HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 44910 e
1 I/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4491
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL, SUPPLEMENTAL
CHANGE OF GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USES, RECISSION OF
MASTER PLAN 174, AMENDMENT OF THE LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 8,
SUBDIVISION AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF A
RESIDENTIAL, COMMUNITY OF 495 APARTMENTS AND
160 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 174 ACRES, AND
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CANDIDATE
FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PARK DRIVE, NORTH OF
VETERANS’ MEMORIAL PARK, WEST OF EL CAMINO
REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH
CASE NO.: EIR 98-05
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR 98-05 FOR THE
14
15
16
17
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, “Developer”, has filed a verified apF
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the Kelly Land Company, an
Homes Limited Partnership “Owner”, described as
18
19
20
A portion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda and a portion
of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, all in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego on November 16,1896
21 11 (the Property); and
22 II WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the E
23 11 RANCH (“Project”) as is more fully described in the Final Supplemental Environ
Impact Report, EIR 98-05, dated March 1999 as provided in Chapter 19.04 of the C
24
25
26 I/ Municipal Code; and
27
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 28
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of April 1999,
0 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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a:
relating to the project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report consists of tl
Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-05, dated March 1999, appenc
written comments and all responses to comments, as amended to inc
comments and documents of those testifying at the public hearings and rt
thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a col
minutes of said public hearings into the report, all on file in the P
Department incorporated by this reference, and collectively referred 1
“Report”.
C) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-05, as so amended and e
is recommended for acceptance and certification as the Final Envirc
impact Report and that the Final Environmental Impact Report as recomm
adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all re2
and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
D) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Corn
RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of Environmental Impact
Candidate Findings of Fact (“CEQA Findings”), attached hereto :
Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this reference; RECOMII
APPROVAL of the Statement of Overriding Considerations (“State
attached hereto marked Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this re1
and RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigation Monitoril
Reporting Program as amended (“Program”), attached hereto
Exhibit “C” and incorporated by this reference; based on the fo
findings and subject to the following conditions.
KELLY RANCH, EIR 98-05; RECOMMENDS APPROVAL
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that Final EIR 98-05, the Cl
Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the State
Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirement
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Enviro
Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
PC RES0 NO. 4491 -2-
0 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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered Final EIR 98-05, the environmental impacts therein identified for this
the Candidate Findings of Fact (‘‘Findings” or “CEQA Findings”) and the Statc
Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit “B, the Mitigation Monitc
Reporting Program (“Program”) attached hereto as Exhibit “C”, r
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project.
The Planning Commission finds that Final EIR 98-05 reflects the independent jl
of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL, acce
own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the
contained in the “Candidate Findings of Fact” (Exhibit “B’).
As is more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR 98-05 and in the Candidate 1
of Fact, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resourc
Section 2108 1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation r
described as feasible in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will
binding upon the entity assigned thereby to implement same.
As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents described in tk
finding number 4, each of the alternatives to the project whch were ident
potentially feasible in Final EIR 98-05 are found not to be feasible since they cc
meet both the objectives of the project and avoid the identified significant enviro
effects through implementation of feasible mitigation measures, for the reasons I
in said Candidate Findings of Fact.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ens
during project implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties im]
the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures ideni
the Candidate Findings of Fact and the Program.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the projec
mitigate or avoid most significant effects identified in the EIR.
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alter
certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the
will remain. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that t
Council of the City of Carlsbad issue, pursuant to Section 15093 of the
Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhib
which identifies the specific economic, social, and other considerations that rer
unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the following:
A. The Report, CEQA Findings, Statement and Program;
28 11 PC RES0 NO. 4491 -3-
0 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
B. All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning do
prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applicant, the envirc
consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the decisionm;
determined by the City Clerk;
C. All documents submitted by members of the public and public age
connection with the EIR thereto on the project;
D. Minutes of all public meetings and public hearings regarding the EIR
E. Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they 4
including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad
Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan, which may be foul
office of the City Clerk located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive :
Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive in the custod
City Clerk and the Planning Director.
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall implement the mitigation measures described in Ex1
Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program for development of the KelIy Ra
...
...
...
. ..
...
...
...
~
PC RES0 NO. 4491 -4-
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
e e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of April, 199!
following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure
Savary, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen and Welshons
ABST-
COURTNEY E. H
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4491 -5-
0 1) EXHIBIT "B"
KELLY RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
and
"CORE AREA" SUBDIVISION (CT 97-16)
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
March 30, 1999
Kelly Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision 0 Findings of Fa'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I .
II .
111 .
IV
V .
VI .
VJJ.
VIII .
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................
TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA ..................................
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS .............................................................................
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................
JMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT IIIIIIII1111l11lIIIII111111llll~~~~lllllllllllllll~~
DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT & MITIGATION MEASURES ....... 1
A . Biological Resources .................................................................................. 1
B . Land Use ..................................................................................................
C . LandformNisual Resources ........................................................................ 1
D . Noise ....................................................................................................... 1
E . Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 1
IX . CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................... 2
A . Biological Resources .................................................................................. 2
B . Land Use ................................................................................................. 2
C . LandformNisual Resources ........................................................................ 2
D . Noise ....................................................................................................... 2
E . TrafficKirculation ..................................................................................... 2
F . Air Quality ............................................................................................... 2
X . FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .........................................
A . No Project/No Development Alternative ....................................................... 2
B . Kelly Ranch Master Plan Alternative ............................................................ 2
XI . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................... z
1
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision 0 Findinus of Fa
(March 16, 199!
BEFORE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
RE: Kelly Ranch General Plan Amendment and "Core Area" Subdivision (CT 97-1 6)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. INTRODUCTION
A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 83-4/SCH #83042707) for the Kelly Ran(
Master Plan (MP-174) was certified by the City of Carlsbad in 1984. This FEIR addressc
the entire 432.2-acre Kelly Ranch property, including the area identified as the "Co
Area." The City approved the Kelly Ranch Master Plan following the certification of tt
FEIR. Activities undertaken pursuant to the Master Plan approval include:
0 Recording of an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Fee Title and Irrevocable Offer
Dedicate Open Space and Declaration of Restriction over the wetland areas (i.6
Agua Hedionda Lagoon) and steep slope areas;
0 Grading of Cannon Road and portions of the Kelly Ranch "Core Area";
0 Approval of construction documents for Cannon Road; and
Approval of development plans for Planning Area "E" (CT 96-07).
The following related events occurred after the approval of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan:
0 The City of Carlsbad adopted a Growth Management Plan, Local Facilitic
Management Plans, Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone, Hillsic
Development Regulations, Landscape Manual, and General Plan Update (1 994);
0 The California Coastal Commission approved a Coastal Permit (#6-84-617) for tt
Kelly Ranch Master Plan;
0 The California gnatcatcher was listed as a "threatened" species by the U.S. Fish
Wildlife Service in 1993; and
0 The City prepared a draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in tt
City of Carlsbad.
The applicant now proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to rescind the Kelly Ran(
Master Plan and to apply General Plan land use designations of the Updated General PI;
(1 994) to the property. A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR 9
05/SCH #98041067) has been prepared on the current project to address the potenti
environmental effects of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Reclassification of tl
entire Kelly Ranch property (432.2 acres).
The FSEIR also addresses amendments to the Local Coastal Plan and Local Facilitil
Management Plan. A proposed subdivision of the Kelly Ranch "Core Area" portion (168
acres) of Kelly Ranch is also addressed in the FSEIR.
In addition to the Kelly Ranch project, the FSEIR evaluated a No Project/No Developme
Alternative, and a Kelly Ranch Master Plan Alternative.
2
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision 0 Findinas of Fa
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the proposed General Plan Amendment ar
Zoning Reclassification. In Planning Areas "A," "D," "G," and "H" the current Residenti
Medium Density (RM) designation would be changed to Residential Medium-High Densi.
(RMH). In Planning Areas "C," "I," and "J" the Residential Medium Density (Rh
designation would be changed to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM). The residenti
designation would remain unchanged in Areas "E," "K," and "L."
The TraveVRecreation Commercial (T/R) designation in Area "F" would be changed to Ope
Space [OS) and Residential Professional (R-P). The City of Carlsbad approved this area ;
the "Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center" during the Draft Supplemental Environment
Impact Report (DSEIR) public review period.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would permit a maximum of 1,184 dwelling uni
within the entire Kelly Ranch property (733 du in the "Core Area" and 451 du in the "No
Core" area). However, the subdivision proposes only 656 dwelling units in the "Co
Area." Thus, the project proposes 10 percent fewer units in the "Core Area" than wou
be permitted by the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Rescind Kelly Ranch Master Plan
The project proposes to rescind the Kelly Ranch Master Plan (MP-174) in conjunction wi
the approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Reclassification. As shov
in the bottom section of Table 1, the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan approved 1,6(
dwelling units within the Kelly Ranch property.
Subdivision (CT 97-1 6)
The proposed subdivision (CT 97-16) would develop the 168.3-acre Kelly Ranch "Co
Area" with 161 single-family units and 495 multi-family units. Twenty-seven perce
(1 32) of the 495 multi-family units would be affordable units.
Forty-six acres (27%) of the "Core Area" would be retained in open space. An irrevocak
offer to dedicate the open space to the City of Carlsbad as a conservation easement wou
be made as a condition of approval. An additional 35.4 acres (21 %) of the site a
constrained from development by steep slopes and power lines. The proposc
development would occupy 84.5 acres (52%) of the site.
Table 1 also lists the land use of the "Non-Core" Planning Areas (Areas "A," "B," "C," at
"E"). These areas are not included in Tract 97-1 6, but are included in the General PI;
Amendment and Rezone actions. Planning Area "L" is not a part of the proposl
subdivision.
3
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision a Findims of Fa
Table 1
4
Keiiv Ranch General Pian Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision e Findinus of Fa
Local Coastal Plan Amendment
An amendment to the Mello I1 Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is proposed to eliminate referencc
to the Master Plan because the currently proposed project proposes to rescind the Mast
Plan. The currently proposed project would develop the same area designated fl
development in the Master Plan, but at a lesser density. An amendment of the LCP Map
also proposed to achieve consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the LC
Map.
Zone 8 Local Facilities Master Plan Amendment
An amendment of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) is proposed '
update the adopted plan to reflect the change in circumstances with the approval of th
project.
Project Objectives
The following statements represent the objectives of the project applicant. The:
objectives also provide a basis for identification of project alternatives described in tt
FSEIR. In arriving at its final decision, the decision-makers took into consideratic
objectives set forth in the FSEIR.
0 Development of a residential subdivision at a density consistent with the City
Carlsbad General Plan, Growth Management Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Hillsic
Development Ordinance.
0 Development of a residential neighborhood, including single-family and multi-fami
units.
0 Development of a residential community compatible with surrounding land uses. . Locate residential units to maximize view opportunities while preserving the integri
of off-site viewsheds.
0 Identify and preserve, to the greatest extent practical, the known environmeni
resources on the property.
0 Preserve native habitat in open space that is consistent with the open space show
in the draft City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
Project Phasing
Development of the Kelly Ranch "Core Area" is anticipated to occur over a two-year tin
period (2000--2001). The entire infrastructure required for the project would 1
constructed in this time period.
5
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & ”Core Area” Subdivision 0 Findinm of Fa
Intended Uses of the EIR
The following list identifies the approvals and permits that will be under consideration I:
the City Council as part of the proposed project.
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change: The GPA would apply tt
Updated (1 994) General Plan land use designation to the property. A concurrel
Zone Change would apply consistent zoning designations to the property.
2. Rescind Kelly Ranch Master Plan: The permitted uses and zoning regulatior
established by the Master Plan would be rescinded, and replaced by the adoptf
City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements.
3. Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Amendment: The LCP amendment would delete referencc
to the Kelly Ranch Master Plan.
4. Vacate and Rerecord LCP Open Space Easement: A revised open space easeme
would be recorded to reflect changes to the open space boundaries that maximi;
the preservation of sensitive biological resources.
5. Carlsbad Tract Map 97-16: The tract map would subdivide the property into sing1
family and multi-family lots.
6. Hillside Development Permit: Proposed grading of the project site must be
conformance with the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance.
7. Site Development Permit: A site development permit is required because tl
property would have a Qualified Development Overlay Zone designation.
8. Coastal Development Permit: The project is located within the California Coast
Zone, thereby necessitating a Coastal Development Permit.
111. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of tl
City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of tl
following:
The August 25, 1998 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) ar
November 23, 1998 FSEIR for the Project, including appendices and technic
reports;
All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other planning documen
prepared by the project engineering, design, and architecture consultants, tl
environmental consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the decisic
makers as determined by the City Clerk;
6
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 rnent & Tore Area" Subdivision 0 Findinqs of Fz
0 All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies
connection with the EIR on the project;
Minutes of all workshops, public meetings and public hearings held by the City
Carlsbad;
Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings ar
public hearings; and
0 Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they considc
including but not limited to, the following:
' Carlsbad General Plan; ' Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance;
' Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8; and ' Local Coastal Program.
The City has received six comment letters on the August 25, 1998 DSEIR. Tho:
comments are set forth in the November 23, 1998 FSEIR together with the responsc
thereto. In addition, certain of the comments have been addressed in margin notes to tt
text of the draft EIR. The City has considered all the comments to the DSEIR and hi
addressed those comments adequately and properly in accordance with CEQA. The City
responses represent a good faith and reasonable analysis, supported by factual informatic
in the record. The City's responses to the comments are proper and as required und
CEQA.
IV TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significar
environmental effect identified in an EIR for a Project, the approving agency must issue
written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is th;
"[clhanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project whic
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Fin
EIR." (emphasis added). The second potential finding is that "[sluch changes or alteratior
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agenc
making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can ar
should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is thi
"[slpecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measurf
or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR."
Regarding the first of the three potential findings, the State CEQA Guidelines do not defin
the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and mere1
"substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must b
gleaned from other context in which they are used. Public Resources Code Section 2108'
on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather tha
"substantially lessen." The State CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate "mitigating" wit
"substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent wit
Public Resources Code Section 21 001, which declares the legislature's policy disfavorin
7
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 rnent & "Core Area" Subdivision e Findinss of Fa
the approval of project with significant environmental effects where there are feasib
mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" suc
significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or mo
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significa
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measur(
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to
level of insignificance. Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only th
approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoidledl or substantial
lessen[edl," these findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect
question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has be(
substantially lessened (and thus remains significant).
The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of tt
project on the environment identified in the FSEIR, and determine the feasibility 1
mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the FSEIR which would avoid
substantially lessen those significant effects. Once the City has adopted sufficie
measures to avoid a significant impact, the City does not need to adopt every mitigatic
measure brought to its attention or identified in the FSEIR.
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Carlsbad to not approve a project
there are available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that wou
substantially lessen that project's significant environmental effects. Only when su(
mitigation measures or project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specif
economic, social or other conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve
project in spite of its significant effects.
Another purpose of these findings is to bring focus on project alternatives in the ultima
decision-maker's decision whether to approve or disapprove the project. If, aft
application of all feasible mitigation measures to the project, significant impacts remai
project alternatives identified in the FSEIR must be reviewed and determined to be feasib
or infeasible. The findings set forth the reasons, based on substantial evidence in tt
record, that the decision-makers conclude any such project alternatives are infeasible (st
further discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives Section).
V. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined
the FSEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City
Carlsbad ("City" or "decisions makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsib
parties, including the Applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to i
"Applicant"), to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not mere
informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligation that will come in
effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the project.
8
0 0 Keffv Ranch General Plan Amendment & Tore Area" Subdivision Findinas of Fa
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requiremen.
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with the:
findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
VI. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21 081.6, the City of Carlsbad, in adoptir
these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared t
the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed
ensure that during project implementation, the Applicant and other responsible partic
the document entitled "Kelly Ranch General Plan Amendment and 'Core Area' Subdivisic
(CT 97-1 6) Mitigation Monitoring Program."
VII. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
The following summary briefly describes impacts determined to be insignificant in tt
preparation of the EIR.
Relevant Planning Programs
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described
0 Annexation to the City of Carlsbad deleted County of San Diego jurisdictic
(FEIR 83-4, p. 59).
0 Regarding Land Use Element, see Section Vlll below.
0 Regarding Circulation Element, see following Transportation/Circulatic
discussion.
0 Public Safety Element floodproofing measures are not applicable to the "COI
Area" project; fuel modification measures are incorporated into the projec
design; adequate water pressure is assured by the Zone 8 LFMP; adequal
access for fire equipment is incorporated into the project design (FEIR 83-4,
60).
0 The Scenic Highways Element has been deleted from the General Plan. Se
Section Vlll below regarding landformlvisual resources effects on sceni
corridors (FEIR 83-4, p. 60).
0 The dedication of the Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center is consistent witt
and satisfies the requirements of, the Parks and Recreation Element (FEIR 83-L
p. 60).
0 The dedication of biologically sensitive open space (46.0 acres), and constraine
open space (35.4 acres), is consistent with, and satisfies the requirements o
the Open Space and Conservation Element (FEIR 83-4, p. 60).
9
0 Keffv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinas of Fs
The Mello II LCP is proposed to be amended to delete references to the Kel
Ranch Master Plan. The "Core Area" project is not included in the Agl
Hedionda LCP (FEIR 83-4, p. 60).
0 No action by the Local Agency Formation Commission is required.
The project adheres to the Areawide Water Quality Management (208) Plan i
well as with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Perm
requirements (FEIR 83-4, p. 60).
Regarding California Fish & Game Code, see Section Vlll below.
Agricultural Resources
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Mello II Segment contains policies specifical
applicable to the Kelly Ranch "Core Area." Policy 3-5 of the Mello II Segment specific
that the maximum development allowed in the Kelly Ranch/Macario Canyon Area is s
forth in the Kelly Ranch Master Plan, as approved by Coastal Commission Permit (#6-8
617) (FSEIR, p. 2.2.8). The Mello II LCP Policy 3-5 specifically waives any requiremen
regarding mitigation for conversion of agricultural land to urban uses for the Kelly proper
(FSEIR, p. 2.2.8).
Socio-economics
The City has implemented a housing program to address the City's unmet moderate ar
low-income housing needs. Subsequent development proposals are evaluated to determit
the number of low and moderate income housing units required to be included in tl
project (FEIR 83-4, p. 69, and FSEIR, Table 1 .I .I 1.
Transportation/Circulation
No significant adverse traffic impacts were identified because the project circulation is tt
same as assumed in the previous Kelly Ranch EIR (FEIR 83-4, p. 73) traffic analysis. Tt
circulation system proposed for the current project is consistent with the system assumf
in the Kelly Ranch FEIR 83-4.
The adopted Kelly Ranch Master Plan would permit a maximum of 1,600 dwelling units
be constructed (FSEIR 89-05, Table 1.1 .I 1. The maximum density that would be permittt
by the 1994 General Plan is 1,258 dwelling units. The maximum number of units th
would be permitted by the proposed General Plan Amendment is 1 ,I 84 dwelling unit
Thus, the proposed maximum development and resulting number of Average Daily Tril
would be substantially less than permitted by the existing General Plan. This reduction
trips would lessen the adverse traffic impacts identified in the 1988 Zone 8 Local Facilitic
Management Plan and the 1994 General Plan Master EIR. The currently design(
improvements for Cannon Road have taken into account anticipated Zone 8 traffi
Development within Kelly Ranch is planned to coincide with the construction of Cannc
Road.
10
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision 0 Findinas of Fat
Public Services
The Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (B) prepared in conjunction wit
the proposed General Plan Amendment and Kelly Ranch "Core Area" Tentative Ma
identifies existing public services facilities and facilities required to be constructed, (
public facility fees to be paid. As reported in LFMP Amendment (B), adequate fire ar
police protection, libraries, roads, and other public facilities are assured through tt-
mandated implementation of the LFMP. LFMP Amendment (B) requires discretional
projects to show evidence that school facility impacts have been mitigated as determine
by Carlsbad Unified School District (FSEIR, Appendix A, p. 17).
Utilities and Service systems
The Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (B) prepared' in conjunction wii
the proposed General Plan Amendment and Kelly Ranch Tentative Map identifies existir
public services facilities and facilities required to be constructed, or public facility fees 1
be paid. As reported in LFMP Amendment (B), adequate water, sewer, and storm drair
are assured through the mandated implementation of the LFMP. Drainage and sew
facilities required to be constructed concurrent with the Kelly Ranch development a
illustrated in LFMP Amendment (B) (FSEIR, Appendix A, p. 17).
Gas, electric, telephone, and solid waste services are available to the site by various utili,
providers in the region. The demand for such services is within the capability of tt
service providers.
Population and Housing
The approved Kelly Ranch Master Plan would permit a maximum of 1,600 dwelling unit
and the existing General Plan land use designation would permit a maximum of 1,2E
dwelling units. The proposed General Plan designations would allow a maximum of 1 ,I E
dwelling units to be constructed in the entire Kelly Ranch property, and 733 units in tl
"Core Area." The proposed "Core Area" Tract Map includes only 656 dwelling unit
Thus, the project proposes to construct fewer dwelling units than is permitted by tl
existing General Plan, or by the proposed General Plan Amendment (see FSEIR Tat
1 .I .I).
The site is in an area designated for development, and is bordered on the north and east I
residential development. Major extension of public services and infrastructure is n
required to serve the site. Existing housing would not be displaced by the development.
Energy and Mineral Resources
The Kelly Ranch project is consistent with the General Plan Housing Element. Goal 4 of tl
element is to balance residential and non-residential development that promotes ener!
conservation by reducing home-to-work trips. Housing Element Action Program 5
implements residential energy efficient standards as required by State Title 24 guideline
and also requires subdivisions to incorporate solar orientation to reduce heating and coolit
~~~~ ~ 11
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision 0 Findings of Fa(
costs. The Kelly Ranch subdivision is consistent with Goal 4, and incorporates th
provisions of Action Program 5.1 (FSEIR, Appendix A, p. 16).
Hazards
The proposed Kelly Ranch development is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Emergenc
Plan, and does not include any uses that would likely involve accidental explosions, or
release of hazardous materials. The City regulates the storage and disposal of hazard01
materials as required by Action Program C.3 of the General Plan Public Safety Elemer
(FSEIR, Appendix A, p. 16).
Two 138 kV transmission lines cross Kelly Ranch in a northeast-southwest alignment alor
Cannon Road. The proposed residential areas are located a minimum of 100 feet from tt
transmission lines. The General Plan Master EIR addressed electro magnetic fields (EMF
and indicates that scientific research has not conclusively established whether or not EMf
are harmful to human health.
Portions of the Kelly Ranch property have been used for agricultural production. Residut
of chemicals used in the agricultural operations may remain in the soil. The General PI:
Master EIR includes a mitigation measure that requires a detailed soil testing be conductc
on agricultural land and a report submitted to the City prior to the approval of discretiona
permits. The required report shall specify any required actions to remediate identific
significant public health impacts. A report for the Kelly Ranch property will be submitted '
the City of Carlsbad.
Preserved habitat areas containing high fuel plant species are proposed in close to tt
proposed residential areas. The design of the Tentative Map incorporates the provisions 1
the City's Landscape Manual as well as fire suppression provisions required by the Fi
Chief (FSEIR, Appendix A, p. 15).
Recreation
The Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (B) prepared in conjunction wi.
the proposed General Plan Amendment and Kelly Ranch Tentative Map analyzed tl
adequacy of park and recreational facilities in Northwest Quadrant Park District. TI
analysis concluded the supply of parklands exceeds demand, and that the project conforn
to the adopted park performance standards (FSEIR, Appendix A, p. 18).
12
e 0 Keiiv Ranch General Pian Amendment & Tore Area" Subdivision Findinqs of Fat
VIII. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT & MlTlGATlOF
MEASURES
The FSEIR identified the following direct significant environmental effects (or "impacts
that the project will cause; all can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasib
mitigation measures.
A. Biological Resources
BioJogiGaJ Resourms ImpaGts
0 Development of the proposed Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project would result in tk
loss of 22.22 acres (22.09 acres on-site and 0.13 acres off-site) of coastal sa:
scrub. The project would impact 5.02 acres of southern maritime chaparral. Tt
project would impact 0.6 acres of mule fat scrub, 0.8 acres of riparian herb, ar
0.03 acre of southern willow scrub. These impacts are considered significal
impacts as the vegetation communities have been identified as sensitive resourcc
(FSEIR, p. 2.1.9).
0 Two California gnatcatcher use areas would be impacted by the construction 1
Cannon Road. Both of these use areas include adjacent habitat within the Kel
Ranch "Core Area." The Section 4(d) Permit granted for the construction of Cannc
Road, and the Section 4 (d) Permit for the Area "F" Nature Center, included tt
"take" of gnatcatchers and loss of habitat along Cannon Road.
0 The Kelly Ranch "Core Area" primary connectivity is with Agua Hedionda Lagoon
the north and west, and with the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course to tl
south. The habitat and wildlife connection across the "Core Area" would I
significantly impacted by the Kelly Ranch project because north to south moveme
would be reduced by the nearness of human activity. However, a modified linka!
could continue to exist if it is revegetated with appropriate plant material
However, the suite of animals utilizing the corridor would change with an altert
mosaic of vegetation. Corridor use by mid-sized and small mammals, as well i
reptiles, is expected to be substantially reduced by the development of the Kel
Ranch "Core Area." These impacts are considered significant impacts as tl
vegetation communities have been identified as sensitive resources (FSEIR,
2.1.9).
In general, avian flight corridor access would be maintained, or even improved, f
all species except sage scrub and chaparral resident bird species. Planting of natil
plants on the periphery of development areas could even maintain some linkage f
these sage scrub and chaparral species. Retaining bands of sage scrub at
chaparral strictly for corridor utility has merit, but would likely require revegetatic
of inappropriate stretches of habitat, which are presently disturbed.
0 Street lights and parking lot lighting in Planning Area "F," and along the proje
roadways could negatively affect nocturnal use of the wetlands west of Cannc
Road by mammals. These impacts are considered significant impacts as tl
13
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision e Findinas of Fa,
vegetation communities have been identified as sensitive resources (FSEIR, I
2.1.9).
The proposed trail segment #24 along the eastern project would result in furthc
habitat degradation (i.e., loss of southern maritime chaparral) in an area alreac
limited in its habitat viability as a local use corridor. These impacts are considere
significant impacts as the vegetation communities have been identified as sensitil
resources (FSEIR, p. 2.1.9).
The conceptual landscape plan proposes to use exotic plantings on slopes th(
would be adjacent to open space areas. The exotic materials are incompatible wii
the existing native vegetation on-site. These impacts are considered significal
impacts as the vegetation communities have been identified as sensitive resourcf
(FSEIR, p. 2.1.9).
Biological Resources Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes 1
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid tt
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. The following mitigatic
measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance.
Biological Resources Mitigation Measures
1. The existing desiltation basin west of Cannon Road in Planning Area "F" shall t
enlarged by 1.43 acres and planted with mule fat scrub and riparian herb vegetatic
to replace the loss of wetland vegetation in the detention basin at the intersection 1
the Cannon Road and Street "AA." If this area is not sufficient for a "no net loss" 1
wetland vegetation, as determined by a Section 404 permit, additional wetlanc
shall be created in the portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon north and west of Cannc
Road that is owned by the Kelly Land Company. One potential site is an area 1
scattered eucalyptus at the mouth of Macario Canyon, just west of a utility acce:
road into the marsh (See FSEIR Figures 2.1.3 and 2.1.6). This location contail
weedy upland plants and trees that are slightly higher than the surrounding mars
A Wetland Restoration Plan shall be prepared subject to the approval of a Sectic
404 permit, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Performance criteria to I
met by the restoration plan are contained in Table 2.1.5 of the FSEIR.
2. The 22.22 acres of coastal sage scrub impact shall be mitigated at a 2:l rat
(44.44 acres). Approximately 38.77 acres would be retained by the proposed "Co
Area" project. Thus, an additional 5.67 acres of mitigation is required. Tt
manufactured slope on the south side of the private drive connecting Planning Arc
"K" to Street "BB" shall be planted with coastal sage scrub (see FSEIR Figu
2.1.3). This area contains 1.85 acres. The manufactur;ed slopes (containing 1 .f
acres) along Street "HH" shall be planted with coastal sage scrub. TI
manufactured slope created to the rear of Lots 9-28 (1.75 acres) shall be plantc
with coastal sage scrub. Planting these slopes with coastal sage scrub wou
enhance the utility of the corridor linkage between the city-owned golf cour!
property and Agua Hedionda lagoon. These slope areas contain a total of 5.;
14
a 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinus of Fa
acres. The revegetation plans for these restoration areas shall incorporate the Cii
Fire Department requirements for fire clearing.
3. Several small patches of non-native grasslands and ruderal growth within the on-si-
open spaces could also be revegetated with appropriate coastal sage scrub plal
materials if the areas are not required for mitigation of non-native grasslands (sc
Mitigation Measure #I 1). Non-native exotic plant species, particularly invasive plal
species, are to be specifically excluded from the revegetation plan. Ruderal ar
nun-native grasslands are located in the following proposed open space areas:
Planning Area H 0.46 acPlanning Area I 0.03 acPlanning Area J
Planning Area K 1.03 ac
Total 1.70 ac
0.18 ac
4. If the entire 5.67 acres of coastal sage scrub mitigation cannot be accomplished 0.
site, the remaining mitigation shall be accomplished off-site. If feasible, th
dedication should occur within the core habitat and linkage areas within Zone 8.
5. The 5.02 acres of southern maritime chaparral impacted by the project shall I:
mitigated at a 2:l ratio by the on-site dedication of southern maritime chaparral, (
the purchase of mitigation credits in established mitigation banks (e.g., the Encinit:
mitigation bank selling maritime chaparral credits), or by the acquisition of ope
space easements for off-site maritime chaparral habitat within the City of Carlsbad.
6. The grading for Lots 54-55 and 67-69 should be reduced as shown on Figure 2.1 a
of the FSEIR. This would reduce the level of southern maritime chaparral impac.
by 0.24 acre.
7. Fuel management clearing activities should be monitored by a biologist to ensui
that sensitive shrubs are left in place to the extent feasible.
8. During project construction a biologist should monitor clearing activities at tt
interface between the residential areas and the sage scrub/chaparral habitat areas '
minimize the jettisoning of construction debris into the open space.
9. Fencing shall be installed at the rear of lots adjacent to native vegetation open spac
areas to discourage entry into the open space by future residents.
1O.Signage shall be installed at points where the dedicated open space could I:
accessed by the public to notify the public that access into dedicated open spac
areas is restricted.
11 .Non-native grasslands are not classified as a "sensitive" habitat by the draft HMf
However, the state and federal resource agencies are requesting that non-nath
grasslands be mitigated at a 0.5:l ratio to maintain raptor foraging areas. Tt
"Core Area" project would need to preserve 10.45 acres of non-native grassland 1
achieve this ratio. The project design preserves 1.89 acres of non-native grasslanc
however mitigation measure #3 recommends revegetating these areas with coast
sage scrub. The Kelly Ranch project granted an irrevocable offer of dedication OVI
15
0 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinqs of Fa
181 acres of land encompassing the Agua Hedionda Lagoon as a condition of tt
original approval. The original approval included the development of the Kelly Ranc
"Core Area." The area offered for dedication protects a substantial and critic
raptor foraging habitat, albeit with different habitat values. The previous dedicatic
of 181 acres provides adequate compensating raptor foraging habitat, and r
further mitigation is considered necessary.
12.Grading within Planning Area "K" should be limited to the area shown in Figu
2.1.4 of the FSEIR. This would minimize impacts to the adjacent open space ar
enhance the corridor connection across the access road (see Mitigation Measu
#2). [Note: The subdivision and grading of Area "K" is not proposed as part of tt
current development project, but a development proposal may be submitted in tt
future, and will be subject to subsequent CEQA review.]
13.Nighttime light levels shall be reduced by placing shields on streetlights. The ligl
fixtures shall be mounted so as to direct light away from Agua Hedionda Lagoon :
as to prevent illumination or "spillover' onto riparian habitat.
14.The slope easterly of the Lot 162 multi-family housing structures in Planning Arf
I'D" shall be planted with the coastal sage scrub native plant mix listed on Sheet
of the Landscape Plan.
15.Trail segment #24 as shown on the General Plan Conceptual Open Space ar
Conservation Map should not be constructed across the Kelly Ranch "Core Are;
property to avoid additional impacts to sensitive maritime chaparral that is proposc
to be retained in open space. If this trail segment must be constructed to satis,
the requirement of Land Use mitigation measures #3 and #4, the least impacth
route possible should be selected in coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildli,
Service. The applicant has proposed an alternative trail alignment as shown
Figure 1.1.1 1 of the FSEIR. This alignment would avoid all of the southern maritirr
chaparral impacts associated with Trail segment 24. Only minor impacts to coast
sage scrub would result.
16.Clearing during the breeding season of the California gnatcatcher (Feb. 15 to Aul
30) shall be precluded unless specifically authorized by the City of Carlsbad, U.!
Fish & Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish & Game. Clearing of lar
adjacent to the lagoon during the breeding season of the least Bell's Vireo (Mar. 1
to Sept. 15) shall be precluded unless specifically authorized by the City I
Carlsbad, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish & Game.
1 ".Lots 75-77 shown on the tentative map shall be deleted and the area dedicated :
biological open space. The disturbed portions of these lots shall be revegetatc
with appropriate coastal sage scrub plant materials. Non-native exotic plal
species, particularly invasive plant species, are to be specifically excluded from tt
revegetation plan.
18.The "Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions" (CCR's) for the "Core Are:
development shall contain a list of invasive species that are to be excluded fro
16
0 e Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & “Core Area“ Subdivision Findinas of Fa
landscaping installed by the Homeowners Association and by individu
homeowners.
Biological Resources Conclusions
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed in the preceding section wou
reduce biological impacts to a less than significant level.
B. Land Use
Land Use Impacts
The Kelly Ranch “Core Area” subdivision map does not provide for a trail segment (#2:
along Cannon Road. Further, the project does not provide for a trail segment (#21
within Planning Area ”J.“ Trail segment #24 would connect with segment #23 ne;
the location of the Agua Hedionda Visitorllnterpretative Center. This is considered 1
be a significant impact because the Citywide Trail System as shown on tt
Conceptual Open Space and Conservation Map of the Open Space and Conservatic
Element of the Carlsbad General Plan would be incomplete without these segments.
Land Use Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes 1
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid tt
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. The following mitigaticl
measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance.
Land Use Mitigation Measures
1. Prior to recordation of a final map for Planning Areas “D” or “G,” an irrevocable offc
of dedication shall be made for a 20-foot wide easement immediately adjacent to th
eastern Cannon Road right-of-way, extending from the easement and trail segmer
off-site within Planning Area “E of Kelly Ranch, and running along Cannon Road I
the southern project boundary.
2. Prior to pad certification for Planning Areas “D,” “G” or ”H,” the developer sh2
construct the trail segment along Cannon Road from Planning Area “E” to th
southern project boundary. The developer shall maintain the trail until such time E
trail maintenance is accepted by the City.
3. Prior to recordation of a final map for Planning Area “J,” an irrevocable offer c
dedication shall be made for a 12-foot wide easement (or floating easement if n
location can be determined), extending from the off-site Evans Point subdivision, t
the southern project boundary. The applicant has proposed an alternative tra
alignment as shown in Figure 1.1 .I 1 of the FSEIR. This alignment would avoi
all of the southern maritime chaparral impacts associated with Trail Segment 24
Only minor impacts to coastal sage scrub would result.
17
0 0 Keiiv Ranch General Pian Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findincls of Fz
4. Prior to pad certification for Planning Area "J," the developer shall construct tt
trail segment from Evans Point to the southern project boundary. The develop
shall maintain the trail until such time as trail maintenance is accepted by tt
City.
Land Use Conclusions
With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the proposed Kelly Ranc
project land uses would be consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zonir
Ordinance, and all other applicable policies, ordinances and programs.
C. LandformlVisual Resources
LandformlVisual Resources Impacts
The southernmost multi-family residential buildings and parking lots in Plannir
Areas "G" and "H" would be clearly visible from the golf course and park plannc
for the area to the south. This is considered to be a significant impact due to tt
lack of landscaping proposed along the perimeter of the housing and parking areas.
LandformlVisual Resources Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1 ) of the State CEQA guidelines, changes (
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid th
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. The following mitigatio
measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance.
LandformlVisual Resources Mitigation Measures
1. The Refined Landscape Zone (Zone 2) shown in the Landscape Concept Pla
shall be extended around the southern edge of the multi-family housing i
Planning Areas "G" and "H."
LandformlVisual Resources Conclusion
The off-site southerly view impacts would be reduced to a less than significant levf
by the implementation of the mitigation measure included in the precedin
discussion.
D. Noise
Noise Impacts
The multi-family units proposed to be constructed adjacent to Cannon Road (Lot:
162, 165, 167, and 168) would be exposed to the highest noise levels. The multi
family units nearest Cannon Road would be significantly impacted because the noisc
levels in the yard adjacent to the structure would exceed the City standard of 60.(
dB CNEL.
~ ~~
18
~ ~ __~____
0 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinos of Fa
Noise Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1 1 of the State CEQA guidelines, changes 1
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid tt
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. The following mitigatic
measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance.
Noise Mitigation Measures
1. Noise barriers, consisting of berms and walls, shall be constructed along the tc
of the slope adjacent to Cannon Road as shown in Figure 2.4.1 of the FSEII
The required height for the barriers is indicated on Figure 2.4.1. An alternatic
barrier for Lot 161 is shown on Figure 2.4.1. This alternative would provide 2
equal level of protection for Lot 162 with a shorter barrier height. If selected, E
analysis shall be completed to determine the exact height required to comp
with City noise standards.
The barriers shall have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square-foo
and have no openings or cracks. The barriers may be constructed of wood stuo
with stucco exterior, 3/8 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch Plexiglas, any masonr
material, or a combination of these materials.
2. A calculation of interior noise levels shall be prepared and submitted to the Cit
of Carlsbad at the time final architectural plans are completed. The calculatior
shall demonstrate that the residential building materials (e.g., double pane glas
for windows facing Cannon Road) would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB (
less.
Noise Conclusions
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce nois
impacts to a less than significant level.
E. Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources
Based on the data provided in the 1982 Archaeological Associates report, and th
1986 Koerper report, clearly Site KR-1 (SDI-9649) qualifies as a significant resource
The site qualifies under criteria 2, 4, 5, and 9 listed in Appendix K of the Stat
CEQA Guidelines. The Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project could have a significan
effect on the deposits within SDI-9649 because:
0 The sample size of the previous testing was too small to actually comply wit1
0 The screen size used was too large to meet City guidelines;
0 Additional subsurface delineation of the eastern portion of the site needs to bc
the mitigation levels in the 1983 EIR;
completed; and
19
0 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinas of Fz
The previous work on SDI-9649 was intended to complete a mitigation progra
for the disturbance of 10% of the archaeological site.
The remaining five sites within the Kelly Ranch "Core Area" do not contain the lek
of information potential to be recognized as significant. Each of these five no
significant sites has no subsurface deposit and all surface artifacts have bec
recovered.
Cultural Resources Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA guidelines, changes 1
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid tt
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. The following mitigatic
measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance.
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
1. Brushing of the project site shall be monitored by an archaeologist, so that 2
areas are cleared, the property can be assessed for the presence of ar
archaeological sites not previously discovered. Any sites that are discovered t
the monitor would be evaluated for significance and, if found to be significant,
mitigation program would be implemented to address the potential impacts. Tt-
monitor would have the authority to halt or redirect the brushing activity if ar
resources are discovered.
2. A data recovery program shall be completed to address the following issues:
0 Define the eastern portion of the site to determine the limits of subsurfac
deposits.
0 Identification of research issues to be evaluated in the research program an
the methodology to be employed to accomplish the research objectives. Th
research design must be submitted to the City for review.
0 The level of effort should be 10-1 5% in the central, most significant portio1
of the deposit, 5-10% of the surrounding moderately significant midden, ant
2-5% of the peripheral deposit. The laboratory analysis of the recoverec
materials should include all aspects of studies typically included in sucl
programs, such as radiocarbon dating, faunal and ecofactual analysis
obsidian analysis, lithic reduction analysis, residue analysis, and flakc
analysis.
3. A monitor shall be present during the grading of the first five to ten feet of so
throughout the project site. Any buried deposits encountered during gradin!
would be subject to evaluation, as required by City guidelines.
4. A qualified paleontologist shall: (1) be present at pre-grading conferences; anc
(2) coordinate a monitoring and salvage program.
20
e 0 Kelly Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinus of Fz
Cultural Resources Conclusions
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce cultur
resources impacts to a less than significant level.
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Past, present, and reasonably anticipated projects in the Kelly Ranch project arf
that were evaluated in the cumulative effects section of the FSEIR include: Cannc
Road (Reach 1 & 2); Carlsbad Ranch (Legoland); Kelly Ranch "Core Area"; Kel
Ranch Village "E"; Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home park (Phase 2); and Carlsb;
Municipal Golf Course. Detailed information concerning these projects is contain€
in Table 3.1 .I of the FSEIR.
A. Biological Resources
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
The cumulative effects of all the projects include coastal sage scrub (70.53 ac.
southern willow scrub and mule fat (38.48 ac), brackish marsh (0.10 ac.), riparia
herb (1.04 ac.), southern mixed chaparral (3.20 ac.), southern maritime chaparr,
(1 1.27 ac.), non-native grassland (1 92.99 ac.), and open water (0.14 ac.). Thirtee
California gnatcatcher habitat use areas would be impacted. Information available 2
the time of the FSEIR preparation indicates that seventy percent of this impact (
pr.) is associated with the golf course project. Both Cannon Road and the Kell
Ranch "Core Area" affect two gnatcatchers habitat use areas. These gnatcatchel
were sighted adjacent to the Cannon Road alignment. Least Bell's vireo an
southwestern willow flycatchers would be affected only by the Cannon Roa
project. Other species cumulatively affected include orangethroat whiptai
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, prostrat
spineflower, western dichondra, and decumbent goldenbush.
Cumulative Biological Resources Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA guidelines, changes c
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid th
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.
Cumulative Biological Resources Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval for each of th,
approved projects. These measures require no net loss of wetlands and compliancc
with the federal ESA section 4(d) rule that limits the cumulative loss of coastal sagc
scrub in the City of Carlsbad to five percent. The 4(d) rule will remain in effect unt
such time as the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is adopted and the U.S
Fish & Wildlife Service issues a section lO(a)(l)(B) permit. Subsequent losses o
coastal sage scrub would be limited to that authorized by the Section 10(a)(l )(B
21
0 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinm of Fa
permit. Each project approval includes Natural Community Conservation Plannir
Program (NCCP) findings that document the consistency of the project with tt
NCCP Plan. The Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project would be approved under tt
provisions of the HMP section 10(a)(l )(B) permit, or under a separate sectic
1 O(a)(l )(B) permit.
No mitigation measures beyond those included in each project approval are requirc
to reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
Cumulative Biological Resources Conclusions
Each approved project is conditioned to insure that no net loss of wetlands w
occur as a result of project implementation. The ESA Section 4(d) rule limits tt
cumulative loss of coastal sage scrub within the City of Carlsbad to five percent.
B. Land Use
Cumulative Land Use Impacts
All of the projects in the area are consistent with the adopted plans of the City (
Carlsbad. The Carlsbad Ranch project and Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project propos
General Plan Amendments to adjust the boundaries of the General Plan land UE
areas to reflect the most recent environmental data available and to adjust fc
specific development site plans. The cumulatively related projects are compatib
with existing land uses in the area and do not adversely effect the surroundir
areas. The projects are also consistent with the provisions of the draft Habit;
Management Plan.
Cumulative Land Use Finding
No changes or alterations are required in the project to avoid cumulative significar
land use effects.
Cumulative Land Use Mitigation
No mitigation measures beyond those included in each project approval are require
to reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
Cumulative Land Use Conclusions
No significant land use impacts would result from the development of th
cumulatively related projects.
C. Landform/Visual Resources
Cumulative LandformNisual Resources Impacts
All of the cumulatively related projects involve grading and modification of th
existing landforms. The visual effects of the grading are minimized by th
22
Kelly Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision 0 Findinas of Fa
adherence to the requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zonl
Hillside Development Regulations and Guidelines, and the Landscaping Manual. Tt
City of Carlsbad reviews all projects against the standards established in the:
ordinances and policies, and conditions all projects to insure that the standards a
observed. Waivers are granted only when the required findings can be made .
justify a waiver.
Cumulative LandformNisual Resources Finding
No changes or alteration are required in the project to avoid cumulative significa
landform/visual resource effects.
Cumulative LandformNisual Resources Mitigation
No mitigation measures beyond those included in each project approval are require
to reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
Cumulative Landformlvisual Resources Conclusions
No significant landform/visual resource would result from the development of tt
cumulatively related projects.
D. Noise
Cumulative Noise Impacts
The noise analyses completed for the cumulatively related projects identified nois
reduction measures that are appropriate for each project. The Rancho Carlsba
Mobile Home Park, Kelly Ranch "Village E," and Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project
will be required to construct noise barriers along College Boulevard and Canno
Road. The Cannon Road project is also required to construct noise barriers :
selected locations to reduce noise levels in adjacent native habitat where sensitiv
species would be adversely affected.
Cumulative Noise Finding
No changes or alteration are required in the project to avoid cumulative significar
noise effects.
Cumulative Noise Mitigation
No mitigation measures beyond those included in each project approval are require
to reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
Cumulative Noise Conclusions
No significant noise impact would result from the development of the cumulative1
related projects.
23
0 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & Tore Area" Subdivision Findinas of Fa
E. Traffic/Circulation
Cumulative Traffic/Circulation Impacts
With mitigation, project-specific impacts will be less than significant. However, 2
indicated in the City's General Plan Master EIR, the implementation of subsequel
projects (e.g., the Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project) that are consistent with, ar
included in, the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumt
(FSEIR, p. 3.9). Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build01
traffic; however, 12 full and two partial intersections will be severely impacted t
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Region
related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of tt
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffil
therefore, the proposed project's contribution, although minor, will still contribute 1
a significant cumulative impact.
Cumulative Traffic/Circulation Findings
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes 1
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid tt
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. The cumulative impac
are anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3) of the Sta.
CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impat
below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overridir
Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptab
because of specific overriding considerations.
Cumulative Traffic/Circulation Mitigation Measures
The proposed project's design incorporates several traffic mitigation measurc
identified in the City's General Plan Master EIR. These design components incluc
the provision of trail segments that will provide access to the City's trail syster
including a trail along Canon Road.
Cumulative Traffic/Circulation Conclusions
Cumulative traffic/circulation impacts on a citywide basis are an unavoidabl
significant impact. A "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be adopted
the decision-makers determine to approve the Kelly Ranch project.
F. Air Quality
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Project-specific impacts will be less than significant. However, as indicated in tl
City's General Plan Master EIR, the implementation of subsequent projects (e.g., tl
Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project) that are consistent with, and included in, tl
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased air emissions in the area (FSEI
p. 3.9). Since the San Diego air Basin is a "non-attainment basin," any additional i
24
a 0 Keiiv Ranch General Pian Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinas of Fa(
emissions are considered cumulatively significant, therefore, continued developmer
to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significar
impacts on the air quality of the region. Cumulative air quality impacts a1
anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Air Quality Findings
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alteration are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid 11
significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. The cumulative impac
are anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3) of the Stat
CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impac
below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overridin
Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptabl
because of specific overriding considerations.
Cumulative Air Quality Mitigation Measures
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Pla
buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the final Master EIF
These include:
1. Provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrer
2. Measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of congestio
3. Provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas
4. Conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
5. Participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.
with development;
and Transportation Demand Management;
transit services;
The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures hav
either been incorporated in the design of the Kelly Ranch project or are included a
conditions of project approval.
Cumulative Air Quality Conclusions
Cumulative air quality impacts on a citywide basis are an unavoidable, significar
impact. A "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be adopted if th
decision-makers determine to approve the Kelly Ranch project.
~~
25
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision 0 Findinus of Fat
X. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the project will cause some unavoidable cumulative significant environment:
effects, as outlined above (see Section 1x1, the City must consider the feasibility of an
environmentally superior alternative to the project, as finally approved. The City mu:
evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen th
unavoidable significant environmental effects. Citizens for Quality Growth v, City of Mour
Shasta (1988) 198 Cal. App. Ed 433 [243 Cal. Rptr. 7271; see also Public Resources Cod
Section 21002. Because it is a judgement call whether an alternative is environmentall
superior these findings contrast and compare all of the alternatives in the FSEIR.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings a lead agency need not necessarily addres
the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives whe
contemplating the approval of a project with significant effects. Where the significar
effects can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption (
mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider th
feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be les
severe than those of the project as mitigated. Laurel Heights lmprovement Association 1
Regents of the University of California (1 988) 47 Cal. 3d 376 [253 Cal Rptr. 4261; Law
Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 51 5 1147 Cal. Rpt
8421; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1 990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 69
[270 Cal. Rptr. 6501. Accordingly, for this project, in adopting the findings concernin
project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental effects that fc
the finally approved project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessene
through mitigation.
Whereas, in this project, significant environmental effects remain even after application (
all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FSEIR, the decision-makers must evalual
the project alternatives identified in the FSEIR. Under these circumstances, CEQA require
findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. If no project alternatives are feasible, tl-
decision-makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to tt-
project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decision-makers must decic
whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project alternativc
considered must be ones which "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project
However, the State CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capab
of eliminating" environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to sorr
degree the attainment of the project objectives." [State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 2
subd. (dl].
CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findin(
requirement; "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful mannr
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, soci;
and technological factors." Public Resources Code, 521061 .I. The State CEO
Guidelines provide a broader definition "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factor
The State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364 ("The lack of legal powers of an agency to use
imposing an alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as ar
economic, environmental, social, or technological factor.") Accordingly, "feasibility" is
26
e Kellv Ranch General Plan Amenament & "Core Area" Subdivision e Findinas of Fa
term of art under CEQA and thus is afforded a different meaning as may be provided t
Webster's Dictionary or any other sources.
Moreover, Public Resources Code Section 21080 governs the "findings" requirement undl
CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. It states in relevant part:
". . . IN10 public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is
approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the
following findings:
(a)(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report."
The concept of "feasibility," therefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing (
various economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. See Pub1
Resources Code 521061 .I; State CEQA Guidelines, §I 5364; Public Resources Cod1
521081; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal. App. 3rd 401, 41~
41 7.
In City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1 992) 133 Cal. App. 3rd 401, 414-41 7, the Cou
of appeal found that the City of San Diego had ". . . considered and reasonably rejected . . [certain] project alternatives . . . as infeasible in view of the social and economic realitie
of the region." ld. at 417. The court determined that San Diego had attempted t
accommodate the feasibility factors based upon its growth management plan that include
the proposed development project. Accordingly, the court concluded:
"Assuming this accommodation is a reasonable one (citation omitted), San
Diego is entitled to rely on it in evaluating various project alternatives. The
cost-benefit analysis, which led to the accommodation, is of course subject
to review, but it need not be mechanically stated at each stage of the
approval process. In this sense, 'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. We accordingly
conclude that San Diego did not abuse its discretion under CEQA in rejecting
various project alternatives as infeasible." M. (emphasis added).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order tc
demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting ir
significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and othe
benefits. In rejecting all of the alternatives, the decision-makers have examined the finall!
approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet thl
objectives. The decision-makers believe that the project best meets the finally approvec
project objectives with the least environmental impacts. The objectives considered by thl
decision-makers are:
27
a 0 Keiiv Ranch General Pian Amendment & ''Core Area" Subdivision Findinm of Fal
0 Development of a residential subdivision at a density consistent with the City (
Carlsbad General Plan, Growth Management Plan, Local Coastal Plan, ar
Hillside Development Ordinance.
0 Development of a residential neighborhood, including single-family and mull
family units,
0 Development of a residential community compatible with surrounding land uses
Locate residential units to maximize view opportunities while preserving tt
integrity of off-site viewsheds.
0 Identify and preserve, to the greatest extent practical, the known environment
resources on the property.
0 Preserve native habitat in open space that is consistent with the open spac
shown in the draft City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
A. No ProjectlNo Development Alternative
Description of Alternative
CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative (Public Resources COC
Section 15 126). This alternative assumes that the site would not be develope
with the proposed project, and the site would remain in its existing condition.
Finding
The No ProjectlNo Development alternative does not attain the basic objectives (
the proposed project and specific or other considerations identified in the FSEl
support the determination that the No Project/No Development alternative
infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
Specific facts supporting the rejection of the No Project/No Development alternativ
are as follows.
1. The No ProjectlNo Development alternative would not develop the "Core Area
property with single-family and multi-family dwelling units that are consister
with the land use designations of the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Growt
Management Plan, and Local Coastal Plan.
2. The No Project/No Development alternative would not implement the City c
Carlsbad/Kelly Ranch Affordable Housing Agreement, nor would it increase th
City's stock of affordable housing.
3. The No Project/No Development alternative would not be compatible with th
existing and planned land uses in the surrounding area.
28
Ketiv Ranch General Pian Amen 9 ment & "Core Area" Subdivision e Findinss of Fa'
4. The No Project/No Development alternative would not assure the dedication (
open space to preserve the known environmental resources on the property.
5. The No Project/No Development alternative would not contribute to tt
implementation of the draft City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
B. Kelly Ranch Master Plan Alternative
Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed under the existin
approved Kelly Ranch Master Plan that remains in effect. Development applicatior
could be submitted in accord with the provisions of the Master Plan.
Development of the "Core Area" under the Master Plan alternative would be limit€
to a maximum of 679 du by the General Plan top-of-the-range, and 508 dwellir
units by the General Plan Growth Management Control Point. The proposed Kel
Ranch "Core Area" project proposes to construct 656 single-family and multi-fami
units within the "Core Area." Thus, under the Master Plan alternative an addition
23 dwelling units could be constructed at the General Plan top-of-the-range (SE
FSEIR Table 1 .I .I).
Exhibit 5 in the Kelly Ranch Master Plan FElR (83-4) illustrates the conceptu
development plan approved in the Master Plan. Figure 1 .I .I 1 in the fin,
Supplemental EIR (98-05) illustrates the precise areas that are proposed to b
developed. The two development areas are essentially the same, however, th
"proposed project" shown in Figure 1.1 .I 1 has been refined to maximize th
preservation of biologically sensitive resources, and to comply with the City'
hillside development and grading standards.
Finding
The Kelly Ranch Master Plan alternative does not fully attain the basic objectives (
the proposed project and specific or other considerations identified in the FSEl
support the determination that the Kelly Ranch Master Plan alternative is infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
Specific facts supporting the rejection of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan alternative ar
as follows.
1. The Kelly Ranch Master Plan alternative would construct 23 more dwelling unit
than would the proposed "Core Area" project. These additional units would nc
appreciably add to the City's housing stock, and would be detrimental to th
character of the overall housing design by forcing too many units into th
developable area of the project site.
~~~~~
29
Kellv Ranch General Plan Amen 9 ment & %ore Area" Subdivision e Findinos of Fat
2. The Kelly Ranch Master Plan is not considered environmentally superior to th
proposed "Core Area" project because:
a) The landform, visual, land use, and noise impacts of the alternative would t
essentially the same for the proposed Kelly Ranch "Core Area" project; and
b) The Master Plan alternative development design for the "Core Area," t
shown in Figure 1.1.7, predated the preparation of the City's draft "Habit;
Management Plan. Consequently the alternative design is not as responsh
to the biological sensitivity of the north-south and east-west wildlife corrido
as is the proposed "Core Area" project.
3. The Kelly Ranch Master Plan alternative would not reflect changes in the Gener
Plan update (1 994) and Local Facilities Management Ordinance (1 986) that we
adopted after the Kelly Ranch Master Plan.
4. The proposed "Core Area" project is more responsive to the sensitivity of tt
physical environmental as currently defined by the Updated General Plan (1 99d
and the draft Habitat Management Plan than is the Master Plan alternative.
30
0 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinos of Fa'
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, describe
in detail in Section X of these Findings of Fact (Cumulative Significant Effects ar
Mitigation Measures):
0 Air Quality (Cumulative); and
Traffic (Cumulative.
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impact
Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen the$
significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts.
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on th
examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives both (1 ) meets projec
objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the finally approved project.
As a result, to approve the project the City must adopt a "statement of overridin
considerations" pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. Th
statement allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social or othc
benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significar
environmental effects that have not been avoided. The state explains why, in the agency'
Judgment, the project's benefits outweigh the unavoided significant effects.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rathe
ElRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment,'' defined to k
',adverse" (Public Resources Code, Section 21068). The Legislature amended the definitic
to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme court had held that benefici
impacts must also be addressed [see Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1 976) Cal. Ed 190, 20
[132 Cal. Rptr. 37711. Nevertheless, decision-makers benefit from information abot
project benefits. These benefits can be cited if necessary, in a state of overridin
consideration (see State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093).
The City finds that the project would have the following substantial social, environment
and economic benefits:
1. The proposed project will lead to the provision of needed housing with a diversity c
types, prices, tenures, densities and locations and in sufficient quantity to meet th
demand of anticipated City and regional growth.
2. The proposed project includes 132 affordable housing units in accord with th
provisions of the City of Carlsbad/Kelly Ranch Affordable Housing Agreement. Thi
agreement implements the General Plan Housing Element Goal 3 to provid
sufficient new, affordable housing opportunities in all quadrants of the City to me€
the needs of current lower and moderate income households and a fair shar
proportion of future lower and moderate income households.
31
0 0 Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment & "Core Area" Subdivision Findinas of Fa
4. The proposed project provides a variety of housing opportunities in close proximii
to employment centers (e.g., Legoland, Carlsbad Research Park, and other industri
centers adjacent to the Palomar Airport Road/EI Camino Real intersection.)
5. The proposed project funds a portion of the construction costs of Cannon Road thi
implements the City's Circulation Element and will contribute to a great(
distribution of ADT throughout the central part of the City and thereby potentiall
lessening impacts to some existing intersections.
6. The proposed project will deed restrict land for the provision of needed communi1
facilities such as the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation Visitor Center and a da!
care center.
7. The proposed project will contribute a proportionate share of the funding needed t
provide administrative facilities, library facilities, parks, and schools on a citywid
basis.
8. The proposed project will construct portions of the regional sewer system needed t
serve LFMP 8.
9. The proposed project protects and provides for the management of environmentall
sensitive land, natural resources, sensitive flora and fauna, wildlife habitat, an
existing biodiversity which may not otherwise be protected and preserved.
10.The proposed project will preserve a key corridor in Core Area #4 of the drat
Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad whicl
may not otherwise be preserved.
32
0 0
EXHIBIT “C”
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
for the
KELLY RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
and
“CORE AREA” SUBDIVISION (CT 97-16)
Prepared for:City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Contact: Christer Westman
(760) 438-1 161 x4448
Prepared bv:A.D. Hinshaw Associates
3570 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 104
San Diego, CA 921 08-1 747
Contact: Philip L. Hinshaw
(61 9) 280-2264
Project Proponent:Kelly Land Company
201 I Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Contact: D.L. Clemens
(760) 931 -1 I90
June IO, 1998
0 Kellv Ranch EIR Mitiaation e Monitorina and ReDortina Proara
Purpose of the Mitiaation Monitorina and Reportina Proaram (MMRP)
The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures required by tt
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Kelly Ranch "Core Area" are proper
implemented. The City of Carlsbad will monitor the mitigation measures required fc
development of the Kelly Ranch "Core Area" subdivision. The MMRP Checklist provides
mechanism for monitoring the mitigation measures in compliance with the EIR, and gener
guidelines for the use and implementation of the monitoring program are described below.
Mitiaation Monitorina Checklist
The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist is organized by the time of implementation and b
categories of environmental impacts. For each impact area, the impacts identified in th
EIR are summarized and the required mitigation measures are listed. The following item
are identified for each mitigation measure to ensure the implementation of each measur(
(1) responsibility for implementation and monitoring; (2) date of completion; and (3) initia
of monitor. A "Comments" column is provided for the monitor to insert commenl
concerning the completion of the mitigation measures.
Timinq
The mitigation measures will be implemented at various times as development proceed:
Some measures are implemented as plans are completed (e.g., final map, grading permi
etc.) while others are completed during construction (e.g., during grading). Finally, sorr
measures may be completed at the end of the construction process, but before tk
issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Responsibility
For each mitigation measure, the responsibility party for implementing the measure i
identified. In most cases, the applicant is the responsible party. The entity responsible fc
monitoring the implementation is also identified. In most cases, the City of Carlsbad i
responsible for monitoring. City departments charged with community developmen.
resource management, infrastructure and public services are typically assigned monitorin
responsibility. If mitigation measures are requested by an agency that has jurisdiction b
law over some component of the environment, the City can request the agency to prepar
a mitigation monitoring program for those mitigation measures.
Verification of CompletionThe "Completion" columns have been left blank. Th
mitigation monitor will use these columns to indicate the date of completion, and to initik
the completion of the mitigation measure.
Comments
A comments column is included to provide space for the monitor to record notes an'
observations as needed.
611 0198
e 0 .- - .I- v) Y 0 2z a, 0
E h
2
0
tl
a
S
0
a, cc m c m
U' S
0
c
.-
.- L
.I- .-
5 c 0 + m CJ
.-
.- .- 2 .I-
u W
1 0 c
cc m
>
Y a, - -
e 0 .- - +-I m Y 0 -c m 0
E 2 z a
D 8 .- Y t;
a, [r
-0 8 m
U 8 .-
+-I t; .- 8 5
C 0
m D
.- .w
.- +-I .- r
E w
L 0 c m CT
1
a, 2
- -
a e + m Y 0 c a)
0 .- -
E h
9 a
C tl
(3 .-
0
a) [1:
-0 C m
U S .-
+ 5 .- C s
C 0
(II U'
.- c
.- + .- 2
rr w c 0 K m CT
1
a ?L
- -
e e .- - w rA Y 0 a, 1= 0.
E I
2 a
P C .- .I- z
a, U
-0 c m
0 c .-
44 z .- c s
C 0
m 0
.- .I-
.- w .- 2
- U
W
c 0 C
U m
>.
z a,
- -
e 0 .- - Y v) Y 0 L: W 0
E !!
0 cr:
U C
0
a,
-0 8 m
UI 8
.- Y
a
.-
c, 5 .- C 5
8 0
m
UI
.- Y .- Y .- 2
5 w
c 0 C m K >
a, Y
- -
e e .- - 4- to Y 0 L a, 0
E I
2 a
0 C .- w 8
a, U
-0 C m
0 C
0
C
.- L
I” .-
2
c 0
m U
.I-
.- 4-
.- .- 2
CT
W
L 0 C m U >
a, Y
-
- -