Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 49601 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4960 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THE KELLY RANCH “CORE AREA” REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS BY SEVEN, REDUCING THE NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS BY 43, RELOCATING FUTURE DAY CARE AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE AREAS, ESTABLISHING MODIFIED OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AREAS, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY REGULATIONS RELATING TO COASTAL RESOURCES, AND AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD AND EAST OF FARADAY AVENUE IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8. CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH CASE NO.: GPA OO-09iZCA OO-06iCT 97.16A HDP 97-17AKDP 97-43A SDP 98.04AKDP 98-66A SDP 98-18AKDP 98-70A WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, “Developer and Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A portion of Lot “I” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda and a portion of Lot “F” of Ranch0 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 County, November 16,1896. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of May 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 4 L 6 i E S 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 4 B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated April 5, 2001, and “PII” dated February 19, 2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. b. c. d. e. the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment are actions required by the California Coastal Commission in adoption of the Local Coastal Program and subsequent adoption of LCPA 97-09(A) by the City of Carlsbad and are therefore statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PC RESO NO. 4960 -2- 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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of May 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: o&c CARLSBAD PLANkNG C;;ISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RBSO NO. 4960 -3. City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Kelly Ranch/South of Cannon Road and east of Faraday Avenue Project Description: Amend previously approved discretionary actions taken by the City of Carlsbad on the Kelly Ranch “Core Area” reducing the number of single family residential lots by eight, reducing the number of apartment units by 43, relocating future day care and recreational vehicle storage areas, establishing modified open space preservation areas, incorporating Kelly Ranch subdivision design elements of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, amending the General Plan land use map and incorporating new text into the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. The City of C&bad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. DATED: CASE NO: APRIL 5,200l GPA OO-09/ZCA OO-06/CT 97-16(A)/HDP 97-17(A)/CDP 97.43(A)/SDP 98-04(A)/CDP 98.66(A)lSDP 98- 18(A)ICDP 98-70(A) CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 5,200l Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 43 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II CASE NO: GPA OO-09iZCA OO-06iCT 97.16AlCDP 97.43A!HDP 97-OOAISDP 98-04AlSDP 98-18A DATE: March 5.2001 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. CASE NAME: Kelly Ranch APPLICANT: Kelly Land Companv ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airport Road #206 Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 93 1-I 190 4. 5. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Januarv 19.2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendments to previouslv approved discretionary actions taken by the Citv of Carlsbad on the Kelly Ranch “Core Area” reducing the number of single familv residential lots by eight. reducing the number of apartment units bv 43. relocating future dav care and recreational vehicle storage areas, establishing modified ooen space preservation areas, incoruoratin~ Kellv Ranch subdivision design elements of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Propram, amending the General Plan land use map and incorporating new text into the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Signiticant Impact,” or “Potentially Signifcant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. El Land Use and Planning El Transportation/Circulation q Public Services q Population and Housing q Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems q Geological Problems q Water 17 Air Quality 0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources q Noise q Recreation q Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. [XI q cl q q 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. k&J-lwv- Planner Signature - *m,m\ Date 3jz0/0 I Date I 2 Rev. 03/28/96 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 Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “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 “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment. but alJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 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. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 . If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. . An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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. Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-1X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-I - 5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1:&s 5.5-l - 5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Q Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1) 5 Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q q q El q q 0 0 El q q q cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q El H cl q 51 q El cl q 0 Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q B q 0 q 0 El q q q q No I”lpaCt !x [XI IXI El IXI El El El H El IXI tzl E3 H El IXI IXI Iz Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 4 e) 0 E) h) 0 Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.,2-l 1) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2- 11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 4 b) Cl 4 Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (,#l:Pgs 5.3- 1 - 5.3-12) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATlONiClRCULATlON. Would the d b) E) proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus hnnouts, bicycle racks)? (#t:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.722) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l :Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts t*: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#I:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Impact cl cl q q q q q q q q q q Cl q q q q q q Potentially Significant UllkSS Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q q q q cl Cl q q q q q q Less Than Significant hp.Xt q q q q q q q q q q q q cl q q q q q q NO Impact 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources), VIII. =) b) Cl Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l 5.13-9) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13. 1 - 5.13-9) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 4 b) C) 4 e) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ortrees?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l 5.9- 15) b) E&sure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect 4 b) Cl 4 e) upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l 5.12.6-4) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q cl q El H Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q q q q q q El H q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q El B NO Impact 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 H H XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 7 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) a) b) C) 4 e) 0 8) XIII. a) b) C) XIV. 4 b) C) 4 e) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-I - 5.13-9) Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l . 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l 5.12.4-3) Local 01 regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic CJI vista or scenic highway? (#l :Pgs 5.11-l-5.11-5) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8- 10) Dishwb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8. 10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8. 1 5.8-10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood 01 regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or resnict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact q H El B q q q q q 0 q q q q cl Potentially Significant UllltX Mitigation Incorporated q B El q q cl q q q q H q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q El I3 q cl q q q q q q q q q q q NO Impact 8 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Sianiticant Potentially Less Than No Significant Simlificant Impact b) C) XVII. i&act Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? q (“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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES il”kSS impact Mitigation Incorporated q q IXI q [XI 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: 4 b) c) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Kelly Ranch project and certified by the Carlsbad City Council in December 1999. That document serves as the basis for the analysis for this project which is an amendment of the Kelly Ranch project approved in 1999. The Kelly Ranch EIR is on file with the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, City of Carlsbad California, 92008. 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 measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03128196 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project is a collection of amendments to previously approved discretionary actions taken by the City of Carlsbad on the Kelly Ranch “Core Area”. The project includes reducing the number of single family residential lots by eight, reducing the number of apartment units by 43, relocating future day care and recreational vehicle storage areas, establishing modified open space preservation areas, incorporating Kelly Ranch subdivision design elements of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program into the project design, amending the General Plan land use map and incorporating new text into the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. All of the amendments are follow up actions to Coastal Commission action on Local Coastal Program Amendment 97-09 on July 11, 2000, which included several suggested modifications. The Coastal Commission adopted modifications included the reduction in development area for Planning Areas “J” and “D” which resulted in the reduction of dwelling units, and the establishment of Kelly Ranch Open Space which increased the project’s undisturbed areas. Benefits of the amendments includes the reduction of the overall area of physical disturbance without extending development into areas which were previously left undisturbed. The result is a slight increase in the preservation of natural slopes and slope vegetation. Open space areas will be designated as such by easements which prohibit the use of the property for anything other than open space. The reduction in residential units in turn reduces the demand for services and the Average Daily Traffic by 424. Although there will be a reduction in the need for services and in ADT, no change has been made to the provision of services, e.g. sewer and water lines, or to the capacity of the associated roadways. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600. 1. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Kellv Ranch General Plan Amendment and Core Area Subdivision EIR 98-05, dated April 7, 1999. 10 Rev. 0312X/96