HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 47080 0
& 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4708
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE THAT REPEAL AND REENACT
CHAPTER 21.85 REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FEES.
CASE NAME: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE
CASE NO.: ZCA 99-08/LCPA 99-06
UNITS FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND IN-LIEU
AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of
amendment to Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code that repeals and reenacts Chapter 21 I
regarding affordable housing units for lower-income households and in-lieu fees; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with s
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of January, 20
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, :
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact
relating to the Negative Declaration.
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plann
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planr
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaral
according to Exhibit "ND" dated October 28, 1999, and "PII" dated October
1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZCA 99-08 a
LCPA 99-06, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project i
any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the projc
and
B. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
9
10
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidel
11 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
12
13
14
15
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plann
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of January, 2000, by
following vote, to wit:
16
17
18
19
20
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
21
22
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
23 11 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
24
25 ATTEST:
26
27
28 Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4708 -2-
e e
- City of Carlsbad.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: The project applies to the’entire City of Carlsbad
Project Description: An amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.85, the
“Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,” and the Local Coastal
Program. The existing Ordinance requires residential projects to
either construct housing affordable to lower-income households or
pay fees in-lieu of construction. The proposed changes would,
among other things, change the threshold at which affordable
housing must be constructed, allow alternatives to construction in
certain circumstances, add “extremely low income” as an income
category, and provide incentive credits for developers to assist the
City in meeting its affordable housing needs.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments’fiom the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Scott Donne11 in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4457.
DATED: October 28, 1999
CASE NO: ZCA 99-08LCPA 99-06
CASE NAME: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Amendment
PUBLISH DATE: October 28, 1999
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA99-08. LCPA 99-06
DATE: October 2 1. 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Inclusionarv Housing Ordinance Amendment - ZCA 99-08
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad RedeveloDment and Housing Department (Debbie Fountain,
Director)
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMl3ER OF APPLICANT: 2965 Roosevelt Street. Suite B.
Calrsbad, CA 92008 / (760) 434-2935
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A - City Droiect
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.85, the
“Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,” and the Local Coastal Program. The existing Ordinance
requires residential projects to either construct housing affordable to lower-income households or pay fees in-lieu of construction. The proposed changes would, among other things, change the
threshold at which affordable housing must be constructed, allow alternatives to construction, add “extremely low income” as an income category, and provide incentive credits for developers
to assist the City in meeting its affordable housing needs.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
n Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources . 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water
- u Air Quality
c] Hazards c] Cultural Resources
0 Noise c] Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
.. e
DETERMINATION.
0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
H 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 significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (Neg Dec) will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR/Neg Dec
is required; but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
C1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR/Neg Dec pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR/Neg Dec, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
.A- / o/li/7Y
Planner’s Signature Date /
IS/ 22/47
Planning DirectTs Si&ure Date
2 Rev. 03128196
e. 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. Ths checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
0 0
-~ e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
. significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
I. LAND USE AM) PLANNING. Would the proposal; I
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
El 17
0
El
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? n
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? n H
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows? a n
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils? n
i3 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? o
i) Unique geologic or physical features? rl
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
' oxygen or turbidity)?
water body?
water movements?
0
0
0
5
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless , Impact
0 LIB 0 0151
El 0 151"
0 'XI
0 om
XI.
0151
0 Elm
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 cl
cl 0
XI 151 XI la 151 151
0 zl o[XI LIB
El OBI
cl~
0 UBI
0 LIB
0 El [XI,
Rev. 03128196
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f) Changes 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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated n5
0 urn 0 0 0151 0 .XI
supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
VI.
VII. .
VIII.
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation?
cause any change in climate?
TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
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?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
pool)?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
o
17 0
I7
I7 0151
I7 UKI 0 OH
0 0151
0151 0 0151
0- 0 El
0151 ow 0 'U IXI
I7
0
17151
om
u151 0 OB
0 OBI
I7 om
OH
6 Rev. 03128196
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
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?
0
0
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)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response,
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
0,
0.
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? cl 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would @e 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? n
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
H n n n u
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? o 0 0
0 I7 0 0
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
q Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
facilities?
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? .n 0
7
e
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
I7
0.
0 0
0
0
0 I7 0
I7
0 0 *
0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
UN
05
LIB
OH
OH
UBI
OH
OH urn
I7 0 0
0
H BI w 5 [xi
OBI 05 OB
OB OH OB 0IxI
OBI OH
Rev. 03/28/96
,. 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
c) Create light or glare? 0 nIXI Incorporated
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
0 om I111 OBI 0 .w 0 UBI which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
potential impact area? 0 0 OB
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 0 0 LIB parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 OBI
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 wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 0
0
0 0
OH
OH
ow
8 Rev. 03128196
0 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify whch effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03128196
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is an amendment to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the
Zoning Ordinance, and the Local Coastal Program. The Ordinance, adopted in 1993, added
requirements for residential development to either provide housing affordable to lower-income
households (“affordable housing”) or, in certain circumstances, to pay a fee. The Ordinance is
implemented as a Citywide Inclusionary Housing Program. A Negative Declaration with no
mitigation measures was adopted for the existing ordinance.
A summary of the amendment follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Making various, minor “housekeeping” revisions;
Adding and revising definitions, including “extremely low income” as a new class of
affordable housing and household;
Increasing the threshold, expressed as a certain number of proposed units, at which a
project must construct affordable housing;
Decreasing the rental standard for a low income affordable unit;
Establishing a specific term during which a unit must remain affordable;
Providing other means besides new construction (e.g., conversion of market rate to
affordable units) as a way to meet affordable housing requirements in certain
circumstances;
Offering developer incentives to provide, for example, specific kinds of affordable
housing in exchange for a reduced total inclusionary housing requirement;
Allowing the City first right of refusal to purchase affordable rental projects upon
expiration of their affordability tenure, and;
Bringing the ordinance into conformance with the regionally-adopted guidelines for
housing element self certification pursuant to California Government Code Section
65585.1.
Staff has determined the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment
and has therfore prepared a negative declaration. No mitigation measures are required.
Specifically, the environmental analysis performed by staff resulted in this determination for the
following reasons:
1. The amendment is not associated with any specific development project and does not
propose any development;
2. The amendment does not affect: any General Plan or zoning designation, allowable
densities or land uses, or any environmental plan;
3. The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical,
biological, or human environmental impacts, and;
4. The amendment does not conflict with or affect any.of the 14 environmental factors (i.e.,
Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this Environmental Impact
Assessment Form and as discussed in the related section below.
Additionally, any future residential development processed pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance as proposed for amendment shall be required to undergo separate and detailed
environmental review.
10 Rev. 03128196
0
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
1. Land Use and Planning - The amendment will not conflict with any general plan or
zoning designation because it does not affect density, allowed land uses, or the intent and
purpose of those designations. It will assist in implementing the General Plan Housing
Element by requiring residential development projects to provide or contribute to
affordable housing. As the amendment proposes no development and is not site specific,
questions regarding the amendment’s impact to existing land uses, agricultural resources
or operations, and the physical arrangement of an established community are
inapplicable.
2. Population and Housing - Since it does not propose any development or affect
allowable land uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any population
projections, induce substantial growth, or displace any existing housing. Conversely, the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the amendment require and offer incentives to new
development to provide affordable housing.
3. Geologic Problems - The amendment changes regulations that affect development on a
citywide basis. It does not relate to any particular development project or site or geologic
condition. There are no geologic problems associated with this amendment; such would
be analyzed as part of the environmental review of a proposed development project.
4. Water - The amendment affects citywide inclusionary housing requirements. AS no site-
specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding water-related issues are
proposed, the proposal will not impact this category.
5. Air Quality - The proposal, in and of itself, will generate no development or land uses,
nor does it impact adopted city standards and policies relating to air quality.
Accordingly, it will not impact this concern.
6. Biological Resources - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or
policies affecting plant and animal resources are proposed, there will be no impacts to
biological resources.
7.- Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City
standards or policies relating to these assets is proposed as part of the changes proposed
to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, there will be no impacts to energy and mineral
resources.
8. Hazards - No site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating to
natural and man-made hazards or emergency plans are proposed. Therefore, the
amendment will not impact this subject.
9. Noise - The amendment, in and of itself, will not generate development or land uses or
impact adopted city standards and policies relating to noise; accordingly, it will not
impact this concern.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
10. Public Services - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies
regarding public services are proposed, there will be no impacts in this category.
11. Utilities and Service Systems - Since no site-specific project or changes to City
standards or policies affecting utilities and service systems are proposed, there will be no
impacts to such systems.
12. Aesthetics - As no site-specific project'or changes to City standards or policies relating to
views, aesthetics, or light and glare is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be
no impacts to energy and mineral resources.
13. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies
relating to these assets is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be no impacts to
cultural resources.
14. Recreational - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies
regarding recreational facilities or demand for the same are proposed, there will be no
impact to recreational uses, existing or proposed.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
NIA NIA
Date Signature
12 Rev. 03/28/96