approval and execution of the affordable housing agreement shall take place prior to final map approval and shall be recorded upon final map recordation or, where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for such lots/units. The affordable housing agreement may require that more specific project and/or unit restrictions be recorded at a future time. The affordable housing agreement shall bind all future owners and successors in interest for the term of years specified therein. a Section 21.85.140.B.l (Inclusionary Housing, Affordable housing agreement as a condition of development) is proposed to be amended as follows: 1. The number of inclusionary dwelling units proposed, with specific calculations detailing the application of any keea+ke inclusionarv credit adjustment 4; a Chapter 21.86 (Residential Density Bonus or In-Lieu Incentive) is proposed to be amended as follows: Chapter 2 1.86 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS AND CXHSbEU INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS Sections: 21.86.010 Purpose and intent. 21.86.020 Definitions. 21.86.030 Inclusionarv housing. 21.86.0340 0 Density bonus for housin~ developments. 21.86.050 Incentives and concessions for housing developments. 2 1.86.060 Waiver or reduction of development standards. 2 1.86.0410 Density bonus and incentives 4kgA&e~ for condominium conversions. 21.86.080 Housin~ developments with child day care centers. 2 1.86.0790 Density bonus housing standards. 21.86.88NO . . Affordability tenure. - 21.86.WZO 0 ... gplication ad+&ew process. 21.86.120 Findinps for approval. 21.86.1820 . . h&s&-&dgensity bonus housing agreement ff :: n_-. 21.86.140 . . Agreement processing fee. 21.86.150 Separability of provisions. 21.86.010 Purpose and intent. A. The public good is served when there exists in a city, housing which is appropriate for the needs of and affordable to all members of the public who reside within that city. Among other needs, there is in Carlsbad a need for housing affordable to lower-income households and senior citizens. Therefore, it is in the public interest for the city to promote the construction of such additional housing through the exercise of.its powers and the utilization of its resources. @+&It is the purpose of this chapter to provide a means for grant in^ density bonuses and incentives or concessions to developers for the production of housing affordable to lower-akseiiw hew&i&& moderate-income households, and senior citizens. @Lit is the purpose of this chapter to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the housing element of the city's general plan. WLIt is the purpose of this chapter to implement Sections 65915 through 65917 of the California Government Code. (t$ LNothing in this chapter is intended to create a mandatory duty on behalf of the city or its employees under the Government Tort Claims Act and no cause of action against the city or its employees is created by this chapter that would not arise independently of the provisions of this chapter. F. Nothinp in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act. 21.86.020 Definitions. A. Whenever the folIowing terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: @LVAffordable housing -" means housing for which the allowable housing expenses paid by a qualifying household shall not exceed a specified fraction of the countv median income, adjusted for household size, 3 as follows: a. Extremely low-income, rental and for-sale units: the product of 30% times 30% of the countv median income, adiusted for household size. (AjLVery low-income, rental and for-sale units: - -- the product of 30% times 50% of the countv median income, adiusted for household size. @jc.Low-income, rental units: &&ypw& cf +: . . the product of 30% times 60% of the countv median income, adiusted for household size. - - OLLow-income, for-sale units: > .._ . the product of 30% times 70% of the countv median income, adiusted for household size. W~Moderate-income, for-sale units: cf . . a allowable housing expenses shall not be less than 28% of the moss income of the household, nor exceed the product of 35% times 110% of the countv median income, adiusted for household size. &2."Allowable housing expense" means the total monthly or annual recurring expenses required of a household to obtain shelter. For a for-sale unit, allowable housing expenses include loan principal+a~? dinterest at the time of initial purchase by the homebuyer, allowances for property and mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners association dues and a reasonable allowance for utilities as defined by the Code of Federal Re~ulations (24CFR982). For a rental unit, allowable . . . housing expenses include rent and a utilitv allowance as established and adopted by the city of Carlsbad housing authoritv, as well as all monthly payments made by the tenant to the lessor in connection with use and occupancy of a housing unit and land and facilities associated therewith, includinp anv separately charged fees, utility char~es, or service char~es assessed by the lessor and payable by the tenant. 3. "Child day care center" shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 21.83.020.D of this title. (4) try U 4. "Common interest development" means any of the followinp (as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code): a. A communitv apartment proiect. b. A condominium proiect. c. A planned development. d. A stock cooperative. (53: "Conversion" means the change of occupancy of a dwelling unit from owner-occupied to rental or vice versa. w w . . . 11 . . . . . . -LNDensity bonus means . . . . ,I,,,r.rmnf,nn an increase over the maximum allowable residential density as specified by the land use element of the penera1 plan, -in effect at the time of application submittal. @LtDensity bonus dwelling units" means those residential units granted pursuant to the , provisions of this chapter, which are above the maximum allowable residential densitv pld-of the project site. ecUDensity bonus housing agreement" means a legally binding agreement between a developer and the city to ensure that the density bonus requirements of this chapter are satisfied. The -- -- agreement establishes, among other thin~~, the number of target dwelling units and density bonus dwelling units, the unit sizes, location, affordability tenure, terms and conditions of affordability and unit production schedule. 9. "Development standard" means site or construction conditions/requirements that apply to a housing development pursuant to any ordinance, peneral plan element, master or specific plan, or other city reauirement, law, policv, resolution or regulation. 10. "Extremely low-income household" means those households whose pross income is equal to or less than 30% of the median income for San Diepo County as determined annually bv - the U.S. Department of Housin~ and Urban Development. w&"Housing development" means one or more groups of projects for residential units, . . consistinp of the following: cr a. The construction of 5 or more residential units; or b. A subdivision or common interest development consisting of 5 or more residential units or unimproved lots; or c. A proiect to either substantiallv rehabilitate and convert an exist in^ commercial build in^ to residential use, or substantially rehabilitate an exist in^ two-family or multiple-family dwelling structure(s), where the result of rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. wK"1ncentives or concessions'' means such regulatory incentives or concessions as stipulated in State Government Code Section 65915(kU, to include, but not be limited to, the reduction of site development standards or zone code requirements, approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project, or any other regulatory incentive which would result in identifiable, financiallv sufficient, and actual cost reductions to enable the provision of housing affordable to the designated . . income group or qualified (senior) resident.) ~_I'Incomel' means any monetary benefits that W qualifv as income in accordance with the criteria and procedures used by the city of Carlsbad housing and redevelopment department for the acceptance of applications and recertifications for the Se&&A Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, or its successor. ~~tLow-income household" means those households whose gross income is more than &%y pewe& 50% but does not exceed - 80% of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. WC'Lower-income household" means low-income, &very low-income and extremelv low-income households, whose gross income does not exceed 80% of the stfett median income for San Diepo Countv as determined annually bv the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. @+&''Market-rate unit" means a dwelling unit where the rental rate or sales price is not restricted either by this chapter or by requirements imposed through other local, state, or federal affordable housing programs. maximum allowable residential density yd&' means the maximum density of the density range allowed by the residential general plan desi~nation(s) applicable to a project site. -- - wW1Moderate-income household" means those households whose gross income is more than e@+pww& - 80% but does not exceed 120°/0 of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. w&"Qualifying resident" means a resident as defined in Chapter 21.84 of this title and Section 5 1.2 of the California Civil Code. - - 0X"Target dwelling unit" means a dwelling unit that will be offered for rent or sale exclusively to and which shall be affordable to the designated income group or qualified (senior) resident, as required by this chapter. 21. "Total units" means the number of dwell in^ units in a housinp development, . excluding the density bonus dwellinp units. -=Very law-income household" means a household earning a gross income equal to &%y piwet 50% or less of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 21.86.030 Inclusionarv housing. All housing development projects are required to provide affordable housinp units A. in accordance with chapter 21.85 (Inclusionarv Housind. If an applicant seeks to construct affordable housing to uualifv for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, those affordable dwell in^ units that uualifv a housin~ development for a density bonus are in addition to, and do not count toward satisfving the Inclusionar~ Housinp requirements of chapter 21.85. 21.86.034_0 ODensitv bonus for housinp developments. @LThe eky decision-making bodv shall grant -density bonus, as specified in Section 21.86.040.B, and . . incentives or concessions, as set forth in Section 21.86.0650@, @ . . - when an applicant ei+wdqw of a housing development of at least fwe-2 units- seeks and agrees to construct at least any one of the following: #LA minimum of 10% of the total units of the housing development as restricted and affordable to lower-income households; or @LA minimum of &+pxemt 5% of the total units of the housing development as restricted and affordable to very low-income households; or . . /YLL A senior citizen housin~ development as defined in Section 21.84.030.A.7 of this title and Section 51.3 of the California Civil Code, or mobilehome park that limits residencv based on ape requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the California Civil Code; or 4. A minimum of 10% of the total units in a common interest development restricted and affordable to moderate-income households, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. (c: T . . -- -- B. When an applicant seeks and agrees to construct a housinp development meeting the criteria specified in Section 21.86.040.A, the decision-makinp bodv shall grant a density bonus subiect to the following: 1. The amount of density bonus to which a housing development is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housin~ units exceeds the percentages established in Section 21.86.040.A. as follows: a. For housinp developments meet in^ the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.1, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: b. For housinp developments meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.2, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage of Low-Income Units {Minimum 10% required) 10 TABLE B DENSITY BONUS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNITS AFFORDABLE TO VERY Percentape of Densitv Bonus to be Granted {Additional 1.5% den'sity bonus for each 1% increase above the 10% minimum) 20 LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS I Percentage of Verv Low-Income Units Percentage of Density Bonus to be Granted For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.3, the density c. - - bonus shall be 20%. d. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A.4, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: TABLE C DENSITY BONUS FOR COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNITS AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS 2. The amount of density bonus to which a housinp development is entitled shall not exceed 3S0/0. 3. The applicant may elect to accept a lesser percentaee of density bonus than specified in Section 21.86.040.B. 4. If a housinp development includes a combination of target dwell in^ unit types that meet two or more of the criteria specified in Section 21.86.040.A, the applicant shall elect one applicable density bonus. C. When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other housing development approval donates land to the city, as provided for in this subsection, the applicant shall be entitled to a density bonus for the entire development. as follows: 1. A density bonus wanted pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed 35%. 2. If an applicant seeks both the densitv bonus required pursuant to this subsection and Section 21.86.040.A, both densitv bonuses shall be pranted up to a maximum combined densitv bonus of 35%. 3. An applicant shall be eli~ible for the densitv bonus described in this subsection onlv if all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is donated and transferred to the city no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or housing development application. The developable acreage, zoning classification and general plan land use designation b. of the land being donated are sufficient to permit construction of the units affordable to very low- income households in an amount not less than 10% of the number of residential units of the proposed development. c. The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate zoning classification and general plan land use , designation, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure. d. The land shall have appropriate zoninp and development standards to make the development of the affordable units feasible. e. No later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or -- .- housing development, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than build in^ permits, necessary for the development of the verv low-income housin~ units on the transferred land, except that the citv mav subiect the proposed development to subsequent desipn review to the extent authorized bv subdivision li) of Section 65583.2 of the California Government Code if the desipn is not reviewed by the city prior to the time of transfer. TABLE D DENSITY BONUS FOR LAND DONATION Percentape of Very Low-Income Units 10 Percentage of Density Bonus to be Granted 15 f. The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with Section 21.86.100, which shall be recorded on the property at the time of dedication. 25 The land is transferred to the city or to a housing developer approved by the city. The city may require the applicant to identifv and transfer the land to the developer. h. The transferred land shall be within the boundarv of the proposed development or, if the city agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. @LIn cases where an applicant requests a density-kmws+bonus of more than what is specified in this section, the city council may grant the requested additional density bonus, subject . . . . -- 1. The proiect meets the requirements of this chapter. 2. The additional densitv bonus shall be considered an incentive, in accordance with Section 21.86.050 of this chapter. 3. The city council may require some portion of the additional density bonus units to be designated as target dwelling: units. G. The city council may grant a proportionately lower density bonus than what is specified by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this chapter. H. The density bonus dwelling units granted pursuant to this chapter shall not be included when determining the number of housinp units required by this chapter to be reserved for income restricted households. I. When calculating the density bonus, or the required number of target dwelling units, any calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole unit. J. For the purposes of calculating a density bonus, the residential units in a housing development do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. K. The density bonus units shall be permitted in geo~raphic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for lower-income households are located. @L. A density bonus housing agreement shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits (i.e., tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments, condominium permits, site , development plans and redevelopment permits) for all housing developments that request a density bonus .. . and ad&km&incentives or concessions. The relevant terms and conditions of the density bonus housing agreement shall be filed and recorded as a deed restriction on those individual lots or units of a project development which are designated for the location of target dwelling units. The - - density bonus housing agreement shall be consistent with Section 21.86.1030 of this chapter. Incentives and concessions for housing developments. 21.86.050 When an applicant requests a density .bonus pursuant to Section 21.86.040.A. the A. decision-making body shall grant incentives or concessions, subiect to the following: An applicant shall submit a proposal for any specific incentives or concessions 1. requested pursuant to this section. 2. The decision-makinp body shall grant the incentivels) or concession(s) requested by the applicant unless, based upon substantial evidence. either of the following findings are made in writing: a. The incentive or concession is not required in order to provide for affordable housing as defined in Section 21.86.020.A.l. b. The incentive or concession would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Resister of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. As used in this parapraph, and as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the California Government Code, a "specific, adverse impact" means a si~nificant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on obiective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 3. The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions: a. One incentive or concession for proiects that include at least 10% of the total units for lower-income households, at least 5% for very low-income households, or at least 10% for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. b. Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20% of the total units for lower-income households, at least 10% for very low-income households, or at least 20% for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. c. Three incentives or concessions for proiects that include at least 30% of the total units for lower-income households, at least 15% for very low-income households, or at least 30% for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. 4. An incentive or concession may include any of the followinp: a. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements (excluding State Building Standards), that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. A reduction/modification to standards or requirements may include, but is not limited to, a reduction in minimum lot size, setback requirements, and/or in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required. b. Approval of mixed use zoninp in coniunction with the housing development if i) commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development; and ii) the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing development and the existing or planned future development in the area where the proposed proiect will be located. c. Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. d. The city council may, but is not required to, provide direct financial incentives, including the provision of publicly owned land, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 5. The applicant shall show that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. , 21.86.060 Waiver or reduction of development standards. A. In addition to the incentives or concessions permitted bv Section 21.86.050, an applicant may seek a waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of -. -- precludinp the construction of a housing development meet in^ the criteria of Section 21.86.040.A at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Chapter. 1. The applicant shall show that the requested waiver or reduction of development standards is necessarv to make the housing units economically feasible. 2. The applicant shall vrovide evidence that the development standard($ requested to be waived or reduced will have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Chapter; and B. The decision-making body shall grant the requested waiver or reduction of development standards, unless, based upon substantial evidence, any of the follow in^ findin~s are made in writing: .- 1. The waiver or reduction of development standards is not necessary to make the housin~ units economicallv feasible. 2. The development standardh) requested to be waived or reduced will not have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Chapter. 3. The requested waiver or reduction of development standards would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitipate or avoid the specific adverse impact. As used in this subsection, and as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the California Government Code, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 2 1.86.0470 Density bonus and incentives l&g&&ww for condominium conversions. @A. When an applicant proposes to convert apartments to condominiums, Tthe ei& decision-making body shall grant either a densitv bonus or iff-liett other incentives of equivalent financial value. as set forth in Section 21.86.0450.A.W. . . -if the applicant agrees to provide the following: WLA minimum of 33% of the total units of the proposed condominium conversion project as restricted and affordable to low-income or moderate-income households; or 02.A minimum of 15% of the total units of the proposed condominium conversion proiect a as restricted and affordable to lower-income households. B. For purposes of this section "density bonus" means an increase in units of 25% over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion. C. For purposes of this section, "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require the city to provide monetary compensation, but may include the waiver or reduction of requirements that mipht otherwise apply to the proposed condominium conversion project. D. The density bonus dwellinp units shall not be included when determinin~ the number of housing units required to be reserved for income restricted households. E. When calculating the density bonus, or the required number of target dwelling units, any calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole unit. F. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that the city approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. WLAn applicant/developer proposing to convert apartments to condominiums shall be ineligible for a density bonus or k4-k~ other incentives under this section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or iff-liett other incentives were pwwetdy provided under Sections 21.86.040 and 21.86.050 ths&a@w. .... f4H. A density bonus housing agreement shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits (tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments and condominium permits) for all condominium conversion proposals that request a density bonus or k4-k~ other incentives. The relevant terms and conditions of the density bonus housing agreement shall be filed and recorded as a deed restriction on those individual lots or units of a project development which are designated for the location of target dwelling units. The density bonus housing agreement shall be consistent with Section 21.86.1030 of this chapter. 2 1.86.080 Housing developments with child day care centers. A. When an a~plicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of Section 21.86.040.A, and includes a child day care center that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adiacent to, the proiect, the following provisions shall applv: 1. The decision-ma kin^ body shall grant either of the following: a. An additional densitv bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child day care center; or b. An additional incentive or concession that contributes sipnificantly to the economic feasibilitv of the construction of the child day care center. 2. The decision-making body shall require, as a condition of approval of the housing development, that the following occur: a. The child day care center shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as lonp as or lonper than the period of time durinp which the tarpet dwelling units are required to remain affordable, pursuant to Section 21.86.100; and b. Of the children who attend the child dav care center, the children of very low-, lower-, or moderate-income households shall equal a percentape that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwellinp units that are required for very low-, lower-, or moderate-income households pursuant to Section 21.86.040.A. 3. Notwithstanding any requirement of this section, the decision-making bodv shall not be required to provide an additional densitv bonus, incentive or concession for a child day care center if it finds, based on substantial evidence, that the communitv has an adequate number of child day care centers. 2 1.86.0790 Density bonus housing standards. WkRequired target dwelling units s-hwld shall be constructed concurrent with market rate dwelling units unless both the final decision-making authority of the city and the developer/applicant agree within the density bonus housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (2: TT (3) . . -@B. Whenever feasible, Tiarget dwelling units and density bonus dwelling units should be built on-site {within the boundary of the proposed development) and, whenever reasonably possible, be distributed throughout the project site. @C. Whenever feasible, Tjarget dwelling units should be located on sites that are in proximity to, or will provide access to, employment opportunities, urban services, or major roads or other , transportation and commuter rail facilities (i.e., freeways, bus lines) and that are compatible with adjacent land uses. @D. Whenever feasible, target dwelling units should im4de-a -vary in size and* number of bedrooms>, in response to affordable housing - - demand priorities of the city-, HE. Density bonus projects shall comply with all applicable development standards, except those which may be modified as an a.dd&m4 incentive or concession, or as otherwise provided for in , . this chapter n. * In addition, all units must conform to the requirements of the applicable building and housing codes. The design of the target dwelling units shall be reasonably consistent or compatible with the design of the total project development in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality. @,_No building permit shall be issued, nor any development approval granted, for a development which does not meet the requirements of this chapter. No target dwelling unit shall be rented or sold except in accordance with this chapter. G. Upon the request of the applicant, the parkine ratio (inclusive of handicap and guest parking) for a housing development that conforms to the requirements of Section 21.86.040.A shall not exceed the ratios specified in Table E, below. If the applicant does not request the parking ratios specified in Table E or the proiect does not conform to the requirements of Section 21.86.040.A, the parking standards specified in Chapter 21.44 shall apply. 1. If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. 2. For purposes of this section, a housing development may provide "on-site" parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. 3. The applicant may request additional parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this section, subiect to the findings specified in Section 21.86.050.A.2. TABLE E . . .. PARKING RATIO FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 21.86.88aO . . - ffordability tenure. A. All low- and very low-income dwelling units that qualified the housing proiect for a density bonus shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated group for a period of at least 30 years, or a longer period of time if rewired by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. B. All moderate-income dwelling units directly related to the receipt of a density bonus for a common interest development shall be subiect to the following: 1. The initial occupant(s) of the target dwelling unit(s) shall be persons and families of moderate-income, and the units shall be offered at an affordable housing cost that does not exceed the allowable housing expenses for a moderate-income household. 2. Unless in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law, the target dwelling unit(s) shall be subject to an equity sharing agreement that specifies: a. Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. b. Upon resale, the city shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall then be used within 3 years for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote homeownership. I. For the purposes of this subsection, the city's initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate- income household, plus the amount of any down payment assistance or mort~age assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value. - ii. For the purposes of this subsection, the city's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. 3. If the city provides a direct financial contribution to a common interest development through participation in cost of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of construction, the target dwelling unit(s) shall remain affordable to the designated income group for at least 30 years. Dwelling Unit Size 0-1 bedrooms 2-3 bedrooms 4 or more bedrooms On-Site Parkin? Ratio 1 space per unit 2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per unit C. For rental proiects, the city or its designee shall have a one-time first right of refusal to purchase any project containing affordable units offered for sale at the end of the minimum tenure of affordability. The first right of refusal to purchase the rental proiect shall be submitted in writinp to the housinp and redevelopment director. Within 90 days of its receipt, the city shall indicate its intent to exercise the first right of refusal for the purpose of providing affordable - housing. 21.86.89GO 0 ... bplication itff.keuiew-process. A. The ~rantinp of a density bonus, incentive or concession, pursuant to this chapter, shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to reauire a general plan amendment, zone code amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zone change, or other discretionary approval. B. Preliminary Application. A preliminary application may be submitted prior to the submittal of any formal development application for a housing proiect that includes a request for a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s). The preliminaw application should include the following information: 1. A brief description of the proposal including the number of target dwelling units and density bonus units ~roposed; 2. The zoning, general plan designations and assessors parcel number(s) of the proiect site; 3. A site plan, drawn to scale, which includes: building footprints, driveway and parking layout, existing contours and proposed grading; and 4. A letter identifying what specific density bonus, incentives or concessions (e.g., -- -A standards modifications, additional density bonus, or fee waiver, etc.) are being requested of the 5. The planninp department shall provide to an applicant/developer, a letter that identifies project issues of concern and the procedures for compliance with this chapter. @C. Formal application. A request for a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s), pursuant to this chapter, does not require a discretionary approval. The request shall be processed as part of the development applications for a housing development, as otherwise reauired in other sections of this code (e.~., site development plan, tentative map. parcel map, planned unit development, conditional use permit, redevelopment permit, etc.). + (2) L\X . . 1. If the proiect in"o1ves a request for direct financial incintives from-the c&, then any action by the planninp commission on the application shall be advisory only, and the city council shall have the authority to make the final decision on any discretionary permits related to the proiect. . . . . (+2.+3&&%& - The following information shall be included with the development application(s) required for the proiect: -- -- ~LA legal description of the total site proposed for development of the target dwelling units including a statement of present ownership and present and proposed zoning; @)LA letter signed by the present owner stating what specific density bonus, incentives, if % or concessions (e.g., standards modifications, additional density bonus, or fee waiver, etc.) are being requested from the city; detailed vicinity map showing the project location and such details as the location of the nearest commercial retail, transit stop, potential employment locations, park or recreation facilities or other social or community service facilities; WLSite plans, designating the total number of units proposed on the site, including the number and location of target dwelling units and density bonus dwelling units, and supporting plans per the application submittal requirements; (5j~In the case of a request for any incentjve(s) or concessionfs), a pro forma for the proposed project to justiQ the request, in accordance with the provisions of section 21.86.050; f. In the case of a request for a waiver or reduction of development standards, pursuant to section 21.86.060, a pro forma for the proposed proiect showinp that the waiver or reduction is necessary to make the housin~ units economically feasible, and evidence that the development standard being waived or reduced will have the effect of precludinp the construction of the development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. @g.In the case of a condominium conversion request, a report documenting the following information for each unit proposed to be converted: i. the monthly income of tenants of each unit throughout the prior year, and ii. the monthly rent for each unit throughout the prior year, and iii. vacancy information for each unit throughout the prior year. 21.86.120 Findings for approval. A. When a proiect involves a request for a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s), the following findinps shall be made as part of the approval of the development application(s) required for the proiect: 1. The proiect is consistent with the provisions of this chapter. 2. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable, financially -. . -- sufficient. and actual cost reductions; 3. In cases where an applicant requests a waiver or reduction of development standards, pursuant to section 21.86.060, the requested waiver or reduction of development standard(s) is necessarv to make the housing units economically feasible. 4. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s), and/or waiver(s) or reductionfs) of development standards, if any, will not result in an adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the California Government Code, to the public health and safety, the enviroGment, or on anv real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or, if the request will result in an adverse impact, then the request may be approved if the following finding is made: a. Tbere is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitipate or avoid the specific adverse impact. -- 5. In cases where an applicant requests to convert apartment units to condominiums, the condominium conversion proiect shall not result in a reduction in the affordable housing stock for lower-income groups, as of the most recent inventory. 21.86.1830 . . kA&eiwMDensity bonus housing agreement w. . . @A. ~~~licants/de~lo~ers, requesting a density bonus, ad&xm&incentives or i&im kei&ws concessions pursuant to this chapter, shall demonstrate compliance with this chapter by executing a density bonus housing agreement prepared bv the city housing and redevelopment director and submitted to the developer for signature. B. Densitv bonus housinp agreements for proiects involvinp a request for direct financial incentives from the city shall be subiect to city council approval; otherwise, the aheement 4- wF-=+ C. Following the approval and the signing by all parties, the completed density bonus housing agreement, with approved site development plan, shall be recorded against the entire development, including market-rate lotslunits; and the relevant terms and conditions therefrom filed and recorded as a deed restriction orre~ulatorv agreement on those individual lots or units of a property which are designated for the location of target dwelling units. D. The approval and iwe&&m sigg apreement shall take place prior to final map approval, and the agreement shall be recorded concurrent with the final map recordation or, where a map is not being processed, prior to issuance of building permits for such lots or units. E. The density bonus housing agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest. @LA density bonus housing agreement for a housing development or condominium conversion proiect processed pursuant to this chapter shall include- not be limited to, the following: HLThe number of density bonus dwelling units granted; (2jLThe number and type (e.g., restricted to lower- or moderate-income households) of target dwelling units proposed; BLThe unit size(s) (square footage) of target dwelling units and the number of bedrooms per target dwelling unit; , WLThe proposed location of the target dwelling units; f 5: (6+5;__Schedule for production of target dwelling units; RLIncentives "-r",, or concessions provided by the city; -- .- (8jLWhere applicable, tenure and conditions governing the initial sale of for-sale target units; and fs)LWhere applicable, tenure and conditions establishing rules and procedures for qualifying tenants, setting rental rates, filling vacancies, and operating and maintaining units for rental target dwelling units. 9. Where applicable, requirements for other documents to be approved by the city, such as marketing, leas in^ and manapement plans; financial assistancefloan documents; resale apreements: and monitor in^ and compliance plans. (7: inn . . 21.86.140 . . Agreement processing fee. D. -- - A. The citv council may establish bv resolution, fees to be paid by the applicant to defrav the city's cost of preparinp and/or reviewing all density bonus housin~ agreements. 21.86.150 Separability of provisions. A. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Planning Commission Minutes February 1,2006 DRAFT FF&~~~ 4. GPA 05-14KCA 04-10ILCPA 04-17 - DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT - Request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the term "density bonus program" in the General Plan, and amend the density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 6591 7. Mr. Neu introduced ltem 4 and stated Associate Planner Jennifer Jesser would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on ltem 4. Ms. Jesser gave a detailed presentation on the project and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of staff. Chairperson Montgomery asked if Staff ever considered applying the new state density bonus law only to the additional amount of units (density bonus units) asked for by a developer. Ms. Jesser stated that the law actually says that bonus units that are granted pursuant to a state density bonus cannot be included in any calculations to determine how many units are required to be affordable. The 15% affordability requirement in the lnclusionary Ordinance and the state's percentage of required affordable housing cannot be applied to those bonus units. They are not subject to the affordability requirements. Commissioner Whitton inquired if the City has the ability to negotiate a density increase under the lnclusionary Housing Program up to what a developer may want. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Through the lnclusionary Ordinance, a developer does not need to request a state density bonus. The City has the ability to negotiate and grant density increases and there is no specified maximum. Commissioner Baker stated that previously the City used the Growth Control Point which is being changed to using the maximum allowable density to determine the density bonus. Ms. Jesser stated the reason the City is changing the ordinance is to be consistent with what state law now reads. Commissioner Baker asked if the number used now would be the top of the range. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Commissioner Baker further asked if there was a maximum density bonus. Ms. Jesser stated it is 35% under the Density Bonus Law above the range of the land use designation. Chairperson Montgomery asked if a developer could request any additional density bonus under the City's lnclusionary Ordinance. Ms. Jesser stated the lnclusionary Ordinance does not have a maximum density increase that the City is limited to. Commissioner Segall asked what the impetus was for the state creating this law. Ms. Jesser stated the fundamental purpose of the law is to encourage developers to build affordable housing and not many cities have inclusionary ordinances. The law is a tool that cities can use to help developers build affordable housing. The most recent amendments were done in an effort to make it more feasible for developers to build affordable housing by granting more concessions and incentives. Commissioner Segall stated that the law reads that "...if a developer seeks and agrees ..." so it technically does not become effective until then. Ms. Jesser stated that many jurisdictions have interpreted the term "seeks and agreesn to mean that a developer is volunteering to provide affordable housing. The state confirmed this interpretation with their analysis of the most recent amendments. The state's density bonus program is voluntary whereas an lnclusionary Ordinance is mandatory. If a developer wants to volunteer to provide additional housing per state law, the developer would be eligible for a bonus but the two are not connected. Commissioner Segall asked if Ms. Jesser believes there would be any developers to volunteer to do this. Ms. Jesser stated she does not believe there will be an increase in requests over what has been requested in the past, which is one or two. Commissioner Segall stated that applicants would then follow the City's lnclusionary Ordinance rather than request a state density bonus. He asked why the City has to go through all this for something that is voluntary and might not get used. Ms. Jesser stated the City is required under state law to adopt an ordinance which implements this state law. Planning Commission Minutes February 1,2006 Page 8 Chairperson Montgomery described a scenario of a project with 100 units, where 15% are required to be affordable to meet Inclusionary, and if density bonus law is invoked then the developer would get another 20 units above the base 100 units, but an additional 10% of the base units would be required to be affordable, which would be another 10 units. The City is saying in that scenario to get the additional 20 density bonus units an additional 10 units would have to be affordable, so it doesn't seem like a benefit to the developer that essentially half of the bonus units would have to be affordable. It seems the developer would have to make up the cost of providing affordable housing and would probably just say it does not work and would not invoke density bonus law because they cannot afford half of the bonus units to be affordable. Ms. Jesser stated that that is an argument that many developers have, which is that many lnclusionary Ordinances do not offer enough incentives to make it feasible to provide the affordable housing. However, as Staff is proposing this amendment, an applicant does not have to request a state density bonus, they will not be required to provide that additional affordable housing. The City does negotiate with developers and provide density increases or other offsets to make it more feasible to provide affordable housing under the City's lnclusionary Ordinance without the need to invoke the state density bonus law. Chairperson Montgomery stated the real difference is that the development community probably wants the guarantee of a density bonus rather than the ability to negotiate with the City on what that density bonus is and what additional inclusionary housing requirements are. Ms. Jesser stated there is no guarantee under the City's lnclusionary Ordinance. Chairperson Montgomery stated it then forces developers to negotiate with the City under the existing lnclusionary Ordinance. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Chairperson Montgomery stated that it was mentioned that under the state law it allows for cities with an inclusionary ordinance that they can adopt these types of findings because the City already has an ordinance in place. Ms. Jesser stated the state's analysis was that the law would only apply if a city did not have an lnclusionary Ordinance, or if a developer was proposing affordable housing over and above what the city was requiring as part of their inclusionary ordinance. The state is saying that the density bonus law can be applied by a City in addition to their lnclusionary Ordinance. Commissioner Whitton stated that an annual report is provided to the state about the City's different forms of housing. He asked if it would be better for the City to remain under the lnclusionary Housing title so that the City can comply with the report and met the established goals. Ms. Jesser stated that the City has the ability to achieve more affordable housing under the City's lnclusionary Ordinance than if the City implemented only the density bonus law. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of staff. He acknowledged the Commission received a letter from the Building Industry Association (BIA). Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Montgomery opened public testimony on Item 4. Scott Malloy, representing the BIA, 9201 Spectrum Center BI, San Diego, stated that the BIA respectfully disagrees with Staff and does not believe that implementation of the state's density bonus law would translate into a lower production of affordable housing overall. The BIA interprets the language "over and above" as when a City had an lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, the developer needs to meet that. But if a developer goes above that, at least they would get credit for meeting that. It's "over and above" not "in addition to." Based on their analysis, the way the language is crafted in the current ordinance, there is absolutely no incentive to use the state's program under the City's ordinance. Mr. Malloy also proposed some language changes to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Malloy also stated the proposed ordinance is not consistent with the intent of the state law, which says a City has to implement. If it is implemented and it is not usable, it will not be complying with the intent and purpose of the state law. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of the speaker. Commissioner Baker stated that it appears with the proposed language, a developer would only meet the City's minimum inclusionary requirement. However, as a City and as a community, if we are going to have to tolerate densities greater than what the zone is requiring, the City would want to make sure it receives something in return. Mr. Malloy stated that the proposed language does offer that and that a developer can utilize the density bonus and count it towards the lnclusionary Housing requirement provided at a minimum the developer meets the City's inclusionary housing requirement. If a developer goes over and above that minimum, that would be great. Commissioner Baker stated the concern would Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 2006 Page 9 be "the minimum" and asked why a developer would do more than the minimum. Mr. Malloy stated that the way it is written, it is to ensure that under all circumstances 15% at a minimum of every project would be affordable. A developer would not be able to go below that 15%. The state density bonus allows for developers to go below the 15% requirement which is the issue. Commissioner Baker commented that in the letter it states "All products would not go below the minimum." She commented that the City has an inclusionary housing requirement of 15% so there is no way the City would allow anything below that minimum anyways. Why would the City as a community want to increase the densities in our neighborhoods above the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Malloy stated that in the context of using the density bonus, at a minimum the developer would have to meet 15%. The state density bonus law has density percentages below that. The City's lnclusionary Housing requirement is the threshold. If a developer can go above that and use state density bonus law, credit will be given towards the inclusionary housing. He stated there is no incentive at all to do the 15% and then to do half of that as well for the state density bonus. Commissioner Whitton commented that he understands what Mr. Malloy is saying but is not sure why the City would want to give away the flexibility that there currently is under the current language. Commissioner Whitton stated that Mr. Malloy keeps referring to "we" and asked who the "we" is because if it is the BIA, why would the City want to accommodate them at perhaps the disadvantage of the City. He further stated the City has been under the interpretation of the law as in a nice flexible position to meet state standards and requirements. Mr. Malloy stated that "we" refers to the development community and the Building Industry Association. He stated that all the BIA is proposing is that the City provide language that states a developer must meet the City's lnclusionary Housing requirement under all circumstances, however, if through the state's density bonus program, a developer can do better, that would be great. Chairperson Montgomery stated that if the City goes with his proposed procedure, then the City immediately allows a guaranteed density bonus increase with the same percentage all the way through. He further commented that the City is adopting this so that the City will be in alignment with the state's density bonus program. Ms. Jesser stated that he was correct in that the reason this is being proposed is so the City's code is consistent with state law. Although it is not specified clearly in the language of the law, the state's analysis that was done for this amendment clearly indicates that the words "seeks and agrees" in the law means that the City can apply the density bonus regulations in addition to the City's inclusionary ordinance because the analysis states "the density bonus provisions would only apply if an applicant is providing affordable units over and above those required by the City's inclusionary ordinance. Ms. Jesser stated that means it is more affordable housing than what the City requires. The state is clarifying that that is what those words mean, the City has the ability to make that interpretation and implement their inclusionary ordinance in that fashion. Chairperson Montgomery stated that by applying the state's density bonus program, it is over and above what the City requires. For example, if a developer comes in and they want to invoke that program, the City has no ability to preclude them from doing so. But by doing that, the developer provides affordable units over and above the City's inclusionary housing requirement. However, if a developer comes in and does not want to invoke the state's program but instead would like to negotiate with the City, the City could weigh all the options and grant them a density increase if it so chooses. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Commissioner Whitton asked if the City went with what the BIA is proposing, the City would then be stuck with developer getting a "seeks and agrees" situation anyways because there is not any flexibility. Ms. Jesser stated that she has not had the opportunity to fully read the letter submitted by the BIA and to understand it completely. However, one fundamental issue she has identified is that if a developer requests a density bonus, the City cannot require a developer to meet the 15% inclusionary requirement at a minimum because the law does not allow the City to do that. The City's lnclusionary Ordinance is based on total project units including any density increase, and density bonus law states that those density bonus units cannot be subject to any affordability requirements. The City cannot fully implement its lnclusionary Ordinance when there is a density bonus requested. The City cannot just tell a developer to meet the inclusionary because the law states the City cannot apply the inclusionary to the density bonus units which does not fully achieve what the inclusionary ordinance was set out to achieve. Commissioner Cardosa asked for Counsel to express the City's opinion on the state's ordinance being implemented in comparison to utilizing the City's inclusionary agreement. Mr. Kemp stated that Ms. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 2006 Page 10 Jesser is correct. The language "seeks and agrees" was originally taken out of the state bill. The legislature did specifically put the language back in. The state analysis stated the reason the language was put back into the bill was to allow cities to interpret the law exactly the way it is being proposed tonight. Commissioner Baker clarified that the language was put back in so that the City could put the state law "on top" of what the City's inclusionary housing ordinance already does. Mr. Kemp stated that is what is stated in the assembly bill analysis. Commissioner Segall commented that Staff had not yet had an opportunity to read the BIA letter and asked if by doing so, would Staff's opinions change. Ms. Jesser stated that from what she had read, the BIA's suggestion is based on the City's ability to apply the inclusionary to the density bonus units, and the City cannot do that. She stated Staff's recommendation would likely not change. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Mario Monroy, 749 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, stated the Excess Dwelling Unit is based on the Growth Control Point which the state says a City cannot use, and the top of the range must be used. Mr. Monroy commented that this is an inconsistency. The Mayor and the City Council reduced the number of dwelling units the City had in excess. He believes this is a problem. Ms. Jesser stated that the City's Growth Management Control Point is basically the middle of the density range which was established through the City's Growth Management Plan. It is not something mandated by the state, it is not necessarily related to state density bonus law, it is the City's law. The City can approve development above the control point without having to grant a density bonus. To do that there is a Council Policy, which states development has to meet certain criteria in order to pull units out the Excess Dwelling Unit bank to go above the control point. One of those criteria is providing affordable housing. State Density Bonus Law is completely separate from that and it is based on maximum density, it is based on a different point of the range. One of the criteria in the City Council Policy is to pull units out of the bank when a density bonus is requested per state law. Commissioner Baker asked if using the maximum of the density range only applies in this particular case when dealing with a bonus and it does not apply to any other development that would regularly develop. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Commissioner Segall asked if the "maximum" referred to is based on the General Plan Designation maximum. Ms. Jesser stated that was correct. Commissioner Segall stated the City has always pushed that maximum down to a lower level than what the Growth Management Plan would allow. Ms. Jesser stated the General Plan has an established range but to go above the Control Point up to the maximum the development has to meet certain criteria to do that. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of the speaker or of Staff. Seeing none, he closed public testimony on the item. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5878 recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6022, 5879 and 5880 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-14), Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-10) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-17), based on the findings contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he supports the project but he does understand there are differences in the interpretation of the state law. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 2006 Page 11 Commissioner Cardosa stated he appreciates Staff due diligence and Counsel's support and clarification on the project, and he further stated his support of the project. Commissioner Baker stated she supports the project and thanked Mr. Malloy for offering a differing opinion on the project but she is not sure she agrees with it. Chairperson Montgomery also stated his support for the project. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Heineman Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Item 4 and thanked Staff for the presentation. NO. 9546-P. 2 9201 Spatrum Center Blvd., Suite 110 San Diego, CA 921 23-7 407 PRESIDENT Horace Hoaan II March 21,2006 Honorable Claude Lewis VICE PRESIDENT Mayor Scott Brusseau Newport National Cor~. City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive TREASURER / SECRETARY Carlsbad, CA 92008 Paul Barnes Shea Homes IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Scot Sandstmm AG~~UA I. 1iiM # c: Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk RE: Item 7: Density Bonus Amendments Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council: Richmond American Homes of California This letter is in regard to the proposed amendments to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER aty's indusiomy housing ordinance and density bonus Paul A. Tryon ordinance, sections 21.85 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Zoning Code, respectively, to implement the State Density Bonus AFFILIATES Law. We do not support the proposed amendments to the California Building Industry Association National Arsoclation of Home Builders National Association of lndusnial and Office Properties city's code. The proposed code amendments are a firndamental change to the way state density bonus law is presently implemented in the city. The city's current practice is to give credit toward meeting the city's inclusionary housing requirements for affordable housing units provided through the state's density bonus law, however the proposed code amendments would no longer continue this practice and instead require that any project utilizing a density bonus under the state law meet the city's inclusionary housing requirements and, separately, the state's affordable housing requirements. This change in U c:+3 C\mW h55-t - C-C We understand that this recommended change in practice is CL based on the assumption that " as a result of the changes =+e made to density bonus law, the city will achieve fewer units affordable to lower-income households than what the Indusionary regulations require," We disagree with this assumption and believe that instead, if structured properly, implementation of the state density bonus law can achieve CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF IAN DIEGO COUNTV practice will have the em of making the state's density bonus law a disincentive, which, on its face, would appear to k:e 5 '-f;-*>. be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the law. MAR. 21. 2006 1:OlPM , <. . the city's inclusionary housing goals and maintain incentives provided under the state law. In short, more affordable and more market-rate housing can be created. Our state association, California Building Industry Association, our chapter and many other local BIA chapters were intimately involved in the state legislation behind the density bonus law. It is and always has been our understanding that cities are required to give credit toward meeting hr inclusionary housing requirements when a developer utdizes the state's formula to provide affordable housing. Without this credit, the model breaks down and the state's formula becomes a disincentive. With the whole premise behind the legislation being that the density bonus approach is an incentive-based solution to affordable housing, implementing the law in such a way to make it a disincentive is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the legislation. To resolve this, we request that the language in Chapter 21.85.040 A be revised as follows: All residential developments are subject to and must satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter, notwithstanding a developer's request to process a residential development under other program requirements, laws or regulations, including but not limited to Chapter 2186 (Residential Density Bonus) of this code, If an applicant seeks to construct affordable houk to qualify for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21.86 JResidential Density Bonus), those affordable dwelling units that qualify a residential develo~ment for a densitv bonus shall S . . count toward satisfvina the inclusionarv housing requirements of this cha~ter. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We are hopeful that the state's density bonus law will continue to be viable incentive-based approach to meeting affordable housing needs. Ver truly yours, 4?k!s Public Pd&d~dvocate Cc; Marcela Escobar Eck, Director, Planning Department Jennifer Jesser, Associate Planner, Manning Department BIA North County Board of Directors NO. 9553P. 2 BIA EXAMPLE APPLICATION OF THE STATE DENSITY BONUS FORMULA MEANS MORE AFFORDABLE LLNITS, NOT LESS TYPICAL PROTECT (WITH NO DENSITY BONUS) . . TENI # % I Mayor -7- GP Deeignation: 10-20 units/acre Midpoint Densiry: Assume 15 unit s/acre Project Size: 5 acres City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Project Yield: 75 units (ll affordable) Cq;eZ To: % Affordable: 15% of total density C.c/d \c PROTECT WITH MAXIMUM STATE DENSITY BOW$ GP Designation: 10120 uniwacre (5-acre site) GP Designation: 10-20 unitsiane (5-acre site) Density Bonus: 35% bonus for 20% affordable Project Yield: 135 units (20 affordable) O/O Affordable: 1lio/o of total density Density Bonus: 20V0 bonus for 100/0 affordable ~GEuvE ClTY OF CARLSBAD Project Yield: 120 units (15 affordable) PROTECT WTIH: MINIMUM STATE DENSITY BONUS ClTY CLERK'S OFFICE OIo Affordable: 12.56/o of total density (15% of base density*) * Project must still meet city's inclusionary housing requirement on base density of 20 unitqacre PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of Proof of Publication of North Count] CE OF PUB- Formerly known as the Blac Times-Advocate and which ne adjudicated newspapers of ge: the Superior Court of the Co State of California, for the Cil the City of Escondido, Coi 171349, for the County of 5 notice of which the annexed i: in type not smaller than nc published in each regular and newspaper and not in any su~ the following dates, to-wit: March llth 2006 I certify (or declare) under pe the foregoing is true and correc Dated at SAN MARCOS Calii This 13" , Day of March, 200 '"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will Fh~ld a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, -California, at 6:00 p.m. on 'lhesday, March 21, 2006, to consider a the adoption of a :Negative Declaration and Addendum, and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone .Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the density bonus Ind inclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency with ~~alifornia Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917. *7 Pr $hose persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public .a $caring. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 17,2006. If you $ave any questions, please call Jennifer Jesser in the Planning Department at (760) 602- 3637. II- m. 3f you challenge the Negative Declaration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, :Zone Code Amendment, andor Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may Fe limited to raising only those issue8 you or someoneklse raised at thk public hearing Sescribed in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, ,Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 93008, at or prior ;to the public hearing. ~ASE FILE: W GPA 05-14lZCA 04-10lLCPA 04-17 EASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT a C ~ITY OF CARLSBAD ~ITY COUNCIL 1Magh 11,2006 J c u Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising The Coast News Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County. Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550, Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a newspaper printed and published weekly and which news- paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitaslcardiff, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNista and the County Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (814194, #677114, B2393, P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print- ed copy, has been published in, each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: March 10. 2006 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of Clerk of the Printer Space above for County Clerk's Filing Stamp NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the Ci=umiI of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the%5iililiM Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Calidomia, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21.2006, tocon- sider a the adoption of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Cdastal Program Amendment to amend the density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure , consistency with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill,will be available on and after March 17,2006. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Jesser in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637. If you challenge the Negative Declaration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, andlor Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written WrreyMndence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Alin: City Cl&s m, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 05-1 rKZCA 04-1 OILCPA 04-1 7 DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT CN 2919, March 10,2006 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21,2006, to consider a the adoption of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 17, 2006. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Jesser in the Planning Department at (760) 602- 4637. If you challenge the Negative Declaration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 05-14lZCA 04- 10LCPA 04- 17 CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT PUBLISH: Coast News: March 10,2006 North County Times: March 1 1, 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, to consider a the adoption of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 17,2006. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Jesser in the Planning Department at (760) 602- 4637. If you challenge the Negative Declaration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 05- 14lZCA 04- 10LCPA 04-17 CASE NAME: DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENT L. PUBLISH: Coast News: March 10,2006 North County Times: March 11,2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use ~very@ T~MPLATE 51 60@ CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST 701 ENClNlTAS BLVD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 ClTY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 ClTY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 CALIF DEPT OF FlSH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DlEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DlEGO CA 92101 U.S. FlSH & WILDLIFE 601 0 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 9201 1 ClTY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION SCOTT MALLOY BIA OF SAN DlEGO COUNTY STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CTR BLVD SAN DlEGO CA 92123 SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST OLlVENHAlN WATER DlST TIM JOCHEN 1966 OLlVENHAlN RD 1960 LA COSTA AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 I.P.U.A. VALLECITOS WATER DlST SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMlN AND 201 VALLECITOS DE OR0 URBAN STUDIES SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN DlEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DlEGO CA 921 82-4505 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING STE 100 STE B 91 74 SKY PARK CT 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DlEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DlEGO CA 92123 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST SANDAG 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800 SAN DlEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET SAN DlEGO CA 92101 ATTN TED ANASIS CA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DlEGO COUNTY AIRPORT STE 103 AUTHORITY 7575 METROPOLITAN DR PO BOX 82776 SAN DlEGO CA 921 08-4402 SAN DlEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKSfENGINEERING PROJECT PLANNER DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER JENNIFER JESSER Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use ~ver$@ TEMPLATE 5160~ CITY OF ENClNlTAS COMM DEV DEPT 505 S VULOCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 FED AVIATION ADMlN WESTERN REG BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PO BOX 92007 2800 C07TAGE WAY LOS ANGELES CA SACRAMENTO CA 95825 BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY STE 2450 980 NINTH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 MTROPOLITAN DR SAN DlEGO CA 921 084402 CANNEL ISLANDS NATL PARK SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 1901 SPINNAKER DR SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001 DEPT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DlST ENG PO BOX 271 1 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 400 61 1 RYAN PLZ DR ARLINGTON TX 7601 14005 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 350 901 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 03 DEPT OF FISH & GAME ENV SERV DIV PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES RM 100 1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPT OF FORESTRY ENV COORD PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV REG ADMlN 450 GOLDEN GATE AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 02 DEPT OF JUSTICE DEPT OF ATTY GEN RM 700 110 WESTA ST SAN DlEGO CA 92101 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RM 5504 1120 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 9581 4 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV & DEV COM STE 2600 50 CALIFORNIA ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 1 14704 MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G ENV SERVICES SPR STE J 4665 LAMPSON AVE LOS ALAMITOS CA 9072051 39 OFF OF PLANNING 8 RESEARCH OFF OF LOCAL GOV ARRAIRS PO BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO CA 958123044 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE 1005 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 958258202 SANDAG EXEC DIRECTOR STE 800 1ST INTL PLZ 401 B ST SAN DlEGO CA 921 01 US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT STE RM W 2800 COTAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER STE 702 333 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID PACIFIC REG 2800 COUAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT 41 69 430 G ST DAVIS CA 95616 WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95801 SDGE 8315 CENTURY PARK CT SAN DlEGO CA 92123 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE 100 S 100 HOWE AVE SAN DlEGO CA 92123 COUNJTY OF SD SUPERVISOR RM 335 1600 PACIFIC SAN DlEGO ca 92101 SD COUNTY PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT STE B-5 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DlEGO CA 92123 COASTAL CONSERVANCY STE 1 100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 Jam and Smudge Free Printing USe ~vep TEMPLATE 5160~ US FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICES 2800 COTTAGE WAY STE W-2605 SACRAMENTO CA 958251 888 Density Bonus AmendmentGPA 05-14/ZCA 04-10/LCPA 04-17 DescriptionŠAmendment to:„Density Bonus Ordinance „Inclusionary Housing Ordinance„Definition of “density bonus” in the General PlanŠPurpose is to ensure consistency with recently amended State Density Bonus Law State Density Bonus LawŠJanuary 1, 2005„Comprehensive amendment to State law„Per Senate Bill 1818ŠJanuary 1, 2006„Second amendment „Per Senate Bill 435 Density Bonus LawŠDensity Bonus law requires local jurisdictions to:„Grant a density bonus and incentives or concessions when an applicant “seeks and agrees” to construct a minimum % of affordable housing Changes in State Density Bonus LawŠAll changes summarized in staff report„Proposed to be incorporated into City’s Density Bonus OrdinanceŠPresentation focuses on most significant changes Fewer Affordable Units RequiredŠ50% reduction in number of affordable units required to qualify for a density bonus:Housing Affordable To:Old %New %Lower-income households20%10%Very low-income households10%5%Moderate-income households20%10% Amount of Density BonusŠAmount of density bonus modified:ŠOld law:„Minimum 25%density bonus (for providing minimum required affordable housing)„No maximumŠNew law:„Minimum 20%density bonus „Established a formula for granting increased density bonusfor each % of affordable housing provided above minimum.„Maximum 35% density bonus Density Bonus & Inclusionary RequirementsŠChanges could prevent City’s ability to fully implement Inclusionary OrdinanceŠInclusionary Ord. requires:„15%of a project’s unitszAffordable to lower-income households„15% affordability requirement based on total project units(including any units granted through a density increase) Density Bonus & Inclusionary RequirementsŠPrimary differences between Inclusionary Ord. & Density Bonus law:1.State’s min. affordability requirement less than Inclusionary requirement(10% vs. 15%)2.“Density bonus units” can’t be included when calculating # of units required to be affordable Density Bonus & Inclusionary RequirementsŠCity’s current DB Ord. counts affordable units provided to qualify for DB toward meeting Inclusionary requirementsŠNot an issue under old density bonus law100base units (20lower-income– DB min.)+ 25density bonus units (25% bonus)= 125total units (16%affordable – greater than 15% Inclusionary req.) Density Bonus & Inclusionary RequirementsŠUnder new DB law, if DB affordable units counted toward meeting Inclusionary req., # of affordable units would be calculated: 100base units (15lower-income– Inclusionary)+ 28density bonus units (27.5% bonus)= 128total units (11.7%affordable) Achieve Full Implementation Inclusionary OrdinanceŠNo longer count affordable units provided to qualify for a DB toward Inclusionary req.ŠTo qualify for a Density Bonus:„1stmeet City’s 15% Inclusionary req. (base units)„2ndprovide the % of affordable housing per DB lawzIn addition to 15% Inclusionary requirementzAmount of density bonus based on % of affordable housing, excluding the 15% provided to satisfy City’s Inclusionary Ord. Calculation ExampleŠ100base dwelling units„15units affordable to lower-income households (15% Inclusionary) „+10units affordable lower-income households (State’s 10% lower-income req. for a DB)z20%density bonus (+20 units)ŠTotal project units –120ŠTotal affordable units –2520%total project units(5% greater than Inclusionary) Senate Bill AnalysisŠSenate Bill Analysis for SB435 supports recommendation:„Law states:zWhen a developer “seeks and agrees”to construct a minimum % of affordable housing…..„Analysis:zWords “seeks and agrees”added to clarify density bonus law only applies when:ŠA city does nothave an inclusionary housing ordinance; orŠAn applicant proposes affordable units over and abovethose required by an inclusionary ordinance Comments From BIAŠBIA objects to proposal„Inconsistent with intent of State law„Requiring higher % of affordable units than State requires = disincentive to utilize DB law Response to BIAŠIntent of DB law„Encourage construction of affordable housingzCity achieves construction of affordable housing through the Inclusionary OrdinanceŠState’s analysis of DB law„Law intended to applyzJurisdiction does not have an Inclusionary ord.; orzAffordable housing is provided above that required by an Inclusionary ord.ŠProposed amendment is consistent with State’s analysis ConclusionŠPlanning Commission„Recommended approval of the proposed amendments (February 1, 2006 hearing)ŠStaff requests the City Council„Introduce Ord. NS-794, approving ZCA 04-10„Adopt Resolution 2006-065zAdopting the project Negative DeclarationzApproving GPA 05-14 and LCPA 04-17