The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-10-04; Planning Commission; ; LCPA 95-01 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING II LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTA REPORT TO THE PLANNING CO MMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF OCTOBER 4, 1995 Application complete date: Project Planner: Chris DeCerbo Project Engineer: SUBJECT: LCPA 95-01 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING I1 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT An amendment to all six segments of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) to: (1) add affordable housing policies dealing with Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonuses, Second Dwelling Units and Senior Housing to the City’s six Local Coastal Program segments, and (2) adopt previously approved companion affordable housing zone code amendments (i.e. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (ZCA 91-06), Density Bonus Ordinance (ZCA 91-05) and Affordable Housing Site Development Plan Procedures (ZCA 92-02) as the implementing zoning for Carlsbad’s LCP. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3773, recommending APPROVAL of LCPA 95-01, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION This project will add previously adopted General Plan affordable housing policies to the City’s six Local Coastal Program segments and adopt companion affordable housing zone code amendments as the implementing zoning for Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program thereby creating consistency between the City’s General Plan, zoning ordinance and Local Coastal Program. 111. PROJECT DESCRIIYIlON AND BACKGROUND In October of 1991, the City of Carlsbad amended it’s Housing Element to add new policies and action programs to encourage and enable the development of affordable housing within the City. Since that time, the City has approved several amendments to it’s zoning ordinance to implement these new affordable housing policies and action programs. This Local Coastal Program Amendment will: (1) add the housing policies to the City’s six Local Coastal Program (LCP) segments (i.e. Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties, and Village Redevelopment Area); and (2) adopt three lh LCPA 95-01 - AFFORD& A3 HOUSING I1 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT October 4,1995 PAGE 2 previously approved affordable housing zone code amendments, thereby ensuring that the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which functions as the implementing ordinance for the City’s LCP, is consistent with it’s LCP. The specific Housing Element policies/action programs and zone code amendments which were previously approved by the City and which are the topic of this Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA), include the following: A. B. C. D. E. GPA 90-08 HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES 3.6.a. 3.6.b. and 3.2 - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING - A minimum of 15% of all units approved in any residential master plan, specific plan or qualified subdivision shall be set aside and made affordable to lower income households. In those developments which are required to include 10 or more units affordable to lower income households, at least 10% of the lower income units should have 3 or more bedrooms. An in-lieu fee may meet the requirement to construct low income housing for residential developments of less than 7 units. GPA 90-08 HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY 3.7.a and PROGRAM 3.7.a - DENSITY BONUS - The City shall offer the private sector economic incentives to encourage and enable the development of affordable housing. Accordingly, the City shall develop an ordinance that implements Government Code Sections 65915 and 65915.5 (State Density Bonus Law). GPA 90-08 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 3.7.b - SECOND DWELLING UNITS - The City will examine its existing Second Dwelling Unit ordinance to explore means of better encouraging and facilitating the development of affordable second dwelling units. GPA 90-08 HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY and PROGRAM 3.4.a - SENIOR HOUSING - Amend the City’s Senior Citizen Housing regulations to conform to State Density Bonus Law and establish standards for location, parking, safety, recreational facilities, medical care and other aspects of senior housing. ZCA 91-06 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE - Adopted on May 21, 1993, this ordinance established requirements for the reservation and affordability of housing units for lower-income households in residential developments. The ordinance established the following mandates: a. Not less than 15% of all residential units within any residential project (of 7 or more dwelling units) shall be set aside for occupancy by, and be affordable to, lower-income households; and b. For those developments which are required to provide 10 or more units affordable to lower-income households, at least ten percent of the lower-income units shall have 3 or more bedrooms; and LCPA 95-01 - AFFORDA-LE HOUSING II LOCAL COMTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT October 4,1995 PAGE 3 c. All Inclusionary units shall be deed restricted to remain affordable to the designated income group for the useful life of the project or housing unit. F. ZCA 91-05 - DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE - Adopted on May 21,1993, this ordinance implements State Density Bonus Law (State Government Code Sections 65915 and 65915.5). The ordinance enables the City to grant a minimum 25% residential density bonus and an additional economic incentive (i.e. (a) the modification of site development standards; (b) approval of mixed use zoning; (c) an additional density bonus above the minimum 25%; or (d) other regulatory concessions which result in identifiable cost reductions), in return for a developer reserving a certain percentage of the dwelling units of a project as affordable (either 10% for very low income households, 20% for low-income households or 50% for senior households). G. ZCA 92-02 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURES - Adopted on July 21, 1992, this zone code amendment: 1) requires all affordable housing projects to be processed through a Site Development Plan application; and 2) amends the development standards provisions to enable the City to allow modified (less restrictive) development standards for affordable housing projects. This LCPA is a follow-up legislative action to the previously approved Housing Element amendment and zone code amendments, which is necessary to ensure consistency between the City's amended General Plan (Housing Element), Zoning Ordinance and it's LCP. Upon approval of this LCPA, it will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval. A six week public comment period was provided for this proposed LCPA, beginning on June 8, 1995 and ending on July 21, 1995. A notice was published in the Carlsbad Sun and the Blade Citizen. A copy of the notice was also mailed to the interested parties list maintained by the City. No comments were received. Iv. ANALYSIS Any proposal to develop affordable housing within the Coastal Zone, pursuant to the amended affordable housing policies, zone code regulations and procedures, shall be required to be consistent with all applicable LCP development standards, polices and provisions. Therefore, no effects on other LCP sections are anticipated. This proposed LCPA, which will add new affordable housing policies to the City's six LCP segments as well as new zoning requirements, regulations and procedures for developing affordable housing within the City, is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to coastal resources. As discussed above, any affordable housing proposed within the Coastal Zone, pursuant to these new policies and amended affordable housing code regulations and LCPA 95-01 - AFFORDLLE HOUSING I1 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT October 4,1995 PAGE 4 procedures, shall be required to be consistent with all applicable LCP development standards, policies and provisions, including those dealing with the protection of coastal resources. w. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Negative Declarations for the Housing Element General Plan Amendment and the three affordable housing Zone Code Amendments, which are the topic of this LCPA, were approved as follows: GPA 90-08 - General Plan Amendment (Housing Element) - October 22, 1991 ZCA 91-06 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - June 25, 1992; ZCA 91-05 - Density Bonus Ordinance - June 25, 1992; and ZCA 92-02 - Affordable Housing Site Development Plan Procedures - April 30,1992. This project (LCPA 95-01) is a follow-up legislative action to the Housing Element General Plan Amendment and three Zone Code Amendments, which will result in consistency between the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and it’s LCP. Since LCPA 95-01 will not revise the environmental findings of the previously approved Negative Declarations, the Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore has issued a Notice of Prior Compliance on August 23, 1995. A’ITACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3773 Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program Segments Boundary Map Public Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated August 23, 1995 Environmental Impact Assessment Part 11, dated August 15, 1995 --_ CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) SEGMENTS BOUNDARY MAP AFFORDABLE HOUSING I1 LCPA 95-01 e a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FQRM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEI CASENO. - DATE: Au BACKGROUND 1. 2. APPLICANT Citv of Carlsbad 3. CASE NAME: Affordable Housing II Local Coastal Prorrram Amendment ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 2075 Las Palmas Drive. Carlsl 92009-1576; (619) 438-1 161 extension 4445 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 4. 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Cit./s Local Coastal Program (L C affordable housinp Dolicies dealinp with Inclusionarv Housing. Density Bonuses. Second and Senior Housing to the CiMs six Local Coastal Promam Sements. and (2) adow mevi affordable housing: zone code amendments (Le.: Inclusionam Housing: Ordinance (ZCA I Bonus Ordinance (ZCA 91-05] and Affordable Housing Site DeveloDment Plan Procedure! as the imdementinp mnine for Carlsbad's LCP. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACXORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would he potentially affected by this project, in one impact that is a "Potentially Sigdicant Impact", or "Potentially Si&icant Impact Ud Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Ciculation - Public Service! - Population and Housing - Utilities and SC - Biological Resources Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resou - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance I- 1 Rev 0 e DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifhnt effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I frnd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and : been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially sisnificant dm mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, bt analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I frnd that the proposed project COULD NOT. have a significant effect on the environment because potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATIO pursuant to applicable standards. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. B - k9-K- a/ls/.lr Planner Signature Date w .- Planning Director -& Date 1-2 Rev. e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACL'S STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Impact Assessment to determine! if a project may have a sigmficant effect on the environment. The Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifie biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City w to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati. or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequate1 an information sou~ce cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answc supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply 1 the one involved. A "No Impact'' answer should be explained when there is no source docun or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. "Less Than Signifcant Impact'' applies where there is supporting evidence that the potentia adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policie! "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Si@ The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measu explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant environment, but &l potentially sigmficant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoide pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or xnitigi that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is 1 Compliance). A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an E of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigatior agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentid Impact Unless Mitigation Inmrporated"-may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Dah prepared- When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to p If the dgnificant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable the effect will he mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding considerations" has been made p earlier EIR. * 1-3 Rev. : 0 e An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Si@icant Impact" is checked, and including but not following circumstances: (1) the potentiidly significant effect has not been discussed or mitigate EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measurc the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the sign has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em (3) proposed mitigation measUtes do not redu to less than si@icant, or, (4) through the EIA-Part IT analysis it is not possible to determir signrficance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigatia -- reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of signif, %all@. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tk DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 1-4 Rev. e e -Y Sii potentially Untess LessThan Sii Mitigat& Significant Issues (and slqpming IUfamatiaI sclum!s): Impact lacorKrated Wt I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction or zoning? (Source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4) - - - over the project? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - vicinity? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e-g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - housing? (1,2, 3,4) - - - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 1-5 Rev. e a potentidy SlgIllfii pozelltiall~ Unless LessThan SigIlifii Mitigation Significan Impctct lncarporated Impact ku- (and sumatiq Infamarial sarrces): III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,3,4) - - - b) Seismic ground shaking? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2, 3,4) - - - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2, 3,4) - - - f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - g) Subsidence of the land? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - h) Expansive soils? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sufface runoff? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - 1-6 Rev. potentidly SignifK.ant Potentially Unless LessTha significant Mitigation Significx lmpect lncarporad Impact 0 II Issues (and suppating Infcrmatiaa sauces): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2, 3,4) - - - e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - groundwater? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - g) Altered direction or rate of flow of i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2, 394) - - - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1, 2,3,4) - - - or cause any change in climate? (1,2, 3,4) - - - d) Create objectionable odors? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 1-7 ReV e e mtentiauy significant Potentially Unless LeSSThar significant Mitigation Significan Issues (and supparting Infamatial sources): Imwt incorporated Impact VI. TRANSPORTATION/ClRCVTION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - nearby uses? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - off-site? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - Hazards or bartiers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to d) Insuffcient parking capacity on-site or e) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - W. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - 1-8 Rev. a a potentiauy Si1m porentially Unless LessThaI SilCant Mitigation Significan Issues (and supping Infonaatiaa sonrces): hpact Incupxated @t c) Locally designated natural Conununties (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - corridors? (1,2, 3,4) - - - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (1,2, 3,4) - - - b) Possible interference with an emejgency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2, 394) - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - of potential health hazards? (1,2, 3,4) - - - d) Exposure of people to existing soul%es 1-9 Rev. 0 POteIUidly SiIlifhlt PCQntially Unless LessThal Issues (and supporting Infmnatial ScluFCes): Impact Incarporad Impbct brush, grass, or trees? (1,2, 3,4) - - - @ Significant Mtigation Significan e) Increase fie hazard in meas with flammable X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - b) Exposure of people to severe noise - - levels? (1,2, 3,4) - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: - - a) Fire protection? (1, 2, 3, 4) - b) Police protection? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - c) Schools? (1, 2, 3, 4) - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - - - - - e) other governmental services? (1,2, 3,4) - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (1,2,3,4) - - - b) Communications systems? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - I- 10 Rev e potentidly Si- Potentially Unless LessThr Isslxs (d sqpatii Infamaticm sources): Impact lncorpcaad m=t c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? (l,2, 3,4) - _. - e) Storm water drainage? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - f) Solid waste disposal? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - a Significant Mitigation Significa Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2, 3,4) - - - b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - c) Create light or glare? (1,2,3,4) - - - XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - c) Affect historical resources? (1,2,3,4) - - - d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1, 2, 3,4) - - - within the potential impact area? (1,2, 3,4) - - - e) R&ct existing religious or sacred uses I- 11 Rev. a 0 potentidly SiIlifii PCtentiallY UdesS LfssTba significant Mitigath Significcu - sounxs): Impctct InccrPoraM Q=t Issues (and suCportms Infarmahap XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1, 2, 3, 4) - - - XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a major periods of California history or prehistory? - - - b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) - - - will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - c) Does the project have environmental effects which I- 12 Rev. a e XVII. EARLIERANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuan t to the tiering, program EIR, or other C process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or nega declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the fol on attached sheets: a) Eatlier analyses used. Identrfy earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applj legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measure on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Sigdkant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were inmrporated or refined f the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for project. I- 13 Rev. e 0 DISCUSS ION OF ENVIR0"TAL EVALUATION EARLIER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Negative Declarations for the Housing Element General Plan Amendment and the three Zone Cod( which are the topic of this Local Coastal Program Amendment, were approved as follows: 1. 2. 3. Housing Element General Plan Amendment - GPA 90-08 - October 22, 1991 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - ZCA 91-06 - June 25, 1992 Density Bonus Ordinance - ZCA 91-05 - June 25, 1992 4, Affordable Housing Site Development Plan procedures - ZCA 9242 - April 30,1992 This project (LCPA 95-01) is a follow-up legislative action to the Housing Element General Plan I three Zone Code Amendments and will result in consistency between the City's General Plan, ZO and it's Local Coastal Program. Since LCPA 95-01 will not revise the environmental findings oj approved Negative Declarations, a Notice of Prior Compliance will be issued. The above refer Declarations and Environmental Impact Assessments are available at the City of Carlsbad Planni I. LAND USE AND PLANNING This is a Local Coastal Program Amendment. No actual physical development is proposed as parl This LCPA will ensure consistency between the City's LCP, zoning ordinance and General Plan amendment is not in conflict with other Citywide environmental plans. This LCPA will not & resources or operations or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established cornmunit establishes policies for Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonuses, Second Dwelling Units and Seni standards modifications for affordable housing proposals within the City. Any future developn processed pursuant to these amended regulations and procedures shall be required to under; environmental review. Any potential land use and planning impacts identified shall be required t mitigated. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING Since this LCPA is strictly an admh&mQ 've action, where no physical development is proposed, of] projections will not be exceeded, existing housing will not be displaced, nor will growth inducemen All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation ( population and housing impacts. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this Local Coastal Program her no geologic impacts will occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these SLI regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall i mitigation of all identified geologic impacts. requirements, regulations and procedures for implementing inclusionary housing, density bonuses a s I- 10 Rev e e IV. WATER As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no impacts to hydrology t will occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate I identified hydrologic and wter quality impacts. V. AIRQUALlTY As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no air quality impacts subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and 1 be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation of s quality impacts. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no transportation/circulat occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate 1 identified transportationlcirculation impacts. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no impacts to biologici occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate identified biological impacts. VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no hpacts to enei resources will occur. All subsequent development projezts processed pursuant to these an regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall 1 mitigation of all identified energy and mineral resource impacts. Ix. HAZARDS As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no hazards will occur, development projects pmcesed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all potential X. NOISE As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no noise ixnpacts subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all impacts. 1- 15 Rev _- 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no public service imp All sumuent development projm processed purmant to these amended policies, regulati~w and 1 be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all i service impacts. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no utility and service will occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, procedutes shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequatt all identified utility and service system impacts. Mn. AESTHETICS As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no aesthetic impacts subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and I be subject to project specifk environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation fc aesthetic impacts. m. CULTURAL RESOURCES As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no impacts to cultura OCCUT. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequat all identified cultural resource impacts. XV. RECREATION As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no recreation impacts subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and 1 be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation fc recreation impacts. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, the project will not deg of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wil to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the I California history or prehistory. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these a regulations and procedures shall’be subject to project specific environmental review which shall I mitigation for all identified impacts to the above-noted environmental resources. No site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA. Accordingly, no inci impacts nor cumulatively considerable impacts will OCCUT. All subsequent development projects prc to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific envirc I- 16 Rev _- 0 0 which shall require adequate mitigation for all identified cumulatively considerable impacts. . No site-specific development proje is pmcessd as part of this LCPA. Accordingly, this LCPA substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. All subsequent develc processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall be subject to environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all identified substantial adverse e beings. I- 17 Rev. e APPLICABLE) LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF _- e ATTACH MlTIGATION MOMTORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 I - 18 Rev. -- m 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MlTIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MIITGATING ME! AND CONCUR WlTW THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. bate signature 6 mla I- 19 Rev. 1