HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 80-07; DAON CORPORATION RANCHO CARRILLO; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; 1981-09-21----------------------------------------------------
lsa
□ 500 Newport Center Drive, :suite 525
Newport Beach, California 92660
phone (714) 640-636~
□ 2927 Newbury Street, Suite C
Berkeley, California 94703
phone (415) 841-6840
Community Planning □ Natural Resource Management □ Environmental Assessment
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE RANCHO CARRILLO PLANNED COMMUNITY
SCH NUMBER 81040801
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PREPARED BY
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
500 NEWPORT CENTER DR I VE, SUITE 525
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(714) 640-6363
SEPTEMBER 21, 1981
0
0
0
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
REVISED SUMMARY OF IMP-ACTS AND. MITIGATION MEASURES
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REVISED ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED
IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR AND THE REVISED
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
Earth Resources
Water Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Land Use
Visual and Aesthetic Aspects
Traffic and Circulation
Air Quality
Energy
Noise
Community Services and Public Utilities
Agricultural Resources
REVISED LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 -Comments Received on Draft EIR
Appendix 2. -Addendum to Drainage Control Analysis
Appendix 3 -Revised Traffic Study and Comments
Appendix 4 -Revised Noise Study
lsa
iv
vi
1
16
17
22
25
33
35
37
40
41
51
60
63
71
76
77
ag·
0 iii
lsa
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure A -Revised Master Pl an I 2
Figure B -Landscape Open Area Pl an 4
Figure C -Revised General Plan Amendment 7
Figure D -Existing General Plan and Original General Plan Amendment 8
Figure E _, Revised Phasing Plan 11
Figure F -Red Phase 12
Figure G -Orange Phase 13
Figure H -Purple Phase 14
Figure I -Green-Blue Phase 15
Figure J -Areas of Significant Grading 18
Figure K -Areas of Preserved Natura 1 Vegetation 26
0 Figure L -Revised Circulation Plan 42
Figure M -Daily Traffic Volumes at Project Completion 44
Figure N -Daily Traffic at Ultimate 46
.Figure O -Revised Directional Distribution at Project Completion 47
Figure P -Revised Directional Distribution at Ultimate 47a
Figure Q -Roadway Sections 66
Figure R -Ultimate Noise Exposure 68
TABLES
·Table 1 -Revised Master Plan Amendment Statistical Summary 3
Table 2 -Comparison of Revised and Original Master Plan Amendment
. -Requests 5
Table 3 -General Plan Land Use Comparison 9
Table 4 -Comparison of Vehicular Emissions 52
Table 5 -Comparison of Stationary Source Emissions at Project
Completion (Tons/Day) 53
Table 6 -Comparison of Total Pollutant Emissions at Buildout
(Tons/Day) 54
Tab 1 e 7 -Rancho Carri 11 o Energy Consumption 61
Table 8 -Future Roadway Noise Impact 65
0
0
·o
iv
lsa.
INTRODUCTION
This portion of the Environmental Impact Report responds to comments
received on the content of the Draft EIR and to revisions to the project
initiated in response to mitigation contained in the Draft EIR, concerns
raised in the Draft EIR, and subsequent comments on the Draft EIR. The EIR as
completed adequately addresses the environmental concerns surrounding the pro-
posed project as defined by the Master Plan Amendment in tandem with a General
Plan Amendment. This EIR does not address the impacts of the Gener·a1 Plan
Amendment without the modifying effects of the more detailed Master Plan
Amendment.
The City of Carlsbad has received an application for the adoption of a
revised master plan for the Rancho Carrillo Planned Community and a request
for consideration of a General Plan Amendment supporting the revised master
plan. A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project was completed on
April 3, 1981 and was circulated for public review at that time. The environ-
mental guidelines of the City of Carlsbad and the State of California provide
for the public review of Draft Environmental Impact Reports and the submission
of comments on the adequacy of the report.
The guidelines also require the lead agency to prepare responses to those
comments i ndi cat i ng the manner in which significant environmental issues
raised by the comments have been resolved. These reponses may take several
different forms. They may include clarification of the EIR, revisions to the
project or recommendations for additional mitigation me.asures designed to min-
imize the envirdrimental effects of the project. •
In this case, a number of things have been done in response to issues
raised by the Draft EIR and by the comments received on the draft. The most
important change which has occurred during the public review period is the
realignment of the major arterial highways serving the site and, as a conse-
quence, redesign of the basic land use pattern. This change has affected the
distribution of land uses within Rancho Carrillo, but has not resulted in any
substantial changes in the total intensity of land use proposed for the prop-
erty. This change occurred in response to environmental concerns related to
traffic raised by the Draft EIR. •
Also, the open space areas were reconfigured into a more continuous and
centralized system and the flood contra l system is now proposed to utilize
existing drainage channels within this open space system. This change
occurred as a result of concerns related to impacts on biological habitat
raised by the DEIR and the comments on the DEIR received from the California
Department of Fi sh and Game. • Because of these and other mi nor changes, we
0
0
0
V
lsa
have prepared a new project description which reflects the revised plan and
then, under each environmental topic, we have provided the following informa-
tion: 1) a summary of the impacts identified in the original Draft EIR; 2) the
effect of the project redesign on those impacts; 3) a listing of all of the
mitigation measures contained in the original Draft EIR; 4) any required
changes or additions to the mitigation measures; and 5) other comments and
responses.
The reader will be able to get an overview of the environmental conse-
quences of this project by reading these responses to comments. However, the
reader should also refer to the original Draft EIR for more in-depth analysis
and discussion of any issues of particular interest or concern.
0 0 0
REVISED SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
EARTH RESOURCES (DEIR PAGES 11-23; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 17-21)
Mass grading will significantly
impact the onsite topography by
permanently altering the existing
l andform.
Landslides onsite pose signifi-
cant safety hazards to develop-
ment.
Alluvial deposits require com-
paction and soils onsite are con-
sidered expansive. These may
pose developmental safety haz-
ards.
Significant cut and fi 11 (30 feet
or greater in depth) will be con-
fined to limited areas. All grad-
ing will be in full conformance
with City ordinances· and will
reflect the recommend at i ans of a 11
geotechnical studies.
Identified slide areas and areas
of . potential s l ides wi 11 be
precisely delineated and analyzed.
Appropriate stabilization proce-
dures such as burial, excavation,
buttressing, or shear key support
will be incorporated info project
design and grading plans to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The depths and natures of alluvium
and co 11 uv i um wi 11 be more pred se-
ly determined. All ans ite soils
will be further analyzed to deter-
mine the precise level of expan-
siveness, ·erodibility, and other
soil characteristics. Based on
this, appropriate engineering pro-
cedures (i.e., recompaction, remov-
al, etc.) will be incorporated into
the project design to the satisfac-
tion of the City Engineer.
Partially mitigated, but nonetheless a
.significant adverse impact.
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
< -'•
0
Potential Adverse Impacts
Alluvial groundwater poses a
potential hazard to slope and
buttress stability.
Regional faulting presents a
potential hazard of groundshaking
during seismic activity, identi-
cal to that for the surrounding
area.
0
Mitigation Measures
EARTH RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
The installation of subdrains in
fill canyons and in stabilization
structures wi 11 be further cons id-
ered and incorporated into the
project de~ign as necessary.
All structures will conform to
Uniform Building Code and
applicable building and safety
requirements.
the
all
code
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
0
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
WATER RESOURCES (DEIR PAGES 23-27; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 22-24)
Urban pollutants in runoff will
incrementally degrade local water
quality. This will contribute
incrementally to the cumulative
advers~ impact associated with
increased urban development in
the region.
Onsite grading will
potential for erosion
increase sedimentation
stream waters. •
create a
and may
in down-
Onsite impervious surfaces and
diversion of eph.emeral streams
will alter the existing drainage
pattern.
Weekly streetsweeping
implemented on internal
wi 11 be
roadways.
A complete erosion control program
wi·l l be· approved by the City, and
implemented during grading and
between grading phases.
The developer will provide a drain-
age control system designed tci
ensure that 10-year flow rates
after development do not exceed
existing 10-year peak flow rates.
Partially mitigated, but
cumulatively significant
still a
impact.
Mitigated to an· insignificant level.
'Mitigated to an insignificant level.
0
Potential Adverse Impacts
0
Mitigation Measures
WATER RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
Detention basins wil l be designed
to pass runoff safely from a 100-
year storm.
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
0
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (DEIR PAGES 27-32; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 25-32)
Development of the site as pro-
posed will strip the site of
nearly all existing vegetation.
Most wildlife associated with
coastal sage scrub habitat and
open fields will be eliminated
onsite. Off site wildlife will
be indirectly affected by the
intrusion of urban uses on
adjacent parcels.
Natural vegetation within the
areas designated as "natural ter-
rain" in the conceptual grading
pl an wi 11 be preserved. Landscap-
ing around the detention basins
wi 11 be. native vegetation. The
deve l aper has incorporated natural
drainage swales into the drainage
control plan, which will preserve
most of the riparian habitat on-
site. The project applicants will
incorporate all permit conditions
formulated pursuant to the Depart-
ment of Fish and Game's 1603 permit
authority.
Loss of coastal sage scrub and raptor
foraging areas, although partially
mitigated, will still contribute to a
significant cumulative adverse
impact.
Any potential adverse impact on
riparian habitat, has been mitigated
to an insignificant level.
CULTURAL RESOURCES (DEIR PAGES 32-34; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 33-35)
Development of Rancho Carrillo
wi 11 des troy a 11 or most of the
archaeological sites within the
project area.
A qualified archaeologist will
investigate significant archaeolog-
ical sites to determine appropriate
salvage procedures. Shell scatters
will be surface-collected and anal-
yzed. Carri 11 o Ranch wi 11 be pre-
served as part of an 20-acre City park. The historic cross wi 11 be
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
< ....... ...... ......
0
Potential Adverse Impacts
0
Mitigation Measures
moved to within the City park. The
archaeologist will attend pre-grade
meetings with the grading contract-
or to d~termine which grading phas-
es will require archaeological mon-
itoring. The.archaeologist will be
authorized to diver, direct, or
halt grading in a specific area to
allow expeditiou~ salvage of any
significant artifacts uncovered as
a result of grading.
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
0
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (DEIR PAGES 34-35, RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 35-36)
Underlying formations onsite have
the potential for bearing signif-
icant fossils. Grading and con-
s true ti on would des tray or cover
over these areas.
A certified paleontologist will
survey the project area and will be
present during grading of sensitive
areas. The paleontologist will be
present at all pregrade meetings,
and has the authority to halt or
direct operations for expeditious
fossil salvage.
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
LAND USE (DEIR PAGES 36-40; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 37-39)
Residential land uses may con-
flict with bordering agricultural
activities.
When the two land uses are deter-
mined to conflict, a 6-foot block
wall will be constructed; if aerial
spraying is conducted offsite, the
developer will provide a 150-foot
buffer zone separating the land
uses . Depending on the types of
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
.....
X
0
Potential Adverse Impacts
0
Mitigation Measures
users, the proposed planned indus-
trial areas may be• incompatible
with some sections of the proposed
residential areas. • A special
treatment area plan(s) will be sub-
mitted to the City for approval
which will 1nclude special set-
backs, landscape requirements and
other design features for both the
industrial and residential areas
that interface in the northern por-
tion of the project site.
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
0
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC (DEIR PAGES 40-41; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGE 40)
Development would irrevocably
change the site I s appearance and
aesthetic-character.
Greenbelts, open spaces, and
natural terrain areas wi 11 be
included in the design of the
_project and wi 11 preserve some of
the ori gi na l features of the site.
Partially mitigated, but still a sig-
nificant impact.
X
o. 0
Potential Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
0
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (DEIR PAGES 41-59; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 41-50)
At completion, the project will
generate an estimated 40,640
daily trips. This traffic, along
with existing traffic and traffic
generated from neighboring and
regional developments, will
result in severe congestion at
the Palomar Airport Road/Melrose
Avenue intersection.
See Mitigation Measures 23-31 on
Pages 49-50 of the Responses to
Comments.
Partially mitigated, but still signif-
icant.
AIR QUALITY (DEIR PAGES 59-66; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 51-59)
At completion, Rancho Carrillo
will . contribute an estimated
0.54-0.70% of the entire San
Diego Air Basin's burden of
major vehicular pollutants.
However, the project is consis-
tent with the R-RAQS/SIP.
Dust emissions during construc-
tion will temporarily and locally
degrade air quality.
Increased stationary source emis-
sions will result from the proj-
ect's consumption of energy.
Alternate transportation modes
will be encouraged by inclusion of
bus facilities, public bikeways,
and walkways in the project design.
Diverse land uses within the commu-
nity will promote intra-community
travel.
The grading contractor will imple-
ment dust suppression measures dur-
ing grading operations.
Design features to reduce energy
consumption will be incorporated
into community designs.
Partially mitigated, but still part of
a cumulatively significant impact.
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
Partially mitigated, but still part of
a cumulatively significant impact.
X _,,
0 0
Potential Adverse· Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
0
ENERGY .{DEIR PAGES 67-89; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 60-62)
Project r development will result
in increasing consumption of
electricity, natural gas, and
automotive fuels.
Energy conservation features will
be incorporated into project
design, and reviewed at the time of
tentative map submittal.
Partially mitigated, but still part of
a cumulatively significant impact.
NOISE (DEIR PAGES 68-82; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 63-70)
Adjacent to existing homes, there
wi 11 be an expected increase in
road-related noise levels of 9.4
dB CNEL a long El Fuerte Street
and 7 .4 dB CNEL along Alga Road
west of El Fuerte. This is a
cumulative impact of thi~ and
other projects.
Future noise levels will also
increase as much as 22 dBA along
future roadways which do not yet
exist. This is not a signifi-
ant impact.
Prior to submittal of the tentative
maps, a detailed acoustical analy-
sis and noise control program will
be completed and reviewed by the
City.
See Pages 67 and 69 of the response
to comments for addition a 1 mit i ga-
t ion.
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
COMMUNITY SERVIC~S AND PUBLIC UTILITIES (DEIR PAGES 81-89; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGES 71-75)
An additional fire station and
nine personnel will be required
to serve the new community with
fire protection at ultimate
buildout.
The fire station proposed in the
Fire Department's Master Plan for
the area of Alga Road and El F4erte
Street will be operational to meet
the needs of Rancho Carril lo res i -
dents no later than at the time of
occupancy of at least 1,000 dwell-
ing units.
Mitigated to an insignificant level.
X ..... .....
0 0
Potential Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
0
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES (CONTINUED)
At buildout, Rancho Carrillo will
generate approximately 780 to 843
sc hoo 1-aged chi l dren. However,
the plan includes the provision
of two elementary school sites
(one in each servicing district).
No adverse impacts are expected
as a result of this project.
None required. An insignificant impact.
AGRICULTURE (DEIR PAGES 89-99; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PAGE 76)
The project would result in the
loss of approximately 178 acres
of agriculturally viable land.
This would effectively eliminate
the ability to use the land for
agricultural purposes. This con-
version, in concert with the
increased regional loss of agri-
cultural lands, represents a
regionally significant cumulative
impact.
The City will consider requiring
that the developers offer short-
term leases of agriculturally via-
ble parcels onsite, to the extent
feasible, until such time as they
are to be developed in phase.
The project-related impacts are part
of a regionally significant cumulative
action.
X
-'··
0
0
1
REVISED
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES
The Rancho Carrillo project area consists of about 868.7 acres located
5.5 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean in the City of Carlsbad in the Coun:ty
of San Diego. Originally. estimated by the applicant to be 846.3 acres, this
number has been corrected to 868. 7 acres by The P 1 anni ng Center. Figures 1
and 2 in the Draft EIR (pp. 4 and 5)show the vicinity. The site is bounded on
the north by the Carlsbad Raceway, on the east by the City of San Marcos, on
the south by the planned community of La Costa, and on the west by unincorpo-
rated San Diego County~
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Master Plan. Figure A illustrates the revised Master. Plan request as
compared to the original Master Plan request illustrated in Figure 3 in the
Draft EIR (p. 6). Table 1 gives a detailed statistical summary for the pro-
posed planning areas under the revised M·aster Plan Amendment request. Table 2
provides a summary which compares the revised Master Plan Amendment request
with the original Master Plan Amendment request.
The revised Master Plan Amendment would allow the same 2;998 dwelling
units proposed under the original Master Plan Amendment. This would be the
maximum number of units allowed within the planning area. The principal
changes in the revised plan have resulted from the realignment of Melrose Ave-
nue and Palomar Airport Road by the project applicant in response to concerns
raised by the Draft EIR. Changes al so resu 1t from the reconfiguration of open
space within the area (in response to concerns raised by the DEIR and the
Department of Fish and Game) and deletion of tourist commercial and community
commercial from the northern planning area.
As a result of the realignment of Melrose Avenue and Palomar Airport
Road, the land uses onsite have been reconfigured; however, as can be se~n by
the statistical summary, the general concept of a residential planned commun-
ity of 2;998 dwelling units has not changed.
Reconfiguration of the open space system al lows for the preservation of
the majority or riparian habitat onsite in a natural drainage course system.
It provides for a central and relatively continuous open space 11 ~pine11 Q throughout the project. Figure B i 11 ustrates the revised open space concept.
A
Revised Master Plan
X
2
Please see Table 1
of planning area.
lsa
for description
--
0
0
0
TABLE 1 3
REVISED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Zone and Development Type
General Plan for Standard Rev,i ew
Plannin2 Area Designation Process
Al RM Rl Standard Detached Single Family
A2 RM Rl Standard Detached Single Family
A3 RM Rl Standard Detached Single Family
A4 RM Rl Standard Detached Single Family
AS RM .Rl S.tandard Detached Single Family
B RLM Rl Standard Detached Single Family
C RMH RO-M Clustered· Multi-Family
I) cc C-2* General Commercial
El RM ROM Clustered· Multi-Family
E2 RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
E3 RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
E4 RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
Fl RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
F2 RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
F3 RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
Gl RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
G2 RLM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
Hl RLM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
H2 RLM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
Il RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
r2 RLM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
Jl RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
J2 RM ROM Clustered Multi-Family
Kl E Elementary School
K2 E Elementary School
L RC C-2* Recreation Commercial
M RC C-2* Recreation Commercial
Nl RMH RD-M~Clustered Multi-Family
N2 RM RD-M Clustered Multi-Family
0 RM RD-M Clustered Multi-Family
t'l • l<M RO-M Clustered Multi-Famil.Y
P2 RM RD-M Clustered Multi-Family
Ql RLM RO-M Clustered Multi-Family
Q2 RLM RO-M Clustered Multi-Family
Q3 RLM RD-M Clustered Multi-Family Q4 RLM RD-M Clustered Multi-Family R RLM RD-M Clustered Multi-Family. s RLM RD-M Clustered Multi-Family
T Pl PM Light Industrial u Pl PM Light rndustrial
" ' Pl PM Light Industrial
w OS OS Public Park
X
lsa
General Plan iF
. Units Permitted Max-Gross
Min Max DU Acres
56 139 59 13.9
32 79 40 7.9
52 130 58 13.0
61 153 70 15 .. 3
37 92 45 9.2
0 137 113 34.3
141 282 200 14.l
16 .o
44 109 so 10.9
40 100 56 10.0
58 145 99 14.5
109 273 174 27.3
53 133 83 13.3
28 70 44 7.0
25 62 32 6.2
114 285 226 28.5
0 107 74 26.9
0 93 29 23.3
0 93 27 23.4
54 135 69 13.5
0 172 131 43.0
55 138 96 13.8
114 284 201 28.4
15.9
20.0
4.0
6.3
171 342 270 17 .1
60 151 92 15.1
60 149 101 14.9 36 91 66 9.1
57 142 96 14.2
0 56 47 14.2
0 117 95 29.3
0 39 32 9.9
0 123 60 30.8
0 73 15 21.3
0 203 148 50.8
35.2 22.4"
13.2
10.5 100·.o
1457 4677 2998 868.7
**Dwelling unit count shown on this table represents the potential maximum number of dwelling units under ideal
planning cond.itions.
NOTE: Please see Figure A for location of planning areas.
SOURCE: The Planning Center
Open
Space
Acres
.6
6.8 2.4
.8.
.8
.7
1.2
8.9
0
3.4 7.0
10.6 8.9
4.6 14.7
.9 6.4
.9
2.2
3.1
1. 7
3.1 16.6
20.8
10,5
137.6
8
Landscape Open Area Plan
.LEGEND
~ AREAS TO BE LANDSC ~ HILLSIDE AREAS APED
r----:-, NATURAL AREAS l..,_J HILLSIDE AREAS
RECREATIONAL USES
INCLUDING FLAT LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE
w:~ I ACTIVITY AREAS
, ....... l BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN TRAILS
4
8-21-81
lsa
,00 ..,.. ""' --of W
1000'
0
0
TABLE 2 5
COMPARISON Of REVISED AND ORIGINAL
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS
Land Use
Residential
Recreation commercial
Commercial
Industri a 1
Public (schools and park)
Not-a-part areas
Totals
Source: The Planning Center
lDifference in total figure.
Revised Master Plan
Amendment Request
Gross Maximum
Acres . Dwelling Units
624.4 2,998
10.3
16.0
70.8
35.9
110.5
868.71 2,9982
lsa
Original Master Plan
Amendment Request
Gross Maximum
Acres Dwelling Units
626.8 2,998
10.5
35.1
41.1
22.2
110.5
846.21 2,9982
2This figure could increase _by as much as 124 units if Planning Area F were
to revert to residential use in the event the school site is not used.
0
0
0
6
lsa
The revised Master Plan amendment also provides two school sites (ele-
mentary) within the planned community as opposed to the single site. originally
proposed. An agreement has not been reached with the two school districts
that serve the site as to the consol'idation of the planned community under a
single district's jurisdiction. Until such agreement were to be made, two
sites are proposed to be designated as school sifes, one for each district.
The revised Master Plan amendment includes approximately 127 .1 acres of
open space, 10.3 acres of commercial recreation, and the 10.5-acre Carrillo
Rancho Park for a total of 147 .9 acres in open space, parks, and coITJTiercial
recreation as compared to 166 acres of the original Master Plan request. At
the request of the City of Parks and Recreation Corrmission, an additional park
site will not be dedicated, but in-lieu fees will be paid instead.
General Plan. The project applicant has submitted a revised request
that the City of Carlsbad consider an amendment to the City of Carlsbad's
General Plan in support of the revised Master Plan amendment request. Figure
C illustrates the revised General Plan Amendment request. Figure D illus-
trates the existing G.eneral Plan and the original General Plan Amendment
request. Table 3 compares. the existing General Plan, the original General
Plan amendment, and the revised General Plan amendment.
Comparison of the revised amendment to the original amendment shows that
residential acreage and recreation commercial acreage stay relatively the
same. However, there is the elimination of neighborhood and travel services
commercial and the reduction in acreage of corrmunity coITJTiercial. Planned
i ndustri a 1 acreage increases from 41. 4 to 70 acres. School acreage al so
increases, while open space acreage again decreases.
The revised General Plan Amendment would allow for 494.7 acreas of resi-
dential development, which 1 is 65.4 acreas more than is designated by the
existing General Plan. It would allow a maximum of 4,110 dwelling units com-
pared to the presently allowed 3,886 dwelling units. (However, the Master
Plan amendment described above would provide a maximum ceiling of 2,998). The
revised General Plan ·amendment would allow less medium/high-density and low/
medium-density development with more allowed .medium-density development.
The area referred to as a special treatment area would be clarified under
the designation of planned industrial. The recreation commercial area would
be decreased in size by 13.5 acres.
7
C
Revised General Plan Ammendment
LM Low Medium Density (0·4du/acl
M Medium Density (4·10du/ac)
MH Medium High Density (10·20 du/ac)
C Community Commercial
RC Racreation COlnlM<cial
Pl Planned Industrial
Elementary School
Open Space
~~W(~i~,
,~1~\,
LM
'°;i;'I~;.': "'<· .,~
LM
i I i
L---··-··-··-··-·-··---··j
M
LM
Pl
M
lsa
LM
200 <od ooo' --nl w
\ \
.D
Existing General Plan & Original General Amendment
LM
M
MH
N
TS
RC
·-
!lti~::t .:;J
Bl
Low Medilm Density (0-4cll/llc)
Medium Density(4-10cll/ac)
Medium High Density (10·20du/ac)
Neighborhood Commercial
Travel Services Commercial
Recreation Commercial
Special Treatment Area
Elementary School
Open Space
lsa
LM . low Medium .Density Co-4-du/ac)
( M Medium Density l4·10du/ac)
C Community Commercial
N Neighborhood Commetcial
.(
I \ LM
I TS Travel Services Commercial
RC Recreation Commercial
Pl Planned Industrial
( E Elementary School
(:· . , l .. ·. -f: Open Space
LM
m~~ o 200' 500· ·oocr -
0 TABLE 3 9
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE COMPARISON lsa
Existing Original Revised
General Amendment Amendment
Land Use Pl an Request Request
Residential
RLM-low/medium density (0-4 du/ac) 191.3 184.2 184.9
RM-medium-density (4-10 du/ac) 163.9 301.4 282.6
RMH-medium/high-density ( 10-20 du/ac) 74.1 27.2
Commercial
Neighborhood commercial 12.3 5.3
0 Community commercial 20.9 16.0
Travel services commercial 20.8 8.9
Recreation commercial 24.7 10.5 11. 2
P 1 anned industrial 41.4 70.0
School 18.7 14.6 30.4
Special treatment 51.4
Open spacel 211. 52 181.53 146 .4
Not-a-part 100.0 100.0 100.0
Totals 868.74 868.74 868.7
Source: The Planning Center
lrncludes the 10.5-acre Carrillo Rancho Park
0 2 Incorr_ect ly shown as 189.3 acres in Draft EIR.
3rncorrectly shown as 159.4 acres in Draft EIR.
4rncorrectly shown as 746.5 acres in Draft EIR.
0
0
0
10
lsa
The two elementary school sites together, totaling about 18.7 acres in
size, would be relocated and increased in size to 30.4 acres. Areas desig-
nated as open space would be reduced from 211.5 acres to 146.4 acres. Desig-
nated open space areas, as proposed, would cover 19% of the site .
. Melrose Avenue would be realigned along a more westerly course, as
opposed to its presently adopted northwesterly alignment. In addition, Palo-
mar Airport Road will be realigned along a straighter, more northerly route.
This may require an amendment to the Circulation Element.
Also, the existing Parks and Recreation Element map indicates a 7-acre
park site at the southwest corner of Melrose Avenue and Carrillo Way. This
amendment would delete this park site from the property.
Finally, as illustrated in Figures C and D, the amendment would require
the minor modification of land use boundaries throughout the site.
Development Phasing. Since the preparation of the DEIR, the project
applicant, in response to concerns expressed by City staff, has revised the
phasing concept and its presentation. Figures E-I illustrate the phasing
plan. Please refer to the Master Plan for a detailed description of the phas-
ing program.
Completion of each phase is contingent upon completion of the necessary
internal circulation components and placement of sanitary sewer, water, and
storm drain faciliti.es. Placement of these utilities, as well as grading, may
or may not be sequential ..
Additional Discretionary and Developmental Approvals. No other dis-
cretionary permits . or developmental approva 1 s are required by the revi sect
project other than those described on Page 3 of the DEIR.
0 11
E
Revised Phasing Plan lsa
0
0
0
0
12
F
Red Phase
I
\
-
_____ fTT .. r=■■--■,......-■■ I· U ~ --~ ll
: "\ :l~~ ij ~iltill@ I \ ---
1
~ ---·· ■■-·
),/()Tl,f',A,e!" " ~
■ I I L.--■11--IP■----•• J
lsa
0
0
0
G
Orange Phase
\ •
• •
•• •• u• L
1"r,;uJf~ ,.._~
NH"!!..~"'":,,_,,,,..,.
13
lsa
••
• i ,:
@Ir®m
0 14
H
Purple Phase
0
0
lsa
.-.
I
i • I
0
0
0
I
Green-Blue Phase
--
I • •
15
lsa
0
0
0
16
REVISED ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED IN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR AND THE REVISED MASTER
PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
lsa
0
0
0
17
lsa
EARTH RESOURCES
Discussion of existing earth resources, project impacts, and necessary
mitigation measures appears in Pages 11-23 of the DEIR. Supporting geotech-
nical studies (GeoSoils, Inc., 1979a, b,. c, d, e, and 1980a, b, and c) are on
file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Topography/Grading. Mass grading would alter the existing topography
for most of the project site.
Geolo~y/Soils. Alluvium onsite will require compaction. Several
soils ans, e are expansive. These soils will require special treatment before
construction but can be safety developed as proposed.
Landslides. Preliminary analysis indicates that several onsite
landslides will require buttressing and excavation for stabilization. Smaller
landslides can be stabilized by fill placement or removal. Most cut slopes
wil_l require stabilization, without which slope failure could result.
Groundwater. Alluvial groundwater will require consideration of
subdrains ,n fill canyons and in stabilization structures such as buttresses
• and fill slopes.
Seismicity. Seismicity presents no unusual hazard to the site in
·comparison to the Southern California region as a whole. A fault line identi-
fied in the property's northeast guadrant shows no evidence of recent activi-
ty. No potential for liquefaction exists onsite, due to· the cohesive nature
of the soils.
The project wi 11 have no adverse impacts on unique or noteworthy geologic
features.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
As a result of the project redesign, areas of cut and fill have been
slightly altered, as illustrated in Figure J. Comparison of this figure with
Figure 8 of the .DEIR indicates that, although changes in proposed areas of
grading occur as a result of project design, the significant areas of cut and
fill are essentially urichanged, and there ate no significant changes in
impacts or required mitigation measures as a result of redesign.
J • if cant Grading Areas of Sign I -
LEGEND
~ SIGNIFICANT FILL
-SIGNIFICANT CUT
RAL TERRAIN -~ NATU GRADING "'
""""' POTENTIAL . '. D ADDITIONAL . ~ :; .
$1.8.ECTTO~ J L TED MA y Bl! I' ACCORD ADOPTED AIEAS NOT~ BE~ NO. 8086, <lRADNl ~ coua.
~9,1980.
18
r-----·,--__ .-·:,,,~-£ ,, ;}
·. ,,
'
..._.
<' i •• . ·rr---•r1, ----,' . , . ~· -i '.l i ., {. r
--~'!:·,c .• •. :~ --~
i i
i i i .
i ---·-·-··J :L -··-··---··-··-··
lsa
0
0
0
19
lsa
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
The preliminary evaluation of geo~ogic and soils conditions indicates
that there are several geologic features which pose potential hazards to
development on the site. However, utilizing proper geotechnical design con-
siderations, the site may be safely developed as proposed. The following mit-
igation measures are included as part of the project or are otherwise required
to offset potential adverse impacts or hazards.
1. All recommendations and conclusions of the soils and geo-
logic reports (on file with the City of Carlsbad) will be
incorporated into the project design. In addition, based
on recommendations from these studies and LSA's review of
the existing analyses, the following studies will be con-
ducted by the project applicant and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to submittal of the tentative
map. • Based on these more detailed studies, appropriate
measures and procedures will be identified and incorporated
into the project design subject to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. This required analysis will include, at a
minimum, the following study areas.
a. The identified slide areas and areas of potential
slides will be precisely delineated and analyzed
throughout the property. Based on this identifi-
cation and analysis, appropriate stabilization
procedures will be formulated and incorporated
into project design and grading plans.
b. The depths and natures of the identified alluvium
and colluvium deposits will be precisely determin-
ed. The deposits' suitability for development
will also be determined. If found to be unsuit-
able, appropriate engineering procedures (i.e.,
recompaction, removal, special foundation design,
etc.) will be identified and incorporated into the
project design.
c. The existing moist soils and groundwater condi-
tions in the canyon areas will be more fully
explored to determine the need for subdrains and
similar design features to ensure fill slope sta-
bility and stable ground conditions.
0
0
0
20
d. Areas requ1r1ng fill will be more precisely deter-
mined in conjunction with the grading plan and
more detailed project design. This study will
include detailed estimates of the amount of fill
required and the percentage of settlement subs i--
dence expected after recomp action.
e. All onsite soils will be further analyzed to
determine theii potential constraints on develop-
ment (i.e., expansiveness, erosiveness, etc.).
Based on this analysis, appropriate soils engi-
neering procedures ( i . e. , recompact ion, remov a 1 ,
selective grading) will be formulated.
f. Other than the lithological, offset observed in the
north-central portion of the site, no onsite sur-
face faulting has been observed during field
reconnaissance or review of aerial photos. How-
ever, to assure the complete absence of signifi-
cant onsite faulting, further review of those
areas outside the area covered by the previous
seismic study (Geosoils, 1980c) should be under-
taken. In addition, all parcels will be scruti-
nized during grading for subsurface faulting by
the City's construction inspector. If such fault-
ing is evidenced, immediate analysis will be con-
ducted to determine the significance of the fault-
ing and any measures necessary to minimize
hazards.
g. Based on results of the studies relating to land-
slide characteristics, moisture conditions, soil
characteristics, and fi 11 requirements, appropri -
ate engineering procedures will be formulated for
stabilization of all cut slopes.
2. All grading operations will be in full conformance with
City ordinances pertaining to grading. The grading proce-
dures wi 11 be reviewed by the City for conformance with
City ordinances and the recommendations and conclusions of
al 1 geotechnical studies submitted at the time of subdivi-
sion map submittal.
lsa
0
0
0
21
3. All structures will conform to the Uniform Building Code
and all applicable building and safety code requirements.
4. Significant cut and fill (30 feet or greater in depth) will
be confined to limited areas according to the Rancho Car-
ril lo Master Plan's landform modification concept to mini-
mize disturbance of steep natural slopes.
lsa
These measures, when imp 1 emented, wi 11 adequate 1 y mitigate the adverse
impacts associated with potential onsite hazards related to slide areas, soils
conditions, cut slope instability, groundwater conditions, local and regional
seismic conditions, and fill requirements. However, these measures will not
completely mitigate the adverse impact associated with substantial alteration
of existing topography.
REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES
No revisions are required as a result of project redesign.
0
0
0
22
lsa
WATER RESOURCES
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Description of the existing environmental setting relating to existing
surface drainage, groundwater, and surface water quality appears on Pages
23-27 of the Draft EIR. This discussion includes identifi~ation of potential
impacts and related mitigation measures, and is· still an accurate description
of existing conditions onsite. The fol lowing impacts have been identified in
the DEIR.
Surface Water Quality. Project development will result in an incre-
mental increase in urban pollutants in runoff and an incremental decrease in
pollutants associated with agricultural land use. Both impacts are signifi-
cant only on a cumulative scale. The decrease in nutrient loads associated
with discontinuation of agriculture is expected to benefit present eutrophic
conditions in Batiquitos Lagoon; however, this effect is considered minimal.
Groundwater Quality.
pated.
No impacts on groundwater quality are antici-
Hydrology. Development will increase storm runoff from the site
as a result of increased impervious surfaces. Development will require con-
struction of storm drainage facilities, including at least three detention
basins. The drainage study (Leedshill, 1981) presents two alternative drain-
age control designs. Both designs are capable of mitigating stormwater runoff
so that peak flow levels do not exceed existing peak flows.
Ons i te agri cultural impoundments will be removed. Si nee these impound-
ments are not hydrological in function, their removal is expected to have no
significant adverse impacts on onsite or offsite hydrology. Onsite ephemeral
streams may be diverted into the storm drain facilities. Effects of this
diversion on the hydrological regime are expected to be minimal.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
Surface Water Quality. Project redesign will not affect impacts
identified on surface water quality.
Groundwater Qua 1 ity. Project redesign wi 11 have no effect on ground-
water as identified in the DEIR.
Hydrology. In response to concerns expressed by the California
Department of Fish and Game (see Biological Resources, Response to Comments
0
0
0
23
\. lsa
Page 25), the developer will maintain existing stream channels onsite above
ground in natural conditions. This response to Fish and Game's concern is
made feasible by realignment of the Melrose Drive and Cabrillo Way as part of
the project redesign.
An addendum to the -drainage study which reviews the project redesign is
reproduced in Appendix· 1. The addendum (Leedshi 11, 1981a) finds that the
drainage control plan for the reviwsed Master Plan amendment (Leedshill, 1981,
in Appendix A of the DEIR) is consistent with the project redesign and is
still applicable and appropriate for the redesigned project. Project redesign
therefore has no effect on the assessed hydrologic impacts presented in the
DEIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIEP IN DEIR
5. The developer will incorporate a drainage control system
which will ensure that peak runoff rates from the 10-year
storm after development will not exceed existing 10-year
storm peak fl ow rates. Detention basins wi 11 be designed
to pass runoff safely from a 100-year storm. The drainage
control system will be maintained by an assessment dis-
trict.
6. A complete erosion control program to m1n1m1ze the poten-
tial for erosion during development will be approved by the
City of Carlsbad. prior to issuance of the grading permit.
This erosion control program will be enforced continuously
during grading operations and between grading phases. This
program will include provisions for construction during
non-rainy periods, immediate planting of vegetation on all
exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins (if neces-
sary), and a watering· and compaction program.
7. After development, a weekly vacuum streetsweeping program
wi 11 be implemented in the project area, for all internal
roadways to reduce the urban pollutants which would pollute
surface runoff.
8. A detailed hydrological and drainage control analysis will
be conducted by the project applicant and submitted to the
City for review at the time of submittal of the subdivision
map. The study shall identify necessary onsite flood con-
trol measures. The study shall also identify measures for
assuring that onsite runoff will not adversely affect off-
site areas. Changes in groundwater levels due to grading
0 24
and the removal of onsite impoundments must also be analyz-
ed. The report will also examine hydrological effects of
diverting the streams onsite. Results of this study will
be incorporated into the project design to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES
lsa
. No revised-mitigation measures are needed as a result of project rede-
sign.
OTHER COMMENTS AND RESPONSES·
The City of
Agency Department
ing on the DEIR.
flood contra l .
Carlsbad received a letter from the California Resources
of Water Resources, dated May 7, 1981 (Appendix 1) comment-
The following is a response to their concerns relating to
0 Comment: 11 ••• all flood control measures required to protect this
proposed development should be based on a 100-year flood, as required by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for flood insurance. 11
0
Response to Comment: Please refer to Mitigation Measure 5, Page 26
of the DEIR, which specifies that 11 Detention basins will be designed to pass
runoff safely from a 100-year storm. 11
0
0
0
25
lsa
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The original discussion of bio1ogica1 resources on the project site is
found on Pages 27-32 of the DEIR. Appendix B of the DEIR contains the com-
plete biological resource study prepared for the site.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
The DEIR finds that an unavoidable adverse impact would occur on biologi-
cal resources of the area in the form of loss of onsite habitat and displace-
ment of wildlife (Page 30). This would occur even though required mitigation·
measures partially offset the loss in habitat.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
In response to concerns raised by the DEIR and comments received from the
California Department of Fish and Game, the project applicant refined the
project so as to have a lesser impact on the biological resources of the site.
As shown in Figure B in the revised Project Description, open space is now
designed as a more centralized and continuous area. It now encompasses most
of the principal drainage courses of the site and would allow for preservation
of virtually a11 existing riparian and freshwater marsh habitat onsite. The
project applicant now proposes to provide a flood control system that ,will·
utilize the natural drainage courses within the open space areas. Previously,
the applicant intended to divert almost a11 of the streams into an underground
storm drain system.
The project, through mass grading, ·will still strip most of the site of
its existing vegetation. However, just as before, certain areas will be
retained in their natural state. Figure K illustrates those areas to remain
in their existing condition. In comparison to the previous plan, impacts on
existing vegetation are substantially the same.
The effect of the revised Master Pl an .Amendment request on ans ite and
offsite wildlife species is sub.stantially the same, although the refined plan
now presented would not displace riparian-related wildlife species to the same
extend as the previous plan.
As a result of the project redesign, the proposed project is no longer
considered to have a sign.ificant adverse impact on the existing riparian and
freshwater marsh habitats onsite. However, loss of existing coastal sage
scrub and raptor foraging areas is still considered to be part of a signifi-
cant cumulative impact when considered in context with development trends in
the region. ·
26
K
Areas of Preserved Natural Vegetation
11
II
~
LEGEND
Coastal sage
Riparian
Areas to be
preserved
r-"---=---~i____
..... ,..; "-------~ ' ..
lsa
------.. _...D / ··_··· .
• ' ' (..... • • • I • 1/ • _.,.__.__, -, .. , ."
rn a 20C/ soo· -000--
0
0
0
27
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
9. The areas designated as "natural terrain" in the conceptual
grading plan will be preserved as areas of natural vegeta-
tion. This will partially mitigate the impact of removal
of vegetation by mass grading onsite. The areas of coastal
sage and riparian vegetation that will be preserved within
areas of natural terrain are illustrated in Figure 10.
These areas will also provide potential habitat for those
species, of concern to the California Department of Fish
and Game and the California Native Plant Society, which are
believed to possibly occur onsite or within a few miles of
the site. These natural terrain areas could be used for
transplantation areas to serve as habitat for plants
threatened by regional development.
10. The devel-0per will examine the feasibility of incorporating
natural drainage swales into portions of the drainage con-
trol system and preserving these swales as areas of natural
vegetative habitat, particularly in the area of existing
riparian vegetation that parallels the future alignment of
Carrillo Way, west of the existing Carrillo Ranch. Should
implementation of this measure be found feasible without
exposing the development to significant flood hazards, the
preserved riparian habitat should then be upgraded by
removing rubbish and ruderal species and limiting human
disturbance. If implemented, this measure would partially
mitigate impacts on riparian habitats onsite.
11. The project applicant is required to apply for a 1603 per-
mit from the California Department of Fish and Game for all
disturbance and destruction of onsite creeks and water
impoundments./ The project applicants wi 11 be required to
incorporate all permit conditions formulated by Fish and
Game into the project design.
12. Landscaping around the retention basins to be used for
f load control purposes wi 11 be comprised of 100% native
vegetation.
REQUIRED CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
Mitigation Measure 9 above is reworded to read as follows:
lsa
0
0
0
28
9. The areas designated as "natural terrain" in the conceptual
grading plan will be preserved as areas of natural vegeta-
, tion. This will partially mitigate the impact of removal
of vegetation by mass grading onsite. The areas of coastal
sage and riparian vegetation that will be preserved within
areas of natural terrain are illustrated in Figures Band
K. These areas wi 11 a 1 so provide potent i a 1 . habitat for
those species, of concern to the California Department of
Fish and Game and the California Native Plant Society,
which are believed to possibly occur onsite or within a few
miles of the site. These natura 1 terrain areas could be
used for transplantation areas to serve as habitat for
plants threatened by regional development.
Mitigation Measure 10 above is. reworded to read as follows:
10. The project applicant has incorporated the existing natural
drainage channe 1 s into the planned drainage contra 1 system
for the project. In implementing this system existing
riparian habitat wi 11 be preserved. Further, the riparian
habitat will be cleared of rubbish, ruderal species
removed, and human disturbance discouraged. In cooperation
with the California Department of .Fish and Game, the proj-
ect app 1 i cant wil 1 investigate and imp 1 ement, where feas i-
b le, an enhancement program for riparian habitat along
selected reaches of the system.
lsa
Mitigation Measures 11 and 12 are applicable as written in the DEIR.
These mitigation measures will assure that there will be no significant
adverse impacts on existing riparian and freshwater marsh habitat within the
project area. Although mitigation will partially offset the loss of onsite
natural vegetation and associated wildlife, the resulting project impacts are
still considered to be part of a significant cumulative impact when considered
in context with development trends in the region. •
OTHER COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The City of Carlsbad received a letter from the California Deparment of
Fish and Game dated May, 1981 commenting on the adequacy and conclusions of
the DEIR. The following are responses to these comments. •
Conment 1: 11 We find that the document-does not meet the requirements
of Section l5l43(a) of the Gui~elines for th~ California Environmental Quality
0
0
0
29
lsa
Act (CEQA) in that it does not disclose the acreage of the various habitats to
be destroyed ... Th~ biol og i cal report for this project does not 1 is t the acre-
age for the various sensitive habitats to be destroyed. We need to know the
approximate size of each of the three riparian areas and the freshwater marsh
areas shown in Figure 9. Such wetland habitat losses should be fully mitiated
as required under the Rources Agency's Wet 1 ands Protection Po 1 icy."
Response to Comnent 1: Section 15143(a) of the Guidelines for CEQA
states, "Describe the direct and indirect significant effects of the project
on the environment, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-
term effects. It should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources
involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems and-changes
induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of
the land ... " This section does not specifically require the disclosure of
acreage figures. However, to supplement the existing discussion and the
detailed mapping provided in the DEIR and on Figure K of the responses to com-
ments the following atreage figures have been estimated for sensitive habitat
areas.
Riparian habitat _
Freshwater marsh habitat2
Coastal sage scrub
Existing
Acreage
25 acres
less than
1/2 acre
322 acres
Percentage to
Be Retainedl
about 90%
100%
about 40%
lRefer to Figure K for location of sensitive habitat to be retained. Given
the scale of the map, the small freshwater marsh habitat areas within the
riparian habitat are not identifiable.
2Estimated acreage for this habitat is for those sma 11 areas associated with
riparian habitat along the principal drainage course in the western portion
of the site. Freshwater marsh no longer exists in the area of the old agri-
cultural impoundment.
As discussed above under "Effect of Project Redesign" and "Required
Changes or Additions," the revised project would not significantly impact the
existing riparian or freshwater marsh habitat onsite. The project redesign
was in itself mitigation-for impacts identified in the DEIR. Consequently, no
further mitigation is required.
0
0
0
30
lsa
Conment 2: 11 It further appears that some amount of site preparation
has gone on outside of the normal procedures for CEQA regulated planning.
This work has damaged wetlands resources protected by the Wetlands Policy of
the Resources Agency. Full compensation for this work would be required as a
condition of any Planning Commission apprpval which must also require that the
construction .not further damage these wetlands resources if any of the
Resources Agency's Departments, Boards, or Commissions are to approve any·
aspect of this project. Accordingly, this Department is expressly prohibited
from approving their DEIR or General Plan Amendment until adequate compensa-
tion has been made a condition of the planning permit, and a county-approved
set of plans indicates that the project will not further damage these resourc-
es ... It appears that portions of the freshwater marsh were recently destroyed
through dewateri ng of the reservoir in preparation for this project. The
removal of the berm should be considered as a project-related impact, and mit-
igation for losses to wildlife habitat caused as a result of such action
should be fully addressed in the EIR.11
Response to Comment 2: The agricultural impoundment was breeched to
allow impounded waters to drain downstream in April 1980. This action was
taken as a result of the property owners• geotechnical investigation which
indicated that the berm impounding the waters was in a significantly unstable
condition and was in danger of col-lapsing from the increased pressure of high
.flood waters. A letter report from the geologist was submitted to the City at
the time. The project applicant then proceeded with emergency breeching of
the facility. No City permit was required for the action. Downstream proper-
ties that would have been impacted by the sudden collapse of the facility
include the Carrillo Ranch House Historic Site, which is a City-owned park.
Emergency breeching of the dam should not be considered as a project-related
impact.
Al so, as a result of the pr.eject redesign to protect riparian areas, the
agricultural impoundment areas wi 11 remain in natural open space and wi 11 not
be further adversely impacted.
Prior to the disturbance of any designated streambed or wetlands, the
project applicant must enter into a 1603 agreement with the Department of Fish
and Game.
Cement 3. 11 The Department has direct jurisdiction pursuant to Fish
and Game Code Section 1601-03 in regard to any proposed activities that would
substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the
bed, channel, or bank of any stream. Operators wi 11 be re qui red to submit
notification of proposed channel modifications pursuant to Fish and Game Code
0
0
0
31
lsa
1603. Work cannot be initiated until streambed alteration agreements are exe-
cuted.11
Response to Comment 3: Comment acknowledged.
in the DEIR acknowledges this requirement.
Mitigation Measure 11
Comment 4: 11 We disagree with the statement that the riparian habi-
tats ons,te are no more valuable than surrounding habitats. The statement is
based on an erroneous assumption, and the riparian habitrats, especially in
the western portion of the main drainage will continue to provide excellent
habitat even in the absence of the upstream water impoundment structure.
There is also some freshwater marsh habitat occurring within lower riparian
zone. We believe that the onsite riparian areas should be preserved and/or
enhanced to maintain a corridor or link with other habitats both upstream and
downstream of the project site.
Response to Comment 4: The DEIR did not suggest that the riparian
habitat was insignificant or that impacts on the habitat were not significant-
ly adverse. However, given the fairly degraded condition of the riparian
areas, it was not felt that it was necessarily more valuable than onsite
coastal sage scrub habitat. Redesign of the project, as described above, will
preserve aboµt 90% of the riparian/freshwater marsh habitat areas in a corri -
dor which will link to other habitats. Moreover, the project applicant is
required to consider (in cooperation with Fish and Game) an enhancement pro-
gram for portions of the habitat.
Comment 5: 11 Additionally, it. appears that the areas to be preserved
are set aside only to accommodate development. To provide meaningful habit9-t
for wildlife, the areas preserved should be· continuous rather than scattered
in many fragmented parcels . 11
Response to Comment 5: The revised project proposal does contain
many 11non-continuous11 areas of natural terrain. However, it also now provides
for a continuous open space area to include the riparian and freshwater marsh
habitat areas in a single integrated system.
Comment 6: 11 The great amount of grading proposed (ten million cubic
yards to fl I I a large canyon) requires that stringent erosion control measures
be required to be adopted and imp 1 emented as a condition of approv a 1 of this
Master Plan. We recommend that Plan B for constructing several permanent sed-
imentation basins be required. They should be maintained and operated in an
effective condition, both during and after the completion of the project.11
Response to Comment 6: The Draft EIR recognized the potential for
0
0
0
32
lsa
erosion problems. Consequently, Mitigation Measure 6 was required to minimize
the potential for erosion. •
Comnent 7: 11The proposed project has very little to protect wildlife
resources on the site and this would result in substantial unmitigated losses
of these resources. Only when the above-listed matters are satisfactorily
addressed in the EIR and appropriate modifi cati ans and mi ti gati ans are
adopted, can we offer approval of project planning.11
Response to Comment 7: The revised project wi 11 not have a signifi-
cant adverse impact on riparian/freshwater marsh habitat. It wi 11 be part of
a si.gnificant cumulative impact when considered in context with development in
the region. This contribution to the cumulative impact is as a result of the
loss of coastal sage scrub, raptor foraging areas, and associated wildlife
species.
0
0
0
33
lsa
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential impacts on existing cultural resources on the project property
and recommended mitigation measures are discussed in the DEIR on· Pages 32-34.
Appendix C contains supporting cultural resource studies of the property
(Westec Services, 1979; Recon, 1976).
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Several archaeological sites occur on the project site. Most of these
consist of light concentrations of artifacts or shell scatter. Implementation
of the proposed Rancho Carri 1 lo development would destroy al 1 or most of the
archaeological sites identified within the project area. Rancho de las
Quiotes (Carrillo Ranch), an historic ranchhouse on the property, has been
nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. An historic wooden
cross overlooking the ranchhouse has also been identified as an historical
resource.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
Project redesign will change the impacts on cultural resources identified
in the Draft EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
13. A qualified archaeologist will investigate sites CA-SDi-
4306, 4687, and 4600 tp determine their significance and
research potential. These sites will be preserved if pos-
sible; if not, a qualified archaeologist will test and
excavate.
14. Carrillo Ranch (Rancho de. las Quiotes) will be preserved
as part of a 20-acre City park. The developers propose to
move the historic cross to within the City park for perma-
nent preservation.
15. A qualified archaeologist will conduct the surface collec-
tion and analysis of shell scatters on CA-SDi-4679, 4688,
and 4689 prior to issuance of a grading permit.
16. Sites CA-SDi-4684, 4685, 4686, and 4691 will be mapped
·with all shell scatter flakes, cores, tools, scrapers, and
debitage collected by a qualified archaelogist prior 'to
issuing a grading permit.
0
0
0
34
lsa
Implementation of these measures will adequately mitigate any potential
adverse impacts on the archaeological resources of the site.
REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES •
In order to better· safeguard cultural resources onsite from potential
impacts, the following mitigation measure is added to the EIR:
13a. A qualified· archaeologist shall attend pregrade meetings
with the grading contractor to determine which phases of
grading will require archaeological monitoring. The
archaeologist shall be authorized to divert, direct, or
halt grading in a specific area to allow expeditious sal-
vage of any significant artifacts uncovered as a result of
grading.
Mitigation Measure 13 is incorrectly referred to a site CA-SDi-4600.
This should read CA-SDi-4690. Consequently, Mitigation Measure 13 should read
as fol lows:
13. A qualified archaeologist will investigate Sites CA-SDi-
4306, 4687, and 4690 to determine their significance and
research potential. These sites will be preserved if
possible; if not, a qualified archaeologist wi 11 test and
excavate.
0
0
0
35
lsa
PALEONTOLOGICAl RESOURCES
For a discussion of existing paleontological resources onsite and poten-
tial project impacts, please refer to Pages 34-35 of the DEIR. Appendix D
contains the complete technical paleontology study.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Mass grading and construction on the project site would displace or per-
manently cover areas that have potential for bearing significant fossils (Page
35, DEIR). However, exposure of fossils which may occur during development
could be considered a beneficial impact since fossils which otherwise would
remain buried might be made accessible for scientific study.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
Project redesign will have no effect on impacts on paleontological
resources identified in the DEIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
17. A certified paleontologist will perform a walkover survey
of the site in order to locate and define areas of paleon-
tological sensitivity. The paleontologist will submit a
written report to the City Planning Department prior to
issuance of the grading permit. Any fossils located dur-
ing the survey will be collected prior to grading.
The paleontologist will be present at all pregrade meet-
ings to determine the necessity for a paleontological
observer during various phases of grading. This determi -
nation will be based on the findings of the walkover sur-
vey and grading plans.
The observer wi 11 be a 11 owed to divert, direct, or ha 1t
grading in a specific area to allow for the expeditious
salvage of exposed fossil materials. Fossils collected
will be donated to a public non-profit institution such as
the San Diego Natural History Museum, the Paleobiology
Department of San Di ego State University, or the Natura 1
History Museum of Los Angeles County.
0
0
0
36
lsa
Implementation· of this measure will adequately mitigate any potential
adverse impacts on paleontological resources.
REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES
No revised mitigation measures are required as a result of project
redesign.
0
0
0
37
lsa
LAND USE
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Land use issues are discussed in the DEIR on Pages 36-40. No significant
adverse impacts were identified as part of the proposed project.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
As described under the Revised Project Description, the most substantial
changes in the revised Master Plan are the realignment of Melrose Avenue and
Palomar Airport Road and the deletion of comnercial along Palomar Airport Road
in response to traffic concerns expressed by the City's traffic engineer.
Also, the open space plan has been designed to provide a centralized and con-
tinuous open space area. The park site has been deleted with the approval of
the City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Commission-. The project applicant
will pay in-lieu fees to the City instead of park dedication. There will now
be two school sites as opposed to a single site.
There are no significant adverse impacts associated with deletion of the
park site, reconfiguration of the open space area, or the addition of a school
site. The realignment of Melrose Avenue was in direct response to concerns
expressed by the City regarding the previously proposed alignment and Mit i ga-
ti on Measure #20. Further study was conducted and the.new alignment selected.
No adverse impacts are associated with the new alignment.
There is a potential for incompatibility between the proposed light
industrial area and the residential Meas to the south. Now that Palomar Air-
port Road has been realigned to the north, there wi 11 no longer be a major
arterial highway providing an artificial buffer of at least approximately 80-
100 feet between the two land uses. Specific uses for the industrial area are
not known at this time, so a detailed assessment cannot be made. Certainly,
specific types of 11clean11 uses such as office, research and development, etc.
may have less noxious characteristics than certain light manufacturing uses.
However, depending_on location and treatment, all such uses might be compat-
ible. It is felt that if the following mitigation measures are implemented,
residential areas will be suitably buffered from most uses allowed in the
industrial area.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
18. The proposed Master Plan will be submitted to the Airport
Land Use Commission for review prior to approval of the
project.
0
0
0
38
19. The deve l aper wi 11 pro vi de an adequate buffer to mitigate
potential incompatibility between proposed residences on-
site and existing agricultural land uses offsite. Appro-
priate buffers to be considered include construction of a
6-foot block wall dividing the two land uses and, if
aerial spraying occurs over the adjacent agriculture, an
open space buffer of 150 feet or placement of a roadway
between the two uses. The adequacy of the buffer wi 11 be
reviewed by the City at the time of subdivision map appli-
cation.
20. The City will conduct a study to determine the most feas-
ible alignment of Melrose Avenue through the Carlsbad
Raceway and connecting to the City of Vista. Currently,
the City of Vista is reviewing a Master Plan for the area
just north of Carlsbad Raceway which indicates a fairly
precise alignment consistent with the Vista General Plan.
Consequently, it behooves the City of Carlsbad to study
carefully the compatibility of its alignment. As discuss-
ed above, preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed
Rancho Carri 1 lo alignment can be extended across the race-
way so as to align with the Vista alignment. It appears
that a slight modification of the adopted alignment neces-
sary to align with the Vista route may also impact the
raceway. However, further engineering studies by the City
need to be conducted b~fore a definitive determination can
be made.
lsa
These measures, when implemented, will assure that no significant adverse
impacts associated with land use issues will occur as a result of this proj-
ect. The one exception to this may be possible disruption of recreational
operations within Carlsbad Raceway as a result of the realignment of Melrose
Avenue. However, it is possible this may occur even without the requested
realignment if the City must modify the route of Melrose Avenue to align with
Vista's Melrose Avenue.
REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measures 18 and 19 are still applicable as originally written.
Number 20 was already implemented by the project applicant in cooperation with
the City and has resulted in a changed alignment. Consequently,. Number 20
should now be deleted from the EIR.
The following measure is added to assure that the residential and indus-
trial areas are compatible:
0 39
19a. The areas of residential and industrial development which
are directly adjacent to one another will receive special
design consideration. Prior to recordation of the final
subdivision maps, the project applicant will submit a plan
to be approved by the City of Carlsbad which wi 11 include
special setbacks, landscape requirements, and ·other design
feature~ to provide for a more compatible interface
between the two uses. Specifics of the plan will be
determined by the precise land uses· ultimately planned for
the area. This should adequately assure a compatible
interface.
OTHER COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
lsa
Comment 1. Philip R. Safford, Assistant Director of the County's
Airports D1v1s1on, submitted a letter on June 3, 1981 commenting on the Draft
EIR. It is reproduced in Appendix 1. It is excerpted here for purposes of Q this section; please refer to Appendix 1 to read it in its entirety.
0.
11 I continue to believe that Rancho Carrillo and Palomar Airport
will experience 'compatibility• problems. Rancho Carrillo will be
the closest residential development to Palomar Airport .. While it
is true that Rancho Carrillo is outside the boundaries of the Palo-
mar 65 CNEL, the same can be sa:id for existing residential develop-
ments located at greater di stances from the airport. Airport traf-
fic has nevertheless been a major issue and source of complaints
from residents of these developments. As a practical matter, there
is no discernible relationship between the boundaries of the Palo-
mar 65 CNEL and citizen complaints.
Based on recent experience, a number of future residents of Rancho
Carrillo can be expected to develop concerns regarding Palomar air
traffic after moving into the area.
In my July 22, 1980 1 etter I recommended that the impact of airport
operations be cl early identified to, and acknowledged in writing
by, each prospective purchaser."
Response to Comment 1. Mitigation Measure #39 in the Draft EIR
(incorrectly typed as #32) on Page 82 requires that all prospective purchasers
of residential properties be clearly notified of airport operations prior to
close of escrow.·
0
0
0
40
lsa
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ASPECTS
The DEIR discusses visual and aesthetic impacts of the project on Pages
40-41.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Development of Rancho Carrillo would irrevocably change the site's pres•
ent aesthetic character. The open space of natural hills and valleys would be
replaced by a suburban landscape. Natural and ornamental vegetation will be
stripped from the landscape, and ephemeral watercourses will be diverted
underground with the associated vegetation removed or reduced from ons ite.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
As part of the project redesign, the City of Carlsbad Parks and Recrea-
tion Commission has requested that the proposed 8.2 acre park site be with-
drawn from the Master Plan, and has elected to accept in-lieu fees instead.
The redesigned project proposes a revised landscape open area plan (Figure
B).
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
21. An 8 .2-acre park site adjacent to the Leo Carril lo Ranch
City Park will partially mitigate the transition in land
use between the historic ranch house and surrounding com-
mercial and residential areas.
22. Greenbelts and natural open spaces will be included in the
development in accordance with the proposed Master Pl an.
Although open space will obviously be reduced by the proj-
ect, this measure will partially mitigate the total visual
impact.
These measures will partially mitigate impacts on the visual and aesthe-
~ic resources of the site. However, it is unavoidable that the character of
the site will be irrevocably altered.
REVISED MITIGATION M~ASURES
As a result of project redesign, Mitigation Measure #21 (Page 41, DEIR)
is no longer applicabl~. Mitigation Measure #22 shall apply to the revised
landscape open area plan proposed with the project redesign and presented in
Figure B.
0
0
0
41
lsa
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTI.FIED IN DEIR
The project, as described in the Draft EIR, would generate an average of
53,840 daily trip ends upon completion. This would include 3,060 trips during
the a.m. peak hour and 5,780 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The directional
distribution pattern for the projected traffic was analyzed, and traffic dis-
tribution plotted. Figures 12, 13, and 14 in the Draft EIR illusttate direc-
tional distribution, existing. plus project traffic volumes, and future traffic
volumes.
The capacity of the roadways and intersections was then analyzed to
determine the potential imp~cts of the project. The projected roadway system
would be adequate, but operational problems were identified at several inter-
sections. The critical intersections would be Melrose Avenue and Palomar Air-
port Road, which will be heavily impacted until additional east-west arterials
are developed.
In addition to capacity constraints, -problems with intersection spacing
were ident,ified. The intersect.ions along Melrose Avenue did not meet the
City's design standards for intersection spacing. The City Engineering staff
recommended that both Palomar Airport. Road and Melrose Avenue be realigned
to improve their horizontal alignment and intersection spacing. In addition,
the engineering staff stated that access points from Melrose Avenue to the
uses north of Palomar Airport Road would not be permitted.
The final traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR related to the
phasing of roadway improvements. The City Engineering staff proposed a more
extensive planning program than the program proposed by the project propon-
ents.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
In response to the analysis conducted for the Draft EIR, and the. recom-
mendations of the the City Engineering Department, the project proponents have
made several significant changes in their proposal (Figure L). The major cir-
culation changes are:
1. Relocate Palomar Airport Road to the northerly boundary on
a straighter alignment.
2. Relocate Melrose Avenue by moving its intersection with
Palomar Airport Road one~half mile west.
0
L
Revised Circulation Plan
NO SCALE
0
L_J
0
Sourcei Weston Prtngl~ & Assoctates.
42
MMUN
MMERCIA
-------. COMMERCIAL
\ RECREATION
\ -------·-·'
lsa
AIRPORT RD
-
0
0
--------~----------------------
43
3. Change the land use designation at Palomar Airport Road
and Melrose Avenue from commercial to planned industri a1.
lsa-
The City of Carlsbad feels that all three of the above changes are jus'ti-
fi ed and will have a beneficial effect on the environment for the following
reasons:
1. The realignment of Palomar Airport Road is a safer and
more efficient design._ Even with the relatively low
existing traffic volume, numerous accidents have occurred
as a result of dangerous curves in the existing alignment.
2. The realignment of Melrose Avenue (and the deletion of one
intersection) increases the intersection spacing so that
it meets City standards, which the previous plan did not ..
Steep grades required by the previous plan have also been
reduced. The current design will provide more efficient
operation.
3. The relocation of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and
Palomar Airport Road also provides a good alignment in
meeting Melrose Avenue to the north in the City of Vista.
The previous plan would have required a sharp reversing
curve.
4. Elimination of the commercial designation at the inter-
section of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue will
reduce traffic generation from the area. More important-
ly, however, is that the commercial designation is incom-
patible with the intersection of two prime arterials.
City standards do not permit access to property from prime
arterials, and any streets must be at least a half-mile
from the intersection. Should a developer succeed in
gaining access onto Palomar Airport Road in spite of the
standard, it would have a significant adverse impact on
both the safety and capacity of the street.
In addition to the City's review of the changes in the Master Plan, the
project applicant's traffic engineer, Mr. Weston Pringle, has prepared a com-
plete analysis of the revised plan. His full report is contained in Appendix
3. The fo,-lowing discussion summarizes his report.
The total traffic generation has been reduced to an average of 40,640
daily trips, with 3,160 during the a.m. peak and 4,455 during the p.m. peak.
Figure M illustrates the expected traffic volumes at project completion.
7
0
0
0
44
M
Daily Traffic Volumes at Project Completion
25,CCO 2.5,0
c,1,200) \ (11_,2.00)
' '\.
'\. ' ' ..... ' \
~ \
I I
NO SCALE I I
I
I
I
I
l /
I I
I I
I
I /
~~~<2..-t,,,,/
/
.J \ \
L ____ J
LEGEND
2s;ooo-EXIST.+ PROJECT
TRAFFIC
(11,200)-EXIST. TRAFFIC
Source: Weston Pringle & Associates.
19,800
(11,200)
AIRPORT 19100 RD
(I l,2C0l
0
0
0
45
lsa
Figure N illustrates expected traffic volumes at ultimate conditions. This
reduction in traffic is due to deletion of the commercial uses adjacent to
Palomar Airport Road and a reduction in the generation factor used for pro-
jecting estimated traffic from residential areas. The reduction in the gener-
ation factor is consistent with other projects in the area. The distribution
in traffic remains essentially the same as the previous plan (Figures O and
p).
I
Analysis of the revised plan indicates that all roadways and all inter-
sections but one will operate at satisfactory levels at completion. Palomar
Airport Road and the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose is still
projected to exceed capacity. The major factor contributing to this capacity
problem is the traffic volume on Palomar Airport Road. This is the result of
area-wide development and is a regional problem which cannot be solved until
additional east-west arterials are. developed.
As mentioned above, the revised plan has resolved all of the intersec-
tion spacing problems identified· in the Draft EIR. In addition, the revised
Master Pl an contains a revised phasing program which resolves the previous
problems.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
23. The roadway alignments shown in the General Plan Amendment
and Master Plan should be considered as conceptual align-
ments only. Prior. to final approval of the Rancho Car-
rillo Master Plan, the applicants and the City shall con-
duct an engineering study to determine final alignments.
This study shall focus specifically on the following:
a. The alignment of Palomar Airport Road through the pro-
ject site.
b. The alignment of Melrose Avenue from the southern
boundary of Rancho Carrillo to the City boundary north
of the Carlsbad Raceway.
c. The location and geometrics of all major intersec-
tions on Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue.
d. The location and geometrics of all secondary intersec-
tions and access points on Palomar Airport Road and
Melrose Avenue.
0
0
0
N
Daily Traffic at Ultim·ate
32,sco
NO SCALE
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I / I I
I / I / • /
~RR1~2._-} .,, .,,,-
16,0QO I~ \o
. ' L ____ J
Source: Weston Pringle & Associates.
46
lsa
35,300 Al RP0(3_T 34,100
INCLUDES EXISTING, PROJECT,
AND OTHER ffiRCELS TRAFFl C
RO
i
I
i
!
.1
0
0
0
0 47
Revised Directional Distribution
at Project Completion
NO SCALE
I
I
I
I
I
I r I
I / I I
I / . I /
~RA~~-}-✓ • / j
,tOX.(Oo/ol
__________ \ .. . -----
L ___ J
LEGE~D
CP/o -RESIDENTIAL
0% -INDUSTRIAL •
Source: Weston Pringle & Associates.
lsa
Al RPO~.T 35%(30%) RO.
0
0
-o
47a
p
Revised Directional Distribution at Ultimate
30',(,(40%1
NO SCALE
I
I
I
I
I I
J
I
I / I I
I / I /
15%00%) I .,,,, ,,,, J ~~~'2---r-
\
,t=i20%l
..-.----' :. ------
L ____ J
LEGEND
45%-RESIDENTIAL
(50%)-INOUSTRIAL
Source: Weston Pringle & Associates.
lsa
-AIRPORT 25%(20%) RO
-
0
0
48
24. Prior to approval of any tentative tract map, a phasing
plan and improvement schedule for the entire Rancho Car-
rillo Master Plan shall be finalized and approved by the
City.
25. _As recommended in the traffic study; the following inter-
sections will be signalized by the developer:
Palomar Airport Road and Industrial Way (west collector)
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue
Melrose Avenue and collector south of Palomar Airport Road
Melrose Avenue and Carri 11 o Way
These will be install_ed according to the phasing plan and
improvement schedule required by Mitigation Measure #24.
26. The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Palomar Airport1
Road should include provisions for lanes as indicated
below:
Movement
Northbound through
Northbound right
Northbound left
Southbound through
Southbound right
Southbound left
Eastbound through
Eastbound right
Eastbound left
Westbound through
Westbound right
Westbound left
Lane Requirements
Project Completion Ultimate
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
27. The west connector to Palomar Airport Road from the south
portion of Rancho Carrillo should have provisions for four
lanes south to the first intersection.
28. The internal street system (including intersections and
access routes) should be examined when tentative tract
maps are av a i l able for review.
lsa
0
0
0
49
29. During review of the Master Plan and subsequent levels of
design, the Police and Fire Departments should review the
circulation system to assure proper and safe emergency
access to the development.
30. The City should review the feasibility of providing an
alternative east-west route to Palomar Airport Road.
REQUIRED CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
lsa·
In order to reflect the revisions to the site plan, the following modifi-
cations to the Draft EIR mitigation measures are required:
23. This mitigation measure is no longer necessary and can be
deleted.
24. This mitigation measure is still appropriate and should
remain.
25. The intersections requiring signalization should be as
follows:
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue
Palomar Airport Road and Industrial Way
Melrose Avenue and Carri 11 o Way
Melrose Avenue and collector
26. The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Palomar Airport
Road should be as follows:
Movement
Northbound through
Northbound right
Northbound left
Southbound through
Southbound right
Southbound 1 eft
Eastbound through
Eastbound right
Eastbound left
Westbound through
Westbound right
Westbound left
Lane Requirements
Project Completion Ultimate
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
0
0
0
50
27. This should be changed to read as follows:
The three collector streets with daily volumes in excess
of 5,000 should have provisions for four lanes from the
arterial to the first local intersection.
28. This measure is still appropriate and should remain.
28a. A free right-turn lane and dual left-turn lanes •should be
provided for southbound traffic on Melrose Avenue at Car-
rillo Way.
28b. Intersection spacing along El Fuerte Street should be
modified to provide a minimum of 600 feet between inter-
sections.
29.
30.
31.
This measure is still appropriate and should remain.
This measure is still appropriate and should remain.
The following phasing program contained in the Master Pl an
shall be implemented as modified below:
a. The realignment and full improvements of Palomar Air-
port Road within the project are part of the Purple
Phase. This ensures the realignment of Palomar Air-
port Road with either the Purp 1 e or Orange Phases.
The need for the widening of Palomar Airport Road will
be reviewed with submission of tentative trac_t maps.
b. No phase sha 11 consist of more than 500 uni ts without
a second access. Phasing of Melrose Avenue wi 11 be
considered at submission of tentative tract maps and
wi 11 be constructed as a through street when warrant-
ed.
lsa
0
0
0
51
lsa
AIR QUALITY
Air quality issues are discussed in the Draft EIR on Pages 59-66.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
The Draft EIR identified that, although the proposed project is consis-
tent with the Series IVb and Series V population forecasts and is therefore is
consistent with the Regional Air Quality Strategies, it would sti 11 canst itute
be part of a cumulative adverse impact on the region 1 s air quality on the
basis of vehicular and stationary source emissions. Construction-related
impacts of the project are not considered significant.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
Project redesign results in a reduction in traffic volumes from 53,840 to
40,640 trips per day. This results in a reduction from 430,720 vehicle miles
traveled per day to 325,120 vehicle miles traveled per day, or a 24.5% reduc-
tion in vehicle miles traveled. Table 4 compares vehicular emissions result-
ing from the previous project proposal to the redesigned proposal. As indi-
cated, the revised project would emit a slightly lesser amount of pollutants
related to vehicular travel. Table 5 indicates that the revised project would
emit a slightly increased amount of pollutants related to stationary sources.
In total, the revised project would emit a slightly lesser level of pollutants
than the previously proposed Master Plan .Amendment as shown in Table 6.
The revised Master Plan .Amendment request is consistent with the Series
IVb population forecasts used to for.mulate the Regional Air Quality Strategies
(RAQS), and therefore is considered to be consistent with RAQS and should not
threaten the ability of the San Diego Air Basin to meet pollutant standards
within the required time frame. However, the project wi 11 undeniably contri-
bute an incremental increase in air pollutant emissions to the regional air
bas in.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
31. The use of alternate transportation modes will be encour-
aged by the inclusion of bus facilities, public bikeways,
and walkways in the site plan.
32. The Master Plan includes provisions for a variety of com-
patible land use types such as housing, employment, recre-
ation, and commercial opportunities within the Rancho Car-
rillo community to promote intra-community travel.
0
0
0
TABLE 4 52
COMPARISON OF VEHICULAR EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY)l lsa
Po 11 utant
Hydrocarbons
VMT-rel ated
Trip-related
TOTAL
Carbon monoxide
VMT -related
TOTAL
Oxides of nitrogen
Oxides of sulfur
Particulates
1985 1990 1995
Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised
Master Master Master Master Master Master
Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan
Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment
0.09 •
0.13
0.22
1.18
0.77
T.95
0 .26
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.10
o.17
0.89
0.58
r.41
0.21
0.01
0.02
0.22
0.33
0.55
2.79
2.06
4.87
0 .72
0.05
0.10
0.17
0.25
0.42 =
2.11
1 .. 56
3.67
0.59
.04
.07
0.29
0.40
0.69
3.49
2.69
6.18
0.96
0.07
0.13
0.22
0.30
0.52
2.63
2.03
4.66
0.78
.05
O.ld
lAssumes that the project will be 25% complete by 1985, 75% complete by
1990, and 100% complete by 1995.
0 TABLE 5 53
COMPARISON OF STATIONARY SOURCE
EMISSIONS AT PROJECT COMPLETION (TONS/DAY) lsa
Electrical
Generation Natura 1 Gas Use Total
Orig i na 1 Revised Orig i na 1 Revised Orig i na 1 Revised
Master Master Master Master Master Master
Pl an Pl an Pl an Pl an Plan Pl an
Pollutant Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment
Sulfur dioxide 0.17 0.34 Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg.
Hydrocarbons Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg.
Oxides of nitrogen. 0:11 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.28
Particulates 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.005 0.04 0.065
0 Carbon monoxide 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.03 0.04
0
0
0
-o
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF TOTAL POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS AT BUILDOUT (TONS/DAY)
Po 11 utant
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Oxides of nitrogen
Particulates
54
lsa
Original Master Revised Master
Plan Amendment Plan Amendment
0.69 0.52
6.21 4.70
1.12 1.06
0.16 0.14
0
0
0
(
55
Construction Impacts.
33. Dust suppression measures, such as regular watering, grad-
ing in the spring when soil moisture is high, and early
paving of roads, wi 11 be implemented to reduce air po 11 u-
ti on during construction and grading.
Stationary Source Impacts.
34. The project developer shall include, to the fullest extent
possible, design features that reduce energy consumption
through conservation or the use of alternative less pol-
luting energy sources such as solar-assisted heating sys-
tems and the inclusion of wiring, plumbing, and roof load-
bearing design for future active solar collector systems.
Those features considered wi 11 be presented and reviewed
at submittal of the tentative map.
lsa
These measures should. adequately mitigate construction-related impacts.
However, they will only slightly mitigate the expected increase in pollutants
to be generated by this project. This project will contribute to the cumula-
tive impac't on air quality resulting from development of the region.
REQUIRED CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
The following mitigations have been added to lessen the project's
contrib~tion to the cumulative adverse impact on air quality in the region:
31a. At the time the industrial and commercial areas are plan-
ned, the project applicant and the City of Carlsbad will
consider designating official transit and ride-sharing
pickup stations. Stations should be safe and comfortable,
including shelters and benches.
31b. At the time industrial and commercial areas are more
specifically planned, the City shall consider requiring a
percentage of parking spaces in the more desirable areas
to be reserved as 11 preferential parking11 for multi-
occupancy vehicles.
31c. The project applicant and/or the City of Carlsbad will
contact the CalTrans Commuter Computer to discuss the
feasiblity and effectiveness of construction of Park-and-
Ride facilities within the Raricho Carrillo Planned Commun-
ity.
I
0
0
0
57
lsa
"If the quantit.ative analysis of air pollutant emissions expected from
the proposed General Plan Amendment shows an increase in emissions over that
expected from the existing General Plan land use designations, then legally
• enforceable mitigation measures must be provided."
Response to Comment 2: A comparison of the existing General Plan
land use designations with the requested General Plan Amendment is shown in
Table 3 on Page 9 of the Responses to Corrments to the DEIR. The proposed
amendment would allow 70 more acres of industrial,. 30.6 acres less of corrrner-
ci al, 11. 7 acres more of schools, 65 .1 acres less of open space, and 224 more
residential dwelling units. However, the project actually being proposed is
defined by the Master Plan Amendment Request and provides a ceiling on resi-
dential units of 2,998 units. This EIR evaluates. the project as defined by
the Master Plan. As such, the project will provide only 2,998 of the 3,886
dwelling units al lowed by the existing General Plan or of the 4,110 dwelling
units allowed by the General Plan Amendment. This is felt to be a clear indi-
cation that overall density and development is less under the proposed project
than allowed under the General Plan (either existing or proposed). Conse-
quently, no quantitative analysis is deemed necessary.
Comment 3. "The EIR should indicate that, pursuant to the Amendments
to the Clean Air Act, failure to make reasonable fur:ther progress may: 1)
cause sanctions to be imposed, thereby jeopardizing Federal funding (e.g.,
sewers and highways) in the region, and 2) place prohibition of major new
source construction. •
"Additionally, the air quality discussion should indicate that the San
Diego Air Basin in designated a non-attainment area for ozone, carbon monox-
ide, and particulate~.
"It should be noted that, according to the 1980 Reasonable Further Prog-
ress Report prepared by the District for the EPA, there will be a shortfall of
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions reduction of 30-40 tons/day in 1987 (the required
attainment date for ozone NAAQS). The situation is projected to worsen after
this.
"The discussion of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
should indicate that the target date for attainment of the NAAQS is 1982, but
that an extension of the attainment date to 1987 for ozone and carbon monoxide
standards is permissible with implementation of an acceptable inspection and
maintenance (I&M) program statewide in addition to demonstration of "Reason-
able Further Progress" toward implementation of the adop,ted regional air qual-
ity control strategies. To date, the California Legislature has not enacted
enabling legislation for the I&M program."
0
0
0
58
lsa
Response to Comment 3. Comments noted. This project will not delay
expected reasonable further progress toward attainment of designated stan-
dards.
CoD1Dent 4. 11 The air quality discussion in the EIR concludes on Page
65 that the proposed mitigation measures·' ... will only slightly mitigate the
expected increase in pollutants to be generated by this project. This project
will contribute to the cumulative impact on air quality resulting from devel-
opment of the region.'
"Since air quality has been identified as a significant impact, project-
level mitigation measures must be made a condition of future project approv-
als.
11 Adoption of the Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy (R-RAQS) by the
various jurisdictions in San Diego County (including the City of Carlsbad)
represents a commitment by these jurisdictions to implement the various R-RAQS
tactics. If the decisionmakers • decide to approve the proposed General Plan
Amendments which appear to be inconsistent with the R-RAQS, then it is their
responsibility to implement mitigation measures to offset the increased pollu-
tion. The EIR has identified mitigation measures, but, to be more specific,
examples of mitigation measures that should be made a condition of future
project approvals include, but are not limited to:
"Project should be laid out in a manner which facilitates transit
access, walking, and bicycle trips as a substitute for motor vehicle
trips.
"Designate official transit and ride-sharing pickup stations in
activity centers.to provide convenience and notoriety for users.
Stations should be safe and comfortable, and include shelters and
benches.
"Trans it operators should be requested to conment on appropriate pro-
jects for their transit compatibility and make statements as to
whether or not transit is available to the project.
11 Reduce conmerci al and industrial parking requirements. Deye l opers
should conmit to the operation of ride-sharing programs and/or pro-
vide transit and bicycle facilities. Restrict on-street parking
near those projects as may·be required.
"Give development preference in developing growth management programs
to projects which are near transit routes or for which future routes
0
0
0
59
lsa
are planned; discourage development where transit is not available;
include transit in list of development point analysis. •
11 Require that a percentage of the parking spaces in the most desir-
able areas be reserved as 11preferential parking 11 for multi-occupancy
v eh i c 1 es.
11 Coordination and cooperation between the City of Carlsbad and Cal-
Trans Commuter Computer for the section of construction of Park-and-
Ride facilities.11
Response to Comment 4. As discussed under Response to Comment 1
above, the project 1s not inconsistent with the R-RAQS as it is consistent
with the Series IV-b population projections. Also, air quality impacts asso-
ciated with the project contribute to or are part of a significant cumulative
adverse impact on regional air quality, but are not significant on a project-
only basis. Mitigation was· provided in the report and in the design of the
project to lessen the project I s contribution to cumulative adverse impacts.
However, in response to the APCD 1 s request for further mitigation, the meas-
ures listed above under Revised Mitigation Measures have been added.
Comment-5. 11 Unless the EIR is revised to include a comparative quan-
titative analysis of air pollutant emissions attributable to the General Plan
Amendment with that of the existing plan, it is District staff 1 s position that
the EIR not be considered to be adequate or complete and in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).11
Response to Conment 5. Please see Reponse to Comments 1 and 2 above.
0
0
0
60
lsa
ENERGY
Discussion of project impacts on energy consumption, and appropriate
mitigation measures is included on Pages 67-68 of the DEIR. A study of energy
demands of the proposed project appears. in Appendix H.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Based on conservative consumption estimates, the previous Rancho Carrillo
proposal upon full occupancy would yield the following energy demands:
Electricity -67,755 kwh/year
Natural Gas -4,170,000 therms/year
Gasoline -gallons/year
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
The revised Master Plan proposes changes to land use types associated
with the project ( see Tab 1 e 2, Page 5). The project redesign proposes an
increase of 29.7 acres in industrial uses, and a decrease of 19.1 acres in
commeri ca 1 uses. These changes in 1 and uses wi 11 resu 1t • in changes in the
total energy demands projected for the project site. Impacts on energy con-
sumption resulting from the newly prepared land ues are indicated in Table 7.
Comparison of these consumption estimates with those associated with the pre-
vious Master Plan shows an insignifcant decrease in electrical energy consump-
tion of 17 kwh and a decrease in natural gas consumption of 753,700 therms/
year. Automotive fuel consumption resulting from the project redesign would
be an estimated 3,966,464, showing a reduction of 1,283,536 gallons/year.
This reduction in gasoline consumption is largely a result of the decrease in
commercial land uses and a consequent reduction in associated trips in the
redesigned Master Plan.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
35. The developer shall incorporate into project design as
much as possible energy conservation features such as
solar water heating for swimming pools, weatherization
(double glazing, attic ventilation, insulation), orienta-
tion of houses to allow later solarization, increased
slopes of south-facing roofs, and plumbing for retrofit of
solar facilities. The provision for such features will be
reviewed by the City at the time of submittal of the tent-
ative map.
0 TABLE 7 61
RANCHO CARRILLO ENERGY CONSUMPTION lsa
Electrical
Consumption Electrical Gas Consump-Gas
(kwh/mo/ Consumption ti on Factor Con sum pt ion
unit or (106 kwh/ -. (cu. ft./ (106 cu .
acre) year) mo. /unit) ft./year)
771 Low/medium-density
units 750 6.936 9,000 83.27
1757 Medium-density
units 500 10.540 6,000 126.50
470 Medium/high-density
units 400 2.256 5,000 28.20
0 15.2 acres retail
commercial 60,000 10. 940 300,000 54.72
10.3 acres planned
commercial 10,000 1.236 neg. neg.
70.8 acres planned
industrial 30,000 25.490 50,000 42.48
35. 9 acres school
sites 24,000 10.340 15,000 6.46
Total 67.738 341.63
million million
kwh cubic
feet
(3,416,300
therms/yr.)
0
0
0
0-
62
lsa
REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES
No changes in mitigation measures are necessary as a result of the pro-
ject redesign.
0
0
0
63
lsa
NOISE
The DEIR describes the existing acoustical environment and potential
noise impacts and mitigation measures for the project on Pages 68-82. The
acoustical study (Bioacoustical Engineering Corporation, 1980) for the Master
Plan Amendment provides quantitative analyses of the impacts, and appears in
Appendix Hof the Draft. A revision of the study for the revised. Master Plan
Amendment is reproduced in Appendix I.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Future Motor Vehicle Noise Exposure. Vehicle-related noise levels
were calculated based on future daily traffic volumes described in the traffic
study for the Master Plan Amendment (Weston Pringle and Associates, 1980).
Future motor vehicle noise impacts are projected to increase as little as 2
dBA along existing roadways, and as much as 22 dBA along future roadways which
have not yet been constructed in the project area. These increases are due to
both project-re lated traffic and traffic generated from future projects in the
vicinity.
Calculated roadway noise levels are presented in Table P, Page 78 of the
DEIR. As would be expected, traffic along Palomar Airport Road and Melrose
Avenue generates the highest noise levels. Carrillo Way, El Fuerte Street,
Alga Road, and other interior streets generate less noise impact.
Future Carlsbad Raceway Noise Impacts. A worst-case analysis of
dragster and motocross noise impacts on the site projects 42 dBA CNEL and 48.7
dBA CNEL, respectively.
Future Aircraft-Related Noise Exposure. Future noise levels gener-
ated from Palomar Airport were calculated based on projected aircraft opera-
tions described in the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Table N,
Page 75 of the DEIR, depicts projected aircraft noise impacts at two sites in
the project area, for weekday and weekend flight operations. The table indi-
cates that on future weekdays the planned development wi 11 be exposed to an
impact ranging from approximately 50.6 dB CNEL to 54.7 dB CNEL. Future air-
craft noise on weekends will range from 52.1 to 56.0 dB CNEL.
Construction-Related Noise Impacts. Short-term increases in ambient
noise levels as a result of construction activities may impact existing resi-
dential development south of the property and future residences developed on-
site as the project develops in phases.
0
0
0
64
lsa
Total Future Noise Exposures. Ultimate noise levels calculated for
the Master Plan Amendment are illustrated in Figure 17, Page 81 of the DEIR.
This figure illustrates results of noise modeling which combines noise levels
from all noise sources on the project site. The calculations do not account
for effects of existing or future topography, manmade barriers, or effects of
development. Among the four no-ise source categories, motor vehicle traffic is
expected to be the greatest contributor to the overall noise impact. Noise
impact from future aircraft operations is expected to be very moderate. The
future worst:-case aircraft weekend noise impact of 52.8 dB CNEL will add less
than 2 dBA to road noise impacts of 60 dB CNEL and above. The expected future
noise impact from dragster and motocross activities is projected to be quite
minimal. It is expected that the overall development noise exposure wi 11 be
increased by less than 0.5 dBA from Carlsbad Raceway activities. As there are
now no noise-sensitive land uses onsite, and proposed land uses will not be
introduced without topographic modification, the significance of noise impacts
on future uses cannot be precisely assessed.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
Futµre Motor Vehicle Noise Exposure. As a result of project
redesign, projected traffic volumes generated by the project have been reduced
(see Weston Pringle and Associates, 1981, and Responses to Comments Traffic
section, Pages 41-50)·. As a result, the acoustic consultants for the develop-
ers have revised the noise study for the revised Master Plan Amendment. This
report is reproduced in Appendix 3. The revised noise study uses not only
revised traffic volumes, but revised projected travel speeds for onsite road-
ways as well. Projected speeds for the redesigned project roadways are 5 to
15 mph higher than those assumed in the original noise study. The increased
speeds, along with other assumptions such as no quieting in future motor vehi-
cle performance, contributes to the worst-case approach to this analysis.
Table 8 depicts CNEL levels 100 feet from roadway centerlines projected
for ultimate traffic conditions. These CNEL calculations, when compared with
previous calculations given for the Master Plan Amendment in Table P, Page 78
of the DEIR, indicate a noise level increase, in most cases, of 1 or 2 dB over
previously projected levels. The i.ncreased noise levels can be attributed to
the higher speed assumptions used in the revised study. The significance of
this impact cannot be precisely assessed until more detailed stages of site
planning are reached. Appropriate mitigation at this stage includes a more
detailed assessment of future noise impacts on sensitive land uses coincident
with subsequent planning levels.
0
0
0
TABLE 8 65
FUTURE ROADWAY NOISE IMPACT lsa
ROADWAY ROADWAY SECTION FUTURE (ULTIMATE) •
(See Figure Q) NOISE IMPACT AT 100'
FEET FROM CENTERLINE
(dB CNEL)
Palomar Airport
Road P-1 72.1
P-2 71.4 ..
P-3 72.4
P-4 72.3
Melrose Avenue M-1 68.9 .
M-2 66.9
M-3 63.9
M-4 64.2
Carrillo Way C-1 61.9
C-2 60.4
C-3 62.3
C-4 59.l
C-5 53.6
C-6 57.2
El Fuente Street E-1 59.8
E-2 57 .8
E-3 57 .0
Alga Road A-1 55.7
A-2 46.8 -
Collector Streets Col 50.4
U-1 50.8
U-2 54.7
The future motor-vehicle noise impacts presented in this table represent "worst-case"
projections. In performing the future noise impact calculations, no assumptions were
made for future motor-vehicle quieting. Although vehicles in the future will likely
be somewhat quieter than current·models, the analysis was completed assuming no change
in vehicle noise emission.
0
0
0
Q
Roadway Sections
80/234R
( P-ll
\
' '
NO SCALE
..... ' '(E-0 ' \
\
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I /
I / I I
I /
/
(C-1) I _,,,.,,
CARRILLO _ J. ..-_____ \
\<E-2)
66
{P-3)
(COL)
Source: Biocoustical Engineering Corp,
lsa
29
AIRPORT (P-4) R
(COL)
(A-2)--
..... ------------
./
0
0
0
67
lsa
Future Carlsbad Racing Noise Impacts. Project redesign does not
alter future noise impacts on the project generated by Carlsbad Raceway moto-
cross or dragster activities.
Future Aircraft-Related Noise Exposure. Future noise impacts on the
project from Palomar Airport activites are not affected by project redesign.
Construction-Related Noise Impacts. Project redesign does. not alter
project impacts generated during construction activities. •
Total Future Noise Exposures. Cumulative noise levels from the four
noise sources that will impact the project site are illustrated in Figure R in
the form of noise contours ranging from roadway centerlines. A more detailed
description of ultimate CNEL levels is given in Table VII of the Noise Study,
reproduced in Appendix 4 (Bioacoustical Engineering Corporation, 1981).
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
35. Prior to submittal of the tentative maps, a detailed
acoustical analysis and noise control program must be com-
pleted and submitted to the City for review. This analy-
sis and control program must reflect any potential changes
in estimated future noise exposure levels due to revised
or new information (i.e., additional traffic volumes,
etc.). It must provide a noise control program utilizing
such features as setbacks, noise barriers, and/ or housing
design in order to reduce the noise exposure levels to
State and local standards. Effects of natural and manu-
factured topography must be considered in the analysis.
For clarity, this study should also clearly state the
separate contribµtion of the four various noise sources as
well as the total noise exposure level.
The noise study in Appendix I discussed commonly used mit-
igation measures and their potential mitigating effects.
These measures and others wi 11 be considered at .the future
level of analysis.
36. Prior to submittal of the tentative, maps for any area
north of Palomar Airport Road, a noise study shall be pre-
pared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. If
any noise-sensitive uses are proposed for this area, such
a study with an accompanying noise control program should
be conducted and submitted to the City with the site plan.
68
R
Ultimate Noise Exposure lsa
CNEL IMPACT
Zone Range, dB
1 Over 70
~ 2 65 to 70
D 3 60 to 65
D 4 55 to 60
:·· :~{ ,p~:;i\~;;;,;~"?f r:;:;:y~::''.~;tr:-::~·:~i~~
~ _: :: ; ·'. / •..•. ...:---..:....----;___ -·-·'
1 ~ • I• . '
•.• . .-.:-.) ~~ . / ...
,','\ /.1 ,,,;,--"'.;' ~\ •"-. I• • ., ~ . . . .. . /: ·/ • ..
·:·.. ·.-... :···:.·7-:-.:-. .. './ \./·-~-~--~
:_.. • • ·.) \~-~----~ . , . . ., \:.~ .. Y ·. .. ' .. ~·., --......:.: '\·.··' . , •. • -'\· .. · • .. • .' ...... '"'--:--,
·\·· • •.• : .·.-:--. . ' .•. :--...
/· • ·,.
'~~• • .::_;j •~•: : I • •-.~ " rr
~-· •• •
• -~:. :_ .. _·-~ '.I
•.•.·. ;,_::-:-:-'•. :\. \-, . . ...... .
\ .• ·_. :_:_::·. ~ . .. . . . ..
'.\
• \
·. .• ,·. :. \ . .
Source: Bioacoustical Eng 1nee ring Corporation.
0
0
0
69
37. In conformance with Chapter 21.34 (P-M Planned Industrial
Zone), Section 21.34.010, only those uses which do not
generate a sound level in excess of· 45 decibels at the
boundaries of the site will be permitted in tne industrial
area.
38. An FAA-funded Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compati-
bility study (ANCLUC) is to be conducted on Palomar Air-
port in 1981. This study should be available in late
1981. The ANCLUC will develop a new set of noise contours
for Palomar Airport and will identify possible noise
abatement actions.
When available, the City of Carlsbad will review the ini-
tial and final findings of the ANCLUC in relation to the
Master Plan for Rancho Carrillo.
39. All prospective purchasers of residential properties with-
in the Rancho Carrillo Planned Community must be clearly
notified of airport operations (both existing and future)
in writing by the seller prior to the close of escrow.
To this end, the project applicants are asked to review,
as a possible mechanism, the feasibility of requiring avi-
gation easements, as suggested by Philip Safford, Palomar
Airport Manager, in a letter dated July 22, 1980 (Appendix
K) .
REQUIRED CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
lsa
No changes or additions are required to mitigation measures identified in
the DEIR.
OTHER COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
A memorandum received from the Environmental Health Branch of the State
Department of ·Health Services (Appendix 1) has expressed concern regarding
noise impacts on future Rancho Carri 11 o residences generated from spectator
traffic and raceway-associated activities, such as engine tuning and testing.
According to the acoustical study, in situ noise measurements made of moto-
cross and dragster events rev ea 1 noi seleve 1 s that contribute minimally to
background ambient noise levels. Based on the low level of noise impacting
the site from raceway activities, it is likely that any associated activities
such as tuning of dragster engines wil 1 al so be minimal, and probably less of
an impact than actual racing activities. A qualified acoustical engineer
0
0
0
70
lsa
has confirmed this assumption during a site visitation coincident with raceway
and pre-raceway activities, and states that pre-racing activities do not pro-
duce an audible level of impact over background noises (Otto Bixler, Jr., Man-
ager of Engineering, Bioacoustical Engineering Corporation, personal communi-
cation, 9/16/81).
Spectator traffic generated by raceway activities is included as part of
the projected traffic volumes presented in the traffic study (Weston Pringle
and Associates, 1981) and used in the acoustical reports. Impacts from this
noise source are therefore accounted for in modeled noise levels for future
motor vehicle sources presented in the Motor Vehicle-Noise Exposure section of
these responses to comments and in the DEIR.
0
0
0
71
lsa
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
Please refer to Pages 82-89 of the DEIR for discussion of existing com-
munity services and public utilities in the project area, potential project
impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Fire Protection Services. The development would require construction
of a future fire station in the area of Alga Road and El Fuerte Street as pro-
posed in the Fire Department 1 s Master Plan. The stati-on would require the
addition of nine personnel. The need for this station will be reached when at
least 1,000 dwelling units in Rancho Carrillo have been occupied.
Police Services. Approximately 14 additional police personnel would
be required to serve the site area by the time of project buildout.
Water Service. Rancho Carrillo will generate an estimated .76 mil-
lion gallons per day at occupancy.
Gas and Water Service. SDG&E does riot anticipate any problems serv-
ing the project with natural gas or electricity.
Solid Waste. Solid waste products generated from the completed proj-
ect will exceed 20,000 pounds per day. McDouglas Sanitation, Inc. foresees no
problem in serving the Rancho Carrillo.
Library Services. Ranchi) Carri 11 o would be served by the new central
library proposed in the City•s Library Master Plan.
School Services. At buildout, Rancho Carrillo would generate from
780 to 843 school-aged residents.
Hospital Services. The project would generate the need for 30 to 40
additional hospital beds in the Tri-City District.
Transit Services.
Development of Rancho Carrillo would encourage the North County Transit
District to expand its services into the project area.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
School Services. The project redesign includes an additional pro-
posed school site. This second school site is proposed for the purpose of
0
0
0
72
lsa
aiding resolution of jurisdictional complications between the San Marcos and
Carlsbad Unified School Districts. The effect of this element of the project
redesign is intended as mitigation to potential impacts on school services; no
additional changes or additions are believed to be necessary.
MITIGATION MEASURES .IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
Fire Protection Service.
40. The future fire station proposed in the Fire Department's
Master Plan in the area of Alga Road and El Fuerte Street
will be constructed to meet the fire protection needs of
the development. The new station shall be operational no
later than the time of occupancy of 1,000 dwelling units
. in Rancho Carrillo.
Police Services.
41. The commercial and industrial areas of the project will
employ internal security systems including security guards
and an alarm system to deter burglary and vandalism. This
wi 11 reduce the demand on police services re qui red by ,,the
project.
Defensible space concepts will be incorporated to deter
vandalism. 11 Defensible space 11 refers to physical design
characteristics that maximize control of behavior, partic-
ularly crime. Three major objectives of the defensible
space concept are: 1) achieving visibility (from building
areas to adjacent parking areas and vice versa), 2) creat-
ing zones of territoriality through site plan grouping and
designation of areas as either public, semi-public, or
private, and 3) providing easy access for pol icing capa-
bilities.
Water-Services.
42. At the time of subdivision submittal, the City of Carlsbad
and the Costa Real Municipal Water District will review
the Rancho Carril lo Master Pl an for Public Water System
(Woodside/Kubota, 1974) to determine its applicability to
revised consumption and fire flow figures of the new Ran-
cho Carrillo Master Plan. At that time, the City will
also require that the planned corrmunity 1 s non-potable
water needs be defined and that the water district consid-
er services based on these needs.
0
0
0
73
43. At the time of site plan review, fire flow demands will be
re-evaluated, if necessary, since the distribution of
dwelling units within any one given residential area could
drastically change fire flow requirements and pipeline
sizes.
44. Development landscaping in public and private areas will
emphasize low-water-consuming plants, such as native spe-
cies, and will utilize mulch to maximize water retention.
45. Public and private toilet facilities will be low-flush
toilets and low-flow faucets. Insulation will be required.
for hot wat_er lines in water recirculating systems. Any
public flush valve-operated water closets will have a
three-gallon flush, and drinking fountains will have
self-closing valves.
Wastewater Service.
46. The City of Carlsbad's Engineering Department will review
the proposed sewer system at the' time of subdivision map
review and approval to assure its adequacy.
Gas and Electric Service.
proposed.
No mitigation measures are
Solid Waste. No mitigation measures are proposed.
School Services.
47. The developer will consult with both school districts to
determine the most feas i b 1 e boundary 1 i ne for the dis-
tricts within Rancho Carrillo. This boundary alignment
shall be defined before approval of the Master Plan, at
which time the districts will specifically assess how they
will be impacted by the development, and will consult with
the developer to formulate appropriate mitigation meas-
ures.
Libraries. No mitigation measures are proposed.
Hospital Services. No mitigation measures are proposed.
Transit Service.
lsa
0
0
0
74
48. The Rancho Carrillo circulation system will include fea-
tures to accommodate trans it services. Features wi 11
include streets with weight capacities and turning radii
for 40-foot coaches and main through arteries to provide
access for easy routing.
REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES
lsa
Mitigation Measure 47 is no longer needed since two school sites are to
be provided; consequently, it should be deleted.
OTHER COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Wastewater. As a result of the City's re-evaluation of future needs
for wastewater treatment facilities, the project area will be served by the
existing Encina Treatment Plant rather than the planned Palomar Airport
Wastewater Reclamation Project. This change in service plans is not a result
of this project or project redesign, and there are no adverse impacts
associated with it.
Water Service. In response to a comment from the Department of Water
Resources (Appendix .1), Mitigation Measure #45 is revised to include the
following sentences:
45. Public and private toilet facilities will be low-flush
toilets and low-flow faucets. Insulation will be required
for hot water lines in water recirculating systems. Any
public flush valve-operated water closets wi 11 have a
three-gallon flush, and drinking fountains will have self-
closing valves. Public landscaped areas shall use mulch
on top of soil to improve water-holding capacity. Effi-
cient irrigation systems shall be employed such as drip
irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic. systems
to minimize runoff and evaporation.
Fire Service. Comnents were received from the City of Carlsbad Fire
Marshal. These comments are included in Appendix 1 and are excerpted below.
Conment 1.
11The report is very vague on phasing of the project. Since road
construction is tied to phasing, this leaves us somewhat up in the
air as to how we wi 11 be able to get into the project area and how
long it will take us to get there.
0
0
0
75
lsa
I believe that as a part of Phase I, El Fuerte should be completed
from the existing dead end to Palomar Airport Road. Also, depending
upon which phase is Phase I, Carrillo Road should be completed from
El Fuerte to the area of construction. The construction of a new
station near Alga and El Fuerte would not affect this recommenda-
tion. 11
Response to Comment 2. The phasing plan has been revised by the pro-
ject applicant and is reproduced in the Revised Project Description. It is
also discussed under 11Traffic and Circulation". Although, the phasing plan as
proposed does not provide a sequence of development, it is conditioned by
mitigation in 11 Traffic and Circulation" so that no phase will have more than
500 units before a second access is provided. Also, as each phase comes up
for City review it will be reviewed by both the Fire and Police Department for
adequate emergency access.
0
0
0
76
lsa
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Agricultural resources of the project site are discussed on Pages 89-99
of the DEIR. Agricultural Feasibility Studies (Kubota, et. al., 1980) assess-
ing the property are on file for public review with the City of Carlsbad Plan-
ning Department.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
The project would result in the loss of approximately 178 acres of agri-
culturally viable land. This loss represents an irreversible commitment to
abandon the agri cultura 1 resources ans ite. These resources inc 1 ude agri cul-
tura 11 y suitable soils and the climatic advantages of the coastal climate
zone. The impact would not be a direct displacement of existing land use
since there is presently no agricultural activity onsite; rather, the impact
effectively eliminates the alternative of future agricultural use.
The conversion of agriculturally viable lands to urban land use is a
quickening trend in northern San Diego County. The loss of potential agricul-
tural lands onsite would probably result in an incremental decrease in region-
al truck crop and tomato production. This conversion, in concert with the
loss of an untold amount of additional acreage in the North County, represents
a regionally significant cumulative impact.
EFFECT OF PROJECT REDESIGN
The revised project wi 11 have identical impacts on agricultural
resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIR
49. The City will consider requiring that the developers offer
short-term leases of agriculturally viable parcels onsite,
to the extent feasible, until such time as they are to be
developed in phase.
REQUIRED CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
No changes are required.
0
0
0
77
REVISED LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
A. All recommendations and conclusions of the soils and geo-
logic reports (on file with the City of Carlsbad) will be
incorporated into the project design. In addition, based
on recommendations from these studies and LSA 1s review of
the existing analyses, the following studies will be. con-
ducted by the project applicant and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to submittal of the tentative
map. Based on these more detailed studies, appropriate
measures and procedures will be identified and incorporated
into the project design subject to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. This required analysis will include, at a
minimum, the following study areas.
a. The identified slide areas and areas of potential
slides will be precisely delineated and analyzed
throughout the property. Based on this identifi-
cation and analysis, appropriate stabilization
procedures will be formulated and incorporated
into project design and grading plans.
b. The depths and natures of the identified alluvium
and colluvium deposits will be precisely determin-
ed. The deposits' suitability for development
will also be determined. If found to be unsuit-
able, appropriate engineering procedures (i.e.,
recompaction, removal; special foundation design,
etc.) will be identified and incorporated into the
project design.
c. The existing moist soils and groundwater condi-
tions in the canyon areas will· be more fully
explored to determine the need for subdrains and
similar design features. to ensure fill slope sta-
bility and stable ground conditions.
d. Areas requiring fill will be more precisely deter-
mined in conjunction with the grading plan and
more detailed project design. This study will
include detailed estimates of the amount of fi 11
required and the percentage of settlement subsi-
dence expected after recompaction.
lsa
0
0
0
78
e. All onsite soils will be further analyzed to
determine their potential constraints on develop-
ment (i.e., expansiveness, erosiveness, etc.).
Based on this analysis, appropriate soils engi-.
neering procedures (i.e., recompaction, removal,
selective grading) will be formulated.
f. Other than the lithological offset observed in the
north-central portion of the site, no onsite sur-
face faulting has been observed during field
reconnaissance or review of aeri a 1 photos. How-
ever, to assure the comp 1 ete absence of si gnifi -
cant onsite faulting, further review of those
areas outside the area covered by the previous
seismic study (Geosoils, 1980c) should be under-
taken. In addition, all parcels will be scruti-
nized· during grading for subsurface faulting by
the City's construction inspector. If such fault-
ing is evidenced, inrnediate analysis will be con-
ducted to determine the significance of the fault-
ing and any measures .necessary to minimize
hazards.
g. Based on results of the studies relating to land-
slide characteristics, moisture conditions, soil
characteristics, and fill requirements, appropri-
ate engineering procedures will be formulated for
stabilization of all cut slopes.
B. All grading operations will be in full conformance with
City ordinances pertaining to grading. The grading proce-
dures wi 11 be reviewed by the City for conformance with
City ordinances and the recommendations and conclusions of
·all geotechnical studies submitted at the time of subdivi-
sion map submittal.
C. All structures wil 1 conform to the Uniform Building Code
and all applicable building and safety code requirements.
D. Significant cut and fill (30 feet or greater in depth) will
be confined to limited areas according to the Rancho Car-
rillo Master Plan's landform modification concept to mini-
mize disturbance of steep natural slopes.
lsa
0
0
0
79
E. The developer will incorporate a drainage control system
which wi 11 ensure that peak runoff rates from the 10-year
storm after development will not exceed existing 10-year
storm peak flow rates. Detention basins will be designed
to pass runoff safely from a 100-year storm. The drainage
control system will be maintained by an assessment dis-
trict.
F. A complete erasion contra l program to minimize the poten-
tial for erosion during development will be approved by the
City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of the grading permit.
This erosion control program will be enforced continuously
during grading operations and between grading phases. This
program will. include provisions for construction during
non-rainy periods, immediate planting of vegetation on all
exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins (if neces-
sary), and a watering and compaction program.
G. After development, a weekly vacuum streetsweeping program
will be implemented in the project area for all internal
roadways tu reduce the urban pollutants which would pollute
surface runoff. •
H. A detailed hydrological and drainage control analysi.s will
be conducted by the project applicant and submitted to the
City for review at the time of submittal of the subdivision
map. The study shall identify necessary onsite flood con-
trol measures. The study shall also identify measures for
assuring that onsite runoff will not adversely affect off-
site areas. Changes in groundwater levels due to grading
and the removal of onsite impoundments must also be analyz-
ed. The report will also examine hydrological effects of
diverting the streams onsite. Results of this study will
be incorporated into the project design to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
I. The areas designated as "natural terrain" in the conceptual
grading plan wi 11 be preserved as areas of natural vegeta-
tion. This will partially mitigate the impact of removal
of vegetation by mass grading onsite. The areas of coastal
sage and riparian vegetation that will be preserved within
areas of natural terrain are i 11 ustrated in Figures B and
K.-These areas will also provide potential habitat for
• those species, of concern to the Can f orn i a Department of
lsa
0
0
0
80
Fish and Game and the California Native Plant Society,
which are believed to possibly occur onsite or within a few
miles of the site. These natural terrain areas could be
used for transplantation areas to serve as habitat for
plants threatened by regional development.
J. The project applicant has incorporated the existing natural
drainage channels into the planned drainage control system
for the project. In implementing this system existing
riparian habitat will be preserved. Further, the riparian
habitat will be cleared of rubbish, ruderal species
removed, and human disturbance discouraged. In cooperation
with the California Department of Fish and Game, the proj-
ect applicant will investigate and implement, where feasi-
ble, an enhancement program for riparian habitat along
selected reaches of the system.
K. The project applicant is required to apply for a 1603 per-
mit from the California Department of Fish and Game for all
disturbance and destruction of onsite creeks and water
impoundments. The project applicants will be required to
incorporate all permit conditions formulated by Fish and
·Game into the project design.
L. Landscaping around the retention basins to be used for
flood control purposes will be comprised of 100% native
vegetation.
M. A qualified archaeologist shall attend pregrade meetings
with the grading contractor to determine which phases _of
grading will require archaeo logical monitoring. The
archaeologist shall be authorized to divert, direct, or
halt grading in a specific area to allow expeditious sal-
vage of any significant artifacts uncovered as a result of
grading.
N. A qualified archaeologist will investigate Sites CA-SDi-
4306, 4687, and 4690 to determine their significance and
research potential. These sites will be preserved if
possible; if not, a qualified archaeologist will test and
excavate.
lsa
0
0
0
81
0. Carril lo Ranch (Rancho de las Quiotes) will be preserved
as part of a 20-acre City park. The developers propose to
move the historic cross to within the City park for perma-
nent preservation.
P. A qualified archaeologist will conduct the surface collec-
tion and analysis of shell scatters on CA-SDi-4679, 4688,
and 4689 prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Q. Sites CA-SDi -4684, 4685, 4686, and 4691 wi 11 be mapped
with all shell scatter flakes, cores, tools, scrapers, and
debitage collected by a qualified archaelogist prior to
issuing a grading permit.
R. A certified paleontologist will perform a walkover survey
of the s.ite in order to locate and define areas of paleon-
tologica l sensitivity. The paleontologist will submit a
written report to the City Planning Department prior to
issuance of the grading permit. Any fossils located dur-
ing the survey will be collected prior to grading.
The paleontologist will be present at all pregrade meet-
ings to determine the necessity for a paleontological
observer during various phases of grading. This determi -
nation will be based on the findings of the walkover sur-
vey and grading plans.
The observer will be allowed to divert, direct, or halt
grading in a specific area to allow for the expeditious
salvage of exposed fossil materials. Fossils collected
will be donated to a public non-profit institution such as
the San Diego Natural History Museum, the Paleobiology
Department of San Diego State University, or the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County.
S. The proposed Master P 1 an wi 11 be submitted to the Airport
Land Use Commission for review prior to approval of the
project.
T. The developer will provide an adequate buffer to mitigate
potential incompatibility between proposed residences on-
site and existing p.gricultural land uses offsite. Appro-
priate buffers to be considered include construction of a
6-foot block wall dividing t.he two land uses and, if
lsa
0 82
aerial spraying occurs over the adjacent agriculture, an
open space buffer of 150 feet or placement of a roadway
between the two uses. The adequacy of the buffer will be
reviewed by the City at the time of subdivision map appli
cation.
U. The areas of residential and industrial development which
are directly adjacent to one another will receive special
design consideration. Prior to record at ion of the fi na 1
subdivision maps, the project applicant wi 11 submit a plan
to be approved by the City of Carlsbad which will include
special setbacks, landscape requirements, and other design
features to provide for a more compatible interface
between the two uses. Specifics of the plan will be
determined by the precise land uses ultimately planned for
the area. This should adequately assure a compatible
interface.
0 V. • Greenbe 1 ts and natural open spaces wi 11 be inc 1 uded in the
development in accordance with the proposed Master P 1 an.
Although open space will obviously be reduced by the proj-
ect, this measure will partially mitigate the total visual
impact.
0
W. Prior to approval of any tentative tract map, a phasing
pl an and improvement schedule for the entire Rancho Car-
rillo Master Plan shall be .finalized and approved by the
City.
X. The intersections requiring sig~alization should be as
follows:
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue
Palomar Airport Road and Industrial Way
Melrose Avenue and Carrillo Way
Melrose Avenue and co 11 ector
lsa
0
0
0
83
Y. The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Palomar Airport
Road should be as fol lows:
Movement
Northbound through
Northbound right
Northbound left
Southbound through
Southbound right
Southbound left
Eastbound through
Eastbound right
Eastbound left
Westbound through
Westbound right
Westbound left
Lane Requirements
Project Completion Ultimate
0
1
2
0 0 •
0
2
1
0
2
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
Z. The three collector streets with daily volumes in excess
of 5,000 should have provisions for four lanes from the
arterial to the first local intersection.
AA. The internal street system (including intersections and
access routes) should be examined when tentative tract
maps are available for review.
BB. A free right-turn lane and dual left-turn lanes should be
provided for. southbound traffic on Melrose Avenue at Car-
rillo Way. •
CC. Intersection spacing along El Fuerte Street should be
modified to provide a minimum of 600 feet between inter-
sections.
DD. During review of the Master Plan and subsequent levels of
design, the Police and Fire Departments should review the
circulation system to assure proper and safe emergency
access to the development.
EE. The City should review the feasibility of providing an
a 1 ternati ve east-west route to Pa loma·r Airport Road.
lsa
0
0
0
84
FF. The following phasing program contained in the Master Plan
shall be implemented as modified below:
a. The realignment and .full improvements of Palomar Air-
port Road within the project are part of the Purple
Phase. This ensures the realignment of Palomar Air-
port Road with either the Purple or Orange Phases.
The need for the widening of Palomar Airport Road will
be reviewed with submission of tentative tract maps.
b. No phase shall consist of more than 500 units without
a second access. Phasing of Melrose Avenue will be
considered at submission of tentative tract maps and
wi 11 be constructed as a through street when warrant-
ed.
GG. The use of alternate transportation modes will be encour-
aged by the inclusion of bus facilities, public bikeways,
and walkways in the site plan.
HH. At the time the industrial and commercial areas are plan-
ned, the project applicant and the City of Carlsbad will
consider designating official transit ·and ride-sharing
pickup stations. Stations should be safe and comfortable,
including shelters and benches.
II. At the time industrial and commercial areas are more·
specifically planned, the City shall consider requiring a
percentage of parking spaces in the more desirable areas
to be reserved as "preferential parking" for multi-
occupancy vehicles.
JJ. The project app 1 i cant and/or the City of Car 1 sbad wi 11
contact the Ca lTrans Commuter Computer to discuss the
feas i b 1 ity and effectiveness of construction of Park-and-
Ri de facilities within the Rancho Carrillo Planned Commun-
; ty.
KK. The Master· Plan includes provisions for a variety of com-
patible land use types such as housing, employment, recre-
ation, and commercial opportunities within the Rancho Car-
ri 1 lo community to promote intra-community travel.
lsa
0
0
o.
85
LL. Dust suppression measures, such as regular watering, grad-
ing in the spring when soil moisture is high, and early
paving of roads, will be implemented to reduce air pollu-
tion during construction and grading.
MM. The project developer shall include, to the fullest extent
possible, design features that reduce energy consumption
through conservation or the use of alternative less pol-
luting energy sources such as solar-assisted heating sys-
tems and the inclusion of wiring, plumbing, and roof load-
bearing design for future active solar collector systems.
Those features considered will be presented and reviewed
at submittal of the tentative map.
NN. The developer shall incorporate into project design as
much as possible energy conservation features such as
solar water heating for swimning pools, weatherization
(double glazing, attic ventilation, insulation), orienta-
tion of houses to allow later solarization, increased
slopes of south-facing roofs, and plumbing for retrofit of
solar facilities. The provision for such features wi 11 be
reviewed by the City at the time of submittal of the tent-
ative map.
00. Prior to submittal of the tentative maps, a detailed
acoustical analysis and noise control program must be com-
pleted and submitted to the City for review. This analy-
sis and control program must reflect any potential changes
in estimated future noise exposure levels due to revised
or new information (i.e., additional traffic volumes,
etc.). It must provide a noise control program utilizing
such features as setbacks, noise barriers, and/ or housing
design in order to reduce the noise exposure l eve 1 s to
State and local standards. Effects of natural and manu-
factured topography must be considered in the analysis.
For clarity, this study should also clearly state the
separate contribution of .the four various noise sources as
well as the total noise exposure level.
The noise study in Appendix I discussed commonly used mit-•
igation measures and their potential mitigating effects.
These measures and others wi 11 be considered at the future
level of analysis.
lsa
0
0
0
86
PP. Prior to submittal of the tentative maps for any area
north of Palomar Airport Road, a noise study shall be pre
pared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. If
any noise-sensitive uses are proposed for this area, such
a study with an accompanying noise control program should
be conducted and submitted to the City with the site plan.
QQ. In conformance with Chapter 21. 34 ( P-M Planned Industrial
Zone), Section 21.34.010, only those uses which do not
generate a sound level in excess of 45 decibels at the
boundaries of the site wi 11 be permitted in the industrial
area.
RR. An FAA-funded Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compati-
bility study (ANCLUC) is to be conducted on Palomar Air-
port in 1981. This study should be available in late
1981. The ANCLUC will develop a new set of noise contours
for Palomar Airport and will identify possible noise
abatement actions.
When available, the City of Carlsbad will review the ini-
tial and final findings of the ANCLUC in relation to the
Master Plan for Rancho Carrillo.
SS. All prospective purchasers of residential properties with-
in the Rancho Carrillo Planned Community must be clearly
notified .of airport operations (both existing and future)
in writing by the seller prior to the close of escrow.
To this end, the project applicants are asked to review,
as a possible mechanism, the feasibility of requiring avi-
gation easements, as suggested by Philip Safford, Palomar
Airport Manager, in a letter dated July 22, 1980 (Appendix
K).
TT. The future fire station proposed in the Fire Department I s
Master Pl an in the area of Alga Road and El Fuerte Street
will be constructed to meet the fire protection needs of
the development. The new station shall be operational no
1 ater than the time of occupancy of 1,000 dwelling units
in Rancho Carrillo.
lsa
0
0
TT.
uu.
vv.
WW.
87
The future fire station proposed in the Fire Department's
Master Plan in the area of Alga Road and El Fuerte Street
wi 11 be constructed to meet the fire protection needs of
the development. The new station shall be op~rational no
later than the time of occupancy of 1,000 dwelling units
in Rancho Carrillo.
The commercial and industrial area~ of the project will
employ internal security ·systems including security guards
and an alarm system to deter burglary and vandalism. This
will reduce the demand on police services required by the
project.
Def ens ib le space concepts wi 11 be incorporated to deter
vandalism. "Defensible space" refers to physical design
characteristics that maximize control of behavior, partic-
ularly crime. Three major objectives of the defensible
space concept are: 1) achieving visibility (from building
areas to adjacent parking areas and vice versa), 2) creat-
ing zones of territoriality through site plan grouping and
designation of areas as either public, semi-public, or
private, and 3) providing easy access for policing capa-
bilities.
At the time of subdivision submittal, the City of Carlsbad
and the Costa Real Municipal Water District wi 11 review
the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan for Public Water System
(Woodside/Kubota, 1974) to determine its applicability to
revised con sump ti on and fire flow figures of the new Ran-
cho Carrillo Master Plan. At that time, the City will
also require that the planned community's non-potable
water needs be defined and that the water district consid-
er services based on these needs.
At the time of site plan review, fire flow demands will be
re-evaluated, if necessary, since the distribution of
dwelling units within any one given residential area could.
drastically change fire flow requirements and pipeline
sizes.
XX. Development landscaping in public and private areas will
emphasize low-water-consuming plants, such as native spe-0 cies; and will utilize mulch to maximize water retention.
lsa
0
0
0
88
YY. Public and private toilet facilities will be low-flush
toilets and low-flow faucets. Insulation will be required
for hot water lines in water recirculating systems. Any
public flush valve-operated water closets will have a
three-gallon flush, and drinking fountains will have self-
closing valves. Public landscaped areas shall use mulch
on top of soil to improve water-holding capacity. Effi-
cient irrigation systems shall be employed such as drip
irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic systems
to minimize runoff and evaporation.
ZZ. The City of Carlsbad's Engineering Department will review
the proposed sewer system at the time of subdivision map
review and approval to assure its adequacy.
AAA. The Rancho Carrillo circulation system will include fea
tures to accommodate trans it services. Features will
include streets with weight capacities and turning radii
for 40-f oot coaches and main through arteries to pro vi de
access for easy routing.
BBB. The City will consider requiring that the developers offer
short-term leases of agriculturally viable parcels onsite,
to the extent feasible, until such time as they are to be
developed in phase.
lsa
0
0
0
89
lsa
REFERENCES
Richard Allen, 1981. Letter to Annette Sanchez, LSA, Inc., September 8,
1981.
Bioacoustical Engineering Corporation, 1981. Evaluation of Exterior. Noise
Exposure and General Development Restrictions for Rancho Carrillo Propos-
ed Residential Development in Carlsbad, California (revised). Prepared
for Daon Corporation, Newport Beach, CA.
James C. Hagaman, 1981. Letter to Weston Pringle and Associates, September
9, 1981.
Leedshill, 1981. Letter report to Mr. Barry C. Bender, Rick Engineering,
August 6, 1981.
Weston Pringle and Associates, 1981a. Letter to Mr. Mike Ryan, DAON Corpora-
tion, August 21, 1981.
Weston Pringle and Associates, 1981b. Letter to Ms. Joyce Crosthwaite, City
of Carlsbad, September 14, 1981.
0
lsa
APPENDIX 1
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR
0
0
----------. ----
~ht±e of C!Ia1if.or11ia
RECEIVED GOVERNOR"S O.FFIC:E
OFFICE OF PLANNING ANO RESEARCH
n ........ ".-
EOMUNO G. BROWN JR.
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO. 958l 4
(916) 445~0.613
•. JUN-1 1981
CITY OF. CARLSBAD
Planning Department
0
0
C.0VERHQII
Joyce Crosthwaite
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm l1.ve·.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUEjJECT: SCH 81040801·
Dear Ms. Crosthwaite:
May 21, 1981.
RANCHO CARRILLO PLANNED CCMMUNITY
State agencies h.a.ve co:mnented on your draft-environmental. impact report
(see attacb.edl . If you 'WOuld like to discuss their concems and
_recommendations, pleas~ contact the staff f:rcm the appropriate-agencies.
w1len prepari..'lg th.e final EI.R., you must include all commen1:s a."ld responses
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146) . The certi£ied, :::IR. must be considered L'l
the decision-making process for the project. In. addition, we urge.you to
respond directly to the agencies' comments by wr~ting • to t.~em, i.'1cluding t.'-le
State Clearinghouse number on all correspondence.
Section l5002(f)-of t.'le CEQA Gu.idelines requirss t.~at a goverrunentai agency
·take certain actions if an EIR shows substantial adverse environmental
i.mpac:.~ could result from a project. These actions include changing the
project~ imposing conditions on the project, adopting plans or ordinances
to avoid the problem, selecting an alternati•re to the project, or disapproving
the project. In the ~went that the project is approved without adequate
mitigation of signif_icant effects, the lead agency must make •.o1ritten findings
for each unmitigated significant effect (Section 15088) and it must support.
its actions with. a written statement of overriding considerations (section 15089).
I.f t.'le project requires discretionar1 approval from any state agency, the
Notice of Oeter.::i.ination·must be filed with the S~cretary for Resources, as
well as with t.~e County Clerk.
Please contact Pam Duncan·at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questionse
Sincerely,
Stephen Williamson
s~ate Clearinghouse
cc: Ken Fellows, DWR
State cl California The Resourcas Agency
,. 11
Me~orcndum
To . :
1. James;W. Burns
2.
Assistant Secretary for Resources
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Joyce Crosthwaite
Oats
File No.:
Subject:
Hay 7, 1981
EIR Rancho Carrillo
City o.f Carlsbad
SCH 81040801
From , Department cf Water Re!S()urces
Los Angeles, CA 90055
The Department of Water Resources' recommendations related ~o water co.nservation
on the subject document are attached.
Consideration should be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water
for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial
uses requiring high quality water.
In addition, it should be noted that all flood control measures required to
protect this proposed development should'be based on a 100-year flood, as
required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for flood insurance.
Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
(213) 620-4107
Attachment
0
0
0
To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be
'i.m.pl,emented:
Required by law:
Q 1. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code).
0
0
2. Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F).
3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating ,systems (California
Energy Commission regulations).
Recommend be implemented where aoplicable:
Interior:
1. Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds
per squar•e inch (psi) be, reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a·
pressure reducing v.al ve.
2. Flush 1valve ooerated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush.
3o Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves.
4.
5.
Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in d~elling be insulated
to provide hot water faster with less water waste, and to keep hot
pipes from heating cold water pipes.
Ratel rooms:
rest rooms*.
bath/shower.
recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and
Recommend thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for
6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers.
7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or
retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request
only*.
Exterior:
1. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing .
fields.
3o Use mulch extensively in all land~caped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil will improve the water-holding.capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district· may aid in
developing these materi~ls.
4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed
to establish replacement vegetation.
5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation Q
and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation,
soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation syste~s are a few methods
of increasing irrigation efficiency.
6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and aid in ground water recharge.
7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff.
8. Investigate the feasibility-of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or household gray water for irrigation.
9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the a~ount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in
ground water recharge.
11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground
water recharge should be preserved as open space.
-··
0
0
• ~t:ife of ·caJifornia ihe Resources A9enc~
t,
Memorandum
To
0
1. Jim Burns, Projects Coordinator
Resources "Agency
2. City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dote: May 8, 1981
From Department of rish and Game
I
Subject: SCH #81040801 -General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Report:
Rancho Carrillo, San Diego County
We have reviewed the. subject docum.ent that proposed to amend the City of
Carlsbad's Gen_eral Plan to allow for the development of 2,998 units on 846
acres located south of the Carlsbad Raceway. t .
Q C . -•• ~. • . . ==· .. . ~---
·O
#wirfe these "'at·Mti:5 .tiihlii•:SiflA¥At1&11htls@P 11u_u ci •• gqng,·s :-Oeoartmenrs:::;-Me~=~f~~~ 0~~=~~
1Y1
Plan Amendment unti 1 adequate compensation has been made a. condition of the
planning permit, and a county approved set of plans indicates that the project
will not further damage these resources.
ZiW-MS p; : t :t be Pi&k a t Caws g A•
½s ; d ti 2 to 1 wt: I st, eamuea a I ce1 a c. 011 ag rt!ti!l@!i45 a: c aw4tPhelw
We offer the following specific comments on the DEIR;
11 LMM)s
,iffq 6, &re•
r,0Jztsd i• t.:pa;; k ei±ioa....,&r Jcw1N11ww~b:ktot: reMN'+e@swesesi\'dl,
~·•►? f tj 99 shew, d ,k mw£1ewipa«Meea&W i, •M-f I§ I;
Jim Burns
C~ty of Carlsbad -2 -
h's ts?... ti a L ~h@ W?i ffl(Jxp ;,,-'4&¥F&K&S 1!Pfua,vaberp eae,wer6-awMoa El I A EO
Additionally, witt au ii • t tl:c a: ea : whe f1'l!if:l"MllN':@ rue@MSeBM irlz eri¼ ,_
~ _ ·!"!: "-cilfS:IM wwiWyfi6'AhauRli I it il lJ. f ; U t;se ee
• • • ~ 1 1 •ieyw •w1H1ww4:ba11 w bf. * :A js£GSRJ Sa.gr 1ii8,
lbs _J! absaa:wae ~, -§f-d&FiifH,-f &p&S@i@0(.1 o mi 11 ion cubic yards to fi 11 a 1 arge
canyon) "19Q::i res tbat s~ t _,..;in scstvl wnsn:m: t, Rmm,u•rvtt Li t »
~;:;;tlt;;: ;: : . =::a:~k:■ttikS:CZ:a:::::::~
Mai Pf be rcm•ir@s. TOffi1! vr:.W lrawwwri 'n i:zd awd @pti akd it sr<ffMlb:we
,. 1_;; • e~"!-mva. a: 002 aSii,►lc!i_&fN -_, _t1c r ,.1, a:.=t•1 , •
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Master Plan for Rancho
Carrillo. If you have any questions, please contact Fred A. Worthley, Jr., Regiona
Manager, Region 5, at 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802; telephone
number (213) _590-5113.
E. C.:.. ~~u n ,:::h~
Director ,
0
Stcste of, Califcrnia . Department of Health Se~ices
Me-mo rand um
From
0
0
Steve William.son
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTII BRANCH
Date HAY 12 1981
Subjea : Rancho Carril lo
Planned Community, City of
Carlsbad Draft EIR -
SCH f'F81040801
The Office of Noise Control has reviewed the above Draft EIR and offers
the following comments.
By and large the noise analysis is complete and thorough, and the authors
are commended. However, two typographical errors are noted: on page 80
and 81 _.zone 3 should read 60-65, not 60-7 0.
There is also one other problem. In discussing noise from races at the
Carlsbad Raceway, the authors failed to r::i.ake mention of possibly important
sources of traffic and other noise. Motocross races begin at 8:00 a.m. on
Sunday morning .. But before then (how early?), trucks carrying the bikes
and spectator traffic will begin arriving at the race\vay, and engines will
be tuned, tested, etc. _What is the likely impact of such noise, particu-
larly early Sunday morning, when typically people arise much later than on
week days? How much and what type of acoustical mitigation raeasures may be
necessary? Can that traffic be redirected, or be requested to arrive at a
less sensitive time?
If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Jerome S. Lukas> Office ·0£
Noise Control, 2151 Berkeley Way, Room ?16, Berkeley, Ca 94704 (415) 540-
2665.
-#~f~
Harvey V°3-1ins:1 Ph.D., Chief
R J Massman
Director
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
GILLESPIE FIELD
PALOMAR AIRPORT
RAMONA AIRPORT
BORREGO AIRPORT
June 3, 1981
AIRPORTS DIVISION
0
1960 JOE CROSSON DR
EL CAJON. CA-92020
PHONE:< 714) 448-3101
RECEIVED
Joyce Crossthwaite
Carlsbad Pfanning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Repor"t:
Rancho Carrillo Residential Development
Carlsbad, California
JUN 51981
·ctTY OF CARLSBAD
P\ann\ng Department
I have reviewed the draft Environmentai Impact Report for the
proposed Rancho Carrillo development as it relat~s to Palomar
Airport operations.
My comments with respect to this development remain as expressed
in my letter of July 22, 1980, attached in Appendix K of the
Environmental Impact Report. Unfortunately, the proposed
Airport Noise Control and Land Use Cqmpatibility study (ANCLUC)
discussed in that letter has not been funded by the Federal
Aviation Administration. Pending revision of grant legislation,
there is at present no certainty that this study will be
conducted.
I continue to believe that Rancho Carrillo and Palomar Airport.
will experience "compatibility"• problems. Rancho Carrillo will
be the closest residential development to Palomar Ai:rport. While
it ts true that Rancho Carrillo is outside the boundaries of the
Palomar 65 CNEL, the same can be said for existing residential
developments located at greater distances from the airport.
Airport ~raffic has nevertheless been a majo! issue and source
of complaints from .residents of these developments. As a
practical matter, there is no discernible relationship between
the boundaries of the Palomar 65 CNEL and citizen complaints.
Many complaints are not related to noise level, but to the
numbers of aircraft overhead, low altitude flight, or a fear
of accident.
0
0
0
0
0
Joyce Crossthwaite
Carlsbad Planning Department -2-June 3, 1981
Based on recent experience, a number of future residents of
Ranch9 Carrillo can be expected to develop concerns regarding
Palomar air traffic after moving into.the area. It is an
unfortunate dilemma that this will occur, with resulting
complaints and demands for restrictions, despite compliance
with airport noise standards and land use plans. Rancho Carrillo
is an example of residenti~l encroachment into the vicinity of
an airport which any airport manager. or stud~nt of airport noise
problems will recognize as ultimate "bad news. 11
·In my July 22, 1980 letter I recommended that the impact of
airport operations be clearly identified to, and acknowledged
in writing by, each prospective purchaser. I firmly believe
that this would be in the best interests of the purchaser and
the airport.
·-;~Jpl( 4,~1,).
'PHILIP(~-SAFFORD/£: \__
Assistant Directo
Airports Division
PRS:bw
cc: SANDAG (J. Koerper)
FAA (H. C. Bliss)
D1irector, Department of Public Works (R. J. Massman)
Airports Director Waldman (Sll9)
PAAC
. '
I I.
r~~---~1
-1 ' .,,.. ,.-•---..... ! 1 [~,--'",:;~~---~\ /~.<;-~::··> /' . (..;, \ !
I ,, ___ )i l I \
; --._.;/! \----~~=~::)' \<~-::;:C.,"~
R. J. Sommerville
County of San Diego Air Poliution Control Officer
May 5, 19~1
Joyce Crosthwaite
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
MAY 111981
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR RANCHO CARILLO MASTER PLAN
The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the above referenced
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and has the following comments:
There is an apparent discrepancy in the discussion ·of project consistency with
the Revised-Regional Air Quality Strategies (R-RAQS)/State Implementation Plan
(SIP) contained in the EIR. The EIR states on page 60 that:
"Population projections for the proposed development are consistent
with the Series IV and Series V population projections. Consequently,
p1·oj ect-related population growth and estimated VMf should be
consistent with those used for the RAQS.11
The Air Quality Analysis, Appendix G, states on page 7 that one of the criteria
for determining project consistency with the RAQS is that" ... future growth
patterns are consistent with the locations, growth rates, and land uses used in
the CPO's Series V projections."
This statement is not accurate. The Series IV-b growth forecasts are contained
in the locally adopted R-RAQS/SIP to attain and maintain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
District staff analysis of the Series IV-band Series V population projections
for the City of Carlsbad indicate that the Series V forecasts exceed the Series
IV-b forecasts by approximately 2296 in 1980, 43go in 1985, and 55 96 in 1995. This
discrepancy should be clarifi~d.
0
0
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
9150 Chesapeake Drive. San Diego, California 92123
(714) 5GG-590l
0
0
City of Carlsbad -2-May 5, 1981
The EIR should contain a comparative quantitative ana.J.ysis of the air pollutant
emissions that can be expected from motor vehicles, power generation and space
heating for the proposed land uses with that expected from land uses anticipated
for the existing community plan land use designation.
If the quantitative analysis of air pollutant emissions expected from the pro-
posed General Plan P.Jr,endment shows an inc-rease in emissions over that expected
from the existing General Plan land use designations t:1c11 leagally enforceable
mitigation measures must be provided. •
The EIR should indicate that pursuant to the J\mE:ndments to the Clean Air Act
failure to make reasonable further progress may (J.) cause sanctions to be
imposed, thereby jeopardizing federal funding (e.g., sewers and highways) 1.n the
region, and (2) place prohibition of major new source construction.
It should be noted that according to the 1980 Reasonable Furtile:c Progress Report
prepared by the District for EPA, there will be a shortfall of hydrocarbon (1:-iC)
emissions reduction of 30-40 tons/day in 1987 (the required attainment date for
ozone NAAQS). The situation is projected to worsen after this.
The discussion of the National Ainbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) should
indicate that the target date for attainJ11ent of the NAAQS is 1982 but that an
extension of the attainment date to 1987 for ozone and carbon monoxide standards
is permissible Hith implementation of an acceptable inspection and maintenance
(I & M) program state1._ride in addition to demonstration of "Reasonable Further
Progress11 toward implementation of the adopted regional air quality cont:rol
st1~ategies. To date the California Legislative has not enacted enabling
le3is lat ion for the I & M Program. •
Additionally, the air quality discussion should indicate that the San Diego Air
Basin is designated a non-attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxicle, and
particulates.
The air quality discussion in the EIR concludes on page 65 that the proposed
mitigation measures'' ... will only slightly mitigate the expected increase
in pollutants to be generated by this project. This project will contribute
to the cumulative impact on air quality resulting from development of the
region."
Since air quality has been identified a.s a. significant impact, project level
mitigation measures must be made a condition of future project approvals.
The ndoption of the Revised-Regional Air Quality Strategy (R-RAQS) by the various
jurisdiction in San Diego County (including the City of Carlsbad) represents a
committment by these jur"isdictions to implement the various R-R/\QS tactics.
If ~1e decision makers decide to approve the proposed General r1an rmendrnents
which appears to be inconsistent with the R-RAQS, then it is their responsibility
to implement mitig·ation measures to offset the increased pollut:ion. The EIR
has identified mitigation measures, but to be more specific, examples of mitiga-
tion measures that should be made a condition of future project approvals Q include, but are not limited to:
City of Carlsbad -3-May 5, 1981
0 Projects should be laid out in a manner which facilitates transit
acc~ss, walking and bicycle trips as a substitute for motor vehicle
trips.
o Designate official transit and ridesharing pickup stations in activity
centers to provide convenience and notoriety for users. Stations
should be safe and comfortable, and include shelters and benches.
o Transit operators should be requested to coID.tilent on appropriate pro-
jects for their transit compatibility and make statements as to
whether transit is available to the project or not.
o Reduce commercial and industrial parking requirements. Developers
should commit to the operation of ridesharing programs and/or provide
transit and bicycle facilities. Restrict on-street parking near those
projects as may be required.
o Give development preference in developing growth management programs
to projects which are near transit routes or for which future routes
are planned; discourage development where transit is not available;
include transit in list of development point analysis.
o Require that a percentage of the parking spaces in the most desirable
areas be reserved as "preferential parking" for multi-occupancy
vehicles.
0 Coordination and cooperation betw.een the City of Carlsbad and CAL TRANS
Commuter Computer for the selection and construction of Park and Ride
·facilities.
Unless the EIR is revised to include a comparative quantitative a.nalysis of air
pollutant emissions attributable to the General Plan Amendment with that of the
existing plan, it is District staff's position that the EIR not be considered
to be adequate nor complete and in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
If you have any questions please call met at 565-360.9.
~ n ,.. ,,vt I(-:} .. , 'A
o~L'lLA_,., r i \. 10w.,v;~
JULIA M. QUINN
Environmental Management Specialist
JMQ:cr
cc: Wayne Blackard A-2-1, EPA
Dennis Goodenow, ARB
0
0
0
CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT
0 MEMORANDUM
0
0
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JOYCE CROSTHWAITE
ASSISTANT PLANNER
BATTALION CHIEF/FIRE MARSHAL
RANCHO CARRILLO EIR
DATE: 4-20-81
Having reviewed the subject document, I would like to
comment upon the factors influencing emergency response
times into the project. Two elements have the greatest
effect on response time. They are fire station location
and travel route.
As written, _the report is very vague on phasing of the
project. Since road construction is tied to phasing, this
leaves us somewhat up in the air as to how we will be able
.to get into the project area and how long it will take us
to get there.
I believe that as a part of Phase I, El Fuerte should be
completed from the existing dead end to Palomar Airport Road.
Also, depending upon which phase is Phase I, Carrillo Road
should be completed from El Fuerte to the area of construc-
tion. The construction of a new station near Alga and El
Fuerte would not affect this recommendation.
In general, I feel the report should indicate the phase
schedule and that the circulation improvements attached to
the phases should be re-evaluated, with thought given to
emergency vehicle response routes.
,Brian Watson/,.-v'
/ /
0
lsa
APPENDIX 2
ADDENDUM TO DRAINAGE CONTROL ANALYSIS
0
0
127S MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94103
TELEPHONE (415) 626-2070 Cable: LEEDSHILL
6 August 1981
Mr. Barry C. Bender
Rick Engineering Company
365 So. Rancho Santa Fe Road
San Marcos, CA 92069
Dear Barry: •
Thomas A. Lang
R. Hungett. CEO John A. Bischoff
Richard H. GIiman Thomas C. MacDonald
James s. Jenks Philip L. Wagner
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AUG 10 1981
On July 31 you asked LEEDSHILL to review and comment on the drainage
control impacts of a new development concept for Rancho Carrillo that
was prepared by The Planning Center in July and August, 1981 .. In
this new concept, essentially all of the major stream channels through_
the property will be left in their existing natural condi~ion as
O opposed to the former concept which was to fill most of the stream
channels and provide storm drains through the proper.ty. We have com-
pleted our review of the new concept and have the following comments
regarding drainage ·control. •
0
From a drainage control vievlpoint, the new development concept is not
significantly different from the concept that we analyzed for our
March 3, 1981 report, "Rancho Carrillo Drainage Study". In our March
report, two alternative drainage control plans, involving five deten-
tion basin sites, are described to illustrate how drainage control
might be achieved. The n~w-development concept allows provision of
detention basins at approximately the same five locations described
in the March report and the amounts of development upstream from the
five sites are approximately the same. Thus, the illustrative drainage
control plans presented in the March report are applicable to the new
development concept. •
From a theoretical viewpoint, use of the natural stream channels in
lieu of stormdrc1ins will incr<=ase the time of concGntration of storm-
wa:ter runoff and thereby reduce. the peak rate of runoff. However,
the predominant factor influencing the size of drainage control facil-
ities for Rancho Carrillo is runoff volume and not the rate of runoff.
Thus, the sizes of the detention basins and appurtenant works needed
under the new development concept will be essentially the same as
those presented in the March report.
The new development concept offers an additional alternative for the
control of drninagc that was not available under the former concept.
With the new concept, a detention basin could be provided on the
[lJE[E illJ ~ 00 ~ ~~
LE:£05,HILL AND JEWETT,IHC,
Mr. Barry C. -Bender
6 August 1981
Page 2
main drainage channel just upstream of the.major roadway that traverses
the property in the southea·st-northwest direction. There appears to
be space available at this location and provision of a basin at this
site could reduce the size of the basin needed at the outlet from the
development.
The foregoing comments are based on qualitative analyses of the new
development concept and not detailed quantitative· analyses using our
computer program. Detailed new analyses are not necessary at this
time because the drainage control_plans presented. in our March report,
which were prepared for. illustrative purposes,-are applicable to the
current development concept.
We ·suggest that you use this letter as ah amendment to our March report
to obtain permits and approvals that are needed at this stage of the
development. Should you have any questions, please call.
0
Very truly yours, 0
Thomas C. MacDonald
TCM: cd
cc: Terry Teeple
Arne Hamala
Don Woodward /
. Peter Templeton '.,
--------------------------.--------------------------
0
lsa
APPENDIX 3
REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AND COMMENTS
0
0
August 21, 1981
?1r. Mike Ryan
DAON Corporation
PO Box 2770
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr. Ryan:
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic factors related to the
Haster Plan for Carrillo Ranch in the City of Carlsbad. The study is based
upon information provided by the project.planners, discu~sions with City
Staff, previous studies and field reviews. A report was prepared by our firm
on March 16, 1981, which examined a previous land use and circulation plan Q for the site. Based upon comments received, the plan has been revised Bnd
this report supersedes our previous report.
0
PROJECT DESCRTPT fON
The project site is located on Palomar Airport Road easterly of El Camino
Rc~1l 1n t:bt! City o[ Carlsbad. /\ ma_jurlty of Lht: site i:; luc;1tt·d Houllil'i-l:,'
of Palomar Airport Road. Planned land use is residential except fur industrial
·uses northerly of e..xisting Palomar Airport Road and a commercial area on
the southwesterly corner of Melrose Avenue and Carrillo Way. The site is
currently undeveloped with Palomar Airport Road being the only existing
improved roadway. Development would include the construction of Melrose
Avenue, Carrillo Way and El Fuerte Street within the site boundaries.
Pa lom.:ir Airport Road .:ind Melrose Avenue are classified <1s Pr.iml! ArteriaL~
and Carrillo \fay and El Fuerte St1~cct as Secondary Arterials on the City
General Plan Circulation Element. The site and proposed roads are ill~strated
in Figure 1.
26:i1 EAST CHAPMAN AVUlUE • SUITE 110 e FULLE11TON, ,'.1\Ll~Of1Nl1\ ~1?C11 • 171.11 r171.7.1n1
.......... INDU~,TRIAL ............ ..........
NO SCALE
WESTON PRINGLE At~D ASSOClATES
CIAL
-----~COMMERCIAL
¥ \ RECREATION
\ _____ .... ,
_SITE. LOCA. Tf QfX_
1.
I
0
0
0
The plan includes the development of 2,998 residential units of various
-types. There are 33 acres of industrial uses and 10. 4. acres of commercial
uses also indicated on the plan. A seven acre park and eight acres of
commercial recreation are included on the plan. No sp_ecific uses for the
commercial recreation areas.have determined at this time.
TRIP GENERATION
-2-
In order to analyze the traffic factors related to the project, it is necessa~y
to estimate the number of trips that will be generated. Studies have been
conducted by governmental agencies and consultants to determine appropriate
trip generation rates for various land uses. The rates utilized in this study
are sumrnarizE!d in Table 1. Since definitive land use data are not available
for the commercial recreation areas, assumptions would generally preclude
major structures on these sites. It has been asswned that racquet ball courts
would be a potential use. In any case, these uses would be primarily serving
the adjacent areas and not impact the external road systems. No estimate has
been made for the ranch hourse site as no applicable trip generation rates are
available. This use would also have a negligible impact upon the street
system, By applying the trip generation rates to the proposed land use quantities,
estimates of daily and peak hour trip generation !or the project were obtained.
These estimates are summarized in Table 2. It is estimated that the project
upon completion would gent:r:it:c'. /•0,6/10 cbily trip L'nd:; wiLl1 ·l.160 on·111-i-i11g dut·)ng
the AM pcnk hour u11d 4.455 <lut"lng Llie l'M peak huur. As i.•; <li.sc.:u:,sl•d h1-•luw,
not all of these trips are external to the slte.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The next step in the analysis process is to qetermine a gG!ographic distribution
pattern for the'project gcner.:ited trc1ffic and assign the tr;iffic to the road
system. San Diego County Planning Or~:rniz.1t ion _1995 project ions were utilized
for industrial and commercial trips and Basic Employment, Retail Tr..ide
Employment and Retail Services Employment were utilized for resident i.11 trips.
·These patterns were further modified bused upon knowledge of the area and
professional judgement. Distribution pntterns were also developed for two
future conditions. First, upon project completion without the ultim.:ite
development of Carrillo Way and Melrose as shown in Fib1ur.e 2. ·, Second, a
\,
\
\
' ' ' ' ' " ' ~ )
NO SCALE /
I
I
_/
I
.I.
I / I I
I 11
I //
. CAR!;1LLO . I ;.--/ -----r
I
.LEGEND_
\
\
___ J
O~,~ -RESIDENTIAL
O"I~ -INDUSTRIAL
WESTON PRINGLf AND ASSOCIAiES
AIRPORT 35%(300/c.) RD.
:
J)JBEC__ll.OtlAL DLS.TR!Bt.LTI~
<;AT PRQJ_ECT COMPL£~
FIGURE 2
0
0
0
-J-
Table 1
• TRIP GENERATION RATES
RATES (l)
·LAND USE DESCRIPTOR DAILY AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT
Low Density Residential
(0-6 dwelling units per acre)
Medium Density Residential
( 6+ dwelling units per acre)
/·•
Community Commercial
Industrial
Commercial Recreation
Park
(1) Trip ends per descriptor
Dwelling 10.0
Unit
Dwelling 7.5
Unit
Acre 900. 0
Acre 80.0
Acre 300.0
Acre 6.0
Table 2
TRIP GENERATION
0.2 0.8 0.8 0,2
0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2
Negligible 45.0 45.0
11. 0 3.0 3.5 12.5
Negligible 7.7 28.7
Negligible 0.3
TRIP ENDS
LAND USE QUANTITY DAILY AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT
Low Density Rcsi<lcntl~l
Medium Density Residential
Community Commercial(l)
Industrial (l)
C • 1 R · (l) ommercia ecreation
Park
1484
15 L4
10.4
33.0
8.0
7.0
IA,800
11,400
9400
2600
2400
40
40,640
IUVi IUVi
305 91.0 910
470
365 1.00 115
60
965 2195 2740
(1) B.:.rned on estimated net acre<.1ge [ igures as opposed to the gross acreage
figures listt;!d in the proposed Rancho Carrillo Milster Plan. '
• ~95
305
470
415
230
1715
: .
distribution pattern representing ultimate planned buildout of the road
system as shown in Figure 3.
-4-
The distributions indicate a negligible percentage to Alga Road. Some traffic
will utilize Alga Road, as shown in Fi'5ures 4 and 5, whl ch i.s related to the
commercial and commercial recreation uses. Since the illustrated distributions
are for residential and industrial, they are not included on Figures 2 and 3.
,I·· Utilizing the distribution patterns illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, project
traffic was assigned to the road system. Daily volumes at completion of the
project are illustrated in Figu.re 4 and at ultimate development in Figure 5.
The volumes in Figure 4 include existing traffic and those in Figure 5 include
e~isting, project and adjacent development traffic. Other projects included were
Carlsbad Oaks and La Costa.
An additional adjustment was made in external traffic from the project. Since
so~e of the trips attracted to the commercial uses would be generated by the
project residenti~l uses, a reduction was made in external tradfic. It was
assumed that half of the trips attr:.icted to the commcn:lal are~1 at Carrillo Way
and Melro·se Avenue were generated in t be residential areas and would not .
be external to the site. This commercial area is described in thL~ Carlsbad
• General Plan as a Community Commercial area. The Genet·al Plan furthe1· dcsL:ribcs
_t.lw:;1• ll/H.•:: :1:; 11<•rvi11g· ,111 nr,•11 11p In 1111,• ;rnd ,,111•-li.11 r mi I,· 1·:1ili11::. 1)11 1 Ii,· h.1:,i,,
ol llti:; delini.Llu11, tlrl' ai;:;1u11plio11 tit.it lt;1II 111 tlw !rip:: ;i(Jl;l<.'tnl l.11 !Iii:;
commercial area arc J.oc.:<11. would be cc,11ser:-v;1t i.ve. I.I.: was fur:-thL'r asst.nue<l that
half of the commercial recreation and par:-k trips would be internal to the
site. This results in 23 percent of daily reiidential trips being internal;
23 percent of the PM peak inbound trips and 21 percent of the PM peak outbound
trips.
CIRCULATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS
The ability of the planned circulation system to accommodate the porject has
been evaluated on two levels. First, dai. l.y volumed capacity comparisons
have been made to provide a gen.eral ev,11uation. Seco11d, peak hour intersection
0
0
analyses have been completed on Melr:-ose Avenue at, Pcilomar:-Airport Road and Q
_Carrillo Way and at Palom.1r Airport Road ,.m<l the Inuustri.11. Collector to provide:
,125%(20%1
0 30'1.(40%)
NO SCALE
. .
~,-•-.. J
0, LEGEND
45%-.RESIDENTIAL
(50"/.)-INDUSTRIAL
WESTON PnJNGLE AND ASSOCIATES
---·••--lb:,-
A!RR)~_T 25%(20%) RD
.J)Jfi£crLOAIA.l 12/_STRIB!JTION
AT ULT1M4TE_
\
-5-
local streets are included on the illustration. Daily volumes arc indicated on
Figure 5 for the col_lect9r system at their connection to the ·artcri~1l system.
There are three locations where projected daily volumes on collectors, exceed
the 5,000 daily volume criteria for Collector Streets of the City. Each of
these streets should be designed with four lanes from the arterial to the
first intersection with a local street.
The internal street system is designed with no four-leg intersections wh.i.ch
is a desirable feature with respect to traffic safety. There are no cul-de-
sacs of excessive length and the internal street system is well planned.
Additional review of internal circulation, including intersection design should
be made during the tract map review.
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PHASING
Full development of Carrillo Ranch will occur over a period of time and
circulation facilities can be programmed to coincide with the phasing of
development. A phasing plan has been proposed by the site planners and has
been examined with respect to circulation needs. These phases are illustrated
in Figures 6 through 9. Development has been divided into five phases-identified
as Orange, Purple, Green, Blue and Red as indicated on the illustrations.
Each phas~ has been planned so that it could be developed individually
' and not depend on other phases for access or circulation. There are some key
issues related to circulation and phasing which· are discussed in the. following
paragraphs.
The realignment of Palomar Airport Road would occur as an initial element of
the Orange Phase. This would include full grading within the property and
the construction of two lanes of pavement with curb and gutter on the south
side and paved shoulder on the north. The full development of Palomar Airport
Road within the property is indicated as a part of the Purple Phase.
Traffic volumes on Palomar Airport Road nrc approaching the c~1pacity of 15,000
vehicles per day. Since the adjacent sections of Palomar Airport Road arc two
lane fncil it ies, there is no advant.'.lgc to widening to four lan0s within
the project. It is recommended that an additional condit.ion be considered
which would require the development of P~1lomui:-J\i.rport· Ro;1d when :.idjacent scgnwnts
are improved. Th is would rcsul t in a coo rd i1w ted program to improve Palomar
0
0
I
NO SCALE
I
• LEGEND. 0 25;000-EXIST.+ PROJE} T
TRAFFIC i
( 11,200)-EXIST. TRAFFIC
WESTON PRINGLE AND ;ASSOCIATES
19800 AIRPORT 19100
(11,200) (11,200)
~
J2ALL'L TB!JEFIC AT
PRa;~c_r__c_QMPLETION
RD
I
I I
I -
I •
32,aco 2s
• NO SCALE
WESTON PR!NGLE A~·JD ASSOCIATES
35,300 AIRPORT 34,100
' '
0
l!l~°zLM.IJTE_Dld!LL __ TBAEflC
INCLUDES EXISTING, PRoJr-)T,
ANO OTHER FARCELS TRAFPn;
-
FBGURE. f.
RO
-6-
a more refined evaluation. These analyses have been completed for conditions
upon completion of the project and at the ultimate development of the circulation
system.
Table 3 provides a comparison of maximum projected daily volumes and capacities
for the arterials serving the project. Rev.iew of Table 3 indicates that, on
a daily basis, the planned system will be a_dequate. It does indicate a potential
problem and the need to develop parallel routes to relieve Palomar Airport
I" Road. This conclusion has been found in other project analyses and is not
related solely to this project. For the ultimate condition, other projects
being planned in the area have been considered; however, this does not represent
ultimate build out of the City General Plan. The reference to ultimate is only
related to the road system.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the County of San Diego for
the San Dieguito Circulation Element, GPA 80-CE, contains year 2000 projected
daily volumes for Palomar Airport Road at Melrose Avenue. These volumes vary Q form 38,000 to 40,000 with the County proposed plan at 38,000. The report does
not include projections for Melrose Avenue. Ranch Santa Fe Road north of
Olivenhave is projected to have a demand of 34,000 with the County proposal.
Since Melrose Avenue splits fro'm Rancho Santa Fe Road just southerly of
()
Carrillo Ranch, it could be assumed that the year 2000 volumes on Melrose would
be somewhat less than 34,000. These prnjections also indic:1te thnt on :1 daily
vo_lumc/ capac i_ty compur.i.son basis, the p I ;11111cd ro:1d :;ysl. t'.111 wou:t d lw ;1dl•cp1:1 l L'.
STREET
Palomar Airport Road
Melrose Avenue
Carrillo Way
Table 3
DAILY VOLUME/CAPACITY COMPARISONS
Carrillo Ranch
CAPACITY (l)
l1S, 000 g~
4.'.i,000
20,000
PROJECT
COMPLETION
25,000
18,400
9,900
(1) City of Carlsbad Engineering D~partmcnt
(2) The City's value for Prime Arterials is 40,000 + vpd.
VOLUME
ULTIMATE
35,300
27,100
16,000
1-:
..
-7-
The operation of intersections is the critical factor in determining the adequacy
·, of a circulation system. For the Carrillo Ranch development, the inter!:ie"ct ions
on Melrose Avenue at Palomar Airport Ro.:1<l and Carrillo Way and on Palomar Airport
Road at the industrial collector are the critical points in the circulation
system. Intersection Capaci-ty Utilization (ICU) analyses have been completed
for these intersections at the levels of project completion and·ultimate road
system. (The ICU methodology is explained in Appendix A and the ICU/Level of
Service relationship in Appendix B). Analyses sheets for these intcrsc•ctions
0
contained in Appendix C and the ICU values are summar izcd in Table 4. As indicated
in Table 4, an operational pro pl em is anticipated at Palomar Airport Road and
Melrose Avenue. This further confirms the potential-problem identified in the
daily ~olume/capacity comparison. The major factor contributing to the potential
.capacity problem is traffic flows on Palomar Airport Road. These are a resutt
of area-wid~ development and the problem is not related to a single project.
As was mentioned previously, there is a need for a,dditional east-west routes
to relieve Palomar Airport Road.
Consideration was given to the impact of the proposed recilignment of. Los Monos
Drive as it would affect Rancho C,1rri.l Lo traff le. The results did not indicate
a 111~1jor· impruVl'lllL'llt ur thL! P,llum:1e Ai rpurt l{u,1d/Mvl.ru:;e i11Lerscct.iu11 sim.:c
INTERSECTION
I.CU SUMMARY
Carrillo Ranch
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue
Carrillo Way and Melrose Avenue
Palomar Airport Road and Industrial
Collector
PROJECT
COMPLETION
0.83
0.46
0.61
ICU
ULTIMATE
1.03
o. 72
0.73
The ICU analyses sheets in Append le C .:ilso indicate the required geometrics
for the intersections. Due to the rel.:itively hi.gh southbound right turn
volume on Melrose Avenue at Carrillo Way, provision of a. free right turn lane
is recommenc.le<l. The southbound left turn volume on Melrose Avenue at Carrillo
o-
Way would require two lanes. These geometrics can be accommodated within the Q
standard 106 foot curb-to-curb width.
-8-
0 The Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Avenue intersection does require specific
geometrics at both levels of road development. Table 5 lists the required
geometrics for this intersection. Due to the heavy eastbound right turn
movement, provisions for a free right turn lane are recommended. The required
lanes at ultimate. can be provided within a standard 106 foot curb-to-curb
width with no median, 10 foot le.ft turn lanes and 11 foot through lanes.
0
0
If 12 foot through lanes are desired, an 108 foot section would be required.
J:he.se additional lanes at ultimate conditions are required as a result of
anticipated growth in other traffic as can be seen by comparing ICU analysis
sheets. Changes in the extent of other development and/or planned road systems
could result in differing requirements at this intersection.
Table 5
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD/MELROSE AVENUE GEOMETRICS
Carrillo Ranch
LANE REQUIREMENTS MOVEMENT PROJECT C0!1PELTION ULTIMATE
Northbound Through
No·rthbound Right
~re rt hbound Le.ft
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Southbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Eastbound Le.ft
Westbound Through
Westbound Right
Westbound Left
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
l
0
2
O·
2 •
2
1
1
2
1
1
J
1
1
3
1
2
The Palomar Airport Road/Melrose intersection should be monitored as growth occurs
to insure that adequate capacity provisions are maintai~ed. Improved operations
could also be obtained by providing three through lanes on Melrose at this inter-
section. This would reduce the ICU vnlue to 0.94. Some traffic reduction may
also occur since no reduction was made for work trips generated externally that
would have destination within Rancho Carrillo, i.e. Carlsbad Oaks to Rancho.
Carrillo. As traffic volumes increase, some tri.p diversion may occur such as
..
-9-·
westbound left turn traffic may divert to Rancho Santa Fe Road. This study has Q
identified the potential problem as Palomar Airpor-t Road and Melrose and it
is -recommended that i.t be monitored so that these potential problems can be mitigate:d.
In addition to capacity considerations, intersection spacing along the arterials.
effect their opera~ion. The City of Carlsbad Street Design Standards require
2600 feet between intersections on Prime Major Arterials and 600 feet on
Secondary Arterials. These standards are satisfied on Palomar Airport Road,
;-:
Melrose Averiue and Carrillo Way. The southerly two intersections on El Fuerte
Street do not satisfy these criteria and should be adjusted as required.
The plan. includes the realignment of Palomar Airport Road through the site.
T_his realignment results in improved horizontal alignment and safety provisions.
As was discussed previously, Palomar Airport Road is a critical east-west
arterial in the region and every effort should be made to provide a high level
of service. The proposed realignment accomplishes these goals within the
project.
l'he need for intersection sig11al.iz~1t.ion was rev it•wed to dl!terrninc needs
resulting from the development of Carrillo Ranch. Traffic signal warrants
have been adopted hy the Federal Hi.ghw:1y Administration ancl C,11.Trans. Tlw:,;c
warrants are based upon the eighth highest hourly volumes in u day. ft Ls
generally assumed that the eighth hi.ghest hour i:_; 60 ))L'l"CL•11L or the pl';1k h11111·.
and the pe<.1k hour is 1.0 per.cent of the dnily traffic. Tl111s, t.hL• s [gnal warLrnts
can be expressed in terms of peak ho11r and daily traffic as shown in Table 6.
Comparison of daily volumes indicated on Figure 5 and ihe warranti in Table 6
indicates that signalization will be required at the following intersect ions:
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue
Palomar Airport Roa<l and Industrial Collector
ML!lrose Avenue and Carrillo Way
Melrose Avenue and Collector
ON-SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSTS I
O·
The on-site circulntion system was reviewed with respect to traffic operations Q
and safety. :?igure 5 illustrates the b.:isic on-site circulation system. Not all
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0 0.
Table 6
SIGNAL WARRANTS
Warrant Minimum Urban Traffic Volumes Entering Inter5ection -;'r·k
I Major Street (Both Approaches) Ninor Street (Highest Ap?roach)
1 Lane 2+ Lanes 1 Lane 2+ Lanes
I Daily Eighth Peak Daily Eighth ! Peak Daily Eighth Peak Daily Eighth Peak i Highest Hour Highest I Hour Highest Hour Highest r.our I I I Hour Hour I Hour Hour i I
! i
! ! I
I !
Nininun ! 8,000 SQQ;': 830 9,600 6001:) 1,000 2,400 150;': 250 3,200 200*: 330
Vehicular i I I I l i I
Volune .,
I I ! . i ! l I
i 0 !
Interruption 12,000 7501: 1,250 1_4,400 90()i: : 1,500 1,200 75·1: 130 1,600 100:: 170
of Continuous i
i
Traffic I . ! . !
-t: Source: CalTrans and Federal Highway Administration adopted signal warrants.-
** Right turns are not included when calculating approach volume.
-11-
Airport Road within the area.
Melrose Avenue is indicated to be constructed from both the north and south
in conjunction with adjacent development. Temporary local connections to
Melrose are planned to serve development which would be closed when Melrose
becomes a through street. This is an acceptable condition with respect to
traffic operations and safety. The plan indicates that Melrose w·ill be
9-ompleted as a through street when 1500 units are developed. Signalization
of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue would occur with the initial
construction of Melrose Avenue.
The overall phasing plan provides access to development on an independent
basis so ·that no phase is restricted by an adjacent phase. Internal loops
' are provided· to provide adequate internal circulation as development occurs.
It•is recommended that circulation provisions be examined as tentative tract
maps are submitted.
SUMMARY
This study has examined_the traffic factors related to the proposed Carrillo
Ranch development. Estimates hav.e been made of trip generation and project
traffic• assigned to the road system. The road system has been analyzed both
at project completion and.development of the ultimate planned regional road system.
ln gL:llL'r..1.l, the anaLysL':,; linVL'. indieatl'<l tll.iL hot.Ii exten1;1l .-111d !11tL·1·11.-1l l'i1·~·ul.-1l i,1J1
systems are adequate to accommodate the proj cct. Rccommen<lutions h~1ve· been
developed for the circulation system and are described under MITIGATION MEASURES.
Principal findings of the study are the following:
1. The project at full development will generate 40,640 daily trip ends
with 3,160 occurring during the AM peak hour and 4,455 during the PM peak
hour.
2. Based upon C..irlsb::ic.l General Plan tlefinit.Lom,, it was :.:issumec.l that
approxirniltely half of the comoll!rci.:il trLps will originate within the
project and not impact the external road system.
0-
0
0
0
0
I; Ii
1 I' ,--
-12-
3. The pl.:innc.:4 rcw<l system with the except ion of Palom~ir Airport Ro,11J
is adequate to accommodate the project traffic as well as other development
in the aren.-
_4. All principal intersections will operate at an acceptable Level of Ser.vice
upon completion of the project.
Su At ultimate development of the road system, potential capacity probl~s _
were identified at Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue.
6. Intersection spacing on all arterials conforms to City Standards with
the recommended mitigation measures.
7. On-site circulation was found to be adequate with respect to· traffic
operations and safety with the recommended improvements.
8. The ·proposed phasing plan provides adequate independent_·vehiculnr
circulation and access for each phase.
MITIGATION MEASURES .
The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of
the proposed development.
1. A free r lght turn lane and <luul left tun, l~me:; i:;huu l<l be pt.-LW ldcd foi:
southbound traffic on Melrose Avenue at Carrillo Wny.
2. The intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Helrose Avenue should
have the geometrics indicated in Table 5.
3. Intersect ion spacing along El Fuerte Street should be mod ificd to prov i.d~
a minimum of 600 feet between intersections.
4. Traffic signals will be warranted on Palomar Airport Road at Melrose
Avenue nnd the Industri:il Collector and on Helrose Avenue .:it Carrillo Way
and the Rcsidcntinl Collector.
. .
• 5. The three collector streets with daily volumes in excess of 5,000
(Figure 5) should have provisions for four lanes from the arterial to
the first local intersection.
6. The internal street system inc1.uding intersections and access routes
should be examined when tentative tract nwps are available.
7. .Consideration should be given to a provision that would require. the
improvement of Palomar Airport Road to more than two.lanes when adjacent
segments __ are improved.
, s·. ,Circulation and access requirements should be re-examj_ned when tentative
trac.Lmaps are submitted.
* * * * * * * *
··we·trust that this analysis will be of assitance to you and the City of Carlsbad
in the development of Carrillo R.inch. I ( you h.:ivc any questions or require
additional information. plcnse contnct us.
Rcspc.~ctfully H11hmittcd,
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES '.. /1 ~ .,, • / . / /
ff#.effv4~/ ·({__
Weston S~ Pringle, P.E.
·Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 and TR565
cc: Mr. Peter Templeton
WSP:cd
119530
-13-
0
0
0
0
0
'(_"'""\ Tl-E t ,f'.:.J fvV--t~ C;VaN:-ci<, ,,
. • :-·--·-···---:-·:---
.. ,·, • .I.
-·:'lo -~oo---,..,.j· -·-~~ ,,-,,,~
0
FIGURE 6
0
, ...
I .. --·•
0
G~Rt~ co CTi'\/lffi ' .. . ----:-----··----·-.. -.. .. ' .. -·-----------. ..,,,, .. 110 N,O 1000
.~~
& Daon Corporation
0
FIGURE 7 •
.0
0
' ►:·, •·· ...... ·, ............ ,.. ' .......... -: •.•.•~-4.•' ...... ..., •• _ ••• ,., ..
~ ... ,\ .... ,. .. , .... _.,.,, ... ,. .,.,, v .. -
• •. •.•, ... , ' , .. ,.. ~ ,_ ..... , ,. ,11• ',·r,. •· ,., ,_.,_., ..., .... , .... ,,-,.: >• -· ...... •r. •. ,
0
[~
• (~~?. J.txN'-N'.; 00a:NJm .. , ----. ---· ---
: .. •• "''° u,n -~~ . .,...,..._..,,..,.__
& Daon Corporation
FIGURE 8
I
! I 1·
..
0
IB5Dllil@
~:im=G'"f'i"'iF1111"1"ll~ 0
The Meister Company, Inc.,
[I ~ Q,:)n-f 1 ,~~~\~-.:..'Hr.; ~v C&iftl< I fr ------_j __ .... _.. ___ .,
,ru "'° k-O~=r'\ .~~
& Daon Corporation
FIGURE 9
0
0
0
APPENDlX A
EXP!.J\NJ\T ION OF I NTEl~SECTHlN Ci\l'i\C l'l'Y UTU.JZJ\TION ----·-·-·· -. ----·-•·----. -·-.. " ......... _____ --·-·-··--··-· ·--··-----------------
Th.I.:! cup..1city of a sLreeL ls nearly alway!:l gre~1tl!1· !J,!l\vt::L'll i11Lersi.:ctions anJ less
at intersections. The reason for this is that tlw traffic flows continuously
between intersections and only part of the time at intersections. To study
intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity Utilization
( ICU) has bec.,n developed. ICU ,1n.:11ysis consists of (a) determining the pro-
por.L 1011 of ::;ign..11 Limt· lll!edc·d to Sl'r.Ve li,1L'.11 confl [L:Ll11g lllllVl'lll,•nt, (b) sw1uning
the t.iml.!s for the movements, and (c) ·comparing the lot.:11. time rL!qulred tu the
time available. Fot' example, if for north-south tt'affic the not'thbound traffic
is'i,ooo vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 800 vehicles ~er hour,
and the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, then
the northbound traffic is critical and requires l,000/2,000 or 50 percent of
the signal time. If for the east-west traffic, 40 percent of the signal time
is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 40, or 90 percent.
When left-turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. As ICU's
approach 100 percent, the quality o~ traffic service approaches Level of Service
E, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87, Highway R1..~s~arch
Berard, 1965.
Level of -Service is used to describe qua] ity of tr,1ffic flow. Levels of S12.rvice
A to C operate qui.Le Wl'l 1. LL'Vt•l or Svrvin.• I) l:; Lypica-1 ly l.hl' Ll·vvl nl" S,·rvicl'
fl.lr whh:h an urb;111 :·,Lrvvl is dL.•~;ig11l'd. Lt·vt•I uf S,·1·vi<.:1..• E ii; tlw m;1xlmu111
volume a facility can acconunu<laLl' aml wit.I. r.e::;ult in posslble ::;topp.:.igt..:s or
momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when ,1 facility is ovl!rloo.<led
and is characterized by stop-and-go traffil: with stoppages of long durat.lon.
A description of tbc various levels of service appl'ars on the following page.
The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the sign~l
b; ide.i]ly t:iml!<l. i\lLhuu)•,h c,ilculaling ICU lor ,111 1111Hig11.-i![zt-d inlt.•rsl't:Lions i:;
110L v,ilic!, L.he pn:i-;u111pll(l11 is t.li.it. .:i si.g11al ca11 be in:;L1ll1..·d :rn<l Lill' c;ilc.:uL1l.io11
1,d10w:; whether Lhl! g1;.~omc·Lr1L:s ,lrl!. c.:ipal>le or ,H:com11111d;iLi11g t.hc• expectL•d vulunll'.
ll iH po:wlol.e tu liavl' ;.111 JCU well bl:luw 1.0, Yl~l l1nvl'· St.•vcre LC':1rri.l'. Cllll!\l'Sli,,n.
Thh; would occur l>ecaust.' one ur more movL!me11l:-; • 1s nut. getti11g enough tlnll.' Lo
satisfy its demand with excess time existing on othet' moves.
Capacity is often defined in tt.!rns of roadway width. However, standard lanes
have approximately the same capacity whethL!r they arL' 11 foot or 14 foot l:.mcs.
Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or left-turn lant?. h.:.1s
a capacity of approximately 1600 vehicles per lane. per hour or green time?. The
Highway Capacity Manual found capacity to be about 1500 vcl1icles per lane per
hour of green for through lanes and 1200 VL!ld.cles ·pl~r lmw pet' hour of green
for left-turn .lanes. However, Lht..: capacity manua.l. Ls basl!J on prc-1965 datc1,
and recent studies and 1>l>~Hirvatl11ns show liigl1L"1· capdcities in the southern
California area. !•'or Lllis sLuJy ;1 l'apacity or 1600 vd1ic:les per lane has bi..:en
,1ssumed for through Lrarri.c, and 1600 Vl'hi.cLes pL•r 1;1111..i for turning lanes.
..
Al'PENIHX ll
0
u:v1,;1. tJI,' S 1mv I ci,; IJESCR I l'T I tlN!-i
------.--------------------,:------:-------i
Level of
Service
A
B
·c
D
F
TRAFFIC QUALITY
Low volumL':-;; hl.gh i;pe1.·ds; :_;p1..'l!d r11iL n·sLrlcll'd
by oLIJL!r vchlcl.c:-;; al.I i;lgn.i.l cycl.ci; dl'ar
with nu vehlc]e8 waiting thniugh mon• than
one signal cycle.
Operating speeds beginning to be affected
by other traffic·; between one· and ten percent
of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal
cycle during peak traffic periods.
Operating speeds and maneuverability closely
controlled by other traffic; between il and
30 percent of the signal cycles have one or
more vehicles which wait through more than
one signal cycle during peak traff le periods;
recommend1..·d ideal design st,mdanl.
Tu l.l:t:ab le op1..\rating sp1..~t•th;; Jl L.o 70 1wn:ent
of tlw signa.l. cycles haVl! lllW or mun) v1..•hl.cl1..~s
whld1 w,ilt through mun: Llian one i:;lgnal cycle
during peak traffic periods; often used as
design standard in urban areas.
Cc1pil<'. j Ly·; t tw max im11111 l r:1 ff ( l: V(l ( 111111' an j Ill 1'1"--
/ll:<:L f 011 i:a11 ;11·1·om111od.111•; rl':ilrfc·lvd :rpvc.'d:,;
7L Lo IOU pen.:e11L ol the signa.l. eyclL·s lwve
one or more vehicles which wait through •
more than one signal cycle during peak
traffic periods.
Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages
of long duration; traffic volume and traffic
speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be
Jess th.:in the volume which occurs at Level of
Service E.
(a) ICU (lntl!rsect.i.1>11 Capac i.ty Util.i.z;1t ion) al various h•vel of
Nominal Range
of ICU (a)
0.00 -().()()
0.60 -0.70
0.70 -0.80
0.80 -0.90
0. !JO -I . Oll
Not Meaningful
Hl.'l·vicl' vvr:-:u:: lvvl'I t>I :,l·r·vie1• E I,,,. 111·!,;111 ;1rl,·1·Lil :,t rv,·l::.
0
:->ourcl~: ll¼liw;r_y __ C;11,;_1c i Ly M;wua !_, II ig(l\.J:IY RL:Sl'dl"t.:h 130;1 rd :->p1..·c L1 I Rl'p<t l"l B7' 0
Natio11;il. /\L'.;1d1..!my ,,r Sciences, \.J;1shin~',t,rn D.C.; J.965, p;1gc 3~0.
---------
0
APPENDIX C
INTERSECTION ANALYSES
0
0
..
Intersection __ M_e_l_r_o_s_e_A_v_e_n_u~e_&_C_a_r_r~i~l~l~o_W~a~y __________ _
Carrino Way
LEGE't.'D
ET
100
1
1600
0.07
Volume (V)
Lanes
QJ
(JJ
0 ,...
rl QJ
~
EL
150
1
1600
o. 09*
120
l
1600
0.08
Capo.city
vie
(C)
SR
510
1
130
l
o. 08>'<
NL
ST
500
2
3200
0.16>~
150
?
3200
0.07
NT
D
t
SL
450
2
200
0.14
20
1.
1600
.07
NR
5
1
1600
0.07
1./L
N = Northbound; S = Southbound; E = Eastbound; W
T = Through; R = Right; L = Left
= Westbuun.l
* Critical movement included in ICU summation
Le ft Turn Pockl't
Lengths
Move-Vo lum1:1
mcnt
NL
SL
EL
WL
,;,rr
125
1
1600 o. os,·~
Len~th
(feet)
~I._____ -
Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICV)
Movement V/C
NL 0.08
ST 0.16
M .. 0.09
WT 0.08
YELLOW 0.05
ICU 0.46
I-
ULTIMATE ROAD SYSTEM
INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND CAPACITIES
_,.,
r 11 ~er sect ion _ ___;M..:.:e:..:1:.:r:...:L:...:l s~.· e=-· ...:A.:.v:...:c::..:n~t~1 ~:..' ...:&:..· ...:C:..:' ~.:.:1t::..:· r:..i:..1:..:1:..:t:..l ;_W:..:~1 y'------------
.,.-:
(l)
::l ~
(l)
~
(!J
C/l
0
1-l
.--{
(!J ::,::
Carrillo Way
LEGEND
ET
190
1
1600
0.12
EL
270
1600
0.17
170
1
1600
0.11
Volume (V)
Lanes
Capacity ·(c)
V/C
SR
785
1
0.49
120
1
0.08*
NL
ST
985
2
320Q
0.31>'<
295
2
3200
0.09
NT
D t
SL
375
2
0.12
'JO
]_
0.01
NR
WR
• 105
1600
0.07
N = Northbound; S = Southbound; E = Eastbuun<l; W
T = Through; R = Right; L = Left
-Wc•stboun.l
* Critical movement included in ICU summntion
Left Turn l'ocket
Lengths
Move-V l) 1 Ullll)
mcnt
NL
SL
EL
WL
WT
175
1
1600
0.11>'<
LL~n~ th
( foe t)
Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU)
Movement V/C
ST 0.31
NL 0 08
WT 0 . .11
EL ll.17
I l~LLU\1/ 0. 0:l
IC!! o.n
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES
r-si4¥iMiiii"':!f.G>l!n:s\r,-ii#fi4/64&W¥\'l,31"1'/iiWW'ri=" • fM~fA.'E.~tst¼k¥5W P! !iffih•f.!...i#rifflMN
A1' PROJECT C.:OMPLET LON
INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND CAPACITIES
-'*-7
1 n te rs cc t il,n _P_a_l_o_m_a_r_A_i_r.:._p_o_1:_t_R_u_:i_d_&_l _n_tl_u_s_t_r_-L_·1_l _A_c __ c· e_• s_· ._s______ i
,, .. ·
(I)
(I)
(l.) u cJ <t:
r-l
C1l •r-1 I-<
-1.J
(I)
;::l
'"Cl
i::
.H
Palomar Airport
EL
□~. ~
ET~-
LEGEND
1
J.600
0.07
Volume (V)
Lanes
Capacity
V/C
(C)
SR
I
..
1600
0.18>'<
NL
ST
NT
□
t
SL
1600
0.09
NR
N = Northbound; S = Southbound; E = Eastbound; W
T = Through; R = Right; L = Left * Critical movement included in ICU summation
Le ft Tllrn· l'ockL•t
Lengths
Move-Volume Length
ment • (feet)
NL
SL
EL
h'L
Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICV)
Movement v/c
NL 0.18
ET 0.31
WI. 0.07
YELLOW o oc;
tCU 0.61
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES
j
' '•
Palomar Airport Road
LEGEND
ET
2005
3
0. 42>'< 105
1
.[).07
JOO
1
160
0.19>'<
NL
I\ I
\ / ' /\ / '\\.
/ \ I/
-=====:-=-=====-=--=---=---=-=--=:-::-.-~--===-=-
9'.i
1
0.07
NR
65
1 (1()()
0. 07,·,
1915
3
~ ._____I ----
Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU)
Hovemc?nt V/C
NL 0.19
l:.T o. !+2
WL 0.07
'il~LLUW 0.05
ICU 0. 73
-W-~~~~i@3&mtt.iz.:?txi½¥44ii%f¥.-1•™•:ff§~¼-~Hi?WAt44--&PF~"mw¥S-¼Wf!1.$f!¥~~
• "-' AT PROJECT COMPLETION di
INTERSECTION VOLU~ms AND CJ\PI\CITIES
Palomar J\ir11oi:t Road & Mc-lrose Avenue Intersection ______ _:_ ___________________ _
Palomar Airport Road
QJ ::,
C:
QJ
~
QJ
Cll
0 ~
.--!
QJ ;:;::
EL
ST
SR
D
t
SL
WR
Le ft Tui:n Pocket
Lengths
Move-Volume _Length
ment (feet)
NL
SL
EL
WL
ET ~ 995
2 ~ ·-={
WT \ . 445
LEGEND
329.Q_ o. 31,~ 930
Volume (V)
Lanes
Capacity (C)
V/C
960
2
3200
0. JO-':
NL
540
2
3200
0.17 ,':
WL
160
NR
NT
N = Northbound; S = Southbound; E = Eastbound; W = WL!stbnun.l
T = Through; R = Right; L = Lc[t * Crit.ical mnvemt!nt incl11dcd in [CU summation
3200
0.14
--r-CJ
Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU)
Movl'mL'llt V/C
NL 0 30
ET 0.31
\~L 0.17
YELLl>W 0.05
lCll 0.83
l.,,.
I
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES tj
·--------•=•~~~a-·.-J1
.
r~•,wm~~«•=----, .. -7
' INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND CAPACITIES ·
C i
0
,, ..
Palomar Airport
□~-
ET
1655
0.34>':
~
LEGEND
Volume (V)
Lanes
(1.1 :, t:: Cl.I
~
(1.1
Cll
0 l,-1
,-(
(1.1 ;:;:;
EL
50
I
1600
0.03
!190
l
1600 . l
Capacity (C)
V/C
ST
825
2
3200
Q, 26>'C
SR
45
1
1 00
0.03
1.11 ',·:,
1600
0.09
' NL 270
2
3200
0.08
NT
D t
SL
185
1600
0.12
1600
0. 18
NR
WR
285
1
1600
0.18
920
2
0. 29,•:
\JI.
N = Nbrthbound; S = Southbound; E = Eastb,Jund; W = W1.•Htbo1m.l
T = Through; R = Right; L = Left * Critical movement includl!d in ICU t;umm[J.tion
Le ft T11rn 1'1,cket
LL•ngths
Move-V,,lum,~ L1.:n~th
ment
NL
SL
EL
WL
t.JT
1030
3
0. 21
(feet)
Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU)
Movement V/C
ST 0.26
NL 0.09
ET 0. 3-'.i
1-JL 0.29
YELLOW 0.05
ICll l 01
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
1200 ELM.AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
□ Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
□ Building Department
(714) 438-5525
■ Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
([itp of ([arl.sbab
□ Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714) 438-5811
□ Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
September 8, 1981
.Annette Sanchez
Larry Seeman Associates, Inc.
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525
Newport Beach CA 92660
Subject: Rancho Carrillo :Master Plan EIR
The developer is proposing the following changes to the subject master plan:
1.
2.
Relocate Palomar Airport Road to the northerly boundary
on a straighter alignment.
Relocate Melrose Avenue by moving its intersection with
Palomar Airport Road one-half mile west.
J. Change the land use designation at Palomar Airport Road
and Melrose Avenue from connnercial to planned industrial.
The City of Carlsbad feels that all three of the above changes are justified
and will have a beneficial effect on the environmental for the following
reasons:
1. The realignment of Palomar Airport Road is a safer and more effi-
cient design. Even with the relatively low existing traffic
volume, we have been experiencing accidents on the street in-
volving the sharp curves.
2. The realignment of Melrose Avenue (and the deletion of one inter-
section) increase the intersection spacing so that it meets City
Standards which the previous plan did not. Steep grades required
on the prev.ious plan have also been reduced. The current design
will provide a more efficient operation.
J. The relocation of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Palomar
Airport Road also provides a good alignment in meeting Melrose
Avenue to the north in the City of Vista. The previous plan
would have required a sharp reversing curve.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annette Sanchez
September 4, 1981
Page Two ( 2)
4. Elimination of the commercial designation at the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue will reduce the traffic
generation from the area. More importantly, however, is that the
commercial designation is incompatible with the intersection of
two prime arterials. City Standards do not permit access to pro-
perty from prime arterials and any streets must be at least a
half-mile from the intersection. Should a developer succeed in
getting access onto Palomar Airport Road in spite of the Standard,
it would have a significant adverse impact on both the safety and
capacity of the street.
Sincerely,
RICHARD H. ALLE~, JR.
Principal Civil Engineer
RHA:ls
c: Joyce Crosthwaite, Planning Department
Pat Tessier, Planning Department
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
D Building Department
(714) 438-5525
D Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
D Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714) 438-5611
D Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
September 9, 1981
Weston Pringle and Associates
Traffic and Transportation Engineering
2651 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 110
Fullerton, California 92631
Dear Mr. Pringle:
I am returning a copy of a traffic report the city received on
September 8, 1981 which is dated September 1, J981. This
traffic report does not reflect the current General Plan
Amendment application.
During our conversation on September 4th, you indicated that you
would send a copy of the traffic report dated August 21st and
received by the city on August 25th. our copy had several pages
missing.
Also, based on the review by the Carlsbad Engineering
Department, we have the following comments on the traffic
report. They should be resolved immediately. They are:,
--
1. The accuracy of the quantities listed on page 3, Table
2 for the various land uses is questioned. The traffic
generation of the project is directly proportional to
these quantities and those listed are much lower than
the previous report resulting in 13,200 fewer trips.
0
0
2. The realignment of Palomar Airport Road occuring with
the beginning of the Orange Phase is good unless the
Purple Phase precedes it. It should be kept in mind
that a number of projects to the west have already been
approved and that Palomar Airport Road will be widened
concurrent with their development. It is recommended
that Palomar Airport Road be initially constructed with
four lanes at the intersection with Melrose Avenue and
taper to two lanes to the east. When the collector
street connects to Palomar Airport Road, the four lanes
should be extended through this intersection. Q
0 3. There is an apparent gap in the text between page 5 &
6.
4. There is also a gap between page 9 and 11 (page 10 is a
Table). Most of the text on the phasing is missing
and, therfore, comments on phasing cannot be made at
this time.
5. On page 7, Table 4, the first intersection should read
"Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue".
6. On page 12, mitigation measure number 1: The
reference:to dual left turn lanes should be deleted.
This is not justified by the ICU analysis in Ap~
pendix c.·
7. On page 13, mitigation measure number i: Consideration
should also be given to improve Palomar Airport Road to
four lanes at such time as the City Engineer determines
it is warranted. Additionally, a milestone should be
determined for when full improvements to 6 lanes should
be accomplished.
We would appreciate a prompt response.
Q Yours very truly,
JAi."'1:ES C. HAGAMAN
Planning Director
0
By rr--.'+-;.....,,:,'-b~~--~:...c....;;_.=--"---
anning Department
Enclosure
JCH/JC/nar
cc: Susan Lard
William Foley
Daon Corporation
Carrillo Associates
Aetna Capital Company
Carrillo Rancho Partnership
Tarnituzer, Hamilton, Hunter
._,
,..·/ W!+!~
:~_-: w~um Ptw<gee cu«1 A~~o.ciciw o
~---'---~-----,-------~
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
September 14, 1981
Ms Joyce Crosthwaite
Advance Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008.
DearMs Crosthwaite:
This is in reply to your letter·of September 9, 1981, relative to our traffic
report for Rancho Carrillo. A copy of our August 21, 1981, report was sent
to you on September 10, 1981, which has all pages in the correct order. We
were not aware at the time of_your previous request that the City had not
accepted the last revision of the plan. In addition, we would like to
apologize for the mix-up in page numb~ring of our August 21, 1981, report.
I reviewed the comments from your Eng ineer.ing Department contained in your
letter with Richard Allen on September JI+, 1981. The fol Lowing responses :1rl'
based upon your letter and the discussion and are numbered to corn'srond wi.th
1. We cannot respond to the accuracy of the quantities in Table 2 of
our report; however, we understand that this is being undertaken by The
Planning Center by way of an additional exhibit. In addition to the
change in land use quantities, total trip generation was reduced by two
factors. First, the elimination of the commercial along Palomar Airport
Road reduced total trip generation by approximately 9,000. Second, the
rates for residential uses were reduced to reflect rates utilized for
other projects in the area.
2. The realignment and full improvement of Palomar Airport Road within the
project is a part of the Purple Phase. This insures the realignment of
Palomar Airport Road with either the Purple or Orange Phases. We have
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • 1714) 371-2931
0
0
0
0
0
suggested in Mitigation Measure 7, pagi= 13, of our report that widening
of Palomar Airport Road be coordinated with the widening of adjacent
segments. An additional condition could be included that provided
for the. review of the need to widen Palomar Airport Road with the
submission of tentative tract maps. It should be noted that full
improvement of Palomar Airport Road adjacent.to Rancho Carrillo cannot
be completed without cooperation and participation by the City and
the owners of the adjacent property.
3 and 4. These concerns refer to the incorrect page numbering of
our original submittal.
5. There is a typo error in Table 4 which has been corrected and a
revised page 6 is enclosed.
6. The statement that dual left turn lanes on Melrose at Carrillo Way
are not justified by the ICU analysis is correct. Due to the projected
left turn demand of 375 vehicles, we feel strongly that dual lanes
should be provided. This position is supported by the CalTrans Traffic
Manual which recommends dual lanes for volumes greater than 300. In
addit.Lon, future usagv or Me1ro1;e <'nuld i_1w1·1•,1sL• to the point wlwrr•
-2-
dual lefts wou.ld be a factor in the [CU arwLyt-;es. Since the1~e .is ;1<lcquate
right-of-way for t:ht• <ltwl lci'ti;, WL~ 111ainL:1i11 uur re1'.1>1UITIL'i1d,1t i.1>1'1 lh;1L tlwy
be provided.
7. This concern is covered in response number 2.
_In addition to the comments in your letter, Richard Allen expressed two concerns
verbally which are discussed below.
The pha~ing plan indicates that Melrose will be completed through the site
when 1500 units are developed. Completion of Melrose through the site
is related to numerous factors which cannot be quantified at this time.
An additional condition is suggested which would allow review of the need
for the completion of Melrose as tentative tract maps are submitted ..
-3-
A concern was also expressed rel.at ive to th_e phasing of the construction 0
of the connector through the Purp.Le ..ireu to Palomar Airport Road. This
is now a part of the Purple Phase. Review of the Orange Phase_ (Figure 6)
indicates that the connector would not provide access to residential
areas until construction of area F-1. It is therefore recommended that
the connector be constructed with area F-1 which is equivalent to
approximately 1,000 units.
We trust that these responses will be of assistance to you in your review
of this project. If you have any further questions or require additional
information, please contact us.
Respe~tfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES
~ / /' g.:/ ,,.,... ...
~ .• ·'-~,,,,,:,--/// .. • {/ . / .• .,,,-.• ~u-;,,-----~ . / /
_Weston S. Pringle, P.E~
cc: Susan Card
William Foley
DAON Corporat.lun
Carrillo Associates
WSP:cd
/19530
Aetria Capital Company
Carril In R:,nch P:1rtnvr::l1ip
Tarnituzer, ll,1mi.LtD11, Ilu11Lcr
0
0
0
0
DATE:
TO: : .
FR0M:
MF.MORANDUM
September 15, 1981
Joyce Crosthwaite,. Pl~in~ Department ~~0
Richard .Allen, Engineering Department t.
SUBJECt: rnANGES TO-REVISED RANCHO CARRILLO TRAFFIC REPORT
DATED -AUGUST . 21:;. 1981
-·.· :/'\{. -··
The following changes in~lude thbs~ r'equested in my m~o of September 8,
1981 and a few. additional.. All of the changes below were. discussed with
-Wes Pringle today by telephone and will be included in a revised report.
(Paragraph numbers-refe~:.to Joyce Crosthwaite' s letter to Wes P"ringle,
dated September_ 9,. :~98_1}). •. •• .,,,... . . __ .. •• 'f/---
·-;:··,· ., . .\---' ;. ~;:~;./~?}\\)\::~ : . _·i•,: .. • .
• 1~.--. ··Land use quantities':/ MJ.st be addressed by client.
~ : .. , . ,· • zf. ·_Palomar Airport'Road wideniD,g: -.-Full widening will occur with con-
., -. • struction int.lie· Purple phase. . . •• • •
3. & A; Apparent gap ,iri ':text!_ Resolved.: Pages were out of order.
5. Table 4: Will be corrected; ), ','
6. Dual left tum lanes: Not required by ICU analysis but they will be
left in. Wes Pringle feels this good traffic design due to large num-
ber of turns being made. •
7. Palomar Airport Road wi·dening: , . A mitigation measure will be added to
evaluate Palomar Airport Ro~d·when -tentative maps are submitted and
require additional widening when warrantedo
Additional comments on Melrose Avenue phasing:: The report says this street
will become a throt:1glr street when_ 1500 tm.its are constructed. One additional
comment and one.mitigation measure will be added to make this statement
acceptable. The :text will be revised to say that no phase shall coritain.
more than 500 tm.its without a second access .. The mitigation measure will .
• .• ·-:
--~ -~-;
• -; r-~~· ... _:· ~
say that the phasing of ·Melrose .Avenue will be evaluated when tentative maps ·-·· •
are submitted and constructed as a through street when warranted. .·:·-:f;::f::,,, :-
With the above corrrrnents incorporate~.~s outlined above, the traffic renort
is acceptable tothe EngineeringDepar.tment.: . In the event that the land area
listed for development nrust be increased, the traffic generated will in-
crease and this change should be incorporated in the traffic report. It is
not expected that any increase will have a significant effect or alter any
conclusion stated in the report, however.
RHA:ls
9/15/81
•. \_.'•:;-; .. -·-.•.
Q c: Pat Tessier
----------------------
0
0
0
APPENDIX 4
REVISED NOISE STUDY
lsa
--------------------------------------------------
80/234 R
0
0
0
EVALUATION OF EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE
AND GENERAL PEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS
FOR THE RANCHO CARRILLO PROPOSED
RES-IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Daon Corporation
P.O. Box 2770
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
-------~ John S. Leyerle
Senior Engineer
-:::-c---:----=:----::::,---;----::-----O t to C. ~ixler,Jr.
Manager of Engineering
1833 East 17th Street, Suite 103 • Santa Ana. California92701 • 714/547-5196
I'
80/234
REPORT SYNOPSIS
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CURRENT EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Currerrt Aircraft Noise Impact
Current Motor-Vehicle Noise Impact .
Current Carlsbad Raceway Dragst_er Noise Impact
Current Carlsbad Raceway Motocross Noise Impact
FUTURE EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENT .
Future Aircraft Noise Impact .
Future Motor-Vehicle Noise Impact
Future Carlsbad Raceway Dragster Noise Impact
Future Carlsbad Raceway Motorcross Noise Impact
COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE NOISE IMPACTS
FUTURE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT NOISE EXPOSURE .
GENERAL NOISE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
CONCLUSION
REFERENCE LIST
ii
. iii
1
3
3
14
18
21
22
23
24
26
31
31
31
.34
58
60
0
0
0
! i.
I
------------------------. --;--,-, -----,-
0
0
0
80/234
REPORT SYNOPSIS
An acoustical analysis of the proposed Rancho Carrillo develop-
ment has been made, Included in this analysis is a determination
of the current and expected future project noise exposures for
all property south of Palomar Airport'Road. A visual and aural
inspection of the development area indicates that there are four
principle sources of project noise exposure. Current exposure
levels are primarily influenced by motor-vehicle noise along
Palomar Airport Road and by aircraft operations associated with
Palomar Airport. Current noise exposure across the development
site has a limited impact from dragster and motocross noise
sources associated with Carlsbad Raceway. Future noise impact
from all community sound sources will be heavily <laminated by
motor-vehicle traffic on Palomar Airport Road and on the project
interior roadways. (Two analyses of future roadway noise emissions
were made. Impact evaluations were completed assuming ultimate
traffic flow and assuming ultimate traffic flow with the additional
traffic from a housing density bonus and school conversion plan.)
Future noise exposures from aircraft operations associated with
Palomar Airport, dragster activity at Carlsbad Raceway and moto-
cross activity at Carlsbad Raceway are expected to produce a
limited impact. Measurements and analysis of each principle
noise source were performed to determine the range of current
and future noise impact across the development property south of
Palomar Airport Road. With knowledge of the exposure levels from
each principle sound source, the overall noise impact from all
sources was determined for current and future times. The
analyses indicate that expected future noise exposure levels
within the development site will exceed the current noise impact.
The "worst-case" noise exposure levels expected across the develop-
ment ·site south of Palomar Airport Road were divided into four
noise exposure categories. For each noise exposure category, certain
noise control measures must be used to insure compliance with
state and local limits for sound levels in all outdoor and indoor
residential living areas. The report presents three examples
of practical noise control barrier designs which will reduce the
outdoor noise exposure to well within the 65 d~ CNEL permitted
limit. Also discussed are the general requirements for building
shell construction to insure compliance with the 45 dB CNEL
interior standard. Necessary mitigation measures range from no
required controls to stringent sound control steps which represent
iii
80/234
REPORT SYNOPSIS(Continued)
borderline feasibility for ~esidential construction. However,
despite this impact range, most areas within the development will
need little or no noise control measures to satisfy applicable
sound control criteria.
The general mitigation measures for each exposure category will
assist in determining development feasibility and general
construction requirements. Of course the specific noise control
designs and approvals should not be considered in the general
planning stage of development. The detailed elements of the
noise control design are best formulated prior to issuance of
building permits for review and approval by the Building Depart-
ment. Once the specific building plans are completed, analyses
should be performed, as needed, to determine the particular
noise control measures required. It is expected that State and
Local noise exposure criteria will ·be easily satisfied throughout
the development with little or no change in the standard building
construction.
The noise exposure assessment addressed in this report applies
only to that portion of_ the development south of Palomar Airport
Road. Field measurements and projections of current and future
noise levels have not been determined for the property north
of Palomar Airport Road. If noise-sensitive development is
0
later planned for this area, additional field measurements and Q,
noise control design recommendations are required. Noise
sensitive land uses which would require noise impact assessment
and noise control design include: motels, hotels, private and
general office spaces, certain retail uses, apartments, condo-
miniums, and single family dwellings.
iv
0
80/234
INTRODUCTION
EVALUATION OF EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE
AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS
FOR THE RANCHO CARRILLO PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
CARLSBAD , CALIFORNIA
BioAcoustical Engineering Corporation (BAEC ) has been retained
t o determ1ne the expected noise environments and general sound
c ontrol measures for the proposed Rancho Carrillo residential
development. Of particular interest are the acoustical impacts and
mitigation measures needed for each planned residence and all out-
door living space . Using the current and projected future exterior
noise environments , a total of four noise impact categories are
outlined . The general acoustical mitigation measures associated
with each impact category are presented . Identification of the
sound exposure groups and associated noise control measures was
performed to assist in orderly site development planning and help
insure compliance with state and local acoustical criteria.
The planned Rancho Carrillo project consists of roughly 300 acres
located in the City of Carlsbad. The development is located east
of Palomar Airport and South of Palomar Airport Road, due south of
the Carl~bad Raceway . (See Figure 1 , on the next page). Principle
construction within the development will consist of single and
multiple family residential housing . An approximate total of 2 ,998
l iving units will be built within the project. The development
will also contain open space , park areas, neighborhood commercial
centers and a business/light industrial area north of Palomar
Airport Road.
Sound control requirements which apply to the Rancho Carrillo
development are l isted in both state and local criteria . These
standards specify the required sound control performance betwee~
individual (attached) dwelling units and the maximum exterior noise
impact inside and outside all residential construction . Control of
noise impact between units is best analyzed much later in the
development stage when proposed b u ilding plans have been developed .
At that time each party wall and common floor-ceiling may be individ-
ually analyzed for compliance with the performance criteria . Unit-
to-unit noise control will not be addressed in this study .
Permitted maximum noise exposuresfrom outdoor sound levels are
specified in state and local standards for both indoor and outdoor
living areas . Exterior-to-interior noise intrusion is restricted
to 45 dB CNEL for multi-family dwelling units by state standards
an~ to 45 dB CNEL for single family dwelling units by local criteria .
In addition, noise exposure in all principal outdoor living space
is limited to 65 dB CNEL by local standards.
..
.
.•·
~ I • I
,. I --
,uou.A.A
' ,l :t, : .-/cl
'
I J :u. COHA
I
/
7
I
':Paloma, JJ.i,pui---_::::.
~:_~----:::=~--•
,-c:::::-8
I ~ ~ -'------1i
'--~
RO.
u. cos ?A I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
,.
-----\ -v-~-""
t . {
I f .. . ' \~' r . , ''rM~... . ... ~
~-'.;;:'.7\~"... .._.~ ~ .. ......::, ...... :
! ..... \t \. ~
,~ l,t, • • ~
I
I
roo.,,,," " \. \ ,,. '\ l.&_!!~-~
FIGURE 1: Site Location Map
. .,
~ ci'
! .
0
Cl\0
OSTA
.... J . •
The cross-hatched area shown above indicates the approximate location of the
Rancho Carrillo proposed development.
..,. .
N
80/234 3
In t~e following discussion, noise exposure conditions expected
throughout the development are presented. The anticipated range
o f sound levels is divided into f our impact c ategories . A com-
parison of each category with state and local criteria for exterior
noi se control indicates the general mitigation measures which will
be n eeded for each exposure group .
CURRENT EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Evaluations of the current outside noise environment throughout
the Rancho Carrillo development site were made by BAEC from
Friday, 18 January 1980 , through Sunday, 20 January 1980 . Subjective
observations during the d ata collection days indicate that there
are four primary sources of project no ise impact . Visual and
aural inspection of the development environs indicated that the
principle sources of noise impact include: aircraft noise exposure
from activities associated with Palomar Airport ; motor-vehicle sound
l evels from Palomar Airport Road ; dragster noise impact from
Carlsbad Rac eway ; and sound l evels from motocross activity at
Carlsbad Raceway .
The project noise exposure from each primary noise source is
discussed in the following sections .
Current Aircraft. Noise Impact
Analysis of the development noise exposure from aircraft operations
associated with Palomar Airport was made from field measurements
at two points on the development site and from f ield data collected
for similar aircraft approaching John Wayne Airport in Orange
County . Figure 2 on the following page indicates the approximate
location of the aircraft measurement points on the Rancho Carrillo
property . Site photograph5 shown in Figure 3 .
Aircraft fly -over noise levels were re~orded using a calibrated
sound level meter at each l ocation , a graphic level recorder at one
position , and a magnetic tape recorder at the .othe r data collection
point. The measurement equipment -at one measurement point was
comprised of a Brue l and Kjaer model 2204S precision Sound Level
Meter and a Bruel and Kjaer Model 2305 Level Recorder . Data was
collected at the other measurement point using a GenRad Model 1565-B
type 2 Sound Level Meter and a Sony Mode l TC-772 professional Tape
Recorder. The sound measurement equipment at each point was calibrated
before data collection using a Bruel and Kjaer Type 4230 Sound Level
Calibrator or a GenRad Type 1 562-A Sound Level Calibrator . The
sound level meters at all data collection points were adjusted for
A-weighted slow r esponse sound level measurement. The ·measurement
microphones were positioned five feet above existin g grade and
oriented for sound field incidence o0 to 90° from t he plane of the
microphone diaphram .
80/234
-..__________/
u.
fA
I
I I
I I ~I
FIGURE 2:
Coif Cour"
I_
7
COSTA
\ • \_ -.f
\ .
I SIT
\
I
S~TE 2
-----IT---r --
I . ~ r, qr,;/ r_,,_.;; !~
. ,,
" l001,1,( st, •
"
•"
~~"'.!" i lc,
}" ~-/ ·::~~;~ f.;~f ,; ~ • ~"!,}f .; • ,. •r, ~•~ ~ ;' ._ ~.,~.~~• A"-,·~0 •
Aircraft Noise Measurement Loc ations
4
• \
I
The points circled above indicate the approximate
locations on the Rancho Carr illo property where Site 1
and Site 2 aircraft noise measurements were recorde d .
80/234
,,,~~~,ef •• 1J[~i.~
.. '
FIGURE 3
SITE 1
Site Photographs
--:;,i?-.·-.. t:'<'iaila---... ' ••
--~·-!··-
Shown above are photographs
and Site 2 noise measure ment
in Figure 2 .
5
--~--tfJ~t!l1?~tiif.
SITE 2
of the Site 1
stations indicated
~
80/234
The data collected at each point was ultimately reduced to a
time/level strip chart of each aircraft fly-over . Figure 4 on
the next page shows a typical time/level recording.
During the on-site field measurements , three primary aircraft
flight paths were observed. Aircraft were observed on (1) a
straight-in approach path traveling west parallel to and north
6
of Palomar Airpor t Road; (2) a loop .path where the aircraft
depart the airport and circle to the south returning back to the
approach end of the airport (this path carries aircraft over
the north-west portion of the site); and (3) a fly-by path
traveling at random directionSover the property. Figure 5 on the
following page roughly indicates the three flight paths on which
aircraft travel near or over the proposed development.
It is understood from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palomar
Airport 2 that three aircraft types use the airport. Single and
Twin engine propeller aircraft are two types which represent
the majority of aircraft that use the airport. In addition
business jets, both private and small commercial, operate in and
out of Palomar Airport.
During the on-site field measurement days , data was collected for
single and twin engine aircraft ·flying in each of the three flight
paths. Jet engine aircraft did not operate during the measurement
days . A "worst-case" determination of expected jet noise impact
was made from field measurements of 737 com.~ercial jet aircraft
approaching John Wayne Airport . It was assumed that most jet
aircraft which fly near Rancho Carrillo use the straight-in flight
path. Field measurements of c ommercial jets approaching John Wayne
Airport, at the same slant-range distance between measurement Site
1 and the straight-in flight path , were us ed to estimate the ex-
pected "worst-case" jet noise impact on the development site.
Measurements of the commercial jet fly-by sound levels were made
using the same instrumentation and procedures used for the on-site
measurements.
Following completion of the field data collection, the time/
level noise record for each aircraft fly-over was analyzed to
determine a Single Event Level (SEL) value for the event . The
SEL value represents a time integrated A-weighted noise level
which is expressed by the level of an equivalent one second
duration reference signal 3 • That is, the SEL value represents
a single noise level , one second in duration , which contains the
same amount of acoustic energy as aircraft noise emission t hat is
7
80/234
=-=11=::c7e1cclc12~1CJ:ClCrr=:crcCJJ717C~CJS I fl7Cl
FIGURE 4:
r L1 Gb.....--P1~ru ri
Typicaf Aircraft Fly -by Noise Level Recording
Shown above is a typical time/level strip chart of a
single engine propeller aircraft in the "straight-in"
flight path (see F i gure 5) as measured at Site 1. (See
Figure 2). The ordinate represents sound level in
increments of one decibel per line . The absicissa
represents time in divi sions of one second for each
three mill imeters . An SEL value of 69 .6 dB was canputed.•
for this noise event .
tJ
I
I
-I
I
'
II
11 SIi u,
,...,Lowu, _
d•
l ,/ r
rl
•• t. .,,11 I
~:1·t-1
-~~ft~• cc+=u'---------'-co'--',="--,--~
,
'•
I
I
I
I -;
~"\ \_.,
l1,_:'J_~,-. -o-,. \~~ '• ~ _ ~"'--'-'='~~•ly_l •~-
-~
Otcr
1001,11,c
I
I
\
ST~AIGHT-
-r----.
--,_ ·~~
...
I : LV-OVE J V ~i ~ rt, -
' '-
• ST
,,. ~,,::: .J ,. : -1... .... --;;-
!",,,. \ ... ►" 0 -•~
FIGURE 5 : Aircraft Flight Paths over the Ra ncho Carrilio Property
j
...
~l..-co1
Ci ~
I
The straight-in, loop and fly-over flight paths shown above indicate the
approximate flight paths observed during on-site aircraft noise measurements .
CX)
0
..........
N w
~
CX)
0
0
0
80/233 9
many seconds in duration. The SEL value for each time/level
noise record was calculated using the following equation.3
n
SEL == 10 log [ E
i==l
antilog
Where:
AL. 1.
n
== the instaneous A~weighted sound level for the
ith sample
= the time interval, in seconds, between sarrwles
== the number of samples for which the sound level
is at least 10 dB (A) below the maximum AJ1. ].
Using the above equation, an SEL value was calculated for each
aircraft type (single engine propeller, twin.engine propeller,
and business jet) measured in each typical flight path (straight-
in for all aircraft types; ioop for propeller aircraft; and fly-
by for propeller ·aircraft). A range of SEL values was determined
for each aircraft type in each flight path. An energy average of
these multiple SEL findings was made to determine a single, average,
SEL for each aircraft type operating in each typical flight path.
Table I on the next page summarizes the average SEL results.
The current 24-hour aircraft fly-over CNEL exposure level at each
measurement point was calculated using the SEL values for each
aircraft type in each flight path and the typical operation
scenario. Necessary daily operation scenario information includes:
Total number of aircraft; typical single engine propeller/twin
engine propeller/business jet fleet mix; the day/evening/nighttime
operation split; and the typical straight-in/~oop/fly-by usage
split for each flight path.
A current typical count of 268,418 operations per year was deter-
mined in a conversation with Mr. Lacy Clark, Palomar Airport
Assistant Manager.4 This current annual estimate was based upon
the 12-month count ending in December 1979. Mr. Clark indicated
there are typically 1000 operations each weekend day with the bal-
ance of operations distributed on weekdays (average of 630 operations
per week day) .
Mr. Philip Safford, Assistant Director of Palomar Airport, indicated
that the current fleet mix is roughly: 85% single engine propeller
aircraft, 12.5% twin engine propeller aircraft, and 2.5% business
jet aircraft.5
80/233
Site Number
(See Figure 2)
1
2
0
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE SEL VALUES BY AIRCRAFT TYPE
AND FLIGHT PATH
Single Engine Propeller Twin Engine Propeller
SEL Values SEL Values
Straight-In Loop Fly-By Straight-In Loop Fly-By
Flig.ht Path Flight Flight Flight Path Flight Flight
Path Path Path Path
69.6 dB 62.2 dB 65.7 dB 79 dB 68.2 dB 79.l dB
66.6 dB 58.9 dB 67.4 dB 73.1 dB 64.2 dB 75.5 dB
Business Jet
SEL Values
Straight-In
Flight Path
84.7 dB
80.8 dB
0
I-'
0
0
0
0
'
80/234 11
The ·day/evening/nighttime operation split was determined from
a conversation with Mr. K. Deari, Controller with the Palomar
Airport FAA tower.6 Mr. Dean indicated that during daytime hours
(7 am to 7 pm) roughly 94.5% of all operations occur. During
evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) roughly 5% of all operations occur.
During n_ighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) there are g~nerally only
3 to 4 operations. This count indicates a nighttime operation
of roughly 0.5% of all daily operations.
The approximate flight path usage split was determined from a
conversation with Mr. Philip Safford.5 Mr. Safford indicated
that roughly Oto 250 aircraft per day use the instrument pattern
(i.e., straight-in flight path). This indicates that 0% to
25% of all weekend traffic and 0% to 40% of all weekday traffic
use the straight-in flight path. For the purposes of this study
it is assumed that 25% of all weekend traffic and 40% of all
weekday traffic will typically fly the straight-in approach.
Further, since most business jets fly the straight~in path near
the development site, for the purposes of this study it is assumed
that all business jets use the straight-in path only. Based upon
limited field observations, it is assumed that roughly 10% of all
propeller aircraft operations, weekday and weekend, use the fly-by
flight path. It is assumed that the balance of all operations,
150% weekday and 65% weekend, use the loop flight path.
Calculation of the current aircraft CNEL impact level at each data
collection point was performed using the SEL values and operational
scenario information presented above and the following equation
from reference 7: •
CNEL . te . = 10. log r (Antilog CNEL . .1 . ) si J. singe engine
prop. site i
+ (Antilog CNELtw. • . in engine
prop. site i
+ (Antil CNEL ) 1 og business jet
site i
To determine the CNEL . te . ( the CNEL for the i th site) the above SJ. J.
equation indicates that values for CNEL . 1 . ,CNELtw. . singe engJ.11e in engine
and CNELb . J t must be known. usiness e
site i
prop. site i prop. site i
These values refer to the
CNEL impact from each aircraft type at the ith site. The CNEL value
for each aircraft type,at a given site, is determined from the
80/234
equation:
CNELaircraft = SELaircraft tyi:e n + lO lcg(%(sI) + 3•16 ~(SI)
. i:yf€ n straight-in path
+ 10 ~ SI)) -49.4
+ SELaircraft type n + lO leg(% (L) + J • 16 ~ (L)
loop path
+ 10 ~(L)) -49.4
+ SELaircraft tyi:e n + lO leg ~ (FB) + 3 • 16 ~ (FB)
fly-by path
+ 10 ~(FB)) ~ 49.4
12
The above equation indicates that CNEL. ft (the CNEL for type n arrcra
type n
0
aircraft -single engine propeller, twin engine propeller or
brisiness jet aircraft) may be determined from a knowledge of several
SEL, ND, NE, and NN values. The SEL . ft +-<rr= , SEL . ft +-<,,.....,,. • arrcra .... 1 t:"-n arrcra .... .r .t"-n
and SEL aircraft type n
Fly-by path
straight-in path loop path Q
values refer to
S~L values for a given aircraft type measured in the straight-in,
loop and fly-by flight paths respectively. The ND(SI), N0 (L), and
ND(FB) values refer to the number of aircraft type n (weekday~
·weekend) which fly during the daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) on the
straight-in, loop and "fly-by paths respectively. The NE(SI), ~(L),
~(FB) values refer to the number of aircraft type n (weekday or
weekend) which fly during the evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) on the
straight-in, loop and fly-by paths respectively. Similarly, the
NN(SI) , NN(L) and NN(FB) values refer to the number of aircraft
type n (weekday or weekend) which fly during the nighttime hours
(10 pm to 7 am) on the straight-in, loop and fly-by paths respectively.
Following detailed calculations using the above referenced equations,
a determination has been made of the current weekday and current
weekend aircraft CNEL exposure at each on-site measurement point.
The results are shown in Table II. This table indicates that on
weekdays the proposed development is exposed to a current approximate
aircraft impact range of 47.6 ~B CNEL to 51.5 dB CNEL. Table II
shows that on weekends the current aircr-af t noise exposure range Q
increases less than 2 dB to between 49.1 dB CNEL and 52.8 dB CNEL. •
0
0
0
0/234
TABLE II
CURRENT AIRCRAFT WEEKDAY AND WEEKEND CNEL EXPOSURES AT EACH
MEASUREMENT SITE.
CURRENT AIRCRAFT WEEKDAY EXPOSURE
Site Number Single Engine Twin Engine Business Jet
13
Total
(See Figure 2) Propeller Propeller Noise Impact Aircraft
Noise Impact Noise Impact Noise
Impact
1 45.3 dB CNEL 46.6 dB CNEL 47.8 dB CNEL 51. 5 dB CNEL
2 42.9 dB CNEL 41.4 dB CNEL 43.9 dB CNEL 47.6 dB CNEI
CURRENT AIRCRAFT WEEKEND EXPOSURE
Site Number Single Engine Twin Engine Business Jet Total
(See Figure 2) Propeller Propeller Noise Impact Aircraft
Noise Impact Noise Impact Noise
Impact
1 46.2 dB CNEL 47.2 dB CNEL 49.8 dB CNEL 52.8 dB CNEL
2 43.9 dB CNEL 42.3 dB CNEL 45.9 dB CNEL 49.1 dB CNEL
-
80/234 14
0
Current Motor-Vehicle Noise Impact
Field observations during on-site measurements indicated that traffic
on Palomar Airport Road represents the principle source of current
motor-vehicle noise exposure.
Measurements of the motor-vehicle noise level along Palomar Airport
Road were made on Friday, 18 January 1980. Sound level measurements
were collected using a Metrosonics Type db-602 digital Sound Level
Analyzer with A-weighted slow response. The digital noise measure-
ment instrumentation was adjusted for a sample rate of one measure-
ment per second. The road noise measurement position was 50 feet
south of the Palomar Airport Road centerline, near the east-west
center of the property (see Figures 6 and 7). This measurement
location was approximately 49 feet from_ the roadway "single lane
equivalent". This "single lane equivalent" distance represents
microphone separation from an imaginary lane on which the total
traffic flow can be assumed to travel. Determination of the "single
lane equivalent" acoustical center of the roadway was made in
accordance with reference 8. During the site noise level measure-
ments, the microphone was positioned five feet above existing grade
and oriented for grazing sound field incidence. The noise levels
measured were recorded at the point during a representative after-
noon period.
An Equivalent Level, Leq, value was determined directly from the
measurement equipment for the sample period at the data collection
point (Leq corresponds to the measured noise level averaged on an
energy basis 9). Using the recorded Leq, and typical hourly percent
traffic distribution information for roadways with over 10,000
0
average daily traffic (ADT) 1'0 approximate Leq values were calculated
for each hour in the day. The hourly Leq values for the measurement
point are listed in Table IIIon the next page. Also shown in this
table are the O dBA, 5 dBA, and 10 dBA weighting increases required
for the day, evening, and nighttime hours when determining a CNEL
value. The adjusted Leq values for each hour are tabulated in the
last column of the table. Following the method of CNEL determination
outlined in reference 7, the adjusted hourty Leq values have been
summed on an energy basis and averaged. The results of these cal-
culations indicate a current outside sound environment of 71.9 dB
CNEL at the measurement point 50 feet from the Palomar Airport Road
centerline.
This method of motor-vehicle CNEL determination using a short-term
sample technique represents a state-of-the-art approach. The
approach is discussed in detail in the referencell publication.
This publication was authored by John S. Leyerle and Otto C. Bixler,
Jr. of Bio-Acoustical Engineering Corporation and presented at
the 1978 International Conference on Noise Control Engineering.
The current Palomar Airport Road noise impact expected at 100 feet Q
from the roadway centerline was calculated using the field measure-
80/234
--.__,/
I.A
I
_J
FIGURE 6:
ccsu
P~lomar AirportRoad Noise Measurement Location
The point circled above indicates the approximate
loc ation on the Rancho Carrillo property where
measurements of current Palomar Airport Road motor-
vehicle noise levels were recorded at 50 feet from
the roadway centerline .
15
80/234
FIGURE 7: Site Photograph
Shown above is a photograph of the digital noise
measurement instrumentation along Palomar Airport
Road .
16
0
C
0
17
80/234
TABLE III
SITE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT RESULTS
A-weightec2q noise level data collected during a representative
sample peoi on 18 January 1980, together with calculated hourly Leq
values ana~e resulting ,CNEL value.
MEASUREMEJ~T,OCATION: 5 0 feet from the Palomar Airport Road centerline
as shown r;F.igure 6.
One Hour Periri:.
Beginning at=
Hourly Leq Data
(dBA,re.0.0002 dyne/cm2 )
0700
0800
0900
1000
llOO
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
' 0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
[
(2:: Antilog
10 lm_tr;
71. 2
69.3
68.3
68.2
68. 4·
68.5
68.6
68.8
'
7 0 (Measured)
71.5
71.2
69.5
68.1
67
66.3
65.3
64.7
63.1
60.7
59.5
57.7
58.7
62.5
68.9
of Adjusted
24
Hourly Leq Weighting
for
CNEL Evaluation (dB)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
.10
10
10
10
:Zl. 9 dB CNEL
Adjusted
Hourly
Leq (dBA)
71.2
69.3
68.3
68.2
68.4
68.5
68.6
68.8
70
71.5
71. 2
69.5
73.1
72
71. 3
75.3
74.7
73.l
7 0. 7
69.5
67.7
68.7
72.5
78.9
\
80/234 18
ment findings and_the reference 12 equation which specifies a 4.5
dB reduction in noise level for each doubling of distance from
the noise source. Calculations indicate that at lOO feet from the
Palomar Airport Road centerline, a current noise exposure level of
67.4 dB CNEL is expected.
Current Carlsbad Raceway Dragster Noise Impact
Carlsbad Raceway is located just north of the proposed development
property near the east-west project center. It is understood from
discussions with Mr. Larry Grismer, the raceway operator, that two
activities associated with the raceway may influence the Rancho
Carrillo noise environment1 ~. Mr. Grismer indicated that each
Saturday evening, weather permitting, drag races occur. He also
indicated that during the daylight hours on Sunday, motocross races
are held.
It is understood that the Saturday evening drag races generally
0
occur between the hours of 7 pm and 11 pm. During this time
street-legal and specially designed cars race in pairs. Mr. Grisner
indicated there may be up to 20 races per hour. Accordingly, during
the four hours of Saturday night operation, there may be up to
80 races.
Instrumentation was set up at sites 1 and 2, previously shown in Q
Figure 2, to measure the current drag race noise levels. Drag·
noise level measurements were made between 8 pm and 9:30 pm on
Saturday, 19 January 1980. The Site l measurement point w~s
roughly 2300 feet from the drag strip. The Site 2 measurement
point was approximately 4200 feet from the race track. Subjective
listening during each 10 to 15 second race indicated that the
dragsters produced a very limited noise impact. Field measurements
indicated maximum noise levels of 40 dBA to 50 dBA during e~ch
typical race. Dragster noise at Site 1 was very quiet but perceptable.
Dragster noise at Site 2 was very difficult to perceive. It is
expected that the difficulty in perceiving the dragster noise at
Site 2 is the result of its long separation from the race track and
because of the high ambient noise levels at ·Site 2. Measurements
of the Site 2 ambient noise levels between races were 45 dBA to 57
dBA. This ambient level was heavily influenced by the nighttime.
sounds from small insects and frogs. During the same time period
the Site 1 ambient noise level was 10 dBA to 20 dBA quieter at 34
dBA to 38 dBA. _ Due to the high ambient noise level at Site 2, the
drag race noise level measurements are greatly contaminated. The
drag race noise level measurements at Site 1 have very little
contamination and are expected to respresent a much more accurate
determination of dragster noise impact. Since Site 2 is farther
0
0
0
0
80/234 19
away than Site 1, it is expected that if the ambient level at
Site 2 had been sufficiently low to permit accurate drag race
noise level measurements, the results would have shown an impact
quieter than at Site 1. Accordingly, for the purposes of this
study, only the Site 1 drag race noise level measurements will
be analyzed. As a "worst case" analysis, the Site 1 impact
findings will be assumed to represent the current exposure level
at Site 2 and at all other locations across the property.
The Site 1 drag race noise level measurements were made using a
Bruel and Kjaer Model 2204S precision Sound Level Meter and a
Bruel and Kjaer Model 2305 graphic Level Recorder. Figure 8 on
the next page shows a typical time/level strip chart recording
of a drag race measurement.
Following completion of the field data collection, the time/level
noise record for each drag race was analyzed to determine an SEL
value for the event. The SEL value for each time/level noise
record was calculated using the equation presented in the Current
Aircraft Noise Impact section. The results of the SEL analysis
indicate an SEL range of 47.8 dB to 58.7 dB for the drag races
measured at Site 1.
The "worst-case" energy average hourly noise level during the
hours of Saturday night dragster operation may be computed using
the "worst-case" SEL value and the following equation from
reference 14:
HL = Energy average hourly noise level
10 log i ~ antilog (SEL/10) l i=l
36
Where: SEL = the "worst-case" SEL (58.7 dB)
n = the numbe~ of drag races per hour (20)
Using the above equation the "worst-case" energy average noise
level from drag race operation was found to equal 36 dBA. That
is, a steady noise level of 36 dBA during each hour of dragster
operations would yield the same average noise level that is
produced by the intermittent 10 to 15 second dragster noise levels
produced 20 times per hour.
80/234
-I \ I
I , I ,. V
FIGURE 8:
------·---·------------
=-' ,./ " .....___) .\ J /~ II ;J'
i I I
I\ I \
I \ I I ' I " I r .,
f\ 1,. ,..__," I \
I , I /'\ I '-· ;
" I \ F A ~ I\
·1 \A• , . -I ,/ II .:.._ FV C I I -., II rl I• V I • • l I . ---' V • r I r,
I I "' " I ~-I ' -, ··--"' -, r .....
I , I ! L-I I I V'\J\ I -~ v-,1 V '\I
A• ---/\ 1;1,u·r,.,·<-'1 ,-,,:, ,_, \ V ~
Typical Dragster Noise Level Recording
Shown above is a typical time/level strip chart of
a dragster race at Carlsbad Raceway as measured at
Site 1 (See Figure 2).
20
The ordinate represents sound level in increments of one decibel per line. The
absicissa represents time in divisions of one second for each three millimeters
An SEL value of 58.4 dB was computed for this noise event.
0
0
0
0
0
0
21 80/234
Th~ "worst-case" hourly average noise level from dragster
operations is 36 dBA during the hours from 7 pm to 11 pm.
During this same time the ambient noise level range, as previ-
·ously mentioned,· is 34 dBA to 38 dBA (36 dBA average). ..: _l .. _:W ... --
To compute the Rancho Carrillo CNEL exposure from dragster ,.c.:: -:>~_r:-·_
operations, we must know the average.noise level for each houn -~~
on Saturday. The above calculations indicate that the drag no~se ---
level average is 3 6 dBA for the ho.urs 7 pm to 11 pm. The ambient· .,
noise level during these hours is also 36 dBA. As a first-cu--11-..
assumption, it is assumed that the ambient noise level for a1,1 ---=·0·:d.:-a·
other Saturday hours (excluding aircraft and motor-vehicle noi-·s:e ·_-/J..,.·
sources) remains at 36 dBA. Acc_ordingly, the average noise ?.·•· '. ---
level for each of the 24 Saturday hours is 36 dBA. Using this<· ::;,: : t ..
36 dBA hourly noise level value and the following reference 7.·. _ .~2: •
equation, the CNEL exposure from Saturday dragster operations ·.i::e ::~:-:_ ~
can be calculated: . c .. ,J..:-,:..:::c.t:
r '..
CNEL= 10 log[ (12 antilog(HL/10)+(3) (3.16)Antilog(HL/10) ... .:.-~; ;r..:
+ {-9) (10) Antilog (HL/10) ] .;. 24] '., ·-
Where: HL = the-energy average hourly noise level (36 dBA) £~
Using the above equation the current "worst-case" Rancho Carr:i.41o•::: :~.
CNEL exposure from Saturday dragster operations at Carlsbad Rac·e-frc,:;:
Y{ay is 41. 9 dB CNEL. ___ ;} ~-~t-~!~~-..
Current Carlsbad Raceway Motocross Noise Impact
Mr. Larry Grismer, opera tor of Carlsbad Raceway, indicated that: :i. .,_-:-:e.:-.:;
motocross activity at the raceway represents the second source '" ___ •. :.. ~
of potential noise impact onto the Rancho Carrillo property. I~~-:i f
is understood that motocross activities involve off-road motor-· -~ ~
cyles in groups of roughly 15 vehicles per race. Motocross r~eih~ :~
activity occurs on Sunday and may begin as early as 8 am and =c;J._· :' • :i:
continue uninterrupted until 5 pm. ·.::..:·;:: .:.·::-~·
Field measurements of motocross noise impact were performed
during a late morning period on Sunday, 20 January 1980. Data
was collected at both Site 1 and Site 2 shown in Figure 2.
Motocross activity was measured at one site using a metrosonics
Model db-602 digital Sound Level Analyzer. Data was colle~ted
at the other site using a GenRad Model 1565-B type 2 Sound Level
Meter and a Sony model TC-772 professional Tape Recorder. The tape
recorded data was later played back through the Sound Level Analyzer
for data reduction.
80/234 22
An energy average noise level for the motocross measurements at
each data collection point was read directly from the Sound Level
Analyzer instrumentation. The results indicate an energy average
noise level of approximately 42 dBA for both measurement points.
It is noted that based upon sound level meter observation and upon
subjective listening, the 42 dBA average noise level is largely due
to the ambient noise sources. The motocross sound levels were
barely perceptable at the two measurement points. It appears
that the motocross noise made very little, if any, contribution to
the 42 dBA average noise level. Accordingly, it is expected that
if the ambient noise level had been much quieter to permit an
uncontaminated measurement of motocross sound levels, the motocross
average sound level findings would have been substantially beiow
42 dBA.
As a "worst-case" analysis, it is assumed that the motocross
activity creates an average noise level of 42 dBA across the
development during the 8 am to 5 pm Sunday operating hours. It
is recognized however that this average sound level primarily
represents the daytime ambient noise level. Accordingly, as a
further "worst-case" assumption, it -is assumed that the 4 2 dBA
0
average noise level is sustained, throughout each Sunday before and
after the motocross activity. These assumptions indicate that the
"worst-case" energy average noise level for each of the 24 Sunday Q
hours is 42 dBA. Using this 42 dBA hourly noise level value and
the reference 7 equation presented in the dragster analysis section,
the CNEL exposure from Sunday motocross activity has been calculated.
The results indicate that a current "worst~case"_Rancho Carrillo
CNEL exposure from Sunday motocross activity at Carlsbad Raceway is
48.7 dB CNEL.
FUTURE EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENT
A review of the Rancho Carrillo proposed development plan and the
surrounding area indicates that jn future years the property will
continue to be exposed to multiple noise sources. It is understood
that Palomar Airport will continue to operate with potentially
increased numbers of operations. This operation increase is expected
to increase the aircraft noise exposure on the property. It is
understood that the width of Palomar Airport Road, and the number
of motor-vehicles which use this roadway, will increase in future
years. In addition, in future years a substantial number of motor-
vehicles will travel on the Rancho Carrillo interior road system
that presently does not exist. This change in the number of motor-
vehicles which travel near and through the development will also
increase the project noise exposure. It is expected that in future
years the Rancho Carrillo development will have a Carlsbad Raceway
0
0
80/234 23
noise exposure comparable to the current noise impact.
The overall project noise impact is expected to be greater in
future years than the current noise impact. The developmenb future
noise exposure expected from each primary noise source is discussed
in the following sections.
Future Aircraft Noise Impact
Analysis of the future noise environment expected on the development
property from nearby aircraft operations was performed using the
same general analytical methods presented in the current aircraft
noise impact section. The future aircraft CNEL impact is calculated
from a knowledge of the SEL values for each aircraft and the aircraft
operational scenario.
For the purposes of this study it was assumed that the current SEL
values measured and presented in Table I for each aircraft type are
representative of the expected "worst-case" future SEL values.
Inherent in this assumption is the expectation that future single
engine propeller, twin engine propeller and business jet aircraft
will be as loud as, or quieter than, their current counterparts.
Accordingly, the SEL values pres~nted in Table I were used to
co_mpute expected future aircraft CNEL impact.
Q It is understood that some of the future aircraft operational
0
scenario will be different from the current scenario. The Palomar
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates that the 1990 annual
operation count may increase to 435,000.2 However, Mr. Lacy Clark
indicates that this count is much greater than will probably be
realized. However, 435,000 annual operations will be used as a
"worst-case" estimate. It is assumed that the percentage of aircraft
which now operate on weekends and weekdays will remain unchanged
in future years. This assumption indicates an average future weekend
airc~aft count of 1631 and an average weekday count of 1021 per day.
The Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates that the
current fleet -mix will change in future years. The 1990 fleet mix
is projected to be 75% single engine propeller aircraft, 22% twin
engine propeller aircra~t, and 3% business jet aircraft.
/
It is assumed that the day/evening/nighttime operation split will
remain roughly unchanged between current and future years. Accord-
ingly the future day/evening/ nighttime operation split is expected
to be 94.5% (7am to 7 pm), 5% (_7 pm to lO pm) and 0.5% (10 pm to
7 am).
It is also assumed that the future flight path u~age split will be
the same as the split for current times. In future years the weekday
80/234 24
flight path operation split is expected to be: 40% Straight-in, Q
50% Loop and 10% Fly-by. The future weekend flight path operation
split i~ expected to be: 25% Straight-in, 65%_Loop and 10% Fly-by.
Following detailed calculations using the S~L values from Table I,
the operational scenario just mentioned, and the equations previously
presented, a determination has been made of the expected future
weekday and future weekend aircraft CNEL exposure at Site 1 and
Site 2 on the property. The results of projected future noise impact
are shown in Table IV. This table indicites that on future weekdays
the planned development will be exposed to an approximate impact
range of 50.6 dB CNEL to 54.7 dB CNEL. Table IV shows that on
weekends the future aircraft noise exposure range will increase an
expected 5 dB to between 5 2. 1 dB CNEL and 5 6 dB CNEL ·.
Future Motor-Vehicle Noise Impact
Future motor~vehicle noise impact on the Rancho Carrillo property
is expected to change from current exposure levels more than for any
other noise source category. Future daily traffic counts on Palomar
Airport Road along the project are expected to be two to three times
the current number. Future numbers of motor-vehicles on project
interior roadways are expected to be as high as 26,000 where roads
and daily car travel currently do not exist. A determination of the
future motor-vehicle noise impact on the Rancho Carrillo development
is presented below.
The traffic engineering study15 indicates that one of two ultimate Q
daily traffic volumes are possible for roadways within and adjacent
t6 Rancho Carrillo. The traffic study presents one group of roadway
volumes which reflect the ultimate usage from the project as-planned,
other planned and existing projects which were known as of November
1980 and regional growth. The traffic study also indicates the ultimate
roadway volumes for the project with a density housing bonus and
school conversion plan, other planned and existing projects which were
known as of November 1980 and regional growth. For purposes of
discussion in this report, the two ultimate traffic volumes are
referred to as "Ultimate Traffic Without Density Bonus" and "Ultimate
Traffic With Density Bonus ....
The expected future ultimate roadway noise impact was projected for
the "no density bonus" and the "density bonus" conditions using the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise prediction model16 and
several key roadway parameters. The key roadway parameters which
determine the impact of vehicular traffic noise include: The total
vehicle count per day; the percent heavy truck volume; the percent
of total average daily traffic (ADT) which flows each hour throughout
a 24-hour period; vehicle travel speed; and the number of travel
lanes.
0
----------------------
0
Site
(See
80/234,
TABLE IV
FUTURE AIRCRAFT WEEKDAY AND WEEKEND CNEL EXPOSURES AT EACH
MEASUREMENT SITE
FUTURE AIRCRAFT 'WEEKDAY EXPOSURE
Number Single Engine Twin Engine Business Jet
Figure 2) Propeller Propeller .Noise Impact
Noise Impact Noise Impact
-1 46.9 dB CNEL 5.1.J. dB CNEL 50.8 dB CNEL
2 44.5 dB CNEL 45.8 'dB CNEL 4 6. 9 dB CNEL
0 FUTURE AIRCRAFT WEEKEND EXPOSURE
Site Number Single Engine Twin Engine Business Jet
(See Figure 2 Propeller Propeller Noise Impact
Noise Impact Noise Impact
1 47.8 dB CNEL 51. 9 dB CNEL 52.8 dB CNEL
-
2 45.5 dB CNEL 46.9 dB CNEL 48.9 dB CNEL
0
25
Total
Aircraft
Noise
Impact
,•
54.7 dB CNE:
50.6 dB CNK
Total
Aircraft
Noise
Impact
56 dB CNEL
52.1 dB CNE:
80/234 26
The expected future roadway parameter information, for all 0
but·the 24-hour hourly percent traffic flow breakdown,_ was
determined from the traffic engineering report 15 and from
discussions with the project traffic engineer, Mr. Weston
Pringle.17 The roadway parameter values specified by Mr. Pringle
and used to project future roadway noise impact are presented in
Table Von the next page. Table V makes reference to roadway
sections by a letter and number designation. (e.g., The first
section along Palomar Airport Road is labled Pl.) Figure 9
on the page following Table Vindicates each roadway segment
and its label--The 24-hour hourly percent traffic flow breakdown
was taken from a recent Orange County study of 31 major inter-
sections.18
Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the roadway
parameters outlined above, calculations of the expected future
noise impact,with and without a density bonus, were made for
each roadway. The results of these calculations are presented
in Table VI on the next page. Table VI indicates the future,
ultimate, traffic noise impact (with and without a density bonus)
at 100 feet from each roadway centerline.
A review of Table VI indicates that there is very little difference
between the road noise impacts with and without the increased
traffic from a housing density bonus and school conversion. The
noise impact differences range from O dBA for the interior streets Q
to 0.4 dBA for road segment M3 along Melrose Avenue. This minimal
0.4 dBA increase in noise impact from the density bonus traffic
moves the noise contour lines roughly 10 percent farther from •
each roadway centerline. (e.g., Along the Melrose roadway segment
M3 the noise impact at 100 feet from the centerline, with no
density bonus, is 66.5 dB CNEL. With the addition of density bonus
traffic, the 66.5 dB CNEL contour will move roughly 10 feet farther
away to 110 feet from the roadway centerline).
Table VI also shows that the greatest future road noise impact
will occur along Palomar Airport Road east of Melrose Avenue
(road segment P4). The minimum future road noise impact is
expected along the side streets (road segments C-.;, and E...:.E) and
along the project interior streets.
Future Carlsbad ·Raceway Dragster Noise Impact
It is understood that the Carlsbad Raceway intends to operate
for the indefinite future. Accordingly, it is expected that
Saturday night dragster noise levels will continue to influence
the Rancho Carrillo noise environment. However, there is no
information to indicate the expected future level of dragster
operations. It is assumed for the purposes 0£ this study that
the current dragster operation and noise emission from Carlsbad
Raceway will have essentially no changes in future years. There-
fore, the current "worst-case" dragster noise impact of 41.9 dB Q
CNEL is expected to remain the same in future years throughout
the Rancho Carrillo development.
0
ROADWAY
Palomar
Airport Road
Melrose
Avenue
Carrillo Way
0
TABLE V
FUTURE AND CURRENT ROADWAY PARAMETERS USED FOR
ANALYTICAL PROJECTION OF ROADWAY NOISE IMPACT
ROADWAY ADT PERCENT
SECTION CURRENT ULTIMATE HEAVY TRUCKS
(see Fig. 9)
P-1 11,200 32,800 5
P-2 11,200 28,210 5
P-3 11,200 35,300 5
P-4 11,200 34,100 5
M-1 -27,100 3
M-2 16,900 3
M-3 8,500 3
M-4 9,200 3
C-1 -16,000 0.5
C-2 -11,400 0.5
C-~ -17,800 0.5
C-4 -8,400 0.5
C-5 -2,400 0.5
C-6 -5,500 0.5
TRAVEL
SPEED
(MPH)
55
55
55
55
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
LiO
40
40
0
NO. TRAVEL
LANES
..
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
N "'<l
ROADWAY
El Fuente
Road
Alga
Collector
Streets
0
TABLE V (continued)
FUTURE AND CURRENT ROADWAY PARAMETERS USED FOR
ANALYTICAL PROJECTION OF ROADWAY NOISE IMPACT
ROADWAY ADT PERCENT
SECTION CURRENT ULTIMATE HEAVY TRUCKS
(see Fig. 9)
I
E-1 --9900 0.5
E-2 -6300 0.5
E-3 600 5200 0.5
A-1 700 3900 0.5
A-2 -500 0.5
less than
Col -3000 0
U-1 -3300 0
U-2 -8100 0
0
TRAVEL,
SPEED
(MPH)
4-0
4-0
4-0
4-0
4-0
30
30
30
NO.TRAVEL
LANES
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
2
2
2
0
N
00
80/234R
(P-2)
MAR ( P-1) PALO . -o I
' '....,_ (E-1)
NO SCALE:
\.
\
\
J
I
I
I I •
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
/ I /
:AOea _ -{-.,,
.o
\ (E-2) \
/
I
I
/ /
EL
. (COL)
(P-3)
/
AIRPORT
(COL)
(A-2) _ ---.----.,,,,--.,,-.,,-
29
(P-4)
(M-3)
FIGURE 9: l
Atb• US';j"!,'li?"'.~, --t Labe s bels~or • •' a,-~.._ .,.=.,,,,-,1\;J Roadway Segmen the letter and number la ,;./ii,.j-i J.;i .. • ·. ;~~~fe!~~l\\h.JLtJf'tlf10 Shown above are d to in Table V. =• S::~Mlf.,,;;;.~,·••• d Y Segment ref erre ,._., . roa wa
R
80/234R 30
TABLE YI*
0
FUTURE (ULTIMATE) ROADWAY NOISE IMPACT
ROADWAY ROADWAY SECTION FUTURE (ULTIMATE) •
(See Figure ) . NOISE IMPACT AT 100'
FEET FROM CENTERLINE
(dB CNEL)
..
Pa,Iomar Airport
Road P-1 72.1
P-2 71.4 ,
P-3 72.4
P-4 72.3
.
Melrose Avenue M-1 68.9 ~--/ M-2 66.9
M-3 63.9
M-4 64.2
Carrillo .. Way C-1 61.9
C-2 60.4
C-3 62.3 0
C-lj. 59.1
C-5 53.6
C-6 57.2
El Fuente Street E-1 59.8
E-2 57.8
E-3 57.0
Alga Road A-1 55.7
A-2 46.8
Collector Streets Col 50.4,
U-1 50.8
U-2 54.7
* The future motor-vehicle noi_se impacts presented in this table represent "worst-case"
projections. In perfonning the future noise impact calculations, no assu.~ptions were
made for future motor-vehicle quieting. Although vehicles in the future will likely
be somewhat quieter than current models, the analysis was completed assuming no chango
in vehicle noise emission.
0
0
0
31
80/234
Future Carlsbad Raceway Motocross Noise Impact
As with the dragster operations, it is expected that the Carlsbad
Raceway Sunday Motocross activity will remain unchanged in future
years. It is assumed that the current "worst-case'' 48. 7 dB CNEL
motocross noise impact will remain th_e same in future years
throughout the Rancho Carrillo development.
COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE NOISE IMPACTS
The preceeding analyses indicate _that the proposed Rancho Carrillo
development has a current and future noise exposure from four
different sound sources. The noise environment on the develop-
ment property is influenced by: Aircraft operations, motor-~ehicle
travel; dragster operations; and motocross activity.
In future years the development CNEL exposure from aircraft sound
sources is expected to increase up to3.2dBA throughout the
property. Future motor-vehicle CNEL noise impact is projected to
increase as little as 2 dBA along existing roadways and as much
as 22 dBA along future roadways that do not currently exist.
Project CNEL noise exposure from Carlsbad Raceway dragster and
motocross activities is expected to remain unchanged in future
years. Table VII on the next page shows a comparison of the
current and expected future Rancho Carrillo noise exposures.
FUTURE UNMITIGATED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT NOISE EXPOSURE
The unmitigated overall future Rancho Carrillo noise exposure is
expected to be somewhat greater than the current noise impact.
As previously mentioned, the future noise impact will be the
result of four different sound sources: Aircraft operation,
motor-vehicle traffic, dragster races, and motocross activity.
Among these four noise source categories, motor-vehicle traffic
is expected to be the greatest contributor to the overall noise
impact. Noise impact from the future aircraft operations is ex-
pected to.be very moderate. The future worst-case aircraft
weekend noise impact nf 58 dB CNEL will add less than 2 dBA to road
noise impacts of 60 dB CNEL and above. The expected future noise
impact from dragster and motocross activities is projected to be
quite minimal. It is expected that the overall development noise
exposure will be increased by less than 0.5 dBA from Carlsbad
Raceway activities.
The future unmitigated overall noise impact expected within the
development -has been divided into four impact categories. These
categories include:
Zone 4: Future unmitigated overall exposures from 55 dB
CNEL to 60 dB CNEL.
80/234R 32
TABLE vn
COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE (ULTIMATE)
RANCHO CARRILLO DEVELOPMENT NOISE EXPOSURE
NOISE SOURCE CURRENT"WORST EXPECTED FUTURE
CASE" NOISE IMPACT (ULTIMATE) "WORST
100' FROM CENTERLINE CASE" NOISE IMPACT
(dB CNEL) l 00' FROM CENTERLINE
(dB CNEL)
Palomar Airport
Aircraft Operations 51.5 (Weekdays) 54.7 (Weekdays)
52.8 (Weekend) 56.0 (Weekend) -
Palomar Airport ' Road Segment:
(see Figure 9)
P-1 67.0 72.l
P-2 67 .0 71.4
P-3 67.0 72.4
P-4 67.a 72.3
Melrose Avenue
Road Segment:
(see Figure 9)
·M-1 Ambient Level (-45) 6&.9
M-2 II II (---45) 66.9
M-3 • II II (~45) 63.9
M-4 II II (,-,45) 64.2 -
Carrillo Way
Road Segment:
(see Figure 9)
C-1 Ambient Level (---4-5) 61.9
C-2 II II 045) 60.4
C-3 II II (--45) 62.3
C-4 II II (~45) 59.l
C-5 II II {--45) 53.6
C-6 II II 0,45) 57 .2
0
0
0
0
0
0
80/234R 33
TABLE VII (continued)
COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE (ULTIMATE)
RANCHO CARRILLO DEVELOPMENT NOISE EXPOSURE
NOISE SOURCE
El Fuente Street
Road Segment:
(see Figure 9)
E-1
E~2
E-3
Alga Road
Road Segment:
(see Figure 9)
A-1
A-2
Collector Streets
Road Segment:
(see Figure 9)
Col ~
U-1
U-2
Carlsbad Raceway
Dragster Operations
Carlsbad Raceway
Motocross Activity
CURRENT"WORST
CASE" NOISE IMPACT
100' FROM CENTERLINE
(dB CNEL)
Ambient Level (~45)
II II (.-45)
47 .6
48.3
Ambient Level (-,45)
'
Ambient Level (---45)
II II (-45)
II II ("45)
4-1.9 (Saturday only)
48.7 (Sunday only)
EXPECTED FUTURE
(ULTIMATE) "WORST
CASE" NOISE IMPACT
100' FROM CENTERLINE
(dB CNEL)
59.8
57.8
57.0
55.7
46.8
'
50.4
50.8
54.7 -
41.9 (Saturday only)
48.7 (Sunday only)
80/234
34
Zone 3: Future unmitigated overall exposures from 60 dB
CNEL to 65 dB CNEL.
Zone 2: Future unmitigated overall exposures from 65 dB
CNEL to 70 dB CNEL.
Zone 1: Future unmitigated overall exposures over 70 dB
CNEL.
The location of each future unmitigated noise exposure zone
within the Rancho Carrillo development is shown by shaded noise
contours in Figures 10 through 35 on the next pages. Figure 10
shows the entire project site plan divided into 25 sections.
Each· section is numbered and enlarged in the subsequent figures
to show the unmitigated noise contours in detail.
It is understood that in an alternative development plan Palomar
Airport Road may be re-aligned to the north. Land use plans
.·O
for the property north of the current roadway alignment call for
industrial usage. The property south of the road is planned for
residential development. If Palomar Airport Road was re-positioned
to the north and the industrial and residential areas remained
unchanged, several changes in the residential noise exposure would
be expected. First, with a substantial (200 to 300 foot) northerly
re-alignment of Palomar Airport Road, the residential area road
noise impact would be greatly reduced. Second, with the removal Q
of Palomar Airport Road as a buffer between the two land uses,
the residential area would be adjacent to the potentially high
industrial noise emissions. The net change in residential
noise exposure is unknown. If the industrial uses represent
heavy industry with facilities that tend to 1eave manufacturing
bay doors open, the residential noise impact may be ~s high as, or
greater than, the projected road noise impact. Alternatively,
if the industrial land uses represent medium to light industry
with moderate noise emissions, the projected residential noise
exposure may decrease 5 dBA to 10 dBA. An accurate determination
of the actual residential noise impact resulting from a northerly
re-alignment of Palomar Airport Road is dependent upon further
~nformation regarding the actual distance of roadway movement and
the types of industrial uses.
GENERAL NOISE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
State and local standards for exterior noise impact limit the per-
mitted outside-to-inside noise intrusion to 45 dB CNEL for all
residential construction. In addition, local criteria limit noise
impact in all primary outdoor living space to 65 dB CNEL. Based
upon the noise impact category for each area of the Rancho
Carrillo development, varying n6ise control measures will be
needed to comply with state and local standards. A summary of the
general mitigation measures required for each noise impact
category is shown below. Q
CNEL IMPACT
j{. • _. _Z_on_e_.._l _R a_n--=g'--e-'--, d_B_
-~ 1 cver70
EJ
•jl ' ~ .•. : . ~i ·~--\:
...I . -~ •
. -.. • .'•
'•
2 65to70
3 60to65
4 55to60 -. --------;
/
r---·
\j_
!
i
! i
L..-··~·-··-··-·· • ··-··-··-··-··j
f'IGURE 10 : Ra ncho Carri llo Site Plan Se ctions -Each are shown
individually in Figures 11 thro ugh 35 .
35
i
·I
14,
.,
''
S0/234R 36
------1511----------
FIGURE 11: Section l Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 1
in Figure 10.
of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
37
(/ ·---··.-:-..
fZ"l-~~~~-m i:1 ~0-tl~~ ~-t~~~ . ~z~;::Q~-~ ~ zr~
. '\.."' ", '\.. ~ . . '-J ....... --··--·-. . . ...-_~ ~; ·. ~ • . . • • • • • ""#... • -• ! • • •
•*
FIGURE 12: Section 2 Rancho Carrillo Unmi tigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 2
in Figure 10.
of the Rancho Carrillo Site P !an presented
ACDUSTl , l -
ENCiaNEE~U\JC~ 0
30/234R
~-
~
FIGURE 13:
.•.•. ·.-.·.·.·.·.•.· ....
.... . ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. . . _.... -•.•
. : / ::; ···•.:_\'.~--;:_~
• •. -.· •• c• • /::)>·_' < ::_: :-·:_.:::: •••••
·.· _.::: ::_:: !...:--?&\\. ·::·::.:::: .••. :-.,:.::.:.::.:-::::.:::.
--.·• --· •.•.•. •.• .• •.• <<-~-:-::_·_:_:_:._:::_~'.·.·.
Sec tion 3 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
38
Shown above is section 3
in Figure 10.
of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
ACOUSTICAL
ENCilNEERU\IG
80/2.>4R 39
·r
L[ .. :~z;;;: r;.:r 4!..~~ ~~?~~ ~~,..--..... ~;s;~ .... rt? .. -._ • .,;,.,._~~i4~i~·-s ti~~
• . . • •..... '.l . .M
'.· •• i ••••••••••
• • •••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• ••••••••••••••••••• •••• • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • •
/
_I._
)r._
'//' ·,
FIGURE 14: Section 4 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigat ed Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
,•·
.,i. ..• '/'/,.
Shown above is sec tion 4
in Figure l 0.
of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan prese nted
R •
40
. . -•.:·.>::: ·,,~ .. -• ·111 i•:/·,:i\/h
..
" .r.: .
., .... ·-.£~, .;.t:: --.11]\
--J1Jft{I:
~--L-' \ . \;:,; ... __ .
\ •. \.
' : .... \ .. :: \-,i .
• . '
~ !..~ i~ ~1 \-~ rr-;i ti2
FIGURE 15: Section 5 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 5 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10.
ACOUSTICAL
\1:
. Ei\it;INEE~INGC
:)4ff!]"
S0/234R
•••• ••••• j : . .: ... : . . . •• . ' . . . . ~ . . . . ,,, . .. . /
..
"-. •
I •••••
' . . . . l e e e • e e .1 •• •• • • • • • •• ,. . . . . . . • .
I • • • • • • • . . ,'
••l . ,
1·. . • . • • • •. ;:·. •
FIGURE 16: Section 6 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
41
Shown above 1s section 6 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10.
80/234R
/
·-...
'·
,.·
i ··\_' ,,
I
• ~-. ·-~---• .. -... ·•
:· ::~•-•· .. •
FIGURE 17: Section 7 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 7 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
m Figure 10.
ACDU51UCAL
ENCiiNEERINCi CO
(
~,--.,._ ..
I.
·,
\ __ .,; ,.
/ .. -.:·
.) .
-..., -
, ,,
. i
FIGURE 18: Section 8 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours ..
Shown above is section 8 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10.
44
Contours.
Shown above is section 9 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10.
I ACOUSTICAL
ENGINEE~INti
..
l
FIGURE 20 : Section 10 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 10 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10.
-:
l ! I I
80/234
'
A
PART
' , ' i \. "' .... _,
' "' ·..;
FIGURE 21: Section 11 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 11
in Figure l 0.
of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
•
---,..:..•,; : ;.;_.
FIGURE 22 : Section 12 Ra ncho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Futu re Noise
Contours.
I -,
Shown above is section 12 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10 .
80/234
;" ".
.,:
), , ,,_
. '
/
. ii·. 1 I/
:-:;·:.-_-:/>:/ //_· ____ .-::
.<-_/ /< -:>. -->
__; /.. -··
/1:.:'.:::;:\::•:(\)•\·-·
,.
f.X</\>-
l.-..
fIGURE 23: Section 13 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 13 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10.
80/234 49
FIGURE 21J.: Section 14 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section llJ. of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Fi gu re 10.
S0 /234 50
/--_•.,"( '.•:1··· . . . . . ···._y
FIGURE 25: Section 15 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
Shown above is section 15 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure l 0.
ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERH\ICir"
80/234
FIGURE 26 : Section 16 Rancho Carrillo Unmitigated Worst Case Future Noise
Contours.
51
Shown above is section 16 of the Rancho Carrillo Site Plan presented
in Figure 10.
80/234
Zone 4:
Zone 3:
Zone 2:
Zone 1:
52
Noise imoact 55 dB CNELto 60 dB CNEL
For compliance with the exterior-to-interior noise
exposure limit of 45 dB CNEL, operable windows and doors
must be closed and a means of ~echanical ventilation
must be provided. Such ventilation will provide a
habitable interior environment while operable windows
and doors are closed for sound control. This ventilation
may be supplied by a "summer-switch" on the forced air
heating/cooling unit or air conditioner to operate the
fan for air circulation independent of the heating/cooling
function. If a "summer switch" is added to the FAU, the
UBC requires a fresh air intake duct to supply 20 percent
of the air from outside. In addition, this means of
ventilation must provide at least two air changes per
hour.
Noise impact 60 dB CNEL to 65 dB CNEL
To satisfy the state and local exterior-to-interior 45
dB CNEL noise control limit, operable exterior windows
and doors must be closed, mechanical ventilation is
required, and the dwelling facades must be acoustically
engineered. The dwelling shell acoustical engineering
involves a room-by-room analysis of each floor plan.
This analysis shows the exterior doors and windows
needed in each outside wall to provide satisfactory
noise control performance.
Noise impact 65 dB CNEL to 70 dB CNEL
Areas withiti this noise impact category require measures
for control of outside-to-inside intrusion to meet the
45 dB CNEL limits, and measures for reduction of outdoor
living space sound levels to meet the 65 dB CNEL criteria.
Outside-to-inside mitigation requires operable windows
and doors closed, mechanical ventilation provided and
acoustically engineered dwelling shells . Control of
noise impact in primary outdoor living areas requires
design of an acoustical barrier for placement between
the roadway and outdoor area. The design of necessary
acoustical barriers involves ~pecification of the barrier
pla6ement and top-of-wall grade. Minimum barrier height
will provide a line-of-sight break between a point five
feet above the outdoor living space grade and a point
zero feet (for cars) or eight feet (for trucks) above
the road grade. Common barrier construction materials
include, masonry block, masonry block and earth berm
combination, and continuous solid wood.
Noise impact 70 dB CNEL and above
Development areas subject to this noise impact category
require substantial abatement measures to reach the
ACOUSTICAL
ENGINEERINCi
80/234
Zone. 1:
(cont 'd}
53
required 45 dB CNEL interior noise environment and
65 dB CNEL exterior noise exposure . Control of noise
i n interior living areas r e quires operable windows and
doors closed , mechanica l ventilation , and acoustically
engineered dwelling shells . In this impact category ,
dwelling c onstruction requirements will incorporate
increased window g la zing thickness or double ash
construction . Compliance with the outdoor living space
sound exposure limit s requires an acoustical barrier
design . The necessary s ound control barrier wi ll be
higher than for all other noise impact categories .
Areas within this sound exposure group are on t he
border l ine of feas i bility for residential construction .
Detailed r ecommendations for control of sound exposure in indoor
and outdoor living areas c annot be accurately made in the general
planning stage of a d evel opment. Specific mitigation measures are
best made i n the final stages of development when grading plans ,
building positions and f l oor plans are c omplet e . Spec ific noise
control r ecommendations should be formulated prior to i ssuance of
building permits and reviewed by the Building Department .
Although specific noise contro l measures c annot be outlined at
this time , i t is useful to show the approximate mitigation that
c an be achieved by general noise control approaches . Presented
below is an indication of the outdoor living space acoustical
s hiel ding that can be expected from representative , practical ,
noise control barr iers .
Figure 36 on the n ext page shows the development unmitigated noise
exposure and the g eneral exposure mitigation that can be expected
for three r epresentative barrier sections . F i gures 37 , 38 and
39 present the barrier s ections 1 , 2 and 3 respectively at a
l arger scale . Noise control barrier sections l and 2 are located
along Palomar Airport Road . Section 1 is at a point where the
r oadway is roughly 40 fee t above the project property to the
south . Section 2 is at a point where the r oad grade is roughly
the same as the property grade to the south . Noise control barrier
section 3 is located along Melrose Avenue . Sectinn 3 is l ocated
where the roadway is approximately 30 feet above the property
grade to the wes t.
For each of the representative barrier cuts (1,2 , and 3) the
barrier for control of outdoor noise impact was located at the
approximate near edge of roadway right-of-way . Calculations of the
expected acoustical shielding were made u sing the reference 19
barrie r analysis equations and using the typical motor-vehicle
spe ctra in reference 20 . The shielding analyses were performed
UNMITIGATED WORST CASE CONDITIONS:
ULTIMATE PALOMAR AIRPORT, ROADWAY AND CARLSBAD
RACEWAY NOISE SOURCES. !W ITH TRAFFIC FROM
DENSITY HOUSING BONUS AND SCHOOL CONVERSION.) --• -:~-----=-
KEY •
0Z0NE3: 6 □to65dB CNEL
OZ0NE4: 55to 60dB CNEL
r··--··--
fl ~
r ---=--=--=--=---=------.
This area not studied.
FIGURE 36 : Ty pical Barrier Noise Control Shielding
Shown above are three cuts which indicate
the r eduction in exterior noise exposure
from t ypical noise contro l barrier s . Each
cut i s en l arged i n Figures 39 ,38 and 39 .
54
' ,
BIO ACOUSTICAL
ENGINEERING CORP.
/ 1, .1 55
--··-----_ ..
-AtRPORT
----
):.\: :.-_::_..
-------·-------------------------------
----------------
FIGURE 37 Cut 1 , Ty2ical Barrier Noise Control Shielding:
Shown above is the Cut 1 barrier along Palomar Airport
Road . Also shown is the change in exterior noise exposur
expected from the 4 foot barrier at edge of right-of -
way .
80/214
FIGURE 38:
56
.ROAD--
Cut 2, Typical Barrier Noise Control Shielding
Shown above is the Cut 2 barrier along Palomar Airport
Road. Also shown is the change in exterior noise
exposure expected from the 8 foot barrier at edge of
right-of-way.
I ACOUSTICAL
ENGif\!EE~!NG pa • R .
)7
80 234
FIGURE 39 : Cut 3, Typical Barrier Noise Control Shielding
Shown above is the Cut 3 barrier along Melrose
Avenue . Also shown is the change in exterior noise
exposure expected from the 3 foot barrier at edge of
right-of-way .
80/234 58
assuming approximate barrier heights of 4 feet for cut 1 (Figure
37), 8 feet for cut 2 (Figure 38) and 3 feet for cut 3 (Figure
39). -A receiver height of 5 feet above pad grade, an automobile
noise source height of zero feet above road grade, and a truck
noise source height of eight fe~t above road grade were also used
in the calculations. In performing the barrier analyses,
expected noise impact, vehicle-to-barrier distance, and barrier-
to-receiver separation were also considered. Expected attenuations
for automobile and heavy truck traffic. were determined separately.
Figures 37, 38, and 39 indicate the general changes in development
exterior noise exposure which would be accomplished by the
representative barriers. Figure 37 (Cut 1) indicates that a 4
foot barrier positioned at this location would eliminate the
Zone 1 (over 70 dB CNEL) and Zore 2 (65 to 70 dB CNEL) exposures.
The Cut 1 barrier would change the unmitigated noise exposure ,to
a small Zone 3 exposure (60 to 65 dB CNEL) directly behind the
barrier and a Zone 4 exposure (55 to 60 dB CNE L) in all areas beyond
Zone 3.
Figures 38 (Cut 2) shows that an 8 foot barrier positioned at the
indicated location along Palomar Airport Road would also eliminate
the Zone 1 (over 70 dB CNEL) and Zone 2 (65 to 70 dB CNEL) exposures.
The Cut 2 acoustical shielding would change both the unmitigated
Zone 1 and Zone 2 exposures to a Zone 3 exposure (60 to 65 dB CNEL).
Figure 39 (Cut 3) indicates a 3 foot barrier along the edge of the
Melrose Avenue right-of-way. Calculations indicate that the Cut
3 barrier would be expected to c hange the unmitigated Zone 2
(65 to 70 dB CNEL) and Zone 3 (60 to 65 dB CNEL) exposures into
a small Zone 3 area and a Zone 4 exposure (55 to 60 dB CNEL) in
all areas beyond the mitigated 0one 3.
The representative barrier cuts shown in Figures 37, 38 and 39
indicate the general sound control performance that can be
expected from typical, practical, barriers. Each of the typical
barrier cuts indicate that the unacceptable exterior exposures
above 65 dB CNEL can be reduced to below 65 dB CNEL and well
within permitted limits. It is noted that Figures 37, 38, and
39 are not intended to represent specific noise control barrier
designs. Rather, these figures show the general mitigation that
is feasible. The specific noise control barrier placements,
heights and materials of construction must be determined at a
later time when more detailed development information is available.
CONCLUSION
An acoustical analysis of the proposed Rancho Carrillo residential
development has been performed . In performing this analysis, the
current noise environment was measured at several loca tions on
the property. The current field measurements indicate that there
are four noise source groups which produce measureable sound
exposure levels wi thin the project. The sources of present noise
exposure include: Aircraft fly-over activity, motor-vehicle
ACDUST~CAL
ENCiiNEERINt;.. ~i ..
80/234
t r affic , Carlsbad Raceway dragster operations , and Carlsbad
Raceway motocross activities. The only signi ficant source
59
o f cu~rent noise exposure is from motor-vehicle traffic along
Palomar Airport Road . This exposure is concentrated at the
northern portion o f the p lanned development. Aircarft fly-overs
currently produce a low CNEL exposure across the entire develop-
ment . Carlsbad Ra ceway noise emission produces an insignificant
contribut ion to the current noise environment.
An analysis of the fu ture (ultimate ) project noise exposure
indicates that the s ame four noise source catego ries will influence
the Rancho Carrillo noise environment . The future overall project
noise exposure i s expected to be greater than the current impact
due to a l a rge increase in motor-vehicle noise i mpact and a
moderate i ncrease in aircraft noise i mpact . The future Carlsbad
Ra c eway noise i mpact is expected to r emain essentially the s ame
as the current l eve ls . In future y ears motor-vehicle noise
i mpact will remain the only significant contributor to the project
CNEL exposure. Future aircr aft operations are expected to make
a very small contribution to the Rancho Carrillo CNEL exposure
levels. Future Carlsbad Raceway noise l evels are projected to
produce essentially no change in t he project noise environment .
Using the future noise impact information , the overall noise
exposure from all four principle sound sources has been determi ned
for the development area south of Palomar Airport Road . The noise
exposure range expected within t he project has been divided into
four future noise impact zones.
Compliance with state and local noise limits in al l indoor and
outdoor residential living areas requires certain mitigation
measures . Among the four exposure zones , the control measures
range from nothing to stringent acoustical des i gn requirements .
In general , the ma j ority of the planned Rancho Carrillo develop-
ment will be exposed to an expected minimal to moderate future
noi se exposure . Once preliminary site and building plans are
developed , acousti ca l engineering design will be r equi red for
dwellings exposed t o 60 dB CNEL or more and outdoor_ living areas
exposed to 65 dB CNEL or more . It is expected that c omp liance
with the interior 45 dB CNEL exposure ~riteria will be easily
met using standard construction with only minor material upgrades .
Calculations indicate that the attenuation expected from typical ,
practical , barriers wi ll reduce the exterior noise exposures to
within the 65 dB CNEL exposure limits .
80/234 60
REFERENCE LIST
1. California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1,
Article 4, Section 1092, "Noise Insulation Standards".
2. Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region,
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Palomar.Airport, May 1974, Page 10,
Table 11-1.
3. Pearsons, Karl., et. al., Handbook of Noise Ratings, NTIS
U.S. Department of Commerce Document #N74-23275 , prepared
by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman under Contract #NASl-11, 839
Task 2, for National Aeronautics and Space Administration ,
April 1974, Pages 104 through 112.
4. Private telephone discussion with Mr. Lacy Clark, Palomar
Airport Assistant Manager, 11 January 1980.
5. Private telephone discussion with Mr . Philip Safford, Assistant
Director of Palomar Airport , 17 January 1980.
6. Private telephone discussion with Mr. K. Dean, Controller for
the Palomar Airport FAA tower, 17 January 1980.
7. Pearsons, Karl S., op. cit. Pages 198 through 205.
8. Gorden, C.G., et. al., Highway Noise, A Design Guide for
Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 117, by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971,
Page 11.
9. Pearsons, Karl S., op. cit., Pages 100 through 103.
10. Urban Development and Transportation Studies, Los Angeles
International Airport Series, Volume 4, prepared by Olson
Laboratories, Inc., for the Los Angeles Department of
Airports and FAA, July 1975, page 2-51, Figure 2.14.
11. Leyerle, John S. and Bixler, Otto C. Jr., Short-Term Sampling
Techniques for Determination of Mo tor-Vehicle Traffic Noise
Exposure, published in Proceedings, 1978 International
Conference on Noise Control Engineering, May 1978, pages
671 through 674.
12. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, prepared
by Bolt, Beranek anct Newman, Inc., for f'ederal Highway
Administration, June 1973, PB-222 703, Pages 1-10.
13. Private telephone discussion with Mr. Larry Grismer , Carlsbad
Raceway Operator, 10 January 1980.
14. Pearsons, Karl S. op. cit., pages 114 through 119.
~ACDUST!CAL
ENGiNEERINCi R ..
80/234
REFERENCE LIST(Continued )
15 . Weston Pringle and Associates , Traff ic Engineering
Reoort for Rancho Ca rrillo in t he Cit of Carlsbad,
5 November 1 980 revised).
6 1
16. Barry , T.M. and Reagan , J.A., FHWA Highwav Traffic Noise
Prediction Method, Report numbe r FHWA-RD-77-108 , by
Federal Highway Administration , December 1 978 .
17 . Priv ate telephone discussion with Mr . Weston Pringle ,
Traffic Engineer with Weston Pringle and Associates,
27 May 1980 , 5 August 1 980 , and 6 November 1 980.
18. 24 -hour hour l y percent automobile and heavy truck percent
traffic flow breakdown , measurements of 31 ma jor Orange
County I ntersections , Orange County Environmental Manage-
ment Agency, 1979.
19 . Beranek, Leo L ., Noise and Vibration Control , McGraw-Hill
Book Company , New York , 1 971 pp . 174-180.
20 . Transportation Noise and Noise From Equipment Powered b y
Internal Combustion Engines , prepared by Wyle Laboratories
under contract #68-04-0046 for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency , 1971 , page 109 , Figure ·2.4-8.