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