Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-06; Poinsettia Shores PA A-3; Tentative Map (CT) (5)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 and CT 94-07/PUD 94-06 DATE: March 22. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Areas A-3 and A-4 2. APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200 Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 931-9100 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 25. 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two planning areas within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan: (1) Area "A-3" consisting of 50 detached single family homes on 5.000 sq ft minimum lots on 10.7 acres, and (2) Area "A-4" consisting of 61 detached single family homes on 5.000 sq ft minimum lots on 12.6 acres. Both planning areas involve Tentative Tract Maps (to subdivide land) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permits pursuant to the City's Planned Development Ordinance and are consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services - Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Hazards Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 1/30/95 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect hi this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 0 N- Planner Signature Date Planning Director Signature(—' Date Rev. 1/30/95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages hi the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and (c) none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all of the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been required or incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. Rev. 1/30/95 • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part n analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #1) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source tt's: 1,3) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source tt's: 1,2) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (Source #1) JL. X X H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source #1) Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Source tf's: 2,4) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #*s: 2,4) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source Ws: 2,4) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #*s: 2,4) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source tf's: 2,4) f) Erosion, changes hi topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #*s: 2,4) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source tf's: 2,4) h) Expansive soils? (Source tf's: 2,4) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source tf's: 2,4) JC_ X JL X X X IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #s: 2,5) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #*s: 2,5)X Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source ^s: 2,5) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source t's: 2,5) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #2) f) Change hi the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Source #2) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #2) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact JL X V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any ah" quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source ^s: 1,2,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source tf's: 1,2) c) Alter ah" movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source #*s: 1,2) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source tt's: 1,2) X Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #s: 1,6,8) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #fe 1,2) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source #*$: 1,2) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source #*s: 1,2) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source #s: 1,2) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #*s: 1,2) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #s: 1,2) X _ JL_ X VH. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Source #s: 1,2,3) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source ^s: 1,2) Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1,2,3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source ^s: 1,2,3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source tf's: 1,2,3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #*s: 1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #*s: 1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Source #s: 1,2) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source tf's: 1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source tf's: 1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source tf's: 1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source tf's: 1,2) Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #*s: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source tf's: 1,2) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #*s: 1,7) XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Source tt's: 1,9) b) Police protection? (Source tf's: 1,9) c) Schools? (Source ^s: 1,9) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source tf's: 1,9) e) Other governmental services? (Source tf's: 1,9) XH. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Source Ws: 1,9) b) Communications systems? (Source #1) JL. x 10 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Source tf's: 1,9) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #*s: 1,9) e) Storm water drainage? (Source tf's: 1,9) f) Solid waste disposal? (Source tf's: 1,9) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source tf's: 1,9) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Xni. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source #1) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source #1) c) Create light or glare? (Source #1) JL X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source tf's: 1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source tt's: 1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (Source Ws: 1,2) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source ^s: 1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source tf's: 1,2) 11 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source #1) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 12 Rev. 1/30/95 XVH. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. All pertinent earlier analyses have been identified at the beginning of the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. The Source Documents identified have been cited as appropriate in the checklist and environmental discussion. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 1. Air Quality and Circulation Impacts: Statements of Overriding Consideration made with the City's General Plan Master EIR (Source Document #8). 2. Archeological and Paleontological Impacts: Mass grading monitoring required by Source Document #1 and 2. 3. Noise Impacts: Noise study (Source #7) was required by Source Document #1. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Mitigation measures specific to this project include: (1) Archeological and paleontological monitoring which was carried out during the mass grading of the site in accordance with the approval of CT 94-01, and (2) noise mitigation designed into the project pursuant to a site specific noise analysis conducted for the proposed project. 13 Rev. 1/30/95 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1161) 1. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part H dated July 26, 1993. 2. Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part n dated April 1, 1994. 3. West Batiquitos LCP certified by the Coastal Commission May 12, 1994 4. Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park by Woodward-Clyde Consultants dated June 4, 1986. 5. Hydrology Study prepared by O'Day Consultants dated April 30, 1993. 6. Transportation Analysis for Poinsettia Shores by Urban Systems Associated dated May 17, 1993. 7. Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l by Mestre Greve Associates dated July 19, 1994. Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-2 by Mestre Greve Associates dated June 29, 1994. 8. City of Carlsbad General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 approved by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. 9. Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) documents including amendment LFMP 87-09(A) (approved January 4, 1994) and the Zone 9 Finance Plan (approved September 6, 1994) PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Planning Areas A-3 and A-4 are proposed in full compliance with all applicable provisions of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The proposed densities are within the limits established by the master plan which designated these planning areas with Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designations. Area A-3 proposes 50 detached single family homes (51 allowed) on 5,000 sq ft minimum sized lots and Area A-4 proposes 61 detached single family homes (62 allowed) on 5,000 sq ft minimum sized lots. The proposed architecture for A-3 and A-4 is the same featuring three floor plan types that range from approximately 2,340 sq ft to 3,175 sq ft. All plan types have a maximum building height of 28 1/2 feet. All applicable development standards and design criteria are complied with. Areas A-3 and A-4 are within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as shown on the attached Location Map. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175-D) was approved in January 1994 and incorporated a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document #1) which was intended to identify environmental impacts and related mitigation measures to allow the buildout of the residential portion of the master plan. As a result, the master plan contains environmental mitigation measures on a planning area by planning area basis. The subject planning areas have either completed applicable mitigation measures or incorporated them into their project design. Subsequent to the master plan approval, the Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01) was approved in August 1994 and incorporated another Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document #2) to allow mass grading of the master plan property, construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway, and construction of drainage improvements on the west side of the master plan site. The subject planning area sites are already mass graded from the approval 14 Rev. 1/30/95 of CT 94-01. All necessary infrastructure to serve the buildout of the residential planning areas has either already been constructed or are financially secured to guarantee their construction concurrent with need. Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a residential project, developed consistent with applicable General Plan designations, to be determined in prior compliance with existing environmental review if an EIR has been certified for the subject General Plan. Such is the case with the City's General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01 (Source Document #6) certified in September 1994. This document is referenced in addressing the Air Quality and Circulation impacts associated with master plan buildout. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION (The brief discussions below are intended to summarize and/or supplement the evidence contained in the pertinent Source Documents as noted on the checklist). 1. Land Use and Planning a)-c), e): The proposed planning areas implement the governing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in conformance with all master plan standards and guidelines, the Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designation and the coastal regulations of the West Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program (LCP). d): All agricultural conversion fees required for the mass grading of the master plan site associated with the approval of CT 94-01 have been paid or secured to the City's satisfaction. Mass grading of the site is near completion at this time. 2. Population and Housing a)-c): Local population projections and limits will not be exceeded by the buildout of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan including the development of the subject planning areas. Development of the Avenida Encinas roadway and related infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 will induce the buildout of the master plan in accordance with the General Plan and zoning regulations including Growth Management compliance. 3. Geologic Problems a)-i): The sites for Planning Areas A-3 and A-4 have recently been mass graded per the approval of CT 94- 01. Refined finish grading is required for the construction of building pads and internal roadways. A-3 requires approximately 4,300 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 13,500 cy of fill and 9,200 cy yards of import. A-4 requires approximately 17,100 cy of cut, 21,300 cy of fill and 4,200 cy yards of import. Standard grading permit procedures will apply. No seismic, geologic of surface substrate hazards are associated with the master plan site including the subject planning area sites. 4. Water a)-i): The development of streets and residential units will increase the amount of impervious areas and change existing absorption rates, however, all proposed drainage for buildout of the master plan's residential planning areas meets City and Engineering Department standards. Major drainage infrastructure has been provided by approval of CT 94-01. No flood hazards will be created by the development of the subject planning areas. No adverse impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon system will be created by the buildout of the master plan including the subject planning areas. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards are required to reduce urban pollutant quantities in drainage runoff. No impacts to any groundwater resources will be created by buildout of the master plan. 15 Rev. 1/30/95 5. Air Quality a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 and will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result hi increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation hi regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. b)-d): Development of the subject planning areas will not expose sensitive receptor to known significantly adverse pollutants or significantly change any air characteristics including moisture, temperature or odor. 6. Transportation/Circulation a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan and will result hi increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. 16 Rev. 1/30/95 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. b)-g): All streets will meet City standards, facilitate emergency vehicle access into the subject planning areas, create no conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists and will not interfere with railroad activities. Various master plan components incorporate bicycle racks, provisions for buses and mass transit and pedestrian trails and linkages which will benefit the residents of the subject planning areas. 7. Biological Resources a)-e): No biological resources or sensitive habitat are associated with the subject planning area sites. All open space requirements of the master plan have been secured to allow buildout of the master plan. The Batiquitos Lagoon and associated wetlands and sensitive bluffs will not be impacted by the development of Areas A-3 and A-4. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources a)-c): Non-renewable resources, energy and mineral resources will not be affected by the development of the subject planning areas. 9. Hazards a)-e): No hazards will be associated with the construction and development of the subject residential planning areas. Emergency vehicle access is provided to adequately serve Areas A-3 and A-4. Flammable hazards or explosion potential will not created by the project. 10. Noise a): The development of residential dwelling units will not significantly increase existing noise levels. b): As required previous environmental review and corresponding mitigation measures, Areas A-3 and A-4 have been designed pursuant to the recommendations of site specific noise studies to that compliance with the City's Noise policy and element of the General Plan will be maintained and no significant noise impacts will 17 Rev. 1/30/95 result. 11. Public Services a)-e): Both subject planning areas comply with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the requirements and standards of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and related documents. Therefore, all necessary public facilities and services will be adequately provided to serve the buildout of the master plan including Areas A-3 and A-4. 12. Utilities and Services Systems a)-g): Provisions for adequate utilities, water treatment, sewage, storm water drainage and water supplies have been secured and/or accounted for via the infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 and compliance with the Zone 9 LFMP. Coast Waste Management has reviewed the subject planning areas and have indicated that adequate solid waste disposal service can be provided. 13. Aesthetics a)-c): No scenic vista or highway considerations are pertinent to the subject planning areas. No aesthetic impacts will result from development of Areas A-3 and A-4. Planning Area A-4 is a blufftop site and was required to proposed development that will not adversely impact the aesthetic qualities of the blufftop area. In response, the project complies with the master plan setback requirement of 100 feet from the bluff edge. This setback distance is over twice the setback currently observed by the Rosalena subdivision's blufftop homes (45 feet). In addition, a lower building height as measured to the peak is established for this planning area as compared to the Rosalena homes or the development that would have been allowed under the previous master plan for the site. 14. Cultural Resources a)-e): No cultural resources of any kind are associated with the subject planning area sites. All required archeological and paleontological monitoring that was required during the mass grading process has been satisfactorily completed. No historic or significant ethnic cultural or religious resources will be impacted by the development of Areas A-3 and A-4. 15. Recreation a)-b): No recreational facilities currently exist on or near the subject planning areas. Passive recreation areas are provided throughout the site designs of Areas A-3 and A-4 usually near the interface with the master plan's trail system. Another planning area in the master plan (Area M) is designated and designed as a multiple use active and passive recreation center intended for the use of master plan residents, including those of Areas A-3 and A-4. No impacts to recreational resources or opportunities will result from the development of the subject planning areas. 18 Rev. 1/30/95 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 19 Rev. 1/30/95 BATIQUITOS LAGOON POINSETTIA SHORES RA A-3--CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 RA. A-4--CT 94-07/PUD 94-06 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREAA-3) CITY OF CARLSBAD Report #94-117 July 1, 1994 Prepared For: KAIZA POINSETTIA CORPORATION 7220 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Tanya Nguyen MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Carlsbad, CA 92660-7528 (714) 760-0891 Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Pagel MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS The outdoor living areas in Planning Area A-3 must comply with the City of Carlsbad outdoor noise standard of 60 CNEL. A number of outdoor living areas facing the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (AT & SF), and Avenida Encinas will experience noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL, and therefore, will require exterior mitigation to comply with the noise standard. The results indicate that required sound walls of 7.5 feet will be required for the lots adjacent to the railroad in order to meet the City's 60 CNEL noise standard. Additionally, sound walls of 6 feet will be required for the lots along Avenida Encinas. The sound walls will be required for the lots adjacent to the AT & SF railway and Avenida Encinas, and should be relative to the top of slope. The top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad elevation and the railroad or roadway elevation. The noise barrier height and location are also shown in Table S-l and Exhibit S. The data used in the noise barrier analysis is shown in the Appendix. Table S-l REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION , Barrier Height (feet) Top-of-Wall LOT # relative to top of slope Elevation ALONG AT & SF RAILROAD (below 60 CNEL for outdoor areas) 49 7.5 61.1 48 7.5 61.5 ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS 24 through 29 6.0 32, 33, 44, 47 6.0 NOTE: Sound wall should be relative to top of slope. Top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad and the roadway or railroad elevation. With the above noise barriers, all outdoor living areas in the project will be reduced to below 60 CNEL. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. The noise barriers may be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The wall may be constructed of 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be acceptable if properly designed as noise barriers. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit S Noise Barrier Height and Location Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The proposed project must comply with the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The building at the AT & SF railroad and Avenida Encinas intersection will experience a worst case combined noise level 68.9 CNEL. The buildings along Avenida Encinas will experience a worst case noise level of 64.0 CNEL. The results are maximum required outdoor to indoor attenuations of 24.9 dBA for the buildings along the railroad, and 19 dBA for the buildings along Avenida Encinas, in order to meet the City of Carlsbad 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Preliminary architectural drawings were provided by H. Architects Lorimer»Case, "Poinsettia Shores Planning Area A-4, The "Village of Honfleur". The construction specifications for this project which were utilized in estimating the outdoor to indoor noise reduction are presented below. Roof is attic space construction and incorporates concrete tiles on the exterior with gypsum drywall on the interior surface. This roof includes fiberglass insulation in stud cavity and is sloped. Exterior walls are wood stud construction with 7/8 inch stucco siding and minimum 1/2 inch gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include fiberglass insulation in stud cavity. Standard glass window has minimum 1116 inch single-strength plate glass. Standard sliding glass door is 3116 inch glazed glass. French door has solid core 1-314 inch thick wood with a minimum of 118 inch glazed glass, and is weather stripped. The results of the noise analysis indicate that the outdoor to indoor noise attenuations of the units along the AT & SF railroad (Lots 48 and 49) will be less than the required noise reduction (24.9 dBA). Therefore, these units will required window upgrades in order to achieve the indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. (The units along Avenida Encinas will not require any building upgrades). The following table identifies the building upgrades that will be necessary. The upgrades are required for all windows of the units of any building plans in Lots 48 and 49 facing the railroad, as specified in Table S-2. Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) PageS Table S-2 REQUIRED BUILDING UPGRADES FOR SECOND FLOOR ONLY UPGRADE REQUIRED TYPE NOISE PLAN UNIT (See list below) REDUCTION (DB) UNITS FACING AT & SF RAILWAY IN LOTS 48 AND 49 ONLY Plan A Corner optional master bedroom #2 B 24.9 Plan B Plan C Corner master bedroom Corner bedrooms #2 and #3 Corner master bedroom Corner bedrooms #3 and #4 B A A B 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 UPGRADE TYPE LIST FOR TABLE S-2: A. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); e.g. 1/4" Glazed operable window B. EWNR = 26 (STC = 28); e.g. 3/8" Glazed operable window NOTE: 1. Add 4 dB to all operable window ratings to get fixed window ratings. 2. Window and door call-outs above are examples; any windows or doors with the same or higher STC/EWNR ratings may be used. With the above required window upgrades in Lots 48 and 49 (only), all the homes in Planning Area A-3 will meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL, assuming windows are closed. In order to assume windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per Uniform Building Code. This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The system must supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Air conditioning is an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the UBC (Section 1205 (c)) requirements. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all units of the buildings in Lots 24 through 29. 32. 33. 44. 47 through 51 along Avenida Encinas and the railroad. Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 4 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREA A-3) CITY OF CARLSBAD ! 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to address compliance of Planning Area A-3 with the City of Carlsbad outdoor and indoor noise standards. The project is located in an incorporated area along Avenida Encinas and the AT and SF railroad. The future noise environment at the site will be affected by traffic and train noise. The vicinity map is presented in Exhibit 1. The site plan and noise barrier locations are presented in Exhibit 2. This study determines the total outdoor to indoor building noise attenuation and makes recommendations on methods to increase the building noise reduction characteristics. 2.0 NOISE CRITERIA The Noise Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land-uses. The standards are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL or Community Noise equivalent Level is a 24 hour time weighted annual average noise level. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during the evening period (7 PM to 10 PM) is penalized by 5 dB, while nighttime (10PM to 7 AM) noises are penalized by 10 dB. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. The exterior noise limit for outdoor living areas is 60 CNEL. The interior noise level standard is 45 CNEL. Grading plans were provided by O'Day Consultants, "Site Development Plan for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area A-3", April 22, 1994. Preliminary architectural drawings were provided by H. Architects Lorimer»Case, "Poinsettia Shores Planning Area A-3, The "Village of Honfleur". 3.0 UNMITIGATED NOISE EXPOSURE The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Noise contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distance to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. The project site is exposed to traffic noise from Avenida Encinas. The future traffic projection for the roadway was obtained from the "Traffic Impact Analysis for Kaiza Poinsettia Development, Zone 9, Carlsbad", April 1991. The traffic volume and speed utilized are presented in Table 1, and the interior roadways are shown in Table 2. The time and traffic distributions utilized are presented in Table 2. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC CITY OF ENCINITAS Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) PageS Table 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED Avenida Encinas 6,900 40 Table 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck 75.51 1.56 0.64 12.57 0.09 0.02 9.34 0.19 0.08 Utilizing the traffic data presented above and the FHWA Model, distances to the 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours were determined. The distances from the centerline of the roadways to the contours are presented below in Table 3. These projections do not take into account any barriers, topography, or buildings that may reduce noise levels. Table 3 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS ROADWAY DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR (FT) SEGMENT -70- -65- -60- Avenida Encinas 19 42 90 The results in Table 3 show that a number of outdoor living areas in the project will be exposed to traffic noise levels greater than 60 CNEL and will require noise mitigation. Outdoor observers will experience a worst case traffic noise level of 63.2 CNEL along Avenida Encinas. Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 6 2.5 Future Railroad Noise The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe (A.T. and S .E) Railroad tracks run adjacent to the south side of the site. The "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations," (Wyle Laboratories Report WCR-73-5, July 1973) was used to model the train noise levels on the project site. The noise generated by a train pass-by can be divided into two components; that generated by the engine or locomotive, and that due to the railroad cars. The characteristic frequency of the engine is different than that for the cars. The effective radiating frequency is 800 Hz for the locomotive engines, and 1200 Hz for the portion of the noise generated by the cars. The noise generated by the engine is the result of the mechanical movements of the engine parts, the combustion process, the horn if used, and to a lesser extent the exhaust system. The noise generated by the cars is a result of the interaction between the wheels and the railroad tracks. A zero source height is used for the car noise, and a source height of 10 feet above the track is utilized for the locomotive. The train noise levels are calculated by summing the noise generated by the locomotive and the noise generated by the cars. Data on railroad operations were obtained from Bill Farguhar at the North San Diego County Transit Development Board on April 14, 1993. The railroad line will used for freight, Amtrak and commuter train operations. The times, speeds as well as number of evening, night-time, and day-time train pass-bys were used with the train noise model to project future train noise levels for different types of trains. Future train operations will include 24 commuter train pass-bys, 28 Amtrak pass-bys, and 4 freight train pass-bys for the year 2010. Table 4 shows the time distribution of the trains. Table 4 TRAIN TIME DISTRIBUTION TIME -—NUMBER OF OPERATIONS PER DAY—- PERIOD Day Evening Night Speed (mph) COMMUTER 12 6 6 60 AMTRAK 21 5 2 90 FREIGHT 1 1 2 50 The operational data was utilized in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project train noise levels on the project site. The train model for Amtrak and commuter trains was calibrated to more closely simulate actual measured noise levels. Measured Amtrak train noise levels were approximately 9.1 dBA lower than the model predicts. This may be due to continually welded tracks or quieter engines. Commuter and Amtrak train noise levels were modified to reflect the 9.1 dBA difference. Freight train noise levels were not modified. The results of the train noise projections are displayed in Table 5 in terms of noise levels experienced on the site at distances of 100, 200, 400 and 800 feet from the tracks. The noise projections do not include the effects of topography or barriers which may reduce the noise levels. Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page? Table 5FUTURE RAILROAD NOISE LEVELS Distance from Tracks CNEL Noise Level 100 feet 69.2 200 feet 65.2 400 Feet 69.6 800 feet 54.0 The results in Table 5 and the site plan indicate that the area along the A.T. and S. E Railroad will be exposed to noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL. The nearest outdoor living area will be located approximately 120 feet from the centerlineof the tracks and will be exposed to a maximum unmitigated train noise level of 68.3 CNEL. The nearest building will be located approximately 130 feet from the centerline of the tracks and will be exposed to a worst case train noise level of approximately 68.1 CNEL. 4.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The residential units in the project must comply with the City of Carlsbad 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard. The outdoor living areas will experience traffic and train noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL, and therefore, will require mitigation measures in terms of noise barriers. The results indicate that required sound walls of 7.5 feet will be required for the lots along the AF & SF railroad in order to meet the City's 60 CNEL noise standard. Additionally, sound walls of 6 feet will be required for those lots adjacent AvenidaEncinas. The required sound walls should be relative to the top of slope, and the top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad elevation and the rail/road elevation. The noise barrier height and location are shown in Table 6 and Exhibit 2. The data used in the noise barrier analysis is shown in the Appendix. Mestrc Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 8 Table 6 REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION Barrier Height (feet) Top-of-Wall LOT # relative to top of slope Elevation ALONG AT & SF RAILROAD (below 60 CNELfor outdoor areas) 49 7.5 61.1 48 7.5 61.5 ALONG AVEN1DAENCINAS 24 through 29 6.0 32, 33, 44, 47 6.0 NOTE: Sound wall should be relative to top of slope. Top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad and the roadway or railroad elevation. With the noise barriers shown in Exhibit 2 and Table 6, the exterior noise levels at all outdoor living areas in Planning Area A-3 will be reduced to below 60 CNEL. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. The noise barriers may be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The wall may be constructed of 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be acceptable if properly designed as noise barriers. 5.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The proposed project must comply with the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. To comply with the interior noise standard the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise levels down to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements which make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent on the transmission loss of each element and the area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. For interior noise analysis, the most direct way of computing the total noise reduction is through the use of the methodology published by the Federal Highway Administration ("Insulation of Buildings Against Highway Noise," FHWA-TS-77-202). This methodology consists of applying a single number weighting concept weighted for highway noise. The FHWA methodology incorporates the Exterior Wall Noise Rating scale (EWNR). This is similar to the more traditional Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating except that EWNR is specifically weighted for highway noise sources, i.e., it accounts for the specific frequency components of highway noise. The FHWA has published EWNR data for the noise reduction characteristics of MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 2 Noise Barrier Height and Location Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 9 various building elements and construction techniques. This noise attenuation data is based upon empirically derived data on construction materials in practice today. The proposed project must comply with the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The building facing the AT & SF railway and Avenida Encinas will experience a worst case combined train and traffic noise level of approximately 68.9 CNEL, resulting in a maximum required building attenuation of 24.9 dBA to meet the City of Carlsbad 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The construction specifications for this project which were utilized in estimating the outdoor to indoor noise reduction are presented below. Roof is attic space construction and incorporates concrete tiles on the exterior with gypsum drywall on the interior surface. This roof includes fiberglass insulation in stud cavity and is sloped. Exterior walls are wood stud construction with 7/8 inch stucco siding and minimum 1/2 inch gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include fiberglass insulation in stud cavity. Standard glass window has minimum 1116 inch single-strength plate glass. Standard sliding glass door is 3/16 inch glazed glass. French door has solid core 1-3/4 inch thick wood with a minimum of 1/8 inch glazed glass, and is weather stripped. To assess compliance of the project with the interior noise standard, a worst case room for each building plan was selected for analysis. In general, the worst case room is the second story corner room with the greatest amount of window area. Corner rooms have more exterior surface area for noise infiltration. Rooms with large window areas have the least noise reduction, because windows typically are the weakest part of the structure. Table 4 displays a sample of the building element areas and EWNR values (as given by the FHWA) used to compute the total noise reduction. The total outdoor to indoor noise reductions with and without upgrades are also given in Table 4. Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 10 Table 4DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPGRADES BUILDING ELEMENT AREA (SQ. FT.) EWNR (DB) no upgrades EWNR (DB) with upgrades Plan A - Second Floor Corner Optional Master Bedroom #2 Roof 252 36 36 Wall 290 40 40 Window (operable) 63 22 26 Total Noise Reduction (dB): 23.0 27.8 Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9 Plan B - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom Roof 432 36 36 Wall 343 40 40 Window (operable) 105 22 26 Total Noise Reduction (dB): 22.9 27.4 Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9 Plan B - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #2 Roof 173 36 36 Wall 175 40 40 Window (operable) 35 22 26 Total Noise Reduction (dB): 22.1 26.6 Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9 Plan B - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #3 Roof 156 36 36 Wall 158 40 40 Window (operable) 43 22 24 Total Noise Reduction (dB): 22.4 26.0 Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9 Mestrc Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 11 Table 4 (continued) DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPGRADES BUILDING AREA EWNR ELEMENT (SQ. FT.) (DB) no upgrades Plan C - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom Roof 324 Wall 268 Window (operable) 50 Window (fixed) 30 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #2 Roof 121 Wall 63 Window (operable) 25 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #3 Roof 142 Wall 136 Window (operable) 38 Door (entry) 19 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #4 Roof 223 Wall 173 Window (operable) 25 Window (entry) 38 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 36 40 22 22 23.0 24.9 36 40 22 27.3 24.9 36 40 22 26 23.1 24.9 36 40 22 24 22.9 24.9 EWNR (DB) with upgrades 36 40 24 28 26.8 36 40 26 26 26.4 36 40 26 24 26.0 Mestre Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 12 The analysis indicated that the units along the AT & SF railway in Lots 48 and 49 (only) will require window upgrades to meet the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. The following table identifies the building upgrades that will be necessary. The upgrades are required for all windows of the units of any building plans in Lots 48 and 49 facing the AT & SF railway. Table 5 REQUIRED BUILDING UPGRADES FOR SECOND FLOOR ONLY UPGRADE REQUIRED TYPE NOISE PLAN UNIT (See list below) REDUCTION (DB) UNITS FACING AT & SF RAILWAY IN LOTS 48 AND 49 Plan A Corner optional master bedroom #2 B 24.9 Plan B Plan C Corner master bedroom Corner bedrooms #2 and #3 Corner master bedroom Corner bedrooms #3 and #4 B A A B 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 UPGRADE TYPE LIST FOR TABLE 5: A. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); e.g: 1/4" Glazed operable window B. EWNR = 26 (STC = 28); e.g. 3/8" Glazed operable window 1. Add 4 dB to all operable window ratings to get fixed window ratings. 2. Window and door call-outs above are examples; any windows or doors with the same or higher STC/EWNR ratings may be used. The results in Table 5 show that with the above required window upgrades, all units will provide an outdoor to indoor noise reduction greater than the maximum required attenuation for the buildings. Thus the buildings in the project will meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL with the above upgrades, assuming windows are closed. With windows open the building outdoor to indoor noise reduction falls to 12 dBA. Therefore windows must remain closed for units experiencing an outdoor noise level greater than 57 CNEL. In order to assume windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per Uniform Building Code. This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The system must supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Air conditioning is an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the UBC (Section 1205 (c)) requirements. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all units of the buildings in Lots 24 through 29. 32. 33. 44. 47 through 51 along Avenida Encinas and the railroad. Mestrc Greve Associates Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3) Page 13 APPENDIX DATA USED TO DESIGN NOISE BARRIERS Cross Road Distance Base Of Dist. To Pad Section Elevation To Wall Wall Observer Elevation Observer Wall Height Height 49 48 39 40 ALONG AT & SF RAILROAD 120 120 53.6 54.0 125 125 53.6 54.0 ALONG3 6 6 7.5 7.5 51.8 56.4 61.6 63.4 64.2 65U 65.5 60. 61.6 63.4 64.2 65.1 65.5