HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4715,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
22 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4715
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR
POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING LOCATED AT
POINSETTIA LANE BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
AND AVENIDA ENCINAS IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES 9 AND 22
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING
CASE NO.: CDP 99-30
WHEREAS, CITY OF CARLSBAD, “Developer”/“Owner”, has filed a verified
Right-of-way for Poinsettia lane between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Avenida Encinas
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of January, 2000, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “ND”
dated November 23,1999, and “PII” dated November 19, 1999, on file in the
1 Planning Department and attached to the staff report as Attachment 4, and
2 made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
3
1. 4 The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration CDP
99-30, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
9
10
11
12
13
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
14 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January, 2000, by the
15 following vote, to wit:
16
17
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
18 II NOES:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
. . d&&
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chair&son
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
h4rcHAEL I. HOLZM~LLER
Planning Director
-2- /I PC RESO NO. 4715
ENVIRONMENTAL IGATION MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL Mll. a TION MONITORING CHECKLI a PAGE 2 OF 2
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Poinsettia Lane between Avenida En&as and Carlsbad Boulevard
Project Description: Approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow widening of
the existing bridge over the San Diego Northern railroad tracks.
The bridge will be widened from two lanes to four lanes of through
traffic, two bicycle lanes, two sidewalks, and a raised center
‘median. Modifications to the approaches and turn lanes will also be
made.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4212.
DATED: NOVBMBER 23,1999
CASE NO: CDP 99-30
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 23,1999
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING
November I$1999
Prepared for:
City of Car&bad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-1576
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
I Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92614
(949) 553-0666
LSA Project # DEC832
Under contract to:
Dokken Engineering
3914 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite AI 53
San Diego, CaIifomia 92123
LSA Associates, Inc.
PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1
1 .O PROJECT DESCRIPTION/-PROPOSED ACTION .................................................... 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED. 10
3.0 EARLIER ANALYSES ............................................................................................. 11
4.0 DETERMINATION ................................................................................................... 11
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .......................................................................... 12
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION .............................. 26
6.1
6.11
6.111
6.IV
6.V
6.VI
6.VII 6.VIII
6.1X
6.X
6.XI
6.X.H
6.XIII 6.XIV
6XV
6.XVI
AESTHETICS.. ........................................................................................................ 26 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ............................................................................. 27
AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 27
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 2s
CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 3 1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................ 32
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................... 34
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................. 36
LAND USE AND PLANNING.. ............................................................................. 38
MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 40
NOISE ...................................................................................................................... 40
POPULATION AND HOUSING.. .......................................................................... 44
PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................... 45
RECREATION ........................................................................................................ 45
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................ 45
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................ 47
6.XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
APPENDICES
A - Biological Evaluation
B - Structure Foundation Report C - Vista Environmental Site Assessment Report D -Noise Analysis
1 l/15/99 ctP:V)EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> ii
LSA Associates, Inc.
FIGURES
I
I
I
I
Figure 1 -- Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2 .. Project Location ............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3 .. Adjacent Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4 .. Proposed Project ............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 5 .. Coastal Sage Scrub Impacts of Proposed Project ........................................................ 29
Figure 6 .. Noise Modeling Locations ........................................................................................... 41
TABLES
Table 6.XI.A - Peak Hour Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Locations 1 Hour L,, Levels
WA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*................*........................................*............... 42
Table 6.XV.B - Traffic Volumes and Level of Service .*.............................._............................-.. 46
1 l/15/99 d’:U)EC832US-h4’NDUS-h4ND.DOC>~ . . . 111
LSA Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
BACKGROUND
CASE NO: CDP-99-30
DATE RECEIVED: November 15,1999
(To be compleied by stafl
CASENAME: Poinsettia Lane Bridpe Widening
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
2075 Las Pahnas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576; Tel: (760) 43 S-116 1
1.0 PIROJECT DESCRIPT.ION/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 (I-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-5 Freeway include a neighborhood shopping
center, two motels, auto dealerships, and offices. Between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad
Eoulevard, 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 (EIR) 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 En&as 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 WCTD]
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
1 l/15/99 c<P:DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.Docs
I
1
I
I
1
1.
I
!
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
LSA Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
BACKG!ROUND
CASE NO: CDP-99-30
DATE RECEIVED: November 51999
(To be completed by stafj,l
CASE NAME: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening
APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
2075 Las Palmas, Carlsbad, CA 92009- 1576; Tel: (760) 43% 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 (I-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-5 Freeway include a neighborhood shopping
center, two motels, auto dealerships, and offices. Between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad
13oulevard, 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
IReport (EIR) was certified for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan in July, 1997 (State
Clearinghouse No. 9608 1027). 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 VCTD]
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
1 l/15/99 <tP:UIEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>>
Riverside County
_-_----
San Diego County
A/- 78
6/16/99@EC832) Figure 1
Vicinity Map
6/16/99@EC832)
LS! Scale in Feet
0 1000 2000
Figure 2
Project Location
LSA 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 right-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 existing bridge overcrossing is a three span structure, approximately 142 feet in
length and 45 feet wide. The 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-south 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.
l Approach of Poinsettia Lane/Avenida Encinas intersection would be improved to full width
to one dedicated left turn lane, 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.
1 1/15/99d’ADEC832US-M-NDUS-MND.DOCN
I Base Map Source: Dokken Engineering.
. :, Wk. . . -.. _- . . .
8/3/99(DEC832) Figure 4
Noise Modeling Locations
LSA Associates, Inc.
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.
Three existing drainage inlets would be replaced on the north side of the eastern
embankment between proposed Sta. 1756+00 and Sta. 1756+50. The inlet drainage pipe
would be extended six feet to the north.
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 Encinas and
stubbed to a future connection in Carlsbad Boulevard.
Continuous variable width (five to eight feet) striped bicycle lanes would be provided in
both the eastbound and westbound direction.
A continuous 5 foot concrete sidewalk will be provided on the north side of the edge of
pavement and will connect to the existing sidewalk at approximately 240 feet east of
Carlsbad Boulevard (proposed Sta. 1746+54).
A three foot high concrete safety barrier will be provided on the north side of the proposed
five foot sidewalk. The two foot wide barrier is proposed from Sta. 1746+54 to approximately Sta. 1749+60 and from approximately Sta. 175 1+35 to Sta. 1757+44.
All improvements can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way, as shown in Figure 4.
Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation and limited excavation will be required to construct
the bridge piling and roadway deck. This limited excavation is exempt from the requirements of
Section 11.06 (Grading Code) of the City’s Municipal Code and, therefore, is not considered
“grading activities as defined in Section 11.06.” Section 11.06.030 exempts excavation activities
that 1) have an unsupported height less than five feet; 2) are for wells, tunnels, and/or utilities; and 3) are less than four feet in vertical depth and move less than 100 cubic yards of material per
8,000 square feet of area.’ Excavation activities associated with the bridge widening meet all of
the above criteria. In particular, the maximum vertical depth of excavation is 1.5 feet with
movement of 410 cubic yards of material.
The construction/staging area will be accessed from both Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida
Encinas. Environmental fencing will be provided five feet from the toe of the existing slope
embankments. The fencing will be provided to protect vegetation located on the slope
embankments.
’ For the 135,000 square foot project area, 1,700 cubic yards of movement would be acceptable.
1 ~/~~/~~KP:U>EC~~~US-~TNDUS-M-ND.DOC>>
LSA Associates. Inc.
1.4 Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration
Alternatives Previously Analyzed
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
current location, no alternative locations for the proposed alternatives were evaluated in this
document.
l 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.
l 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).
l 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
and noise impacts. This alternative was rejected because of inconsistency with the
Circulation Element of the General Plan.
l 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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
11/15/99<<P:U)EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 8
LSA Associates, Inc.
1.5 Discretionary Actions
The following discretionary actions will be considered by the decision makers as part of the
proposed action:
l Issuance of a Coastal Development Permit.
l Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
9
LSA 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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geological Problems cl Public Services
0 Air Quality Cl Hazards El Recreation
w Biological Resources w Land Use and Planning cl Transportation/Circulation
0 Cultural Resources w Noise 0 Utilities & Service Systems
q Energy & Mineral Resources q Population and Housing cl Water
0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
11/15/99ctP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 10
LSA Associates, Inc.
3.0 EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (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 MEIR evaluates a broad range of potential environmental
impacts associated with long-term implementation of the Carlsbad General Plan. The MEIR 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 MEIR, the MEIR was
used as substantiation for several environmental checklist questions
4.0 DETERMINATION
0
la
0
cl
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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
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
effects that remain to be addressed.
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 EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance hasbeen prepared. I ,
Date
Date
11
LSA 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 EIR or Negative Declaration
12
LSA Associates, Inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and County
Scenic Highwqs Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Officially Designated
Caltfornia Scenic Highways by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
&tension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan.
City of C&bad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the C&v of Carlsbad.
Cottotieland/Associates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
Ciry of Carlsbad.
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020. 11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local CoastaZ Program.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Source: #l and #2)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether
a)
b>
c)
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.
of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and fatmland. 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? (Source: #8)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: #S)
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
11/15/99<tP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>>
cl El w cl q 0 cl w
cl
0
cl
q
[I1
III
q
cl
III
cl 0 q
cl 0 0
w
w
w
w
w
13
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
LSA Associates, Inc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and County Scenic Highwcrys Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Oficiaiiy Designated
California Scenic Highwvs by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. FinaI
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
CarIsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6,1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
CottonlBelandlAssociates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020. 11. City of Carlsbad, July 16,1996. LocaZ Coastal Program.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
III. AIR QUALITY - Where applicable, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a>
b)
c>
e>
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
11/15/99d’iDEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>)
q
lzl
q
q
cl
q
Ll
El
0
cl
El w
q w
0 w
0 w
w cl
14
ISA Associates, inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be refered to and attache4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. Carifornia State and County
Scenic Highways Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Oficially Designated
California Scenic Highways by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Of&e, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6,1994. General Plan. City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
CottonlBelandfAssociates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
SpeciJc Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1. CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad. 10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - 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 and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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?
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 pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
q
cl
q
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
w
w
0
III
III 0
III q
0 w
cl w
0 w
15
LSA Associates. Inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. Carifornia State and County
Scenic Highways Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Ofjkially Designated Calzfornia Scenic Highways by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Ciry of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Starzakfs for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1. CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad.
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020. 11. City of Carlsbad, July 16,1996. Local Coastal Program. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 0 El cl w
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source: #8) cl cl
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Source: #8) cl cl
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: #8) 0 c7
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: #S) cl 0
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: cl cl
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map cl cl
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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? q q iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? III 0
0 w
cl w
0 w
0 w
cl w
w q
w 0 w cl
16
I
I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
I
7.
8.
I 9.
I
Caltmns, January, 1992. California State and County
Scenic Highwqs Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Officially Designated
California Scenic Highways by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan. City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
CottonfBelandlAssociates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1. CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad. 10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 19962020.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
I
I
I
1
I
1
iv)
b)
c>
d>
e>
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
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?
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
El
0
0
III
El
q
0
cl
LSA Associates, Inc.
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact q cl w q q w q w q
q
q
q
q
q
q w
q w
q w
q w
q w
1 l/l 5/99<tP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>) 17
c
1
LSA Associates, Inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be @erred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and County
Scenic Highways Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Officially Designated
California Scenic Highways by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad
CottonlBelamUAssociates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties Speczfzc Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad.
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997. Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local CoastaZ Program.
e>
f)
g)
h)
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 create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: #4)
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 in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (Source: #5)
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? (Source: #4)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: #5)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact q
q
q
0
q
q
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
IncorDorated ImDact ImDact . cl
q
q
cl
0
q
lzl rl
q 5
III 5
El El
0 5
5 q I
I 11/15/9%P:\DEC832US-MNDUSMND.DOC>> 18
0
I
I
II
II
II
I
0
I
I
I
0
0
I
0
I
0
I
.I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and County
Scenic Highways Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Oficially Designated
California Scenic Highwqs by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan. City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Stan&r& for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
CottonlBelandlAssociates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Speczfic Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad. 10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020. 11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
b) 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?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
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?
d) 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 on- or off-site?
e) 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?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a loo-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a loo-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: #4)
11/15/99<tP:V)EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOCn
Potentially
Significant
Impact q
q
q
q
q q
q
LSA Associates, Inc.
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact q
q
q
q
0 5
q w
El 0 w q 0 5
L-J cl 5
19
L.9 Associates. Inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and County
Scenic Highways Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. qfliciaIly Designated
California Scenic Highwqs by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
I&tension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan, SCH No. 96081027, EIR 96-O 1.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad.
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997. Regional Transportation Plan I996-2020.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
i) 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? (Source: #4)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: #4)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) 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?
(Source: #ll)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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? (Source: #4)
b) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact q
cl
0 cl
Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Imnact Imnact
cl rl lzl
0 0 w 0 q w
w
0
q cl
0 w
0 El
11/15/99<tP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOG 20
LSA Associates, Inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. CaIifornia State and County Scenic Highways Map.
Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Oficiali’y Designated
California Scenic Highways by Route. City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6,1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
PuHic Work Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
Cotton/Belan&Associates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guiaklines for the
City of Carlsbad.
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020,
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16,1996. Local Coastal Program.
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
b)
c>
d)
e)
f)
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?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
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? (Source: #4)
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? (Source: #4)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) 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)? (Source: #5)
1 Ill 5/99<tP:\DEC832US-MS-MND.DOC>>
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
0
cl
0
0
0
El
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
tncorporated
cl
w
cl
w
0
cl
El
Less Than
Significant
Impact
w
cl
q
q
0
q
No
Impact
cl
cl
w
III
w
El
0 w
21
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
a
1
I
I
I
I
LSA Associates. Inc
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and COU$Y
Scenic Highways Map. Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Oflcially Designated
California Scenic Highwqs by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983. Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standarc& for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carisbad.
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan, SCH No. 96081027, EIR 96-O 1. CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad. 10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imnact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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?
XIV. RECREATION -
a) 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?
11/15/9!kP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOCn
El
0
0
q
cl
Ii [XI
0 w
0 w
q w
22
LSA Associates, Inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and County
Scenic Highways Map. Caltmns, September 5, 1996. Officially Designated
Califonia Scenic Highwqs by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6,1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad
CottonlBelandlAssociates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties
Speczjk Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the
City of Carlsbad.
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997. Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
b) 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?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a)
b)
cl
e)
0
g)
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
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., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
11/15/99cP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>>
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact
I7 0 0
cl
El
0
cl
0 cl
cl El
No Impact
w
I7 w
cl w
El w
q w
23
R
Caltrans, January, 1992. California State and County
Scenic Highwqs Map.
2. Caltrans, September 5, 1996. Oficially Designated
California Scenic Highwq by Route.
3. City of Carlsbad Planning Offke, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening ana’
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6. 4. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
5. City of Carlsbad, September 6,1994. General Plan.
6. City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
7. City of Carlsbad. Standa& for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
8. Cotton/Bela&/Associates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-O 1.
9. CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the City of Carlsbad.
10. San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997. Regional Transportation Plan 1996-2020.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
II
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
II
II
II
II
II
1
II
u
I
t
1
I
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the
4
b)
c)
4
e>
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
Have suffkient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
11/15/99<tP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>>
Potentially Significant Impact
LSA Associates, Inc.
Less Than Significant
With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
III cl w
III q w
q
cl
q
w III
cl w
q w
0 w
q w
24
LSA Associates, inc.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Caltrans, January, 1992.’ California State and County
Scenic Highwqs Map.
Cal&ins, September 5, 1996. Officially Designated
California Scenic Highways by Route.
City of Carlsbad Planning Office, March 10, 1983.
Environmental Impact Report for the Widening and
Extension of Poinsettia Lane, EIR 82-6.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March, 1994. Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
City of Carlsbad, September 6, 1994. General Plan.
City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code.
City of Carlsbad. Standards for Design and Construction of
Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
CottonlBelandJAssociates, Inc., July, 1997. Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, SCH No. 9608 1027, EIR 96-01.
CYP, Inc., July 1, 1988. Scenic Corridor Guidelines for the City of Carlsbad.
11. City of Carlsbad, July 16, 1996. Local Coastal Program.
San Diego Association of Governments, January, 1997.
Regional Transportation Plan I996-2020.
Less Than Significant
Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -
b)
c>
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 or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Source: #4)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
11/15/99d’iDEC832US-MNDUS-hfND.DOCb 25
El
0
w
0
0 q
cl 0
w 0
0 w
II
1
I
il
I
II
I
II
II
II
I
I
I
II
1
I
4
I
I
LSA Associates, Inc.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION
6.1 AESTHETICS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than SigniJcant 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 implernenting community scenic corridors,
including creation of a unique identity by selecting a Ipredominant “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.
b) 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 6.1-a for an
assessment of the project’s effect on City designated scenic corridors.
c) 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.
d) 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.
1 l/l 5/99aP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 26
MA Associates, Inc.
6.11 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
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 CaliJvrnia Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
No Impact. There are currently no agricultural activities occurring in the vicinity of the
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
Properties Specific Plan EIR, p. 5.1-l). There is no lprime, unique or Statewide important
farmland in the area (Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR, pg. 5.8- 1).
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
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
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
a) Would the project conjlict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
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
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.
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.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
No Impact. Poinsettia Lane is projected to be Level of Service A with and without the
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.
11/15/99~tP:U1EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC~> 27
II
It
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
LSA Associates, Inc
c) 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.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As identified 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.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople?
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
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.
6.IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildltfe Service?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated LSA Associates, Inc. conducted a
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
embankments of the existing Poinsettia Lane bridge and approaches, west of the NCTD
tracks (refer to Figure 5). Approximately 0.34 acre will be permanently impacted by
construction of the proposed project. Three species of birds were observed during the
biological survey; however, the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila pohoptila
califomica) 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
small area in conjunction with the isolation from other CSS communities reduces the
11/15/99<tP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 28
LEGEND:
CSS (0.21 acre) to be Preserved
luImnl CSS (0.34 acre) to be impacted by Proposed Construction
3ase Map Source: Dokken Engineering.
10/5/99@EC832) Figure 5
Coastal Sage Scrub Impacts of Proposed Project
LSA Associates, Inc.
habitat 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.
The Draft Habitat Management Plan for the City of Carlsbad proposes to establish the Lake
Calavera property as a mitigation bank for City projects. The approximately 250 acre property is owned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). The bank will be able
to mitigate impacts to coastal sage scrub not occupied by the California gnatcatcher,
chaparral, and non-native grasslands. Because the proposed Poinsettia Lane bridge widening
project will impact coastal sage scrub not occupied by the California gnatcatcher, the impact
can be mitigated at Lake Calavera.
A meeting was held with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on July 15, 1999, to discuss the
project’s impacts and mitigation requirements. Representatives from the USFWS and CDFG
agreed that protocol gnatcatcher surveys would not be required and that mitigation of the
0.34 acre of impacted CSS habitat at a 1:l ratio within the Lake Calavera mitigation bank is
appropriate. For purpose of wildlife agency permitting, it was also agreed that the CSS
impacts would be considered a “de minimus exemption” as defined in the Section 4(d) take
authorization. A de minimus exemption is applicable only when 1) less than one acre of
habitat is lost; 2) the habitat is not occupied by California gnatcatchers; 3) the loss of the
habitat will not preclude the design of the reserve system; and 4) the habitat is of low value or
medium value and is outside of identified preserve planning areas.
Mitigation Measure 6.IV.l
Prior to project initiation, the City shall obtain a Section 4(d) take authorization from the
USFWS. As part of this take authorization, the City shall mitigate impacts to CSS at a 1:l
ratio within the Lake Calavera mitigation bank.
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 Wiidllife 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
identified within the study area (see Appendix A).
indirect effects to the vernal pool habitat.
Refer to response 6.IV.c for reducing
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
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
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
30
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fsh or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wild&e
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. No wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites within the project area were
identified by the Biological Resources Evaluation Study (Appendix A).
4 Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
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.
n Would the project conjlict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. Refer to response 6.1V.a for discussion and mitigation.
6.V CULTURAL RESOURCES
4 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical
resource as defined in @5064.5?
LSA Associates, Inc.
edges and the NCTD tracks on the west. Approximately 12 San Diego button-celery
(Eyzgium aristulatum parishii), a species listed as endangered (State and federal), were
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 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.
No Impact. A records search and literature review were conducted for the Poinsettia
Properties EIR, and a site survey was conducted by Gallegos and Associates on July 14,
1994. The site survey found a single cultural resource, CA-SDI-137290-I (W-6107), located
southeast of the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and 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.
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. As
construction of the proposed project is limited to the existing embankment, the potential to
encounter cultural resources is negligible. Staging areas for construction would be located in
areas previously surveyed as part of the FEIR for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. No
cultural resources were identified within the proposed staging areas.
11/15/99<<P:U>EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOCs 31
I
II
1
II
II
Ii
Ii
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
LSA Associates, Inc.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. Refer to response 6.V.a for discussion.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
No. Impact. The Poinsettia Properties Specific 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. Further analysis identified that the
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan project site is underlain by Pleistocene/Holocene
sedimentary deposits, with the upper three feet containing modem alluvium and soils. Based on the findings of these analyses, the paleontological resource potential of the area is rated as
moderate. Given that all grading will be limited to the existing embankments, the potential
for encountering paleontological resources is considered negligible.
As the project area is generally flat, there are no unique geologic features.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
No Impact. The cultural resources assessment conducted for the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan EIR did not identify any known human remains within the Specific Plan area.
&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:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 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. 7 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
No Impact. As noted in the Structure Foundation Report (Appendix B), the project site is
not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impacf. The nearest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose
Canyon/East Fault, located approximately five miles to the west (Appendix B). The
estimated peak acceleration during the maximum credible earthquake on this fault is estimated to be OSg. Construction of the widening project will incorporate the seismic
11/15/99~<P:u1EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC~~ 32
LSA Associafes. Inc.
design recommendations identified in the Structure Foundation Report (Appendix B).
These recommendations are consistent with Caltrans’ seismic standards. Therefore, the
potential for seismic hazards will be reduced to below a level of significance.
iii) Seismic-relatedgroundfailurt?, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose granular soils below the
water table are subject to vibration, such as those induced by earthquakes (Appendix B).
Dense materials were encountered at shallow depths in all of the sample borings
conducted as part of the Structure Foundation Report, (Appendix B). 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 liquefaction or
other seismic related ground failure is considered low.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The existing slope embankments were constructed as an engineered artificial
fill, consistent with Caltrans’ standard specifications, and the potential for landslides is
negligible. No other sources of landslides exist in the project area or surrounding vicinity.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact. The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern 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 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.
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, andpotentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing abutments were constructed by placing
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
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, the potential for lateral
spreading, subsidence, or collapse is considered negligible.
11/15/99<<P:iDEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 33
I
s
8
1
S
s
s
II
s
II
II
B
II
II
s
II
II
I
LSA Associates, Inc
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table I S-I-B of the Uniform
Building Code (I994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact. The Structure Foundation Report did not identify any expansive soils within the
project study area (Appendix B).
e) 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.
&VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. Traffic utilizing existing Poinsettia Lane may include vehicles that are
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.
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 materials into the environment?
No Impact. Refer to response 6.VII.a for discussion.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
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).
d) 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
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Given the fact that the existing embankment consists of
imported material, the likelihood of encountering hazardous materials/waste during grading
on the top of the embankment is considered negligible. However, since construction staging
areas are anticipated at the base of the embankments, an assessment of the potential for
encountering contamination in this area 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 waste transfer stations, and State and federal
hazardous waste sites within the project vicinity (Appendix C).
11/15/99<tP:UIEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOG 34
s
II
s
s
II
II
II
s
II
II
II
II
s
II
II
s
LSA Associates, Inc.
There are fI0 kfmwfi lxkzvdsus mt.&siallwast~ Sit55 (Vi&, 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
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
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 by LSA Associates, Inc. in June, 1999, and did not
reveal any substantial hazardous materials/waste concerns within the slope
embankments or construction staging area.
e) 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
in a safety hazardfor people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest airport is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, is located approximately
2.1 miles northwest of the project site (Map 2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan).
Due to its distance, the existing bridge does not affect vertical clearance requirements for
airplanes accessing this airport. Given the fact that the 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.
fi 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-l).
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan 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.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermiwed with wildlands?
No Impact. There are no wildlands within the project vicinity (Figure 3); therefore, the
project would not cause any increased risk of loss due to wildland fires.
11/15/99<rP:U)EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 35
s
8
s
s
1
s
s
I
s
s
I
s
s
s
s
L.SA Associates, inc.
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 impervious surface resulting in increased roadway runoff. The proposed project will not increase the
number of cars using the bridge now and in the future. The amount of pollutants from what
occurs under current conditions will not substantially increase. 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
- 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
construction. The final project design will include detailed erosion control plans for use by
the contractor.
Mitigation Measure 6. VIII. I
During final design, detailed erosion control plans shall be prepared for approval by the
Director, Department of Public Works. Approved detailed erosion control plans shall be
included in the design plans and specifications provided to all contractors.
Mitigation Measure 6. VIII.2
During construction, the Department of Public Works shall monitor the installation and
maintenance of the erosion control plan to verify that all measures have been implemented
and that runoff/sediment from the project work area is being intercepted.
b) 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 not 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 (Appendix B). 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 not be utilized to support the widening. Utilizing the driven pile
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.
36
LSA Associates, Inc.
c) 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, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
No Impact. The proposed project would not alter 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 unchanged (Figure 4). As the drainage
patterns remain the same, the rates of erosion and siltation that occur under current conditions
will not be affected.
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 fzooding on- or off-site?
No Impact. The widening of the bridge and approaches would increase the amount of
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
the proposed project to stormwater runoff volumes would not alter existing rates of surface
runoff. Downstream drainage facilities are sized in accordance with the City of Carlsbad
Master Plan of Drainage, and are designed to accommodate the increased runoff associated
with the planned widening of Poinsettia Lane.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capaci@ of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
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.VIII.a and 6.VIII.d for discussions
on facility capacity and water quality.
fl Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. Refer to response 6.VIII.a for a discussion of water quality.
g) Would the project place housing within a loo-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.
37
LSA Associates, Inc.
h) Would the project place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirecffoodflows?
No Impact. As shown in Figure 5.10.1-l of the MEIR, the project site is not located with a
FEMA 100 year flood hazard zone. Therefore, flood flows would not be affected.
i) 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-l and 5.10.1-2 of the MEIR, the project site is not
located within a FEMA 100 year flood zone or a catastrophic dam failure inundation area.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. As shown in Figure 5.10.1-2 of the MEIR, the project area is located outside the
tsunami inundation area.
6.1X LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) 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.
b) 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.
The proposed project is located within the Coastal Zone. 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 original CDP was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on
February 18,1999. The Coastal Commission responded in a letter dated March 18,1999, that
stated that the original CDP did not address the proposed widening.
Based on the Commission’s determinations, a finding of consistency with the City’s Local
Coastal Program (LCP) will be required. The proposed project is located within the Mello II
Segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program. The City has permitting authority for projects
within the Coastal Zone (except for the Agua Helionda LCP segment). Land uses and
roadway improvements identified in the City’s General Plan have been incorporated into the
Mello II Segment of the LCP. Given that it is consistent with the Circulation Element of the
11115/99ctP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 38
LSA Associates, Inc.
General Plan, the proposed project is consistent with the planned roadways within this
portion of the Coastal Zone. Poinsettia Lane between Avenida Encinas and Carslbad Boule-
vard is identified on the LCP Segment Boundaries exhibit (pg. 5, LCP). Policy 5-5 of the
Mello II Segment of the LCP recommends that Poinsettia Lane be completed as a major
arterial (four lanes) providing direct coastal access to Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed project is consistent with Policy 5-5 in that Poinsettia Lane would be constructed as a major
arterial and provide enhanced access to Carlsbad Boulevard and South Carlsbad State Beach.
The proposed project is consistent with other pertinent LCP policies, as described below, and will not adversely affect coastal resources or access. The proposed project will not affect
visual access (Policy 7-13, Visual Access, of the LCP). The proposed landscape palette will
provide visual continuity within the existing views of and from Poinsettia Lane and will not
block or alter existing views of the ocean and South Carlsbad State Beach from Carlsbad
Boulevard.
As described in Response 6.11.a and 6.V.a, the proposed project will not affect or convert any
designated coastal agricultural lands (Policy 2-1, Conservation of Agricultural Lands) to
urban development nor affect archaeological or paleontological resources (Policy 8-4,
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources).
Approximately 0.34 acre of non-occupied coastal sage scrub will be permanently impacted by
the proposed project. As described in Response 6.IV.a, mitigation of the impacted acreage
will be accomplished at a 1: 1 ratio within the Lake Calavera mitigation bank.
The proposed project will not contribute to coastal erosion (Policy 4-1, Coastal Erosion).
given that the project is located across Carlsbad Boulevard, direct or indirect beach sand
erosion resulting from the project is unlikely. The project will not alter existing drainage
patterns and would not result in increased soil erosion. During project construction, the
potential exists for increased erosion and pollutants to enter the storm drain system. The
project will be in compliance with the “Grading and Erosion Control - 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. In addition, a NPDES permit will be
required for construction activities.
Policy 3-4 of the LCP prohibits grading activities between October 1 and April 1 to reduce
the potential for erosion and sediment to affect coastal resources. Since there is no grading, as
defined in the City’s Grading Ordinance, the proposed project would not be subject to a
limitation on grading between October and April.
c) Would the project conjlict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Refer to response 6.1V.a (Biological
Resources) for discussion.
I
I
1 11/15/99<tP:U>EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC,, 39
LSA Associates, Inc.
6.X MINERAL RESOURCES
a) 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 MEIR, the project site is not located in an
area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value.
b) 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?
No Impact. Refer to response 6.X.a for discussion of the project’s relationship to known
mineral resources within the City.
6.XI NOISE
a) Would the project result in 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?
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
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
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
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
mitigation is required. Figure 6 depicts the noise modeling locations.
40
3ase Map Source: Dokken Engineering.
8/3/99(DEC832) Figure 6
LS. oFeJo Noise Modeling Locations
.s
$
2 0 ‘I . .
Base Map Source: Dokken Engineering. 1
8/3/99(DEC832)
i i
fl
N
LS! *F?iko
1
( i i j mk: - . . _ - . . .
Figure 2
Proposed Project
LSA Associates, inc.
Table 6.XI.A - Peak Hour Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Locations
1 Hour L,, Levels (dBA)
Future Without Future Project Related
Receptor Project With Project Increase Rl 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
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The noise analysis (Appendix D)
indicates that the proposed project would have beneficial effects on the existing mobile home
residents to the south of the project, as indicated in response 6.XI.a, above. Short-term
construction noise and groundborne vibrations will occur during foundation construction and are considered a potential short-term impact. Mitigation measure 6.XI. 1 will reduce impacts
to below the level of significance.
Pile driving activities would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 81 to 96 dBA L,
at a distance of 50 feet. Because the piles would be driven into the ground, only the engine
noise and impact sound between the pile driver and the pile being driven would be heard at a
distance. As a worst case scenario, the level recommended for pile driving, 93 dBA L,, at
50 feet, is used in this analysis. At a distance of more than 100 feet from active pile driving,
the noise would be reduced to 87 dBA I+,,, or lower. At its nearest point, construction (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.
In addition to limiting hours of construction activities (Mitigation Measure 6.XI.l),
equipment and operational specifications shall be followed as identified in Mitigation
Measure 6.X1.2 to reduce pile driving and other construction noise activities. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures 6.XI.l and 6.x1.2 will reduce noise impacts associated with
construction activities to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 6.X.1
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.
11/15/99<<P:U)EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOG 42
LSA Associates, Inc.
As part of the contract specifications for the proposed project, the City of Carlsbad shall
require that the contractor implement the following measures:
l Construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and not
permitted on Sundays and federal holidays.
l All construction equipment shah be equipped with working manufacturer specified
muffler system.
l Portable equipment shall be located as far as possible from the noise sensitive locations at
the existing mobile home park,
l Construction vehicle staging areas and equipment maintenance areas shall be located as
far as possible from sensitive receptor locations at the existing mobile home park.
Mitigation Measure 6.X1.2
As part of the contract specifications for the proposed project, the City of Carlsbad shall require the contractor to implement the following measures to further reduce noise during
construction and pile driving activities:
l Pre-drill each pile 15 feet prior to beginning the pile driving.
l Utilize steel H-piles.
l Utilize a vibratory hammer, except for the last few feet.
l Allow only the last few feet of each pile to be driven in order to ensure that bearing
capacity has been reached.
l Notify the City Public Works Department and adjacent property owners five days prior to
initiating noise activities.
c) Would the project result in exposure of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
Ievels 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.
d) Would the project result in exposure of a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
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
that substantial temporary or periodic increases in noise levels will result from widening the
roadway. It will be similar to conditions that currently occur.
43
LSA Associates, Inc.
e) 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
substantially affected by aircraft noise.
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?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip (MEIR,
Map 5.9-l).
6X1 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly Cfor example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure) ?
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
predicted traffic volumes. It is not expected that the widening will induce substantial growth
over and above that anticipated in the General Plan.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No existing housing will be displaced by the proposed bridge widening (see
Figure 3).
c) 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).
44
LSA Associates, Inc.
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
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilifies such that substanfial physical deterioration of the facilio 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.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreafionalfacilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. Refer to response 6.XIV.a for discussion.
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 capacify 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.
11/15/99<<P:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 45
LSA Associates, Inc.
Table 6.XV.B - Traffic Volumes and Level of Service’
Segment Poinsettia Lane
No. of
Lanes Direction ADT 12,100
Build Oue
VOL3 v/c LOS
Carlsbad Blvd. to Avenida Encinas
2 Eastbound 6050 910 0.25 A
Carlsbad Blvd. to Avenida Encinas
2 Westbound 6050 910 0.25 A
1 2 Traffic volumes for both with and without project scenarios.
3 SANDAG Series 8 - 2020 Build out (preliminary)
Assumes 50/50 direction split and peak traffic = 15% ADT
Notes: ADT - Average Daily Traffic
VOL - Peak Hour Volume
V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio
LOS - Level of Service
Source: Liuscott, 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.
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the counfy congestion management agency for designated roads or
high ways?
No Impact. As indicated in response 6.XV.a, Poinsettia Lane is predicted to be LOS A in the
future.
c) 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 safefy 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.
11/15/99@iDEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 46
4
4
n
g)
6.XVI
a)
4
LSA Associates, Inc.
Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. All design features of the proposed project are within minimum City standards
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.
Would the project result in inadequate parking capacify ?
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
spaces would be affected with implementation of the widening project (refer to Figure 4).
Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
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).
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project exceed wastewafer treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Qualify 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 wafer or wastewafer
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 Encinas 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.
47
8
8
8
8
1
8
I
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
LSA Associates. Inc.
c) Would the project require or resuit in the construction of new storm water drainage
faciiities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
Less Than Significant Impact. The three existing drainage inlets between proposed Sta.
1756+00 and approximately Sta. 1756+50 will be replaced with the proposed project. The
inlet drainage pipe would be extended six feet to the north, and there will be will no
substantial change to the existing stormwater facility.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded enlitlements 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.
e) 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, offke space is provided that would generate the need for wastewater
treatment.
fl Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project 3 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 fnh 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?
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.
11115/99d’ADEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 48
LSA Associates, Inc
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts associated with build out of the General Plan land
uses and circulation network were identified in the Master EIR 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.
c) 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.
11/15/!4!ktP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOG 49
LSA Associates, Inc.
7.0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASUFUZS
Mitigation Measure 6.IV. I - Biological Resources
Prior to project initiation, the City shall obtain a Section 4(d) take authorization from the USFWS. As
part of this take authorization, the City shall mitigate impacts to CSS at a 1: 1 ratio within the Lake
Calavera mitigation bank.
Mitigation Measure 6. VIII.1 - Hydrology
During final design, detailed erosion control plans shall be prepared for approval by the Director,
Department of Public Works. Approved detailed erosion control plans shall be included in the design
plans and specifications provided to all contractors.
Mitigation Measure 6. VHI.2 - Hydrology
During construction, the Department of Public Works shall monitor the installation and maintenance of
the erosion control plan to verify that all measures have been implemented and that runoff/sediment from
the project work area is being intercepted.
Mitigation Measure 6.Xl.l -Noise
As part of the contract specifications for the proposed project, the City of Carlsbad shall require that the
contractor implement the following measures. Applicable mitigation includes the following:
. Construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and not permitted
on Sundays and federal holidays.
. All construction equipment shall be equipped with working manufacturer specified muffler system.
. Portable equipment shall 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 shall be located as far as
possible from sensitive receptor locations at the existing mobile home park.
Mitigation Measure 6x1.2 - Noise
As part of the contract specifications for the proposed project, the City of Carlsbad shall require the
contractor to implement the following measures to further reduce noise during construction and pile
driving activities:
l Pre-drill each pile 15 feet prior to beginning the pile driving.
l Utilize steel H-piles.
l Utilize a vibratory hammer, except for the last few feet
l Allow the last few feet of each pile to be driven in order to ensure that bearing capacity has been
reached.
l Notify the City Public Works Department and adjacent property owners five days prior to initiating
noise activities.
11/15/99<tP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>> 50
LSA Associates, hc.
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
1 1 l/15/99 d’ADEC832US-M-NDUS-MND.DOG
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
FOR THE POINSETTIA LANE BRIDGE WIDENING
October 5, 1999
Preparedfor:
City of CarIsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Pahas 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
LSA Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
CONSULTATION TO DATE .......................................... 1
METHODS ........................................................ 1
PROJECTDESCRIPTION ............................................ 3
BIOLOGICALSETTING ............................................. 3
SENSITIVE SPECIES ................................................ 6
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................... 6
MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... 7
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 7
REFERENCES..............................................- ....... 8
ATTACHMENTS
A - SUMMARY OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
B - VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
ii
LSA Associates, Inc. -
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
1 - ProjectLocation .............................................. 2
2 - ProposedProject .............................................. 4
3 - Coastal Sage Scrub Impacts of Proposed Project ..................... 5
I
I
. . . 111
LSA Associates, Inc.
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED POINSETTIA
LANE BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT EAST OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD IN CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
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). 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.
CONSULTATION TO DATE
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base,
and 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.
The City of Carlsbad met with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on July 15, 1999, to discuss the
proposed project’s impacts to biological resources, the need for protocol gnatcatcher
surveys, and mitigation requirements. Representatives from the USFWS and CDFG
agreed that 1) the impacts are limited to coastal sage scrub (CSS) on the bridge em-
bankments; 2) protocol surveys for gnatcatchers are not warranted given the limited
size and isolation of the CSS habitat; and 3) mitigation of impacted CSS at a ratio of
1: 1 ratio within the Lake Calavera mitigation bank is appropriate. For the purpose of
wildlife agency permitting, it was also agreed that the CSS impacts would be consid-
ered a “de minimus exemption” as defined in the Section 4(d) take authorization. A de
minimus exemption is applicable only when 1) less than one acre of habitat is lost; 2)
the habitat is not occupied by California gnatcatchers; 3) the loss of the habitat will not
preclude the design of the reserve system; and 4) the habitat is of low value or medium
value and is outside of identified preserve planning areas.
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
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. Particu1a.r 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,
Vegetation communities within the project boundaries were characterized, measured
for dimensions, and mapped in the field o’n a 1 inch = 40 feet map of the project area.
10/5/99<<P:V>EC832Wology\bioreportwpdD
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6/14/99(DEC832) Figure 1
6
N
Project Location
LSA Associates, Inc.
PROJECT DESCRlPTION
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 variable width bicycle lanes, two 5 foot sidewalks, and a raised center median. All
widening 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. Figure 2 depicts the proposed project.
BIOLOGICAL SETTING
The project site (see Figure 3) is bounded by existing Poinsettia Lane to the 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 agricultural fields. The
bridge passes over the North County Transit District (NCTD) rail lines that divide the
site.
Vegetation
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 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.
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 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 in the vicinity.
The dominant plant species in the ruder-al habitat are summer mustard (Hirschfeldia
incana), black mustard (Brassica n&a), garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum
coronarium), and annual grasses. The dominant annual grasses are soft chess (Bromus
madritensis rubens) and ripgnt brome (Bromus diandrus). Portions of the ruderal
habitat are densely populated with fascicled tar-weed (Hemizonia fasciculata) and wild
radish (Raphanus sativus).
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, 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),
10/5/99((P:UIEC832\Biology\bioreport.wpd)) 3
I’
::. . . !
. 1.. :
. _ .7
.
---- -- -..-.-_ - ._________ _. 82’
___._ ---. .--
__-- --- _ __ ---- ______ --.---_
ml-,.-
me Map Source: Dokken Engineering.
Figure 2
Proposed Project
LEGEND:
CSS (0.21 acre) to be Preserved
IImm CSS (0.34 acre) to be impacted by Proposed Construction
Base Map Source: Dokken Engineering.
10/5/99@EC832)
cg
N
Figure 3
L&i 0-o Coastal Sage Scrub Impacts of Proposed Project
LSA Associates, Inc.
a species listed as endangered (State and Federal), were observed in the southeastern
edge of the vernal pool habitat, approximately 14 feet outside the project limits. No
San Diego button-celery was observed within the project study boundary.
Wildlife
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 Zeucurus) was observed kiting (i.e.,
hovering) over the disced field area west of the NCTD rail lines. Two mallard ducks
(Anas platyryhynchos) fl ew over the project area during the survey.
SENSITIVE SPECIES
A literature review was executed prior to conducting the site survey to assist in deter-
mining the existence or potential occurrence of sensitive plant and animal 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 NaturaZ Diversity Data Base
(California Department of Fish and Game 1998) and the California Native Plant Soci-
ety’s EZectronic Inverztoly of Rare and Endangered VascuZar Plants of CaZifornia
(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.
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Vegetation
CSS totaling 0.34 acre will be impacted to allow for widening the roadway and bridge,
expanding a portion of the existing embankment slope, and the bridge support struc-
tures. 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 habi-
tat, which is outside of the project impact area.
Given that the proposed improvements will be constructed on top of the existing
embankments (Figure 2), there will be no effect on the hydrological regime within the
study area. 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
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
10/5/99((P:U)EC832Mology\bioreport,wpd>~ 6
LSA Associates. Inc.
vicinity. No wildlife dependent on CSS was observed, and the small size of the area,
in conjunction with the isolation from other CSS communities, reduces the habitat
value of the CSS. The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilapolioptila cal$mzica)
was not observed, although presence/absence surveys according to USFWS protocol
were not completed. As described above, the USFWS has determined that protocol
surveys are not required due to the limited size and isolation of the CSS habitat.
MITIGATION MEASURES
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
to CSS habitat be mitigated, regardless of the presence of California gnatcatchers.
The draft Habitat Management Plan for the City of Carlsbad proposes to establish the
Lake Calavera property as a mitigation bank for City projects. The approximately 250
acre property is owned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). The bank
will be able to mitigate impacts to CSS not occupied by the California gnatcatcher,
chaparral, and non-native grasslands. Because the proposed Poinsettia Lane bridge
widening project will impact CSS not occupied by the California gnatcatcher, the
impact can be mitigated at Lake Calavera.
As discussed above, a meeting was held with representatives of USFWS and CDFG on
July 15, 1999, to discuss the project’s impacts and mitigation requirements. Represen-
tatives from the USFWS and CDFG agreed that mitigation of the 0.34 acre of impacted
CSS habitat at a 1: 1 ratio within the Lake Calavera mitigation bank is appropriate. For
the purpose of wildlife agency permitting, it was also agreed that the CSS impacts
would be considered a “de minimus exemption” as defined in the Section 4(d) take
authorization. This exemption is based on the low value, size, and location of the
habitat, and the absence of California gnatcatchers. No additional mitigation measures
are required.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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 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.
. Placement of a physical barrier along the limit of work adjacent to the vernal
pool habitat to prevent silt, weeds, or any spilled material from entering the
vernal pool area. The nature and design of this barrier should be specified in
the erosion control plan and project specifications.
7
LSA Associates, Inc.
REFERENCES
Skinner and Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inven-
tory.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1999. California Department of
Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base.
Dudek & Associates, Inc.. 1995. Biological Resources Report for The Poinsettia
Property City of Carlsbad San Diego County, California.
R. Mitchell Beauchamp. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California.
8
I
LSA Associates, Inc.
Legend: Status Designation
FEDERAL STATUS
FE Federally listed as Endangered.
Federally listed as Threatened.
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.
C Certain species formerly designated as “Category 1” (Cl) 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 to list as Endangered or Threatened. Issuance of the proposal(s) is anticipated, but precluded at this time.
**
C3a Species considered to be extinct.
C3b Former federal candidate for listing as Endangered or Threatened, but which is not believed
by the Service to represent a distinct taxa meeting the Endangered Species Act’s definition of a “species”. Species taxonomically invalid.
c3c
STATE STATUS
CE
CT
CR
CFP
CCE
CCT
csc
CSA
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT
SOCIETY LISTING
1A
1B
2
3
4
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 discontinued by the USFWS. The State now refers to these taxa as “Species of Con-
cern.”
Former federal candidate for listing as Endangered or Threatened, but which has been deter-
mined by the Service to be too widespread and/or not threatened at this time.
State listed as Endangered.
State listed as Threatened.
State listed as Rare.
California Fully Protected. Species legally protected under special legislation enacted prior
to the California Endangered Species Act.
State candidate for listing as Endangered.
State candidate for listing as Threatened.
California Species of Special Concern. These are taxa with pops. declining seriously or otherwise highly vulnerable to human developments.
Species included on the California Department of Fish and Game’s list of “Special Animals” of California. No specific designation assigned.
List of plants that are presumed extinct in California
List of plants that are considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be Rare,
Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere.
List of plants that are considered by CNPS to be Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in Califor-
nia but more common elsewhere.
CNPS review list of plants suggested for consideration as Endangered but about which more information is needed.
CNPS watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored.
LSA 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
Aizoaceae
Tarpobrotus edulis
Anacardiaceae
*Schinus molle
Asteraceae
Artemisia californica
Baccharis pilularis consanguinea
Tentaurea melitensis
*Chrysanthemum coronarium
*Conyza bonariensis
Gnaphalium palustre
Hemizonia fasciculata
Heterotheca grandzjlora
Isocoma menziesii
*Xanthium strumarium
Boraginaceae
Heliotropum curassavicium
Brassicaceae
*Brassica nigra
*Hirschfeldia incana
*Raphanus sativus
Chenopodiaceae
*Atriplex semibaccata
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Capet-weedfamily
hottentot-fig
Sumac family
Peruvian pepper tree
Sunflower f amiCy
California sagebrush
coyote bush
tocalote
garland chrysanthemum
flax-leaved horseweed
lowland cudweed
fascicled tar-weed
telegraph weed
coast goldenbush
cockleburr
Borage family
alkali heliotrope
MuSrard family
black mustard
summer mustard
wild radish
goosefoot family
Australian saltbush
ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONAE
*Salsola tragus
Fabaceae
Lotus scoparius
*MeGlotus indica
Geraniaceae
*Erodium cicutarium
Malvaceae
MaIvelIa leprosa
Plumbaginaceae
*Limonium sp.
Polygonaceae
*Rumex crispus
Primulaceae family
*Anagallis arvensis
MONOCOTYLEDONEAE
Poacae
*Bromus diandrus
*Bromus hordeaceous
*Bromus madritensis rubens
Deschampsia danthonioides
Distichlis spicata
*Lolium perenne multifIorum
*Pennisetum setaceum
*Phalaris aquatica
* Vulpia myuros
10/5/99(tP:U)EC832UBiology\bioreport.wpdD
LSA Associates, inc.
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Russian thistle
Pea family
deerweed
yellow sweet clover
Geranium family
red-stemmed filaree
Mallow family
alkali-mallow
Leadwort family
statice
Buckwheat family
curly dock
Primrose famiiy
scarlet pimpernel
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Grass family
ripgut brome
soft chess
foztail chess
annual hairgrass
coastal salt grass
Italian ryegrass
African fountain grass
Harding grass
rattail fescue
LSA Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX B
STRUCTURE FOUNDATION REPORT
1 l/15/99 ttP:V)EC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>>
1
1 a AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
8
I
I
3
I
STRUCTURE FOUNDATION REPORT
POlNSETTlA LANE OVERHEAD WIDENING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Submitted To:
DOKKEN ENGINEERING
3914 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE A-153
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123
Submitted By:
AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL
16760 WEST BERNARD0 DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127-l 904
May 25,1999
Job No. 9-252-l 02500
AGRA Earth &
Environmental, Inc.
16760 W. Bernard0 Dr.
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (619) 487-2113
Fax (619) 487-2357
I
1 @b AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
May 251999
Job No. 9-252-102500
AGRA Earth &
Environmental, inc.
16760 W. Bernard0 Dr.
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (619) 487-2113
Fax (619) 487-2357
Dokken Engineering
3914 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite A-l 53
San Diego, California 92123
Attention: Mr. Kirk Bradbury
Re: POINSETTIA LANE OVERHEAD WDENING
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 Ear& & Environmental
Principal Engineer
I @ Recycled Paper
Dokken Engineering
Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Job No. 9-252-102500 May 25,1999
Page (i)
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . _ iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1
1.1 GENERAL ..................................................... ..I
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 1
1.3. SCOPEOFWORK ................................................ 1
2.0 DATA ACQUISITION .................................................... .3
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ............... : ............................. .3
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................... .3
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................... .5
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................... .5
3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................... .5
3.3 SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ............................ .5
3.3.1 General .................................................. .
3.3.2 Regional Faulting .......................................... .6
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 .................................................. .
4.1.2 Settlements ............................................... 8
4.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS ........................................... .8
4.2.1 General ................................................. .8
4.2.2 DeepFoundations.. ........................................ .
4.2.2.1 Foundation Capacity and Settlement ..................... 8
4.2.2.2 Pile Driving ........................................ 10
4.2.3 Other Design Parameters ................................... 10
4.2.4 Seismic Design Criteria ..................................... 11
4.2.5 Corrosion ................................................. 11
5.0 CLOSURE ......................................... ..-................I 1
5.1 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ......................................... 11
5.2 LIMITATIONS .................................................... 11
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...13
I 63 Recycled Paper
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
8
8
1
8
8
I
a
I
8
I
8
Dot&en Engineering Job No. 9-252-l 02500
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
Figure3-FaultMap ........................................................ 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Tip Elevations for Class 45 and Class 70 Piles ............................ 9
Table 2A - Lateral Capacities for Piles (Steel H Piles) .............................. 9
Table 28 - Lateral Capacities for Piles (12-inch square Concrete Piles) ................ 10
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Test Boring Log .......................................... A-l to A-5
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results .................... I .............. B-l to B-3
Appendix C - Log of Test Borings ...................................... (In Pocket)
63 Recycled Paper
Dokken Engineering
Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. 9-252-l 02500 May 25,1999
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.
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
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.
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-l 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
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
foundation pans are finalized.
The regional seismicity is not unique compared to the rest of southern California. A peak
horizontal bedrock acceleration of 0.59 can be used in design. The depth to rock-like material is
between 10 and 80 feet.
The fill soils and formational materials at the overhead represent a corrosive environment based.
on Caltrans criteria. Concrete for structural elements in contactwith the ground should incorporate
Type II portland cement in the mix.
It is understood that no new fill will be placed. No special settlement period ’ needed.
d!i 3 AGRA INGlNBlRlNG ‘L084L 5O:“T’ONS
@ Recycfed Paper
Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. 9-252-102500
May 25,1999
Page (1)
1 .O 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 Cartsbad,
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 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
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 f&ral 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.
I.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 selected engineering properties and
to provide a basis for geotechnical design recommendations. The data collected were analyzed
to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding:
1.
2.
3.
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.
4. Geotechnical design parameters for the most suitable methods of foundation
support including allowable bearing capacities and resistance to lateral loads.
5. Corrosivity of on-site soils with respect to steel and concrete.
6. Fill and backfill material, placement and compaction procedures.
@ Recycled Paper
:
., ‘.
..y’~:.
,’
POINSEITIA LAME OH WIDENING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE I -VICINITY MAP
AGFtA Earth & Environmental
DfafI - Dstej JObh
I .LLS JJS i?imm9 Q-252-10
-2-
I
I
1
S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dokken Engineering
Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. g-252-102500
May 251999
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 a 2.5inch I.D. sampler driven by a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches. Standard penetration tests were performed using a 1.4-inch I.D.
sampler driven by a 140-pound hammer failing 30 inches in general conformance with ASTM D
1586. Disturbed samples were obtained from the standard penetration sampler.
The drilling and sampling operations were performed underthe supervision of an AGRA geologist
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
exploration program, the borings were backfilled.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed to evaluate selected engineering properties and to provide a
basis for geotechnical design recommendations. The following tests were performed:
t Moisture Content and Dry Density
. Direct Shear
b Resistivity
b PH
. Soluble Sulphate Content
. Chloride Ion Content
. 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
Appendix B.
,.
t
I .I I I i
i i !
I
I
I
I
j
Y i
Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. 9-252-l 02500 May 251999
Page (5)
3.0 SfTE CONDlTlONS
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 IA-W
(vertical:horizontal) to 1 :l 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
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. The terrace deposits extend to depths of 37 to 44 feet.
The Santiago Formation continues to the maximum depth explored, 66.3 feet.
A 5foot-thick layer of colluvium overlies the terrace deposits at the location of boring B-l 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
feet below the ground surface.
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.
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
levels can rise following periods of rainfall and during the wet season.
3.3 SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
3.3.1 General
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
data.
@ Recycled Paper
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.
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.
Recommendations for seismic design in accordance with Caltrans procedures are contained in
subsequent sections of this report.
3.3.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction can occur when loose, granular soils below the water table are subjected to vibratory
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 isconsidered slight.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 EARTHWORK
4.1 .I General
Minor earthwork associated with the widening and backfill adjacent to the bridge supports
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
Standard Specifications in the project special provisions:
A. Section 19-3.06 - Ponding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted.
1
I
I
I
\
*
\ ‘4
i POINSElTIA LANE OH WIDENING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
,
117’
\ 60 miles\
Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500
Structure Foundation Report May 25,1999
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (8)
6. 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 DC1 100) 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 nonexpansive soils should conform to Caltrans Standard
Specifications 194.03. Non-expansive soils should have an expansion index (El) less than 30.
Fill slopes probably will be composed of granular soils which are susceptible to surface erosion.
Slope paving should be incorporated where I :l% 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
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.
4.1.2 Settlements
Only minor fills will be placed for final grading, and ground surface settlements are expected to
be minimal. Settlements should be complete shortly after placement of the fill. No special
settlement period is necessary.
4.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS
4.2.1 General
It is understood that the existing overhead structure is supported on driven piles. A potential for
significant settlement exists if the new structure is supported on shallow foundations in existing
fill. Cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles can be considered for support of the widening. However,
caving occurred during drilling of the test borings, and groundwater levels are within anticipated
pile depths. Therefore, driven piles appear most appropriate for foundation support.
4.2.2 Deep Foundations
4.2.2.1 Foundation Capacitv and Settlement
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
also shown in Table 1. Actual uplii 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.
@ Recycled Papa
Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. 9-252-i 02500
May 25,1999
Page (9)
TABLE 1
TIP ELEVATIONS FOR CLASS 45 AND CLASS 70 PILES
(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 M 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)
Location Design
Loading
(Service)
Nominal Resistance
Compression Tension
Design Tip Elevation
VW
Specified
Tip
Elevation
m4
Abutment I 1 70 tons 1 280 kips 1 140 kips 1 30(I); 30(2)>65) -1 ~~ 30
45 tons 180 kips 90 kips 37 (I); 37 (2); 37 (5) 37
Bent 2 70 tons 280 kips 140 kips 10 (I); IO (2); 10 (5) IO
Bent 3 70 tons 280 kips 140 kips 10 (1); 10 (2); IO (5) IO
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) I 30
Pile Location
Abutment 1
Bent 2
Strong
2.5 kips
7.9 kips
Lateral Load at % inch Deflection
Free Fixed
Weak Strong Weak
I .4 kips 6.6 kips 4.1 kips
4.1 kips 23.8 kips 13.2 kips
Bent 3 I 9.7 kips 5.9 kips 25.0 kips 15.2 kips II
Abutment 4 2.5 kips I I.4 kips I 6.5 kips I 4.1 kips
63 Recycled Paper
Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-102500 Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening May 25,1999
Page (10)
Pile Location
Abutment 1
Bent 2
Bent 3
Abutment 4
TABLE 2A
LATERAL CAPACITIES FOR PILES
(la-Inch Square Concrete Piles)
Lateral Load at % inch Deflection
Free Fixed
1.7 kips 4.7 kips
4.9 kips 15.6 kips
6.8 kips 17.3 kips
1.7 kios 1 4.6 kiDs
Pile settlement is expected to be on the order of % inch and should be essentially complete shortly
after completion of the widening superstructure.
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.
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 IO to 14 feet into Santiago Formation at the bents in order to develop
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
elevations.
4.2.3 Other Design Parameters
Average geotechnical parameters for bridge design are:
. The wet density can be taken as 130 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
@ Recycled Paper
Dokken Engineering
Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. 9-252-102500
May 25.1999
Page (11)
b The modulus of subgrade reaction under vertical loads for soils at abutments can
be taken as 150 pounds per cubic inch.
b 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 used for
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 CLOSUdE
5.1 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
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 orfinal design vary from those
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.
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.
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
evidence obtained.
@ Recycled Paper
Dokken Engineering
Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. 9-252-l 02500 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
Couflty area. It may not contain sufficient information for other projects or uses.
AGRA Earth & Environmental
wPrincipal Engineer
zgifl&fl@
Brian’H. Reck, CEG 1792
Senior Geologist
J JS/js
Distribution: (6) client
@ Recycled Paper
Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-l 02500
Structure Foundation Report May 25,1999
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening Page (13)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1992, EQFAULT Ver. 1 .Ol, 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.
1 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.
I @ Recycled Paper
4 Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-l 02500
Structure Foundation Report
8
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
May 25,1999
Page (14)
8 15.
1 16.
3
8
R
8!
I
1
1
t
I
8
I
R
I 6!3 Recycled Paper
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I-M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During
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.
APPENDIX A
Project: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Job. No. 9-252-102500
5/25/99
Page A-l
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
LIQUID LIMIT
LABORATORY CLASSlFlCATlON CRITERIA
GW and SW: Cu = D, /D,, greater than 4 for GW, greater than 6 for SW
Cc = Dm2Q0 x D,, 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 PI less than 4
GC and SC: Atterberg Limit above “A-LINE”, or PI greater than 4
Sievezoo
Ms”,d,’ f&arrre Fine Gravel L%E3 Cobble Boulder
40 10 4 314” 3” 12”
Classification. of earth materials is based on field ins construed to Imply laboratory analysis unless so sta Q ection ed and should not be
MATERIAL SYMBOLS
Asphalt Calcaerous Sandstc
Concrete Marl
Conglomerate Limestone
cl Sandstone Dolostone
Silty Sandstone Breccia
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR
SOILS Accordinq to the Standard Penetration Test
Blows I Foot* Granular Blows / Foot* Cohesive
o-5 Very Loose o-5 Very Soft
6-10 Loose 6-10 soft
11 - 30 Medium Dense II - 30 Medium Stii
31-50 Dense 31 - 50 Stiff
50 Very Dense 50 Very Stiff
>70 Hard
l usino 140-lb. hammer with 30” drop = 350 f&lb/blow
LEGEND OF BORING Clayey Sandstone
Siltstone
Sandy Siltstone
Cla e Siltstone ISi& Elaystone
Volcanic AshfTuff
Metamorphic Rock
Quartziie
Extrusive Igneous Ro pproAmaJe_Ma@ialChang
ClaystoneIShale Intrusive Igneous Ro
“NSR” indicates NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
@ Recycled Paper
Project: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Job. No. 9-252-l 02500
5/25/99
Page A-2
TEST BORING LOG
Date(s) Drilled: 5X/99
Hole Diameter (in):8 3/4”
1 BORING: B-l I
Surface Elevation (ft): 49
Rig Type: Hollow Stem Auger
Sheet 1 of
Total Depth of Boring (ft): 40.5
Drilling Contractor: C & K Drilling
Depth to Groundwater (ft): 18.5
24.9
15.2
5
9
1 2.5 4
18
bag
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
*
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9.
Boring Completion: Backfilled on 5/5/99 1 Caving: up to 21 ft after pulling auger out -
LO
25
n -a
- -
30
35
40 -
45
50
55 -
-
5
10
15
‘_
‘_
4- ‘_
‘.
‘_
jM_
x2
:L
-
-
-
-
-
I FILL:
Tan fine SILTY SAND L-------L----y-----l , Dark brown fine CLAYEY SAND.
COLLUVIUM:
Dark brown SILTY CLAY with minute voids.
TERRACE DEPOSITS:
Mottled gray-green poorly indurated fine CLAYEY
SANDSTONE. -------.------------ Gray-green poorly Indurated fine to medium SILTY
SANDSTONE.
. ..Trace of fine GRAVEL at 21 ft.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Tan-white slightly indurated fine to medium SILTY
SANDSTONE.
-------------------- Gray-white CLAYEY SILTSTONE, poorly bedded.
. ..Red-gray-brown below 38 ft.
NOTES:
1. Total depth 40.5 feet.
2. Sampler driven by 140-pound hammer falling from
30” height.
3. Elevation obtained from on-site survey.
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
63 Recycled Paper
Project: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Job. No. 9-252-102500
5/25/99 Page A-3
TEST BORING LOG j BORING: B-2 Sheet 1 of
Date(s) Drilled: 515199 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 or
I
/
1
Red-brown to orange-brown poorly indurated fine
CLAYEY SANDSTONE, with minute voids and
magnesium-oxide staining. --------- - Gray-green SANDY ClAYSTONE vVith%i&tgv%d< - ---------- Gray-green and -- ------ orange-brown
SILTY SANDSTONE. poorlyindurated fine
Gray-white slightly indurated fine to medium SILTY SANDSTONE..
---------- --------- Tan poorly bedded CLAYEY SILTSTONE.
. ..Red gray-brown below 38 ft.
1. Refusal on hard rock at 41 feet.
3. Elevation obtained from on-site survey.
SUBSURFACE
@ Recycled Paper
APPENDIX B
Dokken Engineering Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening
Job No. 9-252-102500
May 251999
Page (B-l)
APPENDIX B
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
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.
Results are listed on the boring logs in Appendix A and the Log of Test Borings.
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 2.5inch
I.D. circular shear box, using a controlled displacement rate. The direct shear tests were
performed in general accordance with ASTM D 3080. Results are listed in Table B-l.
Corrosivity tests were performed on 1 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 1 sample was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 422.
Results are plotted on Page B-3.
Soil samples not tested are now stored in our laboratory for future reference and analysis, if
needed. Unless notified to the contrary, all samples will be disposed of 30 days from the date of
this report.
($3 Recycled Paper
Dokken Engineering Job No. 9-252-l 02500 Structure Foundation Report
Poinsettia Lane Overhead Widening May 25,1999
Page (B-2)
TABLE B-l
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 3080-72)
Boring No. /
Sample No.
B-l I4
B-312
B-3 I 6
Normal Stress
(psf)
1125
2160
3195
1125
2160
3195
1125
2160
3195
Peak Shear Shear Stress at
Stress 0.25 in Displacement
(psf) (ps9
1526 712
2729 1619
3571 2461
1221 842
2303 1720
2867 2387
888 731
1647 1443
2432 2128
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY OF CORROSIVITY
TEST RESULTS
(California Test Nos. 417,422 and 643)
Boring No. /
Sample No.
B-4/2
Soluble
p&i Resistivitv Sulfate Chloride
(ohm-cm) (ppm) (ppm)
7.3 2990
63 Recycled Paper
I
I
8
I
8
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I IIIIIllII~~~~~iiiii
I , --
----
- -r-rn7-mt-t-
I , , /
-- - - - --_ _
kHDI3M A@ E)NISSVd IN33Eld
-
A
P 0
P m
E
: ii
I-
I
1
i
2 d 8 0
-z-
-2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Page (B-3)
LSA Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX C
I VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
1 1 l/15/99 <tP:\DEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>)
4
8
I
I
8
8
8
8
I
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ALLDATABASESSEARCHED TO1 MILE)
PROPERTY.’ ‘, ~INFOftRlAjlON
Project NamelRef #: Not Provided
Carfsbad, CA 92008
Latitude/Longitude: (33.102634,117.315246)
‘Z” 1: ?,cxl3$r~ i 1.‘ ,: ” ‘: I” ; __I 1, ;,lNFO~~ON\ -:,- : _. _” ” ‘:I _:
AGRA EarthTnvironmenta
AGRA EarthEnvironmentaESan D
16760 West Bernard0 Dr.
San Dieqo, CA 92127 i _’ ‘. Site,Distribution.Summary:
;’
Agyicy~Data~a~ -Type of,Records
A) Da&bases searched to 1 mile:
US EPA
US EPA
NPL National Priority List
CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Actions and associated TSD
(TSD)
STATE SPL State equivalent priority list
B) Databases searched to 1 mile:
STATE
US EPA
US EPA
STATE
STATE
SCL
CERCLIS I
NFRAP
TSD
LUST
SWLF
State equivalent CERCLIS list
Sites currently or formerly under review by US EPA
RCRA permitted treatment, storage, disposal
facilities
Leakinq Underqround Storaqe Tanks
Permitted as solid waste landfills, incinerators, or
transfer stations
C) Databases searched to 1 mile:
STATE UST Reqistered underground storage tanks
STATE AST Reqistered aboveqround storaqe tanks
D) Databases searched to 1 mile:
US EPA
US EPA
US EPA
ERNS
LG GEN
SM GEN
Emerqency Response Notification System of spills
RCRA registered large generators of hazardous
STATE SPILLS
waste -
RCRA registered small generators of hazardous
waste -
State spills list
0 0
0 0
-r
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
.
_
.
.
.
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 900 - 767 - 9403.
Report ID: 595501901
Vemm 26.7 Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page I1
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.
IMITATION OF UABUITY
Customer poceads at its awn risk in choosing to rely on VISTA services, in hole or in part prior to proceeding with any transation, VISTA canaot be an insure of tha accuracy Of the information, errors occurring in convatsion of data, or for customet’s use of data. VWA and its afiiliited compa&s, officers, agea&, ea@oyees
and independent contractors cannot be held liable for accuracy, stoqe, dehery, IMS or expense suffered by customer rewhiag directly OT indireclty from any
informath provided by VISTA.
NOTES
I
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 600 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901 ve&m 2.6. I Date of Report: June 7,1999 &ye w
I
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO I MILE)
SITE INVENTORY I
:$4p’ PROPf?WAND THE ADJACENT AREA
,Y?D (within 118mile)
:; ,: ,’ ‘ . . [..:I,’
1 ,,
1 HOUR PHOTO AN
1 7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
’ SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ‘$lAp<
,,‘id 3 (within 118 ; 114 mile)
I
mii - -. - __ 0. lOh4l
E X
A ’ B; :<“, ,;C I ,_ ,::D,
’
No Records Found
SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ,, A.
MAP (within 114 - 112 mile)
.g
JD ’ t ,’ v) ‘.
t;
WST-ID 3.
DlsfANcE 2 .% E DlREC770~ Z U (1 CARLSBAD VOLVO 3976054 2 6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.26 MI
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N
CARLSBAD VOLVO 7004905 2 6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.26MI
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N
HOEHNHONDA 197360 2 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.30 MI
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N
HOEHN HONDA 7004904 2 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.30 MI
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N
HOEHN HONDA 10768290 2 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.3OMI
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N
HOEHN HONDA 7 1498274 2 6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0.3oMl
CARLSBAD. CA 92009 N
X = search criteria; - = tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 880 - 767 - 9403.
Report ID: 595501901
Version 2.6.7 Date of Report: June 7,1999
P&ye 87
>
:.m@
SITES MTHE SURROlJbjDlNG MEA
(within 114 - lkmile)
; .:Jp :
.: _ “. ___’ ’
RAiANRAMS
3 7204 PONTO
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
.A ‘; ,, :B C r: .D
4038485 0.34Ml X S
ENCINITAS, CA 92024 I.”
THOMPSON ROSE CO INC 423226
5 7440 BATIQUITOS DR 0.77MI c
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 c
DENNIS FLOWERS 1587469
6 8000 POINSETTIA LANE END 0.93MI
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 E
X = search criteria; l = tag-along (beyond search criteria).
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at I- 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Version 2.6.7
Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #8
F
UNMAPPED SITES
A. 8’. .C”‘.D
.’
1238666 I I I I SOUTH CARLSBAD STATE BEACH
HIGHWAY 101
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CECIL J. HANNAN
2433 - 7 07TH ST
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
H G FENTON
16251 BRANDY CANYON
SAN DIEGO, CA 92073
USN-FLEET ASW TRAINING CENTER
HARBOR HARBOR OR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92147
THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY RANCH0 SAN DIEGO
VIA RANCH0 SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO, CA 92199
SOUTHLAND CORP
8355 OTAY MESA RD
SAN DIEGO, CA
MURRAY CANYON BURNSITE
TB 53-D4 ADJ MURRAY RIDGE PK
SAN DIEGO, CA
SOUTH BAY LAND OUTFALL PHASE 1
AUGNMENT ALONG MONUMENT RD TO PACIF
SAN DIEGO, CA
SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSIO
SAN DIEGO, CA
BELL JR HIGH SLF/SWEETWATER II
SAN DIEGO, CA
SAN DIEGO, CA
SOLEDAD (SAN TMLR)
SOLEDAD MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN
SAN DIEGO, CA 92073
X
4016137
X
4020671
X
4012201
X
124449
X X
7499536
X
5813398
X
6830653
X
6830526 X
6829882 X
6612668 X
4041717
X
X=searchcriteria; l - -tag-along(beyondsearchcriteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 860 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Vmbn 2.6.1 Date of Report: June 7,1999
pagefi
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE)
DETAILS
PROPERTY AND THE ADJACnvr~A~~:(triUlin~l~~~l$~~ :. i : ,, .‘, ‘_
VISTA
$ddrqss*:
,HOURPHQTe,AN
:, :~94~:AVENlDAENClNAS
VISTA-IINk ‘. :Dic&&j&~&s,
> _ _I,, CARLSBAD: CA<92009 Plott&ias ,Id .
1 RCRA-SmGen - RCRA-Small Generator I SRC# 5596 EPA I&’
Agency Address: AN HOUR PHOTO 7040 AVENDA ENCMI.5 UNIT 106
CARLBAD. CA 92009
Generator Class: Genmtes 106 kghnontb but less than 1000 kghnth of non-awteQ hazardous waste
_I
., SlTES MTHE SURROUNDING AREA(wihiri1/9~1~~ ri&).: ” ‘_ ‘,’
No Records Found
SlTES M THE SURROUNDING AREA$hthin ,114 - 112 mile)
VISTA
Ad&e&
CARLSBADVOLVO
6830’AVENIDA‘ENCINAS
CARLSBAD,.CA,92009
[STATE UST - State Underground Storaqe Tank I sRci7 1612
1 Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE
VISTA lD#z 3976054
Distance/Direction:. ;0.26 &II I N ”
Pl@ted as: ‘P&t
EPA/Aqency ID: NIA
Underground Tanks:
Aboveground Tanks:
Tanks Removed:
Tank ID:
Tank Contents:
Tank Aoe:
001
PETROLEUM
NOTREPORTED
1
NOTREPORTED
NOTREPORTED
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank piping:
) Tank size (Units): lOOO(GALLON$I
1 RCRA-SmGen - RCRA-Small Generator I SRC# 5596
Agency Address:
Tank Ma&al:
ACTtWiN SERVICE
Asencv cafe (1
UNfWOWN
CARLSBAD VOLVO
6830 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD. CA 921M8
OTHER DESCRIPTIONS
1 EPA ID: jCAD981983323
Generator Class: Generates 1Wkgfinonth but kss than 1000 kg/monLh ofnon-awte& hazardous waste
l WTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Venion 2.6.7 Date of Report: June 7.1999
Page /lo
: SlTES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within :T14- 112 mile).CDNT.
3LVO vISTAID& 1004905
I 1 CARLSiSAD, CA 92009
DistatWDikction:~ .YO:BMIIN,,
Pl$ted:as:. ‘, Point I ,,
1 Aqencv ID: ‘H20071 1 STATE UST - State Underqround Storaqe Tank I SRC# 5835
1 Agency Address: SAhtEASABOVE
Uuder&ound Tanks: 1
Aboveground Tanks: NOTREPORTED
Tanks Removed: NOTREPORTED
Tank lip: TOOlU Tank Status: ACTIVEllN SERifiCE
Tank Contents:
Tank Age:
&Tank Size (Units):
WASTEOIL
12
1000 (GALLONS)
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
NOTAVAILABLE
SUCTION
DOUBLE WAUED OR SINGLE WAUED
1 Agency Address: SA~~EA.~ABOVE
EPAlAqency ID: N/A
Underground Tanks:
Aboveground Tanks:
Tanks Removed:
Tank ID:
Tank Contents:
Tank Age:
Tank Size (Units):
TOOXI
PETROLEUM
NOTREPORTED
7000 (GALLONS)
1
NOTREPORTED
NOT REPORTED
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
ACTlVEnN SERVlCE
Agency~dl
UNKNOWN
FIBERGLASS 1
VISTA
AdbresP:
HOEHN,HONDA
68OO:AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
[STATE UST - State Underqround Storaqe Tank I SRC# 5835
1 Agency Address: SAhfEASABOVE
VISTA 1[)4r: ~7064904
, Distancr&irection:, ” 0.30 MU N
Plotted as:. &int
Aqency ID: H19612
Underground Tanks:
Aboveground Tanks:
1
NOT REPORTED i Tanks Removed: NOTREPORTED
Tank ID: TOOlU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
Tank Contents: WASTE OIL Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE
Tank Age: 11 GRAl0l-Y
Tank Size (Units): 1000 (GALLONS)
Tank Piping:
Tank Material: DOUBLE WALLED ORSINGLE WAUED
VISTA HOEHNHONDA Address*: VISTA IDk
6800 AVENIDA ENCINAS 10788296
DistancPIDiktiori: 0.30 MI’1 N
CARLSBAD;CA 92009
[STATE LUST - State Leaking Underqround Storage Tank I SRCt 5671
‘Plotted as: point.
Agency Address:
EPAIAgency ID: N/A
HOEHN HONDA
6800 A VENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
Facilitv ID: 9un700
Leak Date:
Leak Report Date:
Site Assessment Began:
Leak Detection Method:
07/w98
07Lw98
08/14/98
TANK CLOSURE
*VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at I- 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Vemim 2.6.1 Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page/11
SlTES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 114 - 112 mile)CONT.
Leak Cause:
Leak Source:
Substance:
Remediation Event:
Remediation Status:
Media Affected:
Description I Comment:
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
WtiTE OIL
LEAKSTOPPEDBY: CLOSE TANKLEAKSTOPDATE: 07/22/98
PRELMMRY SITEASSESSMENTUNDERWAY
SO/L ONLY
PRIORITK LOWPOTENTIAL tLGlLTMSAFElY~NI IMPACTEXISTSAFTER INVESTIGBENEFICIAL: NO BENEFICIAL GROUNDWATER USELOCASENUM
H79672-007,B4S~NNUM904.40,GWDEPTH: 73’
[STATE LUST - State Leakinq Underwound Storage Tank I SRC I _ ncy Address: HOEHN HONDA -*..... Agel 6600 A VENIDA ENLIM
CARLSBAD. CA 92078 I ty ID: 9UT3700 I Facili
Leak Report Date:
Site Assessment Plan Submitted:
07/22/98
08/27/98
mce:
on Event:
on Status:
acted:
iion I District:
cription I Comment:
Description I Comment:
Description I Comment:
WASTE OIL
EXCAVATE AND DlspoSE
PRELIMINARY SilE ASSESSMENT WORKPLAN REQ
SOIL ONLY
SAN DIEGO REGION
COUNTY: SAN DIEGO
CROSSSlREE7t: PALOMARAIRPORTRD
REVlEWDATEW/28/98
VISTA RATAN RAM S
Address*: 7204 PONTO
CARLSBAD,.CA 92009
ISTATE UST - State Underqround Storaqe Tank I SRC# 1612
1 Agency Address: ~~~~~EAsAB~vE
VISTA IDBC: : 4038485
Distance/Direction: 0:34 Ml I S’
Pkgedai Point
EPAlAqency ID: N/A
Underground Tanks:
Aboveground Tanks:
Tanks Removed:
Tank ID:
Tank Contents:
Tank Age:
Tank Size (Units):
Tank IQ:
Tank Contents:
Tank Age:
Tank Size (Units):
Tank ID:
Tank Contents:
Tank Age:
Tank Size (Units):
TOOlU
UNLEADED GAS
NOTREPORTED
8OOO (GALLONS)
TOOlU
UNKNOWN
NOTREPORTED
NOT REPORTED (GALLONS)
TOO70
UNKNOWN
NOTREPORTED
NOTREPORTED (GALLONS)
7
NOTREF’ORTED
NOT REPORTED
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Materiai:
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
CLOSED REMOVED
fkwv W.e 0
UNKNOWN
OTHER DESCRlpTONS
CLOSED RUIOVED
4-y’ &de (3
UNKNOWN
OTHER DESCRlP77ONS
CLOSED REMOVED
-%%r ce 0
UNKNOWN
OTHER DESCRlP77ONS
’ VlSTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at I- 800 - 767 - 0403.
ReportID: 595501901
Vemtm 2.6.1 Date of Report: June 7,1999
Pege 112
Tank IQ:
SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 314 - 112 mile) CONT.
I
TOO10 Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
Tank Contents: PETROLEUM
Tank Age: NOTREPORTED
Leak Monitoring: Asencv code II
Tank Piping: UNKNOWN
Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS Tank ID: TOOlU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVE0
Tank Camem: PURULEUM
Tank Age:
Leak Monitoring: Asencv fide 19
NOTREPORTED Tank Piping: UNKNOW Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS) Tank Materiak OTHER DESCRIPTIONS
Tank ID: TOOllJ Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
Tank Contents: OTHER Asencv~e (3 Tank Age: NOT REPORTED
Leak Monitoring:
lank Size (Units): 3003 (GALLONS)
Tank Piping: UNKNOWN
Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPTIONS
Tank ID: TOOlLI Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
lank Contents: OTHER Asencv co& (9 Tank Age: NOTREPORTED
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping: UNKNOWN
Tank Size (Units): 8101 (GALLONS) Tank Material: OTHER DESCRIPllONS
TATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank I SRC# 5835
Rgency Address: 1 Agency ID:
RATANRAMS 1 H17155
7204 PONTO DR
CARLSAL? CA 92009 Underground Tanks: 7
Aboveground Tanks: NOTREPORTED
Tanks Removed: NOTREPORTW
Tank IIP: TOOlU Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
Tank Cuntents: DIESEL
Tank Age: NOTREPORTED
Leak Monitoring: NOTAVALABLE
Tank Piping: UNKNOWN
Tank Size (Units): 8701 (GALLONS) Tank Material: UNKNOWN
Tank IIP: TOO2U Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
Tank Contents: DIESEL
Tank Age: NOTREPORTED
Tank Size (Units): 3003(GALLONS)
Tank ID: TOO3U
Tank Contents: WASTE OIL
Tank Age: NOTREPDRTED
Tank Size (Units): NOT REPORTED (GALLONS)
Tank ID: TOO4U
Tank Contents: WASTE OIL
Tank Age: NOT REPORTED
lank Size (Units):
Tank ID:
NOTREPORTED (GALLONS)
TOO5U
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piuino:
Tank Miteial:
Tank Status:
NOTAVALABLE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOwlv
CLOSED REMOVED
NOTAVAILABLE
UNKNOlQN
UNKNOW
CLOSED REMOVED
NOTAVAb48LE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOW
CLOSED REMOVE0
rank Contents:
Tank Age:
Tank Size (Units):
Tank ID:
rank Contents:
rank Age:
Tank Size (Units):
OTHER
NOTREPORTED
NOT REPORTED (GALLONS)
TOOEU
OTHER
NOTREPORTED
NOTREPORTED (GALLONS)
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
NOTAVAlLABLE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CLOSED REMOVED
NOTAVAlL4BLE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
l VtSTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Version 2.6.1 Date of Report: June 7,199s
Pagefl3
SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA(within 114 - li2 mile) CONT.
Tank ID: TOO7U
Tank Contents: UNLEADED GAS
Tank Age: NOTREPORTED
Tank Size (Units): BOOO(GAL LONS)
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
CLOSED REMOVED
NOTAlMABLE
UNKNOWN
DOUBLE WALLED OR SINGLE WALLED
~!vlST& :
Ad$&&:
L&Jt3JVftCOUNTY WATER:DISTRICT ‘; YISTAIW,. +52g72fi3 :’ “2017:HY;IOI., ‘, :: ‘Disi;inc&@+&n:, 1; OJ$Ml pm,‘,,
::, ., “ENCINlTAS;:CA92024
ISTATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank I SRC# 5835
‘.. ” ,‘;:&!~~~s:~~, ” ; :_ ;,,_ :;_ ;,,, ,, ,,:; ~&&&,;b’:.< ,I
Agency Address:
Agency ID: H32324
SAMEASABOVE
Underground Tanks:
Aboveground Tanks:
1
NOTREPORTED
Tanks Removed:
Tank ID: TOOlU
NOT REPORTED
Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
Tank Contents: DIESEL Leak Monitoring: NOTAVXABLE
Tank Age: NOT REPORTED UNKNOWN
Tank Size (Units): 280&4LLONS)
Tank Piping:
Tank Material: DOUBLE WALLED OR SINGLE WAUED
WZiTA THOMPSON ROSE.%0 INC +dd[ess*: VISTAXI#z 423226’ 744O’BATlQUcTOS DR ‘DistWx/Diiection: ,0.77. Ml / E
CARLSBAD,‘CA 92009 Plotted as:
[RCRA-SmGen - RCRA-Small Generator I SRCB 5596
Point
EPA ID: Agency Address: CAD982368854 THOMPSON ROSE COMPANY /NC 7440 BATIQUITOS DR.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Generator Class: Generates 100 kg.hnfh but kss than IWO kg/month of non-atie& hazardous waste
t CARLSBAD, CA 92008
~~ DENNIS FLOWERS
8000 POlNSETTlA LANE END 7 ’ Distance/l
~~- I STATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank I SRC# 1612
Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE
VISTA ID#I
Direction:
1 Plotted Bs:
1587469
” 0.93 Ml I E
.’ Poiht
lEPA/Aqency ID: 1 N/A
Underground Tanks:
Aboveground Tanks:
Tanks Removed:
Tank ID:
Tank Contents:
Tank Age:
TOOlU
OTHER
NOTREPORTED
7
NOTREPORTED
NOTREFWRTELJ
Tank Status:
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
CLOSED REMOVED
Asencv~e 13
UNKNOW?d
/Tank Size (Units): 10090 (GALLON&? Tank Materiai:
[STATE LUST - State Leakins Underwound Storaqe Tank I SRC# 5497
OTHER DESCRIPTIONS
/ Agency Address:
1 EPAlAqency ID: IN/A
DENNIS FLOWERS - - 8OOOpoINS~A LN CALWAD. CA 92007 I
Facility ID:
Leak Report Date:
Site Assessment Plan Submitted:
Contamination Confirmed Date:
Case Closed Date:
9UT1764
07/25/90
08rv9/90
07/25/90
0511 l/93
’ WTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 9493.
Repon ID: 595501901
Versim2.6.7 Date of Report: June 7,199s
&ge#14
SUES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (withinlli! -“I mile) CONT.
Substance:
Remediation Status:
Media Affecte *
Reaian I Distl
DIESEL
CASE CLOSED mr, n,,, v !a: J”,L “IX I
._- =--. _. -Act SAN DIEGO REGION
Description I Comment: COUN7-Y: SAN DIEGO
Description I Comment: REVlEWDATEdl/3Ol93
1 STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank I SRC# 5671
Agency Address: DENNIS FLOWERS
8000 POINSETTIA LN
Facilii ID:
i%?LSBAD, CA 92007
9UTl764
I EPA/Aqency ID: 1 N/A
07/25/90
4 nlen. 07J25/90
Leak Date:
) Leak Report Date:
Contamination Confinne~ YY.C.
Case Closed Date:
Leak Detection Method:
Leak Cause:
07/mo
05/l l/93
OTHER MEANS
UNKNOWN
Leak Source:
Substance:
Remediation Event:
Remediation Status:
UNKNOWN
DIESEL
LEAKSTOPPED By: OTHER MEANSLEAKSTOP DATE: O7fl2/9OENFORCEMEEIvT: NONE TAKEN
CASE CLOSED
Tank Contents:
Tank Age:
j Tank Size (Units):
DIESEL
NOT REPORTED ^..^. 10004 (GALLuN~J
Leak Monitoring:
Tank Piping:
Tank Material:
NOTAVAIL4BLE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1 Media Affected:
on I Comment!
SOIL ONLY
PRIORITY: LOWLOCASENUM H99083-001,&4SlNNUM90451.GWDEPT~ Descripti.. . ___...___ ____
1 STATE UST - State Underground Storaqe Tank I SRC# 5835 1 Anenrv Attdmrc- DENNIS FLOWERS .mJ”..“, r...YmI.ha.
Underground Tanks:
Aboveground Tanks:
8000 POINSEMA LN END
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 1
NOTREPORTED
I Aqency ID: 1 H99083
Tanks Removed:
Tank ID: TOOlU
NOTREF’ORTED
Tank Status: CLOSED REMOVED
l WSTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 890 - 767 - 9403.
Report ID: 595501901
Versim 2.6.1
Date of Report: June 7,199s
Page #15
UNMAPPED STIES
\IIf$TA ‘Ad&ess*; THE FlELDSTCfNE COMPANYRANCHO SAN’DIEGO, VISTA,lDBt:
VI#IRANCHOSAN DIEGO
SAN,DliGO, CA:92199
1 STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill / SRC# 5689
Agency Address:
Agency ID:
NCCOSC SAN DIEGO
NCCOSC SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO, CA
Facility Type: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
Facility Status: CLOSURE PENDING
Pent-tit Status: UNDER RMEW
124449
37-CR-0101
‘VISTA MURRAYrCANYON,BlJRNSlTE
siiddyss’: ‘. ~Tv53-D4.‘AiIJ:MURRAY:RIDGE PK a::- ’ ‘I SANsf&), CA
1 STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill I SRC# 5689
1 Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE
.,’ VISTAIIM, 5813398:. : ,,, : ; ,” ,_ ,,, ‘, ‘, _, ,’ I
Aqency ID: 37-CR-0051
Facility Type: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILl7-f
Facility Status: CLOSED
Permit Status: OTHER
VISTA SOUTH’BAY,LAND OUTFALL PHASE 1
Address*: ALIGNMENT ALONG MONUMENT RD TO PACIF
SAN DIEGO, CA
1 STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill I SRC# 5689
/Agency Address: SAMEASAKJVE
VISTA ID#:
Aqency ID:
6830853
37-AA-0914
Facility Type:
Facility Status:
Pennit Status:
TREAThlENT PROCESSING
PROPOSED
PROFOSEDffpLANNED
VISTA
.Addiess’:
SAN DIEGO CONVENllON CENTER EXPANSIO
SAN DIEGO, CA
[STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill I SRC# 5689
1 Agency Address: SAhfEASABOVE
VlSTAIDik 6830526
Apency ID: 37-CR-0098
Facility Type:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
OTHER
UNDER RMEW
VISTA BELL JR HIGH SLFISWEETWATER U
Address*: SAN DIEGO; CA
1 STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill I SRC# 5689
1 Agency Address: SAh4EASABOVE
VISTA IDdf:
Aqency ID:
6829882
37-CR-0088
Facility Type:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACIUN
OTHER
UNDER RMEW
’ VlSTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Version 2.6.7 Date of RepoR: June 7,1999
Page 516
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE)
I DESCRIPTION OF DATABASES SEARCHED I
A) DATABASESSEARCHED TO 1MILE
WI.
SRc#: 5789
VISTA conducts a database search to identify ail sites within ‘I mile of your propem.
The agency release date for NPL was April, 1999.
The National Prioriies 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 NFL site.
SPL
SRC#: 5455
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for Calsites Database: Annual Wodcplan Siis was October, 1998.
The CalSiies 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 SPUSCL: Annual Work Plan (AWP) sites are cleassified as SPL and all the other
sites are classified as SCL.
CORRACTS
SRC#: 5596
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for HWDM!YRCRlS was February, 1999.
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 faciiii. 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.
@DMIBMES SEARCHEDTO I MILE
CERCUS
SRc%: 5790
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for CERCLIS was March, 1999.
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 activkes or events at the site, financial
funding information for the events, and unrestricted enforcement activities.
NFRAP
SRCIY: 5791
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for CERCUSNFRAP was March, 1999.
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.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Vet-&n 2.6.7 Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page Pl7
SCL
SRtX 5454
RCRA-TSD
SRCI: 5596
SWLF
SRt% 5689
LUST
SRC#z 5366
LUST
SRCZ 5497
LUST
SRCIY: 5670
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for Calsites Database: All Sites except Annual Workplan Sites (incl. ASPIS) 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 SPUSCL: Annual Work Plan (AWP) sites are cleassified as SPL and all the other
sites are classified as SCL.
The CalSites database includes both known and potential sites. Two- thirds of these sites have been classified, based
on available information, as needing “No Further Action” (NFA) by the Depanment 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.
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for HWDMSNRIS was Febnrary, 1999.
The EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hogram 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
which treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste.
VISTA conducts a database search to identii all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for Ca Solid Waste Information System (SWtS) was December, 1998.
This database is provided by the Integrated Waste Management Board. The agency may be contacted at:
916-255-4021.
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
learns of locations of disposal facilities through permit applications and from local enforcement agencies.
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for Region #7-Colorado River Basin Leaking Underground Storage Tank Listing was
August, 1998.
This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region #7. The agency may be contacted at:
760-346-7491.
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your properly.
The agency release date for Lust Information System (LUSTIS) was October, 1998.
This database is provided by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The agency may be contacted at:
916-445-6532.
VISTA conducts a database search 10 identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
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:
530-542-5400.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Version 26.1
Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #18
LUST
SRCX 5671
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
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:
619-467-2980.
Q’DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE i ‘__ ‘; 1;~ ,~,:
_’ ,’
UST’s
SRCIY: 1612
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for Underground Storage Tank Registrations Database was January, 1994.
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.
UST’S
SRCk 5835
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for San Diego County Environmental Health Services Database-&T 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; Caution-Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for
residential purposes.
AST’s
SRC#: 5513
VISTA conducts a database search to identify afl sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for Aboveground Storage Tank Database was December, 1998.
This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board. The agency may be contacted at:
916-227-4364.
iI) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE
ERNS
SRC#Z 5598
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for was December, 1998.
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database containing records from October 1986
to the release date above and is used to collect information for reported releases of oil and hazardous substances.
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.
RCRA-LgGen
SRC#Z 5596
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for HWDMSRCRIS 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 Large Generators
are facilities which generate at
hazardous waste).
least 1000 kg./month of non-acutely hazardous waste ( or 1 kg./month of acutely
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403.
Report ID: 595501901
Veishn X.1
Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #19
RCRA-SmGen
SRc#: 5596
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
The agency release date for HWDWRCRlS was February, 1999.
The EPA’s Resource Consecration and Recovery Act (RCf?A) 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
SRC#z 5835
VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property.
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:
61 g-338-2268.
For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 6403.
Report ID: 595501901
Version 26.1
Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #ZO
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE)
Map of Sites within I Mile
* Rivers or Water Bodies l \ ‘-0 ,“. . Utilities
CrSD) T-SD, LUST, SWLF, SCL
For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403
Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #3
GENERATORS TSD, LUST, SWLF, SC1
For More information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 787 - 0403
Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #4
8
8
8
8
8
I
8
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE)
Sites Represented as Radius Buffers
These radii are estimated from agency records or detailed street maps. The radii may
be based on the furthest boundary of each property or study area from its center. For
more information contact the agency referenced by source number in the site listing.
Highways and Major Roads
*
Roads
Subject Site w Railroads -.__ .---..* ._/- . Rivers or Water Bodies
I -. ,‘.. ._. . Utilities
For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403 _- _ - Report ID: 5955019oi Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #5
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ALL DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE)
Street Map
Subject Site
Highways and Major Roads
Roads
*
v Railroads --.* .---.* me_-- . . Rivers or Water Bodies -. ,“. ._. . Utilities
For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403
Report ID: 595501901 Date of Report: June 7,1999
Page #6
LSA Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX D
NOISE ANALYSIS
1 l/15/99 <~P:UIEC832US-MNDUS-MND.DOC>>
POINSETTIA LANE BRJDGE
WIDENlNGKMPROVl3MENT PROJECT
NOISE ANALYSIS
November I5, 1999
Prepared for:
City of Car&bad
Planning Department
207.5 Las Palmas Drive
Car&bad, California 92009-1576
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
I Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, Califoynia 92614
(949) 553-0666
LSA Project #DEC832
Under Contract to:
Dokken Engineering
3914 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite Al 53
San Diego, California 92123
LSA Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
PAGE
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY .................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................... 1
SETTING ................................................. 4
3.1 NOISE DEFINITIONS ................................ 4
3.2 NOISE SCALES ..................................... 4
3.3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................ 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................... 7
4.1 PREVIOUS NOISE STUDIES ........................... 7
4.2 FIELD MEASUREMENTS ............................. 9
IMPACTS ................................................ 9
5.1 CONSTRUCTION ................................... 11
5.2 OPERATIONS.. .................................... 12
MITIGATIONMEASURES .................................. 16
6.1 CONSTRUCTION ................................... 16
6.2 OPERATIONS ...................................... 16
REFERENCES ............................................ 17
ATTACHMENTS
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
ii
LSA Associates, Inc.
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
1 - Regional Location Map ....................................... 2
2 - Proposed Project ............................................ 3
3 - Noise Monitoring Locations ................................... 10
4 - Noise Modeling Locations .................................... 14
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
. . . 111
LSA 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.
improve Interstate-5 (I-S) access along Poinsettia Lane.
It will also help to
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.
During the construction phase of the project, ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
would be raised, 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 overfhght 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 Les. 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 pro-
posed 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 im-
pacts.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 illustrates the regional location of the proposed project. The project site is
located in the City of Carlsbad.
Figure 2 illustrates the project improvement plan. The proposed plan includes widening
the bridge over the rail tracks on the north side, adding a travel lane to both eastbound
and westbound directions.
6/16/99@EC832) Figure 1
LS! 0~00 Project Location
ISA Associates, Inc.
3.0 SETTING
3.1 NOISE DEFINITIONS
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loud-
ness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz l$k] 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 3 dB under normal conditions. Changes
of 1 to 3 dI3 are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than
1 dB are usually undiscernible.
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 ex-
tremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot
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 noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this
compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the
sensitivity of the human ear.
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 government,
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
Several rating scales (or noise “metrics”) exist to analyze adverse effects of noise (in-
cluding traffk generated noise) on a community. These scales include the equivalent
continuous noise level (L,), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-
night average noise level (La. Lq is a measurement of the sound energy level averaged
over a specified time period (usually one hour). LW represents the amount of variable
sound energy received by a receptor over a time interval in a single numerical value.
For example, a one hour L, noise level measurement represents the average amount of
acoustic energy that occurred in that hour. Other values of concern include the L,, and
L -. These are the minimum and maximum values recorded over a designated time
interval or event.
Unlike the Leq metric, the CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement.
CNEL also differs from L, in that it applies a time weighted factor designed to empha-
size noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when quiet time and
sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the 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 1O:OO p.m.) is adjusted by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.) noise is adjusted by 10 dBA.
11/5/99<(P:\DEC832Woise\dec832.nse.wpd~~ 4
LSA Associates, Inc.
The Ldn noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from
7:00 p.m. to 1O:OO p.m. receives no adjustment. Both the CNEL and L, metrics yield
approximately the same 24 hour value (within one dBA), with the CNEL being the more
restrictive of the two, or approximately 1 dBA higher than the Ldn value.
3.3 REGULATORYBACKGROUND
3.3.1 State 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.
Cahrans has established a noise abatement criterion (NAC) of 67 dBA (exterior Leq) for
noise sensitive activities/land uses. Table A lists the NAC for various land use catego-
ries. “Sensitive” land uses are defined as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds,
active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
Table A - Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
Hourly A-Weighted
Activity Noise Levels’
Category L, (dBA) Description of Activity Category
A :tItier ior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance 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.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
(exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(exterior) Categories A or B, above.
D --- Undeveloped lands.
E
Fiterior)
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: State of California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Otto- ber, 1998
Noise attenuation requirements under California law (i.e., the California Environ-mental
Quality Act [CEQA]) differ from the requirements of the Federal Highway Administra-
tion (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 identification of
11/5/99((P:V)EC832Woise\dec832.nse.wpd)) 5
LSA Associates, Inc.
impacts for which no or only partial mitigation is 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 that no, or only partial
abatement measures are available. Specific economic, social, environmental, legal, and
technological conditions may make additional noise attenuation measures infeashle.
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
noise levels approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Noise abatement
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
772.1 l(e)( 1) and (2)).
A noise increase is substantial when the predicted noise levels with the project exceed
existing noise levels by 12 dBA, Leq@)
A traffic noise impact will also occur when predicted noise levels with project approach
within 1 dBA, or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC).
3.3.2 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines
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 levels
generated by the traffic flow.
traffic noise impacts.
These standards are for assessment of long-term vehicular
The City of Carl.sbad uses 60 dBA CNEL as the critical criterion
(65 dBA CNEL for McClellan-Palomar Airport noise) for assessing 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.
For a long-term noise impact assessment in areas already exposed to noise levels ex-
ceeding the 65 dBA CNEL, a change of 3 &A or more in noise level by the project
would be considered significant.
Noise Ordinance
The City of Carlsbad does not have a comprehensive noise ordinance. However, Chap-
ter 8.48 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) limits the hours of construction.
Construction activities are limited to normal weekday working hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday). No construction work is allowed on Sundays and
federal holidays.
In addition, the City’s Municipal Code requires that all construction equipment should
maintain properly equipped muffler systems to reduce noise during construction phase.
11/5/99<(P:\DEC832Woisellec832me.~~) 6
ISA Associates, Inc.
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 currently
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-l/2 foot high) masonry jersey wall along the south side of the
road adjacent to the mobile home park. On the bridge, there is a (2-l/2 foot high)
masonry jersey wall on both sides of the bridge for safety purposes.
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 proximity
to sensitive areas. This was confirmed in the field study to be discussed below, 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 relatively 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.
4.1 PREVIOUS NOISE STUDIES
4.1.1 City of Car&bad General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report
In the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update (March 1994), noise from several mobile sources were identified, including
aircraft, rail, and vehicular traffic. The project site and its immediate vicinity are 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.
Rail
The San Diego Northern Railroad tracks (owned and operated by North County Transit
District mCTD]) run parallel to the coastline through the project area. The railroad
right-of-way is 100 feet wide. Currently AMTRAK operates several daily passenger
trains between San Diego and Los Angeles. There are also a total of 18 Coaster com-
muter trains (nine northbound and nine southbound between San Diego and Oceanside)
travel through the project area. Additionally, approximately five freight trains pass
through the project area daily, some after 5:00 p.m. Currently, there is an existing six
foot wall along the western property line of the mobile home park adjacent to the rail
tracks.
7
LSA Associates, Inc.
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, respectively,
from the roadway centerline. Currently, there is an existing 5-112 foot high jersey
barrier along the south side of Poinsettia Lane.
4.1.2 Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report
In the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia Properties Specific
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.
Rail
The NCTD railroad tracks pass through the project area. Currently AMTRAK operates
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 between San
Diego and Oceanside) travel through the project area. Additionally, approximately five
freight trains pass through the project area daily, some after 5:00 p.m. The Wyle Model
(Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations, 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 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 CNEL.
Vehicular Traffic
The distance from roadway centerline to noise contours were projected for future condi-
tions. Along Poinsettia Lane between Carlsbad Boulevard and Paseo Del Norte, the 70,
65, and 60 dBA CNEL were projected to extend to 26, 56, and 120 feet, respectively,
from the roadway centerline. Currently, there is an existing 5-112 foot high jersey
barrier along the south side of Poinsettia Lane. Existing residences at the mobile home
park are not impacted by traflic noise exceeding the 60 dl3A CNEL exterior noise
criterion established by the City.
4.2 FIELD MEASUREMEIVTS
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-
11/5/99<<P:\DEC832Woisellecg32.nse.x+pW 8
LSA Associates, Inc.
ican National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S 1.4- 1983 for Type 2, International
Electrotechnical Commission @EC) Standard 65 1-1979 for Type 2, and IEC Standard
65 1-1979 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 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 recep-
tor locations, including mobile home park residences on the south side of Poinsettia
Lane. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 3. Measured noise levels ranged from
the high 50s 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 traff%z 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 overflight generated be
tween 50 to 65 dBA. No train pass by noise was observed during the time of noise
monitoring.
Table B - Existing Noise Level Measurements’
Location/Start Time
N-1/3:30 p.m.
Sound level meter (SLM) located at
mobile home park, approximately 50
feet f+om western boundary wall and 5
feet above ground level.
Noise Sources -
Leq, dBA Other Observation
57.4 Traffic on Poinsettia Lane; air-
craft overflight; car alarm; birds chirping.
N-2/3:50 p.m.
SLM located approximately 8 feet
from Poinsettia Lane edge, 200 feet
east of Carlsbad Boulevard, and 5 feet
above ground level.
65.5 Traffic on Poinsettia Lane and
Carlsbad Boulevard; bus and
truck driving by.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 1999.
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 Poinsettia Lane.
1 Noise measurements taken on May 29, 1999; 15 minute measurements.
11/5/99(<P:\DEC832WoiseUec832.m.w@) 9
I
v
.:. I__. .-., : : : :, : I . . ..l .’ . . .._
I , .,’ _ .: ._ .: .’ ..-.~
I I i i
Base Map Source: Dokken Engineering.
8/3/99(DEC832) Figure 4
Proposed Project
LSA Associates, Inc.
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 typi-
cally 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, of between 79 and 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort for
the grading phase except for pile driving activities. Pile driving activities would gener-
ate maximum noise levels ranging from 81 to 96 dBA L,, at a distance of 50 feet.
Because the piles would be driven into the ground, only the engine noise and impact
sound between the pile driver and the pile being driven would be heard at a distance. As
a worst case scenario, the level recommended for pile driving, 93 dBA L,, at 50 feet, is
used in this analysis. At a distance of more than 100 feet from active pile driving, the
noise would be reduced to 87 dBA L,, or lower. Later phases of construction, such as
the pouring of forms, typically involve smaller and quieter pieces of equipment. At its
nearest point, construction (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 80 and 87 dBA L,. These values represent a potential short-term nuisance.
Depending on the timing of the construction, the proposed residential uses in the Poin-
settia Properties Specific Plan may also be exposed to construction noise from the
bridge/roadway widening. Construction hour restrictions established by the City of
Carlsbad, identified in Section 3.3.2 and in Chapter 6.0, should be followed.
In addition to limiting hours of construction activities, equipment and operational speci-
fications shall be followed as identified in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation Measures, to reduce
pile driving noise and other construction activities. Implementation of the construction
mitigation measures set forth in Chapter 6.0 will reduce noise associated with construc-
tion activities to below a level of significance.
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. How-
ever, 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 intermit-
tent annoyance to noise sensitive receptors adjacent to the construction areas.
11
LSA Associaies, 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, 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 15 1 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 5-l/2 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 measures 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 Traflic Noise Levels
Distance to Roadway Centerline, Feet
Roadway
Segment 70 dBA
Future CNEL
65 dBA 60 dBA
Poinsettia Lane Carlsbad Boulevard to Avenida
Encinas
< 50’ 72 151
’ Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site specific study.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1999.
Because the above trafftc noise prediction model predicts noise contours by distance
from the roadway centerline, the model is not sensitive to roadway widening or improve-
ment that involves mostly right-of-way changes and little centerline movement; there-
fore, 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 defmed in gridded coordinates and used in the modeling.
Noise receptor locations and existing barriers/structures were also gridded for the model
12
I
I
8
#
8
8
8
I
8
8
I
I
8
I
1
I
1
1,
1
LSA Associates, Inc.
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 geometries [e.g., lane configuration, curves, bridges, etc.] and additional
traffic entering or leaving the roadway [e.g., an intersection]). Link and receptor loca-
tions were scaled off a 1:40 scale map (Dokken Engineering, May 17, 1999).
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.
The Sound32 model is sensitive to the volumes of trucks on the roadway, as they con-
tribute 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, respectively,
on Poinsettia Lane, based on our field observations during the noise monitoring.
In addition to vehicle ratios, the noise model is sensitive to vehicle speeds. Due to the
change in elevation from Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas to the high point of
the bridge, speeds used included the following:
. All passenger vehicles were modeled at an average speed of 45 mph
. All medium-duty trucks were modeled at an average speed of 40 mph.
. Heavy-duty trucks were assigned an average speed of 35 mph.
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 the same
afternoon peak hour traffic volumes along Poinsettia Lane.
Table D lists the noise level at the eight receptor locations for future without project and
future with project scenarios. These modeled noise levels are different from the moni-
tored 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 modeled
and monitored locations, monitored noise levels were for comparison purposes 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 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
more detail below.
Based on results shown in Table D, all receptor sites on the south side of Poinsettia
Lane west of Avenida En&as, Rl 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
11/5/99(<P:\DEC832Woise’&832.nse.wpdD 13
I’
‘,.I. :
.’ , ._
, .- ;._‘ . . _ ._ .-
,_.’ :
‘.
Vb. -.. __ . . _
.‘j
&se Map Source: Dokken Engineering.
8/3/99(DECS32)
Noise Monitoring Locations
LSA Associates, Inc.
Table D - Peak Hour Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Locations*
1 Hour L, Levels (dBA)
Receptor
Rl
Future Future
Without With
Project Project
61.3 60.1
Project
Related
Increase
-1.2
R2 60.9 60.1 -0.8
I?3 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.
project scenario. Under the future with project scenario, the widened bridge/roadway would
extend travel lanes to the north side of, or the westbound Poinsettia Lane in this area, there-
fore 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, traffk 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 corresponding no project levels. The decrease in traffic noise
level would be due to traffic being moved northwards and would receive higher noise attenu-
ation from the roadway southern edge and existing jersey barrier along the south side of the
road. The increases at R6 (0.2 dBA) and R8 (0.1 &A) are small and statistically negligi-
ble. This range of noise level changes is considered small (less than 3 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 significant project
related traffic noise impacts would occur for these existing residences.
Proposed residential uses in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan adjacent to Poinsettia
Lane have identified free standing sound walls along their property boundary to mitigate
future traffic noise from Poinsettia Lane. No significant traffk noise impact would occur to
these proposed residences from the proposed bridge/roadway widening. No mitigation
measure is required for the proposed project.
1 Soft site noise drop off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance was used.
11/5/99(O) 15
LSA Associates, Inc.
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
6.1 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 shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and
not permitted on Sundays and federal holidays.
. All construction equipment shall be equipped with working manufacturer specified
muffler system.
. Portable equipment shall 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 shall be lo-
cated as far as possible from sensitive receptor locations at the existing mobile home
park.
As part of the contract specifications, the City of Carlsbad shall require the contractor to
implement the following measures to further reduce noise during construction and pile
driving activities:
. Pre-drill each pile 15 feet prior to beginning the pile driving.
l Utilize steel H-piles. . Utilize a vibratory hammer whenever possible, except for the last few feet. . Allow only for the last few feet of each pile to be driven in order to ensure that
bearing capacity has been reached. . Notify the City Public Works Department and adjacent property owners five days
prior to initiating nighttime noise activities.
6.2 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 corresponding 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.
16
LSA Associates, Inc.
7.0 REFERENCES
Caltrans, Sound32 Noise Prediction Model, Release 07/30/91
Caltrans, Trafic Noise Analysis Protocol, October, 1998
Carlsbad, City of, General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code.
Harris, Cyril, Handbook of Noise Control, 199 1
U. S. Environmental Protection Act. 1971. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. Noise From
Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,
December 3 1, 1971.
17
LSA Associates, Inc
ATTACHMENT A
SOUND32 NOISE MODELING OF FUTURE NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
11/5/99(<P:\DEC832WoiseU&32.nse.wpdD
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 Y,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, Y,174400.,123,61.6, B-Eastbound Road Edge, 1 , 1 , 0 ,O 174440.,57,61.7,61.7,edge 174500.,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 , 0 ,O 174900.,67,75.5,78,jersey
174960., 60,76.6,79-l, 175000., 61,77.2,79.7, 175100., 61,76.3,78.8, 175140., 61,75.3,77.8, B-Eastbound Edge Barrier, 3 , 3 , 0 ,O 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-g,
175600.,54,54.4,59.9, 175700.,55,54.6,60.1, 175800., 54,58,63.5, B-Walls around mobile homes, 4 , 2 , 0 ,0
175152., 12,51.1,57.l,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 ,0
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 ,O 175295., -100,51.1,61,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 r 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,ALL
CRC
SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91
TITLE:
Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening
EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS ***************************
BAR ELE 0 12 ------------_-__-- 3 4 5 6 7 _--------__-__-__~----~----~--~~~
edge Bl P2 Bl P3 Bl P4 Bl P5
--
0
0.* 0.* 0." 0.* 0.*
0.*
0.* 0.* 0.*
0.* 0.* 0.* 0.* 0.* 0.*
0.*
0.* 0.* 0.* 0.f
0.* 0.* o.* 0."
0.* 0.X 0.* 0.* .------
1 2
jersey
B2 P2
B2 P3 B2 P4
10 11 12 13
14
15 16
5.5'wall B3 P2 B3 P3 B3 P4
B3 P5
B3 P6 B3 P7
17 18 19 20
wall B4 P2 B4 P3 B4 P4
21 22 23 24
homes B5 P2 B5 P3 B5 P4
25 26 27 28 ---- .--- ---
homes B6 P2 B6 P3 B6 P4 ----------_----------------------
3 4 5 6 7
---
1 BARRIER DATA ***x*x******
BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH TYPE ----__-__----------_----------~-----~----------------------~~~--~~~~~-~-~-~-~~
1 - o.* edge 60.0 BERM
2 - o.* Bl P2 100.0 BERM
3 - o.* Bl P3 100.0 BERM
4 - o.* Bl P4 100.4 BERM 5 - o.* Bl P5 100.2 BERM
6 7
9"
10 11 12 13 14
15
16
17
18 19 20
21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28
3.*
3.*
:::
6.* 5.5'wall 60.4 MASONRYJERSEY 6.* B3 P2 100.3 MASONRYJERSEY 6.* B3 P3 100.5 MASONRYJERSEY 6.* B3 P4 100.1 MASONRYJERSEY 6.* B3 P5 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY 6." B3 P6 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY 6.* B3 P7 100.1 MASONRYJERSEY
6.* wall 143.9 MASONRY 6.* B4 P2 90.0 MASONRY 6.* B4 P3 143.4 MASONRY 6.* B4 P4 93.0 MASONRY
10.* homes 58.2 BERM 10.* B5 P2 385.0 BERM 10." B5 P3 57.2 BERM 10." B5 P4 385.0 BERM
10.* homes 53.2 BERM 10." B6 P2 370.1 BERM 10.* B6 P3 56.2 BERM 10.* B6 P4 370.0 BERM
jersey 60.4 MASONRYJERSEY B2 P2 40.0 MASONRYJERSEY B2 P3 100.0 MASONRYJERSEY
B2 P4 40.0 MASONRYJERSEY
---------_--------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ (CAL) _____-----_-----____--------~~~~
1 Rl 67. 20. 61.3 2 R2 67. 20. 60.9 3 R3 67. 20. 59.7 4 R4 67. 20. 61.4 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 __-----^------~-~-_-----------~~
BERM 67562. MASONRY 24736. MASONRY/JERSEY 73345. CONCRETE 0. --------------------------------
TOTAL COST = $ 166000.
BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION 11 1111111111111 1111111111 1 11 CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION 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.
LSA Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B
SOUND32 NOISE MODELING OF FUTURE BUILD
ALTERNATIVES
Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening T-Poinsettia Road Peak Hour, 1
837 , 45 , 46 , 40 27 35 T-Poinsettia Road Peak Ho&, 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 , 0 ,O
174440.,57,61.7,61.7,edge 174500.,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 , 0 ,O 174900., 67,75.5,78,jersey 174960 .,60,76.6,79-l, 175000 .,61,77.2,79.7, 175100.,61,76.3,78.8,
175140., 61,75.3,77.8,
B-Eastbound Edge Barrier, 3 , 3 , 0 ,O
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 , 2 , 0 ,O
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 ,O
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 ,0 175295., -100,51.1,61,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 t 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 r 67 ,20 175660,-90,55.0,R7
R, 8 , 67 ,20 175340,-200,55.,R8 D, 4.5 ALL,ALL
crc
SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91
TITLE: Poinsettia Lane Bridge Widening
BAR ELE ----
1 2 3 4
5
-6 7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28
EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS ***************************
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 __--_____-_______------------------------ -------
0.” 0.* 0.* 0.” 0.*
0.*
0.” 0.* 0.*
0.* 0.* 0.” 0.* 0.” 0.* 0.*
0-f 0.* 0.f 0.*
0.”
0.* 0.* 0.*
0.* 0.* 0.* 0.* -----________-__________
0 1 2 3 I BARRIER DATA ************
BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH TYPE
edge Bl P2 Bl P3 Bl P4 Bl P5
jersey B2 P2 B2 P3 B2 P4
5.5'wall B3 P2 B3 P3
B3 P4
B3 P5
B3 P6 B3 P7
wall B4 P2 B4 P3 B4 P4
homes B5 P2 B5 P3 B5 P4
homes B6 P2 B6 P3 B6 P4 _---________-______----------
4 5 6 7
_-----__----~-----_---~~~~-------~~---~-~--~-----------~--~~~~---~~~---~~~--~~
1 - o.* edge 60.0 BERM 2 - 0.f Bl P2 100.0 BERM 3 - 0." Bl P3 100.0 BERM 4 - o.* Bl P4 100.4 BERM 5 - 0." Bl P5 100.2 BERM
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17
18 19
20
21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28
3." 3.f jersey 60.4 MASONRYJERSEY B2 P2 40.0 3.* MASONRYJERSEY B2 P3 100.0 3." MASONRYJERSEY B2 P4 40.0 MASONRYJERSEY
6.* 5.5'wall 60.4 6.x MASONRYJERSEY B3 P2 100.3 6.* MASONRYJERSEY B3 P3 100.5 6.* MASONRYJERSEY B3 P4 100.1 6.* MASONRYJERSEY B3 P5 100.0 6.* MASONRYJERSEY B3 P6 100.0 6.* MASONRYJERSEY B3 P7 100.1 MASONRYJERSEY
6.* wall 143.9 MASONRY 6." B4 P2 90.0 MASONRY 6.* B4 P3 143.4 MASONRY 6.* B4 P4 93 .o MASONRY
10.* 10.* 10.x 10.*
10.* 10." 10.* lo.*
homes 58.2 BERM B5 P2 385.0 BERM B5 P3 57.2 BERM B5 P4 385.0 BERM
homes 53.2 BERM B6 P2 370.1 BERM B6 P3 56.2 BERM B6 P4 370.0 BERM -___--_-----_-------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ (-II) --------------------------------
1 Rl 67. 20. 60.1 2 R2 67. 20. 60.1 3 R3 67. 20. 59.3 4 R4 67. 20. 60.0
5 R5 67. 20. 59.0
6 R6 67. 20. 63.4 7 R7 67. 20. 57.5 8 R8 67. 20. 57.0 __--_--_--_---------------------
BARRIER TYPE COST _-------------------------------
BERM 67562. MASONRY 24736. MASONRY/JERSEY 73345. CONCRETE 0. -_------_-----------------------
TOTAL COST = $ 166000.
--- __----__-----------------------------
7
BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION 1 1111111111111111 11111111 111 CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION 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.
LSA Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
OUTPUTS
TABLE DEC830 FHWA 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