The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3551; POINSETTIA LANE OVERHEAD WIDENING; MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; 1999-06-21 (2)MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING June 21, 1999 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project # DEC832 Under contract to: Dokken Engineering 3914 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite A153 San Diego, California 92123 RECEIVED JUN 22 1999 NNRIN 1DPARTMNT ISA Associates, Inc. - TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/PROPOSED ACTION.....................................................1 I 2.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ... 9 3.0 EARLIER ANALYSES..............................................................................................10 I 4.0 DETERMINATION...................................................................................................10 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...........................................................................11 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION ..............................19 I 6.1 Aesthetics ..............................................................................................................19 6.11 Agriculture Resources...........................................................................................20 6.111 Air Quality.............................................................................................................20 I 6.IV Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 21 6.V Cultural Resources ................................................................................................24 .6.VI Geology And Soils ................................................................................................. 25 I 6.VII Hazards And Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 27. 6.VIII Hydrology And Water Quality..............................................................................29 6.IX Land Use And Planning ........................................................................................32 I 6.X Mineral Resources .................................................................................................. 32 6.XI Noise......................................................................................................................33 6.XII Population And Housing.......................................................................................35 I 6.Xffl Public Services......................................................................................................36 6.XIV Recreation ............................................................................................................... 36 6.XV Transportation/Traffic .......................................... ................................................. 37 I 6.XVI Utilities And Service Systems .............................. ................................................. 38 6.XVII Mandatory Findings Of Significance ..................................................................... 39 I 7.0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES ......................................................................41 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST REFERENCES......41 I APPENDICES' A - Biological Evaluation B - Structure Foundation Report C - Vista Environmental Site Assessment Report D - Noise Analysis I 06/21/99 C> C:TEMP\JS-MND1.DO, U LSA Associates, Inc. FIGURES 1 - Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................................................2 2— Project Location......................................................................................................................................3 3 - Adjacent Land Uses................................................................................................................................4 4—Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................................... 6 5 - Coastal Sage Scrub Impacts of Proposed Project.................................................................................22 6—Noise Modeling Locations....................................................................................................................34 TABLES 6.XI.A - Peak Hour Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Locations 33 6.XV.A - Traffic Volumes and Level of Service 37 06/21/99 <C:\ThMP\IS-MND1.DO0 111 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I LA Associates, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be completed by staj) BACKGROUND CASE NAME: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:__________________________ 2075 Las Palmas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576: Tel: (760) 438-1161 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Location and Site Description The proposed project is located in northwestern San Diego County in the City of Carlsbad. Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate 5 (1-5) via the Poinsettia Lane interchange. The segment of existing Poinsettia Lane proposed for improvement is located between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard. Figures 1 and 2 identify the project area in a regional and local context, respectively. Existing land uses adjacent to the project include residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Existing land uses east of Avenida Encinas to the I-S Freeway include a neighborhood shopping center, two motels, auto dealerships, and offices. Between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard, adjacent existing land uses are limited to the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park and agricultural land that is currently vacant. South Carlsbad State Beach and Pacific Ocean are located to the west of Carlsbad Boulevard. The City approved the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, which allows development of 1,009 dwelling units on the vacant property adjacent to Poinsettia Lane. An Environmental Impact Report (Em) was certified for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan in July, 1997 (State Clearinghouse No. 96081027). Figure 3 depicts the existing and proposed adjacent land uses. 1.2 Existing Facility Poinsettia Lane, between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard, is a two to four lane road with signalized intersections at either end. The current roadway section varies from 36 to 94 feet. Poinsettia Lane is four lanes at the approaches and reduces to two lanes as it spans the San Diego Northern Railroad tracks (owned and operated by North County Transit District [NCTD] railroad). On eastbound Poinsettia Lane at Avenida Encinas, there is a dedicated left turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared right turn lane. On Poinsettia Lane at Carlsbad Boulevard, there is one dedicated right turn lane and one dedicated left turn lane. When the existing facility was 06/21/99 <C:\TEMP\1S-MND1.D0C I Riverside County I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I San Diego County Esondido Diego - USA - - - MEX'- - 6116/99(DEC832) IN Scale in Mites LSA - 0 5 10 Figure 1 Vicinity Map I • 11 A .'•' of (:4 J I. ' o 221 'i Iff 332 .. 1 ( '\ I V,r"k1 16 4- 29 I(lL '-1II qI c1t I •• .5 S ••._ • J '' • I . I I %tl I • Trailer".. Pa rk ti. i.' •i• ' •oj, PROJECT , Mt LOCATION ronto - I I • • 5. 1 c ' .... i ..• • •. 32 .!.) -5-- Z. • . / —' I c i \ •.,. . \- BA#IQtJ1TOS Quadrangle, "Encinitas, Calif" ___________________ — \ -----"\ —,-' \ \\\ / •1 6/16/99(DEC832) IN LSA Scale in Feet 0 1000 2000 Figure 2 Project Location : - jf 761.1 'lot, j POINSETTII4!PROPERTIES t'j POINSETTIA PROPERTIES ft1 j A \UWt % SP'EC)FIC PCAN SPECIFIC PIAN4 ?jfi ft' 2 1\ \\\ (FUTURE RESIDENTIAL) ,' (FUTURE RESIDENTIAL RESTA 13 HAI M ER o v Me7 INS PROJECT fill STUDY AREA NN , =M'OTE L ' . 6 fSETTIA -PRO PERT 40 11 HOME4'ARK çARLãAD OINSE:1TIAVILAGE ISA Associates, Inc. built in 1984, the embankments were constructed to accommodate the ultimate right-of-way necessary for construction of a four lane roadway. The existing bridge was constructed in the southerly half of the righi-of-way. The eastbound and westbound lanes of Poinsettia Lane are separated with double solid line striping and a raised concrete median from Carlsbad Boulevard to 200 feet east of the intersection. The existinj bridge overcrossing is a three span structure, approximately 142 feet in length and 45 feet wide. 1The bridge carries two traffic lanes, a bicycle lane, and a sidewalk along its 142 foot length. The bridge is constructed of pre-stressed concrete slabs and crosses the railroad at a skew. Existing utility lines (sewer, natural gas, electricity, and telephone) travel under the eastern slope embankment in a north-suth direction. A bicycle lane exists on westbound Poinsettia Lane; however, it is striped only from Avenida Encinas to the bridge structure. A continuous sidewalk is provided adjacent to the eastbound lane. Sidewalks are also 'provided adjacent to the westbound lanes but only near the intersections, not over the bridge. - The existing bridge spans the NCTD railroad line and currently provides 23 feet of vertical clearance from the railroad tracks. The eastern and western bridge abutments and approaches are wider than the existing roadway improvements. A total right-of-way of 130 feet is provided on the top of the embankments. Adjacent property owners have dedicated easements on the side slopes to the City. The existing facility is depicted in Figure 3. 1.3 Description of Proposed Project The proposed project would bring the portion of Poinsettia Lane within the project area into conformance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Poinsettia Lane is classified in the Circulation Element as a Major Arterial roadway (four travel lanes and a raised median). Additionally, the widening would relieve existing weekend and summer traffic congestion and provide for improved bicycle and pedestrian access on Poinsettia Lane. As proposed, the existing Poinsettia Lane bridge structure and approaches would be widened from two lanes to four lanes. The widened facility would include four 12 foot traffic lanes, two variable width (5 to 8 feet) bicycle lanes, two 5 foot sidewalks, and a raised center median. The approaches will be widened on the existing embankments. The bridge will be widened from 45 feet to 76 feet in order to provide for two additional lanes. All widening will occur on the north side of the existing roadway and bridge structure. No improvements or impacts (temporary or permanent) will occur on the south side embankments. Figure 4 depicts the roadway improvements proposed. Additional features of the proposed project include the following. Approach of Poinsettia Lane/Avenida Encinas intersection would be improved to full width to two dedicated left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared right turn lane. The western approach of the Poinsettia Lane/Carlsbad Avenue intersection would remain unchanged with one dedicated left turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane. 06/21/99 <C:\TEMVIS-MND1.DOC II I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/I 6/99(DEC832) Scale in Feet LSA 0 50 100 Figure 4 Proposed Project LSA Associates, Inc. I . A varied width raised median is proposed from Avenida Encinas to approximately 200 feet east of Carlsbad Boulevard (proposed Sta. 1746+14) where it will join the existing raised median. Median landscaping will consist of palm trees and low shrubbery or ground cover. I • Three existing drainage inlets would be extended on the north side of the eastern embankment between proposed Sta. 1756+00 and Sta. 1756+50 to convey roadway drainage. Extending the inlets is required because of the relocated curb line. Inlets at the I existing curb on the northwestern corner of Avenida Encinas/Poinsettia Lane will be relocated to the north. I . A 12 inch water line would be constructed in Poinsettia Lane to connect to the existing 12 inch water line in Avenida Encinas and the existing 10 inch water line in Carlsbad Boulevard. An eight inch reclaimed water line will be extended from Avenida Enemas and stubbed to a future connection in Carlsbad Boulevard. Continuous variable width (five to eight feet) striped bicycle lanes would be provided in I both the eastbound and westbound direction. A continuous 5 foot concrete sidewalk will be provided on the north side of the edge of I pavement and will connect to the existing sidewalk at approximately 240 feet east of Carlsbad Boulevard (proposed Sta. 1746+54). I All improvements can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way, except near the Avenida Encinas intersection. As shown in Figure 4, approximately 400 feet of the existing slope would be extended approximately 20 to 40 feet to the north (from proposed Sta. 1753+00 to 1754+00). Approximately 0.18 acre of the adjacent vacant parcel would be affected. Expansion I of the slope would require import of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of fill material. The construction/staging area will be accessed from both Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida I Encinas. Environmental fencing will be provided five feet from the toe of the existing slope embankments, except where the slope will be expanded. The fencing will be provided to protect vegetation located on the slope embankments. I 1.4 Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration I Alternatives Previously Analyzed I As part of the Poinsettia Lane Final EIR (EIR No. 82-6, SCH No. 83010504), four project alternatives were analyzed and rejected. The analysis conducted for this EIR exhausted the possible alternatives for locating the existing roadway and bridge structure on and off site. Given the fact that this prior analysis was conducted and that the existing facility is constructed in its I current location, no alternative locations for the proposed alternatives were evaluated in this document. I . No Project Alternative - A No Project Alternative was considered; however, it was rejected since it was inconsistent with the objectives of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. I 06/21/99 'C:\TEMP\IS-MND I .DOC 7 ISA Associates, Inc. On-Grade Crossing Alternative - This alternative proposed to create a vehicular crossing at grade as opposed to an elevated crossing. This alternative was considered infeasible due to approvals required from the NCTD (previously Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad) and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). I • Alternate Location Alternative - This alternative considered the railroad overcrossing at an alternate location. This alternative would have required acquisition of additional right-of- way to locate the bridge in a different location, and would have resulted in local circulation I and noise impacts. This alternative was rejected because of inconsistency with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Alternate Alignment Alternative - This alternative considered an alternate alignment of the bridge crossing and eastern approaches. Acquisition of additional right-of-way between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard would have been required. Alternate Bridge Structure Height U Recent engineering studies analyzed a bridge structure that provided 26 feet of vertical overhead clearance. This alternative was studied because it was considered possible that this vertical I clearance would be required by NCTD. A structure with a vertical clearance of 26 feet would be three feet higher than the current bridge and could not be connected to the existing structure. A 26 foot bridge would need to be built as a completely independent structure. 1 Construction of an independent structure would result in higher project costs. An independent structure would serve westbound traffic, while the existing bridge would serve eastbound traffic. Because of the differential vertical clearance at the railroad tracks, the profile of the eastbound I and westbound roadways would be different. Because of this difference in profile grades, extensive retaining wall construction would be required to support the westbound roadway. Costs for retaining walls to support the westbound roadway would be approximately $300,000. I Because of the increase in project costs and the differential roadway grade, the 26 foot vertical overhead clearance alternative was rejected by the City. It has also been subsequently determined that a 26 foot vertical clearance would not be required by the NCTD. I I 06/21/99 C:TEMP\1S-MNDI .DOC L,SA Associates, Inc. 2.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. Fj Aesthetics El Geological Problems []Air Quality Hazards Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Cultural Resources [I] Noise [lEnergy & Mineral Resources [lPopulation and Housing fl Mandatory Findings of Significance F] Public Services [lRecreation [lTransportation/Circulation [lUtilities & Service Systems [lWater 06/21/99 <'C:\TEMP\IS-MND1.D00 9 ISA Associates, Inc. 3.0 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EW, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (see Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of CEQA Guidelines.- Master EIR for the General Plan Update In March 1994, a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was prepared to evaluate the 1993 update of the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The MEW evaluates a broad range of potential environmental impacts associated with long-term implementation of the Carlsbad General Plan. The MEW provides a program level analysis of build out conditions presented in the General Plan, which includes the proposed bridge widening. Widening of Poinsettia Lane from two to four lanes will bring the roadway into conformance with the major arterial designation identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Given that the project is consistent with the Circulation Element analyzed in the MEW, the MEW was used as substantiation for several environmental checklist questions 4.0 DETERMINATION 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has I been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the I effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EW or I NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EW or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date 06/21/99 C:\TEMP\IS-MNDI .DOC>> 10 1_SA Associates, Inc. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears on the following pages in the form of a checklist. The 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) or Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EW or Negative Declaration 06/21/99 <C:\TEMP\IS-MNDI.D0C 11 ISA Associates, Inc. I Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No U Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LIII I Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not El 1111 El N limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? I Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality EJ El LI of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which El X I d) would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? I ll. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. I of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of [I] El N I Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, LI LI due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? I M. AIR QUALITY - Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied I upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable LI LI LI lZJ I air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially LI LI LI I to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any LI LI LI criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LI LI LI Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of LI LI LI pp. I I 06/21/99 '<C:\TEMP\IS-MNDI.DOC,> 12 LSA Associates, Inc. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through fl habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or El LII other sensitive natural community identified in local or VS1 regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected E E El 0 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native fl resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting El El [] biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El 11111 Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an El N El El archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred El El LII outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse El effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the El F1 0 F1 most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking?El F1 Z L] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 06/21/99 <<C:\TEMP\IS-MNDI.DOC> 13 LSA Associates, Inc. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? 111111 III Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? El 0 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that El N LI would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of LI LI LI the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of El El LI septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [II] through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely [j] [III [I] hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous El El 121 LII materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, LI [I] LI 17/1 where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would LI LI LI the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an LI LI LI adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, LI LI [I] injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildiands? 06/21/99 <C:\TEMP\1S-MND1.DOC 14 ISA Associates, Inc. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [] Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or [1 [1111 area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or El El area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the [] capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [] Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as El [] mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which El LII would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El [] injury or death, involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? El El El LX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Physically divide an established community? El El LI Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation El El El 1121 of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or El El El natural community conservation plan? 06/21/99 C:\TEMP\IS-MNDiDOC 15 I I I I I I I I ISA Associates, Inc. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral E resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important El El El 0 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbofte noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in El LI the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient [] [] [] noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, [] LI where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either LI LI LII directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, LI LI LI necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the LI LI LI construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical LI LI LI impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: I 06/21/99 C:\TEMP\1S-MND1.DOC> 16 LSA Associates, Inc. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Fire protection? Impact Incorporated Impact El Impact 0 Police protection? El X Schools? Parks? LI Other public facilities? F1 El El N XIV. RECREATION - Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood El El X and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the LI LI construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? - XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 11 El VISN' service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., Eli LI [II] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Eli LI Result in inadequate parking capacity? El 1111 El X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs El El El supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable U LI Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or LI LI [I] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 06/21/99 cC:\TEMP\IS-MND 1.DOC, 17 L,SA Associates, Inc. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Less Than I (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Require or result in the construction of new storm water [J [I] [I] drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental I effects. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project El El LII from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or I expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has I adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El [I] [I] I accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and El El El regulations related to solid waste? - I XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of El LI] zEl 1 the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range I of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, El El z El but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project I 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)? I c) Does the project have environmental effects which will El El El cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either 1 I . I directly or indirectly? I I 06/21/99 <C:\TEMPIS-MNDl.DOC 18 LSA Associates, Inc. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION 6.1 AESTHETICS Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. Poinsettia Lane is designated in the Circulation Element as a Community Scenic Corridor because it offers "back country" vistas, occasional "blue water" views of the ocean, distant views of the lagoon, and flower fields and nurseries. The City's Scenic Corridor Guidelines identify goals for implementing community scenic corridors, including creation of a unique identity by selecting a predominant "theme" tree; preserving distant views of the ocean, lagoons, and backcountry; and encouraging special landscaped setbacks. On page 35 of the Guidelines, the recommended theme tree along Poinsettia Lane is Magnolia gradiflora (Southern Magnolia) with supporting trees being Brachychiton acerfolius (Flame Tree); southern magnolia is also recommended as the median tree within the Poinsettia Lane corridor. During roadway design, placement of Southern Magnolia specimen trees was considered. Due to the limited length of the median and the presence of other strong landscape elements (i.e., palm trees) at the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park and South Carlsbad State Beach, it was determined that placement of palm trees within the median would provide greater visual continuity within the existing setting than providing limited specimen trees of Southern Magnolia. However, the segment of Poinsettia Lane under study only provides views of the ocean and the South Carlsbad State Beach. Landscaping provided within the proposed median will consist of groupings of palm trees and small shrubbery or ground cover. The proposed landscape palette will provide visual continuity with existing palm trees at the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park and South Carlsbad State Beach and will enhance existing views of and from this facility. As the proposed bridge structure will be the same design as the existing bridge, views from passenger trains on the railroad will not be substantially altered. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Poinsettia Lane is not a State scenic highway. Refer to response 6.I.a for an assessment of the project's effect on City designated scenic corridors. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. As the proposed project is the widening of an existing facility at exactly the same grade and profile, the existing visual character will not be substantially altered. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. Lighting from the proposed project will not be substantially greater than existing lighting on the bridge. 06/21/99 <'C:\TEMV'JS-MND 1.DOC>' 19 I ISA Associates, Inc 6.11 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES 1 a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. There are currently no agricultural activities occurring in the vicinity of the I project site or on the existing slope embankment. As noted in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR, the area surrounding the project site was historically used for agricultural purposes; however, the site has not been utilized in this manner since 1972 (Poinsettia I Properties Specific Plan EIR, p. 5.1-1). There is no prime, unique or Statewide important farmland in the area (Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR, pg. 5.8-1). I b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1 No Impact. No portion of the Poinsettia Properties project area is under a Williamson Act preservation contract (Poinsettia Properties EIR, p. 5.8-3). c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their I location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Refer to response 6.11.a for discussion. 6.111 AIR QUALITY I a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? I No Impact. Given that the proposed project is consistent with the Circulation Element, the widening will facilitate construction of the ultimate arterial system within the City and will help reduce the traffic impacts and traffic related air quality emissions of planned land uses I within the City. As this is an anticipated roadway improvement, it will not obstruct implementation of the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) developed by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. I Additionally, as a major arterial, the proposed widening will provide continuous bicycle and sidewalks within the study area providing two alternative modes of transportation. Provision of these types of facilities is recommended by the RAQS. I b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing I or projected air quality violation? No Impact. Poinsettia Lane is projected to be Level of Service A with and without the I proposed project, as discussed in response 6.XV.a (Transportation/Traffic). Due to the acceptable level of service, there will be negligible impacts to local air quality. 06/21/99 cC:\TEMP\IS-MNDI.DOC, 20 - ISA Associates, Inc. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. There will be no net increase in pollutants, as the volumes and level of service are the same for the with and without project scenarios. Additionally, beneficial air quality effects will result from reduced congestion and improved level of service during weekends and summer peak hours when traffic volume at the South Carlsbad State Beach is greatest. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As iientified in Table 6.XV.A, the roadway will operate at an acceptable level of service with widening of the existing facility. Existing sensitive receptors at the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home-Park and at South Carlsbad State Beach are not expected to be exposed to concentrated localized pollution emissions or carbon monoxide "hot spots" from increased traffic volumes, with or without the project. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? I Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities such as asphalt paving may generate short-term odors, which may be noticed by residents in the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park. These odors would be typical of roadway construction work and would I be temporary, lasting only for a limited duration. Odors generated by vehicles travelling on the additional travel lanes will not be substantially greater than those under current conditions. I 6.IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish 1 and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. LSA Associates, Inc. conducted a I biological evaluation to assess potential project impacts to biological resources. Appendix A contains the biological evaluation in its entirety. The biological survey identified approximately 0.65 acre of mature coastal sage scrub (CSS) on the northern slope I embankments of the existing Poinsettia Lane bridge and approaches, west of the NCTD tracks (refer to Figure 5). Approximately 0.44 acre will be permanently impacted by construction of the proposed project. Three species of birds were observed during the I biological survey; however, the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila polioptila californica) was not observed. The wildlife inhabiting the CSS will lose a small amount of habitat as a result of the project; however, the CSS on site is isolated and does not have a linkage to other CSS populations. No wildlife dependent on CSS was observed, and the I small area in conjunction with the isolation from other CSS communities reduces the habitat 06/21/99 C:\TEMP'JS-MND1.D0C> 21 sq IF! —r - A LJOHE ? ••• ' r' / Pr LEGEND: CSS (0.21 acre) to be Preserved 1111111111 CSS (0.44 acre) to be impacted by Proposed Construction L :• ;'.• — CA ITIA !Lk .4 ram ;E ! ME !i!IIiPI - III 2!!!!! ;'me 1 i7• -. -' , 12' - .. . ........... 1 - - -- t - - ro cbo 4 / -. .PCtLPfR 14 LAN[ -RIGHT OF WAY AP - POIPdETTI LAW I I I p I I I I I I I I I I I I I / p--- ) / :A At I 6/16/99(DEC832) IJv Scale in Feet L S-A 0 50-- 100 Figure 5 Coastal Sage. Scrub Impacts of Proposed Project LSA Associates, Inc. value of the CSS for supporting species such as gnatcatchers. Mitigation consistent with the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program will be provided. The City's existing interim Section 4(d) Incidental Take Authorization requires that all impacts to CSS habitat be mitigated, regardless of the presence of California gnatcatchers. Mitigation Measure 6.IV.1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall obtain concurrence on the incidental take of the impacted CSS habitat and proposed mitigation. Under the existing take authorization, the City will provide mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. It is expected that the Lake Calavera Bank, owned by _______, will be used to implement the mitigation requirement. [REVIEWERS: LSA CAN REFINE THIS MEASURE WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY REGARDING THE HISTORY/STATUS OF THIS MITIGATION AREA.] b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ' Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive habitat within the project study area is limited to coastal sage scrub (see response 6.IV.a, above). Vernal pool habitat has previously been identified north of the study area; however, no vernal pool habitat is I identified within the study area (see Appendix A). Refer to response 6.1V.c for reducing indirect effects to the vernal pool habitat. I c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal I pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? I No Impact. A vernal pool habitat is located north of the project boundary and east of the NCTD tracks. The vernal pool habitat is bordered by a chain link fence on the east and south edges and the NCTD tracks on the west. Approximately 12 San Diego button-celery (E,yngium aristulaturn parishii), a species listed as endangered (State and federal), were I observed in the southeastern edge of the vernal pool habitat, approximately 14 feet outside of the project limits. No San Diego button-celery was observed within the project boundary. Given that the proposed improvements will be constructed primarily on top of the existing embankments (Figure 4), there will be no effect on the hydrological regimen within the study area. As there will be no alteration of the area's hydrological regimen, no indirect effects to vernal pool resources are expected from the proposed widening. I d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? I 1 06/21/99 cC:\TEMP\!S-MNDI.DOC>, 23 I LSA Associates, Inc. No Impact. No wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites within the project area were identified by the Biological Resources Evaluation Study (Appendix A). Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological I resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. As shown in Figure 3, the project study area does not contain any trees. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, I Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to response 6.IV.a for discussion and mitigation. 6.V CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical I resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A records search and literature review I were conducted for the Poinsettia Properties EW, and a site survey was conducted by Gallegos and Associates on July 14, 1994. The site survey found a single cultural resource, CA-SDI-137291H (W-6107), located southeast of the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and I Poinsettia Lane in Parcel C of the Poinsettia Properties project. This site is not located within the area of the bridge widening or the temporary construction staging area; therefore, this site will not be affected by the proposed project. I The slope embankments currently supporting the road and bridge consist entirely of fill material imported for the construction of the existing road and bridge in 1985. Expansion of I a portion of the existing northern slope embankment may disturb native ground. The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR evaluated the additional area impacted and did not identify any known recorded archaeological or historic sites within this area. Given the ' presence of one archaeological site, CA-SDI-137291H (W-1607), within the vicinity of the project area, the potential exists for cultural resources to be encountered as part of ground disturbing activities in the area. The following mitigation measure will ensure that potential impacts are reduced to below the level of significance. I Mitigation Measure 6. V.1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project plans and specifications shall include the requirement that a qualified cultural resources monitor shall be retained by the City and shall I be present during project grading activities, where the existing eastern embankment will be extended to the north, to monitor for archaeological and paleontological resources that may be uncovered. The monitor shall be present at a pre-grading meeting to discuss procedures for cultural resources surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work in the event that any such resources are discovered during the work. If any 1 06/21/99 C:\ThMP\1S-MND1.D0C 24 LSA Associates, Inc. potentially significant resources are found, the monitor shall.deteminapprqpriate actions in coordination with the City of Carlsbad Planning Director (or designee) for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, including final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad Planning Director (or designee). Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an I archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to response 6.V.a for discussion. I Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or .I unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Poinsettia Properties Specific I Plan project site is located in an area identified as a "potentially significant fossil area" from the Quarternary period. Quarternary age alluvium deposits have the potential to contain fossilferous rock from Pleistocene terrace deposits of not more than two million years in age. I Further analysis identified that the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan project site is underlain by Pleistocene/Holocene sedimentary deposits, with the upper three feet containing modern alluvium and soils. Based on the findings of these analyses, the paleontological resource potential of the area is rated as moderate. Given the moderate sensitivity for paleontological I resources, the potential exists for paleontological resources to be encountered as part of ground disturbing activities where the existing embankment will be expanded in the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.V. 1 above will ensure that potential impacts I are reduced to below the level of significance. As the project area is generally flat, there are no unique geologic features. I Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal I cemeteries? No Impact. The cultural resources assessment conducted for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EW did not identify any known human remains within the Specific Plan area. 6.VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: U i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on I other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 1 06/21/99 <C:\TEMP\15-MND1.D00 25 I ISA Associates, Inc. I No Impact. As noted in the Structure Foundation Report (AGRA Earth &Environmental, I 1999, p. 6), the project site is not located within a currently established Aiquist—Priolo Earthquake Study Zone. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon/East Fault, located approximately five miles to the west (AGRA, 1999, pg. 6). The estimated peak acceleration during the maximum credible earthquake on this fault is estimated to be 0.5g. Construction of the widening project will incorporate the seismic design recommendations identified in the Structure Foundation Report (AGRA, 1999). These recommendations are consistent with Caltrans' seismic standards. Therefore, the potential for seismic hazards will be reduced to below a level of significance. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? I Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose granular soils below the water table are subject to vibration, such as those induced by earthquakes (AGRA, 1999, I pg. 6). Dense materials were encountered at shallow depths in all of the sample borings conducted as part of the Structure Foundation Report, (AGRA, .1999, pg. 6). Groundwater was encountered at depths of 18 to more than 50 feet below ground level. Since groundwater levels are relatively deep and shallow soils are dense, the potential for I liquefaction or other seismic related ground failure is considered low. Landslides? No Impact. The existing slope embankments were constructed as an engineered artificial I fill, consistent with Caltrans' standard specifications, and the potential for landslides is negligible. The proposed slope embankment expansion on the north embankment will also be constructed as an engineered artificial fill, consistent with Caltrans' standard specifications, and the potential for landslides is negligible. No other sources of I landslides exist in the project area or surrounding vicinity. I b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern I within the project study area. The existing drainage pattern of the site would remain the same since the configuration of the slopes and road would remain essentially unchanged (Figure 4). As the drainage patterns remain the same, the rates of soil erosion and loss of topsoil under current conditions will not be affected. I c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse? I 1 06/21/99 <<C:\ThMP\1S-MND1.DOC 26 L.SA Associates, Inc Less Than Significant Impact. The existing abutments were constructed by placing I approximately 22 to 35 feet of fill. The fill at the abutments is underlain by terrace deposits, which in turn are underlain by the Santiago Formation. The terrace deposits extend to depths of 37 to 44 feet. The Santiago Formation continues to the maximum depth explored, 66.3 ' feet. The fill consists of silty sand. The terrace deposits are composed of medium dense to dense clayey and silty sandstones and sandy claystones. The underlying Santiago Formation consists of a very dense or hard silty sandstone and clayey siltstone. Refer to responses I 6.VI.a.iii and 6.VI.a.iv for a discussion on the potential for liquefaction and landslides. Given that the existing embankments were constructed as engineered fill, and that the proposed improvements will also be engineered fills, the potential for lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse is considered negligible. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform I Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The Structure Foundation Report did not identify any expansive soils within the project study area (AGRA, 1999). Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. 6.VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the I routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Traffic utilizing existing Poinsettia Lane may include vehicles that are I transporting hazardous materials or waste. The proposed project will expose the public to no greater risk of an accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances than occurs today. I b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous I materials into the environment? No Impact. Refer to response 6.Vll.a for discussion. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous I materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no schools, existing or proposed, within one-quarter mile of the project site (MEIR, Map 5.12.7-2). I 06/21/99 ((C:\TEMP'JS-MND1.D0C)) 27 I' LSA Associates, Inc. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it I create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Given the fact that the existing embankment consists of I imported material, the likelihood of encountering hazardous materials/waste during grading on the top of the embankment is considered negligible. However, since grading of extant soil will be required, an assessment of the potential for encountering contamination in this area I was conducted. An Environmental Site Assessment (Vista Environmental Site Assessment, June 7, 1999) was conducted to determine the potential for underground tank leaks, hazardous waste sites, tank spills of hazardous materials, active and inactive landfills, solid I waste transfer stations, and State and federal hazardous waste sites within the project vicinity (Appendix Q. I There are no known hazardous material/waste sites (Vista, 1999). However, two small generators of hazardous waste are located within one-half mile of the project site: Hour Photo, located at 7040 Avenida Encinas, and Carlsbad Volvo, located at 6830 Avenida I Encinas. Additionally, Hoehn Honda, located at 6800 Avenida Encinas, reported two leaking underground storage tanks in July, 1998. Both tanks are identified on the State Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list. One tank is currently undergoing a preliminary site assessment to determine appropriate remediation, and the other tank has not yet begun the I preliminary site assessment process. Soil is primarily affected to a shallow depth, and the potential for groundwater contamination is low; therefore, the likelihood of migration of contaminated groundwater under the project site is negligible. A site walkover was conducted (LSA Associates, Inc., June, 1999) and did not reveal any substantial hazardous materials/waste concerns within the slope embankments or construction I staging area. However, two piles of illegally dumped construction debris were observed adjacent to the fenced natural gas facility near the toe of the slope of the north embankment, east of the NCTD tracks. The piles are approximately three to four feet high and four to five I feet in diameter and consist of concrete, reinforced bar, piping, wood, brick, and dirt. No - hazardous materials/waste was observed adjacent to or in the piles; however, due to the height and width of the piles, visibility to the bottom of each pile was not possible. Although I staining was not observed on the debris or on the surrounding surface area, the potential exists that unknown hazardous materials/waste may be encountered during removal of the debris. The following mitigation measure will reduce the effects of encountering unknown hazardous materials/waste uncovered during removal of the construction debris piles. I Mitigation Measure 6. VII.1 Should hazardous materials/waste or surface staining be uncovered during removal of the two construction debris piles, the project engineer shall notify the City of Carlsbad Planning I Director (or designee), and soil testing/sampling shall be conducted. Based on the results of the soil analysis, appropriate remediation shall be identified and implemented to clear the affected area of hazardous materials. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result I in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 06/21/99 C:\TEMP\15-MND1.D00 28 ISA Associates, Inc. I No Impact. The nearest airport is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, is located approximately 2.1 miles northwest of the project site. Due to its distance, the existing bridge does not affect vertical clearance requirements for airplanes accessing this airport. Given the fact that the I proposed bridge structure will be the same height as the existing facility, potential safety hazards associated with the proposed project would be no greater than occurs under existing conditions. J) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip (MEIR, Map 5.9-1). Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response pldn or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Poinsettia Lane is not identified as an emergency evacuation route in the Public Safety Element of the General Plan (Public Safety Element, pg. 5). The proposed project would widen the Poinsettia Lane bridge from two to four lanes and, therefore, would improve traffic movement on Poinsettia Lane between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildiand fires, including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or I where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. There are no wildiands within the project vicinity; therefore, the project would not cause any increased risk of loss due to wildland fires. I 6.VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase the amount of roadway runoff and typical roadway pollutants deposited from vehicles; however, this increase is considered negligible. The proposed project will not substantially increase the amount of pollutants from what occurs under current conditions. During construction, the potential exists for increased erosion and pollutants to enter the existing storm drain system. During final design, the project engineer will comply with the "Grading and Erosion Control - I Design Criteria" of the "Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad" section of the City's Municipal Code, which requires preparation of an erosion control plan that, when implemented, limits off-site erosion during I construction. Additionally, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for construction activities from the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Region 9. This permit identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction to reduce potential pollutant runoff and soil erosion. Prior 1 06/21/99 C:\TEMFIS-MND1.D00, 29 I ISA Associates, Inc. I to issuance of a grading permit, the project engineer shall obtain an NPDES permit for construction activities from the RWQCB. The existing storm drain system includes the potential to reduce the level of pollutants in storm runoff by increasing the number of drainage inlets to capture the increased runoff, increasing the size of the storm drain pipe to accommodate increased flows, or adding silt traps at the bottom of storm drains. Affected storm drain facilities will be replaced, in kind, including these features. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Less Than Significant Impact. There will be no long-term effects to groundwater supplies since the roadway will nbt draw water from this resource; it will use reclaimed water. Groundwater was encountered in two of the borings at 30.5 and 29.5 feet. below ground surface (AGRA, 1999). Construction of the proposed bridge structure will require foundation piles to be driven approximately 10 to 14 feet into the Santiago Formation. The formation is situated approximately 7 to 12 feet below the point where groundwater was encountered during the sample borings. Given the proximity of groundwater levels, cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles will be utilized to support the widening. Utilizing this construction technique, the piles will be driven into the bedrock formation through the groundwater table. Groundwater will be displaced underground, and no water will be brought to the surface. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, I including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? I No Impact. The proposed project would not substantially altei the existing drainage pattern of the project site and vicinity. The existing drainage pattern of the site would remain the same, since the configuration of the slopes and road would remain essentially unchanged I (Figure 4). As the drainage patterns remain the same, the rates of erosion and siltation that occur under current conditions will not be affected. I d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding I on- or off-site? No Impact. The widening of the bridge and approaches would increase the amount of I impervious surface area, which could increase the rate of runoff during storm events. Post- project runoff would be accommodated by the existing storm drains and the proposed extension of the drainage inlet between Sta. 1756+00 and Sta. 1756+50. The contribution of I the proposed project to stormwater runoff volumes would not alter existing rates of surface runoff. A hydraulic analysis will be conducted during final design to confirm that there will 1 06/21/99 <C:\ThMP\IS.MND1.DOC 30 I I I I I I I I I ISA Associates, Inc. be no substantial increase in runoff and that no modifications to the existing storm drain system are required. Mitigation Measure 6.VIIL1 During final design, the project engineer shall determine whether to prepare a hydraulic analysis to determine whether runoff from the proposed widening can be accommodated within the existing storm drain. If additional capacity is required, the project engineer shall identify possible solutions with the City Engineer. These solutions may include: increasing the number of inlets in the street and/or increasing the size of the existing storm drain pipes. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of I existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? I No Impact. The proposed project would incrementally increase surface runoff due to the addition of two travel lanes; however, the increase would not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system. Refer to responses 6.Vffl.a and 6.Vffl.d for discussions on facility capacity and water quality. I f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Refer to response 6.Vffl.a for a discussion of water quality. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. No residential structures are proposed as part of the project. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows ? No Impact. As shown in Figure 5.10.1-1 of the MEW, the project site is not located with a FEMA 100 year flood hazard zone. Therefore, flood flows would not be affected. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death, involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As shown in Figures 5.10.1-1 and 5.10.1-2 of the MEW, the project site is not located within a FEMA 100 year flood zone or a catastrophic dam failure inundation area. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 06/21/99 C:\TEMF\IS-MND1.DOC> 31 ISA Associates, Inc. I No Impact. As shown in Figure 5.10.1-2 of the MEW, the project area is located outside the I tsunami inundation area. 6.IX LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. As shown in Figure 3, the proposed project will not physically divide an established community because all of the proposed improvements are within and adjacent to existing right-of-way, where no homes are located. The nearest residential units are located on the south side of the road where no improvements are occurring. Would the project conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed bridge widening is consistent with the major arterial designation for Poinsettia Lane in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) was issued May 9, 1984, for the existing facility and acknowledged the future widening of the bridge. As part of the bridge widening process, an application for amendment to the CDP was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on February 18, 1999. It is expected that the bridge widening was acknowledged in the original CDP, the proposed project will be found consistent with the Coastal Act, and an amendment to the CDP will be issued. [REVIEWERS: LSA HAS NOT REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL CDP TO FURTHER ANALYZE POTENTIAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE CDP/COASTAL ACT] Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural I community conservation plan? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to response 6.1V.a (Biological Resources) for discussion. 6.X MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. As depicted in Figure 5.13-2 of the MEW, the project site is not located in an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 06/21/99 C:TEMP\1S-MND1.D00> 32 I ISA Associates, Inc. I No Impact. Refer to response 6.X.a for discussion of the project's relationship to the City's I Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) programs. I 6.XI NOISE a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of I standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? I Less Than Significant Impact. A noise analysis (LSA Associates, Inc., 1999) was prepared for the proposed project and is included in its entirety in Appendix D. Eight receptor locations located in the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park were modeled for two future I scenarios: with and without the project. Traffic noise levels at these receptor locations would either decrease by as much as 1.4 dBA or increase no more than 0.2 dBA from the corresponding no project noise levels. The decrease in traffic noise level would result from I traffic being moved north and would receive higher noise attenuation from the southern edge of the roadway and existing jersey barrier along the south side of the road. The increases at two of the receptors are small and statistically negligible. Any noise level change of less than I three dBA is considered less than significant. As shown in Table 6.XI.A, there would be no substantial project related traffic noise impacts, future with project noise levels would not exceed established noise standards, and no I mitigation is required. Figure 6 depicts the noise modeling locations. Table 6.XI.A - Peak Hour Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Locations I 1 Hour Leq Levels (dBA) Future Without Future Project Related Receptor Project With Project Increase I RI 61.3 60.1 -1.2 R2 60.9 60.1 -0.8 R3 59.7 59.3 -0.4 I R4 61.4 60.0 -1.4 R5 59.6 59.0 -0.6 R6 63.2 63.4 0.2 R7 I 57.5 57.5 0.0 R8 56.9 57.0 0.1 b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? U Less Than Significant Impact. The noise analysis (Appendix D) indicates that the proposed project would have beneficial effects on the existing mobile home residents to the south of I the project, as indicated in response 6.XI.a, above. Short-term construction noise and groundborne vibrations may occur during foundation construction; however, this impact is short-term and located approximately 200 feet from the existing mobile homes. Therefore, this effect is considered less than significant. 06/21/99 C:\TEMP\IS-MND1.D0C> 33 MOMW Li A ' I ...i,u' i&:• - 11.11 CP If ic STAMPED CONCR CrE ONG ext WAY MAP - T TAG I PO I POIP~UITIA LANE I '••. .. ... RI - R6 EN I I R3 RS RI R8 Base Map Source: Dokken Engineering. • Scale in Feet i LSA O 50 100 Figure 6 Noise Modeling Locations I I I I I I I I ISA Associates, Inc. I . c) Would the project result in exposure of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. Refer to response 6.XI.a for a discussion of permanent noise increases. Would the project result in exposure of a substantial temporary or periodic increase in I ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. As the nature of traffic noise is continuous rather than episodic, it is not expected I that substantial temporary or periodic increases in noise levels will result from widening the roadway. It will be similar to conditions that currently occur. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As shown on Map 1 of the Public Safety Element, the proposed project area is located outside of the airport influence area for the McClellan-Palomar Airport and is not I substantially affected by aircraft noise. I f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip (MEIR, Map 5.9-1). I 6.XII POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? I No Impact. The widening of the existing bridge to accommodate four travel lanes was anticipated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and was planned in coordination with future land uses identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan to accommodate I predicted traffic volumes. It is not expected that the widening will induce substantial growth over and above that anticipated in the General Plan. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? I No Impact. No existing housing will be displaced by the proposed bridge widening (see Figure 3). I 1 06/21/99 C:VrEMP\1S-MND1.D0C 35 L.SA Associates, Inc. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No existing housing will be displaced by the proposed bridge widening (see Figure 3). 6.XIII PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? No Impact. No existing fire and police protection, schools, parks, or other public services are located within the project study area (Figure 3). Beneficial indirect effects to fire and police protection services would result through improved access between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard. 6.XIV RECREATION Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. There are no local or regional parks in the vicinity of the project; however, South Carlsbad State Beach is located at the terminus of Poinsettia Lane and Carlsbad Boulevard (Figure 3). Poinsettia Lane is the primary eastern access to the South Carlsbad State Beach. The State Beach is a popular destination point in the City of Carlsbad, and improving the access may encourage increased patronage of the beach to some degree. The level of improved access is not expected to increase visitors to the point where a substantial degradation of park facilities or the environment will occur. Widening of the existing facility will improve access to the State Beach and reduce existing weekend and summer traffic congestion accessing the State Beach via Poinsettia Lane. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Refer to response 6.X1V.a for discussion. 1 06/21/99 C:TEMP\1S-MND1.D0C, 36 ISA Associates, Inc. 6.XV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. A traffic analysis was conducted for the future with and without project scenarios (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, May, 1999). As shown in Table 6.XV.A below, and the existing LOS A would remain after implementation of the proposed project. Table 6.XV.A - Traffic Volumes and Level of Service' Peak No. of Build Out Segment Period Lanes Direction ADT VOL' V/c LOS Poinsettia Lane 12,100 Carlsbad Blvd. to Peak 2 Eastbound 6050 910 0.25 A Avenida Encinas Carlsbad Blvd. to Peak 2 Westbound 6050 910 0.25 A Avenida Encinas 1 Traffic volumes for both with and without project scenarios. 2 SANDAG Series 8 - 2020 Build out (preliminary) Assumes 50/50 direction split and peak traffic = 15% ADT Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, May, 1999. The proposed widening would bring Poinsettia Lane into conformance with the major arterial designation identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and increase the existing volume capacity. Given that the proposed project would increase traffic capacity on Poinsettia Lane between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard and that future with project traffic volumes would remain the same, the impact to existing traffic volumes and loads is negligible. The bridge widening would actually enhance traffic flow on Poinsettia Lane during weekend and summer peak hours. Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard I established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. As indicated in response 6.XV.a, Poinsettia Lane is predicted to be LOS A in the future. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. As this is a local roadway widening, the proposed project will have no effect on air traffic patterns and would not increase the safety risk location area around McClellan- Palomar Airport. 1 06/21/99 cC:\TEMP\IS—MNDI.DOC - 37 I , LSA Associates, Inc. I Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves I or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. All design features of the proposed project are within minimum City standards I per "Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad." No safety hazards will be created. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Emergency vehicles will not be impeded by the widened roadway. In fact, the proposed project will improve emergency access by increasing the capacity of the bridge. During project construction, two lanes will be kept open during peak traffic periods; therefore, there will be no short-term interruption of emergency vehicle access. I f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not generate any development that would need additional parking facilities in the vicinity of the project. No existing or proposed parking I spaces would be affected with implementation of the widening project (refer to Figure 4). I g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? I No Impact. The project would result in a beneficial effect on alternative transportation modes by providing improved bicycle and pedestrian access on Poinsettia Lane between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard (refer to Figure 4). 6.XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. As this is a roadway project, no development will be planned that will require additional demand for wastewater treatment facilities or systems. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. As this is a roadway project, no development will be planned that will require additional demand for water facilities or systems. A 12 inch water line will be constructed in Poinsettia Lane to connect to the existing 12 inch water line in Avenida Enemas and the existing 10 inch water line in Carlsbad Boulevard. An eight inch reclaimed water line will be extended from Avenida Encinas and stubbed to a future connection in Carlsbad Boulevard. 1 06/21/99 <C:\ThMP'JS-MND1.DOC 38 LSA Associates, Inc. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage I facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. I Less Than Significant Impact. Expansion of a portion of the existing northern slope of the eastern embankment will require the minor extension of the existing drainage inlet between proposed Sta. 1756+00 and approximately Sta. 1756+50. The drainage inlet will be extended ' approximately one to five feet to the north and will not result in substantial effects to the existing stormwater facility. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. Reclaimed water, rather than domestic water, will be used to irrigate the landscaped median. There will be no effect on domestic water supplies. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project is not a development whereby additional housing units or commercial, industrial, office space is provided that would generate the need for wastewater treatment. J) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The proposed project will generate only a negligible amount of solid waste due to demolition activities during construction. Given that roadways do not generate substantial solid waste, mainly litter, the proposed project will have a negligible effect on landfill capacity. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Refer to response 6.XVI.f for discussion. 6.XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history orprehistory? I I 1 06/21/99 C:\TEMV\1S-MND1.D00 39 ISA Associates, Inc. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this document, potential impacts to plants, wildlife, and cultural/scientific resources are less than significant. 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts associated with build out of the General Plan land uses and circulation network were identified in the Master EW for the General Plan. Given that this project is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan and its impacts are or have been reduced to below the level of significance, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is less than significant and accounted for in the MEIR analysis. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. No substantial direct or indirect environmental effects will result from the widening project. In general, the effects will be neutral to positive. Future noise conditions at the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park are predicted to improve as a result of moving existing traffic on Poinsettia Lane further to the north. No hazardous materials or wastes would be generated or involved in project construction. Potential visual and air quality effects will not be substantially different from the current conditions at the South Carlsbad State Beach or Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park. 1 06/21/99 <<C:\TEMP\IS-MNDI.DOC,, 40 ISA Associates, Inc. 7.0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigation Measure 6.IV.1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall obtain concurrence on the incidental take of the impacted CSS habitat and proposed mitigation. Under the existing take authorization, the City will provide mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. It is expected that the Lake Calavera Bank, owned by ________, will be used to implement the mitigation requirement. Mitigation Measure 6.V.1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project plans and specifications shall include the requirement that a qualified cultural resources monitor shall be retained by the City and shall be present during project grading activities, where the existing eastern embankment will be extended to the north, to monitor for archaeological and paleontological resources that may be uncovered. The monitor shall be present at a pre-grading meeting to discuss procedures for cultural resources surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work in the event that any such resources are discovered during the work. If any potentially significant resources are found, the monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in coordination with the City of Carlsbad Planning Director (or designee) for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, including final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad Planning Director (or designee). Mitigation Measure 6. VILJ Should hazardous materials/waste or surface staining be uncovered during removal of the two construction debris piles, the project engineer shall notify the City of Carlsbad Planning Director (or designee), and soil testing/sampling shall be conducted. Based on the results of the soil analysis, appropriate remediation shall be identified and implemented to clear the affected area of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure 6. VIII. 1 I During final design, the project engineer shall determine whether to prepare a hydraulic analysis to determine whether runoff from the proposed widening can be accommodated within the existing storm drain, if additional capacity is required, the project engineer shall identify possible solutions with the I City Engineer. These solutions may include: increasing the number of inlets in the street and/or increasing the size of the existing storm drain pipes. 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST REFERENCES City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983. Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and I Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March, 1994. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the I City of Carlsbad General Plan Update. City of Carlsbad. September, 6, 1994. General Plan I City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code. 06/21/99 C:\ThMP\IS-MND1.D00> 41 ISA Associates, Inc. City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad. CottontBeland/Associates, Inc. July 1997. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, SCH No. 96081027, EIR 96-01. CYP, Inc. July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the City of Carlsbad. San Diego Association of Governments. January, 1997. Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020. 06/21/99 <C:\TEMP\IS-MND 1.DOC> 42 ISA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 06/21/99 <<C:\TEMP\IS-MNDI.DOC> I I I BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING June 18, 1999 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Prepared by: LSA Associates, inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project #DEC832 Under Contract to: Dokken Engineering 3914 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite A153 San Diego, California 92123 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LSA Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 CONSULTATION TO DATE......................................................................................1 METHODS...................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................1 BIOLOGICAL SETTING.............................................................................................4 SENSITIVESPECIES..................................................................................................6 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................6 MITIGATIONMEASURES ........................................................................................7 RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................7 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................7 ATTACHMENTS A - SUMMARY OF SENSITIVE SPECIES B - VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISA Associates, Inc. I LIST OF FIGURES I PAGE 1 - Project Location .................................................................... ...........................2 2 - Proposed Project .................................................................... ..........................3 I 3 - Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Map......................................................................5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 1 LSA Associates, Inc. I BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT EAST OF CARLSBAD I BOULEVARD IN CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION I The City of Carlsbad, California (City) proposes to widen the Poinsettia Lane bridge and approach, located between Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas (see Figure 1). I LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has been retained by the City to prepare a biological evaluation of the project to document the site condition and evaluate potential impacts. I CONSULTATION TO DATE The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base, and I a current California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994) search were used to compile a list of sensitive species potentially occurring on the project site. I METHODS LSA biologists visited the site on May 19, 1999, from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. It was cool with overcast sky during the site visit, with a light breeze. The biologists surveyed the I entire project area on foot, and recorded all species present. Attachment B contains a listing of plant species observed within the project survey area. All animal species observed are listed in the text. Particular attention was focused on the presence or ' potential presence of endangered and threatened species, or suitable habitat for these species, based on the literature review and field assessment (Attachment A). Samples of unknown plant species were collected for identification. I Vegetation communities within the project boundaries were characterized, measured for dimensions, and mapped in the field on a 1 inch = 40 feet map of the project area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I The proposed project is the widening of the Poinsettia Lane bridge and approaches from two to four lanes. The widened facility would include four 12 foot traffic lanes, two 8 foot bicycle lanes, two 5 foot sidewalks, and a raised center median. All widening I improvements will occur on the north side of the existing roadway and bridge structure. No improvements or impacts (temporary or permanent) will occur on the south side embankments. All improvements can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way, I except near Avenida Encinas, where approximately 400 feet of the existing slope would be extended approximately 20 to 40 feet to the north (from proposed Sta. 1753+00 to 1754+00). Figure 2 depicts the proposed project. 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> I I I I I I \. ....... ( - •'i V L I \ Iio \ .)'• .. \ . '' ¶ If : Tanhi.I< railer V -. V1 , 29 Trail Park JECT d6 LTION ç.. Po , nt - " 5 32'\, 'J''.) "•4 -_ ' -- BA IQtJITOS "5 33 &A COSI%_. Ro4,,sid , \ - '2 TrBje, - -7 U- _- • \' " / 1 V • r- I:::::::::•' Source: USGS 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle, "Encinitas, Calif." I a I IN Scale in Feet LSAO 100-0 2000 Figure 1 Project Location I /rt.IIfl -. II ;— 4 2---- — ----.-----------.- ---- (6 TO r-WjOE) -- -. — STAMPED CONCRETE I 'PL (fiRE ' gw i ;-1-•-n - 1: _k-2 •• \ -/ .-.... • --- (•' •• : - Z- •. .' ---I ISTIM NIQAT W T PCN TLI7VATiPOIi6CTTIALM . r r- 4- i; •:.;- lit ;r' - ) -t I J 4 -' SI t • r 3t -00 \ '1 4 k42, - -- -'---7 —.c)(o p(r1.f — PIRV(I_ b RICH? OF V1 NAP - . . .7 .' .• . POINETTIA LANE ! ..• : . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S MUSEMENT ! * -- _-r----- _ r - OF! VAT AI 'I I III It ) 6/15199(DEC832) Figure 2 1k Scale in Feet - I - LSA O Proposed Project 50 100 ISA Associates, Inc. BIOLOGICAL SETTING The project site (see Figure 3) is bounded by existing Poinsettia Lane to the I south and consists of the northern road shoulder, manufactured slopes that serve to support the existing bridge and road, and flat sections of agricultural fields at the northern edge. The northern boundary crosses through the edges of the two I agricultural fields. The bridge passes over the North County Transit District (NCTD) rail lines that divide the site. Vegetation I LSA observed the following habitat types in the project area: coastal sage scrub (CSS), disced and cleared agricultural field, and ruderal habitat. The CSS occurs on the manufactured slopes north of existing Poinsettia Lane (see Figure 3). The I flat area west of the NCTD railroad tracks is a frequently disced field that had no significant vegetative cover. The remainder of the project area consists of ruderal (weedy) habitat and a cleared dirt access road. I The CSS, totaling 0.65 acre, is composed of mature scrub species dominated by coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis consanguinea) and coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), and includes California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). The CSS I occurs on the northern slopes of the existing bridge embankments divided by the rail lines, north of Poinsettia Lane. CSS was also observed on the embankment slope south of Poinsettia Lane, west of the rail lines. No other CSS was observed I in the vicinity. The dominant plant species in the ruderal habitat are summer mustard I (Hirschfeldia incana), black mustard (Brassica nigra), garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium), and annual grasses. The dominant annual grasses are soft chess (Bromus madritensis rubens) and ripgut brome (Bromus I diandrus). Portions of the ruderal habitat are densely populated with fascicled tarweed (Hemizoniafasciculata) and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). I . North of the project boundary, just east of the NCTD rail lines, vernal pool habitat has been documented, and was observed during the field survey (see Figure 3). The vernal pool habitat, previously identified by Dudek & Associates, I Inc. (August 1995), is bordered by a chain link fence on the east and southern edges and the rail lines to the west. Approximately 12 San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum parishii), a species listed as endangered (State and Federal), were observed in the southeastern edge of the vernal pool habitat, I approximately 14 feet outside the project limits. No San Diego button-celery was observed within the project study boundary. I 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP'.BIOREPORT.WPD>> 4 ':. •\ I 1 j :: j /. ••i f. •'': IL1 . JNSTRUCT I '-. .: I -..._.....ji -- - CE I (--• - ar A. poiwSemA IIANE • — - ---m. - -- — -- c-,.-_- - •11 ----'--- - 12 A Lzli SCIT I. L04 - - Z PIA - — - - - /ISTIM R1 AME I :- -. I I t I - AIGHI AV MP LEGEND: CSS (0.21 acre) to be Preserved III I I I lilt CSS (0.44 acre) to be impacted by Proposed Construction Base Map Source: Dokken Engineering. • I Scale in Feet i L S-A 0 50 100 Figure 3 Coastal Sage Scrub Impacts of Proposed Project I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L,SA Associates, Inc. Wildlife I All animal species observed during the biological survey were recorded. The species observed in the CSS habitat were one Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), three Beechey ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and one Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni). A white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) I was observed kiting (i.e., hovering) over the disced field area west of the NCTD rail lines. Two mallard ducks (Anas plalytyhynchos) flew over the project area i during the survey. I SENSITIVE SPECIES A literature review was executed prior to conducting the site survey to assist in determining the existence or potential occurrence of sensitive plant and animal I species on the project site or in the vicinity of the site. Federal and State lists of sensitive species and current database records, including the California Natural Diversity Data Base (California Department of Fish and Game 1998) and the I California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Skinner, et al. 1994), were examined. Attachment A provides a list of the sensitive species potentially present in the project vicinity, and discusses the potential for these species to occur on the site. Attachment B provides a list of plant species observed on-site at time of survey. I EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT I Vegetation CSS totaling 0.44 acre will be impacted to allow for widening the roadway and bridge, expanding a portion of the existing embankment slope, and the bridge I support structures. Other impacts will occur to the ruderal and disced habitats. The proposed construction in the project area will not impact the above mentioned vernal pool habitat, which is outside of the project impact area. I Given that the proposed improvements will be constructed primarily on top of the existing embankments (Figure 2), there will be no effect on the hydrological I regime within the study ara. Because there will be no alteration of the area's hydrological regime, no indirect effects to vernal pool resources are expected from the proposed widening. Wildlife I Wildlife inhabiting the CSS will lose a small amount of habitat as a result of this project. The CSS habitat on site does not have linkage to any CSS populations in the vicinity. No wildlife dependent on CSS was observed, and the small size of the area, in I conjunction with the isolation from other CSS communities, reduces the habitat value of the CSS. The coastal California gnitcatcher (Polioptila polioptila californica) was not I 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> 6 I 1 ISA Associates, Inc. 1 observed, although presence/absence surveys according to United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol were not completed. I [Reviewers - this section will be updated based upon CityIUSFWS resolution of survey requirements] MITIGATION MEASURES I The project is located within the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) area of the statewide Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The interim habitat loss (Special 4(d) Rule) process requires that all impacts I to CSS habitat be mitigated, regardless of the presence of California gnatcatchers. In order to offset impacts to the CSS, the City proposes to utilize the Lake Calavera I property owned by the "Water Fund," to mitigate the project impacts to CSS habitat. Assuming the site is not occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers, the mitigation ratio will be 1:1, subject to concurrence by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. I [Reviewers - LSA can refine this measure with additional information provided by the City regarding the history/status of this mitigation area.] RECOMMENDATIONS I While no impacts to the adjacent vernal pool habitat that is beyond the northern edge of the proposed project limits are expected, it would be prudent to protect the habitat from I inadvertent damage with additional measures including the following: Signage warning workers of the protected habitat and the need to avoid any ' impacts to the habitat. Placing straw bales along the limit of work adjacent to the vernal pool habitat to provide a physical barrier and to absorb any spilled material. I REFERENCES I Skinner and Pavilk. 1994. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1999. California Department of Fish I and Game Natural Diversity Data Base. Dudek & Associates, Inc.. 1995. Biological Resources Report for The Poinsettia I Property City of Carlsbad San Diego County, California. R. Mitchell Beauchamp. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. I 6/2 1/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> 7 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ISA Associates, Inc. Attachment A - Summary of Sensitive Species Activity/Blooming Status Species Habitat and Distribution Period Designation' Probability of Occurrence2 SPECIES LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED VASCULAR PLANTS San Diego thorn mint Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal Apr. - Jun. Fed.: FT Low. Approximately 40 percent of the histori- Acanthomintha illicifolia pools/clay. State: CE cal occurrences in the state has been extirpated. CNPS: lB The site has been previously disturbed. Del Mar manzanita Chaparral, maritime, sandy. Dec. - Apr. Fed.: FE Absent. No suitable habitat occurs on the site. Arctostaphylos glandulosa crassifolia State: none CNPS: lB Encinitas baccharis Chaparral, maritime, sandstone Aug. - Nov. Fed.: FT Absent. No suitable habitat occurs on the site. Baccharis vanessae State: CE CNPS: 18 thread-leaved brodiaea Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, Mar. - Jun. Fed.: FT Low. Could occur in nearby vernal pool habi- Brodiaeafihifolia valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/often clay. State: CE tat. Unlikely to occur in coastal scrub on the CNPS: lB project site due to previous grading. Orcutt's spineflower Chaparral (maritime), closed-coned coniferous forest, coastal Mar. - May Fed.: FE Absent. Known from only two occurrences in Chorizanthe orcuttiana scrub/sandy openings. State: CE Encinitas and Point Loma. CNPS: lB Del Mar mesa sand aster Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral (maritime, openings), coastal scrub/ Apr. - Jun. Fed.: FT Low. Openings in coastal scrub are not sandy. Corethrogynefi1aginfo1ia 1info1ia sandy. State: CE CNPS: lB San Diego button celery Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/ mesic. Apr. - Jun. - Fed.: FE Low. Not observed on the project site. Indi- Eringium aristulatum parishii State: CE viduals were observed to the north of the project CNPS: I boundary. spreading navarretia Chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps (shallow and freshwater), Apr. - Jun. Fed.: FT Absent. No suitable habitat on site. Navarretiafossalis playas, vernal pools. State: none CNPS: lB Nuttall's scrub oak Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub (sandy Apr. - Jun. Fed.: FT Absent, Not observed. Quercus dumosa soil), clay loam. State: CE CNPS: lB 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LSA Associates, Inc. Activity/Blooming Status Species Habitat and Distribution Period Designation' Probability of Occurrence2 BIRDS California black rail (Laterallus This species is found in salt marshes with dense pickleweed cover, Year round Fed: SOC Low. There is a low potential for the occur- jamaicensis corurniculus) fresh-water and brackish marshes. State: CT rence of this species along the project area due to the lack of suitable habitat. Light-footed clapper rail (Rallus This species is found in salt marshes, and requires dense growth Year round Fed: FT Low. There is a low potential for the occur- longirostris levipes) of either pickleweed or cordgrass for nesting and escape cover. State: CT rence of this species along the project area due to the lack of suitable habitat. western snowy plover (Charadrius This species is found in sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and alkali Year round Fed: FT Low. There is a low potential for the occur- alexandrinus nivosus) lake shores. State: SOC rence of this species along the project area due to the lack of suitable habitat. California least tern (Sterna This species is found along the coast, breeding on flat, sparsely Year round Fed: FE Low. There is a low potential for the occur- antillarum browni) vegetated areas. Found on sand beaches, alkali flats, or paved State: CE rence of this species along the project area due areas. to the lack of suitable habitat. Coastal California gnatcatcher Coastal sage scrub; occurs only in cismontane Southern California Year-round Fed.: FT Low. There is a low potential for the occur- Polioptila ca1fornica californica and northwestern Baja California in low-lying foothills and State: CSC rence of this species along the project area due valleys, to the lack of suitable habitat. Belding's savannah sparrow Inhabits coastal salt marsh and nests in pickleweed in the vicinity Mid July to early April Fed: -- Low. There is a low potential for the occur- (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) of tidal flats. State: CE rence of this species along the project corridor due to the lack of suitable habitat. MAMMALS Pacific pocket mouse Historically occupied open habitats on sandy soils along the coast Mar. - Oct. Fed.: FE Low. Conditions on site are probably unsuit- Perognathus 1ongimembrispacficus from Los Angeles to the Mexican border. Now known from only State: CSC able for this species; native habitat on site is four sites in Orange and San Diego Cos. extremely limited, isolated, and highly de- graded. CRUSTACEANS Riverside fairy shrimp Known only from ephemeral pools in southern Orange and west- Spring Fed.: FE Low. None found during extensive focused Streptocephalus wooltoni em Riverside and San Diego Counties. State: --- surveys, although a more common fairy shrimp, Branchinecta lindahli, was identified in the vernal pool adjacent to site. 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> LSA Associates, Inc. Activity/Blooming Status Species Habitat and Distribution Period Designation' Probability of Occurrence SPECIES NOT LISTED NOR PROPOSED FOR LISTING VASCULAR PLANTS California adolphia Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal Dec. - May Fed.: none Low to Moderate. previous disturbances on Adoiphia cal4fornica pools/clay. State: none site reduce the likelihood that this species oc- CNPS: 2 curs in the scrub habitat. San Diego sagewort This species is found in coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian forest July-September Fed: * Absent. Not observed. Artemisia palmeri and riparian woodland. Only known from San Diego County and State: * Baja California. white coast ceanothus Chaparral. Dec. - Apr. Fed.: SOC Absent. No suitable habitat occurs on the site. Ceanothus verrucosus State: none CNPS: 2 summer holly Chaparral. Apr. - Jun. Fed.: SOC Absent. No suitable habitat occurs on the site. Comarsraphylis diverszfolia State: none divers jfolia CNPS: lB sea dahlia Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Mar. - May Fed.: none Moderate. Not observed. Coreopsis maritima State: none CNPS: 2 Palmer's grapplinghook Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland and clay. Mar. - May Fed.: SOC Absent. Not observed. Harpogonelki palmeri State: none CNPS: 2 Orcutt's hazardia Chaparral, coastal scrub/often clay. Aug. - Oct. Fed.: SOC Absent. Only known from one occurrence in Hazardia orcurtii State: none California. CNPS: lB decumbent goldenbush Chaparral, coastal scrub (sandy, disturbed areas). Apr. - Nov. Fed.: none Absent. Not observed. Isocona menziesii decumbens State: none CNPS: lB Coulter's goldfields Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), vernal pools. Feb. - Jun. Fed.: SOC Absent. No suitable habitat on site. Lasthenia glabrata coulteri State: none CNPS: lB Nuttail's lotus Coastal dunes, coastal scrub (sandy). Mar. - Jun. Fed.: SOC Absent. Coastal scrub not in sandy soil. Lotus nuttallianus State: none CNPS: lB coast woolly-heads Coastal dunes. Apr. - Sep. Fed.: none Absent. No suitable habitat on site. Nemacaulis denudata denudata State: none 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> ISA Associates, Inc. Activity/Blooming Status Species Habitat and Distribution Period Designation' Probability of Occurrence2 CNPS: 2 short-lobed broom rape Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub (sandy soil). Apr. - Oct. Fed.: SOC Absent. Coastal scrub not in sandy soil. Orobanche parishii brachyloba State: none CNPS: lB REPTILES San Diego horned lizard Wide variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, grassland, Apr. - Jul. (with reduced Fed.: ** High. Reported from 2 locations within 1 mile Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii riparian woodland; typically on or near loose sandy soils; coastal activity Aug. - Oct.) State: CSC of site, habitat on site appears suitable. and inland areas from Ventura Co. to Baja Calif. Orange-throated whiptail Floodplains and terraces with perennial plants and open areas Mar. - Jul. (with reduced Fed.: ** Low. Not observed on site. Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi nearby; sea level to 3,000 feet elevation; inland and coastal valleys activity Aug. - Oct.) State: CSC of Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Cos. to Baja Calif. BIRDS coastal cactus wren This species is found in tall cactus (Opuntia sp.). Year round Fed: none Low. There is a low potential for the occur- (Cainpylo,ynchus brunneicapillus State: SOC rence of this species along the project area due couesi) to the lack of suitable habitat. MAMMALS Northwestern San Diego pocket Sandy herbaceous areas, usually with rocks or coarse gravel. Arid Nocturnal; active year Fed.: ** High. Reported from locations within 4 miles mouse coastal areas in grassland, coastal scrub and chaparral. San Diego, round. State: CSC of site, habitat on site sppears suitable. Perognarhusfallaxfallax San Bernardino, Los angeles, and riverside cos. GASTROPODS Mimic tryonia This species inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes Year round Fed: * Low. Not observed. There is a low potential Tryonia imitator from Sonoma County south to San Diego County. Found only in State: * for this species to occur within the project area permanently submerged areas in a variety of sediment types; able due to the lack of suitable habitat. to withstand a wide range of salinities INSECTS Monarch butterfly Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Year round. Fed: * Low. Not observed. There is a low potential for Danaus plexippus Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts located in wind State: * the occurrence of this species within the project protected tree groves, with nectar and water sources nearby. area due to the lack of roasting sites. 6/21/99<(C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> LSA Associates, Inc. For a description of status designations see Legend on following page. Based on the following categories: Absent; Low; Moderate; High; Observed. 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> L,SA Associates, Inc. Legend: Status Designation FEDERAL STATUS I FE Federally listed as Endangered. F!' Federally listed as Threatened. I PE Federally proposed as Endangered. PT Federally proposed as Threatened. Note: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has recently revised its classification system for candidate taxa (species, subspecies, and other taxonomic designations), as described below. I C Certain species formerly designated as "Category I" (CI) and a few "Category 2" (C2) candidates for federal listing are now known as "Candidate." Refers to taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has sufficient information available to support a proposal I to list as Endangered or Threatened. Issuance of the proposal(s) is anticipated, but precluded at this time. ** Species formerly designated as "Category 1" (Cl) or "Category 2" (C2) candidates for federal listing; not designated presently as "Candidate" species, these Cl and C2 designations have been I discontinued by the USFWS. The State now refers to these taxa as "Species of Concern." C3a Species considered to be extinct. C3b Former federal candidate for listing as Endangered or Threatened, but which is not believed by I the Service to represent a distinct taxa meeting the Endangered Species Act's definition of a "species". Species taxonomically invalid. C3c Former federal candidate for listing as Endangered or Threatened, but which has been I determined by the Service to be too widespread and/or not threatened at this time. STATE STATUS I CE State listed as Endangered. CT State listed as Threatened. State listed as Rare. I CR CFP California Fully Protected. Species legally protected under special legislation enacted prior to the California Endangered Species Act. CCE State candidate for listing as Endangered. CCT I State candidate for listing as Threatened. CSC California Species of Special Concern. These are taxa with pops. declining seriously or otherwise highly vulnerable to human developments. CSA I Species included on the California Department of Fish and Game's list of "Special Animals" of California. No specific designation assigned. I CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY LISTING IA List of plants that are presumed extinct in California. I ' I List of plants that are considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 List of plants that are considered by CNPS to be Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, I but more common elsewhere. 3 CNPS review list of plants suggested for consideration as Endangered but about which more information is needed. 4 CNPS watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored. I 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> I ISA Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT B VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED The following plant species were observed on the project site by LSA biologists during the current study. * Introduced non-native species ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONAE DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Aizoaceae Cap et-weed family *Carpobrotus edulis hottentot-fig Anacardi.aceae Sumac family I *Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree Asteraceae Sunflower family I Artemisia californica California sagebrush .Baccharis pilularis consan guinea coyote bush I *Centaurea melitensis tocalote *Chrysanthemum coronarium garland chrysanthemum *Conyza bonariensis flax-leaved horseweed I Gnaphalium palustre lowland cudweed Hemizonia fasciculata fascicled tarweed I Heterotheca grandifiora telegraph weed Isocoma menziesii coast goldenbush I *Xanthium strumarium cockleburr Boraginaceae Borage family I Heliotropum curassavicium alkali heliotrope Brassicaceae Mustard family *Brassica nigra black mustard *Hirschfeldia incana summer mustard *Raphanus sativus wild radish I Chenopodiaceae goosefoot family *Atr jplex semibaccata I Australian saltbush 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> I ISA Associates, Inc. ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONAE *Salsola tragus Fabaceae Lotus scoparius *Meljlotus indica Geraniaceae *Erodjum cicutarium Malvaceae Malvella leprosa Plumbaginaceae *Ljmon jum sp. Polygonaceae *Rumex crispus Primulaceae family *Anagallis arvensis MONOCOTYLEDONEAE Poacae *Bromus diandrus *Bromus hordeaceous *Bromus inadritensis rubens Deschampsia danthonioides Distichlis spicata *Lolium perenne mu1tflorum *pennjsetum setaceum *phalaris aquatica *Vulpia myuros DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Russian thistle Pea family deerweed yellow sweet clover Geranium family red-stemmed filaree Mallow family alkali-mallow Leadwort family statice Buckw he at family curly dock Primrose family scarlet pimpernel MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS Grass family ripgut brome soft chess fortail chess annual hairgrass coastal salt grass Italian ryegrass African fountain grass Harding grass rattail fescue 6/21/99<<C:\TEMP\BIOREPORT.WPD>> LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX B STRUCTURE FOUNDATION REPORT 06/21/99 eC:\TEMP\IS-MNDI .DOC AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS I I STRUCTURE FOUNDATION REPORT I POINSETTIA LANE OVERHEAD WIDENING CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I I ISubmitted To: DOKKEN ENGINEERING I 3914 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE A-153 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 I I U Submitted By: AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL 16760 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE I SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127-1904 I I IMay25, 1999 Job No. 9-252-102500 I I Recycled Paper AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 16760 W. Bernardo Dr. San Diego, CA 92127 Tel (619)487-2113 Fax (619) 487-2357 AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS May 25, 1999 Job No. 9-252-102500 AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 16760 W. Bernardo Dr. San Diego, CA 92127 Tel (619)487-2113 Fax (619) 487-2357 I I I I II I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Dokken Engineering 3914 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite A-153 San Diego, California 92123 Attention: Mr. Kirk Bradbury Re: POINSETTIA LANE OVERHEAD WIDENING This letter transmits AGRA Earth & Environmental's revised structure foundation report for the Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening at the San Diego Northern Railroad tracks in Carlsbad California. This investigation was conducted in general conformance with the scope of work presented in AGRA's proposal dated October 29, 1998. If you have any questions concerning this report, or need additional information, please call me at (619) 487-2113. Yours truly, AGRA Earth & Environmental /J~a~mes'6Stone, RGE 808 Principal Engineer Recycled Paper I I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (i) I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................I 1.1 GENERAL .......................................................I 1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .......................................I 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................I 2.0 DATA ACQUISITION .....................................................3 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ..............................................3 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................3 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................5 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................5 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................5 I 3.3 SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .............................5 3.3.1 General ..................................................5 3.3.2 Regional Faulting ...........................................6 I 3.3.3 Local Faulting .............................................6 3.3.4 Liquefaction ...............................................6 ' 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................6 4.1 EARTHWORK ....................................................6 4.1.1 General ..................................................6 4.1.2 I Settlements ................................................8 4.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS ............................................8 4.2.1 General ..................................................8 I 4.2.2 Deep Foundations ..........................................8 4.2.2.1 Foundation Capacity and Settlement .....................8 4.2.2.2 Pile Driving .........................................10 T 4.2.3 Other Design Parameters ....................................10 4.2.4 Seismic Design Criteria .....................................11 4.2.5 Corrosion ................................................11 5.0 CLOSURE ............................................................11 I 5.1 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW .........................................11 5.2 LIMITATIONS ....................................................11 I REFERENCES ............................................................13 - (AGRA U NGWURNG GLOBt sOwllOr,S Recycled Paper I! ii I I 'I I I I Ii I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500 Structure Foundation Report May 25, 1999 Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (ii) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 —Vicinity Map ......................................................2 Figure 2 — Location of Test Borings .............................................4 Figure 3 — Fault Map ........................................................7 LIST OF TABLES Table I — Tip Elevations for Class 45 and Class 70 Piles ............................9 Table 2A — Lateral Capacities for Piles (Steel H Piles) ..............................9 Table 2B — Lateral Capacities for Piles (12-inch square Concrete Piles) ................ 10 APPENDICES Appendix A — Test Boring Log ..........................................A-I to A-5 Appendix B — Laboratory Test Results ...................................B-I to B-3 Appendix C — Log of Test Borings ......................................(In Pocket) (AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBal LOLUTIONS Recycled Paper Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500 Structure Foundation Report May 25, 1999 Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (iii) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This executive summary presents a brief description of the prominent conditions, conclusions and recommendations from the structure foundation investigation performed by AGRA Earth & Environmental for the Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening at the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way in Carlsbad, California. The bridge is located on Poinsettia Lane between Carlsbad Boulevard on the west and Avenida Encinas on the east. I The existing bridge is a prestressed concrete, 3-span structure 142.2 feet long and 44.7 feet wide. It carries 2 traffic lanes, a bicycle lane and a sidewalk. Approach embankments were constructed I originally across the entire Poinsettia Lane right-of-way and will accommodate abutments for the new construction. It is understood that the existing bridge may be widened, or a new bridge constructed adjacent to, but at a higher elevation than, the existing structure. The determination l of the preferred alternative is part of the current project. The final configuration will carry 4, 12-foot wide traffic lanes; 2, 8-foot wide bicycle lanes; 2, 5-foot wide sidewalks and a raised center median. The existing overhead configuration was achieved by placing about 22 to 35 feet of fill at the abutments. Between 2 and 4 feet of fill were placed along the 'railroad tracks, probably part of the original railroad construction. The fill at the abutments is underlain by terrace deposits which in turn are underlain by Santiago Formation. A 5-foot-thick layer of colluvium overlies the terrace deposits at the location of boring B-I along the railroad tracks. The fill consists of silty sand. The terrace deposits are comprised of medium dense to dense clayey and silty sandstones and sandy claystones. The underlying Santiago Formation consists of a very dense or hard silty sandstone and clayey siltstone. — Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 18 to more than 50 feet below the ground surface, corresponding to an elevation as high as about 30 feet above sea level. Foundation plans have not been finalized. Due to the presence of deep fills at the abutments, and I relatively compressible fill and colluvium at bent locations, deep foundations are considered most appropriate for support of the widening. Recommendations for Class 45 and Class 70 piles are contained in this report. Recommendations for alternative types of piles can be provided when I foundation pans are finalized. The regional seismicity is not unique compared to the rest of southern California. A peak I horizontal bedrock acceleration of 0.5g can be used in design. The depth to rock-like material is between 10 and 80 feet. I The fill soils and formational materials at the overhead represent a corrosive environment based on Caltrans criteria. Concrete for structural elements in contact with the ground should incorporate I Type II portland cement in the mix. It is understood that no new fill will be placed. No special settlement period is needed. - (AGRA U (NGNE E RWC. GLOL OLUTIOS Recycled Paper Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (1) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of the structure foundation investigation performed for the Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening at the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way in Carlsbad, California. The bridge is located on Poinsettia Lane between Carlsbad Boulevard on the west and Avenida Encinas on the east. (Figure 1) This investigation was conducted in general conformance with the scope of work presented in AGRA's proposal dated October 29, 1998. 1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The existing bridge is aprestressed concrete, 3-span structure 142.2 feet long and 44.7 feet wide. It carries 2 traffic lanes, a bicycle lane and a sidewalk. Approach embankments were constructed originally across the entire Poinsettia Lane right-of-way and will accommodate abutments for the new construction. It is understood that the existing bridge may be widened, or a new bridge constructed adjacent to, but at a higher elevation than, the existing structure. The determination of the preferred alternative is part of the current project. The final configuration will carry 4, 12-foot wide traffic lanes; 2, 8-foot wide bicycle lanes; 2, 5-foot wide sidewalks and a raised center median. 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK Initially, AEE made a site reconnaissance and reviewed published geologic and seismicity data as well as data from similar projects in the area. The structure foundation investigation included subsurface exploration, soil sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and consultation with designers. Laboratory tests were performed to evaluate Celected engineering properties and to provide a basis for geotechnical design recommendations. The data collected were analyzed to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding: Types, locations and engineering characteristics of foundation materials. Engineering seismology of the project area, including liquefaction potential. Geotechnical factors potentially affecting the design of the proposed structure, including settlement and groundwater. Geotechnical design parameters for the most suitable methods of foundation support including allowable bearing capacities and resistance to lateral loads. Corrosivity of on-site soils with respect to steel and concrete. Fill and backfill material, placement and compaction procedures. 4SAGRA I NGrIRING GOBL SOLUTIONS Recycled Paper I I I I I I I I 1 I IS I I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I I A Approx. North -2- I Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500 Structure Foundation Report May 25, 1999 Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (3) 2.0 DATA ACQUISITION 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration program consisted of 4 test borings drilled with hollow-stem auger equipment to depths of 40.5 to 66.3 feet. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a2.5-inch I.D. samplerdriven bya 140-pound I hammer falling 30 inches. Standard penetration tests were performed using a 1.4-inch I.D. sampler driven by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches in general conformance with ASTM 0 I 1586. Disturbed samples were obtained from the standard penetration sampler. The drilling and sampling operations were performed under the supervision of an AGRA geologist I who also logged the borings and obtained the samples for examination and laboratory testing. The logs of the test borings are contained in Appendix A. Soils are classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix A. Rock is described according to its physical characteristics. Existing groundwater conditions were noted during drilling. Upon completion of the field I exploration program, the borings were backfilled. I 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed to evaluate selected engineering properties and to provide a I basis for geotechnical design recommendations. The following tests were performed: Moisture Content and Dry Density - I Direct Shear pH Resistivity I Soluble Sulphate Content Chloride Ion Content I Grain size analyses Results of the moisture content and dry density determinations are shown on the boring log in Appendix A. Remaining test results and brief descriptions of the test procedures are contained in I Appendix B. MY AGRA I ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Recycled Paper _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - I. - Mu MU. - TZJT°Th Track (P Track (11111 B-2 B-I -$- -4$?- \ A Potise/flo Lone (q) exist PoIre#lo Lone !2tc0 - - I B - I PLAN Locations of Test Borings (current study) 1"=40' Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500 S Structure Foundation Report May 25, 1999 Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (5) 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The Poinsettia Lane Overhead spans the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way between deep abutment fills on both the east and west ends. The fills were placed initially to accommodate future widening and extend beyond the current traveled way. Existing fill slopes range from about 1:I-% (vertical: horizontal) to 1:1 where the slopes are paved in front of the abutments. Minor amounts of fill have been placed along the railroad tracks. Surface vegetation consists of sparse grass and weeds. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS I The existing overhead configuration was achieved by placing about 22 to 35 feet of fill at the abutments. Between 2 and 4 feet of fill were placed along the railroad tracks, probably part of the original railroad construction. The fill at the abutments is underlain by terrace deposits which in I turn are underlain by Santiago Formation. The terrace deposits extend to depths of 37 to 44 feet. The Santiago Formation continues to the maximum depth explored, 66.3 feet. A 5-foot-thick layer of colluvium overlies the terrace deposits at the location of boring B-I along the railroad tracks. The top of the terrace depots was encountered at depths of 4 to 7 feet along the railroad tracks. The top of the Santiago Formation at bent locations is at depths of 25 to 31 1 feet below the ground surface. I The fill consists of silty sand. The terrace deposits are composed of medium dense to dense clayey and silty sandstones and sandy claystones. The underlying Santiago Formation consists of a very dense or hard silty sandstone and clayey siltstone.. 1 Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 18 to more than 50 feet below the ground surface, corresponding to an elevation as high as about 30 feet above sea level. Groundwater I levels can rise following periods of rainfall and during the wet season. 3.3 SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS - 3.3.1 General I Southern California is known to be seismically active, and much geologic and seismologic evidence of earthquake activity is available. The engineering seismology study for this project included review of regional and local faulting, the general tectonic regime, and existing historic I data. ('AGRA I Recycled Paper ENGINE IRING GLOBAL SOLUHOBS I I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (6) 3.3.2 Regional Faulting Earthquakes within about 60 miles of the site are capable of generating ground shaking of engineering significance to the structure. The site is located within the regional influence of several fault systems that are classified as active or potentially active. Figure 3 shows the proximity of the project to these faults. The most significant fault to the design of the project is the Newport- Inglewood-Rose Canyon/East Fault, about 5 miles to the west. The estimated peak acceleration during the maximum credible earthquake on this fault is estimated to be 0.5g. 3.3.3 Local Faulting The project site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone. I Consequently, trenching to locate active fault traces is not mandated. Surface fault rupture at the site during the design life of the structure is considered unlikely. However, the area is vulnerable to strong, earthquake-induced ground shaking during the design life of the project. I Recommendations for seismic design in accordance with Caltrans procedures are contained in subsequent sections of this report. I 3.3.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction can occur when loose, granular soils below the water table are subjected to vibratory I motions such as those induced by earthquakes. The vibrations cause a rise in the pore water pressure. If the pressure rises high enough, the sand can lose strength and behave as a fluid. - Liquefaction can result in substantial settlements or other disruptions at the ground surface. Dense formational materials were encountered at relatively shallow depths in all the borings, and groundwater levels are relatively deep. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered slight. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 EARTHWORK 1 4.1.1 General Minor earthwork associated with the widening and backfill adjacent to the bridge supports I associated with construction of the foundation system are planned. All grading should be performed in conformance with Sections 6-3, 19-3, 19-5 and 19-6 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Consideration should be given to including the following amendments to the I Standard Specifications in the project special provisions: A. Section 19-3.06 - Ponding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. - IS I ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIOLLS Recycled Paper I I I I U 118 I 117* x i 11 . fop 60 miles 33. 0 ;4km 6 32 48 POINSETTIA LANE OH WIDENING CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 3- FAULT MAP - Earth & Environmental -7- U 1]" I I I I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (8) B. Section 19-3.065 - Pervious backfill should have a gradation which will minimize migration of fines from the adjacent soil. Alternatively, a non-woven geotextile (e.g. Supac 4NP or Nilex N45) can be placed between pervious backfill and adjacent soil. Prefabricated drainage material (e.g. Tensar DCIIOO) can be used behind abutments, wing walls and retaining walls in lieu of pervious backfill. Backfill placed behind abutment walls, retaining walls and wingwalls should be non-expansive. The extent and placement of the non-expansive soils should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications 19-5.03. Non-expansive soils should have an expansion index (El) less than 30. I Fill slopes probably will be composed of granular soils which are susceptible to surface erosion. Slope paving should be incorporated where 1:1% slopes are used. Consideration should be given to the use of jute mesh or other surface treatments to those slopes not being paved to minimize I soil transport by run-off. All roadway drainage should be directed to appropriate collection and discharge facilities so that run-off does not flow over the tops of slopes. I 4.1.2 Settlements Only minor fills will be placed for final grading, and ground surface settlements are expected to I be minimal. Settlements should be complete shortly after placement of the fill. No special settlement period is necessary. I 4.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS I 4.2.1 General It is understood that the existing overhead structure is supported on driven piles. A potential for I significant settlement exists if the new structure is supported on shallow foundations in existing fill. Cast-in-drilled-hole (ClDH) piles can be considered for support of the widening. However, caving occurred during drilling of the test borings, and groundwater levels are within anticipated I pile depths. Therefore, driven piles appear most appropriate for foundation support. 4.2.2 Deep Foundations 4.2.2.1 Foundation Capacity and Settlement I Driven piles will develop support by friction along the sides of the piles in the dense and hard formational materials at depth. Pile tip elevations for Class 45 piles at abutments and Class 70 piles at abutments and bents are presented in Table 1. Ultimate uplift capacities of the piles are I also shown in Table 1. Actual uplift capacity for design may be limited by structural considerations as outlined in Caltrans' Bridge Design Specifications, Section 4.6.4.3. If pile spacing is at least 3 times the maximum dimension of the pile, no reduction in axial capacity for group effects is considered necessary. - (AGRA I ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLuTIONS Recycled Paper Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500 Structure Foundation Report May 25, 1999 Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (9) TABLE I TIP ELEVATIONS FOR CLASS 45 AND CLASS 70 PILES Location Design Nominal Resistance Design Tip Elevation Specified Loading (feet) Tip Compression Tension (Service) Elevation (feet) Abutment 1 70 tons 280 kips 140 kips 30 (1); 30 (2); 30 (5) 30 45 tons 180 kips 90 kips 37 (1); 37 (2); 37 (5) 37 Bent 2 70 tons 280 kips 140 kips 10 (1); 10 (2); 10 (5) 10 Bent 3 70 tons 280 kips 140 kips 10 (1); 10 (2); 10 (5) 10 Abutment 4 70 tons 280 kips 140 kips 26 (1); 26 (2); 26 (5) 26 45 tons 180 kips 90 kips 30 (1); 30(2); 30 (5) 30 11 (1) Compression; (2) Tension; (3) Lateral Loads -Table 2; (4) Scour Potential -was not evaluated for this study; (5) Liquefaction - very unlikely. Lateral loads causing ¼ inch of deflection at the ground surface for 12-inch square piles are provided in Table 2. Lateral pile capacity can be assumed to increase linearly with deflection up to a maximum deflection of 1 inch. If deflections greater than 1 inch are anticipated, lateral capacities should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. TABLE 2A LATERAL CAPACITIES FOR PILES (Steel H Piles) Pile Location Lateral Load at 1/4 inch Deflection Free Fixed Strong Weak Strong Weak Abutment I 2.5 kips 1.4 kips 6.6 kips 4.1 kips Bent 2 7.9 kips 4.1 kips 23.8 kips 13.2 kips Bent 3 9.7 kips 5.9 kips 25.0 kips 15.2 kips Abutment 4 T 2.5 kips 1.4 kips 6.5 kips 4.1 kips (4AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Recycled Paper I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (10) TABLE 2A LATERAL CAPACITIES FOR PILES (12-Inch Square Concrete Piles) Pile Location Lateral Load at 1/4 inch Deflection Free Fixed Abutment 1 1.7 kips 4.7 kips Bent 2 4.9 kips 15.6 kips Bent 3 6.8 kips 17.3 kips Abutment 4 1.7 kips 4.6 kips Pile settlement is expected to be on the order of ¼ inch and should be essentially complete shortly after completion of the widening superstructure. 4.2.2.2 Pile Driving Predrilling through embankments should be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 47-1.06. Each pile should be evaluated during driving to determine if adequate capacity has been achieved. For practical purposes, final set should equal or exceed that required for the recommended allowable load capacity based on Caltrans Standard Specifications. If specified tip elevation is reached without satisfying the Caltrans formula, pile driving should continue until final set is attained. Piles which encounter practical driving refusal above the specified tip elevation may be acceptable, depending on pile and hammer behavior during driving. The geotechnical engineer should observe pile driving and evaluate each pile on a case-by-case basis. It is recommended that a pile hammer which develops a minimum energy of 40,000 foot-pounds per blow be used. I Drilling in the terrace deposits for pile installation at the abutments and bents does not appear needed unless cobbles or extensive gravel lenses are encountered. Calculations indicate that the piles will have to be driven 10 to 14 feet into Santiago Formation at the bents in order to develop I required vertical capacities. Drilling likely will be needed to advance the piles to specified tip elevations at the bents. Drilled holes in the Santiago Formation should not have diameters larger than the minimum pile dimension and should not extend closer than 5 feet to specified tip I elevations. I 4.2.3 Other Design Parameters Average geotechnical parameters for bridge design are: I The wet density can taken as 130 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). - (4%AGRA I ENGINEERING GLOBAL 5OtUHOS Recycled Paper I I I I I I Li I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (11) The modulus of subgrade reaction under vertical loads for soils at abutments can be taken as 150 pounds per cubic inch. Active and passive equivalent fluid pressures of 35 pcf and 350 pcf, respectively, can be used for wingwall design. 4.2.4 Seismic Design Criteria As discussed in Section 3.3.5, a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration of 0.5g should be usedfor this site. For design purposes, the depth to rock-like material can be considered to be 10 to 80 feet. 4.2.5 Corrosion Laboratory test results indicate that the soils underlying the site form a slightly to moderatley corrosive environment with respect to steel and reinforced concrete. Type II portland cement is recommended for use in concrete in contact with the ground. Adequate concrete cover over reinforcing steel should be provided in accordance with good construction practices and design standards. 5.0 CLOSURE 5.1 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW I The foundation and earthwork plans and pertinent sections of the project specifications should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to evaluate conformance with the intent of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. If project conditions or final design vary from those I described in this report, AGRA should be contacted regarding the applicability of, and the - necessity for any revisions to, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. U Removal of unsuitable soils, placement and compaction of structural fill, and excavations for footings should be observed by the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist of record. Appropriate field tests should be performed to provide quality control and quality assurance for structural fills and related earthwork elements. I 5.2 LIMITATIONS This report is based on the project as described and the information obtained from the test borings at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 2. The findings are based on the results of the field, laboratory and office investigations, combined with interpolation and extrapolation of conditions between and beyond the boring locations and reflect interpretation of the limited direct u evidence obtained. S (AGRA I (NGINE F RING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS - Recycled Paper I I IL I ESSiO c& I I I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (12) This report has been prepared for the use of Dokken Engineering in design of the described project. It may not contain sufficient information for other users or other purposes. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practice in the San Diego County area. It may not contain sufficient information for other projects or uses. AGRA Earth & Environmental I I I I I I I I I I I I I /mes J. one, GE No. 808 Principal Engineer JJS/js Distribution: (6) client BnanH. Reck, CEG 1792 Senior Geologist /At LNGINURaG GOIAL SOLUHONS Recycled Paper I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (13) REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 1992, EQFAULT Ver. 1.01, Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, Computer Program. California Department of Transportation, 1989, Bridge Design Aids Manual. , 1986, Bridge Design Details Manual. , 1987, Bridge Design Specifications Manual. , 1986, Bridge Memo to Designers Manual. , 1995, Highway Design Manual. , 1995, Standard Specifications. California Department of Transportation, Division of Structures, As-Built Plans, Woodley Street Overhead, December 1960(?). California Division of Mines and Geology, Weber, F.H., 1982, Recent Slope Failures, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Weber, F.H., 1963, Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California, County Report 3. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982; NAVFAC DM-7.2, Foundations and Earth Structures. Jennings, C.W., 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California, Compilation and Interpretation: California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 92-03. Mualchin L., California Seismic Hazard Detail Index Map, dated July 1996. AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAl. SOILJIIOLIS Recycled Paper I I I Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (14) Seed, H.B. and Idriss, l.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction Dunn Earthquakes: EERI Monograph Series, Berkeley, California. Slemmons, D.B., 1982, Determination of Design Earthquake Magnitudes for Microzonation, Proceeding of Third International Microzonation Conference, Vol. 1. I I I I I I I I I I I I (4AGRA I Recycled Paper ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS I I , I I . I. I I.. I.. I: I. I: I I .... I ..... I.' I. I. I I APPENDIX A LIQUID LIMIT CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR SOILS A.n4in,, 4.., +I., Q+ .4r,1 0..,n4,nn Thef Blows / Foot" Granular Blows / Foot* Cohesive 0-5 Very Loose 0-5 Very Soft 6-10 Loose 6-10 Soft 11-30 Medium Dens 11 -30 Medium Stiff 31-50 Dense 31 -50 Stiff 50 Very Dense 50 Very Stiff >70 Hard * using 140-lb. hammer with 30" drop = 350 ft-lb/blow LEGEND OF BORING Bulk Sample Driven Sampl later Level - Material Change - - Apprqm.eiy1atrL Bottom of the Boring UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IjjII ll!UJH SP Pt OH CH SC SM Sands with Fines Clean Sands ravels with Fine Clean Gravels Highly Onic Silts and Clays Silts and Clays >12% Fines <5% Fines >12% Fines <5°h Fines Liquid Limit >50% Liquid Limit <50% Sands - more than 50% of coarse Gravels - more than 50% of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve Fine Grained Soils (more than 50% is smaller than No. 200 sieve) Coare Grained Soils (more than 50% is larger than No. 200 sieve) LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA GW and SW: Cu = D ID10 greater than 4 for GW, greater than 6 for SW Cc = D, 2 /D6. x D10 between 1 and 3 GP and SP: Clean gravel or sand not meeting requirements for GW and SW GM and SM: Atterberg Limit below "A-LINE" or Pt less than 4 GC and SC: Atterberg Limit above "A-LINE', or P1 greater than 4 I Silt or I I Clay Fine Sand I Medium' Coarse Sand Sand Fine Gravel I C I oarse Cobble Gravel I Boulder' I I Sieve200 40 10 4 3/4" 3 I Size I Classification of earth materials is based on field inspection and should not be construed to imply laboratory analysis unless so stated MATERIAL SYMBOLS Asphalt Calcaerous Sandst Concrete Marl Conglomerate _______ Limestone E :: Sandstone /1 /_/l / Dolostone Ed Silty Sandstone Breccia Clayey Sandstone Volcanic Ash/Tuff Siltstone Metamorphic Rock Sandy Siltstone Quartzite ==1 = = 1 Clavev Siltstone /Silfy Claystone FVVI r VvN 1 , Extrusive Igneous I Claystone/Shale I- + +1 Intrusive Igneous F "NSR" indicates NO SAMPLE RECOVERY 1IAGRA I Recycled Paper [NGIN((RNG GLOBAL SOW1IONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Job. No. 9-252-102500 5/25/99 Page A-i Job. No. 9-252-102500 5/25/99 Page A-2 I Project: Poinsettia Lane Bridge i Recycled Paper (4AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOWTIONS TEST BORING LOG BORING: B-I Sheet lofi Date(s) Drilled: 5/5/99 Surface Elevation (ft): 49 Total Depth of Boring (ft): 40.5 Hole Diameter (in):8 3/4" Rig Type: Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor: C & K Drilling Depth to Groundwater (ft): 18.5 Boring Completion: Backfilled on 5/5/99 Caving: up to 21 ft after pulling auger out SM FILL: - - bag I Tan fine SILTY SAND. - - - \ D?k - - - - - CL COLLUVIUM: 101 24.9 15 2.5 2 Dark brown SILTY CLAY with minute voids. - TERRACE DEPOSITS: - 10 - Mottled gray-green poorly indurated fine CLAYEY 29 1.4 3 : - - SANDSTONE. - 0-0 fine rfedfiuinSi[T? - • SANDSTONE. 15 :- 114 15.2 31 2.5 Sz 20 38 1.4 5 - -. ...Trace of fine GRAVEL at 21 ft. 63 1.4 6 25 - • SANTIAGO FORMATION: Tan-white slightly indurated fine to medium SILTY :- SANDSTONE. 30 71/6" 1.4 7 35 79/6" 1.4 8 :•_ - - - - - - - - --- ------- Gray-white CLAYEY SILTSTONE, poorly bedded. 40 ...Red-gray-brown below 38 ft. NOTES: 45 Total depth 40.5 feet. Sampler driven by 140-pound hammer falling from 30" height. 50 Elevation obtained from on-site survey. 55 — 2 % a . . 0 O O • U) E a E U) — a 5 Ito E . c t THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. Logged by: TMP I I I I I I I I Ll I I I Project: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Job. No. 9-252-102500 5/25/99 Page A-3 TEST BORING LOG BORING: B-2 Sheet lofi Date(s) Drilled: 5/5/99 Surface Elevation (ft): 50 Total Depth of Boring (ft): 41 Hole Diameter (in):8 3/4" Rig Type: Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Contractor: C & K Drilling Depth to Groundwater (ft): 20.5 Boring Completion: Backfilled on 5/5/99 Caving: up to 23.5 ft after pulling auger ou bag 1 Sty sc FILL: Yellow-brown fine SILTY SAND. - Dark brown fine CLAYEY SAND with scitte7red 5 \COBBLES. _- - 15 1.4 2 TERRACE DEPOSITS: - - Red-brown to orange-brown poorly indurated fine l CLAYEY SANDSTONE, with minute voids and 110 9.6 29 2.5 3 10 magnesium-oxide staining. -Gray-green thFniihitiv1d - - ... Gray-green and orange-brown poorly indurated fine - SILTY SANDSTONE. 15 -:- 32 1.4 bag 4 5 20 100 23.9 39 2.5 6 Sz 25 - 69 1.4 7 30 67/6" 1.4 El 8 SANTIAGO FORMATION: Gray-white slightly indurated fine to medium SILTY 35__ SANDSTONE.. 71 1.4 9 Tan poorly bedded CLAYEY SILTSTONE. 40 ...Red gray-brown below 38 ft. 50/4" 1.4 10 - NOTES: 45 Refusal on hard rock at 41 feet. - Sampler driven by 140-pound hammer falling from 50 - - 30" height. - Elevation obtained from on-site survey. 55 - rL -S . . CL 2 -j . ( d . U) - ' E - . Cc THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. Logged by: TMP I (AGRA I ENGINE (RING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Recycled Paper LI I I APPENDIX B Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500 Structure Foundation Report May 25, 1999 Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (B-I) I APPENDIX B I LABORATORY TESTING The laboratory test program was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was limited to testing on-site materials. A brief description of each type of test is presented below. Results are I given on the following pages and on the boring logs in Appendix A. Moisture contents and dry densities were determined for numerous relatively undisturbed samples. I Results are listed on the boring logs in Appendix A and the Log of Test Borings. I In addition to the in-situ field tests, strength characteristics of the subsurface soils were determined in the laboratory by direct shear tests performed on 3 relatively undisturbed samples. Specimens were submerged and tested at 3 normal loads. All samples were tested in a 2.5-inch l I.D. circular shear box, using a controlled displacement rate. The direct shear tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM 0 3080. Results are listed in Table B-i. I Corrosivity tests were performed on i sample. The pH and minimum electrical resistivity were determined in general accordance with California Test 643. Soluble Sulphate content was determined in accordance with California Test 417. Total chloride ion content was determined in accordance with California Test 532. Results are contained in Table B-2. The grain size distribution of I sample was determined in general accordance with ASTM 0 422. I Results are plotted on Page B-3. Soil samples not tested are now stored in our laboratory for future reference and analysis, if I needed. Unless notified to the contrary, all samples will be disposed of 30 days from the date of this report. - I I ' ®ReCYCledPaper ENGINEERING GLOBt SOLUIIONS Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25, 1999 Page (B-2) TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 3080-721 Boring No. I Peak Shear Shear Stress at Sample No. Normal Stress Stress 0.25 in Displacement (psf) (psf) (psf) 1125 1526 712 B-1 /4 2160 2729 1619 3195 3571 2461 1125 1221 842 B-312 2160 2303 1720 3195 2867 2387 1125 888 731 8-3/6 2160 1647 1443 3195 2432 2128 TABLE B-2 SUMMARY OF CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS (California Test Nos. 417. 422 and 643) Boring No. I Soluble Sample No. pH Resistivity Sulfate Chloride (ohm-cm) (ppm) (ppm) B-4/2 7.3 2990 (4AGRA ENGINEERING C..O8#L SOLU10J5 Recycled Paper '1% FLE 9-252-1025 PtOT [ATE 6-1- - t) - U) U) U, E c2- I- 0.1 U) a- O-= -g Zi- 40 D .0o Z5 00 Ir ti5 CD V 2 oa, oEcnc.. t c2 C C U) c 0 a) " 0 a-o Q)0EU) C DIST COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES I SHEET I TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT I NO. SHEETS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PLANS APPROVAL DATE AG RA Earth & Environmental, Inc. PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' NOTES: GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED IN BORINGS B-i, B-2 AND B-3 AT ELEVATIONS 30.5, 29.5 AND 26.0 FEET. ELEVATIONS BASED ON BORINGS LOGGED BY TED PRIMAS, STAFF GEOLOGIST AND FRI CARLTON E. NE1TLETON, B-4 BENCHMARK - 2-1/4" CDOT BR. DISK (I) z 0 a: w 0- 0 0 z a: 0 ca IL 0 a z W (5 W -J 13+00 ------------ -------------------------------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---------------------------------- B-2 FRI B-i \\ UIf J B I 3 \ 11+00 11+50 12+00 Ct POINSE1 hA LANE 12+50 ___i __------------------------------------------------- IL 0 F- -J - w C,) C%j 00 W ELEVATIO B-4 <o 80 ELEV. 77 (1) FILL: Light brown, fine to medium SILTY SAND , 1100+12.5 70 BULK 1100+11.4 Iioo~ 12.5, -- I -- 60 1100+11.4 -- I -- 'I .. .color change to dark red-brown 1100+1 - 25 -- -- 50 color change to light brown 1100+11.4 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red-brown, fine to medium SILTY SANDSTONE, poorly indurated 40 Yellow-brown to orange-brown, fine to coarse, SANDSTONE, poorly indurated 1100+1 25 - I -- 30 _____ Mottled gray-brown, fine to medium SILTY SANDSTONE, 1100+11.4 -- I -- I poorly indurated SANTIAGO FORMATION: Gray-white, fine to medium SILTY SANDSTONE interbedded with CLAYEY SILTSTONE, slightlly indurated 20 Light gray-brown CLAYEY SILTSTONE with scattered 1100+11.4 - I - I fine SANDSTONE lenses, slightly indurated .color change to red-gray-brown 1100+11.4 -_I -- 1 1 0 5599 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED LL o W C cN -J ELEVATION + FD ______ B-3 80 ELEV. 77 C/) --m FILL: Yellow-brown, fine to medium SILTY SAND 70 I BULK 0 I- I1oo+I2.5 60 (DW ±(/) +C') 1100+12.5 , . -- -- I - B 2 o B-i TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red-brown, fine to medium I- - 1100+11.4 = - SILTY SANDSTONE, poorly indurated - I - I ELEV. 50 ° ELEV. I- 50 __WFILL: __________________ Yellow-brown, fine ILTY SAND / 83 ' FILL: Tan, fine SILTY SAND BULK 1 Dark brown, fine CLAYEY SAND scattered COBBLES Dark brown, fine CLAYEY SAND 1100+1 2.5 I __ TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red-brown to orange-brown, fine - '- COLLUVIUM: Dark brown SILTY CLAY with minute voids 1100+11.4 -- I -- I CLAYEY SANDSTONE, poorly indurated, with minute 1100+1 2.5 - - voids and magnesium-oxide staining = TERRACE DEPOSITS: Mottled gray green, fine CLAYEY 40 .. color change to red-yellow 1100+ I 2.5 _________ -. I - Gray-green SANDY CLAYSTONE with minute voids SANDSTONE, poorly indurated - Gray-green and orange-brown, fine SILTY SANDSTONE, Gray green, fine to medium SILTY SANDSTONE, poorly 1100+1 2.5 -- I poorly indurated indurated BULK 5E 1100+125 -- -- I 1100+11.4 -- jJ 30 51 5-5-99 ~- yGWS , _____________ - = SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light brown, fine to medium 1100+1 2.5 = -- I - I .. trace of fine GRAVEL 100+ SILTY SANDSTONE, slightly indurated 2.5 ETGNtS w2L 1100+11.4 -- -- I 1100+114 -- -- I SANTIAGO FORMATION: Tan-white, fine to medium 5-5-99 __ = SILTY SANDSTONE, slightly indurated 1100+11.4 - - I __________________________________________________________ 20 = White-gray SANDY SILTSTONE, slightly indurated 11004114 -- I - I SANTIAGO 1100+11.4 -- -- 100+! 1.4 SILTY SANDSTONE, slightly indurated 55-99 100+! 1 4 I Tan CLAYEY SILTSTONE, poorly bedded 1100+ Gray-white CLAYEY SILTSTONE, poorly bedded I 1.4 -- -- ...color changeto red gray-brown ...color change to red-gray-brown 10 PROFILE -- I - 100+ -__-- 1 1.4 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' 5-5-99 5-5-99 VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 10' z 0 C-) IL C/) C') 0 >- 0 z LU Cl) C') z 0 0 12+50 12+00 11+50 0 STATIONING 111_00 (QPOINSETTIA LANE) 0 13+00 JOB No. 9-252-1025 PLATE I a, -o > 0 z wO Cb za3 U) - .0z 0 00 U01 D001 (flC 0 a: COçJf- U) W- 0I U 0C) z J U) Li C I c:: '-a: a, -Oil---- I- oE - '-'E - 0 9) C) Cfl U) U) c 0 0 ) U) ;5w )< () 4) 0. 02: * -' C 0' 0 D C () 4) 0 0- 5C C 0 4) 0 - .0 -.- U) > U - . " 5 -2 - -0 E2 0 ., E-, 2C)C)<- CE 0 2- 0@@ D0 F a- C) U) > 0 I I,i Eo * C-0 W ot C - L)W I ui 000 M: 1t Ir ci) 'U) jU) C E 0 - C, (? a- 0 U) 15 04.) U) - 4) C-C z3 ui 0 0 CU) • .U) E •g U) ci i 0 thLJo0 M LLJ rRr/, ,0 a: a: ED cocflCtl Uo!Oo'J4. . o 7z \ /cy ( / oj t: ii co - - a: CNO.- 0' 0 Ld Of Uji CL 0 Li LA M< tTj IS-11 CD z cn 0 - O Li Z0E- L.J L11,;, - LU <000 :: 0 3 J LU a: In a: in <in i- 00 - w a: o >- I- a: < a: - 0 U) 00 C) wO 0 a:o G1 -J 0 LJ (tIE 1E F- -J O 0 (1) U) 0 v,0&'i 5 C) ______ U) _4D -- -D .2 0 - > a . o cr) (fl+4-U)O S4 C) c O-. 0 (f)W 'I C) C) 0.) - 0 > > C) o 0) 0 -o 0 o aj E° c 0) OC) ° - o U)oOC) 0 CL :1 - L 0 0) = 0 C) (1) > - > 0 - 0 0 Lj- CT) 't0) cn 0 En '-c,-ro(DO E -.-D iiii IN o otfloOi.flA T.M. PRIMAS/C.E. NETTLETON J.B. DePOORTER JAMES STONE FIELD INVESTIGATOR DATE MAY 5, 1999 DRAWN BY DESIGN OVERSIGHT CHECK BY SIGN OFF DATE PREPARED FOR THE UMIL)ut. rqu. POINSETTIA LANE OH WIDENING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOG OF TEST BORINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROJECT ENGINEER j_ POST MILE I I f FOR REDUCED PLANS o 1 2 3 EARLIER REVISION DATES 6/1/99 I I I I I ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES I I I DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING REVISION DATES (PRELIMINARY STAGE ONLY) SHEET OF L - __ I LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX C VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT I 06/21/99 <<C:\TEMP\IS-MND1 .DOC>> SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT (ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE) PROPERTY CLIENT INFORMATION INFORMATION Project Name/Ref #: Not Provided AGRA EarthEnvironmenta Carlsbad, CA 92008 AGRA Earth Environmental-San 0 Latitude/Longitude: (33.102634, 117.315246) 16760 West Bernardo Dr. San Diego, CA 92127 Site Distribution Summary Agency! Database - Type of Records ivithin 1/8 mile 1/8? 1/4 mile 1/4 to 1/2 mile 1/2 to 1 mile A) Databases searched to 1 mile: US EPA NPL National Priority List 0 0 0 0 US EPA CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Actions and associated TSD (TSD) 0 0 0 0 STATE SPL State equivalent priority list 0 0 0 0 B) Databases searched to 1 mile: STATE SCL State equivalent CERCLIS list 0 0 0 0 US EPA CERCLIS! Sites currently or formerly under review by US EPA NFRAP 0 0 0 0 US EPA TSD RCRA permitted treatment storage disposal facilities 0 0 0 0 STATE LUST Leakinc Underground Storage Tanks 0 0 2 1 STATE SWLF Permitted as solid waste landfills, incinerators, Or transfer stations 0 0 0 0 C) Databases searched to 1 mile: STATE UST Registered underground storage tanks 0 0 5 2 STATE AST Registered aboveground storage tanks 0 0 0 0 D) Databases searched to 1 mile: US EPA ERNS Emergency Response Notification System of spills 0 0 0 0 US EPA LG GEN RCRA registered large generators of hazardous waste 0 0 0 0 US EPA SM GEN RCRA registered small generators of hazardous waste 1 0 1 1 STATE SPILLS State spills list 0 0 0 0 For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 761 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #1 This report meets the ASTM standard E-1527 for standard federal and state government database research in a Phase I environmental site assessment. A(-) indicates a distance not searched because it exceeds these ASTM search parameters. UMITA11ON OF UABILITY Customer proceeds at its own risk in choosing to rely on VISTA services in whole or in part, prior to proceeding with any transaction VISTA cannot be an insurer of the accuracy of the information, errors occurring in conversion of data or for customers use of data VISTA and its affiliated companies officers agents employees and in contractors cannot be held liable for accuracy, storage, delivery, loss or expense suffered by customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information orovided by VISTA. NOTES V For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800. 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 12 I I SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT (ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE) SITE INVENTORY PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA D - - - - - - - - - - MAP (within 1/8 mile) (" t. ' ID FE VISTA ID LU LU - DISTANCE DIRECTiON P 4061006 HOUR HOTO AN - - - - 1 0.10 MI 7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS E x CARLSBAD, CA 92009 SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA A - C_ - _D_ - a. MAP (within 118. 1/4 mile) 17— ID U) I- -(_) VISTA ID _j Ci U) 1_ DISTANCE 0 a. C.) LU #) U) U) - DIRECflON2U)U)C.)I—JU)LU_JC')C') No Records Found A B C D SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA a. MAP (within 1/4 - 112 mile) C') t. ID I- VISTA ID -J C.) -J U) C.) -J I- - U) DISTANCE 0 a. ci iu C') U) DIREC11ONZ C.) C') C') C.) I.- _j En LU ..J U) U) CARLSBAD VOLVO 3976054 2 6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.26 MI x x N CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CARLSBAD VOLVO 7004905 2 6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.26 MI x N CARLSBAD, CA 92009 HOEHN HONDA 197360 2 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.30 MI x N CARLSBAD, CA 92009 HOEHN HONDA 7004904 2 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.30 MI X N CARLSBAD, CA 92009 HOEHN HONDA 10788290 2 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.30 MI x N - CARLSBAD, CA 92009 HOEHN HONDA 11498274 2 6BOO AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.30 MI x - CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N X = search criteria; = tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 . 800. 167. 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 1, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #7 I I I I I I I I I SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA - D - - - - - - - - MAP (within 1/4. 1/2 mile) ID I— 2 VISTAID C.) DIRECIION RATANRAMS 4038485 - - - - - - 3 0.34 MI 7204 PONTO S x CARLSBAD, CA 92009 A - - B - - - - C D SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA - MAP (within 112. 1 mile) U, : t . cc ID I— VISTA ID C.) C.) -J DISTANCE . C.) Wy U, U, DIRECIIOP 0 LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 5297263 - - - - 4 0.73M1 2017 HY 101 NA X ENCINITAS, CA 92024 THOMPSON ROSE CO INC 423226 5 0.77 MI 7440 BATIQUITOS DR E x - CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DENNIS FLOWERS 1587469 6 0.93 MI 8000 POINSETTIA LANE END X X E CARLSBAD, CA 92008 X = search criteria; • = tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800. 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 1, 1999 Ve,ion 2.6.1 Page #8 [11 A B C D UNMAPPED SITES C.) i—LI. U) 2 0. OU)U)U)C)Q VISTA ID 2 C.) U) CO C.) I-. _i U) ' IU —1 U) U) SOUTH CARLSBAD STATE BEACH 1238666 HIGHWAY 101 X CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CECIL J. HANNAN 4016137 2433-707TH ST X ENCINITAS, CA 92024 H G FENTON 4020671 16251 BRANDY CANYON X SAN DIEGO, CA 92073 USN-FLEET ASW TRAINING CENTER 4012201 HARBOR HARBOR OR X SAN DIEGO, CA 92147 THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY RANCHO SAN DIEGO 124449 VIA RANCHO SAN DIEGO X X SAN DIEGO, CA 92199 SOUTHLAND CORP 7499536 8355 OTAY MESA RD X SAN DIEGO, CA MURRAY CANYON BURNSITE 5813398 TB 53.04 ADJ MURRAY RIDGE PK X SAN DIEGO, CA - SOUTH BAY LAND OUTFALL PHASE 1 6830853 ALIGNMENT ALONG MONUMENT RD TO PACIF X SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSIO 6830526 SAN DIEGO, CA x BELL JR HIGH SLF/SWEETWATER II 6829882 SAN DIEGO, CA - x SAN DIEGO, CA 6612668 X SOLEDAD (SAN TMLR) 4041717 SOLEDAD MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN X SAN DIEGO, CA 92073 I I I X = search criteria; • = tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800. 761 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 1, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #9 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT (ALL DATABASES SEARCH ED TO 1 MILE) DETAILS PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1/8 mile) VISTA Address': HOUR PHOTO AN 7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA ID#: 14061006 Map ID Distance/Direction: 1 0.10 MI! E Plotted as: Point tCRA.SmGen- RCRA.Small Generator! SRC# 5596 I EPA ID: I CAD983665282 I_I Agency Address: AN HOUR PHOTO 7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS UNIT 106 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Generator Class: Generates 100 kgimontli but less than 1000 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/8. 1/4 mile) No Records Found SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/4 - 1/2 mile) I VISTA Address': CARLSBAD VOLVO 6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA ID#: 3976054 Map ID 2 Distance/Direction: 0.26 Ml / N Plotted as: Point STATE UST - State Underground Storaq Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: Tank ID: 001 Tank Contents: PETROLEUM Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Size (Units): 1000 (GALLONS) RCRA-SmGen- RCRA-Small Generator! Agency Address: Generator Class: RC# 1612 I EPA/Agency ID: I N/A SAMEASABOVE NOT REPORTED NOT REPORTED Tank Status: ACT! VE/IN SER VICE Leak Monitoring: Agency Code () Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS 16 EPA ID: ICAD981983323 CARLSBAD VOLVO 6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Generates 100 kg/month but less than 1000 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800. 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #10 I SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/4-1/2 mile) CONT. I VISTA Address': CARLSBAD VOLVO 6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA lD#: 7004905 Map ID 2 Distance/Direction: 0.26 Ml! N Plotted as: Point IMIUI JLdWUII Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): ID: IH20071 I' )und Storage Tank! SRC# 5835 SAMEAS ABOVE NOT REPORTED NOT REPORTED 71001U Tank Status: WASTE OIL Leak Monitoring: 12 Tank Piping: 1000 (GALLONS) Tank Material: ACT! VE/!N SER VICE NOT AVAILABLE SUCTION DOUBLE WALLED OR SINGLE WALLED VISTA Address': HOEHN HONDA 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA ID#: 197360 Map ID 2 Distance/Direction: 0.30 MI I N Plotted as: Point TATE UST - State Underground 5t0rag Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: Tank ID: TOOIU Tank Contents: PETROLEUM Tank Age: NOT REPORTED Tank Size (Units): 1000 (GALLONS) 1612 I EPA/Agency ID: IN/A SAME AS ABOVE NOT REPORTED NOT REPORTED Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: Agency Code () Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Material: FIBERGLASS VISTA Address': HOEHN HONDA 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA lD#: 7004904 Map ID 2 Distance/Direction: 0.30 MI / N Plotted as: Point I Si IL Ua I • atdtV UtIUWqIUUtIU atUld4t Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: Tank ID: T001U Tank Contents: WASTE OIL Tank Age: 11 Tank Size (Units): 1000 (GALLONS) 5835 I) SAMEASABOVE NOT REPORTED NOT REPORTED Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ID: lH19612 1 1 CLOSED REMOVED NOTAVAILABLE GRAVITY DOUBLE WALLED OR SINGLE WALLED VISTA Address': HOEHN HONDA 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 1 VISTA lD#: 10788290 Map ID 2 Distance/Direction: 0.30 MI! N Plotted as: Point [STATL LUST . State Leaking Underground Storage Tank! SRC# 5671 I EPA/Agency ID: I N/A Agency Address: HOEHN HONDA 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92018 Facility ID: 9UT3 700 Leak Date: 07/22/98 Leak Report Date: 07/22/98 Site Assessment Began: 08/14/98 Leak Detection Method: TANK CLOSURE e VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800- 161 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 1, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #11 SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/4-1/2 mile) CONT. Leak Cause: Leak Source: UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Substance: WASTE OIL Remediation Event: LEAK STOPPED BY: CLOSE TANKLEAK STOP DATE: 07/22/98 Remediation Status: PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT UNDER WAY Media Affected: SOIL ONLY Description I Comment: PRIORITY: LOWPO TEN TIAL HEALTH/SAFETY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTEXISTSAFTER INVESTIGBENEFICIAL: NO BENEFICIAL GROUNDWATER USELOCASENUM: H19612-001,BASINNUM904.40,GWDEPTH: 13' VISTA Address': HOEHN HONDA 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA ID#: 11498274 Map ID 2 Distance/Direction: 0.30 Ml! N Plotted as: Point [sTATE LUST - State Leaking Undeigrouhd Storage an SRC# 5491 I EPA/Agency ID: IN/A Agency Address: Facility ID: HOEHN HONDA 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92018 9UT3700 Leak Report Date: 07/22/98 Site Assessment Plan Submitted: 08/27/98 Substance: WASTE OIL Remediation Event: EXCAVATE AND DISPOSE Remediation Status: PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT WORKPLAN REQ Media Affected: SOIL ONLY Region / District: SAN DIEGO REGION Description I Comment: COUNTY: SAN DIEGO Description! Comment: CROSS STREET: PALOMAR AIRPORT RD Description I Comment: REVIEW DATE:09/28/98 77771 VISTA Address': RATAN RAM S 1204 PONTO CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA lD#: 4038485 17; Distance/Direction: 0.34 MI / S Plotted as: Point [STATE UST - State Underground Storage Tañk!SRC# 1612 EPA/Agency ID: IN/A Agency Address: SAMEAS ABOVE Underground Tanks: 7 Aboveground Tanks: NOTREPORTED Tanks Removed: NOTREPORTED Tank ID: TOOIU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: UNLEADED GAS Leak Monitoring: Agency Code () Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 8000 (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS Tank ID: T001U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: UNKNOWN Leak Monitoring: Agency Code ( Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS Tank ID: TOOIU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: UNKNOWN Leak Monitoring: Agency Code C) Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS * VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 1, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #12 I I [1 I I I I [I I I 11 SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 114'-1/2 mile) CONT. Tank ID: MOIL/ Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: PETROLEUM Leak Monitoring: Agency Code ( Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS Tank ID: T001U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: PETROLEUM Leak Monitoring: Agency Code () Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS Tank ID: MOIL/ Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: OTHER Leak Monitoring: Agency Code () Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 3003 (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS Tank ID: TOOIU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: OTHER Leak Monitoring: Agency Code H Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 8101 (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS [STATE UST - State Underground Storage.Tank/ SRC# 5835 I Agency ID: I H17155 Agency Address: IZ4 TAN RAMS 7204 PONTO DR CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Underground Tanks: 7 Aboveground Tanks: NOTREPORTED Tanks Removed: NOTREPORTED Tank ID: TOO1U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: DIESEL Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 8101 (GALLONS) Tank Material: UNKNOWN Tank ID: T002U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: DIESEL Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 3003 (GALLONS) Tank Material: UNKNOWN Tank ID: T003U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: WASTE OIL Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: UNKNOWN Tank ID: T004U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: WASTE OIL Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: UNKNOWN Tank ID: T005U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: OTHER Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: UNKNOWN Tank ID: T006U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: OTHER Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: UNKNOWN VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800. 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #13 I SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 114- 112 mite) CONT. I Tank ID: T007U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: UNLEADED GAS Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 8000 (GALLONS) Tank Material: DOUBLE WALLED OR SINGLE WALLED SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 112 - 1 mile) ] VISTA Address': LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 2011 HY 101 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 VISTA ID#: 5297263 Map ID 4 Distance/Direction: 0.73 Ml / NA Plotted as: Radius [STATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank! SRC# 5835 I Agency ID: I H32324 Agency Address: SAMEAS ABOVE Underground Tanks: 7 Aboveground Tanks: NOTREPORTED Tanks Removed: NOTREPORTED Tank ID: TOOIU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: DIESEL Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 280 (GALLONS) Tank Material: DOUBLE WALLED OR SINGLE WALLED VISTA Address': THOMPSONROSE CO INC 1440 BATIQUITOS DR CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VISTA lD#: 423226 Distance/Direction: 0.77 MI! E Plotted as: Point [RCRA-SmGen - RCRA-Small Generator! SRC# 5596 EPA ID: CAD982368854 Agency Address: Generator Class: THOMPSON ROSE COMPANY INC 7440 BATIQUITOS DR. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Generates 100 kg/month but less than 1000 kg/month of non-acutey hazardous waste VISTA Address': DENNIS FLOWERS 8000 POINSETTIA LANE END CARLSBAD, CA 92008 VISTA ID#: 1587469 Map ID 6 Distance/Direction: 0.93 MI / E Plotted as: Point [STATE UST- tate Underground Storage an / SRC# 1612 EPNAgency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: NOTREPORTED Tanks Removed: NOTREPORTED Tank ID: TOOIU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Tank Contents: OTHER Leak Monitoring: Agency Code () Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Size (Units): 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS [STATE LUST -State Leaking Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 5497 I EPA/Acjency ID: IN/A Agency Address: DENNIS FLOWERS 8000 POINSETTIA LN CARLSBAD, CA 92007 Facility ID: 9UT1764 Leak Report Date: 07/25/90 Site Assessment Plan Submitted: 08/09/90 Contamination Confirmed Date: 07/25/90 Case Closed Date: 05/11/93 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #14 Map ID 5 I SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 112 1 mile) CONT. Substance: DIESEL Remediation Status: CASE CLOSED Media Affected: SOIL ONLY Region I District: SAN DIEGO REGION Description I Comment: COUNTY. SAN DIEGO Description / Comment: REVIEW DATE:11/30/93 [STATE LUST- State Leaking Underground Storage Tank! SRC# 5671 I EPNAgency ID: I N/A Agency Address: Facility ID: Leak Date: DENNIS FLOWERS 8000 POINSETTIA LN CARLSBAD, CA 92007 9UT1764 07/12/90 Leak Report Date: 07/25/90 Contamination Confirmed Date: 07/25/90 Case Closed Date: 05/11/93 Leak Detection Method: OTHER MEANS Leak Cause: Leak Source: UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Substance: DIESEL Remediation Event: LEAK STOPPED BY: OTHER MEANSLEAK STOP DATE: 07/12190ENFORCEMENT NONE TAKEN Remediation Status: CASE CLOSED Media Affected: SOIL ONLY Description! Comment: PRIORITY: LOWLOCASENUM: H99083-001,BASINNUM:904.51,GWDEPTH: [STATE UST State Underground Storage Tank! SRC# 5835 I Agency ID 11-199083, Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: DENNIS FLOWERS 8000 POINSETTIA LN END CARLSBAD, CA 92008 1 NOTREPORTED NOTREPORTED Tank ID: 71001U Tank Contents: DIESEL Tank Age: NOTREPORTED Tank Size (Units): 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Piping: UNKNOWN Tank Material: UNKNOWN VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 167 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 915 I UNMAPPED SITES I VISTA THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY RANCHO SAN DIEGO VISTA ID#: 124449 Address': VIA RANCHO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO, CA 92199 [STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill! SRC# 5689 Agency ID: 37-CR-0101 Agency Address: NCCOSC SAN DIEGO NCCOSC SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO, CA Facility Type: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY Facility Status: CLOSURE PENDING Permit Status: UNDER REVIEW VISTA MURRAY CANYON BURNSITE VISTA ID#: 5813398 Address': TB 53-D4 ADJ MURRAY RIDGE PK SAN DIEGO, CA [STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill I SRC# 5689 Agency ID: 37-CR-0051 Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Facility Type: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY Facility Status: CLOSED Permit Status: OTHER VISTA SOUTH BAY LAND OUTFALL PHASE 1 VISTA ID#: 6830853 Address': ALIGNMENT ALONG MONUMENT RD TO PACIF SAN DIEGO, CA [STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill! SRC# 5689 Agency ID: 37-AA-0914 Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Facility Type: TREATMENT PROCESSING Facility Status: PROPOSED Permit Status: PROPOSED/PLANNED VISTA SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSIO 'VISTA ID#: 6830526 Address': SAN DIEGO, CA [STATE SWLF Solid Waste Landfill I SRC# 5689 , ID 37 CR 0098 Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Facility Type: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY Facility Status: OTHER Permit Status: UNDER REVIEW VISTA BELL JR HIGH SLF!SWEETWATER II VISTA lD#: 6829882 Address': SAN DIEGO, CA [sTATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill ISRC# 5689 I Agency ID: 37-CR-0088 Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Facility Type: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY Facility Status: OTHER Permit Status: UNDER REVIEW V VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 . 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 1, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #16 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT (ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE) DESCRIPTION OF DATABASES SEARCHED DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE NPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5789 The agency release date for NPL was April, 1999. The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for priority remedial actions under the Superfund program. A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top priority site, or meet three specific criteria set jointly by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the US EPA in order to become an NPL site. SPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5455 The agency release date for Calsites Database: Annual Workplan Sites was October, 1998. The CalSites database contains information on properties (or "sites") in California where hazardous substances have been released, or where the potential for such a release exists. This database is used primarily by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate and track activities at sites that may have been affected by the release of hazardous substances. Also see SPLISCL: Annual Work Plan (AWP) sites are cleassified as SPL and all the other sites are classified as SCL. I CORRACTS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. I The EPA maintains this database of RCRA facilities which are undergoing "corrective action". A "corrective action order" is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008 (h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. Corrective actions may be required beyond the facility's boundary and can be required regardless of when the release occurred, even if it predates RCRA. I I CERCLIS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5790 The agency release date for CERCLIS was March, 1999. I The CERCLIS List contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List(NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The information on each site includes a history of all pre-remedial, remedial, removal and community relations activiies or events at the site, financial funding information for the events, and unrestricted enforcement activities. I NFRAP VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5791 The agency release date for CERCLIS-NFRAP was March, 1999. I NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. I IFor more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 161 0 4Report ID: 595501901 te of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #17 I V DATABASES SEARCHED 101 MILE I SCL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5454 The agency release date for Calsites Database: All Sites except Annual Workplan Sites (incl. ASPIS) was October, 1998. I The CalSites database contains information on properties (or "sites") in California where hazardous substances have been released, or where the potential for such a release exists. This database is used primarily by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate and track activities at sites that may have been affected by the release of hazardous substances. Also see SPLJSCL: Annual Work Plan (AWP) sites are cleassified as SPL and all the other I sites are classified as SCL. The CalSites database includes both known and potential sites. Two- thirds of these sites have been classified, based I on available information, as needing "No Further Action" (NFA) by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The remaining sites are in various stages of review and remediation to determine if a problem exists at the site. Several hundred sites have been remediated and are considered certified. Some of these sites may be in long term operation and maintenance. RCRA.TSD VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMSIRCRIS was February, 1999. I The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities I which treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste. SWLF VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. U SRC#: 5689 The agency release date for Ca Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) was December, 1998. This database is provided by the Integrated Waste Management Board. The agency may be contacted at: 916-255-4021. I The California Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations pursuant to the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, Government Code Section 2.66790(b). Generally, the California Integrated Waste Management Board I learns of locations of disposal facilities through permit applications and from local enforcement agencies. LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5366 The agency release date for Region #7-Colorado River Basin Leaking Underground Storage Tank Listing was I August, 1998. This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region #7. The agency may be contacted at: 760-346-7491. I LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5497 The agency release date for Lust Information System (LUSTIS) was October, 1998. I This database is provided by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The agency may be contacted at: 916-445-6532. I LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5670 The agency release date for Lahontan Region LUST List was January, 1999. This database is provided by the Lahontan Region Six South Lake Tahoe. The agency may be contacted at: 1 530-542-5400. I For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page #18 I LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. I SRC#: 5671 The agency release date for Region #9 Leaking Underground Storage Tank List was December, 1998. This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region #9. The agency may be contacted at: I 619-467-2980. C) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1MILE I UST's VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 1612 The agency release date for Underground Storage Tank Registrations Database was January, 1994. I This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Underground Storage Tanks. The agency may be contacted at: 916-227-4364; Caution-Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. I UST's VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5835 The agency release date for San Diego County Environmental Health Services Database-UST Sites was January, 1999. I This database is provided by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The agency may be contacted at: 619-338-2268; Caution-Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. I AST's VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5513 The agency release date for Aboveground Storage Tank Database was December, 1998. I This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board. The agency may be contacted at: 916-227-4364. I D) DATABASES SEARCHED TO1MILE ERNS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. I SRC#: 5598 The agency release date for was December, 1998. The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database containing records from October 1986 the release date above and is used to collect information for reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. I to The database contains information from spill reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. The ERNS hotline number is (202) 260-2342. I RCRA.LgGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. I The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Large Generators are facilities which generate at least 1000 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste (or 1 kg./month of acutely I hazardous waste). I I I For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800. 167 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6. 1 Page 979 RCRA-SmGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities which generate less than 1000 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste. SPILL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5835 The agency release date for San Diego County Environmental Health Services Database-Spill Sites was January, 1999. This database is provided by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The agency may be contacted at: 619-338-2268. I End of Report For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800. 767 - 0403. Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 120 I I I I I El I I I I I LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX D I NOISE ANALYSIS I I I .1 I I I I 06/21/99 <C:\MP\IS-MND1.D0C>> I I I I I I I POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING/IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOISE ANALYSIS June 18, 1999 Preparedfor: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project #DEC832 LSA Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................1 3.0 SETTING ...................................................4 3.1 NOISE DEFINITIONS ..................................4 3.2 NOISE SCALES .......................................4 3.3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .........................5 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................7 4.1 PREVIOUS NOISE STUDIES ............................7 4.2 FIELD MEASUREMENTS ...............................9 5.0 IMPACTS ..................................................11 5.1 CONSTRUCTION .....................................11 5.2 OPERATIONS ........................................12 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................16 6.1 CONSTRUCTION .....................................16 6.2 OPERATIONS ........................................16 7.0 REFERENCES ..............................................16 APPENDICES A - SOUND32 NOISE MODELING OF FUTURE NO BUILD SCENARIO B - SOUND32 NOISE MODELING OF FUTURE BUILD ALTERNATIVES C - FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL OUTPUTS 6/18/99(<P:DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)) 11 I I I I I I I I I ISA Associates, Inc. LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1 - Regional Location Map ........................................2 2 - Project Improvement Plan .......................................3 3 - Noise Measurement Locations ..................................10 4 - Noise Modeling Locations .....................................13 LIST OF TABLES PAGE A - Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) ....................................5 B - Existing Noise Level Measurements ..................................9 C - 24 Hour CNEL Traffic Noise Levels Distance to Roadway Centerline, Feet 12 D - Peak Hour Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Locations .................15 I I I I I I I I I 6/18/99<<P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd>> Im I ISA Associates, Inc. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Carlsbad proposes to widen the Poinsettia Lane bridge, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The widening/improvements will assist in increasing the level of service at this bridge to accommodate growth in the project area. It will also help to improve Interstate-5 (1-5) access along Poinsettia Lane. The following analysis provides a discussion of the fundamentals of sound; examines State and City noise guidelines and policies; reviews noise levels at representative existing sensitive receptor locations; evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project; and provides mitigation for identified significant impacts. Modeled traffic noise levels are based upon vehicle data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, May 1999. This evaluation was prepared in conformance with local standards, and utilizes procedures and methodologies as specified by Caltrans. The technical noise data, including model run results, are provided in the Appendices A through C. Construction of the project would raise the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, especially at the existing mobile home park to the southeast of the bridge. Although noise associated with construction would be temporary, mitigation measures would be required to reduce the noise impacts during construction period. The proposed project would not alter noise associated with aircraft overflight and train pass by in the project area. The analysis shows that future baseline traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor locations would not exceed the City of Carlsbad's 24 hour criterion of 60 dBA CNEL and Caltrans' peak hour criterion of 67 dBA L. Since the increases in traffic volumes are not expected as a direct consequence of the project, no project related noise impacts may be attributed to changes in traffic volumes. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the projected future noise levels in areas outside the project improvement area. The proposed project would result in changes in the noise exposure along Poinsettia Lane where proposed new travel lanes would move some traffic away from receptors at the existing mobile home park to the south. However, project related traffic noise level changes would be small and less than significant. Future residential uses proposed in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area adjacent to Poinsettia Lane have incorporated mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise impact from Poinsettia Lane. No mitigation measures are required for long-term project impacts. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 illustrates the regional location of the proposed project. The project site is I located in the City of Carlsbad. Figure 2 illustrates the project improvement plan. The proposed plan includes widen- ing the bridge over the rail tracks on the north side, adding a travel lane to both east- bound and westbound directions. I 6/18/99<<P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd>> I 1 I I I Li I 6/I 6/99(DEC832) IN Scale in Feet I L SA--- 0 1000 2000 Figure 1 Project Location I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 6/16/99(DEC832) Scale in Feet i L S-A 050 100 Figure '2 Proposed Project ISA Associates, Inc. 3.0 SETTING NOISE DEFINITIONS Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Typical human hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately three dB under normal conditions. Changes of one to three dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than one dB are usually undiscernible. I The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "felt" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot I hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate I noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this com- pensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensi- tivity of the human ear. I Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal govern- ment, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. 3.2 NOISE SCALES I Several rating scales (or noise "metrics") exist to analyze adverse effects of noise (including traffic generated noise) on a community. These scales include the equiva- lent continuous noise level (L), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and I the day-night average noise level (La,,). L is a measurement of the sound energy level averaged over a specified time period (usually one hour). L represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over a time interval in a single numerical I value. For example, a one hour L eq noise level measurement represents the average amount of acoustic energy that occurred in that hour. Other values of concern include the L,,,.. and These are the minimum and maximum values recorded over a I designated time interval or event. Unlike the L eq metric, the CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement. I CNEL also differs from L in that it applies a time weighted factor designed to em- phasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when quiet time and sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the I daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no adjustment. Noise produced during the evening time period (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is adjusted by five dBA, while nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise is adjusted by ten dBA. I 3.1 I 6/18/99(<P:\DEC832dec832.nse.wpd>) 4 LSA Associates, Inc. I The La,, noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. receives no adjustment. Both the CNEL and La,, metrics yield approximately the same 24 hour value (within one dBA), with the CNEL being the I more restrictive of the two, or approximately one dBA higher than the Ld. value. 1 3.3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND I .3.3.1 Stale Guidelines and Standards California Department of Transportation Caltrans indicated in its Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (October, 1998) that reason- able and feasible noise abatement measures should be incorporated into new or recon- struction highway projects. 1 Caltrans has established a noise abatement criterion (NAC) of 67 dBA (exterior L) for noise sensitive activities/land uses. Table A lists the NAC for various land use categories. "Sensitfve" land uses are defined as picnic areas, recreation areas, play- I grounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. I Table A - Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) I Hourly A-Weighted Noise Activity Levels' I Cate- L,,, (dBA) gory Description of Activity Category A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary sig- I (exterior) nificance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. I B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports (exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. I C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in (exterior) Categories A or B, above. I D --- Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, (interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. I Source: State of California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Octo- ber, 1998 I Noise attenuation requirements under California law (i.e., the California Environ- mental Quality Act [CEQA]) differ from the requirements of the Federal Highway 6/18/99(<P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd>) 5 I LSA Associates, Inc. I Administration (FHWA), which are based on Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (23 CFR, Part 772). Under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), impacts and measures to mitigate adverse impacts must be identified, including the I identification of impacts for which no or only partial mitigation ig possible. Under CEQA, a substantial noise increase may result in a significant adverse environmental effect and, if so, must be mitigated or identified as a noise impact for which it is likely I that no, or only partial abatement measures are available. Specific economic, social, environmental, legal, and technological conditions may make additional noise attenua- tion measures infeasible. Under FHWA regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for Type I project when the project results in a substantial noise increase, or when the predicted levels approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Noise abate- I noise ment measures which are reasonable and feasible and that are likely to be incorporated in the project, as well as noise impacts for which no apparent solution is available, must be identified and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications (23 CFR I 772.11 (e)(1) and (2)). I A noise increase is substantial when the predicted noise levels with the project exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA, L ). A traffic noise impact will also occur when predicted noise levels with project ap- proach within 1 dBA, or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). 1 3.3.2 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines I Noise Element The noise standards specified in the City of Carlsbad General Plan (September 6, 1994), Noise Element are used as a guideline to evaluate the acceptability of the noise I levels generated by the traffic flow. These standards are for assessment of long-term vehicular traffic noise impacts. The City of Carlsbad uses 60 dBA CNEL as the critical criterion (65 dBA CNEL for McClellan-Palomar Airport noise) for assessing I the compatibility of residential land uses with noise sources. The City of Carlsbad requires that the interior living areas for residential land uses not exceed 45 dBA CNEL, with openings to the exterior of the residence open or closed. I For a long-term noise impact assessment in areas already exposed to noise levels exceeding the 65 dBA CNEL, a change of 3 dBA or more in noise level by the project would be considered significant. I Noise Ordinance The City of Carlsbad does not have a comprehensive noise ordinance. However, Chapter 8.28 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) limits the hours of construction. I The City also enforces California Penal Code Section 415 when annoying noise oc- curs. Construction activities are limited to normal weekday working hours (7:00 a.m. 6/18/99((P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)> 6 1 ISA Associates, Inc. I to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday). No construction work is allowed on Sundays and federal holidays. I In addition, the City's Municipal Code requires that all construction equipment should maintain properly equipped muffler systems to reduce noise during construction phase. I 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS There are existing residences in the mobile home park on the south side of Poinsettia Lane east of the bridge. Other areas along this segment of Poinsettia Lane are cur- rently vacant, with future residential and commercial uses proposed abutting Poinsettia Lane. Residents at the existing mobile home park are sensitive receptors that would be affected by the construction and future traffic flow on Poinsettia Lane bridge. Residents at the proposed residential uses would be affected by the traffic noise from poinsettia Lane. - There is an existing (5-1/2 foot high) masonry jersey wall along the south side of the I road adjacent to the mobile home park. On the bridge, there is a (2-1/2 foot high) masonry jersey wall on both sides of the bridge for safety purposes. I The most significant and common source of noise in the project area is transportation related, including on-road vehicles, trains, and aircraft activities. Of these, motor vehicle noise is of concern because of its high rate of occurrence and roadway proxim- ity to sensitive areas. This was confirmed in the field study to be discussed below, I where existing noise levels in the project area are those typical of urban development and consist mainly of vehicular traffic. Aircraft overflight generates occasional short- term noise, but their integrated contribution is small. Train pass by generates rela- tively high single event noise, but contributes less to the long term ambient noise than vehicular traffic does. The following discussion summarizes noise findings in two previous noise studies and a recent field noise monitoring. I 4.1 PREVIOUS NOISE STUDIES 4.1.1 City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report I In the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (March 1994), noise from several mobile sources were identified, includ- ing aircraft, rail, and vehicular traffic. The project site and its immediate vicinity are I not and will not be impacted by the 65 dBA CNEL from the McClellan-Palomar Airport. The following summarize the noise impacts from rail and vehicular traffic in the project area discussed in this document. I Rail I The San Diego Northern Railroad tracks (owned and operated by North County Tran- sit District [NCTD]) run parallel to the coastline through the project area. The rail- 6/18/99((P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)> 7 I I LSA Associates, Inc. I road right-of-way is 100 feet wide. Currently AMTRAK operates several daily pas- senger trains between San Diego and Los Angeles. There are also a total of 18 Coaster commuter trains (nine northbound and nine southbound between San Diego I and Oceanside) travel through the project area. Additionally, approximately five freight trains pass through the project area daily, some after 5 p.m. Currently, there is an existing six foot will along the western property line of the mobile home park I adjacent to the rail tracks. Vehicular Traffic The distance from roadway centerline to noise contours were projected for the year 2010. Along Poinsettia Lane between Carlsbad Boulevard and Paseo Del Norte, the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL were projected to extend to 115, 247, and 533 feet, respec- tively, from the roadway centerline. Currently, there is an existing five and a half foot high jersey barrier along the south side of Poinsettia Lane. I 4.1.2 Poinsettia Properties Spec9ic Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report In the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties Spe- cific Plan (July 1997), noise from several mobile sources were identified, including rail and vehicular traffic. The following summarize the noise impacts from rail and vehicular traffic in the project area discussed in this document. I Rail ' The NC1'D railroad tracks pass through the project area. Currently AMTRAK oper- ates several daily passenger trains between San Diego and Los Angeles. There are also a total of 18 Coaster commuter trains (nine northbound and nine southbound I between San Diego and Oceanside) travel through the project area. Additionally, approximately five freight trains pass through the project area daily, some after 5 p.m. The Wyle Model (Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations, I . Wyle Laboratories Report WCR-73-5, July 1973) was used to determine railroad noise levels. The noise level'at distances of 100, 200, and 400 feet from the tracks were projected to be 67.9, 63.9, and 58.2 dBA CNEL, respectively. Because the railroad I right-of-way is 100 feet wide in this area, and there is an existing six foot sound barrier along the mobile home park boundary along the railroad right-of-way, existing residences at the mobile home park are not impacted by noise exceeding the 60 dBA I I Vehicular Traffic . The distance from roadway centerline to noise contours were projected for future conditions. Along Poinsettia Lane between Carlsbad Boulevard and Paseo Del Norte, I the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL were projected to extend to 26, 56, and 120 feet, re- spectively, from the roadway centerline. Currently, there is an existing five and a half I foot high jersey barrier along the south side of Poinsettia Lane. Existing residences at 6/18/99<<P:DEC832dec832.nse.wpd>> 8 Li ISA Associates, Inc. I the mobile home park are not impacted by traffic noise exceeding the 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise criterion established by the City. 4.2 FIELD MEASUREMENTS I A short term noise monitoring was conducted on May 29, 1999, using a Larson-Davis Model 720 Type 2 Integrating/Logging Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the Amer- ican National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Si .4-1983 for Type 2, International I Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2, and IEC Stan- dard 651 - 1979 for Type 2 sound level meters. The unit was calibrated prior to the first set of readings. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program I established through the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the requirements of the ANSI Standard S 1.4-1984 and the IEC Standard 942: 1988 for Class 1 equipment. The study included 15 minute readings in the afternoon at two (2) representative receptor locations, including mobile home park residences on the south side of Poin- settia Lane. Monithring locations are shown in Figure 3. Measured noise levels ranged from the high SOs where there are barrier or structural walls that shield the receptor location to the mid 60s where the receptor has direct line of sight to the traffic on Poinsettia Lane. Each reading is summarized in Table B. Buses and passenger cars on Poinsettia Lane generated noise levels between 60 to 75 dBA. Aircraft over- flight generated between 50 to 65 dBA. No train pass by noise was observed during the time of noise monitoring. Table B - Existing Noise Level Measurements' Noise Sources - Location/Start Time Leq, dBA Other Observation N-1/3:30 p.m. 57.4 Traffic on Poinsettia Lane; air- Sound level meter (SLM) located at craft overflight; car alarm; birds mobile home park, approximately 50 chirping. feet from western boundary wall and 5 feet above ground level. I N-2/3:50'p.m. 65.5 Traffic on Poinsettia Lane and SLM located approximately 8 feet Carlsbad Boulevard; bus and from Poinsettia Lane edge, 200 feet truck driving by. I east of Carlsbad Boulevard, and 5 feet above ground level. Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 1999. I I ' Noise measurements taken on May 29, 1999; 15 minute measurements. 6/18/99<(P:'DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)> 9 I I EMBANKMENT TO .L -z- - - STAMPED CONCRETE - 47 tu DRVNAcE 74', ------------- Al 77-g~w`777 ILL, jF7, lisp! MST iGHT EAF - - - ;: WAP - - - -=—-— N2 - $ CXISTIO~NWT OF TIA INUT AIGHI OF WAY W .1. POINTTIA LAW I I I ¶ Ni .1 ., V. I - 0 i : Base Map Source: Dokken Engineering. I 6/15/99(DEC832) 1>c Scale in Feet I L S-A 0 50 100 Figure 3 Noise Monitoring Locations I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I ISA Associates, Inc. 5.0 IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project would result in short term construction noise impact and long term traffic noise from the widened bridge/roadway. The proposed project would not affect noise associated with aircraft overflight and train pass by in the project vicinity. Aircraft and train noise in the project vicinity would remain similar to those described in the existing condition. The following focuses on the noise impact associated with project construction and future traffic noise along Poin- settia Lane. 5.1 CONSTRUCTION Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels, as noise levels produced by construction activities can reach relatively high levels. Noise typically associated with the use of construction equipment is best estimated in a study sponsored by the U.S. EPA (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1971), and is estimated at an L eq of between 79 and 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort for the grading phase. Later phases of construction, such as the pouring of forms, typi- cally involve smaller and quieter pieces of equipment. At its nearest point, construc- tion (i.e., bridge widening construction) on the north side of Poinsettia Lane west of the bridge would take place within a distance of about 100 to 150 feet from those receptors located along the south side of Poinsettia Lane east of the bridge. These mobile home residences are approximately 20 to 30 feet below the high point of the bridge, and are shielded by an existing jersey barrier along the south side of Poinsettia Lane. The projected maximum, intermittent noise from construction of the road widening at the nearest existing residences along Poinsettia Lane is estimated at between 65 and 75 dBA L. These values represent a potential short-term nuisance. Depending on the timing of the construction for the proposed residential uses in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan may also be exposed construction noise from the bridge/roadway widening. Construction hour restrictions established by the City of Carlsbad should be followed. Noise will also be created by the vehicles that transport both workers and materials to the site. This analysis assumes that construction involves as many as 30 workers at any one time. The pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities will be moved on site, will remain for the duration of each construction phase, and will not add to the daily traffic volume. When added to the current traffic volumes along Poinsettia Lane, Avenida Encinas, and Carlsbad Boulevard, the projected volume of construction traffic will be small and its associated noise level change will not be perceptible. However, there will be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential with passing trucks at a maximum level of 87 dBA at 50 feet. This would be a short-term intermittent annoyance to noise sensitive receptors adjacent to the con- struction areas. I LI I II 1 I I I 6/1 8/99<(P:'DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)> 11 I ISA Associates, Inc. 5.2 OPERATIONS Potential noise impacts associated with project operations are solely from traffic noise created by vehicles that use the system of roadways. It should be noted that the pro- posed project is a bridge/roadway widening/improvement project. Future increases in traffic volumes are not expected as a direct consequence of the project. Therefore, I there are no project related noise impacts that may be attributed to changes in traffic volumes. However, changes in bridge/roadway configuration caused by the proposed project will potentially affect noise exposure along the roadway. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978) was used to calculate future noise levels along Poinsettia Lane. Table C lists the distance to the CNEL contour lines from the centerline of the roadway. Traffic noise along Poinsettia Lane is moderate, with the 60 dBA CNEL extending to 151 feet from the centerline (without the effect of sound barriers) under the future (with or without project) conditions. Mobile home park residents to the southeast of the bridge, where there is an existing five and a half foot jersey barrier along the roadway right-of-way, would not be exposed to noise levels exceeding the 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard adopted by the City. Proposed residences in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan adjacent to Poinsettia Lane have identified mitigation mea- sures in terms of free standing sound walls along their property boundary to mitigate traffic noise from Poinsettia Lane to below the 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. Table C - 24 Hour CNEL Traffic Noise Levels Distance to Roadway Centerline, Feet Future CNEL Roadway Segment 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Poinsettia Lane <50' 72 151 Carlsbad Boulevard to Avenida Encinas Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site specific study. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. Because the above traffic noise prediction model predicts noise contours by distance from the roadway centerline, the model is not sensitive to roadway widening or im- provement that involves mostly right-of-way changes and little centerline movement; therefore, it is not adequate for impact analysis for the proposed project. Caltrans Sound32 noise model was performed for the future without and with project scenarios to more closely identify the changes resulted from the proposed bridge/roadway widening/improvement. Receptors modeled are the same for both scenarios, and are illustrated in Figure 4, Noise Modeling Locations. Because the project involves the widening of westbound Poinsettia Lane (on the north side), travel lanes on Poinsettia Lane were defined in gridded coordinates and used in the model- ing. Noise receptor locations and existing barriers/structures were also gridded for the 6/18/99(<P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd>) 12 I I I I I I I .L .. / _. •-# -:_--:---------. - -. çr EUBAWKWENt 40 ; CONSTRUCT -.DA4INAGE . -... . STAMPED CONCRETE •._.trs• '. - - -. - wq. 1 - - - - - — TO C(O PC _ - — __ poj.scyita E - - RIQT OF •Y UP . PODdEtTI A %ANC -. — — ._-CUTINO Thy WAY NIW$CTTIA'LAW I 1 R4 RI - 1 .' ,• . _.- -Lz.--- . . .- - t " TT ;— — - r L — -- r--- - -.-- -ta M IT M TIA L_ ET A4 01110 1 --- R6 €1 R3 RS R7 r R8 n • IN Scale in Feet I, LSA O- 50 100 Figure 4 Noise Modeling Locations LSA Associates, Inc. model input. For the future with and without project scenarios, this involved two separate links (one eastbound and one westbound) with the projected noise levels logarithmically added together. (A link is a stretch of road that is demarcated by such things as changes in roadway geometrics [e.g., lane configuration, curves, bridges, etc.] and additional traffic entering or leaving the roadway [e.g., an intersection]). Link and receptor locations were scaled off a 1:40 scale map (Dokken Engineering, May 17, The afternoon (p.m.) peak hour traffic volumes with soft site geometry were modeled. Vehicle count data were provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, May 21, 1999. I The Sound32 model is sensitive to the volumes of trucks on the roadway, as they contribute disproportionally to the traffic noise. The ratios of autos, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the project area were assumed to be 92, 5, and 3 percent, respec- tively, on Poinsettia Lane, based on our field observations during the noise monitor- ing. In addition to vehicle ratios, the noise model is sensitive to vehicle speeds. Due to the I change in elevation from Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas to the high point of the bridge, speeds used included the following: I • All passenger vehicles were modeled at an average speed of 45 mph I . All medium-duty trucks were modeled at an average speed of 40 mph. Heavy-duty trucks were assigned an average speed of 35 mph. I •. For future no project scenarios, the current roadway configuration is used for the travel lanes and roadway edges. Travel lanes and roadway edges are modified for the future with project scenario. Both future scenarios, with or without the project, have I the same afternoon peak hour traffic volumes along Poinsettia Lane. Table D lists the no level at the eight receptor locations for future without project I and future with project scenarios. These modeled noise levels are different from the monitored noise levels, because the locations do not coincide with each other. Due to the difficulty in accessing and measuring the distances for an exact match between I . . modeled and monitored locations, monitored noise levels were for comparison pur- poses only, and were not used to calibrate the noise model. Although monitored noise levels were all lower than the modeled noise levels, they are in general agreement with I modeled noise levels. Modeled noise levels between the future without and with project scenarios show the project's effect on the receptor locations along Poinsettia Lane, as will be discussed in I more detail below. I Based on results shown in Table D, all receptor sites on the south side of Poinsettia Lane west of Avenida Encinas, RI through R8, would not be exposed to traffic noise level exceeding the 67 dBA one hour L criterion during peak hours, under the future no project scenario. Under the future with project scenario, the widened 6/18/99<<P:'DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd>> 14 I I ISA Associates, Inc. bridge/roadway would extend travel lanes to the north side of, or the westbound Poinsettia Lane in this area, therefore moving some traffic away from these receptor locations on the south side of Poinsettia Lane. Table D indicates that, under the future with project scenario, traffic noise levels at these eight receptor locations would either decrease by as much as 1.4 dBA or increase by as much as 0.2 dBA from their corre- sponding no project levels: The decrease in traffic noise level would be due to traffic being moved northwards and would receive higher noise attenuation from the roadway southern edge and existing jersey barrier along the south side of the road. The in- creases at R6 (0.2 dBA) and R8 (0.1 dBA) are small and statistically negligible. This range of noise level changes is considered small (less than three dBA) and less than significant. All eight receptor locations modeled would continue to experience traffic noise below the 67 dBA L, standard established by Caltrans. Therefore, no signifi- cant project related traffic noise impacts would occur for these existing residences. Proposed residential uses in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan adjacent to Poin- settia Lane have identified free standing sound walls along their property boundary to mitigate future traffic noise from Poinsettia Lane. No significant traffic noise impact would occur to these proposed residences from the proposed bridge/roadway widen- ing. No mitigation measure is required for the proposed project. Table D - Peak Hour Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Locations' 1 Hour L Levels (dBA) Future Future Project Without With Related Receptor Project Project Increase RI 61.3 60.1 -1.2 R2 60.9 60.1 -0.8 R3 59.7 59.3 -0.4 R4 61.4 60.0 -1.4 R5 59.6 59.0 -0.6 R6 63.2 63.4 0.2 R7 57.5 57.5 0.0 R8 56.9 57.0 0.1 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. LI I Soft site noise drop off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance was used. 6/18/99(<P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)) 15 I I I I I I I I Li I I I I I I I 6.1 I I I I I I I 6.2 I I I I I I I I LSA Associates, Inc. 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES CONSTRUCTION Initial construction has the potential to create significant impacts at the homes located along Poinsettia Lane, and mitigation is warranted to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. Applicable mitigation includes the following: Construction should be restricted to between the hours of 700 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and not permitted on Sundays and federal holidays. However, some evening/ nighttime and weekend construction may be necessary for the proposed project. These construction activities will be coordinated with the City of Carlsbad, and will not occur without City approval. All construction equipment shall be equipped with working manufacturer speci- fied muffler system. Portable equipment should be located as far as possible from the noise sensitive locations at the existing mobile home park. Construction vehicle staging areas and equipment maintenance areas should be located as far as possible from sensitive receptor locations at the existing mobile home park. Implementation of these measures would reduce construction noise impacts. OPERATIONS Implementation of the proposed project, i.e., widening the bridge on Poinsettia Lane, would not attract new traffic trips to the project area, but would affect traffic noise along Poinsettia Lane due to proposed bridge/roadway configuration changes. Traffic noise at the receptor locations modeled would either increase or decrease slightly from their corre- sponding no project levels. The changes would be small, and less than two dBA. There would be no project related significant traffic noise impacts. No mitigation measures are required for long-term operation of the proposed project. - 7.0 REFERENCES Caltrans, Sound32 Noise Prediction Model, Release 07/30!91 Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, October, 1998 Carlsbad, City of, General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code. Harris, Cyril, Handbook of Noise Control, 1991 6/18/99<(P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)> 16 I LSA Associates, Inc. I I I 1 I 1 I I I I U. S. Environmental Protection Act. 1971. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971. I I I I I I I 6/18/99(<P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd>) 17 I I I I I I I LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A SOUND32 NOISE MODELING OF FUTURE NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/18/99((P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)) I I Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening T-Poinsettia Road Peak Hour, 1 837 , 45 , 46 , 40 , 27 , 35 T-Poinsettia Road Peak Hour, 2 837 , 45 , 46 , 40 , 27 , 35 L-Eastbound Poinsettia Road, 1 Y,174400.,65,61.5, Y,174500.,69,62.3, Y,174600.,68,63, Y,174700.,70,65.8, Y, 174800. ,74,71.5, Y, 174900. ,75,75.6, Y, 175000. ,73,77.1, Y,175100.,75,76.3, Y, 175200. ,77,74.1, Y, 175300. , 78, 69.2, Y, 175400. , 76, 62.3, Y, 175500. ,76,57.2, Y, 175600. , 77, 54 .4, Y,175700.,75,55.4, Y, 175800. , 74,58.8, L-Poinsettia Road Westbound, 2 175800. , 122, 59, Y,175700.,119,55.8, - Y,175600.,117,54.5, Y, 175500. ,115,.57.4, Y,175400.,109,62.5, Y, 175300. ,98,69.3, Y, 175200. ,92,74.5, Y, 175100. , 91, 76.3, Y,175000.,91,77.1, Y,174900.,92,75.6, Y,174800.,101,71.8, Y,174700.,115,65.9, Y,174600.,119,62.8, Y,174500.,120,61.9, 174400. , 123, 61. 6, B-Eastbound Road Edge, 1 , 1 , 0 174440. ,57, 61.7, 61.7,edge 174500.1 55,62.1,62.1, 174600. ,54,62.8,62.8, 174700. , 55, 65. 6, 65. 6, 174800. , 62, 71.3, 71.3, 174900. , 67, 75. 5, 75 . 5, B-Eastbound Jersey Wall, 2 , 3 174900. ,67,75.5,78,jersey 174960. ,60,76.6,79.1, 175000. , 61, 77 .2, 79. 7, 175100. ,61,76.3,78.8, 175140; ,61,75.3,77.8, B-Eastbound Edge Barrier, 3 , 3 175140. ,61,75.3,80.8,5.5'wall 175200. , 68, 73 . 9, 79 .4, 175300. ,62,68.6,74.1, 175400. ,55,61.5,67, 175500. ,54,.56.4,61.9, 175600. ,54,54.4,59.9, 175700. ,55, 54.6,60.1, 175800. ,54,58,63.5, B-Walls around mobile homes, 4 I I I I I I I I IE 2 , 0 ,0 175152.,12,51.l,57. l,wall 175175.,-130,50.9,56.9, • 175265.,-130,51.8,57.8, I 175245.,12,51.6,57.6, 175152. ,12,51.1,57.1, B-Mobile homes, 5 , 1 , 0 1 175265. ,5,51.8,61.8,homes • 175260.1 -53,51.61 61.6, 175645.,-55,51.5,61.5, • 175650.,2,51,61, I 175265.,5,51.8,61.8, B-Mobile homes, 6 , 1 , 0. 175295., -100,51.1,61,homes I 175300.,-153,50,60, I I75670.,-162,50,60, 175665.1 -106,50,60, 175295. ,-100,51.1,61, R, 1 , 67 ,20 • 175185,-12,57.5,Rl R, 2 , 67 ,20 175220,-41,57.7,R2 R, 3 , 67 ,20 175195,-85,57.1,R3 R, 4 , 67 ,20 • 175260,3,56.8,R4 R, 5 , 67 ,20 175275,-86,56.1,R5 R, 6 , 67 ,20 I 175655,3,56.0,R6 R, 7 , 67 ,20 175660,-90,55.0,R7 — R, 8 , 67 ,20 I 175340,-200,55.,R8 • D, 4.5 ALL, ALL I Rej Kli SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS * ******** * *** ** **** ******* * BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1' - 0. ------------------------------------------------------ edge 2 - 0. El P2 3 - 0. B1 P3 4 - 0. B1 P4 5 -0. B1 P5 6 - 0. jersey 7 - 0. 32 P2 8 - 0. 32P3 9 - 0. 22P4 10 - 0. 5.51 wall 11 - 0. B3 P2 12 - 0. 33 P3 13 - 0. B3 P4 14 - 0. B3 p5 15 - 0. 33 P6 16 - 0. 33 p7 17 - 0. wall 18 - 0. B4 P2 19 - 0. B4 P3 20 - 0. B4 P4 21 - 0. homes 22 -. 0. B5 P2 23 - 0. B5 P3 24 - 0. B5 P4 25 - 0. homes 26 - 0. 36P2 27 - 0. 36P3 28 - 0.' B6 P4 0 1 2 3 ------------------------------------------------------ 4 5 6 7 1 BARRIER DATA ************ BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH TYPE 1 - o.* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ edge 60.0 BERM 2 - 0. Bi P2 100.0 BERN 3 - 0. 31 P3 100.0 BERN 4 - 0. B1 P4 100.4 BERN 5 - 0. El P5 100.2 BERN 6 - 3* jersey 60.4 MASONRYJERSEY 7 - 3* B2 P2 40.0 MASONRYJERSEY 8 - 3* B2 P3 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY I 9 - 3* B2 P4 40.0 MASONRYJERSEY 10 - 6.* 5.51 wall 60.4 MASONRYJERSEY I ii - 6.* B3 P2 100.3 MASONRYJERSEY 12 - 6.* B3 P3 100.5 MASONRYJERSEY 13 - 6.* B3 P4 100.1 MASONRYJERSEY 14 - 6.* B3 P5 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY I 15 - 6.* B3 P6 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY 16 - 6.* . B3 P7 100.1 MASONRYJERSEY 17 - 6.* wall 143.9 MASONRY I 18 - 6.* B4 P2 90.0 MASONRY 19 - 6.* B4 P3 143.4 MASONRY 20 - 6.* B4 P4 93.0 MASONRY I 21 - lo.* homes 58.2 BERM .22 - 10. B5 P2 385.0 BERM 23 - 10. B5 P3 57.2 BERM I 24 - 10. ES P4 385.0 BERM 25 - io. homes 53.2 BERM 26 - 10. B6 P2 370.1 BERM I 27 - 10. B6 P3 56.2 BERM 28 - 10.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ B6 P4 370.0 BERM 0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 1 REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL) 1 Ri -------------------------------- 67. 20. 61.3 2 R2 67. 20. 60.9 3 R3 67. 20. 59.7 4 R4 67. 20. 61.4 I 5 R5 67. 20. 59.6 6 R6 67. 20. 63.2 7 R7 67. - 20: 57.5 8 R8 -------------------------------- 67. 20. 56.9 BARRIER TYPE COST I BERM 67562. MASONRY 24736. MASONRY/JERSEY 73345. I CONCRETE 0. TOTAL COST = $ 166000. I BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION iiiiiiiillillllili 1111111 ill CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION I 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 3. 3. 3. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6.10.10.10.10.10. 10 .10. 10. I I I ISA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX B SOUND32 NOISE MODELING OF FUTURE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 6/18/99((P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd)> I I I LI 1 I Li I I I I I I Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening T-Poinsettia Road Peak Hour, 1 837 , 45 , 46 , 40 , 27 , 35 T-Poinsettia Road Peak Hour, 2 837 , 45 , 46 , 40 , 27 , 35 L-Eastbound Poinsettia Road, 1 Y, 174400. ,72,61.6, Y, 174500. , 73, 62 .5, Y,174600.,73,64, Y,174700.,74,66.5, Y, 174800. ,80, 75.5, Y,174900.,84,75.5, Y, 175000. ,85,77.5, Y,175100.,85,77.5, Y, 175200. ,85,74.5, Y,175300.,81,69, Y, 175400. ,77, 63, Y, 175500. ,74,57.5, Y, 175600. , 75, 55, Y,175700.,75,56, Y,175800.,75,59.5, L-Poinsettia Road Westbound, 2 Y,175800.,130,59.5, Y,175700.,130,56, - Y, 175600. ,130, 55, Y,175500.,130,57.5, Y, 175400. ,125, 63, Y,175300.,118,69, Y, 175200. ,114,74.5, Y, 175100. ,114,77.5, Y, 175000. ,114,77.8, Y,174900. ,114, 75.5, Y, 174800. , 114, 71, Y, 174700. , 113, 66.5, Y,174600.,113,64, Y,174500.,113,62.5, Y,174400.,113,61.6, B-Eastbound Road Edge, 1 , 1 174440. , 57, 61. 7, 61. 7, edge 174500. ,55,62.1,62.l, 174600. ,54,62.8,62.8, 174700. ,55,65.6,65.6, 174800. , 62,71.3,71.3, 174900. , 67, 75. 5, 75. 5, B-Eastbound Jersey Wall, 2 , 3 174900. ,67,75.5,78,jersey 174960.1 60,76.6,79.1, 175000. ,61,77.2,79.7, 175100. ,61,76.3,78.8, 175140. ,61,75.3,77.8, B-Eastbound Edge Barrier, 3 , 3 175140. ,61,75.3,80.8,5.5'wall 175200. ,68,73.9,79.4, 175300. ,62,68.6,74.1, 175400. ,55,61.5,67, 175500. , 54 ,.56 . 4, 61. 9, 175600. ,54,54.4,59.9, 175700. ,55,54.6,60.l, 175800. ,54,58,63.5, B-Walls around mobile homes, 4 MIJ SI 2 , 0 ,0 I 175152. , 12, 51. 1, 57 . 1, wall 175175.,-130,50.9,56.9, 175265.,-130,51.8,57.8, 175245. ,12,51.6,57.6, 175152. , 12, 51. 1, 57 . 1, B-Mobile homes, 5 , 1 , 0 ILI 175265. ,5,51.8,61.8,homes 175260.,-53,51.6,61.6, 175645.,-55,51.5,61.5, 175650. ,2,51,61, 175265. ,5,51.8,61.8, B-Mobile homes, 6 , 1 , 0 la 175295., -100,51.l,61,homes 175300.,-153,50,60, 175670.,-162,50,60, 175665.,-106,50,60, 175295.,-100,51.1,61, R, 1 , 67 ,20 175185, -12,57.5,Rl R, 2 , 67 ,20 175220,-41,57.7,R2 R, 3 , 67 ,20 175195,-85,57.1,R3 R, 4 , 67 ,20 175260, 3, 56 . 8 ,R4 R, 5 , 67 ,20 175275,-86,56.1,R5 R, 6 , 67 ,20 175655,3, 56.0, R6 R, 7 , 67 ,20 175660,-90,55.0,R7 R, 8 , 67 ,20 175340,-200,55.,R8 D, 4.5 ALL I ALL C, C I LI I I I I I I I I SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: I Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening EFFECTIVENESS'/ COST RATIOS *************************** I BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 - 0. edge 2 - 0.* B1 P2 I 3 S - 0. B1 P3 4 - 0. B1 P4 - 0.* B1 P5 I 6 - 0. jersey 7 - 0. B2 P2 1 9 8 - 0. - o.* B2 P3 B2 P4 10 - 5.51 wall - 0.* - B3 P2 I ll 12 - 0.* B3 p3 13 - 0.* B3 p4 14 - 0. B3 P5 15 - 0.* B3 P6 I 16 - 0. B3 P7 17 - 0. wall 18 - 0.* B4 P2 I 19 - O. B4 P3 20 - 0. B4 P4 I 21 0.* homes 22 - 0. B5 P2 23 - 0. B5 P3 - I 24 0.* B5 P4 25 - 0. homes 26 - o. B6 P2 27 - 0.* S B6 P3 I 28 - 0. B6 P4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I i BARRIER DATA ************ I BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH TYPE - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0. edge 60.0 BERM I i 2 - 0. Bi P2 100.0 BERM 3 - 0. Bl P3 100.0 BERM 4 - 0. El P4 100.4 BERM 1 I 5 - 0. Bi P5 100.2 BERM I 6 - 3* jersey 60.4 MASONRYJERSEY 7 - 3* B2 P2 40.0 MASONRYJERSEY 8 - 3* B2 P3 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY I 9 - 3* B2 P4 40.0 MASONRYJERSEY 10 - 6.* 5.5 1 wall 60.4 MASONRYJERSEY - 6.* B3 P2 100.3 MASONRYJERSEY I ii 12 - 6.* B3 P3 100.5 MASONRYJERSEY 13 - 6.* B3 P4 100.1 MASONRYJERSEY 14 - 6.* B3 P5 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY I 15 - 6.* B3 P6 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY 16 - 6.* B3 P7 100.1 MASONRYJERSEY 17 - 6.* wall 143.9 MASONRY I . 18 - 6.* B4 P2 90.0 MASONRY 19 - 6.* B4 P3 143.4 MASONRY 20 - 6.* B4 P4 93.0 MASONRY I 21 - 10. . homes 58.2 BERM 22 - 10. ES P2 385.0 BERN 23 - 10. B5 P3 57.2 BERM 1 24 - 10. B5 P4 385.0 BERN 25 - 10.* homes 53.2 BERN 26 - 10. - B6 P2 370.1 BERM I 27 - 10. B6 P3 56.2 BERN 28 - 10. B6 P4 370.0 BERM 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 1 I REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ (CAL) 1 Ri -------------------------------- 67. 20. 60.1 2 R2 67. 20. 60.1 3 R3 67. 20. 59.3 4 R4 67. 20, 60.0 . 5R5 67. 20. 59.0 I 6 R6 67. 20. 63.4 7 R7 67. 20. 57.5 RB 67. 20. 57.0 I 8 BARRIER TYPE COST I BERN 67562. MASONRY 24736. MASONRY/JERSEY 73345. I CONCRETE 0. -------------------------------- TOTAL COST = $ 166000. BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION I llllliilllllililii 1111111 ill CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION I 0.0.0.0.0.3.3.3.3.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6. 6.10.10.10.10.10. 10 .10. 10. ISA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX C I FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL OUTPUTS I I I 6/18/99<<P:\DEC832\dec832.nse.wpd>> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE DEC830 FEWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 6/3/99 ROADWAY SEGMENT: POINSETTIA LANE CARLSBAD TO ENCINAS NOTES: FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12100 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: 1.5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H-TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 18 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 65.37 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 0.0 71.7 150.5 322.3