Loading...
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