HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-09; City Council; 21295; Council Policy No. 43 Excess Dwelling UnitsCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 18
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
21.295
7/9/13
CED
REVISION OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY
STATEMENT NO. 43 - ALLOCATION OF
EXCESS DWELLING UNITS
DEPT. DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No.
Policy Statement No. 43.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
2013-177 . APPROVING revisions to City Council
City Council Policy Statement No. 43 ("Policy No. 43"), last revised in 2005, establishes the City
Council's policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of "excess" dwelling units. Excess
dwelling units become available as a result of residential projects being approved and constructed with
fewer dwelling units than would have been allowed by the growth management control points of the
Growth Management Plan. Voters approved the Growth Management Plan in 1986 as Proposition E.
As stated in the policy, dwelling units that become "excess" are added to the then-existing citywide
balance contained in the "Excess Dwelling Unit Bank." Excess dwelling units may be allocated to
projects located in any quadrant so long as the number of dwelling units built in each quadrant is
consistent with the dwelling unit limitations for each quadrant established by Proposition E. As of May
2013, the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Balance was 2,136 units. Excess dwelling units may be allocated
by the decision-maker (City Council, Planning Commission or City Planner) designated by the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
On March 20, 2012, the City Council held a workshop that included a discussion on housing issues. A
housing issues report prepared for the workshop is attached. Among the workshop topics discussed
were Carlsbad's future housing growth and demographics and, most particular to this agenda bill, recent
court decisions that affect affordable housing production. The court rulings restrict the city's ability to
apply inclusionary requirements to rental units in the absence of a financial or regulatory incentive or
concession and a contractual agreement {Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles)
and impact how the city can impose fees to assist with the development of affordable housing {Building
Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson).
Based on the workshop discussion, the City Council directed staff to return with two proposals to
address the city's inability to apply inclusionary requirements to rental housing. The first would amend
Policy No. 43 in a manner that would allow the city to apply inclusionary housing requirements to rental
housing. The second proposal would present for City Council consideration a nexus study to establish a
rental housing impact fee.
Proposed changes to Policy No. 43 are the subject of this agenda bill. Staff is separately processing the
nexus study and rental housing impact fee for City Council consideration at a future date.
As with all California jurisdictions, Carlsbad has a state mandate to provide housing affordable to all
economic segments, with an emphasis on housing affordable to individuals and families with lower
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Scott Donnell 760-602-4618 scott.donnell@carlsbadca.qov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC •
DENIED CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN •
CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF •
WITHDRAWN • OTHER-SEE MINUTES •
AMENDED •
Page 2
incomes. "Affordable" housing is largely achieved in Carlsbad through application of the city's
inclusionary housing ordinance. Since adoption ofthe ordinance in 1993, for example, developers have
constructed over 2,000 units of affordable housing with the majority (over 1,500 units) built to satisfy
inclusionary requirements.
In July 2009, the State Court of Appeals determined in the Palmer decision that local inclusionary
requirements for rental units are pre-empted by state law (the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act)
regarding rent control. In 2010, the city amended its inclusionary standards to comply with this court
ruling. Before the ruling, the city had applied its inclusionary requirements to both ownership and rental
projects. Since the ruling and the amendment, rental projects have been approved and constructed
without the requirement to provide inclusionary housing.
Additionally, the housing issues report prepared for the March 2012 City Council workshop noted
Carlsbad demographic and land use trends point to an increase in multi-family construction, including
apartments, along with a strong rental market and developer-interest in converting non-residential lands
to apartment sites; furthermore, the report noted the majority of residential land in Carlsbad has been
developed or planned, shrinking the opportunity for the city to apply its inclusionary requirements and
realize affordable housing gains.
In light of the above noted constraints and trends, the Council has directed and staff has proposed
revisions to Policy No. 43 to ensure the city continues to capitalize on affordable housing opportunities.
Proposed changes limit excess dwelling unit allocations, except in the limited circumstances the policy
identifies, to only projects that provide affordable housing according to the city's inclusionary housing
requirements. Presently, Policy No. 43 permits consideration of unit allocations to projects that do not
necessarily provide affordable housing, including projects which would convert non-residential land to
residential land. However, current policy provisions that allow minor unit allocations to a project when
zoning permits a slightly higher yield than a property's General Plan designation or when a growth
management control point density calculation results in a yield that includes a fractional unit would be
kept and would not be subject to affordable housing.
Proposed revisions also establish that an allocation of excess dwelling units is an "incentive" as defined
in the Zoning Ordinance Density Bonus Chapter (Chapter 21.86) and in the state Government Code. An
allocation can be identified as an incentive since it is a regulatory concession that results in identifiable,
financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions by permitting more dwelling units than othenA/ise would
be allowed by the growth management control point; in turn, this reduces developer land costs per
dwelling unit. Identifying an allocation as an incentive is important because when a developer agrees by
contract with the city to provide affordable housing in consideration for a regulatory concession, the
Costa-Hawkins Act and thus the restrictions imposed by the Palmer decision on rental projects do not
apply.
Currently, inclusionary requirements in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.85 state that developers of rental
projects receiving an incentive and agreeing by contract to limit rents for below market-rate rental units
are subject to inclusionary housing requirements. Accordingly, Policy No. 43 revisions make clear that
any applicant seeking an allocation of excess dwelling units shall agree to provide the number of
inclusionary housing units and to execute an affordable housing agreement as required by CMC Chapter
21.85. In so doing, the city is able to comply with the Palmer decision and at the same time apply
inclusionary housing requirements to rental housing if the developer requests and receives an allocation
of excess dwelling units.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Recommended changes to Policy No. 43 require developers who request an Excess Dwelling Unit Bank
allocation to comply with Carlsbad's existing inclusionary requirements. This may result in the payment
of affordable housing in lieu fees, purchase of affordable housing credits, and/or construction of
affordable housing. It may also result in requests for city financial assistance. The city already has the
procedures and programs in place to accommodate inclusionary requirements.
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, the action to approve revisions to Policy No. 43
does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a
direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment, and therefore does not require environmental review.
Projects receiving an allocation of units pursuant to Policy No. 43 will be subject to environmental
review. This review will include analysis of any environmental impacts associated with the dwelling units
for which an allocation is requested.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2013-177
2. Strike-out/underline version of Policy No. 43 showing all changes proposed
3. Currently adopted Policy No. 43
4. March 15, 2012 Housing Issues report (without attachments)
5. Minutes from March 20, 2012 City Council workshop.
3
Exhibit 1
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2Qmn
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING REVISIONS TO CITY
3 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT NO. 43 REGARDING THE
NUMBER AND ALLOCATION OF EXCESS DWELLING UNITS
4 CASE NAME: REVISION OF COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
NO. 43
5 CASE NO.: SS 12-04
6 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 2012, City Council workshop, Carlsbad demographic and land use trends point to an increase in
22 multi-family construction, including apartments, along with a strong rental market and developer-
24 interest in converting non-residential lands to high density apartment sites; and
2^ WHEREAS, furthermore, the opportunity for the city to apply its inclusionary
25 requirements and realize affordable housing gains is shrinking as the majority of its residential
27 land has been developed or planned; and
28
WHEREAS, the City Council has established Council Policy Statement No. 43
("Policy No. 43") on the number and allocation of excess dwelling units that become available as
a result of residential projects being approved and constructed with fewer dwelling units than
would have been allowed by the growth management control points of the Growth Management
Plan approved by voters on November 4, 1986, as Proposition E and as set forth in Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.90.045; and
WHEREAS, the city is mandated by state law to provide housing for persons of
all incomes, with an emphasis on persons with lower incomes, and the city's application of its
inclusionary housing requirements is a primary and an effective means of achieving "affordable
housing," or housing with rents and sales prices affordable to such persons; and
WHEREAS, a 2009 Court of Appeal determination {Palmer/Sixth Street
Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles) restricts the city's ability to apply inclusionary housing
requirements to rental projects; and
WHEREAS, as noted in the housing issues report presented at the March 20,
1 WHEREAS, in light of the above noted constraints and trends, revisions to Policy
2 No. 43 are appropriate to ensure the city continues to capitalize on affordable housing
3 opportunities; and
4 WHEREAS, revisions to Policy No. 43 limit excess dwelling unit allocations,
5 except in limited circumstances, to only projects that provide for affordable housing according to
6 Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.85, the inclusionary housing requirements; and
7 WHEREAS, revisions also establish that an allocation of excess dwelling units is
8 an "incentive," as defined in CMC Section 21.86.020 A.12 and Government Code Section
9 65915(k), in that it is a regulatory concession that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and
10 actual cost reductions by permitting more dwelling units than othen^/ise would be allowed by the
11 growth management control point and thereby reducing land costs per dwelling unit; and
12 WHEREAS, per CMC Section 21.85.030 A., developers of rental projects
1^ receiving an incentive and agreeing by contract to limit rents for below market-rate rental units
14 are subject to inclusionary housing requirements; and
15 WHEREAS, the revisions to Policy No. 43 clearly establish any applicant seeking
an allocation of excess dwelling units shall agree to provide the number of inclusionary housing
units and to execute an affordable housing agreement as required by CMC Chapter 21.85.
18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That Policy No. 43 is amended as shown on "Exhibit A" to this resolution.
///
///
///
///
///
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
2 The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed
3 by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in
the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or
4 other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than
the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final;
however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
5 record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost
or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in
7 court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of
record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the
9 proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008.
8
10
11
12
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting ofthe City Council ofthe
City of Carlsbad on the 9th day of July 2013, by the following vote to wit:
^•^ AYES: Council Members Hall, Wood, Blackburn, Douglas.
14
15 NOES: None.
16
17 ABSENT: Council Member Packard.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MATT HALL, Mayor
ATTEST
^f^^^NGLESON,<^ity Clerk
27 -O:'
28 ^.^
^ CARLSBAD
CITY OF
Council Policy Statement
Policy No.
Date issued:
Effective Date:
Resolution No.
Cancellation Date:
Supersedes No.
Exhibit A
43
July 9,2013
July 9, 2013
2013-177
N/A
43, issued 4/26/05
Category: "EXCESS DWELUNG UNIT BANK"
Specific Subject: Policy for number and allocation of Proposition E "excess" dwelling units
PURPOSE:
To establish the City Council's policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of "excess"
Dwelling Units (as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.120). Excess Dwelling Units
become available as a result of residential projects being approved and constructed with fewer Dwelling
Units than would have been allowed by the growth management control points of the Growth
Management Plan approved by voters on November 4, 1986, as Proposition E and as set forth in
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.90.045.
BACKGROUND:
Dwelling Units that become "excess" shall be added to the then-existing citywide balance contained in
the "Excess Dwelling Unit Bank." Excess Dwelling Units may be allocated to projects located in any
quadrant so long as the number of Dwelling Units built in each quadrant is consistent with the Dwelling
Unit limitations for each quadrant established by Proposition E.
A project does not need an allocation of excess Dwelling Units if its proposed density does not exceed
the growth management control point as set forth in CMC 21.90.045.
An allocation of excess Dwelling Units to a project is an "incentive," as defined in CMC Section 21.86.020
A.12 and Government Code Section 65915(k), in that it Is a regulatory concession that modifies the
requirements of CMC Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by permitting developments with
more Dwelling Units than othenwise permitted by the growth management control point established in
CMC Section 21.90.045. The allocation of excess Dwelling Units to a project will result in identifiable,
financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to the project by permitting more Dwelling Units on a
site than would otherwise be allowed by the underlying General Plan land use designation and so
reducing land cost per Dwelling Unit.
POUCY:
Provision Of Inclusionary Units
An applicant for excess Dwelling Units shall agree to provide the number of inclusionary housing units
required by CMC Section 21.85.050 and to execute an affordable housing agreement according to CMC
Section 21.85.140. The calculation ofthe required number of inclusionary units shall be based on all the
Dwelling Units in the project and not just those for which the excess Dwelling Unit allocation is sought.
The applicant shall otherwise agree to comply with the requirements of CMC Chapter 21.85 applicable
to the inclusionary units.
Page 1 of3
Policy No. 43
If the applicant desires to rent any Dwelling Units in the project, the application for excess Dwelling
Units shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating that any rental inclusionary units proposed by the
applicant to comply with CMC Chapter 21.85 will not be subject to Civil Code Section 1954.52(a) nor any
other provision of the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code Sections 1954.51 et seq.)
inconsistent with controls on rents, because, pursuant to Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and
1954.53(a)(2), prior to approval of the project, the developer will enter into a contract (affordable
housing agreement) with the city agreeing to the limitations on rents required by CMC Chapter 21.85 in
consideration for the allocation of excess Dwelling Units, which is a form of assistance specified in
Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
These requirements shall be considered minimum requirements for the allocation of excess Dwelling
Units. As determined by the decision-maker designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code, these
minimum requirements may be increased depending on various factors, such as project scope and size
and the amount ofthe allocation request.
Exceptions
The City Council also authorizes the decision-maker designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code to
allocate excess Dwelling Units to projects that do not meet the minimum requirements specified above
under the limited circumstances identified below.
1. Any residential project with a General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RL) or
Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and a base zoning that permits a slightly higher yield of units
than would be allowed by the RL or RLM General Plan designation; provided, the proposed density does
not exceed the maximum density ofthe RL or RLM density range by more than an additional 25 percent,
the project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs expressed in the
General Plan, and all ofthe necessary infrastructure is in place to support the project.
2. Any residential project with a General Plan designation of Residential Medium-High Density
(RMH) or Residential High Density (RH) which requires an allocation of excess Dwelling Units to meet the
minimum density used to determine compliance with housing element law as identified in the latest
adopted Housing Element since this minimum density exceeds the growth management control point.
This exception does not apply to projects on RH-designated properties in the Beach Area Overlay Zone.
3. Any residential project in which the density used for calculation results in a Dwelling Unit yield
that includes a fractional unit of .5 or greater and is the minimum density, growth management control
point density, or the density used to determine compliance with housing element law (as identified in
the latest adopted Housing Element). In this circumstance, a fraction ofa unit may be granted in order
to achieve, but not to exceed, the next whole unit; provided, the maximum density of the applicable
General Plan land use designation or applicable Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual land
use district is not exceeded. The procedure for determining Dwelling Unit yield and allocating fractional
units is contained in CMC 21.53.230(e).
Allocating Excess Dwelling Units
The number of excess Dwelling Units allocated shall be at the sole discretion of the decision-maker
designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The City Council, Planning Commission or the City Planner
retains the discretion to deny approval of the project or approve the proposed project without any
Page 2 of 3
Policy No. 43
excess Dwelling Units. In approving a request for an allocation of excess Dwelling Units, the City Council,
Planning Commission, or City Planner shall make the following findings:
1. That the project location and density are compatible with existing adjacent residential
neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses.
2. That the project location and density are in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
General Plan and any other applicable planning document.
3. That the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for
projects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range. (This
finding applies only to properties outside the Village Review Zone.)
4. That the project complies with the findings stated in the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, Chapter 3, Development Standards, for projects that exceed the maximum densities set forth
therein. (This finding applies only to properties inside the Village Review Zone.)
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
^ CARLSBAD
Council Policy Statement
Category:
Exhibit 2
43
04/26/05 XXX,
2013
04/26/05 XXX.
2013
Resolution No. 2005 -1322013-XXX
Cancellation Date: N/A
43, issued
PROPOSITION E "EXCESS DWELUNG^^ UNIT BAN^EXCESS DWELUNG UNIT
BANK"
Policy No.
Date Issued:
Effective Date:
Supersedes No.
Specific Subject: ESTABUSHED POUCY FOR NUMBER AND ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION E
"EXCESS" DWELLING UNITSPolicv for number and allocation of Proposition E
"excess" dwelling units
PURPOSE:
To establish the City Council's policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of "excess"
dwelling units which havoDwelling Units (as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.120).
Excess Dwelling Units become available as a result of residential projects being approved and
constructed with loss dwelling unitsfewer Dwelling Units than would have been allowed by the
den&itvgrowth management control points of the Growth Management Plan approved by voters on
November 4, 1986, as Proposition ET and as set forth in Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section
21.90.045.
EXCESS DWELLING UNITS
Dwelling units that become ''oxcoss" shall be added to the then existing citywide balance (excess
dwelling unit bank). Excess units may bo allocated to projects in any quadrant so long as tho number of
residential units in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit limitations established by
Proposition E.
BACKGROUND:
Dwelling Units that become ''excess" shall be added to the then-existing citywide balance contained in
the ''Excess Dwelling Unit Bank". Excess Dwelling Units mav be allocated to proiects located in anv
quadrant so long as the number of Dwelling Units built in each quadrant is consistent with the Dwelling
Unit limitations for each quadrant established bv Proposition E.
A proiect does not need an allocation of excess Dwelling Units if its proposed density does not exceed
the growth management control point as set forth in CMC 21.90.045.
An allocation of excess Dwelling Units to a proiect is an 'Incentive/' as defined in CMC Section 21.86.020
A.12 and Government Code Section 65915(k). in that it is a regulatory concession that modifies the
requirements of CMC Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by permitting developments with
more Dwelling Units than otherwise permitted by the growth management control point established in
CMC Section 21.90.045. The allocation of excess Dwelling Units to a proiect will result in identifiable,
financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to the proiect by permitting more Dwelling Units on a
Page 1 of 4 0
Policy No. 43
site than would otherwise be allowed by the underlying General Plan land use designation and so
reducing land cost per Dwelling Unit.
POLICY:
Although it is not mandatory to uso tho excess dwelling units, the City Council authorizes consideration
of allowing the excess units to be allocated to future "qualifying/' residential projects.—In order to
"qualify" for an allocation of excess units, a project shall possess one of or more of the following
charocteristics:
—A project that includes a request for a density bonus made pursuant to and in compliance with
state density bonus law.
2-.—Housing units mode affordable to lower or moderate income households.
^.—Senior citizen housing.
4-.—Housing located in the Village—Redevelopment Area or the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopmont Area.
—Transit oriented, "smart growth" developmont projects where increased residentiol density is
being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment opportunities ond
commorciol support services.
—Projects approved for o land use change from non residential to residential or projects
containing o mix of residentiol and non residential.
The propertv hosProvision Of Inclusionary Units
An applicant for excess Dwelling Units shall agree to provide the number of inclusionary housing units
required by CMC Section 21.85.050 and to execute an affordable housing agreement according to CMC
Section 21.85.140. The calculation of the required number of inclusionary units shall be based on ali the
Dwelling Units in the proiect and not lust those for which the excess Dwelling Unit allocation is sought.
The applicant shall otherwise agree to comply with the requirements of CMC Chapter 21.85 applicable
to the inclusionary units.
If the applicant desires to rent any Dwelling Units in the proiect. the application for excess Dwelling
Units shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating that any rental inclusionary units proposed by the
applicant to comply with CMC Chapter 21.85 will not be subiect to Civil Code Section 1954.52(a) nor anv
other provision ofthe Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code Sections 1954.51 et seq.)
inconsistent with controls on rents, because, pursuant to Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and
1954.53(a)(2). prior to approval ofthe proiect. the developer will enter into a contract (affordable
housing agreement) with the city agreeing to the limitations on rents required by CMC Chapter 21.85 in
consideration for the allocation of excess Dwelling Units, which is a form of assistance specified in
Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 ofthe Government Code.
These requirements shall be considered minimum requirements for the allocation of excess Dwelling
Units. As determined bv the decision-maker designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code, these minimum
requirements may be increased depending on various factors, such as proiect scope and size and the
amount ofthe allocation request-
Exceptions
The City Council also authorizes the decision-maker designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code to
Page 2 of 4
Policy No. 43
allocate excess Dwelling Units to proiects that do not meet the minimum requirements specified above
under the limited circumstances identified below.
7; 1. Any residential proiect with a General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RL) or
Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and t^wa base zone ofthe proiect would permitzoning that
permits a slightly higher yield of units than would be allowed by the RL or RLM General Plan designation;
provided, the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density ofthe RL or RLM density range
by more than an additional 25 percentT-. the proiect is compatible with the obiectives. policies, general
land uses and programs expressed in the General Plan, and all ofthe necessary infrastructure is in place
to support the proiect.
Thp
2. Any residential proiect with a General Plan designation of Residential Medium-High Density
(RMH) or Residential High Density (RH) which requires an allocation of excess Dwelling Units to meet the
minimum density used to determine compliance with housing element law as identified in the latest
adopted Housing Element since this minimum density exceeds the growth management control point
(GMCP). This exception does not apply to proiects on RH-designated properties in the Beach Area
Overlay Zone.
8^ 3^ Any residential proiect in which the density used for tho propertvcalculation results in a
wftDwelling Unit yield that includes a fractional unit of .5 or greater^ and is the minimum density,
growth management control point density, or the density used to determine compliance with housing
element law (as identified in the latest adopted Housing Element). In thethis circumstance, a fraction of
a unit may be granted in order to achieve, but not to exceed, the next whole unit; provided, the
maximum density ofthe applicable General Plan land use designation is not oxceoded.or applicable
Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual land use district is not exceeded. The procedure for
determining Dwelling Unit yield and allocating fractional units is contained in CMC 21.53.230(e).
Allocating Excess Dwelling Units
The number of excess wttsDwelling Units allocated to a particular "qualifying" project shall be at the
sole discretion of the decision-maker designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The City Council,
Planning Commission or Planning Director as appropriate and sholl be based on the importancethe City
Planner retains the discretion to deny approval of the characteristic possessed bv the proiects proiect
or. whore a approve the proposed project possesses multiple characteristics, the numbor and
importance ofthe charocteristics. without anv excess Dwelling Units. In approving a request for an
allocation of excess dwelling unitsDwelling Units, the City Council. Planning Commission, or City Planner
shall considermake the location offollowing findings:
1. That the requesting project and the compatibility of increased location and density are
compatible with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses.
2. That the proiect location and density are in accordance with the applicable principlesprovisions
ofthe General Plan and any other applicable planning document.
3. That the proiect complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for
proiects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range. (This
finding applies only to properties outside the Village Review Zone.)
Page 3 of 4
Policy No. 43
4. That the proiect complies with the findings stated in the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. Chapter 3. Development Standards, for proiects that exceed the maximum densities set forth
therein. (This finding applies only to properties inside the Village Review Zone.)
HISTORY:
Action Summary
Originally
Adopted Pebruory 2,1990
Cr+-imir-Krt/4 -» •f/irrrt-il rtrtlir'*^ fnr thp Tillnntinn nf "pYrp'"T"
Originally
Adopted Pebruory 2,1990
CatalJllailleu q lUiiligi yi\J\\\^y \\J\ iiic aiiUL-atiuii \j\ CA»..C33
dwelling units under the dwelling unit limitations of
Proposition E.
Amended April 22,1997
Drtflrt/^rl ¥\r\r\ rw'mr't^M IJp+ i->f nmiprt'" tint minlifv/ fnr Tn pwrp'"'"
Amended April 22,1997 r>eiiiicu lilt? jjiiuiiiy tiat ut'jji ujccisi iiiwi mjaiiiy lui uii cAv^^uaK
dwelling unit allocation.
nrt.~rtrt^Krti-17 onn?
Ct-t-»P\l!r-kr>/J -l-Urt rtnrv»l->/%r /-»f -n iriil-j klrt rtyrp'"'" HwollinP linit'' Tt T
nrt.~rtrt^Krti-17 onn?
ualclUllblltJU Lllc liuiiiuci Ul lavdiiuunn CAi^crss uvvciiiii{j uiiita at a
V\'\\'\nr-r\ r\f TOHA •mit'' ^thi<" ^A?T" T rpHiirtinn tn thp niimhpr nf
nrt.~rtrt^Krti-17 onn?
Wcttwtttts UrjcOUU uiiiis ^Liii:^ woa « iC:UUI..I.IUM lu iiiv. MUIIIWCI \JI
units in excess dwelling unit bank).
nrt.~rtrt^Krti-17 onn?
ciir«it^-^+rt/-l +l-irt irt/-lJ»*irlinl rit\/ fiinHnnt HvA/pllinp unit hjink
nrt.~rtrt^Krti-17 onn?
frTHTTlTTwlcU UrtJ muiviuucii uilymjciui al ll uwciiiiig uiiiv uaiir\
hnlnnrp'" inH in<"tPTH p'"tThlt'"hpH T ritvwIHlp PXTfl*; Hwpllini? AVI 1 IC'llUtiU 1 lUCl—X r , c.\J\Jc. uci Id 1 iLCUi Cl 1 IU iiiaicuu civLCiUiim ivirvj n uiiyvriwv. V,AV.»V,JJI U v-mi •{^
unit bank.
AVI 1 IC'llUtiU 1 lUCl—X r , c.\J\Jc.
OnxiimA ^Hrt lir-t /-wf nmlprt'" th?it nmlifv fnr Tn pwrp'"'" Hwpllinp
AVI 1 IC'llUtiU 1 lUCl—X r , c.\J\Jc.
ftcVr&cU ll lc llal Ui jjiujuuis iiiui i^uuiiiy lui aii CACS-JJ urvv-mi ij^
iirtit -»ii'i«-Ttinn inriiiHInp thp plinr^inTtinn nf thp "nrinritv/"
AVI 1 IC'llUtiU 1 lUCl—X r , c.\J\Jc.
tirnt tJiiuuciiiun, IIII.IUUHly iiic cmiiiilaiiuii ui iiic piiwiiiy
system.
Amended April 26, 2005
f<nr\M'tf'mA lift nf nmippt*" thnt ninlifv fnr in PVPP'"'" H\A/pllinp unit
Amended April 26, 2005
iviuuiliciu 1131 Ul [Jiujc?i.ia iiiqi mjuiiiiy lui oil CAUcaa uwc;tiiii{i^ uiiit
-»lli-»/~nfi<-iri inrliiHinp thp THHitinn nf T nrn\/i'"inn tn jillnw Amended April 26, 2005 dMUI.CIiiui 1, 11 luiuuiii{-j llic ouuiLiuii Ul a jjiuviaiuii lu criiuw
r>rrt!/r\/~f-c- tri rniinH iiH Thn\/p thp prn\A/th imjimppinpnt rnntrni
Amended April 26, 2005
Ul ujci<la lu luuiiu U|J ouuve iiic {-jiuwi.il iiiaiia^dii^iiL K.VJI IKI \JI
point by a fraction of a unit.
Page 4 of 4
\2P
^ CARLSBAD
Exhibit 3
CITY OF
Council Policy Statement
Policy No.
Date Issued:
Effective Date:
Resolution No.
Cancellation Date:
Supersedes No.
43
04/26/05
04/26/05
2005-132
43, issued
12/17/02
Category:
Specific Subject:
PROPOSITION E "EXCESS DWELUNG" UNIT BANK
ESTABUSHED POUCY FOR NUMBER AND ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION E
"EXCESS" DWELUNG UNITS
PURPOSE:
To establish the City Council's policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of "excess"
dwelling units which have become available as a result of residential projects being approved and
constructed with less dwelling units than would have been allowed by the density control points of the
Growth Management Plan approved by voters November 4,1986, as Proposition E.
EXCESS DWELLING UNITS
Dwelling units that become "excess" shall be added to the then-existing citywide balance (excess
dwelling unit bank). Excess units may be allocated to projects in any quadrant so long as the number of
residential units in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit limitations established by
Proposition E.
BACKGROUND:
POLICY:
Although it is not mandatory to use the excess dwelling units, the City Council authorizes consideration
of allowing the excess units to be allocated to future "qualifying," residential projects. In order to
"qualify" for an allocation of excess units, a project shall possess one of or more of the following
characteristics:
1. A project that includes a request for a density bonus made pursuant to and in compliance with
state density bonus law.
2. Housing units made affordable to lower or moderate income households.
3. Senior citizen housing.
4. Housing located in the Village Redevelopment Area or the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Area.
Page 1 of 2
Policy No. 43
8.
Transit-oriented, "smart growth" development projects where increased residential density is
being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment opportunities and
commercial support services.
Projects approved for a land use change from non-residential to residential or projects
containing a mix of residential and non-residential.
The property has a General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RL) or Residential Low-
Medium Density (RLM) and the base zone ofthe project would permit a slightly higher yield of
units than would be allowed by the RL or RLM General Plan designation; provided, the proposed
density does not exceed the maximum density of the RL or RLM density range by more than an
additional 25 percent.
The growth management control point (GMCP) density for the property results in a unit yield
that includes a fractional unit of .5 or greater. In the circumstance, a fraction of a unit may be
granted in order to achieve, but not to exceed, the next whole unit; provided, the maximum
density ofthe applicable General Plan land use designation is not exceeded.
The number of excess units allocated to a particular "qualifying" project shall be at the sole discretion of
the City Council, Planning Commission or Planning Director as appropriate and shall be based on the
importance of the characteristic possessed by the projects or, where a project possesses multiple
characteristics, the number and importance of the characteristics. In approving a request for allocation
of excess dwelling units, the City Council shall consider the location of the requesting project and the
compatibility of increased density with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods in accordance with
the applicable principles ofthe General Plan.
HISTORY:
Action Date Summary
Originally
Adopted February 2,1990
Established a formal policy for the allocation of "excess"
dwelling units under the dwelling unit limitations of
Proposition E.
Amended April 22,1997 Refined the priority list of projects that qualify for an excess
dwelling unit allocation.
Amended December 17, 2002
Established the number of available excess dwelling units at a
balance of 2800 units (this was a reduction to the number of
units in excess dwelling unit bank).
Amended December 17, 2002
Eliminated the individual city-quadrant dwelling unit bank
balances, and instead established a citywide excess dwelling
unit bank.
Amended December 17, 2002
Revised the list of projects that qualify for an excess dwelling
unit allocation, including the elimination ofthe "priority"
system.
Amended April 26, 2005
Modified list of projects that qualify for an excess dwelling unit
allocation, including the addition of a provision to allow
projects to round up above the growth management control
point by a fraction of a unit.
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF CHRONFiLE Forthemembenoftbo;
^CARLSBAD .^.^^S^^.
MEMORANDUM Daie^CHy Mmi«ger^
March 15,2012
To: CITY MANAGER
From: COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO
Re: HOUSING ISSUES
In Carlsbad, the single-family home Is king, constituting more than two-thirds of all existing housing.
Sjnce the majority of residential construction has already occurred and is relatively new, the city will
remain a predominantly single-family home community for the foreseeable future.
Though the building ofthe characteristic detached single-family home continues, the hot rental market
as well as changing demographics, emerging preferences and state housing law suggest future home
construction may trend toward a denser, attached product. Additionally, the attention of apartment
builders has been directed not only at the city's shrinking available residential land but also at its
industrial and commercial areas, inquiries have focused on conversion of these non-residential lands
into high density residentiai rental projects.
Meanwhile, the city is in the midst of updating its General Plan and Housing Element. A key
consideration ofthe update process, partly because of state housing law, is how and where to
accommodate high density housing. Though conversions of non-residential properties can help address
this need, they aiso raise employment, economic, and neighborhood compatibility and acceptance
concerns. At the same time, allowing people to live close to jobs and shopping creates opportunities for
a healthier, walkable, and more sustainable community.
All of these important topics, whether they regard a land use trend or conversion, must be balanced in
consideration of recent court rulings that impact the city's ability to provide affordable housing, deny
housing projects, and control growth.
To provide an analysis and response to these present and emerging trends and challenges, staff has
prepared this memorandum. The memorandum discusses the following topics:
1. Recent deveiopment and current market conditions
2. Demographic and land use trends
3. Envision Carisbad - overview and status
4. Land use conversions - points to consider
5. General Plan policy framework on locating higher density, mixed use and affordable housing
6. Housing Elements
7. Affordable Housing and Inclusionary Requirements Case Law
8. Excess Dwelling Unit Bank - purpose and need
1
fm^iicatlons result from the information contained in these topics. However, staff
.—JWRf^ls'^iWin.paVticiilar are likely points for further discussion:
1. Current General Plan policy framework on locating higher density, mixed use and affordable
housing
2. Affordable Housing and tndusionary Requirements Case Law
3. Excess Dwelling Unit Bank - purpose and need
To support the additional discussion, a summary and policy consideration section is provided at the end
of topics 5 (General Plan Policy Framework on locating higher density, mixed use and affordable
housing), 7 (Affordable housing and inclusionary requirements and recent case law), and 8 (Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank - purpose and need). The information in each section is aiso repeated at the
conclusion of this report.
n
1. Development History and Current Market Conditions
The chart below illustrates Carlsbad's residentiai, commercial and industrial development over
the last 10 years. The rate of deveiopment increased steadily until the mid-2000's, but by 2009,
both new residentiai and non-residential building permit issuances fell to their lowest levels in
at least the past decade.
Residential and Non-residentlal Development
2,000
S c 1,500 n I 1,000
.tf
I 500 « a.
Residential (d.u.'s)
mm mm Non-resfdential (000 S.f.) .
Residential (d.u.'s)
mm mm Non-resfdential (000 S.f.) .
Residential (d.u.'s)
mm mm Non-resfdential (000 S.f.) .
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Calendar Year
As the economy slowly recovers and continues to gain momentum, development actMty has
increased gradually since 2009, as indicated in the chart above. While not at a scale experienced
prior to the Great Recession, we are seeing some fairly significant projects going forward such as
the Legoland Hotel, Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa, La Costa Town Square, and Palomar
Commons. Approximately 300 attached higher density dwelling units (condominiums and
apartments) in six projects are currently under construction or nearly under construction.
Significant projects now in the planning stages include the west half of Robertson Ranch and
Quarry Creek, which along with the Sunny Creek area, represent the last large areas of
undeveloped residential land.
There have also been an increased number of developer inquiries about prospective apartment
projects, consistent with regional and national trends as indicated In a recent North County
Times article (Attachment A).^ Many of these inquiries have focused on select sites within the
City's industrial core. As office and industrial construction remains relatively flat, developers are
exploring conversion of these lands to high density residential uses.
' Eric Wolff Housing: Apartment Construction Rebounding.
http7/www.n(^iines.coin/blogsnew/lHisiness/iealside/h
986d-04a0cba45ela.btml (February 2012)
2. Carlsbad Demograpiiic and Land Use Trends
• Population'
In 2000: 78.247 In 2010: 105.328 (1^35%) By 2050: 129.381 (4^21%)
On an annual basis, Carisbad's population grew 7 times faster in the past 10 years then it
will grow over the next 40 years. Although Carisbad's population wilt continue to grow, it
will do so at a much slower rate than In the recent past (about .5%/yr on avierage vs. 3.5%/yr
since 2000).
• Age
Medianagein2000: 39 in 2010: 40 By 2050: 46
Carlsbad's population is getting older. By 2050, persons age 55 and older ("Boomers") will
account for some 87% ofthe future population growth. The fastest growing age groups will
be 65-74 (4^68%), 75-84 ('tl38%), and 85+ (1^221%). Combined, these age groups will
make up 25% ofthe city's population by 2050, compared to about 14% today.
Younger adults 20-34 ("Miliennlais") will also increase in their ranks ('t'17%), while the
number of adults 35-54 will be unchanged. Overall, middle and high school-aged children
Increase slightly (1^3%), but children 9 and under wiil actually decrease (4^1%). This is
consistent with national trends of couples having fewer children and later in life than
previous generations.^
• income
Median income in 2000: $65,854 In 2010: $77,097 By 2050: $108,624
Carisbad households are relatively more affluent as compared to those In other north
county cities and the San Diego region as whote. This demographic shift will continue in the
future. For example, the percentage of Carisbad households earning $100K or more is
currentiy estimated at 38%. By 2050, the share Increases to 54%. Carisbad's proportion of
higher Income households wilt continue to be higher than our neighboring cities (37%) and
the rest of the region (35%).
' Sources used for this section include: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, S-Year Estimates;
SANDAG; Gty ofCarlsbad, Envision Carlsbad Working Paper #2, Local Economy, Business DiversiQ' and Tourism (2010);
^Ben Brown. Dream Home for the new era: Compact, connected & mortgage-free.
http7/bettercities.net/new8opinjoDA)bgsA)en-brown/17515/dream-honie-nevr
2012)
0\
• Land Use Trends
The above demographic trends have Implications for housing preferences In the future.
Carisbad is predominantly single-family today (about 68% of all housing) and will remain so
In the future. Over the next 30-40 years, the age group that is most likely to purchase single-
family homes (35-64) decreases in proportion to the totai population. Demand for single-
family housing In Carlsbad may remain high though, due to the relative affluence of so-
called "Prosperous Empty-nesters" who may prefer to remain in their homes rather than
down-size.
There is another trend emerging. The fastest-growing segments in Carlsbad's population
("Millennials" and "Boomers") will shift demand to more multi-famliy housing (both rental
and ownership), senior housing, and assisted-living facilities. By 2040, it is expected that two
out of every three new dwelling units built in Carlsbad will be multi-family.
• Jobs & Employment Land
In 2008: 61.999 iobs Bv2050: 87.100 iobs
Commercial Land: 1.025 acres total (845 ac developed; 180 ac vacant/approved projects
not yet built (note: square footage estimates are not available]).
Office/Industrial Land: 1.891 acres total (1,496 ac/17,600,000 sf developed; 132
ac/2,340,000 sf vacant with approved projects not yet built; 263 ac/2,310,000 sf vacant
without approved projects).
Carisbad is an employment center. The leading employment sectors include: manufacturing
(9,791 jobs); wholesale trade (6,071 jobs); professional, scientific and technical services
(6,044 jobs); food sen/ices, Including eating and drinking places (4,969 jobs); and hotels and
lodging (3,633 jobs). Today in all, there are approximately 1.37 jobs in Carlsbad to every
employed resident. By 2050, there will be more jobs (87,100) than working age residents
(70,872 age 18-64).
There are also more jobs in the city than residences. The current jobs/housing ratio is 1.43.
By 2050, the jobs/housing ratio will rise to about 1.72. A "balanced" ratio is typically
considered to be around 1.2. Therefore, the present influx of workers from outside the city
will continue to be significant into the future.
3. Envision Carlsbad
Following the City Council's acceptance ofthe Carisbad Community Vision, staff began woricing
on the General Plan update and to date have developed three land use concepts that show a
range of land use options to guide the future of Carisbad toward achievement ofthe
community's vision. The three land use concepts identify land throughout the city that has the
potential to accommodate Carlsbad's future projected growth (opportunity sites), which are
vacant or underutilized.
The land use concepts, identified below, propose three alternative strategies for
accommodating projected population and employment growth, while reflecting the core values
of the community's vision.
• Concept A: Centers
Concept A directs future deveiopment to several new neighborhood centers that are
distributed to maximize accessibility from residential neighborhoods. Each center would
include local shopping accessible to local residents; high and medium density housing would
surround the retail centers or be integrated In mixed use buildings. In this concept, a
significant majority ofthe city's future housing needs would be accommodated in the
centers, enabling people to live close to shops and services and along transit corridors.
• Concepts B: Active Waterfront
This concept directs more development along the waterfront, enabling residents, hotels and
other uses to be close to the ocean. About half of the city's new residential growth would
be near the waterfront area. Plaza Camino Real and Quarry Creek would accommodate
most of the other new residential growth.
• Concept C: Core Focus
Concept C directs new residential and commercial uses to strategic locations at the edges of
Carisbad's employment core in the geographic center ofthe city, which would enable
residents to live close to jobs, shopping and restaurants. Just over a third ofthe new
housing growth would be in central Carlsbad, while the rest would be dispersed at different
locations.
The three proposed land use concepts were presented to community members and
property owners at workshops on January 31 and February 2, 2012. Community feedback
received at the workshops and online is currently being analyzed by staff and our consultant
team.
In March - April, Staff anticipates meeting with the EC3 and Planning Commission to present
the community's feedback on the land use concepts and get direction on development of a
prefenred plan. A draft preferred plan is anticipated to be presented to the City Council in
June 2012. The preferred plan wili be the foundation for the General Plan update.
Staff is continuing to process appiicationis to amend land uses independently from the
General Plan update. Once a preferred plan Is reviewed and recommended by the City
Council, consistency with the preferred plan will be an issue to consider when reviewing
applications.
n
4. I^nd Use Conversioris-Points to Consider
Over the past year, staff has received numerous developer and property owner Inquiries about
building multi-family projects on sites scattered throughout Carisbad. These sites are
predominantly vatant and non-residential and are in or near the industrial corridor from
Avenida Encinas east to the Vista border. Two of the inquiries, for example, proposed several
hundred apartments on vacant industrial lots along Palomdr Airport Road. The inquiries were
informal and have not yet resulted in the filing of actual applications.
Conversion of land uses from non-residentiai (or low density residential) to high density
residentiai requires the consideration of many factors as the list below points out.
• Public participation and expectations
1. Changes in land use require amendments to the general plan, zoning ordinance, and
commonly In the industrial corridor, specific or master plans. Land use changes in the
Coastal Zone would also require an amendment to the city's Local Coastal Program. All
amendments are subject to public hearings.
2. Changes may be proposed where surrounding owners and residents have land use
expectations based on existing uses and already approved land use documents, such
as the general plan or a master plan.
• Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDU) considerations
1. Conversions require EDU withdrawals. Non-residential land uses have no existing
dwelling unit allocation and changes from a single-family to multi-family land use
would require supplemental allocation of additional units to achieve higher densities.
2. EDU withdrawals are subject to City Council Policy Statement No. 43. To withdraw
from the bank, a project must meet the Policy's criteria. Policy 43 Is attached.
3. EDU withdrawals would need to be considered in light ofthe bank balance.
Proposition E quadrant caps, and other projects requesting bank withdrawals. Other
projects include city-initiated actions that need withdrawals, such as Housing Element
Program 2.1 identifying Quarry Cr6ek, the Barrio, the Village, and other sites which
could accommodate additional density that are being considered under the General
Plan update.
• Constraints due to airport and industrial land uses
1. While there Is an abundance of vacant industrial land, airport safety and noise
considerations would preclude some industrial corridor properties from residential
use.
2. Residentiai uses may impact the types of industrial or manufacturing uses that can
locate nearby.
• General Pian Land Use Element and Housing Element considerations
1. Land Use Element locational criteria for higher density housing would apply.
2. Conversions may contribute to RHNA and provide housing for lower income persons.
3. Conversions of non-residentiai lands may fulfill specific Land Use and Housing Element
policies on integration of housing with non-residential deveiopment and aiso may
fulfiii Housing Element Program 2.3, which encourages residential uses in major
22
commercial and major office/industrial centers where appropriate and where not
precluded by environmental and safety considerations.
• Other
1. Conversion of non-residentiai areas may align with the Carisbad's Community Vision,
established as part ofthe first phase of Envision Carisbad, by putting residences close
to commercial and job centers and thus encouraging walking, sustainability, livability,
and pubiic transit.
2. Mutti-family uses generate less traffic than industrial and commercial uses.
3. Conversion of non-residential land to residential uses may decrease tax revenue and
increase public facility needs.
5. Currrent General Plan Policy Framewori< on Locating Higher Density, Mixed
Use and Affordable Housing
• Overview
Guidance on where housing should locate in Carlsbad is provided in the General Plan Land
Use and Housing elements. In addition, both elements contain specific criteria on the
location of higher density, mixed use, and affordable housing. These criteria are in the form
of goals, objectives, policies and programs.
For this discussion, "higher density housing" Is provided by the RMH and RH General Plan
residentiai land use designations, which make up about 13 percent of ail existing residentiai
lands. (The General Plan also uses the temis "multi-family development" and "medium-high
density" when describing higher density housing.) "RMH" means Medium-High Density and
"RH" means High Density. These designations require minimum densities of 12 and 20
dwelling units per acre, respectively. "Mixed use" housing refers to residential units located
in commercial and industrial areas. "Affordable housing" means residences affordable to
persons with lower and moderate incomes. Ali three terms are discussed together because
more often tiian not, units built in affordable and mixed use projects are higher density
housing.
Land Use Element policies establish location criteria for ali three housing types. The criteria
call for affordable, higher density, and mixed use housing to be:
1. Located throughout Carisbad
2. Sufficient in quantity to meet anticipated growth white retaining the present
predominance of single family residences
3. Compatible with adjacent land uses
4. I n or near commercial areas, employment centers and by major transportation
corridors
5. Close to open space, community facilities, and other amenities
6. Supported by public facilities and services (existing or proposed) adequate to
accommodate the increased population
7. Served by adequate and convenient commercial services (existing or proposed)
8
Attachment D provides the complete wording of each goal, objective and policy.
The programs In Carisbad's current Housing Element (2005-2012) implement General Plan
policies to ensure Carisbad provides a variety of housing for ali economic segments and
meets its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The programs identify specific
locations or zones in which higher density housing should locate. Programs 2.1 and 2.3 in
particular identify actions the City wiil take to provide land or standards at densities
appropriate for higher density housing. The actions, which are consistent with the Land Use
Element policies establishing location criteria, are summarized in Attachment E.
Program 2.3 encourages mixed use developments. While the action part of the program
(see Attachment E) is limited to commercial zones as noted above, the program also
provides overali location guidance by stating "major industrial/office centers, where not
precluded by environmental and safety considerations, should incorporate mixed
Industriai/office/residentlal uses."
• Summary and Policy Considerations
Staff believes the city's existing General Plan policy framework is adequate and has served
the city well. Should an application be filed to change the land use designation from non-
residential or low density residential to high density residential, the existing General Plan
policies are sufficient to evaluate such a request.
Considerations:
1. New policies could specifically address land use conversions from non-residential to
residential and the location of residential in industrial areas.
2. For conversions in established areas, a policy could emphasize the need for
community engagement.
3. Conversions of non-residential land could be subject to a policy that requires
analysis of fiscal impacts and any limitations that new residential uses would impose
on surrounding land uses.
Please note the opportunity to review the entire policy framework will occur as part of the
General Plan Update.
6. Housing Elements
• Overview
The State of California certified Carisbad's current Housing Element in March 2010. The
element addresses housing needs for the fourth housing cycle, which covers the period
2005-2012. The next, or fifth, housing cycle Is effecth/e for an eight year period that begins
January 1,2013, and ends December 31,2020. During this cycle, Carisbad will adopt two,
four year elements.
9
Li
State law requires housing elements for the fifth cycle to be adopted by April 27,2013, or 18
months after the adoption of SANDAG's 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); the passage of these documents occurred on
October 28,2012.
Staff anticipates Carisbad's adoption of its next Housing Element by the April 2013 state
deadline. The Housing Element will be updated as part ofthe overali General Pian update.
Work has already begun to collect demographic data, identify housing needs and Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) accommodations, and prepare an outreach pian; a
meeting with housing stakeholders to help identify relevant issues for the update is
tentatively scheduled for the end of March 2012.
Foiiowing adoption, staff will send the housing element to the State Department of Housing
and Community Deveiopment (HCD) for certification. Certification provides a number of
benefits, described below.
• RHNA
Carisbad's RHNA allocation for the 2013-2020 (fifth) housing element cycle (see Table A
below) was adopted by SANDAG concurrent with the RTP and SCS. The allocation requires
Carisbad to identify sites at suitable densities to enable developers to build the number of
homes identified in Table A during the cycle. While other methods exist to satisfy a portion
of the allocation, such as acquisition of lower income housing to preserve its affordability
(e.g., Tyler Court apartments), identifying adequate sites is the primary tool. Cities are not
obligated to provide land or build units to meet RHNA.
TABLE A
CARLBAD'S RHNA ALLOCATION FOR THE FIFTH (2013-2020) HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE
Income
Category
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
TOTAL
Number of
Units 912 693 1,062 2,332 4,999
Percentage of
totai 18% 14% 21% 47% -
Satisfying RHNA presented the biggest challenge with adoption ofthe current housing
element. While identifying land at the low densities appropriate for ai>ove moderate
households was and is not expected to be an issue, identifying sites to accommodate
Carisbad's very iow, low (together considered "lower") and moderate income RHNA wiil be
difficuit. Though the number and percentage of units to accommodate this need was much
greater in the current cycle (4,965 units/59% ofthe total need) than the upcoming cycle
(2,667 units/53% ofthe total need), staff anticipates the challenge will remain. With the
current housing element, as Carisbad did not have adequate sites to accommodate the
lower and moderate income need, land use amendments were required.
10
For the upcoming housing cycle, HCD will require Carlsbad to identify available land at
densities HCD considers necessary to make units affordable to lower and moderate income
residents. Based on certification of Carisbad's current housing element, these densities will
be at least 12 (moderate) and 20 (lower) dwelling units per acre. "Available land" consists of
sites that are vacant or have redevelopment potential. Though two, four-year elements will
be adopted over the upcoming eight year cycle, programs in the "first" housing element, to
be adopted in 2013, will address the RHNA needs for the entire cycle.
Sites the city Identified in the current housing cycle toward meeting lower and moderate
Income needs can again be counted to help meet RHNA in the upcoming 2013-2020 housing
cycle only If they meet the foltowing caveats:
1. The site remains vacant with no approved project;
2. The site remains vacant with an approved project and it Is clear that a portion or all of
the project when built will provide or be affordable to lower or moderate income
households (e.g., the west half of Robertson Ranch); and
3. Any land use actions identified in the current housing element, whether city-Initiated oir
otherwise, to provide necessary densities were completed during the current housing
cycle. (e.g.. General Plan, zoning and other amendments necessary to provide necessary
densities at Quarry Creek or the Barrio neighborhood).
Attachment E provides status and other information about current Housing Element
programs 2.1 and 2.3. These programs specify the actions the city wilt take in the
current housing cycle (2005-2012) to meet its RHNA obligations.
• Certification Benefits
The requirement for a certified housing element applies to a charter city and provides both
legal and financial benefits.
First, state certification provides a local jurisdiction with a rebuttable presumption that the
housing element is legally valid. Thus, when a legal challenge is brought against a certified
housing element, the burden of proof Is shifted to the challenger to demonstrate that the
housing element is legally infirm. Without a certified housing elisment, the City has the
burden of establishing its validity.
Moreover, case law has established that a finding of consistency with the General Plan may
not be valid where a general plan Is Incomplete or Inadequate. Since all land use decisions
require a finding of general plan consistency, a defective housing element may jeopardize
the City's approval of both residential and non-residentiai projects.
It is also imperative that the City have a certified housing element to be eligible for certain
funds from SANDAG and HCD; this funding is listed in Table B below. In fact, per SANDAG
Board Policy 33 (revised January 2012), SANDAG will not award any discretionary funding
identified in Table B unless cities meet these criteria:
11
1 ,•••)
1. Have a housing element certified by HCD, and;
2. Report annually the progress in providing housing to the four different income
categories (Carlsbad does this).
TABLEB
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROGRAMS SUBJEa TO SANDAG BOARD POUCY 33 CRITERIA
Funding Program Allocating Agency
Federal
• Transportation Enhancement program
SANDAG
State
• Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 -
Non-motorized Program SANDAG
Local
• TransNet Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Neighborhood
Safety Program
• TransNet Smart Growth incentive Program
SANDAG
• Workforce Housing Grant HCD • In-Fill Development Grant HCD
7. Affordable Housing and Inclusionary Requirements Case Law
• Overview
The City Council has previously been briefed on recent court decisions that have an Impact
on the production of affordable housing, including the requirement to specifically identify
adequate sites In the City's Housing Element, and those relating to the City's inclusionary
requirements.
If the amount of new rental affordable housing developed/produced within the community
is reduced, that In turn impacts the city's ability to meet significant regional housing needs
allocations; industry trends in housing development are currently supporting deveiopment
of apartments but not necessarily with affordable rents for low income households, and the
Po/mer decision dictates that inclusionary requirements cannot be applied to rental housing
units without some form of direct financial assistance or other Incentives.
The city amended Its inclusionary housing ordinance in 2010 to be consistent with the
decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, LP, v. City of Los Angeles, 175 Cal.App.4*'* 1396
(2009). The ruling has already Impacted Carlsbad's ability to provide affordable housing. In
2011, the Planning Commission approved four, six-unit apartment projects in the La Costa
area, all proposed by the same developer. The Commission could not condition each project
to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units as this would have violated the Costa-
12
Hawkins Act which invalidated rent control. The Cornmisslon did condition the developer to
pay any applicable housing impact fee thatthe City Council might establish prior to building
permit Issuance for the project. Staff anticipates the developer will begin project
construction soon and before a fee Is established.
The decision in Building Industry Assodation pf Central Califomia v. City of Patterson, 171
Cal.App.4th 886,899 (2009) impacts how the city can impose fees to assist with the
development of affordable housing; financial resources are needed to assist developers In
building affordable housing for low income households because Increased density alone
typically does not result in the production of new units; if there is no inclusionary
requirement for rental units and no related In lieu fee available, revenue to assist
affordable housing developers will be substantially reduced.
• Summary and Policy Considerations
The City has been presented with real impacts related to the Palmer and Patterson court
decisions. Despite the rulings, staff believes the city can continue to realize affordable
housing production from both ownership and rental projects through amending City Council
Policy No. 43 and establishing a Rental Housing Impact Fee. These two recommended
proposals, described below, could be included on an agenda at a future regularly scheduled
City Council meeting for City Council consideration, at which time the Council could direct
staff to proceed accordingly.
1. First, staff recommends that the City Council consider structuring the withdrawal of
units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank as a regulatory incentive granted only for
(1) projects that produce affordable housing that furthers Carlsbad's Housing
Element goals or (2) mixed income projects that have a negotiated number of
restricted units for low or moderate income households if this would aliow the city
to impose inclusionary requirements in rental projects. An amendment to City
Council Policy No. 43 would require a project seeking a withdrawal from the
dwelling unit bank to meet the qualifications listed in the policy, and if so the
project would be provided an automatic allocation of additional dwelling units
resultmg in a density increase. Presently, the provision of low or moderate Income
housing with a project Is not always required for an allocation of units from the
dwelling unit bank. Further, identifying a bank withdrawal as an "incentive" may
also require amendment to Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding density bonus
and incentives or concessions.
If a bank withdrawal is an incentive, it would allow the city to mandate Inclusionary
requirements for a rental project, without the necessity for accord by the developer.
However, if the project does not require a withdrawal from the bank or some other
incentive such as direct financial assistance, the city could not require Inclusionary
housing for a rental project.
13
2. Second, staff recommends placing on the council's regular agenda an Item to
consider obtaining a nexus study to establish a Rental Housing Impact Fee with the
fees generated being used to develop affordable housing at appropriate locations
within the City, or allow developers to voluntarily agree to restrict units within their
developments in lieu of payment of a new housing impact fee. Last year, the City of
Solana Beach adopted an impact fee applicable to rental projects of five units or
more based on a nexus study conducted by Keyser Marston Associates. The
contracted amount for this study, approved In January 2010^ was $52,000 (including
a $5,000 contingency).
Besides the two recommended proposals above, other options for City Council
consideration Include the following:
1. Advocate for legislative change to allow City inclusionary obligations to apply to new
rentals to ensure that these developments are required to assist in producing
housing affordable to low income households; and/or
2. Continue all existing policies and programs without revisions.
8. Excess Dwelling Unit Banic - Purpose and Need
• Purpose
In 1986, Carisbad voters passed Proposition E (Growth Management), which established an
overall dwelling unit cap for the city, as well as a dwelling unit cap for each of the four city
quadrants (which cumuiath/ely add up to the city dwelling unit cap). To ensure that
residential development does not exceed the dwelling unit caps. Proposition E also
established Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) densities for each ofthe residential
land use designations. For example, the Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use
designation has a GMCP density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Table C shows the Growth
Management dwelling unit caps per the proposition and the number of existing dwelling
units in the city.
14
. TABLEC
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DWELUNG UNIT CAPS (PER PROPOSITION E)
AND EXISTING DWELUNG UNITS
City Quadrant
Growth Management
Dwelling Unit Cap
(Per Proposition E)
Existing Dwelling
Units
as of Feb 29,2012
Percentage of
Residential BuiltOut
NW 15,370 12,926 84%
NE 9,042 5,708 63%
SW 12,859 10,942 85%
SE 17,328 15,609 90%
Citywide Total 54,599 45,185 83%
Because the General Plan allows residential development to occur below and above the
GMCP density (within a specified range), the city established the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank '
as a tool to. ensure consistency with the Growth Management dwelling unit caps. City
Council Policy Statement No. 43 (Attachment C) provides direction on the deposit and
withdrawal of units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
As described below and as per City Council Policy No. 43, when residential development Is
built at a density below the GMCP density, the "excess" units (the difference between what
was built and what could have been built at the GMCP density) shall be deposited Into the
Excess Dwelling Unit Bank; units In the bank mav then be used to allow residential
development above the GMCP density for other projects.
• How dwelling units get deposited Into the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank
"Excess" dwelling units become available and, per City Council Policy No. 43, shall be
deposited into the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank as a result of:
1. Residential projects being approved and constructed with fewer dwelling units than
would have been aliowed by the density control points ofthe Growth Management
Plan, or
2. Land designated for residential uses is developed with non-residential uses,
3. A general plan amendment that changes a residential designation to a non-
residential designation, thereby removing the density originally allocated to the
property.
• Need for/use of excess units
The city niay allow residential development above the applicable GMCP density; however,
the units above the GMCP density must be allocated from and come out ofthe Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. City Council Policy No. 43 specifies that only certain types of projects
qualify for an allocation from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, Including:
15
1. Conversion of (i) non-residential land to residential land or (11) low-density
residentiai land to higher-density residentiai land.
2. Housing located in the Village (a portion ofthe excess dwelling unit bank is
"reserved" for future housing in the Village).
3. Housing projects affordable to lower and moderate income households.
4. Housing projects that request a density bonus pursuant to state density bonus law.
5. Senior citizen housing.
6. Transit-oriented projects.
• Example of deposit/withdrawal from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank
The following two recently approved projects are examples of residential development that
resulted In a deposit or withdrawal from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
TABLED
EXCESS DWELUNG UNFT BANK DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL EXAMPLE
Project Requested
Action
Dwelling Units
Allowed Per GMCP
Density
Dwelling Units
Approved
Bank Deposit/
Withdrawal
Rancho
Milagro
Single family
subdivision
(Sunny Creek
area of NE
Quad)
Sl
dwelling units
(17 acres x 3.2
du/ac)
RLM GMCP density
dwelling units
M
excess
dwelling units
deposited
Tavarua
Senior
Apartments
100%
Affordable
senior housing
(Barrio area)
fi
dwelling units
(1 acre x 6 du/ac)
RM GMCP density
dwelling units
(density
increase)
M
excess
dwelling units
withdrawn
• Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Current Balance
City staff tracks the deposits and withdrawals from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank on a
project by project basis to ensure compliance with the Growth Management dwelling unit
caps, in 2002, the City Council reduced the bank balance from approximately 5,500 to 2,800
units. Since that time, deposits and withdrawals from the bank have resulted in a current
(Feb 29,2012) Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Balance of 3,002 dwelling units.
Table E beiow shows how the City Council's 2002 removal of units from the bank resulted in
(1) a reduction of the Proposition E quadrant caps, (2) a reduction ofthe Proposition E
citywide cap (by 2,694 units) and, in turn, (3) an increase in the the buiid-out percentages in
relation to the caps that resulted from the reduction by an average four percent. These
figures are in comparison with those in Table C on page 14.
16
TABLE E
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DWELUNG UNFF CAPS (PER OTY COUNOL 2002 BANK
REDUCTION) AND EXISTING DWELUNG UNITS
City Quadrant
Growth Management
Dwelling Unit Cap
(Per City Council 2002
Bank Reduction)
Existing Dwelling
Units
as of Feb 29,2012
Percentage of
Residential Buiit-Out
NW 14,592 12,926 89%
NE 8,507 5,708 67%
SW 11,831 10,942 92%
SE 16,975 15,609 92%
Citywide Total 51,905 45,185 87%
Excess dwelling units for the Housing Element
Program 2.1 ofthe current Housing Element (2005-2012) identifies various sites where the
land use designation or zoning regulations need to be changed to accommodate the city's
share ofthe Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the current Housing Element.
Excess units will need to be allocated to most of those sites because the Housing Element
programs require a change that wiii result in more units on the sites than currently allowed
by the existing General Plan. Table F lists the sites identified In Housing Element Program
2.1 that require an allocation from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. In addition, the table lists
shopping center sites identified In Housing Element Section 3 as potential mixed use
residential and commercial developments. Since these sites have no residential unit
allocation, they too require a bank allocation. The residential units that could result from
mixed use development at these sites also contribute toward the cit/s RHNA share.
17
TABLE F
EXISTING EXCESS DWELUNG UNIT BANK BALANCE AND AVAIUBIUTY
CURRENT EDU BANK
BALANCE^
NW Village NW Other NE SW SE TOTAL CURRENT EDU BANK
BALANCE^ 875 493 645 722 267 3002 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Village -875 -875 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Barrio -227^ -271 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Plaza Camino Real -285 -285 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites North County Plaza -60 -60 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Vons Tamarack -25 -25 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Country Store -25 -25 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Quarry Creek -363 -363 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Sunny Creek -88 •88 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Ponto -117 -117 Excess Units Needed for Housing (Element Sites Vons La Costa -42 -42
TOTAL AVAILABLE
FOR OTHER PROJECTS NA NA NA NA NA 851^
As of the bank reduction in 2002, the excess unit bank is no longer based on quadrants; however, the
Growth Management cap for each quadrant cannot be exceeded. The balances shown here reflect the
quadrant balances that existed at the time of the reduction adjusted per the changes to the bank that have
occurred since the reduction to 2,800 units In December 2002.
^The number of excess units needed for the Barrio reflects the recent withdrawal of 44 units for the Tavarua
Senior Apartments, which counted toward satisfying the Housing Element requirement for the Barrk).
^ All of these excess units, as well as some ofthe excess units that were removed from the bank in 2002, will
be needed to facilitate the General Pian update, see below for more information on this topic.
The city Is currently in the processes of updating the General Plan, including the Housing
Element. The Housing Element update will include an analysis ofthe city's inventory of
developable sites and their capacity to accommodate the city's share ofthe RHNA for the
next housing cycle (2013-2020). Although that analysis has not yet been completed, staff
anticipates that the city will need to increase the number of dwelling units allowed on a
certain number of sites to meet the RHNA requirements (see Table A, page 10), and that the
number of dwelling units currentiy available in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank may not be
sufficient to allow for the necessary dwelling unit increase. This will be determined during
the Housing Element update process and may require at least a portion ofthe units
"removed" from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank In 2002 to be restored.
• Excess dwelling units for the General Plan update
As part of the General Plan update, the city's land use map will also be updated to ensure
that planned land uses are appropriate to accommodate the projected housing need, as well
as employment growth, over the next 25 years. In comparison to the amount of housing
needed to satisfy the RHNA in the next Housing Element, which only addresses the housing
need over an eight year period, the General Plan aims to establish residentiai land use
designations and policies that wiil accommodate the amount of housing needed over the
next 25 years.
18
More information about the General Pla n update can be found above In the section titled
Envision Carlsbad. However, In relatton to the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, the General Plan
update program is currently studying three proposed land use concepts that Illustrate
different options for accommodating future growth. In terms of residentiai growth to meet
future housing needs, all three land use options depend on restoring some, if not most or
ail, ofthe excess dwelling units that were removed from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in
2002. However, the buiid-out capacity of each ofthe three proposed land use concepts is
below the Growth Management dwelling unit caps, as shown In Table H below. Table G
reflects the number of excess dwelling units that would be needed to facilitate the three
proposed land use concepts.
TABLEG
EXCESS DWELUNG UNITS NEEDED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
EDU Bank
Balance as
of Feb 29,
2012^
Excess Units Needed for the Proposed
General Plan Update Land Use Concepts^
EDU Bank
Balance as
of Feb 29,
2012^
CONCEPT A
CENTERS
CON
AC
WATE
CEPTB
TIVE
RFRONT
CONCEPT C
CORE FOCUS EDU Bank
Balance as
of Feb 29,
2012^ #of
Excess
Units
Needed
Excess
Units
Available
for Other
Projects
#of
Excess
UniU
Needed
Excess
Units
Available
for Other
Projects
ffof
Excess
Units
Needed
Excess
Units
Available
for Other
Projects
NW
VILUGE 875 875 0 875 0 875 0
NW
OTHER 1271 1122 149 1068 203 1086 185
NE 1180 1108 72 953 227 1106 74
SW 1750 1140 610 1268 482 714 1036
SE 620 500 120 474 146 583 37
TOTAL 5696 4745 951 4638 1058 4364 1332
^ Includes all Housing Element sites and
^ Balances shown in this table reflect th
bank in 2002.
other sites within the concept map focus areas.
e addition ofthe excess units that were removed from the
19
TABLE H
BUILDOUT CAPACITY OF PROPOSED UND USE CONCEPTS
City
Quadrant
Growth Management
Dwelling Unit Cap
Concept A
Centers
Concept B
Active Waterfront
Concept C
Core Focus
NW 15370 13,763 13,753 13,763
NE 9,042 7,322 7,192 7,352
SW 12,859 11,646 11,766 11,296
SE 17,328 16,157 16,127 16,227
Citywide
Total 54,599 53,648 53,541 53,267
Summary and Policy Considerations
City Council Policy No. 43 mandates the depositing of excess dwelling units in the Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. On the other hand, withdrawing bank units is discretionary.
The policy already identifies the limited instances in which withdrawals can occur. In light of
the Palmer case and the ever-jiresent challenge In providing affordable housing, staff
recommends that the City Council consider further limitations on unit withdrawals from the
bank. As discussed in the previous buileted item, unit withdrawals are recommended only
for projects that produce affordable housing In furtherance of Carisbad's Housing Etement
goals.
Additional limitations on unit withdrawal have these considerations:
1. It would preserve excess units for projects with affordable housing, helping Carisbad
meet its RHNA obligations Into the future.
2. By preserving units for affordable housing projects, it would assist with housing
element certification.
3. it would limit the use of excess units.
20
i?0
Summary and Policy Considerations (as previously stated in items 5,7,
and 8)
• Current General Plan policy framework on locating higher density, mixed use and
affordable housing
Staff believes the existing policy framework is adequate and has served the city well. Should
an application be filed to change the land use designation from non-residentiai or low
density residential to high density residential, the policies are sufficient to evaluate such a
request.
Other options:
1. Place on the regular city council agenda consideration of new policies that could
specifically address land use conversions from non-residential to residential and the
location of residentiai in Industrial areas.
2. For conversions in established areas, a policy could emphasize the need for
community engagement.
3. Conversions of non-residential land could be subject to a policy that requires
analysis of fiscal impacts and any limitations that residential would impose on
surrounding land uses.
Please note the opportunity to review the entire policy framework will occur as part ofthe
General Plan Update.
• Affordable Housing and Inclusionary Requirements Case Law
The City has been presented with real Impacts related to the Palmer and Patterson court
decisions. Despite the rulings, staff believes the city can continue to realize affordable
housing production from both ownership and rental projects through amending City Council
Policy No. 43 and establishing a Rental Housing Impact Fee. These two recommended
proposals, described betow, could be included on an agenda at a future regularly scheduled
City Council meeting for City Council consideration, at which time the Council could direct
staff to proceed accordingly.
1. First, staff recommends that the City Council consider structuring the withdrawal of
units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank as a regulatory incentive granted only for
(1) projects that produce affordable housing in furtherance of Carlsbad's Housing
Element goals or (2) mixed Income projects that have a negotiated numberof
restricted units for low or moderate Income households if this would allow the city
to impose inclusionary requirements in rental projects. An amendment to City
Council Policy No.43 would require a project seeking a withdrawal from the dwelling
unit bank to meet the qualifications listed in the policy, and if so the project would
be provided an automatic allocation of additional dwelling units resulting in a
density Increase. Presently, the provision of iow or moderate income housing with a
21
4 n
project is not always required for an allocation of units from the dwelling unit bank.
Further, identifying a bank withdrawal as an "incentive" may also require
amendment to Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding density bonus and Incentives
or concessions.
If a bank withdrawal is an incentive, it could allow the city to mandate inclusionary
requirements for a rental project, without the necessity for accord by the developer.
However, if the project does not require a withdrawal from the bank or some other
incentive such as direct financial assistance, the city could not require Inclusionary
housing for a rental project.
2. Second, staff recommends placing on the council's regular agenda an item to
consider obtaining a nexus study to establish a Rental Housing impact Fee to be
used to develop affordable housing at other locations within the City, or allow
developers to voluntarily agree to restrict units within their developments in lieu of
payment of the new impact fee. Last year, the City of Solana Beach adopted an
impact fee applicable to rental projects of five units or more and based on a nexus
study conducted by Keyser Marston Associates. The contracted amount for this
study, approved in January 2010, was $52,000 (including a $5,000 contingency).
Besides the two recommended proposals above, other options fbr City Council
consideration include the following:
1. Advocate for legislative change to allow City inclusionary obligations to apply to new
rentals to ensure that these developments are required to assist in producing
housing affordable to low income households; and/or
2. Continue all existing policies and programs without revisions.
Excess Dwelling Unit Bank - purpose and need
City Council Policy No. 43 mandates the depositing of excess dwelling units in the Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. On the other hand, withdrawing bank units Is discretionary.
The policy already identifies the limited Instances in which withdrawals can occur. In light of
the Palmer case and the ever-present challenge in providing affordable housing, staff
recommends further limitations on unit withdrawals from the bank. As discussed In the
previous buileted item, unit withdrawals are recommended only for projects that produce
affordable housing in furtherance of Carlsbad's Housing Element goals.
Additional limitations on unit withdrawal have these considerations:
1. It would presen/e excess units for projects with affordable housing, helping Carisbad
meet its RHNA obligations into the future.
2. By preserving units for affordable housing projects, it would assist with housing
element certification.
3. it would limit the use of excess units.
22
GTB:SD
Attachments
A. North County Times article: Housing: Apartment construction rebounding (February 2012)
B. Cities & Towns Online article: Dream home for the new era: Compact, connected & mortgage
free (February 2012)
C. City Council Policy Statement No. 43
D. General Plan Land Use Element policy location criteria for higher density housing
E. Summary and status of Housing Element programs 2.1 and 2.3
23
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING: CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
DATE: March 20, 2012
TIME: 11:00 AM
PLACE: CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 173B, 1635 FARADAY
The Mayor called the meeting to order on March 20,2012 at 11:00 a.m. Present: Hall, Kulchin,
Packard, Blackburn and Douglas.
REGIONAL REPORTS
Blackburn: Council Member Blackburn attended a meeting ofthe Buena Vista Lagoon JPC. He noted
that many agencies attended the meeting and discussed several key issues regarding the Environmental
Impact Report and future mitigation efforts ofthe Lagoon. He noted that a full title search regarding the
Lagoon will be done by SANDAG. City Attorney Ron Ball stated that all agencies agreed to share
documents regarding the Lagoon.
Kulchin: No Report.
Hall: No Report.
Packard: In response to Council Member Packard, City Attorney Ball stated that the City will determine
a position on Buena Vista Lagoon once all data is presented.
Douglas: No Report.
Housing Issues: Current Conditions, Emerging Trends, Existing Laws, Policies, Future Needs,
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and Council Policy #43.
The following documents were distributed for this item and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
• Articles and Memoranda from City Attorney Ball to Mayor and City Council, "Housing Issues
Agenda Item on March 20, 2012 Workshop" dated March 14, 2012.
• Memorandum from Community and Economic Development Director to Usa Hildabrand, City
Manager, and "Housing Issues" dated February 2,2012.
• Presentation on Housing Issues, Scott Donnell, March 20, 2012.
Staff Members Presenting: Sr. Planner Scott Donnell, Director of Community and Economic
Development Gary Barberio, and Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Debbie Fountain.
special Meeting Workshop, March 20, 2012
Director Barberio noted that the presentation to Council was to receive input for the General Plan
Update.
Mr. Donnell spoke about the housing trends by demographics. He explained that "Baby Boomers" and
those with "empty nests" were looking for smaller square footage in their residences. He also noted
that "Millinials", those in their 20's and 30's, were not looking for single family homes. Discussion
ensued regarding multi-family homes. The Mayor noted that the 10-15 year time-frame is valid for
determining housing types.
Mr. Donnell stated that developers have been requesting higher density projects.
At 11:57 a.m. the Mayor called a recess. The Mayor and Council Members Packard, Kulchin, Douglas
and Blackburn returned at 12:10 p.m.
Public Comment:
Mario Monroy discussed the housing numbers assigned to each quadrant
Lloyd Hubbs spoke about the need for single family homes.
Diane Nygaard spoke about the sizes and numbers of houses and their impact on available land.
Margie Monroy noted that the Council needs to note changes and act on them.
Cont. of Housing Discussion:
Mr. Donnell discussed the housing policy framework: the location of housing, the density of housing
and the availability of housing to all economic segments.
Council Member Douglas left the meeting at 12:40 pm.
Council concurred that the Housing Policy #43 and feasibility study should return to a Regular Council
Meeting for consideration.
Council Priorities
Ms. Hildabrand passed out the Council Priority Project Worksheet and explained its format. This
worksheet, dated March 20, 2012, is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Council asked for updates on the following project:
Page 2
Special Meeting Workshop, March 20, 2012
• Agua Hedionda Dredging
Director of Utilities Glenn Pruim gave an update on this project and the project's timeline.
Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
/
Trrains M. Wood, CMC
City Clerk
Page 3
Revision of Council Policy
Statement No. 43
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
July 9, 2013
Background
•Palmer court decision
•Inclusionary Housing
•Affordable housing mandate
•Multi-family unit land use trend
•March 2012 Council workshop
Proposed Policy Revisions
•An allocation is an incentive
•Acceptance of an allocation requires
contractual agreement
•Inclusionary requirements apply
•Limited exceptions are permitted
Proposed Policy Revisions
Proposed revisions:
•Comply with Palmer
•Are not an additional regulation
Recommendation
ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 2013-
177 APPROVING revisions to City Council
Policy Statement No. 43