Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-20; City Council; Minutes (2)MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 20,2002 11:OO a.m. - 2:OO p.m. Faraday Administration Center F173A The Mayor called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m. Council Member Nygaard was absent. Also in attendance were the City Manager and City Attorney. The Council then entertained a discussion of excess dwelling units under the Growth Management analysis of the excess dwelling unit bank under the Growth Management Plan with the aid of a report (on Program and existing Council policies. Planning Director Michael Holzmiller presented a report and file with the City Clerk) and a map (on file in the Planning Department). Council Member Nygaard arrived at 11:23 a.m. The Council continued its discussion through lunch of this report and directed the City Manager to return at a regularly scheduled Council meeting retaining and deleting portions of the excess dwelling unit bank by modifications to City Council Policy No. 43 and other appropriate changes implementing the proposed revisions. The Council then entertained a discussion of the status of the Habitat Management Plan and golf course and financing options for recreational facilities. Planning Director Michael Holzmiller, Finance Director of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course financing alternatives as of fiscal year 2000. After a discussion of Lisa Hildabrand and Municipal Projects Manager John Cahill presented this information and an overview this topic, Council directed the City Manager to update the financial analysis for the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course and to return with this information to Council at a future date. There was no public comment. The Mayor thanked everyone for their thoughtful participation and adjourned the meeting at 2:OO p.m. Res ctfully submitted, A (k3C"Q-b RON D R. BALL City Attorney as Clerk Pro Tern ANALYSIS OF THE EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) Background and PurDose of Analvsis As part of the fiscal year 2000 goal process, a team was formed and tasked with preparing an analysis of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and the effects of eliminating the excess units. The analysis included arriving at the number of excess units, the effects on City facility requirements particularly those required by standards contained in the City's Growth Management Plan, the financial implications if the units were eliminated and potential effects on any other city programs. This report provides an overview of the team's findings. Number of Excess Dwellina Units The number of units that exist now and the number that is projected to be added to the bank in the future is shown on Exhibit "A. The total is 6,150 dwelling units. The units are shown by each of the 25 Local Facility Management Zones, by quadrant and citywide. The units are spread pretty evenly by quadrant: NW - 1,881 units, NE - 1,124 units, SW 1,736 units and SE - 1,409 units. The Excess Dwelling Unit Bank was derived by adding the number of existing units, approved units and future projected units for each Facility Zone and then, subtracting that number from the maximum number of units allowed by the Growth Management Plan for each zone. Effects on Comdiance with the Facilitv Standards of the Growth Manaqement Plan One of the questions about the elimination of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank has to do with the implications to the demand for facilities, especially those that are subject to the City's Growth Management Plan. The performance standards for some Growth Management facilities are defined in terms of population (and, therefore, housing). Elimination of all of the 6,150 dwelling units existing and projected to be in the bank would result in a reduction in the buildout population of approximately 14,254 persons (2.3178 x 6,150). The Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council in 1986 determined the amount of facilities which would be needed at buildout of the city based on utilization of all the potential units allowed by the Growth Management Plan including all excess dwelling units. If fewer housing units are allowed by eliminating the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, then there would be a corresponding reduced demand for these facilities relative to the Growth Management Standards and the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan. The following Growth Management Facilities were examined in terms of the reduced level of facilities needed .in order to comply with the GMP standards if the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank was eliminated: Administrative Facilities Libraries Parks Drainage Circulation Sewer Collection System Wastewater Treatment Capacity Water Distribution System 1 Administrative Facilities - 189,450 sq. ft. of administrative space would be needed to comply with the minimum Growth Management Standard for administrative facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all of the excess units were eliminated, a minimum of 167 850 sq. ft. would be needed for a reduction of 21,600 sq. ft. /~4/l,m Libraries - 101,040 sq. ft. of library space would be needed to comply with the minimum Growth Management Standard for library facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all the excess units were eliminated, a minimum of 89,520 sq. ft. would be needed for a red ction of 11,520 sq. R. emy,m- Parks - 378.8 acres of park land would be needed to comply with the minimum Growth excess units are eliminated, a minimum of 335.7 acres would be needed for a reduction of 43.1 Management Standard for park facilities if all the excess units are retained and utilized. If all the acres. 3~ /r Circulation, Sewer Collection, Wastewater Treatment, and Water Distribution Facilities is not Infrastructure Facilities - The elimination of all excess dwelling units for the Drainage, anticipated to significantly change the types and sizes of facilities planned for build-out. In general, all City infrastructure facilities have been designed, and are programmed in the CIP du's is generally spread over the entire City the overall reduction is not expected to be large based on the maximum number of dwelling units possible in the City. Because the reduction of enough to impact the size of planned facilities. Specific LFMP Zones are currently being reviewed on a more detailed level to further confirm this assessment. These Zones include those with excess du's greater than 200. Below is a summary of the possible impacts to facilities that are being further assessed: Water Distribution - A reduction in storage capacity may warrant the reduction of planned reservoirs. Sewer Collection - The South Agua Hedonda Interceptor is the only major sewer collection system that may be impacted. However, studies have already concluded that this interceptor will be down sized and the need for further reduction is unlikely. Financial Analysis In order to understand the impact on financing and constructing future facilities, it is important to understand the City's approach to: 1) Determining the type and size of facilities needed for buildout, and 2) Ensuring that sufficient funds are available to pay for these facilities. When determining the type and size of facilities needed to meet future growth demands, facilities sufficient to meet, or exceed, the needs of any potential future development are selected and sized. This approach of slightly over designing facilities is often prudent based On the economies of scale associated with construction, and the increased cost of retrofitting structures already in place, and is especially true for infrastructure facilities such as Sewer collection and water distribution. The approach to estimating future revenues to pay for facilities is based on the aSSUmPtiOn that the minimum number of dwelling units will be constructed. Fees from dwelling units, which have a probability of not developing, are excluded from projected revenues. AS a reSUlt, the CIP funding program does not include revenues from excess dwelling Units. 2 The result of this conservative financing approach has shown that we expect to have sufficient funds available to build all facilities as currently shown in the Capital Improvement Program, even if the excess units are eliminated. This means that the city could decide to build the facilities even though they would exceed what would be required by the standards of the Growth Management Plan and even though the excess dwelling units are eliminated. If certain facilities are scaled down, some of the fee programs may need to be revised. A reduction in residential development equates to fewer tax-payers, and thus, reduced General Revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, utility charges). Although there will be fewer services needed in some areas, such as reduced utility usage and possibly reduced maintenance and protection services, the per capita operating costs of facilities (Parks and Libraries, for example) will be greater with fewer property owners paying for a larger share of these facilities than originally anticipated. Potential Effects on Other Proqrams A. Housing Programs The City has produced approximately 970 lower-income housing units in recent years, requiring approximately 500 units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Therefore, on average, each lower income unit required approximately 0.5 units from the bank in the form of density bonuses. Some projects have needed more and some less. Some multi-family projects have needed up to 2 bank units for each affordable unit. It is not density for all inclusionary projects has been 15.3 dulac and the typical starting density known what will be required for future projects. However, staff notes that the average has been RLM, with a growth management control point of 3.2 dulac. State housing law requires each jurisdiction to have a density bonus ordinance that will grant units for low, moderate or senior housing. Under current Carlsbad law all density bonus units must come from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. For a low-income housing proposal, state law requires a minimum bonus of 25% above the base yield, & additional economic incentives in return for designating 20% of the project units as low income. (Le. the minimum bonus equates to 1.25 Excess Dwelling Units per lower- income housing unit.) Carlsbad has often granted additional density in lieu of cash for the ”additional incentives”. An important legal issue is whether or not Carlsbad would have to grant state law density bonuses for affordable, moderate and senior housing even if there were no Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Two major points in the state certification review of the City’s 1990 and 1999 housing elements were: a) Carlsbad’s lack of higher density zoned land, and b) the dwelling unit limitation. HCD wanted more land zoned for densities up to 30 du/ac. HCD was persuaded to approve the City’s element by showing how the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank would allow granting density bonuses for affordable housing anywhere in the City. In 1991, HCD required the City to approve its inclusionary housing ordinance and density bonus ordinance prior to certifying the Housing Element. The mechanics of both ordinances depend, in part, on utilization of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. B. Village Redevelopment Area The entire Village Redevelopment Area is designated “V (Village), a general plan designation that has residential density range assigned by right. Therefore, under current City law, each new residence in the Village requires allocation of one excess dwelling unit from the bank. Because of this, and to assure the ability to develop residential units in the Village, 1,000 units were placed in the ,& Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit Bank when it was first created in 1986. AIW The Village Redevelopment Master Plan allows residential development up to 19 dulac throughout much of the Plan area. In particular, the Plan anticipates significant residential development on approximately 300 properties in the four districts nearest the Village Commuter Rail Station. If just these latter properties were developed with homes, and awarded an additional 25% affordable housing density bonus, the Village would need up to 2,000 units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. It is not likely that all of these properties will develop in this manner, but some degree of residential development is likely and anticipated by the Master Plan. Residential development will not occur in the Village Redevelopment Area without retaining some of the excess units or, as an alternative, rezoning some of the Village properties to a residential use prior to eliminating the bank. C. Land Conversions From time to time, a need arises to amend the general plan land use designation on a property to another designation. When the proposed change is from non-residential to residential all of the units that accrue to the property due to the new designation comes from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Conversions from non-residential to residential will not be possible without units in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. D. Regional Smart Growth “Smart Growth” calls for placing lower densities at a distance from transit corridors and higher densities nearer transit corridors, creating transit destinations along the corridors (jobs, and shopping), utilizing pedestrian-friendly design principles, implementing traffic affordable housing (especially higher density housing) near transit and jobs. calming principles away from the transit focus areas, preserving habitat, and providing In order to foster smart growth in the region, SANDAG is beginning to create financial incentives for projects incorporating smart growth principles. For example, $35 million of State Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP) funds have been set aside directly to fund primary arterial construction in cities that have adopted a resolution supporting smart growth. Increasingly, those jurisdictions that implement smart growth principles will be in a position to compete more successfully for transportation, affordable housing, and other infrastructure funds available through SANDAG and the State of California. Carlsbad does many of these things already. However, to do some of the others requires the ability to change land uses on properties, transfer density from one property to another, and increase density on other properties. The major tool that has made these types of changes possible has been the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. If the bank is eliminated the City’s ability to effectuate this component of smart growth will be limited. E. R-I Development In Northwest Quadrant The General Plan currently allows standard, single family (R-I) development to exceed the GMP control points by 25% primarily on infill lots in the northwest quadrant when compliance with specific R-I zoning allows a slightly higher yield. Units to implement this provision come from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. 4 Conclusions and Alternatives Several alternatives are available for dealing with the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. The alternatives are derived from the conclusionMindings made by staff as a result of this analysis. These conclusions are as follows: 1. Although many projects have utilized units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, the bank continues to get larger and is projected to do the same in the future. Even if the bank is retained, it is doubtful whether it will ever be used in its entirety due to development trends, environmental regulations and compliance with the city’s strict, quality development standards. 2. All of the City’s planned facilities as identified in the Capital Improvement Program can be adequately funded even if the excess units are not used. The financial implications of not building the excess units are minimal. 3. Because the city is about three-fourths developed, there are not many large, remaining areas where. the excess units can be accommodated. They would most likely be used primarily in limited locations within larger vacant areas of the City. 4. There are some implications to other city programs besides the Growth Management Plan and Capital Improvement Program from eliminating the excess dwelling units as identified and described in the analysis (e.g. Housing Element and the Village Master Plan). These implications need to be discussed and considered in making a decision regarding the excess units. Based upon these findings and conclusions, three alternatives for dealing with the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank are presented for consideration. Alternative 1 - Eliminate the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in its entirety. This would potentially reduce the residential buildout of the city by 6,150 dwelling units (approximate population reduction of 14,250). As a follow-up decision, the City Council would need to determine whether there should be a corresponding reduction in the facilities planned to accommodate the facilities originally planned are minimal even though they would not be required to meet Growth eliminated units. As mentioned previously, the financial effects of deciding to build all of the Management Standards. Alternative 2 - Retain the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in its entirety. Although it is not anticipated that all of the units will ever be requested, the facilities to serve these units have been planned for and financed, the units are utilized to assist in implementing other city programs and it does provide the most flexibility for the future. Alternative 3 - Retain a portion of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank by reserving some of the units for specific city programs such as affordable housing and residential development in the rAd Village but eliminate the rest of the units from the bank. This would address the effects fi identified in this analysis on other city programs that in the past utilize the excess units. Staff’s analysis has determined that the reservation of the following number of units would address the effects: Housing Program - 1,000 units Village Residential - 800 units Future Land Conversions/Miscellaneous - 400 units TOTAL 2.200 units 5 This alternative would result in eliminating approximately 4,000 potential dwelling units from the buildout of the city (approximate population reduction of 9,270). 6 Citvwlde Summarv: Existing Dwelling Units 37.270 Approved Dwelling Units 2.478 Estimated Future Dwelling Units 8,535 Buildout Dwelling Units Growth Management Plan Dwelling Unit Max 54,433 Excess Dwelling Units " Notes: 2. Existing units include all building permits issued as of March 1. 2001. 1. All dwelling unit numbers are as of March 1,2001. 3. Future unit projections in Zones 8, 15 and 25 were reduced by 25% due to significant environmental constraints 4. Future unit projections in Zone 14 were reduced by 10% due to actual unit yield trends. Growth Management Excess Dwelling Unit Goal 01/03/2002 I IMPLEMENTATION I AMENDMENTS REQUIRED IF EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK IS ELIMINATED 1. CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 43 2. GENERAL PLAN > Land Use Element > Housing Element > Parks and Recreation Element 3. ZONING ORDINANCE > Density Bonus (Chapter 21.86) > Growth Management (Chapter 2 1.90) 4. CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 5. VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN