HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 95-01; Affordable Housing II; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (7)r ?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. LCPA 95-01
DATE: August 15.1995
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Affordable Housing II Local Coasts 1 PrOeram Amendment
APPLICANT City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBJZR OF APPLICANT 2075 Las Palmas Drive. Carlsbad. California
92009-1576: (619) 438-1161 extension 4445
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION An amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program (L CP) to: (1) add
affordable housinp Dolicies dealing with Inclusionarv Housing. Density Bonuses. Second Dwellin? Units
and Senior Housing to the Citv's six Local Coastal Proerarn Sements. and (2) adotlt Dreviouslv am.xoved
affordable housing zone code amendments (Le.: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (ZCA 91-06]. Density
Bonus Ordinance (ZCA 91-05) and Affordable Housing Site DeveloDment Plan Procedures (ZCA 92-02),
SUMMARY OF ENVIR0"TAL 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 - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
I- 1 Rev. 1pop5
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 significant 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.
0
0
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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, if the
effect is a "potentially signrficant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment because all
potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
pursuant to applicable standards. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. IXI
Planner Signature Date -.-.
c
Planning Director &ha tureu Date
1-2 Rev. 1/30/95
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. This 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.
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.
"Less Than Signifhmt 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.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "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.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an "EM-Part IT", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but 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, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
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.
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 Signifkant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
Prepared.
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.
1-3
0 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 ER, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part 11 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-
1-4 Rev. 1pq95
h
Issues (ad supportios Infmaticm Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): 1, 2, 3,4)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (1, 2, 3,4)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1, 2, 3,4)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to mils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (1,2, 3,4)
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 ld
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 of extension of major
infrastructure)? (1, 2, 3, 4)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2, 3,4)
IWelltiallY
SiXlifii
potentially Unlegs LessThall
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1-5 Rev. 1/3op5
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose pple to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1, 2, 3, 4)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1,2,3,4)
c) Seismic ground hilure, including
liquefaction? (1,2, 3, 4)
d) Seiche, tsunarm *, 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 surface 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. 1/30/95
Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of dice water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (1, 2, 3, 4)
Changes in the amount of sufface water
in any water body? (1,2, 3,4)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (1, 2, 3,4)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (1, 2, 3,4)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2, 3,4)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (1, 2, 3,4)
potentially
SigItifiWt
Potentially Unless LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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) - -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (1, 2, 3,4) - -
d) Create objectionable odors? (1, 2, 3,4) - -
1-7 Rev. 1/30/95
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULA'FION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) hcreased 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) - -
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (1, 2,3,4) - -
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (1, 2, 3,4)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1, 2, 3,4)
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)
VII. 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 -I? (1,Z 394)
1-8 Rev. 1/3op5
Issues (and suppating Infamation sources):
potentially
SiMi
hpct
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, cuastal habitat, etc.)? (1, 2, 3, 4) -
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (1, 2, 3,4)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (1, 2, 3,4)
Vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
Plans? (1, 2,394)
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 risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous subs&nces (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (1, 2, 3,4) -
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2,
394) -
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (1, 2, 3,4)
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (1,2,3,4)
LessThan
Significant No
Impact Impact
1-9 Rev. 1/30/95
e) In- fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (1, 2, 3,4)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1, 2, 3,4)
b) Erxposure 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)
XJI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal dt 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)
Potentialy
Significant
potentially Unlegs LessThan
Significant Mitigatian Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I- 10 Rev. 1/30/95
LespThen
Significant No
Impact Impact Issues (and suppatii Infamation sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2,3,4)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1, 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)
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)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1, 2, 3,4)
I- 11 Rev. 1/30/95
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
POtdally
Significant Potentially Unless hThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated hpct Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1, 2,
394) - -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1, 2, 3,4) - -
XVI. MANDATORY FLNDINGS 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
self-sus-g 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 Califomia 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 substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
I- 12 Rev. 1/3op5
c
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:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which 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.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are ”Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measUtes which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
I- 13 Rev. 1/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
EARLIER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Negative Dechtions for the Housing Element General Plan Amendment and the three Zone Code Amendments,
which are the topic of this Local Coastal Program Amendment, were approved as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Housing Element General Plan Amendment - GPA 90-08 - October 22, 1991
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - ZCA 9146 - June 25, 1992
Density Bonus Ordinance - ZCA 91-05 - June 25, 1992
Affordable Housing Site Development Plan Procedures - ZCA 92-02 - 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 and will result in consistency between the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance
and it’s Local Coastal Program. Since LCPA 95-01 will not revise the environmental findings of the previously
approved Negative Declarations, a Notice of Prior Compliance will be issued. The above referenced Negative
Declarations and Environmental Impact Assessments are available at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
This is a Local Coastal Program Amendment. No actual physical development is proposed as part of this project.
This LCPA will ensure consistency between the City’s LCP, zoning ordinance and General Plan. The proposed
amendment is not in conflict with other Citywide environmental plans. This LCPA will not affect agricultural
resouTces or operations or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community in that it only
establishes policies for Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonuses, Second Dwelling Units and Senior Housing and
requirements, regulations and procedures for implementing inclusionary housing, density bonuses and development
standards modifications for affordable housing proposals within the City. Any future development application
processed pursuant to these amended regulations and pdures shall be required to undergo site specific
environmental review. Any potential land use and planning impacts identified shall be required to be adequately
mitigated.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Since this LCPA is strictly an administrative action, where no physical development is proposed, official population
projections will not be exceeded, existing housing will not be displaced, nor will growth inducement impacts occur.
All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall
be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation of all identified
population and housing impacts.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA),
no geologic impacts will occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies,
regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate
mitigation of all identified geologic impacts.
I- 14 Rev. 1pOps
IV. WATER
As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no impacts to hydrology or water quality
will occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and
procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation of all
identified hydrologic and water quality impacts.
V. AIRQUALITY
As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no air quality impacts will occzv. All
subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall
be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation of all identified air
quality impacts.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUTION
As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no tmnsprtation/circulation impacts will
occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and
procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation of all
identified transportation/circulation impacts.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no impacts to biological resources will
occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and
procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation of all
identified biological impacts.
VIEENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no impacts to energy and mined
resources will occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies,
regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate
mitigation of all identified energy and mineral resource impacts.
M. HAZARDS
As no site-specific development project is proposed as part of this LCPA, no hazards will occur. All subsequent
development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall be subject
to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all potential hazards.
X. NOISE
As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no noise impacts will occur. All
subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall
be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all identifed noise
impacts.
I- 15 Rev. 1/30/95
XI. PUBLIC sERvIcEs
As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no public service impacts will occur.
All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these mended policies, regulations and procedures shall
be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all identified public
service impacts.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no utility and service system impacts
will OCCUT. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and
procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for
all identified utility and seMce system impacts.
XIII. AESTHETICS
As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no aesthetic impacts will occur. All
subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall
be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all identified
aesthetic impacts.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no impacts to cultural resources will
occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and
procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for
all identified cultural resource impacts.
XV. RECREATION
As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, no recreation impacts will occur. All
subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall
be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all identified
recreation impacts.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As no site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA, the project will not 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 self-susbining 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. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant to these amended policies,
regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review which shall require adequate
mitigation for all identified impacts to the above-noted environmental resources.
No site-specific development project is processed as part of this EPA. Accordingly, no incremental project
impacts nor cumulatively considerable impacts will occur. All subsequent development projects processed pursuant
to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific environmental review
I- 16 Rev. 1/30/95
which shall require adequate mitigation for all identified cumulatively considerable impacts.
No site-specific development project is processed as part of this LCPA. Accordingly, this LCPA will not cause
substantial adverse effects on hurnan beings, either directly or indirectly. All subsequent development projects
processed pursuant to these amended policies, regulations and procedures shall be subject to project specific
environmental review which shall require adequate mitigation for all identified substantial adverse effects on human
beings.
I- 17 Rev. 1/30/M
c
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1)
I- 18
,-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFV THAT I HAVE REVEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
bate Signature
I- 19 Rev. 1/30/95