HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 95-06; Rancho Carrillo Village E; Tentative Map (CT) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO.: CT 95-06/PUD 95-04/SDP 95-12
DATE: MARCH 12. 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "E"
2. APPLICANT: UPC HOMES. INC.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES,
2386 Faraday. Suite 120. Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 438-1465
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 4. 1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative tract map to subdivide a 115 lot planned development with
104 multi-family duplex dwelling units.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
X Geological Problems
Water
_X Air Quality
X Transportation/Circulation
X Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
X Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
_X Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
X Recreation
Rev. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. D
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. Ixl
^y^f
Planner Signature^/ Yl Date
Planning DirectorSignatuVe Date
Rev. 3/28/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained
when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards.
• "Less Than 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 all 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.
Rev. 3/28/95
• 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. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #1)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source #3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #3 )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source #3)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #3)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Sources 1 and 2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #3)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #3)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source
#3)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source
#3)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
(Source #3)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #3)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #3)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #3)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #3)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
x_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (Source #3)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (
Source #3)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Source #3)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source #2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #3)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #2)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source #3)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #3)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
0
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source #3)
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #3) X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources
#2 and 3) _X_
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #3) X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3) X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Source #3) X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(Source #3) X
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #2) X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #2) X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
(Source #2) X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation?
(Source #2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source #2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Source #2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (Source #2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #3)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #3)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (
Source #3)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source #2)
b) Police protection? (Source #2)
c) Schools? (Source #3)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #2)
e) Other governmental services? (Source #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #2) X
b) Communications systems? (Source #2) X
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #3) X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3) X
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3) X
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3) X
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3) X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(Source #3) X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #3) X
c) Create light or glare? (Source #3) X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source
#3) JL
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #3) X
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #3) X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #3) X
10 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Source #3) X
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Source #3) _X_
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source #3) X
11 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
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 wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)(Source #2 - see 5. Air Quality and
6. Ciruclation Explanation)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify 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.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
12 Rev. 3/28/95
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
13 Rev. 3/28/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project grading consists of 652,300 cubic yards of cut and 34,300 cubic yeards of fill to create 104
lots, each containing a single duplex unit, along with two common recreation lots and 9 private street
lots. The proposed project grading is consistent with the mass grading approved as part of the Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan except that pad elevations along the northeastern boundary are raised
approximately 3 feet to enable the lower density development in which each structure includes only two
units with a front, side, and rear yard serving each unit.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan which covers the
entire Carrillo Ranch area. The certified Final Program EIR 91-04 addresses the potential
environmental impacts associated with future buildout of the area and is on file in the Planning
Department. Use of a Program EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts
of the Master Plan area. The final Program EIR contains environmental analysis that serves as an
information base to be consulted when reviewing subsequent development (tentative maps). In addition
to the Final Program EIR, more recently, the City has certified a Final Master EIR for an update of
the 1994 General Plan. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact
mitigation for subsequent projects that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Rancho
Carrillo.
Final Program EIR 91-04 included the agricultural, circulation, hydrology and water quality, geologic,
cultural, biological, aesthetic, noise and public facilities and services impacts of mass grading the entire
Master Plan area including Village E; therefore, the only additional studies submitted for the project
are a supplemental acoustical analysis and site assessment for soil contamination. The project is 70
units below the number of units projected by the Master Plan and the proposed multi-family
development is consistent with the grading design approved as part of the Master Plan. The project
would not create any additional environmental impacts that have not been evaluated and mitigated by
the Final Program EIR, therefore, as verified by the following evaluation, a Notice of Prior
Environmental Compliance will be issued by the Planning Director for the project. All of the relevant
Final Program EIR mitigation measures are imposed upon the project as conditions of approval.
1. LAND USE
The project is consistent with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan ensuring consistency with
approved land uses designated by the General Plan, zoning, and land use compatibility with
existing land uses. Village E is located adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and is in the center
of the Master Plan area currently surrounded by vacant land; therefore, it would not disrupt
an established community.
Village E consists of Las Flores loamy fine sands which is rated as Class IV agricultural soils.
Class IV soils are severely limited for crops and require careful management. Since soils within
the Master Plan are not considered to be prime agricultural soils, impacts to agricultural lands
are not considered to be significant.
To avoid possible conflicts between the development of Village E and surrounding agricultural
uses, the project has been conditioned to provide a list of performance and impact criteria
specified by the EIR such as access, drainage, and buffering to ensure that the project is
compatible with continued surrounding agricultural use.
14 Rev. 3/28/95
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Rancho Carrillo Program EIR determined that development of the Master Plan is not
significantly growth inducing due to its consistency with the Zone 18 Local Facilities
Management Plan which requires that public infrastructure and services to meet the demand
generated are provided concurrent with new development.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17 (approved 7-27-93) includes remedial grading, due
to landslides, unstable soils and undocumented fills, necessary for the development of the
Master Plan including Village E. Additional finish grading may be required for the project,
however, the project will not result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of
people or property to geologic hazards since issuance of future grading permits will ensure
compliance with all City Grading Ordinance standards, Master Plan mitigation measures, and
the recommendations of a required detailed soil and geologic investigation to prevent any
geologic instabilities resulting from grading operations. The approval of HDP 91-17 ensures
that the existing topography will not be changed significantly except as required for circulation
arterial roadways and precludes the elimination of unique physical features.
Faulting and seismicity: Due to the distance of known faults from the project site (Rose
Canyon, Elsinore, and San Jacinto), design engineering of structures and features can provide
an adequate margin of safety for seismic events.
4. WATER
Major drainage facility design is required to avoid potential adverse effects of erosion,
sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from development of the entire Master Plan area
including Village E. EIR 91-04 includes mitigation measures requiring that each tentative map
be conditioned to require the submittal of a hydrology analysis addressing required flood
attenuation, runoff flow reduction/siltation, and proper sizing of drainage facilities. This
hydrology analysis may cover the entire Master Plan area. Additionally, prior to final map
recordation or grading permit/building permit issuance, a financing plan for the construction
of the required drainage facilities must be approved.
5. AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional
air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to
buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on
the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a
15 Rev. 3/28/95
variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1)
provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development;
2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and
Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of
transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building
and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.
The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore,
the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,
by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations"
for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project,
therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document
is available at the Planning Department.
6. CIRCULATION
A total of approximately 832 ADT generated by this project will be accommodated by existing
and future roadway improvements which the project is conditioned to construct. EIR 91-04
concluded that impacts to roadways could be mitigated to less than significant through
monitoring for consistency with Growth Management level of service standards for road
segments and intersections. As proposed, the project's external circulation system would be
consistent with the Master Plan and the internal circulation system which includes a temporary
emergency/secondary access is consistent with City standards as determined by the City
Engineer.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be
adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be
severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control.
These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at
buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These
include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2)
provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes,
additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from
a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the
jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation
16 Rev. 3/28/95
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic,
therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required
because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-
246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This
"Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review
of circulation impacts is required.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub are identified by EIR 91-04 and mitigation in
the form of a biological open space easement is proposed to reduce those impacts to
insignificant levels. The project is conditioned to require mitigation through the dedication of
an open space easement over natural open space, biological mitigation areas, and naturalized
areas.
9. HAZARDS
Prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Preliminary Site Assessment (pp 39-
40) dated December 1993 performed by GEOCON Environmental Consultants which include
the performance of additional laboratory tests to confirm that the Soluble Threshold Limit
Concentration (STLC) of DDT, DDE, and Toxaphene does not exceed the values promulgated
by Title 22 if soils will be exported from the site. A report detailing the results of the
remediation program, if necessary, shall be submitted to the City.
10. NOISE
As proposed, the project includes 6' high noise barrier walls along Palomar Airport Road and
Street I to reduce exterior noise levels to acceptable (<60 dBA CNEL) levels in accordance
with the provisions of the Master Plan. Project pad elevations located along the northeastern
property line are proposed to increase 3' above the elevations approved for the HDP 91-17 for
the Master Plan. However, a subsequent noise analysis performed by RECON (1995) revealed
that exterior noise levels would remain at or below 60 dBA CNEL with the construction of 6'
high masonry community theme walls along the property line adjacent to Palomar Airport
Road approved as part of the Master Plan. Additionally, the project is conditioned to require
that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
11&12 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
In accordance with mitigation required by EIR 91-04, the project is conditioned to comply with
the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan requiring that public facilities will be financed
and/or constructed concurrent with development. This includes the dedication of parkland and
17 Rev. 3/28/95
a school site and financing plan to be approved by the San Marcos Unified School District for
elementary school facilities prior to recordation of any final map in Zone 18.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS- (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161)
1. Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 1994.
2. "Final Master EIR for the 1994 General Plan Update"
3. "Final Program EIR for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan" (EIR 91-04)
4. Addendum to "Acoustical Analysis for Rancho Carrillo Village E" dated February 14, 1996.
5. "Preliminary Site Assessment and Limited Sampling Report for Rancho Carrillo Villages E, J, K,
and a portion of Village S" dated December 1993.
18 Rev. 3/28/95