Loading...
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