HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-12-14; Housing Commission; ; Housing Element Implementation – receive a report on the city’s rezoning effort and recommend minimum affordability requirementsMeeting Date: Dec. 14, 2023
To: Housing Commission
From: Christian Gutierrez, Housing Services Manager
Staff Contact: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2618
Subject: Housing Element Implementation – receive a report on the city’s
rezoning effort and recommend minimum affordability requirements
Recommended Actions
1.Receive a report on the city process to revise land use standards and rezone properties
to implement programs of the Housing Element.
2.Adopt a resolution (Exhibit 1) recommending a greater minimum affordability
requirement to apply to development of residential units on city-owned parcels and all
other parcels identified to implement the programs of the Housing Element and assist
the city in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), based on the
findings contained therein.
Executive Summary
Jurisdictions throughout the state of California are required by law to develop and maintain a
Housing Element, a mandatory part of the General Plan. The Housing Element provides the city
with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent
and affordable housing for varying income-levels within the community.
The City Council adopted the current Housing Element on April 6, 2021, and the city received
state certification of the document in July 2021. The element (Exhibit 2) includes approximately
40 programs broken down into nearly 160 objectives, with each objective having an identified
implementation timeframe and/or requiring ongoing implementation throughout the 2021-
2029 “housing cycle.” The actions range from rezoning sites to permit additional housing units
to developing streamlined permitting procedures. All time-specific program objectives are
scheduled to be complete by December 2024.
The rezoning of sites, listed as Program 1.1, requires the city to provide capacity for additional
housing, and is a key program of the Housing Element. The program is necessary to ensure the
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 1 of 28
city can accommodate projected population growth through 2029 as estimated through a
process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and the identification of sites began in 2020,
with significant public outreach in summer and fall 2021. On Feb. 15, 2022, the City Council
directed consideration of 18 sites throughout Carlsbad. On Oct. 18, 2023, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning program to City Council, which is expected
to consider the recommendation on Jan. 30, 2024. The comprehensive Planning Commission
staff report is available as Exhibit 3. The city must complete implementation of Program 1.1 by
April 2024.
This purpose of this staff report is:
• Provide the Housing Commission with an overview of the rezoning effort, and
• Request the Housing Commission recommend a minimum affordability
requirement to apply to city-owned sites and all other sites that have been
identified to accommodate housing to satisfy RHNA.
Discussion
Background
State Housing Element Law requires cities and counties to adopt and regularly update their
Housing Element, a mandatory element of the city’s General Plan. As part of this recurring
update process, the law requires cities to provide an adequate inventory of housing sites that
can accommodate forecasted residential growth through a process known as the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment or RHNA. The state, through the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG), projected the San Diego region’s growth for an 8-year projection
period between April 15, 2021, and April 15, 2029, and set Carlsbad’s individual RHNA target at
3,873 total housing units. This total was further subdivided into units for very low income
(1,311), low income (784), moderate income (749) and above moderate income (1,029)
families. Through an evaluation of existing zoning, the city was able to accommodate all but
1,724 RHNA units (1,397 very low and low (or “lower”) income units and 327 moderate income
units). Factoring in additional units as a recommended buffer1, the unit total for the city to
provide through rezoning is 2,578 units of very low, low and moderate-income housing. On
April 6, 2021, the City Council adopted an update to its Housing Element which formalized
these housing goals and established the city’s comprehensive housing strategy through April
2029.
Program 1.1 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element directs the city to rezone properties (i.e.,
change a property’s land use designation and zoning) to achieve this inventory. The city has
identified 18 potential sites to rezone or identify for housing and has prepared an
environmental impact report and various proposed amendments to land use documents such
as the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to support the proposed changes. Per state law,
completion of the Housing Element Program 1.1 rezone program is required by April 2024,
three years after adoption of the Housing Element. Failure to adopt the rezone program to
1 The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recommends cities add a 15 to 30% buffer
to the remaining RHNA need (1,724 units) to ensure adequate sites will exist throughout the 8-year project period,
or housing cycle.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 2 of 28
implement Program 1.1 may result in the HCD decertifying the city’s Housing Element, which
would greatly limit the city’s ability to regulate the type and location of housing built in
Carlsbad. See Exhibit 4 on the penalties and consequences of Housing Element noncompliance.
As described, the city must identify sites to accommodate 2,578 units. Accordingly, the city has
since 2020 worked with the community to identify sites and has been studying 18 sites to
provide housing. Three of the sites are city-owned. This culminated in the City Council’s Feb. 15,
2022, direction to study the currently identified 18 sites allocated as described for two different
maps:
• Map 1: Includes all 18 sites.
• Map 2: Includes the 18 sites except sites 3, 8 and 15. Map 2 also includes an increased
assumption of the number of units that could be built at the two Coaster Stations (sites
14 and 17) as compared to Map 1.
The three city-owned sites are:
• Site 2 - The Shoppes at Carlsbad Parking Lot: Located south of State Route 78 and west
of El Camino Real, this 57-acre site consists primarily of the parking lot that surrounds
the buildings at The Shoppes at Carlsbad mall. As proposed the site’s Regional
Commercial land use designation would be supplemented by the R-23 and R-40
residential land use designations, which would allow up to 23 and 40 units per acre,
respectively. In total, the city estimates 993 units could be built.
• Site 6 – Crossings Golf Course Lot 5: This vacant site overlooks part of the Crossings Golf
course and is located along College Blvd., midway between Faraday Ave. and Palomar
Airport Rd. It is currently designated for industrial and office uses. If developed
residentially, approximately 180 units could be built at a proposed density of R-30,
which allows up to 30 units per acre.
• Site 15 – City’s Oak Yard: Located at the west end of Oak Ave. in the Village, Site 15 is
currently a city maintenance facility. If redeveloped under the property’s current land
use designation, which permits both residential and commercial uses, approximately 24
units on the 1.3-acre site could be realized. Map 2 excludes Site 15.
A map of all 18 sites is included as Exhibit 5. Fact sheets on each of the city-owned sites are
included as Exhibit 6.
The proposed project involves State-mandated updates to the Land Use and Zoning Maps,
Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program and various master plans and specific plans to
accommodate the RHNA allocation through the year 2029.
The effort to rezone sites would result in changes to planning-level documents only – it neither
proposes nor approves development projects on any of the housing sites. Any subsequent
construction on the sites would be subject to separate, future city review and approval.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 3 of 28
Planning Affordable Versus Building Affordable
As previously noted, local governments are required under state law to ensure that there is
enough land available, with adequate zoning to accommodate its allocated RNHA for the entire
housing cycle. So, what type of zoning makes a house affordable to an income group? In a
word, density.
The foundation of Housing Element Law is based on the premise that density is a proxy for
affordability. The idea being, the more housing units on a site (density) translates to lower
construction costs per unit, which translates to lower rental/sale prices of those units
(affordability). As such, HCD assigns minimum density figures to each income category as
reflected in Table 1 below. Note that the first three income groups – extremely low, very low
and low – are often expressed collectively as “lower income.”
Table 1: Breakdown of Different Income Levels based on Area Median Income and
Density
Income Category AMI1 Family of Four2 Density3
Extremely Low Income4 <30% AMI <$41,350 30 du/ac
Very Low income 30-50% AMI $68,900 30 du/ac
Low income 50-80% AMI $110,250 30 du/ac
Moderate income 80-120% AMI $140,150 11.5 du/ac
Above moderate income >120% AMI >$140,150 <11.5 du/ac
1The 2023 San Diego County Area Median Income (AMI) is $116,800 for a family of four.
2Assumes income at higher end of the AMI scale
3X du/ac = dwelling units per one acre of land
4”Extremely low income” is not a specified income group in the RHNA and is often included in the very low
income category.
The state also requires that cities develop and implement programs that will help facilitate
affordable housing costs, but the programs cannot be too onerous or restrictive to make the
housing development financially infeasible to construct. For example, cities can impose
inclusionary housing requirements on new development, but HCD generally limits the
requirement to be between 15% and 20% of the total units in the project.
This becomes problematic for jurisdictions. While the Housing Element cycle requires local
governments to ensure that land is adequality zoned to accommodate affordable units, the
city’s obligations do not end there. HCD also requires that the units constructed on these
properties are affordable at the assumed income category. This disconnect in planning versus
construction results in a requirement to carefully track and monitor affordable housing. If the
new housing units are not affordable at the targeted income category, the city is required
under State law to find other site(s) to rezone to make up the shortfall. Consider the following
hypothetical example:
A city identifies a 10-acre site and applies a 30 du/ac zoning designation. In their
Housing Element, 300 units are credited towards their low-income RHNA
allocation. Later, a developer applies for 290 units. Because the city has a 15%
inclusionary requirement, 44 of the 290 units must be restricted as affordable for
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 4 of 28
low-income. The project is constructed, and the 246 unrestricted units sell at
above-market prices. So, in this example, because the city assumed 300 units
would be built on this site (only 290 were constructed) and that all would be
low-income units (only 44 were restricted), then the city is obligated to rezone
other site(s) to make up the 256 low-income unit shortfall.
Current Minimum Affordability Requirements and Direction
City-owned parcels
Due to the disconnect between affordable housing planned and housing constructed, Program
1.1 and Program 2.4 require the city to seek a higher level of affordable housing (at least 20%
affordable to lower income households) on any city-owned parcel considered for rezoning or
identified to assist the city in meeting its RHNA requirements. Additional affordability
requirements applicable to the three city owned properties include the Surplus Land Act, which
outlines statutes governments must follow when disposing of excess land. City staff are
recommending specific and greater minimum affordability requirements for the three city-
owned sites to be exempt from the Surplus Land Act. Program 2.4 (e), which specifically applies
to city-owned properties, requires that the city, “leverage this ownership to negotiate a higher
percentage of lower-income units than would be required under current city code.”
North County Transit District (Coaster station) parcels
NCTD’s two Coaster stations in Carlsbad, at the Carlsbad Village and Poinsettia stations, are
both identified sites for housing. The district is currently pursuing their redevelopment, which is
in the feasibility and design phase.
Program 1.1 directs the city to work collaboratively with the North County Transit District on
redevelopment of the Carlsbad Village Station. The program also directs the city to, “as part of
[the Village Coaster Station’s] redevelopment, seek a high level of affordable housing.” While
no Housing Element program addresses the Poinsettia Transit Station specifically, a goal of
NCTD’s redevelopment at both stations is to “contribute to regional housing needs through
facilitating the construction of market rate and affordable housing.” Currently, these parcels
would be subject to the minimum affordability requirements of 15% affordable for lower
income households.
All other parcels
Current city programs already establish minimum affordability requirements, including the
city’s inclusionary housing ordinance, adopted in 1993. The code requires that a minimum of
15% of the units within a project be affordable to lower-income families and over the past 25
years, the program has resulted in about 2,500 affordable units citywide. In 2015, concurrent
with the city’s General Plan Update, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7114
(Exhibit 7) that included greater affordability requirements for properties that were upzoned as
part of the General Plan.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 5 of 28
Minimum Affordability Recommendations
To expand upon these existing programs, Exhibit 1 recommends:
• All non-city-owned sites and the two Coaster Station sites: A minimum affordable
housing requirement considered in the implementation of Program 1.1 by requiring
compliance with one of the following:
o 20% of the total residential units restricted for low-income households
o At least 15% of the total residential units are restricted for low-income
households and an additional 10% are restricted for moderate-income
households
o At least 15% of the total residential units are restricted for very-low income
households
• City-owned sites: A minimum affordable housing requirement of at least 40% of the
total residential units restricted for lower-income housing, affordable to households
To support the recommendations to increase the minimum affordability requirements for both
city-owned and non-city owned sites are several key findings, listed below.
• As noted, there is a disconnect between affordable housing planned and affordable
housing constructed, and the city must maintain adequate sites based on income
category throughout the entire housing cycle.
• Across all income categories, the state places the greatest emphasis on providing
housing for lower-income households. In the current 2021-2029 housing cycle, 54%
(2,095 units) of the city’s individual RHNA target is in the lower-income category; these
units are often the most difficult to achieve and are usually built only because of
government mandates (such as the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance) and/or
financial subsidies (such as through the city’s Housing Trust Fund).
• In the prior housing cycle (2013-2021), the lower income housing need was 1,605 units.
Through 2020, 378 lower income units (24% of the identified need) were built.
• A 20% affordability requirement is consistent with that applied to sites as part of the
2015 General Plan Update.
• For city-owned sites, the city’s ownership provides leverage to require greater
affordability.
• Requiring a minimum affordability requirement of 40% on city-owned parcels may
comply with Surplus Land Act provisions and enable the city to dispose of sites 2, 6, and
15 to enable their residential development.
• Application of 20% and 40% minimum affordability requirements across a sampling of
the 18 sites makes a difference in the production of lower-income housing, as compared
to a 15% (the inclusionary housing ordinance minimum) or 20% (applicable to city-
owned sites) affordability minimum. Table 2 below demonstrates this:
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 6 of 28
Table 2: Application of different minimum affordability requirements1
Site number2 Number of
units3
Lower-income units required
15% 20% 40%
Site 2 993 n/a4 199 397
Site 6 180 n/a4 36 72
Site 15 24 n/a4 5 10
Total, these sites 1,197 - 240 479
Site 8 150 23 30 n/a5
Site 11 199 30 40 n/a5
Site 19 76 11 15 n/a5
Total, these sites 425 64 85 -
1 Affordability requirements are those defined in California Health & Safety Code.
2Sites 2,6 and 15 are city-owned. Sites 8, 11 and 19 are privately-owned.
3”Number of units” is a city estimate of homes that could be built on the identified sites.
4Because sites 2, 6, and 15, are city-owned, they are subject to a minimum 20% affordability
requirement per programs of the Housing Element. However, a 40% requirement is
recommended.
5As privately-owned, these sites are not recommended at an affordability requirement above
20%.
Exhibits 8 (Map 1) and 9 (Map 2) provide a full analysis of all 18 sites and the unit differences
that would result from different minimum affordability requirements.
Further details and justification on the minimum affordability requirements are provided in the
recommended Housing Commission resolution (Exhibit 1).
Options
Exhibits 8 and 9 also identify an additional minimum affordability requirement of 25% that
could be applied to all sites. This presents the Housing Commission with the option of requiring
greater or lesser affordability minimums to non-city-owned sites and city-owned sites,
respectively.
1. Do not apply a 25% minimum affordability requirement and instead proceed with the
recommended 20% and 40% requirements.
Pros
• Would be consistent with the affordability requirements applied to sites as part
of the 2015 General Plan Update (Planning Commission Resolution 7114 (Exhibit
7))
• Would be consistent with Oct. 11, 2022 City Council direction to apply the
“increased inclusionary housing requirements” of the 2015 General Plan Update
• On city-owned sites, would take fuller advantage of the leverage resulting from
the city’s ownership
Cons
• None
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 7 of 28
2. Apply a 25% minimum affordability requirement instead of the recommended 20%
(non-city-owned sites) and 40% (city-owned sites).
Pros
• May result in more affordable housing on sites other than those owned by the
city
• May better assist the city in meeting its affordable housing goals and maintaining
its housing capacity for the lower income category throughout the housing cycle
Cons
• May constrain housing production; typically, inclusionary or affordability
requirements are in the range of 15-20%
• May result in less affordable housing if developers comply by producing fewer,
but more affordable units (units that are affordable to very low income versus
low income households require greater subsidies and/or financial assistance)
• Would result in significantly fewer affordable units than the recommended 40%
requirement on city-owned sites
• Would fail to take greater advantage of the city’s ownership leverage
Next Steps
Both the rezone program and minimum affordability requirement will be presented to City
Council on Jan. 30, 2024 as a public hearing item. Housing Commission and Planning
Commission recommendations will be incorporated into the City Council staff report along with
a summary of public comments expressed at the commission meetings. Written
correspondence received will also be provided as attachments.
Eight of the 18 sites are in the Coastal Zone, which encompasses about a third of the city and all
the city’s coastline. Changes the City Council approves to property land use as well as standards
that affect properties in the Coastal Zone must also receive California Coastal Commission
approval before they are effective in the Coastal Zone. Staff will submit an amendment
application to the Coastal Commission in 2024 and action expected by the Commission is
anticipated to occur at a public hearing in 2025. Changes affecting properties outside of the
Coastal Zone will be effective following their approval by the City Council.
Annually, the city prepares a Housing Element Annual Progress Report, which tracks the
progress made on Housing Element programs in the prior year. The report for 2022 was
presented to the Housing Commission as an information item on May 11, 2023. Reports
prepared in subsequent years will reflect the city’s implementation of Program 1.1 and others,
as appropriate.
Environmental Evaluation
Receiving an informational report and providing recommendations on affordable housing for
future projects, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, does not constitute a
“project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (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.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 8 of 28
For the Housing Commission’s information, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the rezoning of
properties and amendment to land use standards. The Planning Commission’s action on Oct.
18, 2023 recommended certification of the SEIR to the City Council. The City Council will make
the final determination about the adequacy of the environmental document when it considers
the project in early 2024.
Exhibits
1. Housing Commission Resolution
2. Adopted Housing Element (part of City Council Resolution 2021-073)
3. Oct. 18, 2023 Planning Commission staff report
4. Penalties and Consequences of Housing Element Noncompliance
5. Map of all 18 housing sites
6. Fact sheets on the three city-owned housing sites (sites 2, 6, and 15)
7. Planning Commission Resolution 7114
8. Comparison of minimum affordability requirements (Map 1)
9. Comparison of minimum affordability requirements (Map 2)
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 9 of 28
Exhibit 2
Adopted Housing Element (part of City Council Resolution 2021-073)
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 15 of 28
Exhibit 3
Oct. 18, 2023 Planning Commission staff report
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 16 of 28
PENALTIES AND CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE Exhibit 4
HOUSING ELEMENT NONCOMPLIANCE CONSEQUENCES
HCD is authorized to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is
inconsistent with an adopted Housing Element or sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the Government Code
(“Housing Element Law”). This includes failure to implement program actions included in the Housing
Element. HCD may revoke Housing Element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply
with state law. Examples of penalties and consequences of Housing Element noncompliance:
•General Plan Inadequacy: The Housing Element is a mandatory element of the General Plan.
When a jurisdiction’s Housing Element is found to be out of compliance, its General Plan could
be found inadequate, and therefore invalid. Local governments with an invalid General Plan can
no longer make permitting decisions.
•Loss of Permitting Authority: Courts have authority to take local government residential and
nonresidential permit authority to bring the jurisdiction’s General Plan and Housing Element
into substantial compliance with State law. The court may suspend the locality’s authority to
issue building permits or grant zoning changes, variances, or subdivision map approvals – giving
local governments a strong incentive to bring its Housing Element into compliance.
•Court Receivership: Courts may appoint an agent with all powers necessary to remedy identified
Housing Element deficiencies and bring the jurisdiction’s Housing Element into substantial
compliance with Housing Element law.
•Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: Proposed developments within the jurisdiction of a
local government that have not yet made sufficient progress towards their allocation of the
regional housing need are now subject to less rigorous “ministerial” approvals in order to hasten
the production of housing and bring a jurisdiction into compliance with its state-determined
housing need allocation.
•Legal Suits and Attorney Fees: Local governments with noncompliant Housing Elements are
vulnerable to litigation from housing rights’ organization, developers, and HCD. If a jurisdiction
faces a court action stemming from its lack of compliance and either loses or settles the case, it
often must pay substantial attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys in addition to the fees paid
by its own attorneys. Potential consequences of lawsuits include: mandatory compliance within
120 days, suspension of local control on building matters, and court approval of housing
developments.
•Financial Penalties: Local governments are subject to court-issued judgements directing
jurisdictions to bring a Housing Element into substantial compliance with state Housing Element
law. If a jurisdiction’s Housing Element continues to be found out of compliance, courts can fine
jurisdictions.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 17 of 28
!"^$
JEF F ERSON ST
CARLSBAD VILLA G E DR
PALM
ER
WYCANNONRD
LAS FLORES DR
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
MARRON RD
LAGUNA DR
LA C O S TA AV
ELCAMINOREAL
RANCHOSANTAFERD
C H E ST N U T AV
TA M ARA C K A V
ST
A
T
E
S
T
ALGA RD
MELROSE
D
R
M
O
N
R
O
EST
ALICAN
TERD
VA
LLEYST
ELFUERTEST
FARADAYAV
CAR
C
O
U
N
T
R
YDR
CAMINODE L OSCOCHES
C A L L E BARCELONA
OLIVENHAIN RD
LEGOLA
N
D
D
R
COLLEG
E
B
L
CAMINO
J
UNIPE
R
O
SALK AV
PARK
DR
K
EL
LYDR
COLLE G E BL
PA L O M A R AIRPORTRD
P OIN S E T TIA L N
PA
S
EODEL
N
O
R
T
E
A
R
M
A
DADR
POINSETTIALN
CAMINODELAS ONDAS
CAMINO V IDAROBLE
BLACKRAILRD
G
A
B
B
I
A
N
O
L
N
AVIARAPY
DOVELN
B
A
TIQ
UITOSDR
AMBROSIALN
ANAT
RA
CT
CASSIA RD
HIDDEN
V
ALLEYRD
WINDROSE
CR
KESTREL
D
R
AV
E
NID
A
E
N
CIN
A
S
COS
MOSCT
C
AR
LS
B
AD
B
L
YAR
ROW
DRLA
S
PALMASDR
SE
NW
NE
SW
Site 3
Site 15
Site 1
Site 9
Site 10Site 5
Site 14
Site 8
Site 6
Site 11
Site 7
Site 4
Site 12
Site 2
Site 16
Site 17
Site 19
J:\
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
5
\
C
o
m
E
c
o
n
D
e
v
\
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
R
I
T
M
0
0
2
3
5
7
5
_
2
1
\
P
a
p
e
r
m
a
p
s
f
o
r
P
u
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
\
M
a
p
o
f
a
l
l
p
o
t
e
n
i
t
a
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
s
(
H
E
A
C
)
.
m
x
d
Potential housing sites
I
Potential Housing Sites*
Convert government-owned property to allow housing
Convert commercial property to allow housing
Increase units allowed on properties that already allowhousing
Convert vacant industrial property to allow housing
* Site 13 was designated as a low priority site by theCity Council and is therefore not shown on this map
Site 18
(Sites 3, 8 and 15 are not included on Map 2)
Exhibit 5
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 18 of 28
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 2 – The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot
City of Carlsbad: Housing Element Update - OUR HOME OUR FUTURE
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is an underutilized, multi-parcel property off
Marron Road (a four-lane employment/transit connector
street) west of El Camino Real. The parcels are numbered
on the map to the right. The site encompasses the parking
lots for The Shoppes at Carlsbad mall and a North County
Transit District transit station. It does not include mall
buildings. One parcel (5) is at the southwest corner of El
Camino Real and Marron Road, opposite the rest of the
parcels. The parcels range in size from approximately 0.75
to nearly 30 acres and total 57 acres.
The City of Carlsbad is the site owner.
SITE FEATURES
SITE OPPORTUNITY
The very northwest corner of the site, part of parcel 1 on the map, is constrained by Buena Vista Creek and its associated
riparian habitat and floodplain area. Other than this small section, the property overall has no known physical
constraints to development due to environmentally sensitive areas. The existing transit station at the site’s west end is
expected to remain. The northernmost portion of the mall parking lot, beyond parcel 1 and along Buena Vista Creek, is
in the City of Oceanside. As it is outside Carlsbad, this portion of the parking lot is not part of the site acreage reported
here.
After serving the mall’s parking needs, the parking lot could accommodate other uses, including homes. While
residential uses are currently permitted by the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan (the approved planning document that
regulates development at The Shoppes and surrounding parking lot), the site has no formal residential land use
designation. Brookfield Properties, owner of The Shoppes at Carlsbad, supports redevelopment of the parking lot with
homes and other uses. Please see the attached letter.
Under consideration are changes to the land use designations applied to the entire mall and parking lot. The current
land use designation of R, Regional Commercial, would be changed to a “split designation” of R/R-40/R-23; R-40 is a
proposed residential designation that would permit densities from 37.5 to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). R-23 is an
existing residential designation that permits densities from 15 to 23 du/ac. Housing Element Program 1.1 proposes to
increase the minimum of the R-23 density range from 15 to 19 du/ac.
While the current R designation permits a limited number of homes above the first floor of a commercial development,
the proposed “split” designation would continue to recognize The Shoppes as a regional commercial center and at the
same time would permit a greater number of residential units without the constraint of having to locate the units above
a commercial first floor. In addition, the R-40 designation would result in housing densities considered by the state to be
affordable to lower income households. The R-23 designation would result in densities considered affordable to
moderate income households. Likewise, units anticipated under the R designation would be at a density of 15 du/ac are
also considered affordable to moderate income families.
The split designation would further include the OS, Open Space, designation as appropriate to recognize the creek.
Mall parking lot Utilities accessible
City owned Buena Vista Creek
Minimal site
constraints
Includes transit hub; close
to services
1
2
3 4 5
C-7
Exhibit 6
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 19 of 28
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 2 – The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot
City of Carlsbad: Housing Element Update - OUR HOME OUR FUTURE
Characteristic of the densities that would be permitted by the R-40 designation are four and five story apartment
buildings. For the R-23, two- and three-story apartments and condominiums would be typical.
Based on the minimum densities of each designation (R, 15 du/ac; R-23, 19 du/ac; R-40, 37.5 du/ac), the table below
lists potential unit yields for each parking lot parcel. Parcel acreages are divided equally between the commercial and
residential designations; for parcel 2, for example, this means approximately 15 acres are assigned to the R designation
and 15 acres are assigned to the R-40/R-23 designations. Further, for parcels 1 and 2 only, 9 acres of the residential
portion is proposed for the R-40 designation with the balance devoted to the R-23 designation.
Map
No.
Assessor’s
Parcel No.
Acreage Status Current
designation
Proposed
designation
Existing/potential unit
yield*
1 156-301-11 22.6* Parking lot,
small part of
creek
R/OS R/R-40/R-23/OS R: 42 units (existing)
R-23: 43 units (proposed)
R-40: 337 units (proposed)
422 total units
2 156-302-35 29.81 Parking lot R R/R-40/R-23 R: 55 units (existing)
R-23: 112 units (proposed)
R-40: 337 units (proposed)
504 total units
3 156-301-06 1.45 Parking lot R R/R-40 R-40: 27 units (potential)
4 156-301-10 1.43 Parking lot R R/R-40 R-40: 26 units (potential)
5 156-302-23 0.77 Parking lot R R/R-40 R-40: 14 units (potential)
Total 993 units
*Parcel 1 acreage reduced by one acre to reflect portion of property designated Open Space.
The city’s adopted 2017 Real Estate Strategic Plan notes the city’s general preference is to retain ownership of its
properties and lease them long-term, rather than sell a particular property. Regarding The Shoppes parking lot parcels,
the plan recommends “that the city should initiate exploration of options for entering into a long-term lease agreement
for the parking lot properties with Rouse Properties.” At the time, Rouse Properties was the mall owner and operator.
Presently, the mall owner is Brookfield Homes. The plan makes no recommendation on the property’s future use and it
does not include mixed use, including residential, redevelopment
Changing the properties’ designations to R/R-40 would require amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan and City Council approval.
The table on the following page provides summary information about the parking lot parcels, including details about the
affordability (income category) of the units that could be developed based on current and planned densities.
C-8Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 20 of 28
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 2 – The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot
City of Carlsbad: Housing Element Update - OUR HOME OUR FUTURE
Parcels Numbers
156-301-06, 156-301-10, 156-
301-11, 156-302-17, 156-302-
23, 156-302-24
GMP Quadrant Northwest
Ownership Public (City of Carlsbad or City
of Carlsbad Parking Authority) Parcel Size 57 acres (all parcels)
Current General Plan Designation
R (Regional Commercial) and
R/OS (Regional Commercial
and Open Space)
Proposed General Plan Designation
R/R-40/R-23 (Regional
Commercial/Residential 37.5
to 40 du/ac/Residential 19 to 23 du/ac); R/R-40/R-23/OS
(“OS” indicating Open
Space); or R/R-40
Current Residential
Opportunity Approximately 210 units Proposed Residential
Opportunity Approximately 993 units
Income category of units
(based on minimum density)Lower: 741 units
Moderate: 252 units
C-9Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 21 of 28
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 6 – Crossings Golf Course Lot 5
City of Carlsbad: Housing Element Update - OUR HOME OUR FUTURE
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is a vacant, city-owned property located off College
Boulevard (a four-lane arterial road) midway between
Faraday Avenue and Palomar Airport Road. It overlooks the
golf course and is on the west side of the street. The site was
graded as part of the Crossings at Carlsbad Golf Course
development in the early 2000s. While the overall site is 11.4
acres, much of the lot is steep hillside that drops to the golf
course and open space. The developable part of the lot is
only 6.8 acres.
SITE FEATURES
SITE OPPORTUNITY
There are no known physical constraints to development due to environmentally sensitive areas and the parcel is
located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport flight path. It is not significantly impacted by airport noise. Because the
parcel is city owned, development with a higher percentage of affordable housing may be possible.
Under consideration is a change of the property’s land use designation from PI/O, Planned Industrial/Office, to R-30, a
high-density residential designation typical of two to three story apartment projects. if the R-30 designation were
applied to the property, it would have a minimum density of 26.5 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 30
dwelling units per acre (du/ac). At the minimum density, approximately 180 units could be developed on the graded, flat
developable portion of the site.
To change the property’s designation to R-30, amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and zoning
designations would be necessary; these amendments would require City Council and California Coastal Commission
approval. In addition, and consistent with Lot 5’s existing land use designation, the city’s adopted Real Estate Strategic
Plan calls would need modification to allow residential on the property as it calls for the property’s long-term lease for
hotel or office purposes.
(Note: The vacant and already graded parcel directly across College Boulevard from this site is also city-owned but is not
suitable for housing due to airport restrictions.)
The table below summarizes site information.
Parcel Number 212-270-05 GMP Quadrant Northwest
Ownership Public (City of Carlsbad) Parcel Size 11.4 acres (6.8 acres
devlopable)
Current General Plan
Designation
PI/O (Planned
Industrial/Office)
Proposed General Plan
Designation
R-30 (Residential, 26.5-30
du/ac)
Current Residential
Opportunity 0 units Proposed Residential
Opportunity
Approximately 180 units
(@ 26.5 du/ac)
Income category of units
(based on minimum
density)
Lower
Vacant Utilities accessible
Graded Minimal site constraints
City owned Close to jobs
C-18Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 22 of 28
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 15 – City’s Oak Yard
City of Carlsbad: Housing Element Update - OUR HOME OUR FUTURE
SITE DESCRIPTION
This 1.3-acre city-owned site presently serves as a public works
maintenance and operations yard. It is located where the west end of Oak
Avenue terminates near the railroad corridor. Across Oak Avenue from the
yard is the south end of State Street. Approximately three blocks north is
the Carlsbad Village Train Station.
SITE FEATURES
SITE OPPORTUNITY
The city is currently planning a new maintenance and operation center that would include enough maintenance yard
space to serve city needs. The plan would locate the new facility at the city’s large Safety Center campus on Orion Way.
It is anticipated that all personnel and equipment currently stationed at the Oak Yard site would be relocated to the new
maintenance and operations center. Project design and discretionary permitting are underway, and the estimated
construction completion date of the new center is the end of 2023. At that time, the Oak Yard property would no longer
be needed for its current purpose.
The city’s adopted 2017 Real Estate Strategic Plan provides guidance on the disposition of the Oak Yard when it is no
longer needed for its current use due to the completion of the new maintenance and operations center. The plan
recommends the city release a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) and enter a long-term land lease of the
property. The plan does not make a recommendation on the property’s future use.
With the Oak Yard no longer necessary, the site could redevelop residentially. Located in the Pine-Tyler District of the
Village and Barrio Master Plan, the 1.3-acre property, consisting of adjacent 0.84- and 0.5-acre parcels, has a residential
density range of 18 to 23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The PT District does not have a mixed-use requirement as parts
of other master plan districts do. Therefore, an all-residential project could be built. At the minimum and maximum
densities permitted, the property could yield approximately 24 to 30 units.
As a public works yard, there may be the presence of above and below ground contaminants, such as from oil, fuel and
lubricants. Completion of the Orion Center by the end of 2023 will ensure adequate time for site clean-up and
development of housing within the planning period. A proposal to develop the site would require City Council approval.
The table below summarizes the information about the site, including the affordability (income category) of units based
on minimum densities proposed.
Parcels Numbers 204-010-05, 204-010-06 GMP Quadrant Northwest
Ownership Public (City of Carlsbad) Parcel Size 1.3 acres, both parcels
Current General Plan Designation V-B (Village Barrio)Proposed General Plan Designation No change
Current Residential
Opportunity
24 units (at 18 du/ac, the
density range minimum)
Proposed Residential
Opportunity No change
Income category of units
(based on minimum density) Moderate
City-owned Public works yard
Close to services Near transit
Minimal site
constraints
C-37Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 23 of 28
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Resolution 7114
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 24 of 28
Exhibit 8
Map 1 - Comparison of Minimum Affordability Requirements (All Sites)
Site Site Name Total Units1 Affordable Units
@ 15% @ 20% @ 25% @ 40%
1 North County Plaza2 240 36 48 60 -
2 The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot2 993 - 199 248 397
3 Chestnut at El Camino Real parcel 28 4 6 7 -
4 Zone 15 cluster2 212 32 42 53 -
5 Avenida Encinas car storage lot 53 8 11 13 -
6 Crossings Golf Course Lot 5 181 - 36 45 72
7 Salk Ave. parcel 259 39 52 65 -
8 Cottage Row Apts. 150 23 30 38 -
9 West Oaks industrial site3 0 - - - -
10 Bressi Ranch Colt Pl. industrial parcel 49 7 10 12 -
11 Bressi Ranch Gateway Rd. industrial
parcels
199 30 40 50 -
12 Industrial sites east of Melrose Dr. 456 68 91 114
14 NCTD Carlsbad Village Coaster
Station4
93 14 19 23 -
15 City’s Oak Yard4 24 - 5 6 10
16 Caltrans Maintenance Station &
Pacific Sales
183 27 37 46 -
17 NCTD Poinsettia Coaster Station 27 4 5 7 -
18 North Ponto Parcels5 50 8 10 13 -
19 La Costa Glen/Forum2 76 11 15 19 -
Total (with city-owned sites) 3,273 311 655 818 479
Total (without city-owned sites) 2,075 311 415 519 -
Notes:
1.Total units include those already permitted by the existing General Plan plus what would be
achieved under the proposed rezoning program.2.Sites 1, 2, 4, and 19: Portions of these sites are currently designated Open Space. The rezoning
proposed for these sites does not affect this designation.
3.Site 9: Since its original identification in the Housing Element, the city has approved “West
Oaks,” a 192-unit apartment project. Because it is approved, Site 9 does not require rezoning
and does not contribute units under either map.4.Sites 14 and 15 do not require rezoning.5.Site 18: Since originally identified as a potential housing site, the city has approved on a
portion of Site 9 “FPC Residential,” an 86-unit apartment project. Proposed rezoning of Site 18
has been modified to apply only to the portion of the site south of Ponto Drive, which consists
of five small parcels totaling a little more than an acre, although the 50 units cited above
remain as the full quantity above the current allowances of the General Plan.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 25 of 28
Map 1 - Comparison of Minimum Affordability Requirements (City-owned Sites)
Site1 Site Name Total Units2 Affordable Units
@ 15% @ 20% @ 25% @ 40%
23 The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot 993 - 199 248 397
6 Crossings Golf Course Lot 5 181 - 36 45 72
154 City’s Oak Yard 24 - 5 6 10
Total 1,198 - 240 300 479
Notes: 1.Because sites 2, 6, and 15, are city-owned, they are subject to a minimum 20% affordability
requirement per programs of the Housing Element. However, a 40% requirement is
recommended.
2.Total units include those already permitted by the existing General Plan plus what would be
achieved under the proposed rezoning program.
3.Site 2: A portion of this site is currently designated Open Space. The rezoning proposed does
not affect this designation.
4.Site 15 does not require rezoning.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 26 of 28
Exhibit 9
Map 2 - Comparison of Minimum Affordability Requirements
(All Sites except 3, 8 and 15 and with units increases at sites 14 and 17)
Site Site Name Total Units1 Affordable Units
@ 15% @ 20% @ 25% @ 40%
1 North County Plaza2 240 36 48 60 -
2 The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot2 993 - 199 248 397
3 Chestnut at El Camino Real parcel n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
4 Zone 15 cluster2 212 32 42 53 -
5 Avenida Encinas car storage lot 53 8 11 13 -
6 Crossings Golf Course Lot 5 181 - 36 45 72
7 Salk Ave. parcel 259 39 52 65 -
8 Cottage Row Apts. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
9 West Oaks industrial site3 0 - - - -
10 Bressi Ranch Colt Pl. industrial parcel 49 7 10 12 -
11 Bressi Ranch Gateway Rd. industrial
parcels
199 30 40 50 -
12 Industrial sites east of Melrose Dr. 456 68 91 114
14 NCTD Carlsbad Village Coaster
Station4
200 30 40 50 -
15 City’s Oak Yard4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
16 Caltrans Maintenance Station &
Pacific Sales
183 27 37 46 -
17 NCTD Poinsettia Coaster Station 100 15 20 25 -
18 North Ponto Parcels5 50 8 10 13 -
19 La Costa Glen/Forum2 76 11 15 19 -
Total (with city-owned sites) 3,251 312 650 813 470
Total (without city-owned sites) 2,077 312 415 519 -
Notes:
1.Total units include those already permitted by the existing General Plan plus what would be
achieved under the proposed rezoning program.
2.Sites 1, 2, 4, and 19: Portions of these sites are currently designated Open Space. The rezoning
proposed for these sites does not affect this designation.
3.Site 9: Since its original identification in the Housing Element, the city has approved “West
Oaks,” a 192-unit apartment project. Because it is approved, Site 9 does not require rezoning
and does not contribute units under either map.
4.Sites 14 and 15 do not require rezoning.5.Site 18: Since originally identified as a potential housing site, the city has approved on a
portion of Site 9 “FPC Residential,” an 86-unit apartment project. Proposed rezoning of Site 18
has been modified to apply only to the portion of the site south of Ponto Drive, which consists
of five small parcels totaling a little more than an acre, although the 50 units cited above
remain as the full quantity above the current allowances of the General Plan.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 27 of 28
Map 1 - Comparison of Minimum Affordability Requirements (City-owned Sites)
Site1 Site Name Total Units2 Affordable Units
@ 15% @ 20% @ 25% @ 40%
23 The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot 993 - 199 248 397
6 Crossings Golf Course Lot 5 181 - 36 45 72
154 City’s Oak Yard n/a n/a n/a- n/a n/a
Total 1,174 - 235 294 470
Notes:
1.Because sites 2, 6, and 15, are city-owned, they are subject to a minimum 20% affordability
requirement per programs of the Housing Element. However, a 40% requirement is
recommended.
2.Total units include those already permitted by the existing General Plan plus what would be
achieved under the proposed rezoning program.
3.Site 2: A portion of this site is currently designated Open Space. The rezoning proposed does
not affect this designation.
4.Site 15 does not require rezoning.
Dec. 14, 2023 Item #3 Page 28 of 28
From: Craig Nelson <bankoncraig@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:26 AM
To: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Housing Commission to consider affordability requirements for future development
Scott,
As a property owner and taxpayer in CBAD I would like to voice my strong opposition to building
welfare housing.
Forcing builders to provide low income housing simply means they must charge even higher
prices on market units, driving up all prices.
Government intervention just screws up the food chain and causes more problems than it solves.
CBAD's low income plan should be to build in Yuma where it's cheap.
Just because Sacramento is run by buffoons doesn't mean CBAD should be.
Craig
Craig A. Nelson
Nelson Financial Consulting Group
(858)610-7130
“The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it
does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you
want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who
hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.”
Milton Friedman
-
Housing Commission meets 12/14
From: Lori Robbins <silentmeowing@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 3:11 PM To:
Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: Re: Comment for December 14th housing meeting
Wednesday December 13th 2023
To: Housing Commission
I am a Carlsbad citizen and would like the housing plan update
to include all of the current city sites. I think it is detrimental to
only increase density in certain areas and not spread the
housing throughout town.
1. Land near the coast tends to be more expensive creating
a higher expense for developers to justify building
affordable housing.
1. Building in all areas of Carlsbad gives developers more
opportunities making it easier for the town to be
successful with their housing goals.
2. Multiple sites can be developed at the same time and
multiple builders can benefit from new construction.
3. Spreading the housing would provide more diverse
architectural projects and would ease traffic congestion
and the use of utilities and infrastructure.
4. There is potentially more space for parks and
playgrounds to be included in housing projects if all the
town is considered.
5. The additional students can be absorbed by a multiple of
elementary and middle schools instead of creating a
burden for just one school.
My one additional thought is that the density at the defunct
Sears be increased.
This site is unique in that residents can walk to stores,
supermarkets, movies and restaurants without the use of a
car. Additionally, a shuttle would be able to transport
residents to the Village area and Beaches in under 15
minutes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lori Robbins
Carlsbad Resident
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
From: Laura Vozza-Brown <lvbrown@abuildusa.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Housing <Housing@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: Re: Housing Commission Meeting Dec 14 Comments
Corrected Copy
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:38 PM Laura Vozza-Brown <lvbrown@abuildusa.com> wrote:
I am unable to attend please attatch these to the comments
Laura Brown
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
The current Housing Element does not take into consideration the Density Bonus Laws that have
been passed in the last 10 years. These laws allow developers to earn a density bonus
depending on what percentage of homes are built for Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income
families. The affordable home percentages that the city is applying to these sites between is 40
and 25 percent of the total homes. This results in a density bonus of between 37.5% and 50%
more homes that can be built on the same site. In reality, the zoning assignments are boosted
by that additional proportion. So instead of a 30 DU/AC site, the “real” density is 41.25-45
DU/AC.
Additionally, developers are allowed 1-4 building concessions. The proposed changes will result
in each site gaining 3 concessions. Concessions that are available are reduced minimum parking,
reduced setbacks, and removal of maximum height restrictions. These concessions remove
constraints that would prohibit higher density building strategies.
The rezoning density changes should be lowered to reflect the potential density a developer can
build. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is insufficient in the potential number of
homes that can be built.
City and NCDT Owned Properties
* Usable Land
Concessions Examples Reduced Parking Requirements High Restrictions Lifted
Reduced Front Side and Rear Set Backs
Private Ownership
Laura Brown
5117 El Arbol Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008
From:Leah Sorensen
To:Leah Sorensen
Subject:FW: 12/14, Agenda Item #3
Date:Thursday, December 14, 2023 10:54:50 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Teri Jacobs <tjacobs86@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:05 AM
To: Christian Gutierrez <Christian.Gutierrez@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: 12/14, Agenda Item #3
Commission,
Please go back to the drawing board and include all sites that were originally available. It is shocking that some
residents are listened to and others aren’t. In this age of equity high density-low income housing needs to be equally
spread throughout the city. Put Site 13 back in the mix.
Better yet, go back to the state and just say NO! Traffic is already horrendous, where is the infrastructure to provide
services, where are the jobs that supposedly workers will travel to via mass transit? The assumption that individuals
living in density will not own cars is ridiculous. You cannot walk to enough services into the Village!
Do the right thing for all of Carlsbad…
Teri Jacobs
Resident Dist 1
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Leah Sorensen
To:Leah Sorensen
Subject:FW: Housing Commission Meeting - December 14, 2023 - Letter of Support for Staff Recommendation
Date:Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:50:36 PM
Attachments:image003.png
Housing Commission Meeting - December 14, 2023 - Staff Support Letter.pdf
From: Stan Weiler <sweiler@hwl-pe.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 12:34 PM
To: Christian Gutierrez <Christian.Gutierrez@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Meeting - December 14, 2023 - Letter of Support for Staff
Recommendation
Please see attached letter that we would request to be included with all other documentation
provided to the Commissioners at this evening’s meeting.
L. Stan Weiler, AICP - Principal
HWL – Howes Weiler Landy – Planning, Engineering & Surveying
2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 217
Carlsbad, CA 92010
P: 760.929.2288 Ext. 402
C: 760.801.4678
HWL-PE.COM
Unless indicated otherwise, the information contained in this message is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachments is strictly prohibited. The company
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Furthermore, the company does not warrant a proper
and complete transmission of this information, nor does it accept liability for any delays. If you have received this message in error, please
contact the sender and delete the message. Thank you.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
December 14, 2023
Scott Donnell
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Housing Commission Meeting – December 14, 2023 – Owner of Site 10
Dear Scott,
This letter is provided to opine on the staff report and city staff recommendation to the Housing
Commission for December 14, 2023, related to agenda Item 3, Housing Element Implementation. We
would like to also take the opportunity to express our client’s continued support of the rezoning efforts
by the city required to implement the new Housing Element, specifically as it relates to Site 10.
The property owner for Site 10 wishes to express his support for the staff recommendation for 20%
affordable housing for his site. He understands from the staff report that cities can impose inclusionary
housing requirements on new development, and the HCD generally limits the requirement to be
between 15% and 20% of the total units in the project. Further, it is understood the recommendation of
20% for non-city-owned sites is based on precedent previously set by the 2015 General Plan update, and
specifically Planning Commission Resolution 7114 (Exhibit 7), as well as consistency with the October 11,
2022 City Council direction to apply the “increased inclusionary housing requirements” of the 2015
General Plan Update. The owner of Site 10 believes development of the site would still be feasible with
a 20% affordable housing requirement. However, in line with the findings in the staff report, applying a
further increase to 25% affordable housing requirement may have unintended consequences such as
constraining housing production or resulting in less affordable housing if sites are developed with
fewer, though more affordable, units.
The property owner for Site 10 continues to be very supportive of staff’s efforts to enhance the
production of new housing opportunities, as well as establishing a reasonable level of affordable
housing, specifically at the 20% level.
Please provide this letter as a part of the information packet to be received by the Housing Commission
for the December 14, 2023 meeting.
Sincerely,
Stan Weiler, AICP
HWL – Planning and Engineering
cc. Saahil Khandwala, Property Owner - Site 10
Housing Element
Implementation – rezoning
and minimum affordability
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
December 14, 2023
PRESENTATION
Provide the Housing Commission with an overview of the
rezoning effort
Request the Housing Commission recommend a minimum
affordability requirement
INTRODUCTION
2
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
4
State housing law
City mandates
Consequences of non-compliance
General Plan: city’s “blueprint” for
land use
Housing Element
2021-2029 housing cycle
40 programs, 160 objectives
Program 1.1 – “adequate sites”
BACKGROUND
5
HOUSING SITES
REZONE
HOUSING SITES REZONE
Units needed, by income group
Income
group
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Rezoning
units needed
2,026 552 ---2,578
7
Rezoning deadline is April 2024
Density is a proxy for affordability
Lower income = higher density
RHNA –
Regional Housing
Needs Assessment
18 Housing
Sites
8
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
2020
Housing Element
Advisory Committee
2021-2022
City Council
Hearings for the
Housing Element
and Subsequent
Direction
Summer 2023
Public Review of
Project Materials
and Environmental
Analysis
Fall 2022
Initiation of
Environmental
Analysis, including
Public Meetings
Fall 2023/Winter
2024
Public Hearings
9
2020
Public Survey
2021
Public Survey
2025
Coastal
Commission
MINIMUM AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT
Affordability: homes with rents or sales prices affordable to lower income households
Family of four earning a low income:
Maximum annual income: $110,250
Maximum rent: $1,752/mo
Maximum housing cost (ownership): $2,044/mo
DISCUSSION
11
Require a greater minimum percentage of affordable
homes
Current requirement: 15%
Proposed requirement:
Non-city owned sites: 20%
City-owned sites: 40%
DISCUSSION
12
Ensures greater production of lower income housing
Follows past direction and requirements
Takes fuller advantage of city ownership
Recognizes density does not equal affordability
Assists with state law compliance
DISCUSSION
13
Adopt a resolution recommending a greater minimum affordability
requirement to City Council:
20% affordability requirement for non-city owned sites
40% affordability requirement for city owned sites
RECOMMENDATION
14
BACKUP SLIDES
INCOME & DENSITY
Income group AMI Family of
Four
Density
Extremely Low <30% AMI <$41,350 30 du/ac
Very Low 30-50% AMI $68,900 30 du/ac
Low 50-80% AMI $110,250 30 du/ac
Moderate 80-120% AMI $140,150 11.5 du/ac
Above Moderate >120% AMI >$140,150 <11.5 du/ac
Du/ac = dwelling units per acre
16
The 2023
area median
income (AMI)
for a family of
four is
$116,800.
Themes of Public Comment
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Advocacy for/against certain rezone sites
Concerns about community character, traffic,
safety, loss of open space
Comments on density assumptions
Environmental coverage for future projects
17
OPTION – MAP 1
Existing, Approved, and Potential Affordable Housing
Quadrant Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Total
Existing affordable units1 524 360 681 645 2,209
Approved, unbuilt affordable units1 200 0 123 31 354
Potential units on vacant existing Housing Element
sites for lower and moderate income units2, 3 53 226 0 8 257
Total units possible on the 18 potential housing sites
(net increase)
1,871
(1,746)
784
(668)
718
(453)
248
(248)
3,621
(3,115)
TOTAL potential affordable units 2,648 1,254 1,522 932 6,356
OPTION – MAP 2
Existing, Approved, and Potential Affordable Housing
Quadrant Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Total
Existing affordable units1 524 360 681 645 2,209
Approved, unbuilt affordable units1 200 0 123 31 354
Potential units on vacant existing Housing Element
sites for lower and moderate income units2, 3 53 226 0 8 257
Total units possible on the 18 potential housing sites
(net increase)
1,926
(1,833)
784
(668)
641
(409)
248
(248)
3,599
(3,158)
TOTAL potential affordable units 2,648 1,254 1,522 932 6,356
18 HOUSING SITES (OPTION – MAP 1)
Total Potential Affordable Units – Insides & Outside the Coastal Zone
Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 TOTAL
Inside
Coastal
Zone
240 53 181 150 192 93 183 27 90 76 1,285
Outside
Coastal
Zone
993 28 328 259 49 199 456 24 2,336
TOTAL 3,621
18 HOUSING SITES (OPTION – MAP 2)
Total Potential Affordable Units – Insides & Outside the Coastal Zone
Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 TOTAL
Inside
Coastal
Zone
240 53 181 N/A 192 200 183 100 90 76 1,315
Outside
Coastal
Zone
993 N/A 328 259 49 199 456 N/A 2,284
TOTAL 3,599
BACKGROUND
22
HOUSING SITES REZONE
Units needed, by income group
Income group Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Required RHNA 2,095 749 1,029 3,873
- Existing
Capacity
698 422 1,029+2,149
Net RHNA 1,397 327 ---1,724
+ 30% Buffer
(of full RHNA)
629 225 ---854
Rezoning units
needed
2,026 552 ---2,578
23
HOUSING SITES REZONE
Units needed, by income group
Income group Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Required RHNA 2,095 749 1,029 3,873
+ 30% Buffer 629 225 309 1,163
Subtotal 2,724 974 1,338 5,036
- Existing
Capacity
698 422 1,338+2,149
Rezoning units
needed
2,026 552 ---2,578
24
HOUSING SITES REZONE
Units provided, by map
Income
group
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Map 1 2,776
(+750)
339
(-213)
---3,115
(+537)
Map 2 2,883
(+857)
275
(-277)
---3,158
(+580)
Units needed, by income group
Income
group
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Rezoning
units needed
2,026 552 ---2,578
25
Existing, approved and
Potential Affordable
Housing
BACKGROUND
27
CONSEQUENCES
•Loss of funding
•Loss of land use control
•Financial penalties
BACKGROUND
29