The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-09-16; Planning Commission; ; CT 16-07/PUD 16-09/PUD 2018-0007/SDP 2018-0001/CDP 16-33/HDP 16-02/SUP 16-02/EIR 2017-0001 (DEV16038) – MARJA ACRES Part 6Marja Acres Average Square Foot Cost Study 4/26/2018 Average Cost per SF Blended $175.26 Commercial Residential Avg Cost Per SF $119.56 Residential Avg Cost Per SF $121.56 Residential Avg Cost Per SF $126.26 Summary:total Liveable SF 25,357Ground Floor First Floor Total 1St Flr SF:9,865 Second Floor Total 2nd Flr SF:9,865 Third Floor Total 3rd Flr SF:5,627 Build Cost Plan 1-1 Plan 2-1 Plan 3-1 Plan 4-1 Plan 5-1 Plan 6-1 Plan 1-2 Plan 2-2 Plan 3-2 Plan 4-2 Plan 5-2 Plan 6-2 Plan 3-3 Plan 5-3 Plan 6-3 Commercial 15,625 $2,544,325.00 #Bedrooms 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 + Den 1 2 2 2 2 2+Den 2 2 2+Den 1st Floor 9,865 $1,179,419.00 # Baths 0 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2nd Floor 9,865 $1,199,169.00SF15,625 982 1,577 1,610 1,764 1,800 2,132 982 1,577 1,610 1,764 1,800 2,132 1,610 1,885 2,132 3rd Floor 5,627 $710,482.00MIX1111111111111 Total SF 40,982 $5,633,395.00TradesSubcontractorTermite$3,000.00 $700.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $700.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 Avg Cost per SF Blended $137.46Foundation$975,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Light Weight Concrete $3,450.00 $5,500.00 $5,100.00 $5,300.00 $5,425.00 $6,000.00 $3,450.00 $5,000.00 $5,100.00 $5,300.00 $5,425.00 $6,000.00 $5,100.00 $5,425.00 $6,000.00 Avg Cost per SF Liveable $121.82 Plumbing $155,750.00 $9,950.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,995.00 $19,265.00 $9,950.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,995.00 $19,265.00 $16,215.00 $16,995.00 $19,265.00Plumbing tub/Shwr $0.00 $1,700.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $1,700.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00Electrical$140,000.00 $6,100.00 $8,850.00 $9,050.00 $9,200.00 $9,325.00 $9,975.00 $6,100.00 $9,750.00 $9,950.00 $9,300.00 $9,325.00 $9,975.00 $9,050.00 $9,325.00 $9,975.00 SubTotal Cost $5,633,395.00 Electrical Fixtures $55,000.00 $475.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $475.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00HVAC$0.00 $5,800.00 $6,800.00 $6,950.00 $7,250.00 $7,775.00 $8,250.00 $5,800.00 $6,800.00 $6,950.00 $7,250.00 $7,775.00 $8,250.00 $6,950.00 $7,775.00 $8,250.00 15%Overhead & Supervision $845,009.25 Fire Sprinklers $78,000.00 $5,125.00 $7,750.00 $7,900.00 $8,150.00 $8,225.00 $9,100.00 $5,125.00 $7,750.00 $7,900.00 $8,150.00 $8,225.00 $9,100.00 $7,900.00 $8,225.00 $9,100.00Rough Framing metal $100,000.00 $10,250.00 $15,500.00 $15,750.00 $16,600.00 $17,500.00 $19,800.00 $10,250.00 $15,500.00 $15,750.00 $16,600.00 $17,500.00 $19,800.00 $17,250.00 $19,250.00 $21,150.00 2.50%Bonding & Unsurance $140,834.88Rough Lumber metal $125,000.00 $13,200.00 $18,000.00 $18,750.00 $19,750.00 $20,150.00 $23,150.00 $13,200.00 $18,000.00 $18,750.00 $19,750.00 $20,150.00 $23,150.00 $19,500.00 $20,750.00 $23,750.00 Rough Trusses $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,650.00 $8,250.00 $8,950.00 10%Profit- Contractor $563,339.50Floor Framing Systems $65,000.00 $5,175.00 $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,100.00 $9,500.00 $9,950.00 $5,175.00 $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,100.00 $9,500.00 $9,950.00 $8,500.00 $9,500.00 $9,950.00Windows$6,525.00 $5,150.00 $5,750.00 $7,250.00 $7,500.00 $7,950.00 $7,450.00 $5,100.00 $5,750.00 $7,250.00 $7,500.00 $7,950.00 $7,450.00 $7,250.00 $7,950.00 $7,450.00 Total $7,182,578.63Drywall$99,000.00 $9,950.00 $10,475.00 $10,500.00 $10,825.00 $10,950.00 $11,500.00 $9,950.00 $10,475.00 $10,500.00 $10,825.00 $10,950.00 $11,500.00 $11,500.00 $10,950.00 $11,500.00Painting$70,000.00 $2,950.00 $4,000.00 $4,100.00 $4,350.00 $4,400.00 $5,150.00 $2,950.00 $4,000.00 $4,100.00 $4,350.00 $4,400.00 $5,150.00 $4,450.00 $4,850.00 $5,600.00 Average Cost per SF Blended $175.26Stucco$208,500.00 $10,250.00 $16,250.00 $16,500.00 $17,250.00 $17,950.00 $19,775.00 $10,250.00 $16,250.00 $16,500.00 $17,250.00 $17,950.00 $19,775.00 $16,500.00 $17,950.00 $19,775.00 Cabinets $0.00 $8,500.00 $8,950.00 $8,950.00 $9,250.00 $9,250.00 $9,500.00 $8,500.00 $8,950.00 $8,950.00 $9,250.00 $9,250.00 $9,500.00 $8,950.00 $9,250.00 $9,500.00Roofing$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $10,900.00 $11,600.00Built Up Roofing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,500.00 $6,650.00 $0.00 $7,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sheet Metal $6,800.00 $650.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $800.00 $825.00 $650.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $800.00 $825.00 $750.00 $800.00 $825.00Finish Carpentry $6,750.00 $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,000.00 $8,775.00 $9,250.00 $9,575.00 $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,000.00 $8,775.00 $9,250.00 $9,575.00 $9,000.00 $9,250.00 $9,575.00Finish Hardware $7,500.00 $1,250.00 $1,650.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $1,800.00 $1,850.00 $1,250.00 $1,650.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $1,800.00 $1,850.00 $1,750.00 $1,800.00 $1,850.00Insulation$48,500.00 $3,300.00 $3,650.00 $3,700.00 $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $4,250.00 $3,300.00 $3,650.00 $3,700.00 $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $4,250.00 $4,750.00 $5,000.00 $5,250.00t-grid ceiling $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Storefront $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Mirrors$0.00 $175.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $175.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00Shower Enclosures $0.00 $375.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $375.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00Marble Counters $0.00 $3,908.00 $3,908.00 $4,469.00 $4,692.00 $4,942.00 $3,908.00 $3,908.00 $4,469.00 $4,692.00 $4,942.00 $3,908.00 $4,692.00 $4,942.00Granite Counters $0.00 $3,900.00 $4,000.00 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $3,900.00 $4,000.00 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 Tile Showers $0.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00Tile Floors@ Baths $0.00 $1,600.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $1,600.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00Hard Surface Flooring Allowance $0.00 $3,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,000.00 $3,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,000.00 Carpet Floors $0.00 $800.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $800.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00Concrete Flatwork $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fencing$4,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Appliances$0.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00Siding$7,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Garage Door Opener System $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Finish Grading $8,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Storm Drainage $8,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Masonry Veneer apport $0.00 $6,250.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $6,250.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00Rough Clean $4,000.00 $1,550.00 $1,620.00 $1,650.00 $1,675.00 $1,700.00 $1,725.00 $1,550.00 $1,620.00 $1,650.00 $1,675.00 $1,700.00 $1,725.00 $1,750.00 $1,700.00 $1,725.00 Finish Clean $2,500.00 $350.00 $400.00 $425.00 $475.00 $500.00 $525.00 $350.00 $400.00 $425.00 $475.00 $500.00 $525.00 $425.00 $500.00 $525.00Elevator$130,000.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Metal Stairs $46,000.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 railings $0.00 $500.00 $1,200.00 $900.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $500.00 $1,200.00 $900.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $1,975.00 $2,450.00 $1,975.00Striping$4,500.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Underground Utilities $15,000.00 $800.00 800 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 800 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 Total Build Cost $2,544,325.00 0 $141,225.00 $195,598.00 $199,478.00 $205,614.00 $211,167.00 $226,337.00 $145,675.00 $202,648.00 $200,378.00 $212,964.00 $211,167.00 $226,337.00 $223,453.00 $235,667.00 $251,362.00 Cost Per SF $162.84 $143.81 $124.03 $123.90 $116.56 $117.32 $106.16 $148.35 $128.50 $124.46 $120.73 $117.32 $106.16 $138.79 $125.02 $117.90 Commercial Ground Floor Summary Build Cost #Bedrooms 0 Commercial 15,625 # Baths 0SF15,625MIX1 Trades Subcontractor Total SF 15,625 $1,406,300.00Termite$3,000.00Foundation$218,750.00 cost per SF $90.00Light Weight ConcretePlumbing $35,000.00 Plumbing tub/Shwr $0.00Electrical$140,000.00Electrical Fixtures $55,000.00 SubTotal Cost $1,406,300.00 HVAC $0.00Fire Sprinklers $78,000.00 15%Overhead & Supervision $210,945.00Rough Framing $94,000.00Rough Lumber $118,500.00 2.50%Bonding & Unsurance $35,157.50Rough Trusses $62,000.00 Floor Framing Systems 10%Profit- Contractor $140,630.00Windows$0.00Drywall$99,000.00 Total $1,793,032.50 Painting $70,000.00Stucco$175,000.00 Average Cost per SF $114.75 Cabinets $0.00Roofing$0.00 Built Up Roofing $0.00Sheet Metal $6,800.00Finish Carpentry $6,750.00 Finish Hardware $7,500.00Insulation$48,500.00t-grid ceiling $90,000.00Storefront$50,000.00Mirrors$0.00 Shower Enclosures $0.00Marble Counters $0.00Granite Counters $0.00Tile Showers $0.00Tile Floors@ Baths $0.00 Hard Surface Flooring Allowance $0.00Carpet Floors $0.00Concrete Flatwork $15,000.00 Fencing $0.00Appliances$0.00Siding$0.00Garage Door Opener System $0.00Finish Grading $8,500.00 Storm Drainage $8,500.00Masonry Veneer apport $0.00Rough Clean $4,000.00 Finish Clean $2,500.00Elevator$0.00 Metal Stairs $0.00railings$0.00Striping$0.00 Underground Utilities $10,000.00 Total Build Cost $1,406,300.00 Cost Per SF $90.00 (including commercial) (excluding commercial) COMMERCIAL / 1-story stand alone Building, with surface parking RESIDENTIAL / 3-Story (Wood Frame) over COMMERCIAL (Podium Construction) Average Cost per SF: $114.75 I I ATTACHMENT 8 $169.89 Avg Cost Per SF $146.18 Avg Cost Per SF $123.38 Avg Cost Per SF $127.86 Summary:Total Liveable SF 25,357Total 1St Flr SF:9,865 Second Floor Total 2nd Flr SF:9,865 Third Floor Total 3rd Flr SF:5,627 Build Cost Plan 1-1 Plan 2-1 Plan 3-1 Plan 4-1 Plan 5-1 Plan 6-1 Plan 1-2 Plan 2-2 Plan 3-2 Plan 4-2 Plan 5-2 Plan 6-2 Plan 3-3 Plan 5-3 Plan 6-3 0 $0.00 #Bedrooms 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 + Den 1 2 2 2 2 2+Den 2 2 2+Den !st Floor 9,865 $1,442,039.00 # Baths 0 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2nd Floor 9,865 $1,217,169.00SF9821,577 1,610 1,764 1,800 2,132 982 1,577 1,610 1,764 1,800 2,132 1,610 1,885 2,132 3rd Floor 5,627 $719,482.00MIX111111111111 Total SF 25,357 $3,378,690.00 Trades SubcontractorTermite $700.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $700.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $133.24Foundation$19,640.00 $31,540.00 $32,200.00 $35,200.00 $36,000.00 $42,640.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Light Weight Concrete $3,450.00 $5,500.00 $5,100.00 $5,300.00 $5,425.00 $6,000.00 $3,450.00 $5,000.00 $5,100.00 $5,300.00 $5,425.00 $6,000.00 $5,100.00 $5,425.00 $6,000.00 Avg Cost per SF Liveable $133.24Plumbing$9,950.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,995.00 $19,265.00 $9,950.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,215.00 $16,995.00 $19,265.00 $16,215.00 $16,995.00 $19,265.00 Plumbing tub/Shwr $1,700.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $1,700.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00 $3,530.00Electrical$6,100.00 $8,850.00 $9,050.00 $9,200.00 $9,325.00 $9,975.00 $6,100.00 $9,750.00 $9,950.00 $9,300.00 $9,325.00 $9,975.00 $9,050.00 $9,325.00 $9,975.00 SubTotal Cost $3,378,690.00Electrical Fixtures $475.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $475.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 HVAC $5,800.00 $6,800.00 $6,950.00 $7,250.00 $7,775.00 $8,250.00 $5,800.00 $6,800.00 $6,950.00 $7,250.00 $7,775.00 $8,250.00 $6,950.00 $7,775.00 $8,250.00 15%Overhead & Supervision $506,803.50Fire Sprinklers $5,125.00 $7,750.00 $7,900.00 $8,150.00 $8,225.00 $9,100.00 $5,125.00 $7,750.00 $7,900.00 $8,150.00 $8,225.00 $9,100.00 $7,900.00 $8,225.00 $9,100.00Rough Framing $10,250.00 $15,500.00 $15,750.00 $16,600.00 $17,500.00 $19,800.00 $10,250.00 $15,500.00 $15,750.00 $16,600.00 $17,500.00 $19,800.00 $17,250.00 $19,250.00 $21,150.00 2.50%Bonding & Unsurance $84,467.25Rough Lumber $13,200.00 $18,000.00 $18,750.00 $19,750.00 $20,150.00 $23,150.00 $13,200.00 $18,000.00 $18,750.00 $19,750.00 $20,150.00 $23,150.00 $19,500.00 $20,750.00 $23,750.00Rough Trusses $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,650.00 $8,250.00 $8,950.00 10%Profit- Contractor $337,869.00 Floor Framing Systems $5,175.00 $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,100.00 $9,500.00 $9,950.00 $5,175.00 $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,100.00 $9,500.00 $9,950.00 $8,500.00 $9,500.00 $9,950.00Windows$5,150.00 $5,750.00 $7,250.00 $7,500.00 $7,950.00 $7,450.00 $5,100.00 $5,750.00 $7,250.00 $7,500.00 $7,950.00 $7,450.00 $7,250.00 $7,950.00 $7,450.00 Total $4,307,829.75Drywall$9,950.00 $10,475.00 $10,500.00 $10,825.00 $10,950.00 $11,500.00 $9,950.00 $10,475.00 $10,500.00 $10,825.00 $10,950.00 $11,500.00 $11,500.00 $10,950.00 $11,500.00 Painting $2,950.00 $4,000.00 $4,100.00 $4,350.00 $4,400.00 $5,150.00 $2,950.00 $4,000.00 $4,100.00 $4,350.00 $4,400.00 $5,150.00 $4,450.00 $4,850.00 $5,600.00 Average Cost per SF $169.89Stucco$10,250.00 $16,250.00 $16,500.00 $17,250.00 $17,950.00 $19,775.00 $10,250.00 $16,250.00 $16,500.00 $17,250.00 $17,950.00 $19,775.00 $16,500.00 $17,950.00 $19,775.00Cabinets$8,500.00 $8,950.00 $8,950.00 $9,250.00 $9,250.00 $9,500.00 $8,500.00 $8,950.00 $8,950.00 $9,250.00 $9,250.00 $9,500.00 $8,950.00 $9,250.00 $9,500.00Roofing$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 $10,900.00 $11,600.00 Built Up Roofing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,500.00 $6,650.00 $0.00 $7,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Sheet Metal $650.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $800.00 $825.00 $650.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $800.00 $825.00 $750.00 $800.00 $825.00Finish Carpentry $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,000.00 $8,775.00 $9,250.00 $9,575.00 $8,250.00 $8,500.00 $9,000.00 $8,775.00 $9,250.00 $9,575.00 $9,000.00 $9,250.00 $9,575.00 Finish Hardware $1,250.00 $1,650.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $1,800.00 $1,850.00 $1,250.00 $1,650.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $1,800.00 $1,850.00 $1,750.00 $1,800.00 $1,850.00Insulation$3,300.00 $3,650.00 $3,700.00 $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $4,250.00 $3,300.00 $3,650.00 $3,700.00 $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $4,250.00 $4,750.00 $5,000.00 $5,250.00Fireplaces$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fireplace Faces $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Mirrors$175.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $175.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 Shower Enclosures $375.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $375.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00Marble Counters $3,908.00 $3,908.00 $4,469.00 $4,692.00 $4,942.00 $3,908.00 $3,908.00 $4,469.00 $4,692.00 $4,942.00 $3,908.00 $4,692.00 $4,942.00Granite Counters $3,900.00 $4,000.00 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $3,900.00 $4,000.00 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 Tile Showers $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00Tile Floors@ Baths $1,600.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $1,600.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 $2,325.00 Hard Surface Flooring Allowance $3,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,000.00 $3,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,000.00Carpet Floors $800.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $800.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00Concrete Flatwork $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fencing $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Appliances$3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00Siding$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Garage Door Opener System $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Finish Grading $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Storm Drainage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Masonry Veneer apport $6,250.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $6,250.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00Rough Clean $1,550.00 $1,620.00 $1,650.00 $1,675.00 $1,700.00 $1,725.00 $1,550.00 $1,620.00 $1,650.00 $1,675.00 $1,700.00 $1,725.00 $1,750.00 $1,700.00 $1,725.00 Finish Clean $350.00 $400.00 $425.00 $475.00 $500.00 $525.00 $350.00 $400.00 $425.00 $475.00 $500.00 $525.00 $425.00 $500.00 $525.00Elevator$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Metal Stairs $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00railings$500.00 $1,200.00 $900.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $500.00 $1,200.00 $900.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $1,975.00 $2,450.00 $1,975.00Striping$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Underground Utilities $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 Total Build Cost $0.00 0 $171,765.00 $238,038.00 $242,578.00 $251,714.00 $258,067.00 $279,877.00 $148,675.00 $205,648.00 $203,378.00 $215,964.00 $214,167.00 $229,337.00 $226,453.00 $238,667.00 $254,362.00Cost Per SF $0.00 $174.91 $150.94 $150.67 $142.70 $143.37 $131.27 $151.40 $130.40 $126.32 $122.43 $118.98 $107.57 $140.65 $126.61 $119.31 Total SF Total Cost15,625 $1,793,032.50 25,357 $4,307,829.75 40,982 $6,100,862.25 Average Cost per SF Blended $148.87 Average Cost per SF Blended $175.26 First Floor- Ground Floor When Commercial & Residential is Built SeperatelyCommercial Only Residential Only RESIDENTIAL / 3-Story (Wood Frame) over COMMERCIAL (Podium Construction) RESIDENTIAL / 3-Story (Wood Frame), with surface parking Average Cost per SF I I MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG TEL: (213) 739-8206 August 29, 2020 VIA EMAIL Teri Delcamp, Principal Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Email: teri.delcamp@carlsbadca.gov Re: Marja Acres Residential Mixed-Use Project CT 16-07, PUD 16-09, PUD 2018-0007, SDP 2018-0001, CDP 16-33, HDP 16-02, SUP 16-02, EIR 2017-0001 Dear Ms. Delcamp: Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the Marja Acres residential mixed- use project. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments submitted in connection with the project. The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as “objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must err on the side of approving a project if the evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). Projects subject to modified standards pursuant to a density bonus are judged against the City’s standards as modified. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3). The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to that effect within 30 to 60 days after the application to develop the project is determined to be complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent ATTACHMENT 9 August 29, 2020 Page 2 with those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B). Based on the public record, it appears that the Marja Acres project was deemed complete well over 60 days ago, so if the City has not issued written findings otherwise, the project has been deemed consistent with the City’s land use standards by operation of law. If the City determines that a project is consistent with its standards, but nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II). Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue. For projects that provide housing for lower-income families, the Act is even more restrictive. In many cases, the City must approve such a project even if it fails to meet the City’s objective land use standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d). The Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L). When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ action under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i). August 29, 2020 Page 3 In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:  In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application.  In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform.  San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees. In other cases involving larger projects, localities have settled lawsuits by agreeing to approve the subject projects and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand 1140 South Coast Hwy 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 tel 760-942-8505 fax 760-942-8515 www.coastlawgroup.com August 18, 2020 Via Electronic Mail teri.delcamp@carlsbadca.gov Teri Delcamp Principal Planner Community & Economic Development Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: California Housing Accountability Act and Marja Acres Applicant -- NUWI Carlsbad, LLC Dear Ms. Delcamp: Coast Law Group LLP represents the above-referenced Applicant with respect to the proposed development of the Marja Acres property at 4901 El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad (the "Property"). The proposed project includes 299 housing units, 46 of which will be restricted for very-low and low income households, in addition to retail and recreational space (collectively, the "Project"). The purpose of this correspondence is to provide background information about the California Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5 ["HAA"]) and its application to the Project as it is considered by Carlsbad’s Planning Commission and City Council. I.PURPOSE OF THE HAA The California Legislature originally adopted the HAA in 1982, and it has amended it several times since, including annually since 2015. In the law’s current form, the Legislature expressly declares the following: •Lack of housing is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental,and social quality of life in California. (§ 65589.5(a)(1)(A).) •Excessive costs of constructing housing are in part caused by activities and policiesof local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land,and require payment of high fees and exactions by producers of housing. (§65589.5(a)(1)(B).) •Local governments often do not give adequate attention to the economic,environmental, and social costs of housing disapprovals, reductions in density, andexcessive standards. (§ 65589.5(a)(1)(D).) Ms. Teri Delcamp Principal Planner, City of Carlsbad HAA and Marja Acres Page 2 _________________________________ In addition to these findings, 2017 amendments to the HAA recognized the Legislature's intent in 1982 was to "significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled." (§65589.5(a)(2)(K).) To address this failure recent amendments have added specific requirements for local jurisdictions, discussed in greater detail below. Overall, the HAA makes clear the Legislature’s intention that it be interpreted to "to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing." (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) II.THE HAA APPLIES TO THE PROJECT While placing an emphasis on the production of subsidized affordable housing, the reach of the HAA is broad. Subsection (h)(2) defines "housing development project" to include: (A) Residential units only. (B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential andnonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footagedesignated for residential use. (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing. As City staff is aware, the Project clearly qualifies as a housing development project under the HAA. Moreover, given the Project’s affordability mix, it qualifies under subsection (h)(3) as providing "housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households." III.HAA IMPACTS ON PROJECT REVIEW In several ways, the HAA provides structure to local jurisdictions' review processes. The HAA sets requirements for local jurisdictions both in terms of timing and standards of review that must be applied to the Project as entitlements are processed. A.Timing of Project Consistency Determinations Section 65943 of the Permit Streamlining Act requires the City to take certain actions within 30 days of receipt of a development application. The City's failure to communicate the status of an application can result in the application being deemed complete as a matter of law. (Gov. Code § 65943(a)-(c).) Here, the City deemed the application for the Project complete as of December 24, 2018. Ms. Teri Delcamp Principal Planner, City of Carlsbad HAA and Marja Acres Page 3 _________________________________ Regarding timelines relevant to the Project after an application is deemed complete, several changes were made to the HAA in 2018. Most applicable here is the requirement that, if the City considered the Project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with any applicable City plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision, it was required to provide the Applicant written documentation identifying the provision or provisions -- and to explain the reason or reasons the City considered the Project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity -- within 60 days of the date the application for the housing development project was determined to be complete. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) No such documentation was provided to the applicant within this statutorily required timeframe. Therefore, as of February 22, 2019, the project was deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with all applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, and other similar provisions as a matter of law. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).) Further, Assembly Bill 3194, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, limits the City's discretion in making these threshold findings. To wit, a finding of inconsistency cannot be made if the project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria in effect February 22, 2019, even if zoning for the Project site is found inconsistent with the General Plan. (§ 65589.5(j)(4).) B.Standards of Review Beyond the requirements relating to the timing and substance of communications relating to the completeness of the Project Application, the HAA in subdivision (j) dictates that because the Project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, the City may not disapprove the Project or impose a condition that the Project be developed at a lower density unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence: •The Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.(As used, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, andunavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safetystandards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete); and, •There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact,other than the disapproval of the Project or the approval of the Project upon thecondition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1), emphasis added.) As further clarification, Assembly Bill 3194, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, provides that the "specific, adverse impact" basis to disapprove an HAA project shall "arise infrequently." (§ 65589.5(a)(3).) Ms. Teri Delcamp Principal Planner, City of Carlsbad HAA and Marja Acres Page 4 _________________________________ The Project’s draft Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Project was released on April 15, 2019. In the EIR, the City's consultants conclude that no significant impacts have been observed that cannot be mitigated. Therefore, there exists no factual basis for the City to make the required findings to disapprove the Project, or to impose a condition that Project approval requires reduced density, while abiding by the requirements of subdivision (j), noted above. In addition, HAA subdivision (d) further limits the City’s ability to deny the Project given that it includes units for lower income households: "a local agency shall not disapprove… or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate income households," unless it makes certain written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence. One such required finding is that the City has a compliant general plan housing element and has satisfied its RHNA obligations. The City remains well short of compliance with RHNA obligations to produce lower income housing in the current planning period and is therefore further constrained in its ability to deny the Project. (The remaining potential findings in subdivision (d)(2)-(5) are not applicable to the Project.) IV.CONCLUSION In addition to the foregoing, the HAA 2018 amendments include several provisions related to Applicant and community-initiated litigation under the Act. While we believe these changes should be reviewed by the City Attorney, we do not expect they will ultimately prove relevant considering the many positive and supportable aspects of the Project. Nonetheless, should City Planning Staff or the City Attorney desire to discuss these or any other provisions of the HAA and how they apply to the Project, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, COAST LAW GROUP LLP Marco A. Gonzalez Attorney for NUWI Carlsbad, LLC CC: Celia Brewer Carlsbad City Attorney Client From:Candy C To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Thursday, September 3, 2020 6:19:37 PM > Hello, I am writing because of my concern about the impact of Marja acres on the traffic and the school. With only one entrance and exit, it will be very dangerous. Traffic going north on El Camino Real will have to do aUturn. Morning drop off for Kelly school will be quite a mess. I oppose the density of this project, the lack ofguest parking, and lack of open space. Where did the garden and dog parks go?> I hope Carlsbad planners know better than to approve this ‘as is’.>> Candy ChesnutCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:robert gilbert To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres development Date:Thursday, September 3, 2020 8:09:29 PM The density planned for this development is going to cause traffic accidents El Camino Real. Hundreds of U-turns everyday. Robert Gilbert Carlsbad citizen 1956 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Lucy Lin To:Planning Subject:MARJA ACRES - will become a regretful mistake Date:Saturday, September 5, 2020 11:16:27 PM Hello Carlsbad Planning Commission, Although I am a relatively new resident of Carlsbad, I grew up in the Bay Area and can attest to the fact that many high density housing with commercial building units do not deliverwhat's promised for the citizens or cities. High-density housing materials are usually inferior to cut costs which means that these new flashy communities end up looking run down andfalling apart very quickly. The lack of parking makes these communities a nightmare to live and work in, and lead to many new car and pedestrian accidents. These are the types of unitsthat end up being rented out by the owners as soon as possible or used as Airbnb properties which then drive up rent and housing prices for all of the wrong reasons. You may not be ableto prevent the Marja Acres plan from going through, but please don't allow the city to be overrun by these pesky communities that are ugly fire hazards, suffocating, and horrible forthe wildlife. I am a believer in affordable housing, even if it drives down my own home's value, however, I want our city to be healthy and thriving long-term, not sold to the developerswho only want what's best for their wallets. They don't care about our city's well-being or helping our underprivileged citizens, but I hope that you do. Sincerely,Lucy CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Bret Schanzenbach To:Planning Subject:Read into record – Support for Majra Acres Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 2:21:29 PM Attachments:image001.png Please read into record: Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Bret Schanzenbach and I am writing today as the CEO of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce in support of Marja Acres, a mixed-use project to include 248 townhomes and 46 affordable apartments for extremely low and low incomes. As a chamber, one of our missions is to support the growth of the region’s economy and a vital part of that growth is having enough housing for our employees. The current supply in Carlsbad is not meeting this need. Marja Acres will be located right on El Camino Real near mass transit, shopping and tangential to our major business park. These entry level workforce housing units are key to increasing the supply needed to keep the price point attainable for our workers. The affordable senior units are also critical. This project fulfills such a big need in our city and New Urban West has worked diligently to engage with the community, modify the project and bring forward this high-quality development. We urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Bret J. Schanzenbach President & CEO | Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Restricted or Confidential. This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Tracy Seemann To:Planning Cc:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres - To be read aloud at Planning Commission Meeting Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 9:06:11 PM Dear Planning Commissioners: I live in Loma Lagnua, the neighborhood adjacent to Marja Acres' southern border.Since the Spring of 2017, my neighbors and I have worked with Jonathan Frankel ofNew Urban West (NUW) to address and mitigate our privacy concerns. We heldnumerous neighborhood gatherings with Jonathan. In response to the concerns myneighbors and I expressed, NUW agreed to: Remove the pedestrian connection that was originally proposed between MarjaAcres and Park Drive Eliminate the first and second rows of rooftop decks nearest our Park Drive neighbors Build a solid 6ft split faced masonry wall (rather than a wooden fence) to buffernoise and light pollution eliminate the optional roll-up/carport options on townhouses to insure the twocar garage was available for parking eliminate optional kitchenettes from ground floor plans to discourage rentals lower the grading along our shared border to reduce/minimize the visual impactof the townhouses incorporate neighbors preferences regarding landscaping along our sharedborder. NUW made, and continues to make, a good faith effort to address our privacyconcerns. My personal goal in helping facilitate the neighborhood interactions withNUW was to create a win-win. As long as the above agreements are kept, I supportthe project. Although some of us still have concerns about the number of housing units and thetraffic impacts on the El Camino Real...we would prefer numbers closer to the 233units originally proposed, instead of 296...that is something the City PlanningCommission and Council members must decide for our community. Lastly, I would liketo ask that the City prohibit short term rentals in Marja Acres, as well as first storyrental units in the townhouses (due to limited parking and noise concerns). Perhapsthese last two requests should be addressed in the CC&R's. Sincerely, Tracy Seemann Tracy Seemann4907 Via ArequipaCarlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Karen Campbell To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:58:16 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am writing in support of Marja Acres. My husband and I are both seniors who would love to move closer to our grandchildren. The cost of housing and our incomes however cannot affordus that opportunity in Carlsbad. Not only are housing prices getting out of control, but so is the price of childcare. I would like to be able to be more involved and more helpful with mygrandchildren to help out my kids. This project's intergeneration concept is really great and makes me excited about the opportunities Carlsbad could offer. I don't want to be secluded butI also need something more affordable to be able to relocate. Thank you for your consideration. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Eric Northbrook To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Support Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:58:17 AM Dear Planning Commission, Today, I am writing in support of Marja Acres because this project supports my short and long-term goals. I am mid-way into my career, and I love what I do. I am fortunate to work inthe City of Carlsbad but not fortunate enough to also live there. Instead, I spend roughly three hours commuting to and from work each day. I am excited about Marja Acres because I seethis project as a real opportunity for me to live where I work and, in a city, that I love. Having the opportunity to spend less time in the car will significantly improve my quality of life andallow me to invest in my community. Please support the Marja Acres project. Thank you, Eric Northbrook CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Curtis Wayne To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:58:19 AM Dear Planning Commission, *Please read into the hearing record* As a senior living with little income I am constantly looking for more affordable housing options, because they are very difficult to find here in Carlsbad. My family and mygrandchildren live here and it is important to me to stay close to them. I support Marja Acres because this project is meant to help the community thrive by creating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low-income housing for seniors, likeme. There is also great amenities like park space, community activities and an urban farm. Complemented with a balance of retail, Marja Acres will welcome a blend of families, seniors,and individuals to enjoy all that Carlsbad has to offer. Please vote yes for Marja Acres. Thank you, Curtis Wayne CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Curtis Wayne To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 9:33:34 AM Dear Planning Commission, *Please read into the hearing record* As a senior living with little income I am constantly looking for more affordable housing options, because they are very difficult to find here in Carlsbad. My family and mygrandchildren live here and it is important to me to stay close to them. I support Marja Acres because this project is meant to help the community thrive by creating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low-income housing for seniors, likeme. There is also great amenities like park space, community activities and an urban farm. Complemented with a balance of retail, Marja Acres will welcome a blend of families, seniors,and individuals to enjoy all that Carlsbad has to offer. Please vote yes for Marja Acres. Thank you, Curtis Wayne CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Barbara To:Planning Subject:"Marja Acres Planning Commission TO BE READ AT THE COMMISSION 9/16/20" Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 6:28:33 AM Marja Acres Planning Commission Meeting Sept 16, 2020 Dear City Council and Planning Commission I am a long-time resident of Carlsbad and have been concerned about the Marja Acres Development and its effect upon the residents of our community. I was reading the EIR, and several items were of concern. 1. The EIR 5.3-13 and questions raised by the public, IND 62.26 states that “the project is subject to SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. This rule requires that the project take steps to restrict visible emissions of dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule would limit fugitive dust (PM10 Y PM2.5) generated during grading and construction activities. NO MONITORING IS PROPOSED AS COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 55 would effectively reduce dust from the construction activities.” My question is: if the Marja Acres project us subject to SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, why isn’t being monitored? Indeed dust will be generated and the nearby residents will be forced to breathe the dust from the construction. 2. A 6ft. split level masonry wall is being proposed for the project. It was stated in the EIR IND 4-3 “Certain construction activities such as remedial grading and new slopes (etc) will need to be completed prior to the construction of the wall.”My questions are: --[if !supportLists]-->a) This explanation is vague. Exactly when in the timeline (weeks, months) can the wall be built, in other words, besides a remedial removal of plants and trees along the southern border and some basic leveling of the soil to prepare for the footings, why wouldn’t this wall be a top priority so that residents to the south would be protected from dust, noise, and other pollutants?  --[if !supportLists]-->b) How is the proposed “mesh fencing” an adequate protectant from dust and noise?   If my questions cannot be answered in this meeting could someone from the City please provide answers to the public in writing? Thank you, Barbara Campbell Alder Ave. 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:Jen Rich <jmrfunder@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 6:04 PM To:Planning Cc:Council Internet Email; Manager Internet Email; Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Project: Request to be Read into the Record at the Planning Commission Public Hearing Scheduled for September 16, 2020 Attachments:Marja Acres Final EIR - Comment Letter.pdf Please read the following comment into the record at the Planning Commission Public Hearing: Members of the Planning Commission, This email concerns the Marja Acres Project. We are homeowners that live adjacent to the proposed project site. Since we are limited to 500 words to be read into the record, we summarized our major concerns below and provided a more detailed summary in the attachment. After reviewing the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments in the Final EIR, we continue to believe the characterization of the project site is woefully inadequate. It is disappointing that despite our comments, outlined in our May 29, 2019 comment letter addressed to City Planning staff, which clearly show there has been a lack of characterization at the project site, no additional characterization is planned. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Final EIR, Appendix F) concluded there was “no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Property” and that “no further investigation appears to be warranted at this time.” This conclusion is not surprising given the following:  Only 20 soil borings were taken over the 20+ acre project site, even though the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision) dated August 7, 2008 recommends 30 borings. Please note that the Response to Comments on the Final EIR cite the 2008 DTSC Interim Guidance in regards to the soil sampling methodology utilized at the project site.  No biased, discrete sampling was conducted in areas where contamination would likely be present.  No samples were taken in the known pesticide storage areas, and it does not appear samples were taken in the known hazardous substances/chemical storage areas.  No soil samples were taken in the driplines of the pre-1978 buildings and structures (existing or formerly demolished), where one would expect to find elevated lead levels from lead-based paint.  Soil samples were not analyzed for paraquat, a highly toxic weed killer (herbicide). Given the historical information provided, soil samples should have been analyzed for a broader number of constituents, including paraquat. We strongly believe further investigation is warranted, and that there is insufficient information to make the determination that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials/substances into the environment. Without proper characterization, it is impossible to determine the extent of contamination at the project site, and whether or not appropriate mitigation measures have been identified that would ensure the protection of human health (construction workers, people living near the project site, and future residents) and the environment. 2 We appreciate the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, which are incorporated into the Final EIR, and we hope you will consider these additional comments, as well as the more detailed comments in the attachment, prior to certifying the EIR or making any final decisions on the Marja Acres Project. Sincerely, Jennifer Rich and Greg Funderburk Park Drive Homeowners CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:Mandy Day <mandynday@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 6:28 PM To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Planning Commission To: The Esteemed Members of the Carlsbad Planning Commission My name is Amanda Day and I have been a resident of the Loma Laguna neighborhood for my entire life. As the city has grown in my 35 years, our neighborhood has changed very little. Many residents have lived in Loma Laguna for decades. Homes don't often go up for sale and our community has remained a quiet, welcoming place where we look out for one another. Development has never been something I have personally opposed and I welcome affordable housing allowing residents of all income levels to enjoy the safety and opportunity of my hometown. The project proposal for Marja Acres has long worried myself and residents of my neighborhood. We all have differing reasons why we oppose such a large housing development. I take issue with the density of the housing project proposed for the site. One such concern is Kelly Drive sees a large amount of runoff from precipitation and paving over more soil is bound to make the potential for flooding of the culvert running adjacent to Kelly Drive more likely, risking homes on Kelly Drive. With climate change rapidly creating unpredictable weather and seasons, we cannot be sure that our region won't be affected with more intense rainfall, something we have witnessed in recent years. A smaller development with much more open space could appease the worry many residents have of flooding risk and runoff pollution. The proposed development does not address the need for widespread affordable housing in Carlsbad and a few dozen age restricted apartments does not provide an opportunity for low income residents, many who rely on public transportation, to enjoy the privileges of living here. The site has great access to mass transit and that should be considered when approving new development. Kelly Elementary School is a fantastic environment for children to learn and grow. A safe and stable educational environment is critical to our city's economic success and opening the door to people of all income levels would only benefit our city and its children. As I've witnessed the city gentrify, it has increasingly become a place where middle and low income residents feel less welcome. Carlsbad is less diverse and that has been one of my biggest disappointments with my beloved hometown. We have constantly fought the perception that we are just like coastal Orange County, yet we are becoming them. As the Robertson Ranch development took shape, our neighborhood has experienced a substantial increase in noise and light pollution. It is not uncommon to hear cars racing down the road in the middle of the night. Turnover in homeownership on Park Drive has increased significantly and I believe it is not unrelated to the constant barrage of sounds echoing off the hill the developers built so their overpriced apartments could have a "view". Paired with the unpredictable and nightly flyovers of private and corporate jets, the quality of life in our slow-paced community has decreased and adding hundreds, if not thousands, of car trips along El Camino Real daily is likely to make things much worse. My other concern is that the segment of El Camino Real between Kelly Dr. and Lisa St. has had a number of fatalities over the years. Often it is of a pedestrian being killed while crossing the busy street in the dark. Adding hundreds of residents within a hundred yards of the road is bound to be more dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians. With the speed in which cars drive on El Camino Real, I fear that more lives will be lost with more frequency if we do not plan the site properly and with more care. I met with the leadership from New Urban West with longtime residents of Loma Laguna a couple years ago. I found them to be personable but not willing to make significant changes to their development to address the issues of residents of Loma Laguna unless they were met with significant and vocal opposition. Had residents not been paying close attention to the alterations being made to each plan, I doubt any of our initial concerns would have been addressed. Many of us would love to see a smaller development that blends in with the neighborhoods around the project while meeting the privacy needs our neighborhood has come to expect. Residents know that the existing 2 structure on Marja Acres needs replacement due to age and structural integrity. We just want something that will not significantly decrease our quality of life. While some of my neighbors might not share my desire for an affordable housing community, I hope the planning commission considers the needs of the non-wealthy before approving a proposal that will be exclusionary to most people because of price. The site has such potential if in the right hands. I am not confident that New Urban West's plan for Marja Acres will be beneficial to the city or its residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Amanda Day CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:hopen51@att.net Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:29 PM To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Planning Commission to be read at the meeting We are greatly distressed by the plans for Marja Acres. We are afraid this does not contribute to Carlsbad in the way that it should. In a nutshell: Cars and traffic: No driveways but 2 car garages for townhomes, less than 0.5 parking spaces per townhome along the road, no guest parking lot and only 1 parking spot for each of the Senior affordable apartments raise questions. What happens to families with young drivers? Where do they park? What about guests, caregivers, delivery services, etcetera? It seems the development is designed to move folks from cars to public transportation but the development is over a half mile away from any transportation hub. Bus transportation is poor in this area of Carlsbad. This project needs adequate parking for the cars that will be in the development. Alternately, face the fact that the project does not belong here but would be better served if it were in a more urban setting with adequate public transportation. This project has neither adequate parking nor adequate public transportation. Additionally, the only way to access the project driving North on El Camino Real will be to travel past the development to Kelly Street, then make a U-turn at the signal and head back South. El Camino Real just south of this area is failing. Assuming the additional traffic AND the necessity of the U-turn to get to the development is going to further stress El Camino Real and the already failing El Camino Real/Cannon Road intersection, making it an impossible thorofare. Project density: This project started at 233 housing units broken out as follows: 35 Senior affordable apartments 15 Accessory dwelling units 32 Single family homes 151 Market rate townhomes 233 Total units Currently this project is 294 housing units, an added 61 units, broken out as follows: 46 Affordable housing units compared to the 50 above 0 Accessory dwelling units 0 Single family homes 248 Market rate townhomes 294 Total units This project has more total units and less affordable housing than when it started planning. What Carlsbad is desperate for is affordable housing. Additionally, this is the wrong location for the proposed density. 2 I understand this project may meet the most basic legal requirements. At the same time, you must recognize that, if built as proposed, the plan Simply Does Not Work. I urge you to deny the project as it is now proposed. This is not a good fit for the location or for Carlsbad. Sincere thanks for your consideration, Hope and Vince Nelson 20 year Carlsbad residents living near El Camino Real and Cannon Road CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:Mary-Lou Kiley <kiley410@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:39 PM To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Carlsbad Planning Commission, Thank you for considering citizen input regarding the development of Marja Acres. Assuming the development will proceed, my concerns are the following: * the current density plan exceeds the number of units initially approved * there needs to be more senior housing in the plan * the traffic on El Camino Real! We have not yet seen the full effect of the traffic impact from Robertson Ranch due to continued construction and telecommuting with coronavirus. I dread adding more cars to El Camino Real. Also, I am concerned about the access route into the development that would necessitate a u-turn on El Camino Real, adding to traffic woes. I urge you to review carefully the proposed density and recommend only the smallest number of units that meet the parameters of the project. Mary-Lou Kiley 3437 Moon Field Dr Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:gbunny@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:07 AM To:Planning Subject:MARJA ACRES - TO BE READ ALOUD AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Dear Planning Commission: Please require the applicant for the Marja Acres project to revise their plans. This project is ill-suited for the area and will create irreversible damage to parking and traffic flow. 1) Choose the State Density Bonus over Carlsbad's Inclusionary Housing ordinance, just to cram in as many units as possible, does not solve our housing problem. We don't need more "luxury apartments". The developer's original plans called for more affordable units, 2 dog parks, and an organic garden. The dog parks, garden, and much of the affordable portion are now gone from the plans. The density does not fit in the area. The developer has called the area "urban" - which is not true. 2) Parking plans do not provide even close to adequate parking. 2 car garages with 0.5 spaces of visitor parking per unit? And 1 space per senior unit, with no visitor spaces for those units? What happens when a senior has a caregiver, relative, home health person, housekeeper, handyman, etc. visit? "Overflow" parking on Kelly Dr. is not acceptable. Please require a Transportation Coordinator to be appointed by the HOA (and paid for by the $$ collected from the developer for using the VMT requirement), as has been done in other local communities, to require that all Marja Acres vehicles stay within the confines of Marja Acres and that no one parks in the fire lanes. 3) Project is not near a transit hub. The 309 bus comes once per half hour weekdays, once per hour weekends. The true transit hub is the transit center by the mall, where these units would work much better. 4) Traffic studies are flawed. Staff arbitrarily allowed the VMT to be used, rather than LOS which was the standard used when this project was studied. The LOS study was also flawed - these intersections would be failing if the study had been done correctly. I believe they also conducted studies when Kelly School was not in session, which is deceptive and dishonest. The left turn lane at Kelly will fail. This will create a safety issue for children crossing ECR from the West Ranch area, and also for cars turning left at Kelly to take children to school. Please require this applicant to do their due diligence. The project is unacceptable as submitted. Thank you. Diane Bedrosian Carlsbad resident - District 2 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:Leticia Almaguer <Leticia.Almaguer.359832181@p2a.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 9:43 AM To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Dear Carlsbad Planning Commissioners & City Counci -Please read into the record- We live directly behind the proposed Marja Acres project off of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive. Many years ago, we liked the neighbor-centric feel of the businesses operating there; however, in the past 5+ years most have deferred maintenance and have lost a lot of appeal for our neighborhood to use and no longer have good neighborhood benefits. After we heard that New Urban West had won a bid to redevelop the land, we were weary of what this will mean for our quiet neighborhood. New Urban West began reaching out to all of us about 3 years ago. They held numerous meetings and workshops to get our input and provide up-to-date information. Most importantly, they listened and changed their design many times to accommodate our neighbor’s requests. We feel that that the design is neighbor-sensitive and is a good compromise to build the best project for the area. We are looking forward to new local shops, restaurant, green spaces and the urban farm. We know there are some concerns over the density of the townhomes, but we feel that this is necessary to help the housing need in Carlsbad and North County. We appreciate the time New Urban West has taken to meet us, listen and change their design for Marja Acres. Sincerely, Leticia & Tom Almaguer 4936 Park Drive CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:Vanessa Cadena <Vanessa.Cadena.358794284@p2a.co> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 6:37 PM To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families, seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute from another city. Sincerely, Vanessa Cadena CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Planning From:Blake Boyer <bmboyer@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:04 AM To:Planning Subject:To be read at the Planning Commission meeting-Marja Acres Attachments:Marja Easement.jpg Marja Acres Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2020 Hello, I am a stakeholder and my home directly backs up to the Marja Acres Development. I have been actively engaged with my neighbors and have attended the meetings hosted with the developer. It is my goal to protect our neighborhood and quality of life during construction and beyond The developer made several important promises to us in the neighborhood, listed below: 1. Townhomes directly behind our community will not have rooftop decks for the first two units directly adjacent to the homes along Park Drive. 2. No short-term rentals in the Marja Acres Community and that this will be written into the CC&Rs of the HOA. 3. First level of the market rate town homes will not contain renters or be divided into separate living units which will require more parking in the project. 4. Two car garage parking for the market rate townhomes cannot be opened as a carport thus allowing more living space and less parking. 5. A 6ft masonry wall will be built along the property line to divide the two communities as per city law, but mainly to provide a noise and privacy barrier to keep noise levels at a minimum afterward. Our neighborhood will be directly affected with the noise and pollutants of construction and would like to strongly request that the 6ft. masonry wall be built first to minimize effect on our neighborhood. It’s been brought to my attention that on the developer map submitted to the City, a 3ft easement would be needed before the downward slope. That easement is incorrect and marked with a red arrow (attached). Per the city manual, the easement is 5ft at the eastern portion of the development and decreases to 4ft at the western side of the development nearest the neighborhood of Park Court. The map has yet to be corrected. I would like these details to be noted by the Planning Commission and ask that a condition of approval allow the masonry wall be built to allow for the years of construction that will undoubtedly affect our health and quality of life. Noise is considered a stressor, especially the long term 3-year construction proposed. The Noise Guidelines Manual (July 2013) references important guidelines as it relates to the importance of community noise, maintaining certain decibel ranges and how it affects our quality of life. During this period of construction, the residents along the Marja Acres border will be severely impacted. In an unprecedented time of pandemic, many of us now work from home, remain in our homes and backyards more than ever and will be exposed to undue stressors. I ask our decision makers in the Planning Commission to consider granting our request. From the Noise Guidelines Manual “State law requires local governments to address noise issues in their planning process. To fulfill this responsibility, the state grants local significant powers to control noise producing activity and to reduce or eliminate noise “problems” primarily by controlling land use.” Thank you, Blake Boyer, Stakeholder 4956 Park Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Diane Nygaard To:Planning Cc:Teri Delcamp Subject:Comments On # 1 Marja Acres for Planning Commission Sept. 16,2020 Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:35:24 AM Please read these comments into the record: Honorable Chair and Commission On days like today with wildfires ravaging California and Oregon and the gulf states reelingfrom hurricanes it is clear that the time to address the climate crisis is right now. Of course a project of this size will generate a lot of Green House Gasses. While we disagreewith some of the details, we appreciate that the developer of Marja Acres went back and did athorough review and the project has incorporated specific mitigation for these impacts. But these are not just one time impacts- they will continue for the life of the project. The only assurances that you and the public have that these impacts, are actually addressed isthe Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. But four key mitigation measures for GHG are not properly addressed in the MMRP. TR- 1 Ridesharing, TR- 2 Subsidized Transit Passes, and TR- 3 Commute Trip Reduction areverified one time only - prior to the certificate of occupancy. Then it is assumed that annualreports by a volunteer Transportation Coordinator of the HOA will take care of this for yearsto come. That provides no real assurances that the required reductions in GHG continueevery year for the life of the project. The exact amount of the GHG reductions that arerequired are not even written into this. That makes it impossible for the city's own TDMCoordinator to determine if what has been done is in compliance or not. Also the EIR assumed a reduction in GHG because of planting 1,382 trees that will last forthe life of the project. There is no mechanism in place to monitor that and ensure those treesare all still there. Mitigation measures are meaningless unless they are monitored and enforced. The languagein the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program needs to be revised to ensure that thesemeasures are not just looked at once- they will last for the life of the project. Please fix thistoday. Failure to do so will force our children and grandchildren to live with our mistakes. Diane NygaardOn behalf of Preserve Calavera CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:maryanneviney@dslextreme.com To:Planning Cc:Teri Delcamp Subject:Agenda # 1 Public Comment on Marja Acres; Planning CommissionMeeting: Sept. 16,2020 Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:59:37 AM Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission Members, I would echo the concerns in comments made by Diane Nygaard on behalf of Preserve Calavera, regardingGreenhouse Gases (GHGs). Please consider improving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program language to include that the mitigationmeasures are evaluated for the lifetime of the project. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely,Mary Anne Viney CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kris Wright To:Planning Subject:To be read at the Planning Commission meeting for Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:34:58 AM Marja Acres Planning Commission Sept 16, 2020 As a stakeholder and resident of Loma Laguna, located on the southern border of the project, I’d like to support the letter dated 9/15/20 to the Planning Commission from my neighbors, the Funderbunks. In addition to their comments regarding the soil analysis in the final EIR, there are additional comments that I’d like to put on the record and for consideration at this hearing. After reviewing the EIR, it is noted that only 20 soil borings were taken for sampling over the 20+ acre site even though the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) recommends 30 borings. In addition the EIR states that at each of the 20 sites, two borings were taken per site, one at the surface of the soil and the other at a depth of approximately 3ft. Only the surface boring was analyzed and the EIR concluded that the analysis for the deeper, 3ft boring was unnecessary since the surface soil samplings showed no toxicity. There were simply no analysis or results for the deeper borings! The EIR fails to recognize that the soil has been farmed since the 1950’s and that the chemicals and pesticides will sediment into the soil and into the groundwater, 14-17ft below the soil surface. Since the area has not been farmed for the last 5 years it is not surprising that any surface contaminants simply leached into the nearby culvert along Kelly Drive. Therefore, I request that the Planning Commission instruct that the soil sampling be repeated with the guidelines of the DTSC, with 30 soil borings that are sampled and tested both at the surface and at the three ft level where contamination is likely, such as known pesticide and hazardous substance storage areas and at the driplines of the pre-1978 buildings and structures where there would be a likelihood of increased levels of lead-based paint. In addition, known herbicides such as paraquat should be sampled and tested as well. In my own letter to the EIR dated May 25, 2019, (EIR 0.2.85) I requested that sediment and receiving water risk be determined associated with the construction site given the project location as well as receiving water risks in the riparian area, west of the project as well as the major receiving waters body (the Agua Hedionda Lagoon). In addition, I requested testing for “gasoline products, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and pesticides” listed in tabular format and for underground chemical and gasoline storage tanks to be located and the immediate area tested. I have documentation that toxaphene was found in excess of CA-EPA standards on the nearby Robertson Ranch, and it is very likely that this chemical will be found in deeper soil borings. Please consider these important requests. Thank you Kris Wright 4902 Via Arequipa Carlsbad. -- Kris Wrightkriswrt222@gmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kris Wright To:Planning Subject:Re: To be read at the Planning Commission meeting for Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:57:49 PM I am so sorry, Teri. Please read the one I submitted yesterday. The one submitted today can be put in the public record. Thank you! Kris On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:47 PM Planning <Planning@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Hello, Please clarify which comments you want to be read during the hearing? You submitted twoand there is a 3-minute limit for an individual public comment. The one attached wasreceived yesterday. Thank you. From: Kris Wright <kriswrt222@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:35 AMTo: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>Subject: To be read at the Planning Commission meeting for Marja Acres Marja Acres Planning Commission Sept 16, 2020 As a stakeholder and resident of Loma Laguna, located on the southern border of the project, I’d like to support the letter dated 9/15/20 to the Planning Commission from my neighbors, the Funderbunks. In addition to their comments regarding the soil analysis in the final EIR, there are additional comments that I’d like to put onthe record and for consideration at this hearing. After reviewing the EIR, it is noted that only 20 soil borings were taken forsampling over the 20+ acre site even though the Dept. of Toxic SubstancesControl (DTSC) recommends 30 borings. In addition the EIR states that at each of the 20 sites, two borings were taken persite, one at the surface of the soil and the other at a depth of approximately3ft. Only the surface boring was analyzed and the EIR concluded that the analysis for the deeper, 3ft boring was unnecessary since the surface soil samplings showed no toxicity. There were simply no analysis or results for thedeeper borings! The EIR fails to recognize that the soil has been farmed since the 1950’s and that the chemicals and pesticides will sediment into the soil and into the groundwater,14-17ft below the soil surface. Since the area has not been farmed for the last 5years it is not surprising that any surface contaminants simply leached into the nearby culvert along Kelly Drive. Therefore, I request that the Planning Commission instruct that the soil samplingbe repeated with the guidelines of the DTSC, with 30 soil borings that are sampled and tested both at the surface and at the three ft level where contamination is likely, such as known pesticide and hazardous substance storage areas and at the driplines of the pre-1978 buildings and structures where therewould be a likelihood of increased levels of lead-based paint. In addition, known herbicides such as paraquat should be sampled and tested as well. In my own letter to the EIR dated May 25, 2019, (EIR 0.2.85) I requested thatsediment and receiving water risk be determined associated with the construction site given the project location as well as receiving water risks in the riparian area, west of the project as well as the major receiving waters body (the Agua Hedionda Lagoon). In addition, I requested testing for “gasoline products, insecticides,fungicides, herbicides and pesticides” listed in tabular format and for underground chemical and gasoline storage tanks to be located and the immediate area tested. I have documentation that toxaphene was found in excess of CA-EPA standards on the nearby Robertson Ranch, and it is very likely that this chemical will be foundin deeper soil borings. Please consider these important requests. Thank you Kris Wright 4902 Via Arequipa Carlsbad. -- Kris Wright kriswrt222@gmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. -- Kris Wright kriswrt222@gmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Steve Linke To:Planning Subject:Comment to be read at this afternoon"s public hearing on Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:58:46 PM I have studied Carlsbad traffic issues for nine years and am a Traffic and Mobility Commissioner, but I am commenting individually. It is your commission’s duty to reject both resolutions in their current form due to material inadequacies in the traffic-based findings and the lack of a transparent public review process. They should be fixed and brought back later. Regarding Resolution 7381 for the EIR, the original level of service traffic study was fatally flawed and deceptively claimed the project would have no impact on congestion. Staff subsequently allowed the developer to switch to the vehicle miles traveled approach before the VMT rule went into effect, giving the developer exclusive early access to a draft method that was incomplete and had not been publicly reviewed. The rules in effect should have been applied. Also, the project VMT was calculated with a “black box” modeling approach. Although a SANDAG travel model was used, non-SANDAG post-modeling scripts were clearly used, because the results are disturbingly different. Yet, the traffic consultant refused to provide the raw SANDAG model outputs, the source of the post-modeling scripts, and the scripts themselves for transparency purposes. This is the very first VMT analysis for Carlsbad, and this sets a bad precedent. The VMT mitigation plan is also inadequate. Its success relies heavily on the future development of a commercial area in Robertson Ranch that has sat vacant for years and is not under the control of Marja Acres. The plan also relies on the local bus system, which currently offers infrequent service with almost no ridership. Monitoring and a back-up mitigation plan must be included, in case the Robertson Ranch site is not developed or bus usage does not materialize. And regarding Resolution 7382 for the GMP and General Plan, the findings are based on the so- called Local Mobility Analysis. I was finally provided the LMA just 24 hours before this meeting and am very troubled. Projects are allowed to subtract existing traffic when predicting their new added traffic. In the EIR portion of the application, 700 daily trips were subtracted based on actual traffic counts at the driveways, but, for the LMA, the traffic consultant altered the traffic generation table by more than tripling the subtracted trips to 2,133 using artificial estimates. Using the artificial data, they reduced the project’s predicted new trips from 2,334 down to only 901 per day—a ridiculously low number. That corrupts all of the subsequent level of service and intersection analyses that form the foundation of the findings you are being asked to approve. Traffic mitigation in the EIR is only a 10% reduction in VMT, which is not sufficient to mitigate the over 2,000 new daily trips to be added to the already GMP-deficient El Camino Real and Cannon Road. Thus, the LMA and its mitigation plan need to be revised and undergo actual public review. Reject these shenanigans and both resolutions. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Diana River To:Planning Subject:Re: Marja Acres - Public Comment Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:24:50 PM September 16, 2020 Carlsbad Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing to you today to express my concerns of how the complex like Marja Acres will affect senior citizens. 1. I understand that it is a Carlsbad City policy that Senior Housing be builtnear public transit. This complex is located in an area that current onlyhas two bus lines that run infrequently. While this is Public Transit, it doesnot satisfy the timing and frequency needs of those seniors who need toshop, go to the Senior Center, keep their doctor appointment, attendmass, access recreation areas like the Village and the beach areas. 2. The Location of Marja Acres is not Walkable. Those seniors who do nothave access to their vehicles will be isolated in area surround the complexand no where else of interest to go. 3. The Dog Park and the Vegetable Gardens have been illuminated. Thiscould have been a welcomed addition not only to seniors but to allresidence. This would have been a lovely way to add needed Open Spaceto the Complex. And, Complex owners have not updated their Marketingads to reflect that these are no longer a part of the complex amenities. 4. While there are 46 senior apartment units in this complex, there are only47 parking spaces. Seniors have a need for additional parking spaces forvisiting family, friends and other service provides. With only one extra parking space in the Senior Complex, I do not see any other provision forparking for Senior guests or services that may need. People visiting theSenior Complex will have park elsewhere and walk to the designatedlocation. 5. And for me, worst of all is that residence have to enter the Complexcoming from the South: The design to access entry to the complex is verydangerous. Having to access the complex coming from the South by taking a left hand turn off of the El Camino Real is not acceptable for anyresident. 6. Building another complex like Marja Acres in an area that already has aexcess amount of housing will only increase our traffic congestion on theEl Camino Real. For every one and especially for Seniors having tonavigate El Camino Real in any direction especially during peak hours is abad model. Thank you for your attention, Sincerely, Diane Rivera 92008 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Jack Royba To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:04:43 PM Dear Planning Commission, -Read into the hearing record- I support Marja Acres because it will be the first residential project in the city to offer free transit passes to its residents. Sustainability and accessibility are important for the future ofCarlsbad. These passes can be utilized with all regional transportation services including NCTD breeze buses to rail lines and even the MTS Trolley Service. I support this project as itfocuses on the goal to reduce car trips, road congestion, and working towards reducing our carbon footprint. Planning Commissioners and City Council, I urge you to approve MarjaAcres as this is the type of sustainable, forward-thinking project that we need in Carlsbad. Jack Royba CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Eric Armstrong To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:05:01 PM Dear Planning Commission, -Please Read into the Record- I would like you to know that fully support the proposed Marja Acres project in the City of Carlsbad. There is a huge need for workforce housing and unfortunately, I see the struggleslocal employees and family members have to endure as it relates to housing. From our engineers to our technicians, it is our priority to make a positive impact both in the lives of our employees and our community. We were fortunate to be able to buy our home in Carlsbad in 1991 before prices ran up to whatthey are today. I see the value that Marja Acres will provide by creating attainable work-force housing for the city’s employees – from engineers to teachers. Their sustainable design willallow for more people who work in Carlsbad and live closer to their place of employment cutting down commute times, time away from family and reducing our carbon footprint. In myline of work, I constantly see challenges related to housing, whether it is from blue-collar employees who have to commute from Riverside or reoccurring challenges in recruitment as itrelates to housing. We need to continue to encourage responsible community projects that build opportunities for our future workforce. Please join me in support of Marja Acres. Sincerely, Eric Armstrong2817 La Nevasca Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Lenska Bracknell To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:05:22 PM Dear Planning Commission, -Read into record- I am writing to you today in support of Marja Acres, a mixed-use project proposed by New Urban West on El Camino Real. Our region and our city continue to face housing challenges. People want to work where they live, and we often hear business leaders describing thedifficulties they face attracting and retaining employees due to the lack of housing opportunities in our region. This project is designed in a way that makes new, moderntownhomes attainable. Clustering homes near employment centers and near neighborhoods that already exist is a great way to improve climate action goals, reduce commutes and complement the communitycharacter. Marja Acres would be a welcomed asset to our City, please vote yes. Sincerely, Lenska Bracknell CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Pat Setter To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:05:46 PM Dear Planning Commission, *Read into record, please Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families,seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute fromanother city. San Diego County faces a severe housing shortage, and a well throught out plan with transit oriented services connecting to mass transit options assures the city of homeowners at MarjaAcres able to enjoy living in Carlsbad no matter where they work. Our housing situation has caused many residents priced out of the housing market, and adding inventory is hte only way to help alleviate that Sincerely, Pat Setter CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Joanna Keeping To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:05:51 PM Dear Planning Commission, -Please read into the record- Marja Acres is the right decision for Carlsbad. Not only is the project sustainably designed in an area served by transit, Marja Acres will provide new opportunities for people to live closerto where they work, go to school, and/or meet up with their friends and family. I support the project’s plan to give free and subsidized transit passes to its residents to encourage transit use and provides seniors a free option to travel independently. I support 20% of the Marja Acres’ units reserved for affordable senior housing. Theseaffordable homes provide extremely low to low income seniors an option to live in a vibrant and amenity-centered community that may otherwise be unavailable to them. The communityevents and senior services that Marja Acres will facilitate adds to the project’s thoughtful planning. I support including attainably priced townhomes that allows middle-class workingprofessionals to able to stay in San Diego county, instead of being priced out due to a lack of housing supply. 300 new households can live better lives at Marja Acres. We need more projects like Marja Acres in our city. I urge you to support Marja Acres. Regards,Joanna Keeping 7513 Brava StCarlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Diane Zurba To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:05:54 PM Dear Planning Commission, Re: Marja Acres: Please Read into Record I support this much needed project. It has everything that I as a Senior citizen feel is needed for our community. I love the concept of having shopping, free transportation, low incomeSenior apartments, gardens, and all the other amenities. I am hoping this project go through and get’s on the way to becoming a reality. I also love the fact that it affords different age living, I know as a Senior I love hearing the sound of childrenplaying, laughing etc. Sincerely, Diane Zurba Dianezurba@att.net CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Sean Kilkenny To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:05:57 PM Dear Planning Commission, -Read Into Record- I support Marja Acres because it is a distinctly Carlsbad-centric project meant to help the community thrive by creating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low-income housing for seniors, adding needed park space, and creating a true community space. Complemented with a small urban farm and a balance of retail, Marja Acres will welcome ablend of families, seniors, and individuals to enjoy all that Carlsbad has to offer. Please vote yes for Marja Acres. Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are ableto live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families, seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed forprofessionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low- income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbadresidents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute from another city. Sincerely, Sean Kilkenny Carlsbad Resident CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Nate Deyoung To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:06:00 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please read into the hearing record. Please support of Marja Acres, a mixed-use community proposed by New Urban West. This project is more than a development, it is a lifestyle. Not only will it provide an opportunity forpeople to buy a new home in Carlsbad, it also offers amenities for healthier choices and community gathering. There will be an urban farm onsite offering fresh produce, workshops, events and ingredientsto be used at the project’s farm-to-table restaurant. By having so many resources at our doorstep our dependence on our cars will also be greatly reduced. The bus stop directly infront of the project is also a big plus for neighbors and the senior community who will live there too! Robust bike infrastructure and transit options create alternative transportationoptions for access to our nearby businesses. Marja Acres is new way of thinking about where you live, and how you live. Please join me in support of the New Urban West project. Regards, Nate DeYoung CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Victoria Heza To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:06:01 PM Dear Planning Commission, Read into record... I support Marja Acres. I hope to purchase a property when they come on market. I support the Senior rental apartment concept. Carlsbad has become unaffordable for many, particularlyolder citizens on fixed incomes. Sincerely, Victoria Heza 2589 Navarra Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Julie Dunkle To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:06:03 PM Dear Planning Commission, -Please read into the record- I am writing in support of the Marja Acres project proposed in the City of Carlsbad. This community is thoughtfully designed with the feel of our city’s character in mind. Thetownhomes will be attainable for our workforce, many of whom are located in the business park a short distance away. This community will also build affordable senior units, create anurban farm, include plenty of park space and have a commercial center all with a local feel. Marja Acres uses a sustainable approach to build a community for our future and please join me in support of this great project. Sincerely,Julie Dunkle CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Al Rex To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:06:04 PM Dear Planning Commission, *Please read into the record* I fully support Marja Acres projecct. As an active resident and realtor, I'm very much aware of the lack of affordable housing in our community. The Marja Acres project is a distinctly Carlsbad-centric project meant to help thecommunity thrive by creating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low- income housing for seniors, adding needed park space, and creating a true community space.Complemented with a small urban farm and a balance of retail, Marja Acres will welcome a blend of families, seniors, and individuals to enjoy all that Carlsbad has to offer. Please vote yes for Marja Acres.This is GOOD for Carlsbad residents, and is right in step withthe theme of our great city, of being progressive for business while also maintaining a proper balance between family life and tourism. Sincerely, Al & Bonnie Rex CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Lisa Morganti To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres - Read into record please Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:06:06 PM Dear Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for considering this project. The shortage of senior living as well as low income senior living is lacking in Carlsbad. I so look forward to this project being built as well as others. Thank you for your time. Lisa Morganti CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. September 14, 2010 Re: Marja Acres project review Dear Planning Commissioners: Disclaimer: I am a member of the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission (T&MC), but our commission is not involved in the review of development applications, so I am commenting as an individual. The transportation/mobility related portions of the Marja Acres environmental impact report (EIR) and staff report do not meet the high standards to which they should be held, and the proposed mitigation will almost certainly fail to adequately address the significant impacts of the project. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should reject them and request additional information and analysis before considering approval. I have summarized my comments and suggestions below, and I have included details on each comment after that. Summary • One of the most common concerns in the public comment letters was excessive traffic congestion. • The original draft environmental impact report (EIR) used a deceptive level of service (LOS) traffic analysis to falsely claim that the project would not have a significant impact on congestion, when it would actually have caused El Camino Real to become deficient under the Growth Management Plan (GMP). • Instead of addressing the congestion concerns, staff allowed the applicant to switch from the LOS approach to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) approach in a recirculated draft EIR. • The VMT analysis was done on a draft version of the VMT Analysis Guideliens long before they were publicly reviewed and finalized, and the draft EIR was recirculated before the rule was even adopted or took effect. • Staff cites the ability of an agency to decide on a project-by-project basis what standard to apply to CEQA (LOS vs. VMT), but that creates inconsistency between projects. • It is also, then, hypocritical to claim in some cases that the rules in place when an application is deemed complete must be followed, but then allow individual developers to choose their method regardless of the rules. • Even if VMT is accepted as the requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), LOS and related analyses are still required by the GMP, General Plan, and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines in the form of a local mobility analysis (LMA). • Required LMA components for the Marja Acres project should include vehicle LOS, transit LOS, intersection turning movement analysis, and General Plan-associated transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. However, my request that the LMA be made available with the EIR was not honored, nor was it provided as an attachment to the staff report, so there has been no opportunity to publicly review it. • Although TDM strategies are proposed in the EIR to mitigate VMT under CEQA, even stronger TDM measures are necessary to mitigate vehicle congestion, consistent with the GMP and General Plan, which is already causing El Camino Real to be GMP-deficient. • These TDM measures should be presented in the LMA and staff report for public review. It is not sufficient to state, as is currently done in the staff report, that a TDM plan can be submitted in the future to the satisfaction of a single staff member (the city engineer). • While a “Tier 2” TDM plan is mentioned in the staff report, a minimum of a “Tier 3” plan should be required based on the average daily trips (ADT) to be generated, but more should be required due to the project’s addition of substantial traffic to an exempt street facility. • Given the traffic impact of the project on the El Camino Real/Cannon Road intersection and beyond, it should be conditioned to pay its fair share for street improvements in that area, including the College Boulevard extension. • Transit LOS needs to be conducted in the LMA and summarized in the staff report. • Bus service only runs every 30 minutes in the area, and the stops currently have only a few boardings per day, so full improvements to the amenities at all four bus stops also should be a condition for approval. • Due to the heavy reliance on public transit described in many sections of the EIR and staff report, there should be a condition of approval that, if transit usage by residents ends up being very low, then alternative TDM measures will be required. • Vehicle turning movement analyses need to be conducted in the LMA and summarized in the staff report, particularly for the left turns from El Camino Real onto Kelly Drive and West Ranch Street. • Any required intersection improvements should be conditions of approval. • This is the very first development application/EIR that uses VMT to satisfy CEQA, and a high standard of transparency needs to be set. There are some troubling inconsistencies in the VMT numbers, and the method used for the Marja Acres project results in far less required mitigation than other methods. • The applicant should be required to provide the raw SANDAG travel model outputs, the source of the post-modeling scripts that generate the final VMT numbers, and the scripts themselves. • Much of the VMT reduction/mitigation arises from the inclusion of an area in Robertson Ranch currently designated as commercial. However, much of that land is greater than the maximum 1/4-mile distance away allowed by CAPCOA, and it may never be developed as commercial, so it should not be included in the calculation. • Other aspects of the EIR and staff report also appear to rely heavily upon this theoretical future commercial development in Robertson Ranch, so there should be a condition that, if it is not developed as currently planned within a certain time period, the Marja Acres development will be required to implement alternative VMT-reducing measures, etc. to compensate for the loss. • The staff report appears to be missing Attachments #8 and #9, and perhaps others. Those should be provided in a revised staff report to allow full public review of the application. Deceptive level of service analysis in original draft EIR The original draft EIR for this project was published in April 2019. It was claimed in the Transportation/Circulation section of that document that the vehicle LOS would be “C” for El Camino Real between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road under both existing conditions and with the addition of the project (see the following table from the report). That is dramatically different than the new claim in the final EIR that the vehicle congestion on El Camino Real is already so bad there that the southbound facility is expected to be exempted from the GMP performance standard (LOS E/F deficiency) even without the project. The main reason for that difference is that the applicant, with staff’s tacit approval, used a deceptive analysis method in the original draft EIR, and, if the correct method from the TIA Guidelines had been used, it would have shown that the existing condition on El Camino Real was LOS D, and the project would have caused it to degrade to a deficient LOS E. Essentially, the traffic numbers were entered into the wrong service volume table to produce a more favorable result. I pointed this out in my May 2019 public comment letters submitted for the original draft EIR, which can be referenced for additional details (Comment Letters IND-21 and IND-49 in the final EIR). Potential El Camino Real left-turn lane insufficiency due to U-turns at Kelly Drive and West Ranch Road I also pointed out in my May 2019 letters that there was a likelihood that the project would contribute to the failure of the left-turn lanes on El Camino Real to Kelly Drive and/or West Ranch Road. The left- turn lanes at both of those intersections were already operating at LOS E or F.1 And, because the project can only be accessed from the southbound facility of El Camino Real, a large number of U-turns are necessary at those intersections when going to/from the project. Thus, the length of the turn pockets may need to be extended or an additional turn lane added, in order to avoid left-turning cars from spilling into the through lanes, which would significantly exacerbate the already heavy congestion there. Troubling shift to VMT analysis The vast majority of the dozens of other public comment letters submitted during public scoping and on the original draft EIR also raised similar concerns about traffic congestion. However, rather than addressing those concerns, the project went silent for an extended period, and, according to the staff report, later in 2019, staff allowed the applicant to replace the LOS-based transportation analysis with VMT analysis, even before VMT guidelines had been finalized and adopted by the City Council. Eventually, the project re-emerged with a June 5, 2020 recirculated draft EIR, from which the original traffic analysis with the faulty LOS analyses had been completely removed. And the dozens of concerns expressed about traffic in public comment letters were dismissed with a single response by staff that they were now all just “irrelevant” (response IND-3.2 in the final EIR). In response to a question I posed about the LOS to VMT switch in my public comment letter for the recirculated draft EIR, staff replied that they had the discretion to decide on a “project-by-project basis” which standard they wanted to apply for CEQA purposes (response IND-R1.11i in the final EIR). First, I find it troubling that inconsistent standards are applied to different projects, and that those standards can even be changed mid-project to assist a developer and render the concerns of dozens of members of the public suddenly “irrelevant.” Second, I find it troubling, in this particular case, that the developer was given early access to draft VMT Analysis Guidelines (March 2020 version) developed exclusively by staff with no public review or adoption by the City Council. The guidelines were not even complete enough at the time to have the recommended analysis method used (VMT maps). The T&MC did not see the guidelines until May 2020, and they underwent multiple rounds of revisions after the analysis was done, but prior to final adoption by the City Council. Third, I find it troubling that it has been argued previously that the “rules in place when the application is deemed complete” should apply, yet the Notices of Completion were April 12, 20192 for the original 1 For example, see the intersection worksheets on pages 309, 312, 315, and 318 of the PDF for the “Marja Acres DEIR Appendix I-L” 2 State of California Clearinghouse CEQAnet Web Portal entry for the original (April 2019) Marja Acres DEIR: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018041022/2 draft EIR and June 4, 2020 for the recirculated draft EIR,3 but the VMT rule did not go into effect until July 1, 2020.4 Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council may have the ability to take these troubling actions and still be able to make a legally defensible case, but they are antithetical to transparency and fair public participation. Indeed, it is at the Planning Commission’s discretion now to reject this strategy and set a healthier tone for project review by sending this application back for additional changes. Rules in place should apply (inconsistent treatment of development applications) For reference, the Planning Commission approved the Romeria Pointe Apartments project on July 15, 2020.5 There were multiple compelling reasons why a VMT analysis would have been appropriate for that project, which would have required some mitigation, but the developer was allowed to use the older LOS method, which resulted in no significant impact. City Planner Neu argued that their application “was deemed complete in October of 2018,” that the switchover to VMT did not take effect until July 1, 2020, and that the city was “applying the standards that were in place when the application is deemed complete.” Attorney Kemp added that this must be done for “fairness and propriety” to the developer. Commissioner Luna also made an impassioned statement that, in fairness to the developer, the rules in place at that time had to be followed, which was subsequently echoed by other commissioners.6 Fair enough, but then the same standard should be applied consistently to all projects. In fairness and propriety to the reviewing public, the city should not allow a developer special access to a new method that is potentially more favorable to them, if it is not the legal standard when their application is deemed complete, particularly when the methodology had not even been finalized at the time of the analysis or publicly available during the full review period, which is the case with the Marja Acres project. There is another pending draft EIR for a project called Aviara Apartments that was published for public review a few days after the Marja Acres recirculated draft EIR, yet it still uses the LOS method. That project would have significant VMT impacts, and city staff could have applied the “project-by-project” discretion to that one, as well, but that would have been less favorable to the developer. I will predict that when that project comes before the Planning Commission for review, staff will go back to arguing that the “rules in place at the time” have to be applied. 3 State of California Clearinghouse CEQAnet Web Portal entry for the recirculated (6/2020) Marja Acres DEIR: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018041022/3 4 Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2020-114 (VMT Analysis Guidelines adoption): http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/577938 5 7/15/2020 Carlsbad Planning Commission meeting staff report: (https://cityadmin.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31707) (Item #1) 6 7/15/2020 Carlsbad Planning Commission video: (https://carlsbadca.swagit.com/play/07152020-1315) (Item #1) Shift to VMT analysis does not absolve the applicant of compliance with the GMP, General Plan, and TIA Guidelines – LMA must be provided and presented in the staff report It is possible that you will conclude that all of the public comment letters expressing concern about traffic congestion can be dismissed as “irrelevant” for CEQA purposes, because staff allowed the applicant to prematurely change to VMT analysis. However, those comments still must be considered in the context of non-compliances with the GMP, General Plan, and TIA Guidelines, so they cannot simply be discarded. These issues include vehicle congestion, transit LOS, and intersection turn-lane issues, to be addressed below. These issues should be addressed in the LMA, which, based on the TIA Guidelines and SANDAG guidance, should have been provided along with the recirculated draft EIR. In my July 23, 2020 public comment letter for the recirculated draft EIR, I stated that this document needed to be provided, but I was not provided with a copy. And then when the staff report was finally published on September 10, 2020 (for the September 15, 2020 Planning Commission meeting), it was not included as an attachment there either. The hiding of this critical document is not acceptable and demonstrates the ongoing lack of transparency in the process. At this point, the LMA should be provided as an attachment to a revised staff report, and the pertinent results discussed in more detail in the staff report, including the following. Additional TDM measures to mitigate vehicle congestion should be subject to public review and specified as conditions of approval in the staff report In addition to changing the standard from LOS to VMT, in the height of irony, the applicant and staff are now claiming that southbound El Camino Real at the project site is so congested with vehicles, that it is expected to be exempted from the GMP performance standard by the City Council. However, almost no specific mitigation is being proposed beyond what is now proposed for VMT reduction. Hypothetically, a project could be located on a congested street but in a VMT-efficient area. In that case, no TDM-based mitigation would be required to address VMT under CEQA, but TDM-based mitigation would still be required to address congestion under the GMP and General Plan Policy 3-P.11. Another project, could be located on an uncongested street but in a VMT-inefficient area. In that case, VMT, but not congestion, related TDM-based mitigation would be required. However, the Marja Acres project is both on a heavily congested street and in a VMT-inefficient area, so the required amount of TDM must be assessed independently. For reference, the TIA Guidelines indicate that any additional vehicle added to a GMP deficient street facility requires mitigation. According to the staff report, the project is predicted to add 2,334 vehicle trips per day to El Camino Real by residents, employees, and patrons of the project, and that is probably a low estimate. Thus, the currently proposed TDM measures, which allegedly reduce project VMT impact by 10.29%, will not be sufficient to mitigate the congestion impact under the GMP and need to be far more aggressive to further reduce vehicle usage. Yet, the only conditions of approval in the staff report that go beyond the VMT-related TDM-based mitigation are the requirement that the developer install one bike repair station and eight public bike parking spaces (#59), and the future submission of a TDM plan “to the satisfaction of the city engineer” (#58). Given the magnitude of the congestion impact on an already deficient street facility by a project of this size, the details of the TDM plan to mitigate the impact should be subject to public review and included in the conditions of approval—not allowed to be made at some future date by a single city staff member. Given the specific call-out of the bike repair station and bike parking spaces as a condition of approval in the staff report—with no larger, more meaningful measures listed—it seems likely that staff (the city engineer) will simply accept the currently proposed TDM measures designed only for VMT reduction, which is not sufficient. Condition #58 in the staff report specifies a “Tier 2” TDM plan, but that seemingly refers to Carlsbad’s TDM Handbook for its commercial TDM Program. The TDM Program applies citywide, regardless of whether the projects are located near streets that have been exempted from the GMP LOS performance standard. Residential projects like Marja Acres, which are required by General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11 to apply TDM and TSM as a result of their traffic impacts on exempt streets, should be subject to even higher standards than the TDM Program, because every vehicle the project adds to an exempt facility during peak travel periods is going to further exacerbate the already heavy congestion and requires mitigation. A “Tier 2” TDM plan requires only nine “points” in the TDM scoring scheme, which includes a very modest set of improvements. However, the TDM Handbook sets a threshold of 275 ADT to trigger a “Tier 3” TDM plan, which requires 18 points (the project is conservatively at 2,334 ADT). The plan tiers are not necessarily as relevant in residential projects, but the bottom line is that the TDM measures need to be much more aggressive and specified in the conditions of approval for public review. Several sections of the staff report and attached resolutions refer to findings such as, “[t]he street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use,” and “[t]he proposed project…will not adversely impact…traffic…” You should not agree with those findings, unless sufficient mitigation is provided for traffic congestion based on the requirements in the GMP and General Plan. Congestion impacts on other nearby GMP exempt street facilities All of the major street facilities just south of the project area also have failed their GMP performance standards and already have been declared exempt by the City Council, including both northbound and southbound El Camino Real south of Cannon Road, and eastbound and westbound Cannon Road east of El Camino Real.7 The Marja Acres project is predicted to add 74 morning peak hour vehicles to the intersection of those two streets (see the TIA in the original DEIR), further exacerbating the situation. The deficiency of those streets will be resolved by the construction of the College Boulevard extension from El Camino Real to Cannon Road. However, due to years of under-reporting congestion and not keeping the Traffic Impact Fee Program updated and fully funded, taxpayers may now be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars to construct part of it. Because the Marja Acres project is contributing significant new traffic to the exempted El Camino Real/Cannon Road intersection and the streets beyond, it should also contribute its fair share to street projects in the area, including the College Boulevard extension solution. Transit LOS analysis needs to be conducted in the LMA and summarized in the staff report for public review The recirculated draft EIR repeatedly states that the MMLOS analysis and discussion were removed from the EIR. However, MMLOS analysis is still required under the GMP, General Plan (e.g., Mobility Element Policies 3-P.4 and 3-P.5), and TIA Guidelines. In the General Plan, El Camino Real is prioritized for vehicles and transit, so transit LOS is a required component in the application, even if a GMP exemption is assumed for vehicle LOS. However, that is absent from both the EIR and the staff report. City staff and the applicant need to go back and revise the documentation to include all of the required transportation components. Turning movement analysis needs to be conducted in the LMA and summarized in the staff report for public review Section 7.1 of the TIA Guidelines also require turning movement assessments at intersections, but such analyses are absent from both the EIR and the staff report. As described above, the project has a likelihood of causing left turn queues to exceed the current pocket lengths at Kelly Drive and West Ranch Road, particularly now that traffic there has apparently further worsened since the original traffic analysis was completed. The northbound El Camino Real facility is apparently not slated for exemption, so it is certainly subject to the analysis for Kelly Drive. And even if the southbound El Camino Real facility is slated for exemption, that exemption would be based on the build-out of the three through-lanes, so it is still subject to turn lane improvements at intersections. City staff and the applicant need to go back and revise the documentation to include all of the required transportation components. VMT modeling concerns This is the first development application to use VMT as the basis to assess transportation-related environmental impacts. Further, it is the first development application to use SANDAG travel demand 7 City Council Resolution No. 2020-104 (6/9/2020): http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/577456 “model runs” as the basis for the VMT calculations. The process is largely a “black box” into which a few land use and population numbers are inputted, and then the VMT numbers are eventually outputted. However, it is my understanding that, after the “SANDAG model runs” are complete, post-modeling “scripts” need to be run to generate the final VMT numbers. In my public comment letter on the recirculated draft EIR, I requested that the raw SANDAG model outputs and the sources and code for the post-modeling scripts be included in the EIR. However, the response I received was basically that the requests did not raise a significant environmental issue. However, the point was to create transparency in the process. Including this information is analogous to including the raw traffic count worksheets and software outputs for intersection LOS analyses, or the many pages of raw output included for many other sections of the EIR, such as noise and GHGs. I think this is particularly important, because different post-modeling scripts produce very different results. SANDAG’s own post-modeling scripts produce VMT results around 20% lower than the ones used by the city’s VMT consultant, Fehr & Peers, or the consultant that was used to produce the VMT results for the Marja Acres project. For example, the Carlsbad citywide mean VMT per capita is 22.52 according to Fehr & Peers, but only 18.90 according to SANDAG. And the mean VMT per capita for Census Tract 178.1 (the location of the Marja Acres project) is 22.14 based on Fehr & Peers data, but only 18.84 according to SANDAG.8 These differences have profound effects on the results. In response to my public comment on this matter (IND-R1.22), it was stated: Based on conversations with SANDAG and comparisons to the city’s results, SANDAG’s post processing does not appear to include the internal to external and return trips. Since these trips were not included, SANDAG’s reported regional VMT averages were lower than the city’s VMT averages, the latter of which were specifically intended for use in the CEQA context. However, the documentation for SANDAG’s VMT calculations states that they are an interpretation of OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, specifically intended to be used for that type of analysis, and that the calculations “…sum up all trips made for all purposes or reasons throughout the entire day, not just those originating from or destined to the geography.” Thus, there appear to be significant disagreements on VMT calculations between entities like SANDAG and the City of Carlsbad, which is very troubling, particularly because these numbers are also large components of the Climate Action Plan. VMT map vs. modeling produce vastly different results The mean VMT per capita for the Marja Acres project would have been 23.79 (based on its location in TAZ 884), if the approach recommended in the VMT Analysis Guidelines had been used (VMT map). All of the surrounding TAZs had similarly high VMT values on the map. In contrast, the modeling approach 8 SANDAG San Diego Region SB743 VMT Maps: https://tinyurl.com/y5ppqjqz reported in the EIR for the project produced a value of only 20.70, which required far less mitigation. Some difference is to be expected, but the magnitude is very troubling. Different methods of assessing the same metric should not produce such discordant results, which can have profound effects on the amount and cost of mitigation. This also could allow an applicant to cherry-pick the most favorable method (i.e., whether to use the map or a model run, and, if a model run is used, which scripts to use). In any event, the EIR is not currently transparent enough about the VMT methods and the model outputs, the source of the scripts, and the scripts themselves should be included in the appropriate appendix. However, in response to my public comment, staff and the applicant are largely unwilling to disclose that they exist, let alone provide them. VMT reduction strategy—Mixed use (LUT-3) About half of the VMT reduction being claimed in the EIR is based on “Project Design Features” (see Table 6-1 of the recirculated draft EIR). And a major portion of that is based on the project’s alleged proximity to an area in Robertson Ranch that has a commercial land use designation. However, the vast majority of the Marja Acres development is farther away than the 1/4-mile limit designated by CAPCOA for that reduction, and it is currently undeveloped (see the map below with the Marja Acres project site on the left and the Robertson Ranch commercial land use area on the right, with the yellow line representing ¼ mile). In addition, it is not evident that the area will ever be developed for commercial, and its status is not under the control of the Marja Acres developer. In fact, there is a current city initiative to convert commercial sites to residential as part of the Housing Element update to satisfy new housing requirements. As an example, another nearby portion of Robertson Ranch, just south of Cannon Road (Planning Area 22), was originally designated as commercial, but it sat vacant for many years and was eventually replaced with a 98-unit residential apartment complex (Casa Aldea) that is currently under construction.9 Not only did that change in land use eliminate the predicted employment in the area that would have reduced VMT, it will add many more residents that also now need to travel farther— creating a double-whammy on other streets that are already failing the GMP performance standard. The EIR, staff report, and resolutions therein all reference this potential future commercial area within Robertson Ranch as a critical element of Marja Acres. Accordingly, there should be a condition that, if the Robertson Ranch commercial area is not developed according to its current commercial land use designation within a certain time period, the Marja Acres development will be required to implement additional VMT-reducing measures to compensate for the loss of that reduction, as well as any other consequences. VMT reduction strategy—Transit (TRT-4/TRT-7) The other half of the VMT reduction being claimed in the EIR is based on “trip reduction measures,” and a majority of that is based on theoretical usage of public transit to get to and from the project. In addition, both the EIR and staff report refer extensively to transit service. There are bus stops on El Camino Real near the West Ranch Street/Lisa Street intersection and near the Kelly Drive intersection. However, the service headways are only every 30 minutes, and despite their proximity to Robertson Ranch and other communities, ridership is extremely low. 9 Casa Aldea approval staff reports: 4/20/2016 Planning Commission (http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/436582) and 5/17/2016 City Council (http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/436742) Below is an image of the Lisa Street bus stop adjacent to El Camino Real with a speed limit of 55 MPH. It averages just one boarding per day.10 And below is an image of the similar Kelly Drive bus stop, which averages just three boardings per day. 10 Based on data obtained from North County Transit District for July 2018 through June 2019. The CAPCOA guidelines assume the existence of a usable transit system. Thus, the strategy to leverage public transit to reduce VMT through on-site promotion and access to discounted transit tickets is not likely to achieve the predicted reductions, unless significant improvements are made to the transit facilities and, more importantly, the usability of the bus service itself. At a minimum, the application should be conditioned to complete transit facility improvements, including pads (ideally farther from the high-speed street), covers, lighting, trash cans, and enclosed bicycle parking—for any of the stops that are missing those amenities. There should be a condition for approval that, if transit usage ends up very low, then alternative TDM measures will be required. Missing staff report attachments Staff report Attachment #8 (Density Bonus Incentive/Concession Cost Offset/Reduction Documentation), as well as Attachment #9 (Correspondence from the Public) do not appear to be attached. Those should be provided in a revised staff report to allow complete review. Best regards, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA The Foundation for Senior Wellbeing 131 Richmar Ave., San Marcos CA 92069 Our office is generously hosted in the Panorama Teen & Family Resource Center Office hours: Monday through Friday, 9 am – 1 pm Mailing address: PO Box 1896, San Marcos CA 92079 844-654-INFO www.thefoundationforseniorwellbeing.org A 501(c)3 organization: tax ID #95-3622887 Our Mission The Foundation is dedicated to improving the wellbeing of a growing population of seniors throughout North San Diego County by linking them, their families, and their caregivers to resources and programs. The five elements of senior wellbeing:  A sense of purpose  Supportive relationships  Financial security  Community pride  Good physical health Our vision That all seniors in North San Diego County achieve personal wellbeing so they may thrive! September 14, 2020 Planning Commission - City of Carlsbad Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Letter of SUPPORT for Marja Acres for September 16 Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing Dear Planning Commission Chair Anderson and Commissioners: Last year we learned about Marja Acres, a proposed mixed-use development that includes workforce housing, affordable senior housing, retail and open space in Carlsbad, located at 4901 El Camino Real. We are writing to express our support for this project which provides much needed housing units, walkable space, and incorporates sustainable design practices and alternate modes of transportation. For us at the Foundation for Senior Wellbeing, the most important component of this project is the addition of 46-units of affordable senior housing. The Foundation for Senior Wellbeing is a resource to seniors searching for services and affordable housing options in North County. During these encounters we know first- hand the dire need for affordable housing options for this vulnerable population. Please vote to support Marja Acres. Respectfully, Sarah Benson Executive Director The Foundation for Senior Wellbeing Received via the CARLSBAD COUNCIL INQUIRY CENTER <carlsbadca@mycusthelp.net> Date received: 9/9/2020 Received from: pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com Message: Despicable that Maria Acres (she possibly means Marja Acres) has morphed Into this final plan which represents everything that most citizens see as the planning dept., traffic dept. and city council at it’s worst..........again!!!! Most of you have no conscience or integrity when it comes to what has happened and continues to happen to Carlsbad. Shame on you.......again!! Penny Johnson The mission of LifeSTEPS is to provide effective educational and supportive services to maximize the strengths of individuals and build resilient communities. 3247 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: 916.965.0110 Fax: 916.965.0102 www.lifestepsusa.org Empowerment. Impact. Community. One STEP at a time. Life Skills Training & Educational Programs September 9, 2020 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Letter of SUPPORT for Senior Housing Dear Planning Commissioners: Marja Acres is a proposed mixed-use development that will bring workforce housing, affordable senior housing, retail and open space to the Carlsbad community. In addition to transforming private land into a senior-friendly, walkable gathering space, the project incorporates sustainable design practices and alternate modes of transportation including bike paths and walkways. We at LifeSTEPS know the struggles that aging Americans on limited incomes face each day – and the stress that can impact the health and well-being of our parents, grandparents, and neighbors. Marja Acres is a great opportunity for Carlsbad to provide for much-needed affordable senior housing in a healthy environment, which includes the peace of mind of a safe, secure home in which to thrive. LifeSTEPS is a statewide social and supportive services organization serving more than 100,000 residents living in over 350 affordable housing communities in addition to project base and scattered site supportive services to homeless individuals and families. LifeSTEPS and USA Properties Fund have partnered together since 1996. USA Properties is one of the largest developers of senior affordable housing in the United States, and has been an outstanding partner of LifeSTEPS to help seniors continue to thrive in place. Your vote of support will secure additional senior housing units for this very vulnerable population. Respectfully, Executive Director, LifeSTEPS Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Support Senior Housing Dear Planning Commissioners: Representing over 5,000 seniors served each year, I want to express general support for development of affordable senior housing in all regions of County of San Diego. Serving Seniors is one of the only organizations in the nation providing a broad base of services, including affordable and transitional housing, to vulnerable, at‐risk older adults. As you can imagine, we hear first‐hand stories of how difficult it is for our seniors to find safe, secure affordable housing. The lists are long and the task difficult, especially for those with limited mobility and/or minimal transportation options. It is my hope that local governments look toward the future and plan to provide the necessary infrastructure (housing, health, memory care) to serve its growing senior populations so that we all can age in place with support and dignity. Thank you for your consideration, Paul Downey President/CEO Circulate San Diego 1111 6th Avenue, Suite 402 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-544-9255 Fax: 619-531-9255 www.circulatesd.org Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy communities. August 17, 2020 Jonathan Frankel New Urban West Inc 16935 West Bernardo Dr Ste 260 San Diego, CA 92127 Subject: Circulate Mobility Certification for Marja Acres by New Urban West Inc. Dear Mr. Frankel, The Circulate Mobility Certification review committee is pleased to award our certification for the proposed Marja Acres project by New Urban West Inc, which meets the Certification criteria for sustainable transit-oriented projects in the San Diego region. Marja Acres will bring 248 townhomes and 46 deed-restricted affordable homes for seniors to an infill site on El Camino Real. The project site is connected to the major employment centers in Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Village Coaster station via the route 309 bus, which has a bus stop immediately adjacent to the project site, and 10 miles of Class II bike lanes along El Camino Real. The project site is surrounded by residential development, avoids any impacts to protected habitat and open space, and has been identified as a site suitable for workforce and affordable housing in previous housing element cycles. The project implements many smart growth techniques, maximizing walkability through including on-site retail, a restaurant, an urban farm, park space, and housing. The project includes dedicated bike storage in both the residential and commercial components and creates activated pedestrian paseos to conveniently access residential units by foot. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the primary loop road, including ADA-accessible routes between park spaces, retail, the restaurant, and housing units. Vehicular access to all residential units is taken from an alley, ensuring that pedestrian paseos and the townhomes’ front porches are free from conflicts with cars. Marja Acres proposes three-story structures and will grade the site to lower the property in order to minimize impacts to existing sing-family homes surrounding the project site. The project will include over 1.2 acres of publicly accessible park space including pocket parks, a dog park, and a Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy communities. 2 village green. In addition, the retail space and urban farm will provide benefits for the surrounding community. After careful review by the review committee of independent local experts in land use and transportation, Marja Acres earned the Circulate Mobility Certification. Sincerely, Colin Parent Executive Director and General Counsel The Circulate Mobility Certification, formed in 2012 as the MOVE Alliance and relaunched as the Circulate Mobility Certification in 2018, provides certification for transit-oriented, smart growth projects in the San Diego region. The Circulate Mobility Certification Committee members consist of local experts in smart growth planning and sustainable transit oriented development disciplines, including planners, developers, urban designers, and transportation engineers. By recognizing and supporting projects which meet the Circulate Mobility Certification criteria, we can help to create complete communities, one project at a time. For more information, go to http://www.circulatesd.org/certified. From:Nancy Schroeder To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres - Focus on Transit Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:01:09 AM Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, Marja Acres will be the first residential project in the city to offer free transit passes to its residents. These passes can be utilized with all regional transportation services includingNCTD breeze buses to rail lines and even the MTS Trolley Service. I support this project as it focuses on the goal is to reduce car trips, road congestion, and working towards reducing ourcarbon footprint. Planning Commissioners and City Council, I urge you to approve Marja Acres as this is the type of sustainable, forward-thinking project that we need in Carlsbad. Nancy Schroeder CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Nancy Schroeder To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres - Focus on Transit Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:25:51 AM Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, Marja Acres will be the first residential project in the city to offer free transit passes to its residents. These passes can be utilized with all regional transportation services includingNCTD breeze buses to rail lines and even the MTS Trolley Service. I support this project as it focuses on the goal is to reduce car trips, road congestion, and working towards reducing ourcarbon footprint. Planning Commissioners and City Council, I urge you to approve Marja Acres as this is the type of sustainable, forward-thinking project that we need in Carlsbad. Nancy Schroeder CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Karen Campbell To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:34:29 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am writing in support of Marja Acres. My husband and I are both seniors who would love to move closer to our grandchildren. The cost of housing and our incomes however cannot affordus that opportunity in Carlsbad. Not only are housing prices getting out of control, but so is the price of childcare. I would like to be able to be more involved and more helpful with mygrandchildren to help out my kids. This project's intergeneration concept is really great and makes me excited about the opportunities Carlsbad could offer. I don't want to be secluded butI also need something more affordable to be able to relocate. Thank you for your consideration. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Al Rex To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:34:42 AM Dear Planning Commission, I fully support Marja Acres projecct. As an active resident and realtor, I'm very much aware of the lack of affordable housing in our community. The Marja Acres project is a distinctly Carlsbad-centric project meant to help thecommunity thrive by creating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low- income housing for seniors, adding needed park space, and creating a true community space.Complemented with a small urban farm and a balance of retail, Marja Acres will welcome a blend of families, seniors, and individuals to enjoy all that Carlsbad has to offer. Please vote yes for Marja Acres.This is GOOD for Carlsbad residents, and is right in step withthe theme of our great city, of being progressive for business while also maintaining a proper balance between family life and tourism. Sincerely, Al & Bonnie Rex Regards, Al Rex Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Erin Kelley To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:20:00 AM Dear Planning Commission, *Please read into record at Planning Commission Hearing* "I’m a millennial who would like to buy a home in Carlsbad. Currently, I rent my space and am concerned that all the money I pay in rent is doing nothing to support my long term financial goals of owning a home and having a secure place to live.Generations before me have had easily accessible opportunities to enter the California housing market, but those are gone now for me and my peers. Our generation wants what we can’t have- For our substantial monthly housing costs to gotowards housing that we actually own. And to work near where we live. We know the effects on family life, the environment, and a community’s quality of life if everyone is renting amaking a long commute. Communities become bland and without character. Carlsbad has an opportunity to do better. With so many jobs at incredible companies like Viasat,ThermoFisher, and others, we have a talented, educated and informed workforce that is shaping our wants and needs as a community. The Village is cool; Alga Norte park isawesome; and the Museum of Making Music is regional gem. Those are just a few examples of what makes Carlsbad so great. In order to sustain that greatness and that positiveemployment growth and energy, we must also provide quality housing opportunities for our workforce, workers like me. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to own a home in the community in which I work. Pleaseallow me that opportunity by supporting Marja Acres! Erin Kelley Carlsbad Resident CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Jeff Gohsler To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:20:02 AM Dear Planning Commission, Please join me in support of Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work and actually afford a home that is considered""workforce housing,"" which this project has beautifully designed. This community provides a diverse mix of housing options to meet the needs of families, seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families thatwork in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community,many of which are third or fourth generation - like me. We want to be able to give back in our own city we grew up in. Instead we are getting pushed out due to low inventory and theunfortunate rhetoric of ""you can't afford to live here, then leave"" mentality. Let's start planning a better future for Carlsbad. Please say yes to Marja Acres. Thank You, Jeff Gohsler Regards, Jeff Gohsler , CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kyle Simmons To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:01:20 AM Dear Planning Commission, Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families,seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute from another city. Thank you, Kyle Simmons CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Pat Setter To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:01:18 AM Dear Planning Commission, Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families,seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute fromanother city. San Diego County faces a severe housing shortage, and a well throught out plan with transit oriented services connecting to mass transit options assures the city of homeowners at MarjaAcres able to enjoy living in Carlsbad no matter where they work. Our housing situation has caused many residents priced out of the housing market, and adding inventory is hte only way to help alleviate that Sincerely, Pat Setter CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Gail Friedt To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:01:12 AM Dear Planning Commission & City Council, I am writing in support of the Marja Acres project proposed in the City of Carlsbad. This community is thoughtfully designed with the feel of our city’s character in mind. Thetownhomes will be attainable for our workforce, many of whom are located in the business park a short distance away. This community will also build affordable senior units, create anurban farm, include plenty of park space and have a commercial center all with a local feel. Marja Acres uses a sustainable approach to build a community for our future and please join me in support of this great project. I lived in Carlsbad for 13 years in a house couldn't afford now. We need housing! Sincerely, Gail Friedt Regards, Gail Friedt 3819 1st Ave San Diego, CA 92103 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Evan Benko To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:24:21 AM Dear Planning Commission, Please join me in support of Marja Acres. As pressure continues to mount on San Diego County to provide more housing, Carlsbad needs to be a leader in meeting housing goals. When we choose to support projects that offerattainable housing options, walkability, and on-site food sources we are better prepared for our future. People, businesses and families are constantly looking for opportunities forcommunities like Marja Acres. Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments. Kindly, Evan Benko CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Gail Friedt To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:25:56 AM Dear Planning Commission & City Council, I am writing in support of the Marja Acres project proposed in the City of Carlsbad. This community is thoughtfully designed with the feel of our city’s character in mind. Thetownhomes will be attainable for our workforce, many of whom are located in the business park a short distance away. This community will also build affordable senior units, create anurban farm, include plenty of park space and have a commercial center all with a local feel. Marja Acres uses a sustainable approach to build a community for our future and please join me in support of this great project. I lived in Carlsbad for 13 years in a house couldn't afford now. We need housing! Sincerely, Gail Friedt Regards, Gail Friedt 3819 1st Ave San Diego, CA 92103 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Pat Setter To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:25:59 AM Dear Planning Commission, Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families,seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute fromanother city. San Diego County faces a severe housing shortage, and a well throught out plan with transit oriented services connecting to mass transit options assures the city of homeowners at MarjaAcres able to enjoy living in Carlsbad no matter where they work. Our housing situation has caused many residents priced out of the housing market, and adding inventory is hte only way to help alleviate that Sincerely, Pat Setter CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kyle Simmons To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:26:04 AM Dear Planning Commission, Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families,seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute from another city. Thank you, Kyle Simmons CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Vanessa Cadena To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 7:45:56 AM Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, Please say yes to Marja Acres. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer to work. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families,seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals and families that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in our community or those that work here to no longer have to commute fromanother city. Sincerely, Vanessa Cadena CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Curtis Wayne To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Marja Acres Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:58:19 AM Dear Planning Commission, *Please read into the hearing record* As a senior living with little income I am constantly looking for more affordable housing options, because they are very difficult to find here in Carlsbad. My family and mygrandchildren live here and it is important to me to stay close to them. I support Marja Acres because this project is meant to help the community thrive by creating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low-income housing for seniors, likeme. There is also great amenities like park space, community activities and an urban farm. Complemented with a balance of retail, Marja Acres will welcome a blend of families, seniors,and individuals to enjoy all that Carlsbad has to offer. Please vote yes for Marja Acres. Thank you, Curtis Wayne CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Jack Royba To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:24:28 AM Dear Planning Commission, I support Marja Acres because it will be the first residential project in the city to offer free transit passes to its residents. Sustainability and accessibility are important for the future ofCarlsbad. These passes can be utilized with all regional transportation services including NCTD breeze buses to rail lines and even the MTS Trolley Service. I support this project as itfocuses on the goal to reduce car trips, road congestion, and working towards reducing our carbon footprint. Planning Commissioners and City Council, I urge you to approve MarjaAcres as this is the type of sustainable, forward-thinking project that we need in Carlsbad. Jack Royba CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Marja Acres Planning Commission Meetinng September 16, 2020 I am a stakeholder, living in the established neighborhood on the southern border of the proposed development, Marja Acres. My neighbors and I have been very active in trying to protect our neighborhood and quality of life for the construction and potential future development. I have also been researching and meeting with the City Planner, City Engineer, and the representative from the developer (New Urban West) with causes to insure that our neighborhood will remain relatively unimpacted with the resultant development. We have met several times with the developer and provided input. The developer (representative Jonathan Frankel, an attorney for New Urban West) made several promises to those of us in Loma Laguna, a ~45 year old single family residential development. These are the agreements. 1. The proposed townhomes directly behind our community will not have rooftop decks for the first two units directly adjacent to the homes along Park Drive. 2. There will be no Short Term Rentals in the Marja Acres Community and that this will be written into the CC&Rs of the HOA. 3. The first level of the market rate town homes will not contain renters or be divided into separate living units which will require more parking in the project. 4. The two car garage parking for the market rate townhomes cannot be opened as a carport thus allowing more living space and less parking. 5. A 6ft Masonry wall will be built along the property line to divide the two communities as per city law, but mainly to provide a noise and privacy barrier to keep noise levels at a minimum afterward. Our neighborhood will be directly affected with the noise and pollutants of construction and would like to strongly request that the promised 6ft. masonry wall be built first to insure the least amount of effect on our neighborhood. Of course we realize that the vegetation must be removed on the Marja Acres side and the ground behind our fences be graded to allow for footings for the wall. On one of the meetings (before the pandemic) that I had with the City Engineer in charge of the project, Tim Carroll, I brought up the fact that on the map provided by the developer (attached) that a 3ft easement would be needed before the slope (varying steepness along the property line and behind the established neighboring homes). That incorrect easement is marked with a red arrow on the map provided by the developer to the City. Mr. Carroll and I got out the city manual and indeed, found that the easement actually is 5ft at the eastern most portion of the development where the slope will require a retaining wall at the bottom and a gradual decrease of the easement to 4ft at the far western side of the development nearest the neighborhood of Park Court. The map has yet to be corrected. As explained to me by the City Engineer, the masonry wall will be built along the property line, behind the current fences of our neighbors along Park Drive. Then either a 4ft or 5 ft easement will be level to the fences/masonry wall will remain at the same level, before the slope begins downward. I would like these details to be noted by the Planning Commission and to ask that a condition of approval allow the masonry wall be built to allow for the years of construction that will undoubtedly affect our health. In fact, in the Noise Guidelines Manual (July 2013) states that residential exterior noise standard is 60 decibel dB(A) CNEL and states “Community noise is important because it affects our quality of life.” “The noise levels experienced in the nonwork environment may still have harmful health effects. These noise levels are in the “community noise impact range,” approximately 40-85 decibles dB(A) CNEL.” “This Community noise impact range (40-85 decibles) can cause temporary physiological and/or psychological effects.” “Noise is considered a stressor and may have serious implications.” https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24094 Noise IS considered a stressor, especially the long term 3yr construction proposed. We have about 1/3 elderly and several seriously ill residents in our community-many of those along the Marja Acres border. Along with the precautions of living in a pandemic where many of us remain in our homes and back yards, we will be exposed to undue stressors. And we ask our decision makers in the Planning Commission to consider granting our request. From the Noise Guidelines Manual “State law requires local governments to address noise issues in their planning process. To fulfill this responsibility, the state grants local significant powers to control noise producing activity and to reduce or eliminate noise “problems” primarily by controlling land use.” Thank you, Kris Wright 4902 Via Arequipa Carlsbad, CA 92008 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual ((((� July 2013 July 2013 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual Prepared By: Nolte and Associates, Inc. Date: 1994 This document may be amended when new information becomes available. NOISE GUIDELINES MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ i I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... .......... 1 II. NOISE ELEMENT POLICIES .................................................................................................... .......... 3 III. NOISE SCIENCE ...................................................................................................................... .......... 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... .......... 7 Definition ......................................................................................................................... .......... 7 Quantifying Noise ............................................................................................................ .......... 8 Combining Decibels .......................................................................................................... ........ 10 Perception of Noise.......................................................................................................... ........ 12 Noise Descriptors ............................................................................................................. ........ 12 Noise Barriers ................................................................................................................... ........ 13 Noise Mapping ................................................................................................................. ........ 14 Harmful Effects of Noise .................................................................................................. ........ 16 IV. PROJECT PROCESSING PROCEDURES ................................................................................... ........ 18 Guidelines for Complying with City Noise Policies ........................................................... ........ 18 Procedure Used by the City to Evaluate Potential Noise Impacts ................................... ........ 23 Project Review Considerations ........................................................................................ ........ 26 V. CITY PREFERRED METHODS OF MITIGATING NOISE ........................................................... ........ 29 Guidelines for Reducing Noise ......................................................................................... ........ 29 VI. NOISE REPORTS .................................................................................................................... ........ 37 Types of Noise Reports .................................................................................................... ........ 37 VII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ................................................................................................. ........ 40 VIII. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................... ........ 41 IX. TECHNICAL APPENDIX A. STATE NOISE REQUIREMENTS 1. California Health and Safety Code ............................................................................. A-1 2. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, “Sound Transmission” .................. A-1 3. California Code of Regulations Title 21, (Airport) “Noise Standards” ....................... A-2 4. California Noise Insulation Standards ....................................................................... A-3 5. Sound Transmission Control (Ch. 35) ........................................................................ A-10 B. NOISE CONTOUR MAPS (REDUCED SIZE) 1. Existing Noise Contours (1990) ................................................................................. B-1 2. Future Noise Contours (2010) ................................................................................... B-2 C. VEHICULAR NOISE ASSESSMENT 1. FHWA-RD-77-108 ...................................................................................................... C-1 2. Hard (Reflective Sites) – Soft (Absorbing) Sites ......................................................... C-1 3. Determination of “Hard” Site Versus “Soft” Site ....................................................... C-2 4. City of Carlsbad Traffic Mix........................................................................................ C-3 5. Distances to Roadway CNEL Contours – Existing and Future .................................... C-6 6. Distances to Roadway CNEL Contours – Future ........................................................ C-8 D. RAIL NOISE ASSESSMENT Railroad Noise Assessment – Wyle Laboratories Report WCT 73-5 ................................ D-1 E. McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT 1. Airport Influence Area Map ....................................................................................... E-1 2. Palomar Airport Noise Control Plan .......................................................................... E-2 F. RELATIONSHIP OF NOISE ENERGY AND NOISE PERCEPTION TO DECIBEL SCALE.................. F-1 G. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ........................................................................ G-1 H. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS (City of Carlsbad) ....... H-1 I. FORMS 1. Notice Concerning Proximity of the Planned or Existing transportation corridor(s) I-1 2. Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts .................................................. I-4 3. Aircraft Noise Notification Signs ................................................................................ I-7 4. Notice of Aircraft Noise Impact Area ........................................................................ I-9 J. NOISE REPORT APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST 1. Noise Report Submittal Form .................................................................................... J-1 2. Application Requirements for Noise Report Application .......................................... J-2 3. Noise Report: Staff Review Checklist ........................................................................ J-5 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE - i CARLSBAD FUTURE 2010 NOISE CONTOUR MAP ...................................................... ......... iv FIGURE - ii 1995 NOISE CONTOUR MAP OF McCLELLAN PALOMAR AIRPORT ............................ .......... v FIGURE - iii LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIORNMENTS MATRIX ...... ......... vi FIGURE III - 1 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS IN dBA ................................................................................. .......... 9 FIGURE III - 2 DIFFERENCE IN DECIBELS BETWEEN TWO LEVELS BEING ADDED ............................. ........ 11 FIGURE III - 3 NOISE CONTOURS ...................................................................................................... ........ 15 FIGURE III - 4 SPEECH COMMUNICATION AS A FUNCTION OF A BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL ....... ........ 17 FIGURE IV - 1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIORNMENTS .................... ........ 24 FIGURE IV - 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR NOISE EVALUATION .................................... ........ 28 FIGURE V - 1 NOISE SENSITIVE SITE DESIGNS ................................................................................. ........ 30 FIGURE V - 2 NOISE SENSITIVE SITE DESIGN ................................................................................... ........ 31 FIGURE V - 3 NOISE MITIGATION THROUGH USE OF TOPOGRAPHY .............................................. ........ 32 FIGURE V - 4 NOISE MITIGATION THROUGH ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT ........................................ ........ 34 FIGURE V - 5 NOISE BARRIER ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. ........ 35 FIGURE VI - 1 ONE STEP COMPLETE NOISE REPORT SUBMITTAL PROCESS..................................... ........ 38 FIGURE VI - 2 PHASED NOISE REPORT SUBMITTAL PROCESS .......................................................... ........ 39 SUMMARY Summary i SUMMARY The following is a summary of the most frequently requested City noise policies. Information contained in this summary is described in more detail in the body of the Noise Guideline Manual. Residential Exterior Noise Standard It is the policy of the City that 60 decibel dB(A) CNEL is the exterior noise level to which residential units must be mitigated, except that for areas impacted by McClellan-Palomar Airport shall be mitigated at 65 dB(A) CNEL. Residential Interior Noise Standard Interior noise levels for residential units shall be mitigated to 45 dB(A) CNEL when openings to the exterior of the residence are closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard then mechanical verification shall be required. Threshold for Requiring Noise Reports on Residential Project A noise report shall be required for all residential projects within the following noise referral zones (refer to the Carlsbad Future 2010 Noise Contour Map Figure-I or see the 1000’ scale map1 provided at the back of this document): a. Residential projects requiring a discretionary permit containing five or more dwelling units or any multiple family dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dB(A) CNEL noise contour line of the Noise Contour Map approved as part of the Carlsbad General Plan. b. Within the McClellan-Palomar Airport 60 dB(A) and above CNEL Noise contour line as shown on the “McClellan-Palomar Airport Compatibility Policy Map: Noise” (see Appendix E). 11000’ scale map will be included in final document only. Summary ii Findings Necessary to Exceed Residential or Non-Residential Noise Policies of the Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual If the acoustical study shows that exterior and interior noise levels cannot be mitigated to the maximum levels established by the Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, the development shall not be approved without the following findings: a. The developer of the project has proved to the satisfaction of the decision-making body that it is not feasible to comply with the standard. b. The decision-making body must find that there are specifically identified overriding social or economic considerations which warrant approval of the development even though it does not meet the noise standard. c. All purchasers of the impacted property shall be notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchasing is noise impacted and does not meet Carlsbad noise policies. In addition, appropriate mitigation and/or conditions of approval shall be incorporated into the project in accordance with the Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. Findings Necessary to Exceed ALUCP Noise Policies a. That the City Council finds that the proposed [insert project] is consistent with the intent of the state airport land use planning statutes, and as conditioned with [insert conditions i.e. noise reduction measures, avigation easement, etc.], would minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise within project area to the greatest extent possible. b. That based upon the above finding, the City Council approves the recommended overrule, as to noise compatibility only, of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Non-Residential Exterior Noise Guidelines The guidelines for maximum exterior noise levels for non-residential uses are provided in the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix (see Figure-iii). Non-residential noise will be primarily regulated through the project review and approval process. Non-Residential Interior Noise Guidelines TABLE – i NON-RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR NOISE GUIDELINES TYPICAL USE Leg (h) dB(A) Church Sanctuary, Preschool, Schools, Fire Station Sleeping quarters, etc. 45 General Office, General Commercial, Heavy Commercial, etc. 55 Planned Industrial, General Industrial, etc. 65 Summary iii McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Noise Policies Proposed residential and non-residential projects within the 60 dB(A) CNEL and above noise contour line as shown on Technical Appendix E-1 shall comply with all applicable noise compatibility policies in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Measurement Location for Determining Noise Levels Proposed project are to mitigate the project build-out noise level to a maximum as described above at: a. 5-feet above finished grade level; and b. 20-feet from the rear/side of the structure, unless the rear/side yard is less than 20-feet deep where the measurement shall be at the property line. (Where the useable rear/side yard is less than 20-feet deep, the measurement may be taken at the back of the useable rear/side yard, as may be approved by the Planning Director.) Where exterior space above the first floor/story of a residential structure is proposed to be used to meet Planning Development (PD) recreational space standards as required pursuant to Chapter 21.45, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the exterior space shall be mitigated to the City standard in order to receive credit as recreational space. Noise Issues not Addressed in the Noise Guidelines Manual The Noise Guidelines Manual is intended to primarily address community noise issues related to land use. The Noise Guidelines Manual does not address noise issues such as animal noise, noise from parties or loud gatherings, motor vehicle noise or general nuisance noise. If you are interested in finding out how the City deal with these noise issue please see the appropriate Carlsbad Municipal Code section (CC §) as noted below or contact the Carlsbad Planning Department: TABLE – ii SUMMARY OF NOISE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE TYPE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION Animal Noise CC § 7.04 Parties/Loud Gatherings CC § 3.36 Construction CC § 8.48 Motor Vehicles CC § 8.28 General Nuisance Noise Not Regulated by Ordinance CC § Carlsbad Municipal Code Section * The Noise Guidelines Manual briefly addresses construction noise see Page 22 of this Manual. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I. INTRODUCTION Introduction 1 I. INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of the Noise Manual is to provide the user with guidelines and procedures to implement policies outlined in the Noise Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. That element establishes general policies and specific noise standards to achieve noise compatibility between land uses. This Manual contains the procedures necessary to ensure that these policies and standards are consistently and effectively applied during City review of a proposed project. These guidelines are intended to work in concert with the City’s municipal code and the legislative requirements of various state and federal statues. This Noise Manual will be of use to anyone interested in how the City addresses the issue of noise on a development proposal; it will not help those concerned with nuisance noise issues, barking dogs, motor vehicle noise emissions, loud parties or similar noise problems. State Law California State Law requires local governments to address noise issues in their planning process. To fulfill this responsibility, the state grants local governments significant powers to control noise- producing activity and to reduce or eliminate “noise problems,” primarily by controlling land use. Cities may regulate certain land uses by Conditional Use Permit or zoning restriction. Cities may also establish land use or nuisance noise control ordinances and/or may enforce state or federal laws. Noise Issues not Addressed in Manual The Noise Guidelines Manual is intended to primarily address community noise issues related to Land Use. The Noise Guidelines Manual does not address noise issues such as animal noise, noise from parties or loud gatherings, motor vehicle noise, or general nuisance noise. If you are interesting in finding out how the City deals with these noise issues please see the appropriate Carlsbad Municipal Code Section (CMC §) as noted below or contact the Carlsbad Planning Department. TABLE I – 1 SUMMARY OF NOISE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE TYPE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION Animal Noise CC § 7.04 Parties/Loud Gatherings CC § 3.36 Construction CC § 8.48 Motor Vehicles CC § 8.28 General Nuisance Noise Not Regulated by Ordinance CC § Carlsbad Municipal Code Section * The Noise Guidelines Manual briefly addresses construction noise see Page 22 of this Manual. Introduction 2 Manual Format The Noise Manual is divided into seven sections each of which are described briefly below: Section I – Introduction Describes the purpose and intent of the Guidelines Manual and describes the general contents of this document. Section II – Noise Element Policies Presents policies from the Noise Element of the Carlsbad General Plan that relate to achieving compatibility between community noise and land use. Section III – Noise Science Provides basic information about noise which should enable the reader to understand what noise is, how noise is measured and mapped, how noise barriers work, and the potential harmful effects of noise. Section IV – Noise Policy Compliance Procedures Identifies the steps in the discretionary application review process that deal with community noise issues. Section V – Noise Reduction Provides guidance to the project designer regarding City preferred acoustical design efforts. Preferred methods to reduce noise levels are also discussed. Section VI – Noise Study and Report Outlines the general requirements for noise study and report submittals. Section VII – Conditions of Approval Describes under what circumstances conditions or approval may be required. II. NOISE ELEMENT POLICIES Noise Element Policies 3 II. NOISE ELEMENT POLICIES The Noise Element Policies section of this manual is intended to be used by project applicants, City Staff, and the citizens of Carlsbad who are interested in finding out what the City of Carlsbad Noise Policies are relating to Land Use. The City of Carlsbad, in fulfilling its State mandated responsibility to prepare and adopt a comprehensive General Plan for the City, has adopted a Noise Element. The Noise Element, along with six other mandated elements and two optional elements comprise the entire General Plan. While all of the elements are internally consistent and integrated with one another, some elements are more closely related. For example, the Circulation, Housing and the Land Use Elements are all closely related to the Noise Element. The noise policies of the City are most closely related to land use policies. This Manual focuses on the land use/noise compatibility of policies of Carlsbad. This section of the manual presents the policies from the Noise Element that relate to achieving compatibility between community noise and land use. The policies are verbatim from the Noise Element. The following are excerpts from the Noise Element of the General Plan, of Land Use/Community Noise Related Objectives and Implementing Policies and Action Programs. The Objectives are denoted with the letter B and the Implementing Policies and Action Programs are denoted with the Letter C. For a complete listing of all Goals, Objectives, and Implementing Policies and Action Programs please see the Noise Element. Noise Element Policies 4 Selected Land Use/Noise Compatibility Policies and Objectives from the Noise Element IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES & ACTION PROGRAMS GENERAL C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.1 Control harmful or undesirable sounds through the planning and regulatory process with emphasis on noise/land-use compatibility planning. C.2 Review all development proposals, both public and private, for consistency with the policies of this element. C.4 Continue to enforce building codes to ensure adequate sound insulation between dwellings and to ensure adequate sound insulation of interior areas from loud external noise sources. The City shall continue to enforce project conditions of approval related to noise control. C.5 Attempt to control noise primarily at its source. Where this is not feasible, controls along the transmission path of the noise should be required. LAND USE B. OBJECTIVES B.1 To achieve noise compatibility between industrial/commercial and surrounding land uses and achieve an acceptable noise environment in industrial/commercial areas. B.2 To achieve noise impact compatibility between land uses through the land use planning/development review process. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses in areas which are subject to excessive noise levels. C.2 Develop specific noise standards for use in reviewing noise sensitive development. C.3 Require the use of project design techniques, such as, increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; placing non- noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and, orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source to minimize noise impacts during any discretionary review of a residential or other noise sensitive project. C.5 Enforce the policy of the City that sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated. 65 dBA CNEL is the maximum noise level to which residential units subject to noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport should be permitted. Additional disclosure actions for new development in the Airport Influence Area as depicted in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), such as avigation easements, deed restrictions, recorded notice, etc., may be required of developers/sellers of noise impacted residential units. For residential properties identified as requiring a noise study, a study shall be prepared by an acoustical professional. This study shall document the projected maximum exterior noise level and mitigate the projected exterior noise level to a maximum allowable noise level as identified in this policy. Interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the exterior of the residence are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided. If the acoustical study shows that exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to the level allowable as identified in this policy or less, the development should not be approved without one or more of the following findings: Noise Element Policies 5 (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise). (2) Changes or alterations to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Carlsbad. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise). If a project is approved with exterior noise levels exceeding the level allowable pursuant to this policy, all purchasers of the impacted property shall be notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchasing is, or will be, noise impacted and does not meet Carlsbad noise standards for residential property. Notwithstanding project approval, no residential interior CNEL should exceed 45 dBA. C.6 Require that a "Noise" Study be submitted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five or more single family dwelling units or any multiple family dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour lines as shown on Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map. C.7 Enforce the policy of the City that site design techniques such as increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; placing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise-sensitive areas; and orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source, be the first tool used to mitigate noise impacts on noise sensitive land uses rather than the construction of walls or berms. C.8 Recognize that mitigation of existing or future noise impacts from Circulation Element roadways, AT&SF railroad or McClellan-Palomar Airport for existing or future development within the City, shall not be funded by the City. However, the City shall assist applicants with the processing of necessary permits for mitigating noise on private property, which permits may include right-of-way permits, encroachment permits, retaining wall permits and zoning variances. The City shall also assist property owners in the establishment of assessment districts, to fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance with established City policies and procedures. CIRCULATION C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.2 Consider noise impacts in the design of road systems and give special consideration to those road corridors in scenic or noise sensitive areas. C.4 Apply the residential noise policies of this element in the review of proposals for the construction or improvement of any roadway, railroad, transit system or other noise producing facility. AIRPORT B. OBJECTIVES B.1 To minimize noise impacts on City residents, the City has planned for non-residential land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour of McClellan-Palomar Airport, as shown on Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map. B.2 To develop and enforce programs dealing with airport noise disclosure, avigation easements and noise control that provide for noise compatibility with surrounding land uses. Noise Element Policies 6 C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses and restrict incompatible land uses surrounding airport facilities. C.2 Utilize the noise standards contained in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). However, the City reserves the right to overrule the ALUCP as provided for in State Public Utilities Code Section 21676. C.4 Expect the airport to control noise while the City shall control land-use thus sharing responsibility for achieving and maintaining long-term noise/land-use compatibility in the vicinity of McClellan-Palomar Airport. C.5 Discourage the development of residential projects with exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL as caused by airport/aircraft operations. The City recognizes that noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL, as caused by aircraft operations, are generally incompatible with developments of residential uses and such developments should not be permitted within the 65 dBA CNEL Airport Noise Contour (See Map 3: Compatibility Policy Map: Noise). However, if residential projects are approved, the City will require avigation easements to be placed over lots within new residential development projects located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as mapped on Map 3: Compatibility Policy Map: Noise. C.6 New nonresidential development should comply with the noise compatibility criteria in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The City will require dedication of avigation easements for new developments designated as conditionally compatible for noise in the ALUCP, and which are located within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour as mapped on Map 3: Compatibility Policy Map: Noise. RAIL A. GOAL Noise from railroad travel through Carlsbad is not disruptive to adjacent land uses and activities. B. OBJECTIVE To develop, maintain and manage a mitigation program for railroad noise. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.1 Apply the residential noise policies of this Element in the review and approval of the construction or improvement of railroad facilities. C.2 Apply the noise mitigation guidelines of the Noise Guidelines Manual (on file in the Planning Department) to all proposed development within the 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour line as depicted on Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map. EMPLOYMENT B. OBJECTIVES B.3 To encourage that all business entities operating in the City comply with all occupational Health and Safety laws, rules and/or regulations established by authorized city, county, state or federal agencies. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.1 Participate in noise control and hearing conservation programs in all appropriate work environments owned, operated, or otherwise under the control of the City. C.2 Promote that all persons responsible for operation of noise-producing equipment or processes, exercise reasonable care to minimize casual noise exposure to unprotected workers or passers-by to reduce risk of hearing damage. C.3 Encourage and assist its employees in identifying and abating potential noise hazards on City-owned or controlled property. III. NOISE SCIENCE Noise Science 7 III. NOISE SCIENCE Introduction The Noise Science section is intended to be used by anyone wishing to better understand noise. The information contained in this section ranges from simple to very technical. A wide range of information has been included in this section in an attempt to address the needs of all users of this Manual including project applicants, City staff, and the citizens of Carlsbad. Sound is all around us. Many sounds are from natural sources. For example, the song of a bird, the crash of ocean surf, wind rustling through leaves, or the roar of a waterfall are sounds that most people will experience on one or more occasions during their lifetime. Although, the above sounds range from quiet to loud, most persons would consider these sounds to be pleasant or even desirable. In an increasingly urbanized, mechanized, and technological society, however, many of the sources of sound are not from nature, but are caused by man and the machines and devices that are an integral part of modern civilization. These man-made sounds are usually considered unpleasant and undesirable. This type of sound is called noise. This section provides basic noise information to help the reader understand the difference between sound and noise, how noise is measured and mapped, how noise barriers work, and the potential harmful effects of noise. Definition While people with normal hearing can generally describe sound and “know” what sound is from their sensory experience of it, we all have difficulty in defining and discussing various amounts of sound. It is even more difficult to relate to exact physical changes in sound character to our human perception and response to sound energy. We begin with the definition of sound. When an object vibrates it radiates part of its mechanical energy as very tiny changes in pressure through an elastic medium such as air, water, or a solid. The ear responds to this acoustic pressure change, usually in air, and provides a conversion to nerve impulses that are transmitted to the brain for interpretation as sound. “Noise” is defined distinctly from “sound.” Noise is a certain class of sound, simply, NOISE IS UNWANTED SOUND. This means that any sound which is unwanted is defined as noise. Loud and soft, noisy and quiet, high and low-pitch are terms often used to describe sound. These terms are relative, however, and do not reflect the absolute volume of, or frequencies contained in sound perceived by people. Physically, sound is described by two attributes, amplitude and frequency. • Amplitude (also power or loudness), is usually described in decibels (dB). The loudness of a sound depends on the pressure exerted by the sound waves. The greater the pressure, the louder the sound. The amplitude of most common sounds is between 30 and 100 decibels. • Frequency, also referred to as pitch or tone, is described in Hertz (Hz) representing cycles per second. High frequency sounds are produced by rapidly vibrating objects and low frequency sounds by slowly vibrating objects. Human hearing is most sensitive to sounds with pitch in the Noise Science 8 range of speech and somewhat higher frequencies. This range is from approximately 125 Hz to 4000 Hz. Noise can additionally be described by its time pattern or temporal distribution. Strictly speaking, sound is sound only when it is present; noise may be repetitive, intermittent, continuous, or randomly occurring with respect to time. This variable temporal behavior strongly contributes to sound being considered as noise, as most people find non-stationary sound more annoying. As humans we like (or are neutral toward) most sounds; our lives may in fact depend upon a sound to stay alive. An example would be the blaring horn of the car we did not see as we were about to step into the street. Unfortunately, the very same horn can be noise if it is blowing for a reason other than to protect our immediate safety. Just about all man-made sound can be defined as noise at some time or another. This would include the broad category of transportation noise (automobile, motorcycle, truck, railroad, boat, airplane); industrial/commercial/residential related noise, usually mechanical in origin (e.g., car wash, air conditioning compressor, pneumatic tools, power plant, cooling tower, portable generators or pumps); and “people” related noise sources such as amplified speech, crowd noise, a loud radio/stereo/TV, live amplified music, a carnival, a shooting ranch, or a car alarm. We call most natural and very soft man- made sound “background” or “ambient” sound. For purposes of this Manual, and the state planning law, we consider non-natural, medium to loud sound as noise. It is generally called environmental noise, or community noise. Quantifying Noise There are at least two ways to measure and describe quantities: absolute for example, inches, feet or miles, or relative for example, “my new house is twice as large as my old apartment,” or “this sidewalk is 50% wider than the last one.” Noise can be quantified either way, but it is easiest to use the relative method for noise. The relative value of two quantities used for noise level description, is always the same by international scientific agreement. The basic unit that we use to describe noise quantity is the decibel, abbreviated dB. A Bel (named in honor of Alexander Graham Bell) could be used, but it is too big. It would be like trying to describe the length of a pencil in yards or feet, rather than inches. By using dBs we can also conveniently describe the important (to humans) range of noise levels with the numerical range of 0 dB to 140 dB. This range is from the softest sound we can sense to a painfully/damaging loud sound (See Figure III-1). The normal range of noise levels we experience on a day-to-day basis is from 30 dBA to (briefly) 110 dBA. Decibels behave mathematically according to the laws of logarithms. Common rules are provided below; most books on algebra will discuss all the math details if you need additional information. 1. Two equal noise levels will add to give 3 dB more level than each of the original levels alone (e.g., 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB) Noise Science 9 FIGURE III-1 Noise Science 10 2. The same works for subtraction, i.e. if two equal noise sources are producing 63 dB and one is turned off or removed, then the remaining noise level is 60 dB. 3. If two (or more) noise sources are not equal then the addition or subtraction of one (or some) of the sources will not raise or lower the final level by 3 dB. The final level will depend more upon the loudest source still on. If one source is running, and a second, slightly quieter or somewhat quieter source is added, then the combined noise level will go up only by 2½ or 2 or maybe only 1 dB. 4. The practical limit of rule 3 above is when the sources differ by 10 dB in their noise levels. In this case, the louder source is said to dominate the noise environment and the quieter source can be ignored because it is contributing less than .4 dB to the overall combined noise level. A difference of .4 dB is considered very small. This rule 4 is also important when you are trying to reduce noise from multiple sources or noise coming in through multiple pathways. Always try to reduce the loudest source first ---the quiet ones don’t count! 5. “Small” noise leaks are very important. A 1% crack or gap in a noise enclosure, or building shell will reduce the noise control effectiveness by 90%. A substantial amount of expensive noise control effort may be wasted. A nomograph (Figure III-2) follows this discussion. It may be used to help calculate combined noise levels. Combining Decibels Very often situations occur in which there is more than one source of noise contributing to the total noise level at a particular location. For example, there may be noise from two roadways impacting a site, or perhaps a new noise source is being planned in an already noisy environment. Because sound levels have logarithmic units known as the decibel, the sound levels cannot be added or subtracted algebraically. The procedure for combining two sound levels is to first convert the sound levels to squared pressures, then add or subtract the squared pressures required by the situation, and then convert back to sound levels. For example, two sound levels of 70 decibels and 70 decibels yield a total sound level of 73 decibels, not 140 decibels. For ease of adding sound levels, the chart on the following page may be used. An example of its use follows. Noise Science 11 FIGURE III-2 DIFFERENCE IN DECIBELS BETWEEN TWO LEVELS BEING ADDED EXAMPLE Assume a house is impacted by an average sound level of 60 decibels from an adjacent roadway. A new roadway is planned and is estimated to generate an average sound level of 66 decibels at the same house. To combine the two sound levels, the following steps occur: MATHEMATICALLY USING THE CHART 1. Divide each value by 10 (60÷10 = 6.0) (66÷10 = 6.6) 1. Find the difference in the two sound levels. (66-60 = 6 decibels) 2. Take the antilog of each value. (antilog 6.0 = 1,000,000) (antilog 6.6 = 3,981,071) 2. Enter the chart at 6 decibels on the horizontal axis. 3. Add the values together. (1,000,000 + 3,981,017 = 4,981,017) 3. Read up from the decibels to the curved line and then horizontally to the left, to read an increment of 1 decibel from the vertical axis. 4. Take the logarithm of the resultant value. (lot 4,981,017) = 6.697 4. Add the 1 decibel increment to the higher of the two initial values (66 + 1 = 67 decibels). 5. Multiply by 10. (6.697 x 10 = 66.97) The new average sound level at the house is 67 decibels. 5. The new average sound level at the house is 67 decibels. Noise Science 12 Perception of Noise So far, we have discussed physical noise quantities and the mathematical description of physical noise levels, changes in level, and combining noises. A brief discussion of some perception factors is equally as important to your understanding of noise as it affects people. In general, for common sounds directly presented for comparison, a reasonable person of normal sensibilities will exhibit the following correspondence between physical noise quantity change and perceived change: TABLE III-1 PERCEPTION OF NOISE*** Change of Perception Plus 1 dB Slightly noticeable Plus 2-3 dB Somewhat louder Plus 5 db Distinctly louder Plus 8-9 db Twice as loud Noise Descriptors As previously discusses, one attribute of sound is frequency (the number of pressure changes above (+) and below (-) the static atmospheric pressure in a one second time interval expressed as Hertz, (abbreviated Hz). It is somewhat rare to have a “pure tone” or “simple tone” sound of predominantly one frequency in the community environment. Environmental noise is generally comprised of numerous sounds containing many different frequencies all at once. Some noise may have more low frequencies and sound rumbly or deep; some noise may contain more high frequencies and some hissing. Even though a noise may contain low frequency noise and high frequency noise of equal amplitudes, the ear does not hear the low tones (or the very high tones) as well as the middle/high tones. That’s why a baby’s cry is more easily heard than a subway or very distant thunder. This becomes important when measuring noise with electronic instruments or trying to predict the effect that a particular noise will have on people. Most high quality sound measuring instruments can measure sounds of low or high frequency equally well; in this respect they are too good for a community noise measurement! Actually this high quality frequency response is very useful for other types of measurements such as predicting or measuring the noise reducing characteristics of sound barriers, which is briefly discussed below. For community noise measurement we do take into consideration the different between the frequency response performance of the instrument and the average human hearing. Sometimes you will see a capital A along with dB, as dB(A), or dBA. This means that the electronic measuring instrument (or computer) has a modified response to sound. The frequency response has been “weighted” to more closely represent how our ears hear sounds of different pitch. By agreement, all community noise is considered to be “A-weighted,” so the “A” is sometimes left off. Basically, A- weighting tends to ignore low frequency sound and puts more emphasis on sound in the speech frequency range. Noise Science 13 Typical community noise results from many sources and varies so that the noise level is not usually consistent. This changing noise level may be expressed in statistical terms or in terms of its energy of power. Several rating descriptions have been developed for the measurement of community noise. The predominate rating descriptions in California are energy based and are called: Energy Mean Noise Level (Leq); Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn); and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These each use “dB” to indicate level. They are all A-weighted. The Ldn and CNEL descriptions apply different penalty factors to noise occurring during certain times of the evening and/or nighttime. Ldn adds a 10 dB penalty to noise occurring at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. of the next day); CNEL adds a 5 dB penalty to noise occurring during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB nighttime penalty between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Thus when a noise level is given in dB for a particular location, it is important to know what energy descriptor is associated with that value. The CNEL index is used in the City of Carlsbad for several reasons including: It satisfies the State requirement that the acoustical scale include both magnitude of noise and frequency of occurrence; and it incorporates factors of amplitude and the pitch of noise, hearing sensitivity of the human ear, duration of noise, and time of day penalty factors. The CNEL index is also the method of airport noise description required by the State of California Aeronautics Division for Environmental Impact Reports. It is the current planning index used by Airport Land Use Commissions (SANDAG in San Diego County). Noise Barriers The manner in which a physical structure, like a noise barrier wall or earthen berm, interacts with a sound wave is very dependent upon the dimensions of the barrier, and the frequency of the sound wave. This is due to the physics of wave barrier. In simplified terms, there are three components of a soundwave/barrier that are of interest: 1. Sound passing directly through the barrier (transmitted); 2. Sound bouncing back from hitting the barrier (reflected); and, 3. Sound bending over the top or around the ends of the barrier (diffracted). The first component is the easiest to control and is a function of the “surface mass” or density of the wall; in order for a barrier to be normally effective the transmitted sound component should be 10 dB or more below the level of noise that is getting over or around the barrier. A minimum rule of thumb for highway noise barriers is 3.5 lbs per square foot, which is achieved by marine grade ¾” plywood. This is why many materials can make effective barriers in addition to masonry block. The second and third components are functions of the sound’s frequency/wavelength and the barrier dimensions. The higher frequency sounds (i.e., shorter wavelength) more readily bounce back off the wall – the wall dimension, usually 8 to 16 feet high, is large compared to the dimension of the wavelength of the sounds. The lower frequency, longer wavelength sounds tend to partially overcome the barrier by bending over and around the barrier. This bending still caused the soundwave to lose some of its energy, therefore, we say that it has been attenuated by the barrier. If the sound has a very long wavelength dimension compared to the wall dimension then the wall has very little effect upon this low frequency soundwave which is not significantly attenuated. As stated earlier, most environmental noise consists of many frequencies mixed together. Highway noise is no exception. Based upon measurement and analysis it was found that the most energy Noise Science 14 highway noise is concentrated around 500-550 Hz, which corresponds to a wavelength of approximately 2 feet. Therefore, when designing barriers and predicting their expected noise attenuation performance, noise control engineers use a noise wavelength of 2 feet for calculations and computer modeling. Noise Mapping Noise mapping helps us to see where noise might conflict with existing or planned land-use. On a noise map, such as the Existing and Future Noise Exposure Maps that are part of the Noise Element, each noise line is called a “contour” line. The noise level is the same at any point on a given line, i.e., the 65 dB CNEL contour line indicates that the noise environment from a single source or combined sources is equivalent at any point on that contour line. The noise environment changes between contour lines and becomes noisier and more quiet as we get closer to a higher and lower value noise contour. As illustrated in Figure III-3 noise contours are spaced at 5 dB increments according to the requirement of state law. For the planning and development process, the noise contour lines are determined as accurately as possible using the best engineering techniques, and then the contour lines are “fixed” in location and are used to implement the noise policy of the City. We call these fixed lines Policy Implementation Lines, and consider them to be similar to, and used like, zoning district boundaries, or parcel map boundaries, or property lines. Community noise is important because it affects our quality of life. Workplace noise is generally beyond the scope of this Manual, and is regulated by stated and federal agencies. However, the City is concerned about workplace noise and is supportive of regulations which are designed to promote good health and reduce hearing damage. Although the noise levels that are associated with the workplace and hearing damage are substantially higher than common community noise levels, the noise levels experienced in the nonwork environment may still have harmful health effects. These noise levels are in the “community noise impact range,” approximately 40 dBA to 85 dBA. Noise Science 15 FIGURE III-3 NOISE CONTOURS Noise Science 16 Harmful Effects of Noise Noise in the Community Noise Impact Range (40 dBA to 85 dBA) can cause temporary physiological and/or psychological effects. If the noise/response cycle is repeated at a sufficiently close interval and continues over time, then the noise may contribute to and aggravate certain disorders such as headache, fatigue, digestive upsets, circulatory or equilibrium problems, etc. Noise is considered a “stressor” and may have serious implications in stress related ailments. Two areas of significant concern with respect to effects of community noise on people are the interference with speech communication, which includes not only person-to-person but telephone, radio, and television communication, and the interruption of sleep. Figure III-4 illustrates how speech and communication can be impacted by noise. Excessive background noises can reduce the amount and quality of verbal exchange and thereby impact education, family lifestyles, occupational efficiency and the quality of recreation and leisure time. Speech interference begins to occur at about 40 to 45 decibels and significant at about 60 decibels. Background noise level can affect performance and learning processes through distraction, reduced accuracy, increased fatigue, annoyance and irritability, and the inability to concentrate. Several factors determine whether or not a particular noise event will interfere with or prevent sleep. These factors include the noise level and characteristics, the stage of sleep, the individual’s age, motivation to waken, and so forth. Ill or elderly people are particularly susceptible to noise induced sleep interference. Noise Science 17 FIGURE III-4 SPEECH COMMUNICATION AS A FUNCTION OF BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL IV. PROJECT PROCESSING PROCEDURES Project Processing Procedures 18 IV. PROJECT PROCESSING PROCEDURES This section is intended to be primarily used by project applicants and citizens who are interested in understanding how noise issues are addressed during the City’s review of a development proposal. The purpose of this section is to identify how noise issues are handled in the City’s review of development proposals. It is intended that this section provide the reader with the method used by City staff to evaluate noise issues of development projects. By understanding this process, it is intended that proposed projects, will, by their planning and design, comply with the City’s policies concerning noise/land-use compatibility. This section should be used to determine whether a possible noise/land-use conflict would occur if action is not taken to resolve potential noise problems. It is expected that both citizens and City staff will refer to this section when evaluating development proposals. Although noise issues are considered important, it is only one of several planning issues that might be identified in a new project. Noise issues should be addressed through the routing project approval process. A. Guidelines for Complying with City Noise Policies The most satisfactory method of complying with City noise policies is through good project design. The design should recognize community noise as a concern and design-out potential noise conflicts. This section of the manual will provide guidance on ways to comply with City Noise Policies. The project designer is encouraged to integrate creative solutions to noise concerns, with the solutions of other site development concerns such as safety, provision, and utilization of open space, viewshed enhancement, interior traffic circulation, recreation, etc. The following is a discussion of methods of complying with City Policies. Table IV-2, at the end of this section, provides a summary of these suggestions. 1. Residential Noise (R) The City of Carlsbad considers residential land uses particularly sensitive to noise intrusion because residents are expected to use their homes for rest and recreation. Higher levels of noise interfere with such use. As such, the City had adopted specific noise standards to limit noise impacts to residential areas. There are a variety of ways to comply with City standards including the use of creative design alternatives. When noise is an issue on a project the applicant will be required to comply with the following to ensure compliance with City policies: R.1 All residential lots and dwellings are to be sound attenuated against present and projected roadway noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 60 dB(A) CNEL (see Noise Measurement Location in the Definitions Section for the description of Noise Measurement Location) in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB(A) CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared under the supervision of a certified acoustical consultant, that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with Project Processing Procedures 19 applicable zoning regulations to be submitted as follows, (see Section VI, Noise Study and Report for Specific Submittal Requirements): a. Submit a Noise Report to the City for approval. The document should describe, in detail, the exterior noise environment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the document. b. Submit for City approval a Noise Study and Report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards. Additionally, submit satisfactory evidence indicating that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved noise report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. c. Field testing in accordance with Title 24 regulations may be required by the City to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. d. For residential projects near existing or future transportation corridors, the owner shall be required, prior to recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, to prepare and record a notice that the property may be subject to impacts from the proposed or existing transportation corridor in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 of Technical Appendix I Forms). R.2 Proposed residential projects within the 60 dB(A) CNEL and above noise contour line as shown on the figure on Page E-1 shall comply with all applicable noise compatibility policies in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 2. Non-Residential Noise (NR) NR.1 All non-residential structures are to be sound-attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as shown in Table IV-1. Additionally, proposed non-residential projects within the 60 dB(A) CNEL and above noise contour line as shown on the figure on Page E-1 shall comply with all applicable noise compatibility policies in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Evidence prepared under the supervision of a certified acoustical consultant that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning and building regulations shall be prepared under the supervision of a certified acoustical consultant and shall be submitted in the form of a Noise Report. This material shall describe, in detail, the exterior noise environment, and the acoustical design features required to achieve interior noise standards. Evidence shall also be provided which indicates that the specified sound attenuation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project (see Section VI Noise Study for Specific Submittal Requirements). Project Processing Procedures 20 TABLE IV-1 GUIDELINES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS TYPICAL USE Leq (h) dBA Church Sanctuary, Preschool, Schools Fire Station Sleeping Quarters, etc. 45 General Office, General Commercial, Heavy Commercial, etc. 55 Planned Industrial, General Industrial 65 3. Property Impacted by Airport Generated Noise (A) For certain residential or non-residential projects (refer to the ALUCP for applicability) requiring a discretionary action by the City that are proposed within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour from the McClellan-Palomar Airport, the City will require the dedication of an avigation easement to the County of San Diego, as the airport owner. If a residential project is located within Airport Influence Area (AIA – as depicted in Technical Appendix E-2, “McClellan-Palomar Airport – Airport Influence Area”), the city will required the posting of Aircraft Noise Impact Area signs in all sales offices associated with that development and may require the recordation of a Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts (see A.1 and A.4 below). Information related to compliance with these requirements is presented below. A.1 Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or issuance of residential building permits, whichever is first, the owner of record of property located within the Airport Overflight Notification Area (as depicted in Technical Appendix E-3, “McClellan-Palomar Airport – Avigation Easement and Overflight Notification Areas”) shall be required to prepare and record a notice (see Noise Form #2 in Technical Appendix I, Forms) in a manner meeting the approval of the City Attorney and City Planner that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from the McClellan Palomar Airport. A.2 An applicant for a residential project located within the AIA (as depicted in Technical Appendix E-2, “McClellan- Palomar Airport – Airport Influence Area”) shall be required to produce evidence acceptable to the City that information, stating the property is subject to the overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from the McClellan Palomar Airport, has been provided to the Department of Real Estate of the State of California for inclusion into the Final Subdivision Public Report. A.3 Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, an avigation easement over any land use that is conditionally compatible with the ALUCP noise policies and is within the 65 dB(A) CNEL Noise Contour of McClellan-Palomar Airport (refer to the ALUCP for applicability) shall be required by the City, for dedication to the County of San Diego, as the airport owner, in a form acceptable to the County. A.4 The applicant shall be required to post aircraft noise impact notification signs in all sales offices associated with new residential development located within the AIA (as depicted in Technical Project Processing Procedures 21 Appendix E-2, “McClellan-Palomar Airport – Airport Influence Area”). The number and location of said signs would be as approved by the City. (see Technical Appendix I Forms for details on Aircraft Noise Notification Signs) A.5 Prior to sale, lease or rental of any residential structure or portion thereof located within the AIA (as depicted in Technical Appendix E-2, “McClellan-Palomar Airport – Airport Influence Area”), the applicant/owner may be required to provide to each prospective purchaser, lessee, or tenant a notice and statement of acknowledgement that the property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan Palomar Airport. The form and method of distribution of said notice and statement of acknowledgement would be as approved by the City. 4. Noise Generating Use (NG) The generation of noise for certain types of land uses could cause potential land use incompatibility. Noise generating uses or devices should be considered during normal project review. The following requirements should ensure that noise generated from specific land uses or devices will be compatible with adjacent land uses (see Section VI Noise Report for details). NG.1 Prior to approval of any permit, an Acoustical Analysis Report and appropriate plans shall be submitted describing the noise generation potential of the proposed project, and proposed noise attenuation measures to assure that an environment which is free from excessive or harmful noise is achieved and maintained. The report shall be prepared under the supervision of a certified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The approved attenuation features shall be incorporated into the plans and specification of the proposed project. NG.2 Prior to approval of the proposed project or issuance of any permit, a Noise Report shall be submitted to the City, which illustrates the feasibility of the exterior mitigation measures required to achieve City Noise Standards. 5. Construction Noise (C) Noise generated from construction activities is regulated by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.48. When potential noise impacts from construction activities have been identified, conditions may be applied to a project to minimize those impacts. The following are examples of such conditions. C.1 Prior to project approval, the project proponent may be required to produce evidence acceptable to the City that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling or noise sensitive use shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwellings and other noise sensitive receptors. Project Processing Procedures 22 TABLE IV-2 SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED METHODS OF COMPLYING WITH CITY NOISE POLICIES ITEM NUMBER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT NOISE CONDITION SUGGESTED ACTION R.1 Residential (including residential portions of hotels, motels, hospitals, caretakers homes, condominium conversions, etc.) Located within or 500’ beyond the 60 dB(A) CNEL contour line of the City’s Noise Contour Maps Provide detailed noise report as specified by the City R.2 Residential Located within the 60 dB CNEL and above noise contour as depicted in Appendix E, Figure E-1 Comply with applicable noise compatibility policies in the ALUCP NR.1 Non-Residential (offices, churches, preschools, restaurants, manufacturing, etc.) Located within 60 dB CNEL of any source Provide detailed noise report as specified by the City A.1 Residential Within the “Airport Overflight Notification Area” as depicted in Appendix E-3 Record Notice of Airport Activity as specified by the City A.2 Residential Within the “Airport Influence Area” as depicted in Appendix E-2 Provide information regarding air activity in Final Subdivision Public Report A.3 Any land use that is conditionally compatible with the ALUCP noise policies Within 65 dB CNEL of the airport Record an Avigation Easement dedicated to and as specified by the County of San Diego (refer to the ALUCP for applicability) A.4 Residential Within the “Airport Influence Area” as depicted in Appendix E-2 Post “Aircraft Noise Impact Area” signs in Sales Office A.5 Residential Within the “Airport Influence Area” as depicted in Appendix E-2 Provide Statement of Acknowledgement, to lessee, tenant, purchaser, etc., that property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft NG.1 Non-Residential (car wash, pump station, sewage plants, dog kennels) Project may generate noise in excess of City standards Provide detailed noise report as specified by the City NG.2 Residential or Non-Residential Located near a major noise source and severity of exterior mitigation is of concern Prior to project approval, provide detailed noise report as specified by the City to illustrate feasibility of mitigation measures required to meet the City noise standards C.1 Residential or Non-Residential Construction to occur near a noise- sensitive land use Provide appropriate noise- attenuation devices (such as mufflers) on all construction vehicles or equipment located within 1,000 feet of noise sensitive land use Project Processing Procedures 23 B. Procedure Used by the City to Evaluate Potential Noise Impacts The process used by the City of Carlsbad for evaluating potential noise impacts of a project is discussed below and outlined as a flow chart on Figure IV-2 Development Review Process for Noise Evaluation: Step 1: Project is presented for City approval. Proceed to Step 2. Step 2: City staff evaluates the project for its noise sensitivity and/or noise generation potential by answering the following questions. Will the proposed project: Yes Maybe No Increase existing noise levels, by more than 3 dB(A) CNEL? Expose people to noise levels above 85 dB(A), which are considered hazardous? Establish residential uses in areas within or 500 feet beyond the 60 dB(A) CNEL Noise Contour Maps approved as part of the General Plan Create a noise/land-use incompatibility pursuant to Figure IV-2 Land Use Compatibility for Noise Environments? Be located within the 60-65 dB CNEL or higher noise contour as shown on Appendix E, Figure E-1, “Compatibility Policy Map: Noise”? If you answered ‘No’ to all five questions above, Land Use/Noise concerns are not an issue with your project. Proceed to Step 7. If you answered ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’ to any of the questions, proceed to Step 3. Step 3: Assess the noise problems or concerns which might affect the project. For guidance, see Subsection C that follows regarding additional project review considerations. Address the following questions and proceed to Step 4. Project Processing Procedures 24 FIGURE IV-1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS MATRIX Project Processing Procedures 25 Step 4: Evaluate noise issues with respect to the Noise Element, Building Code, State Noise Insulation Standards, and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land-Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), if applicable. The City will utilize the noise compatibility guidelines of Figure IV-1, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix (and the noise compatibility criteria of the ALUCP, if applicable), to determine the acceptability of noise levels impacting proposed projects. Upon completing this evaluation proceed to Step 5. What is the source of noise; is it ordinary or unusual for the area or designated land-use? How loud is the potential noise compared to the normal background noise? Is the potential noise particularly identifiable, obnoxious, irritating, irregular or startling? What or who is the potential receiver of the noise? Is the potential receiver unusually sensitive? Which use should be protected from encroachment in the particular circumstance? Step 5: If after the City evaluates the proposed project and determines that potential noise impacts exist, and/or a potentially infeasible noise reduction methods are proposed, then the project is subject to the requirements of a Noise Study (see Section IV for the submittal requirements of Noise Studies). Proceed to Step 6. If after analysis of Steps 3 and 4 it is determined that there are no potential significant noise impacts proceed to Step 7. Step 6: If after the City evaluates the proposed project and determines that potential noise impacts exist, and/or a potentially infeasible noise reduction methods are proposed, then the project is subject to the requirements of a Noise Study (see section VI for the submittal requirements of Noise Studies). If after analysis of Steps 4 and 5 it is determined that there are no potential significant noise impacts proceed to Step 8. Step 7: Upon completion of the Noise Study the project should be redesigned as necessary to conform with the recommendations of the study. Step 8: If it is determined that a project has no significant noise issues, then the project may proceed without need for Noise Study and Report; however, some application of noise Conditions of Approval may still be appropriate (i.e., to control construction noise, etc.). Project Processing Procedures 26 C Project Review Considerations Potential noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, and the potential of noise impacts from noise- generating uses should be addressed on all proposed projects. The following is a discussion of these noise considerations. 1. Noise Sensitive Land Uses Noise sensitive land uses can be either Residential or Non-Residential. The following is a description of noise sensitive uses which should be carefully reviewed during project processing for potential noise impacts. Residential Generally, the typical noise sensitive land uses to be analyzed would be those utilized for living or dwelling units. The following land uses are considered to be noise sensitive in the City of Carlsbad: Single family residential uses or multi-family residential uses. These are the most prevalent noise sensitive land uses in the City. Residential uses may include a single house, duplex, condominium, townhome, apartment, and stock cooperative project. See Figure IV-1 for guidelines on noise levels generally considered acceptable for proposed land uses. Other Other noise sensitive land uses may include, but are not included to: hotels, motels, hospitals, board and care facilities, convalescent facilities, nursing or rest homes, boarding schools, convents, churches, and emergency services living quarters. 2. Noise Generating Land-Uses, Devices and/or Activities The following are examples of noise generators which may be associated with certain types of land use. These devices or activities should be considered during the normal project review process. The examples are for guidance only and are not the only potential noise generating devices or activities that may be associated with a project. Residential Land Use • Pool/spa pump • Exhaust fan • Air conditioner compressor, and/or evaporator fan • Power mower/edger • Leaf blower • Power tools • Trash pickup • Community activity areas • Internal vehicular circulation Project Processing Procedures 27 Non-Residential Land Use • Car wash • Fast food restaurant • Auto dealership, service, repair • Shopping center • Street sweeping/parking lot sweeping • Agriculture equipment • Educational institution • Nightclub • Public address or alarm systems • Religious institutions • Cooling tower • Industrial processes • Air scrubbers and pollution control devices • Hotels – Motels • Construction equipment • Manufacturing • Power tools (electric, pneumatic, internal combustion) • Public utility facilities • Lumber yard • Animal shelters, kennels • Railroad facilities • Athletic fields – activities • Active parks • Amphitheater • Stadium Project Processing Procedures 28 FIGURE IV-2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR NOISE EVALUATION Step 1 Project is presented to the City Step 2 Evaluate project for noise sensitivity or noise generation potential Step 3 Identify noise issues affecting the project Step 4 Test noise issues against city, ALUCP or other Noise Standards for significance. Step 5 Project that does not meet City Noise Standards requires Feasibility Noise Report – Project Redesign – Special Findings may be required Step 5a If project still not meet City Noise Standards then project not supported by City Staff Step 5b PLANNING DIRECTOR Evaluates staff recommendations and makes a determination Step 5c PLANNING COMMISSION Evaluates issues and makes a determination Step 5c CITY COUNCIL Makes final decision if Step 5c decision is appealed Step 6 Project generally complies with Noise Policies and may be subject to: Project Redesign 1. Noise Report 2. Noise Reduction Measures 3. Conditions of Approval Step 7 Project may proceed if approved by City V. CITY PREFERRED METHODS OF MITIGATING NOISE Preferred Noise Mitigation 29 V. CITY PREFERRED METHODS OF MITIGATING NOISE This section is intended to be primarily used by project designers, project applicants and citizens interested in knowing the methods of mitigating noise that are preferred in the City of Carlsbad. The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to the project designer regarding acoustical designs preferred by the City. The intent of this section is to encourage project designs that reduce the generation of noise, reduce the effects of noise upon project visitors, workers, or residents, and upon the areas surrounding the project. This section is not meant to be used merely as a source of “cookbook solutions” to potential noise problems. Rather, it is meant to familiarize staff and the project designer with a range of acoustical problem-solving approaches to control noise. The City strongly believes that project layout and design are the preferred noise reduction techniques. Where noise barriers are necessary, then natural barriers such as site topography or constructed earthen berms or the buildings themselves are preferable to noise wall. The most effective method of noise control is source control, e.g., quieter cars, silent lawnmowers, etc. Source control for most community noise sources is, unfortunately, not usually practical. The other options are path or receiver controls, with the path being the most common method required by the City. Path modifications include good acoustical layout and site design, barriers, buildings, etc. Many techniques and methods are effective noise control features. A project will typically be more desirable and more livable when noise control is built-in rather than added-on. An innovative approach using a wide range of alternatives is desired. Guidelines for Reducing Noise The following are guidelines for reducing the impacts of noise on a proposed project. 1. Project Design Project design should be the primary method used to mitigate noise on a project. Project design should stress the orientation of units away from the source of noise generation, limit window openings onto highway or railroad rights-of-way, and should take advantage of the natural topography of the site where feasible (see Figures V-1 and V-2 for examples). As a least desirable design option, a project may require construction of berms, and/or berm/wall combinations, and lastly, noise walls; however, exclusive use of walls for noise reduction should be minimized. 2. Natural Topography By taking advantage of the natural slope and contours of a site, it is often possible to arrange buildings in a manner which will reduce and possibly eliminate excessive noise impacts. The following site techniques should be considered to reduce noise impacts (See Figure V-3): • Increase the distance between noise source and receiver; Preferred Noise Mitigation 30 FIGURE V-1 NOISE SENSITIVE SITE DESIGNS Preferred Noise Mitigation 31 FIGURE V-2 NOISE SENSITIVE SITE DESIGN Preferred Noise Mitigation 32 • Place non-noise sensitive land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities and utility areas between noise source and receiver; • Use non-noise sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; and • Orient buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise source(s) and to prevent echo build-up between buildings. FIGURE V-3 NOISE MITIGATION THROUGH USE OF TOPOGRAPHY 3. Building insulation New buildings should be insulated to protect them from noise that could exceed interior standards. 4. Mechanical Ventilation Air conditioning can be offered to allow windows to remain closed, even if it is not strictly required to meets noise standards. Be aware that the placement of mechanical ventilation devices should minimize noise impacts to surrounding noise sensitive uses. 5. Architectural Layout Architectural layouts can be utilized as a means of meeting noise reduction requirements. The following steps should be considered during building design (see Figure V-4): • Bedrooms should be placed on the side of the house facing away from a major road, rail line, runway, etc. • Balconies facing major travel routes should be avoided. • Quiet outdoor spaces can be provided even for a project located next to a noisy roadway by creating a U-shaped development which faces away from the roadway. Preferred Noise Mitigation 33 6. Noise Barriers Noise barriers (topography, berms or walls) can reduce noise levels in outdoor areas and on the building’s first floor from most ground-based sources. The City prefers the use of natural barriers such as earthen berms, to the use of screen walls. The following guidelines will ensure the effectiveness of a noise barrier: • The barrier should be dense enough to prevent significant noise transmission through it, high enough, and long enough to shield the receiver from direct line of sight to the noise source. Barrier design should be determined through a Noise Study. • The typically acceptable minimum surface weight for a noise barrier is approximately 3½ to 4 pounds per square foot (equivalent to ¾” plywood); however, specific calculations for particular source and receiver situation may yield acceptable performance from less massive structures. • The designer should consider undesirable visual impacts when specifying the materials used to construct the barrier. This is most important with wall type barriers; however, a constructed berm of landscaped earth is also likely to be more visually pleasing than a mound of gravel or a pile of rocks. It is possible, however, that the gravel or boulders might better fit a project’s theme – use your imagination. Visually transparent barriers of glass or acrylic may be appropriate. Stucco finish, or textured precast concrete, various types of metal, aggregate finish, or heavy timber might be best for your particular site. The barrier should be carefully constructed so that there are no cracks, gaps, or openings. • The barrier must interrupt the acoustical line-of-sight between noise source and receiver. Where heavy trucks contribute significantly to the noise environment, the noise study should include such noise influence in the analysis and mitigation recommendations. • Narrow barriers, regardless of height, provide essentially no reduction in the overall noise level noise due to flanking effects of noise making an “end run” around the barrier. • Noise control wall/berm heights should be measured from the interior base (observer side) of the wall/berm to the top of the wall/berm. (see Figure V-5) Noise Reports frequently propose noise reduction measures necessary for the project to comply with City noise standards. When a project has an exterior noise level which requires reduction, a solution typically proposed is the construction of some type of noise attenuation barrier. Remember, however, that the barrier should take the form of a wall only if other approaches are shown to be infeasible, and then then wall construction material should not be limited to concrete block. Preferred Noise Mitigation 34 FIGURE V-4 NOISE MITIGATION THROUGH ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT Preferred Noise Mitigation 35 FIGURE V-5 NOISE BARRIER ALTERNATIVES Preferred Noise Mitigation 36 7. Treatment of Combined Uses When a project description includes mixed land uses (such as classroom and office space, or residential/non-residential uses, etc.) each area should be designed to meet the appropriate noise standards(s) as specified in the Noise Element of the General Plan. An example would be a hotel/motel. The habitable rooms (as defined by the Uniform Building Code) should be designed to meet an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL or less, and the associated offices, kitchen area, and restaurant spaces should be design to meet the appropriate Leq standard. When the space usage is not yet determined, the worst case shall apply. Variance Procedures The project design team is strongly encouraged to utilize features other than excessively tall structures to reduce noise. An Administrative Variance granted by the Planning Director, is required to exceed wall heights permitted by zoning regulations. The Planning Director’s decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. By law a variance may be approved only if the findings listed below can be made: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 2. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with Project Environmental Documentation Environmental analysis during the planning stage of a project may result in project redesign or application of mitigation requirements for noise control. The applicant should indicate how acoustical mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project. VI. NOISE REPORTS Noise Reports 37 VI. NOISE REPORTS The Noise Reports Section is intended to be used primarily by noise consultants, project applicants and City staff in the preparation and review of a noise report required of a project. The City may require the preparation of a Noise Report to be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. See Technical Appendix J Noise Report Application and Check List for detailed submittal requirements. There are different types of noise studies and reports that may be prepared. The actual document submitted to the City will usually combine study methods and findings, along with any recommendations to comply with standards, into one package commonly called a “Noise Report.” A typical community noise study may involve actual measurements of noise in the field, or modeling of the expected noise levels (often with a computer program), or a combination of both methods. The “report” portion will present and interpret the findings of the “study” and much describe the exterior noise environment in detail and, as necessary, propose measures to satisfy both exterior and interior noise level criteria that are applicable to the project. A project applicant must obtain the services of a certified acoustical consultant to perform the acoustical analysis in order to address compliance with City (and possibly State) Noise Standards. See Technical Appendix H for qualified consultant selection guidelines. Types of Noise Reports The three general categories of Noise Report that the City might require are: 1. Feasibility Noise Report (for severe noise environments/impacts); 2. “One-Step” Complete Noise Report (when exact building design and location known); and 3. Phased Noise Report (for large conceptual projects). 1. Feasibility Noise Report If a project is proposed to be located in a severe noise environment or if the project may generate excessive noise and the measures proposed to reduce noise levels to meet the City’s noise standards may be impractical or undesirable, a Feasibility Noise Report may be required prior to accepting the project into the review process. The Feasibility Noise Report may be required in a number of situations, for example, where a residential development is proposed to be located close to railroad tracks, close to the airport, or immediately adjacent to the I-5 Freeway where high levels of noise are known to occur. The reason for asking for this type of report is to determine if feasible noise reduction methods exist which could potentially mitigate severe noise impacts without violating the zoning code, or by excessively restricting access or obscuring viewshed, etc. If it is technically impossible to satisfy noise standards, or if noise reduction features are impractical, or undesirable, then the City should know this early in the project evaluation process. Noise Reports 38 2. One-Step Complete Noise Report The “one-step” report system is designed for applicants who are applying for Grading Permits, Tentative Maps, or Building Permits and who have exact specification as to the building design and location. The building information may be from architectural plans for a proposed development, or from an existing building as in the case of a condominium conversion. A Noise Report will be submitted to the City for review which addresses, in detail, the exterior and interior noise levels. The report format must adhere to the City Noise Report Standards. All noise reduction measures recommended in the Noise Report shall be incorporated into the project, prior to project approval or issuance of any permits. An applicant who knows the complete design of the project would utilize this method of Noise Report processing since it is the most cost-efficient and time-efficient way to obtain noise clearance as part of the normal project review process. A flow chart which illustrates this method of compliance is shown below. FIGURE VI-1 ONE STEP COMPLETE NOISE REPORT SUBMITTAL PROCESS Complete Noise Report submitted Noise environment established If necessary, propose noise reduction measures as necessary for both exterior and interior Incorporate noise reduction recommendations into project design Noise Reports 39 3. Phased Noise Reports The Phased Noise Report method is designed for project applicants applying for the discretionary approval of a project such as a Master Plan, Specific Plan or Tentative Map submitted prior to knowledge of exact specifications of building design or location. This method divides the complete noise report of the One Step Complete Noise Report Method into two parts: A Preliminary Noise Report and a Final Noise Report. A “Preliminary” Noise Report addresses the exterior noise levels expected on the project along with the approximate noise reduction measure that will likely be necessary to meet City standards. These preliminary noise reduction measures may then be evaluated for potential conflicts with zoning codes, etc., and steps recommended to eliminate the conflict. For example, altering pad grades with respect to a roadway grade may reduce noise barrier requirements. Again, this Preliminary Noise Report is appropriate where details of proposed structures are not yet determined. When exact design and specifications for a project are submitted for review (i.e., Planned Unit Development, etc.), the Final Noise Report shall be submitted. The Final Noise Report will determine exterior noise levels in critical areas, final exterior noise reduction measures, and interior noise levels and noise reduction measures to achieve the interior standards. All noise reduction measures specified in the approved Preliminary and Final Noise Reports shall be incorporated into the project and shown on the building plans. A flow chart which illustrates this method of compliance is shown below. FIGURE VI-2 PHASED NOISE REPORT SUBMITTAL PROCESS Preliminary Noise Report submitted as part of Application for Master Plan, Specific Plan or Tentative Map Noise environment established Redesign site to minimize noise impacts Incorporate recommendations into project design City action on proposed Master Plan, Specific Plan or Tentative Map Final Noise Report submitted as part of a subsequent discretionary action such as, site development plan, condominium permit, planned unit development, etc., addressing interior and exterior noise level and proposed mitigations for buildings Redesign site to minimize noise impacts If necessary, incorporate recommended noise mitigation into plans If necessary, propose noise mitigations as necessary for exterior only VII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions of Approval 40 VII. SAMPLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FINDINGS Generally, projects are not conditioned with special noise-reducing measures. Only provisions or actions which may not be logically satisfied during the project review process would ordinarily require the application of condition(s) of approval. For example, field testing of a completed residential unit for noise reduction compliance may be required prior to occupancy of units. Where a project already incorporates noise reducing design features as evidenced by statements, plans, drawing, and/or specifications submitted to the City during the project review process, generally it will not be necessary to apply specific noise control conditions of approval. The following are examples of conditions which may be applied to a project impacted by noise: A. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field testing in accordance with Title 24 regulations may be required by the City to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. B. Prior to issuance of any Permits, the project proponent shall produce evidence acceptable to the City that: 1. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 2. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as feasible from dwellings and other noise sensitive receptors. C. Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Development shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the City Planner and City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Division). D. Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the City Planer (see Noise Form #3 on file in Planning Division). The following finding is to be applied to projects impacted by airport noise: A. The project is consistent with the adopted McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), dated [insert applicable adoption date], in that [Click Here] (i.e., as conditioned the applicant shall record an avigation easement; or the applicant shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise). The project is compatible with the projected noise levels of the ALUCP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the ALUCP, the proposed land use is compatible or conditionally compatible with the airport, in that [Click Here]. VIII. DEFINITIONS Definitions 41 VIII. DEFINITIONS Acoustical Analysis Report: The formal document submitted to the City as part of the normal development review process or in satisfaction of a Condition of Approval, signed by a certified acoustical consultant. (Noise Reports Section VI). ALUCP: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. An ALUCP provides for the orderly growth for a public airport and the area surrounding the airport and which safeguards the general public welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. Building Height: The height of a building shall be measured as follows: 1. “Building height” means the vertical distance of a structure measured from the more restrictive (lowest) of finished or existing grade. The vertical distance is measure from all points at grade along and within building coverage to the highest point of the structure directly above that point of measurement. 2. “Existing grade,” for the purposes of measuring building height, means the ground level elevation which existed on or before August 1, 1991 and prior to any grading or other site preparation related to, or to be incorporated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing developments unless a discretionary permit for such developments or alteration is approve. In that case, existing grade shall mean the grade after the property is developed or improved in accordance with the grading plans which implement the approved discretionary permit. For nondiscretionary permits where the retaining walls, fill or other grading are utilized to create finished grade higher in elevation than existing grade as defined in this subsection and as determined by the planning director, then existing grade shall be used in the determination of building height. 3. Building height measurements include basements and other subterranean areas that are above existing grade. In the case of basements, cellars and underground parking, building height is measured from existing grade, excluding the area below existing grade. 4. Building height is measured to the peak of the structure. Per Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.46.020 of this title, penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, and ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building; fire or parapet wall, skylights, architectural towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts and similar structures may be erected above the height limits prescribed in this title, but no penthouse or roof structure, or any other space above the height limit prescribed for the zone in which the building is located shall be allowed for the purpose of providing additional floor space, or be taller than required to accommodate the intended use. (CMC § 21.04.065) CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. An index or metric of community noise. The metric used in California for quantifying aircraft and community noise levels, usually within 1 dB (higher) than Ldn for most common community noise sources. (See Noise Science Section III) Day-Night Average Sound Level: See Ldn dB: Common abbreviation for decibel, or 1/10 of a BEL. Definitions 42 dBA: A decibel quantity that has been A-weighed. The “weighting” compensates for the different hearing sensitive of humans to different frequencies by discriminating against low and very high frequencies according to an approximate relationship to the hearing sensitivity of the human ear. All community noise sound level quantities are assumed to have been A-weighted unless stated otherwise. (See Noise Science Section III) Decibel: A unit which denotes the ration between two quantities which, with respect to sound, are proportional to sound power or sound pressure. When used with an associated numerical quantity, then the quantity is a “level” (e.g., Sound Pressure Level or SPL of 75 dB) with respect to the international reference quantity of sound (2 x 10-5 Newtons/Meter2 which is the same as twenty micropascals). Two or more sound levels may be compared to each other using decibels so long as the reference level is identified (e.g., Sound Blue is 4 dB louder than Sound Yellow). A sound level change of 1 dB can just be detected by the human ear under normal conditions. (See Noise Science Section III) Energy Mean Noise Level: See Leq Feasibility Noise Report: A preliminary report prepared by a certified acoustical consultant which broadly addresses noise issues that affect a project, highlighting areas of potential noise problems that might be difficult to solve. (See Noise Guidelines Section IV) FIIC: Field Impact Insulation Class. An actual measure of Impact Isolation Class with allowance for reduced effectiveness due to various factors. (See IIC) Flanking: The amount of the noise which goes around a barrier FSTC: Field Sound Transmission Class. An actual measure of Sound Transmission Class with allowance for reduced effectiveness due to various factors. (See STC) Hertz: (Hz) measurement unit of frequency or pitch. High frequency sounds (many Hz) are produced by rapidly vibrating objects and low frequency sounds (fewer Hz) by slowly vibrating objects. (See Noise Science Section III) IIC: Impact Insulation Class. An indication of a floor/ceiling assembly’s ability to attenuate the transmission of impact noise, generally from an upper story floor to a room below. (Refer to Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code) Ldn: Day-Night average sound level. An index or metric of community noise. Developed by Environmental Protection Agency. Usually within 1 dB (lower) than CNEL for most common community noise sources. (See Noise Science Section III) Leq: Energy Mean Noise Level, also called equivalent level. An index or metric of community noise. (See Noise Science Section III) Noise: Noise is unwanted sound. Definitions 43 Noise Measurement Location: Residential projects are to mitigate the projected build-out noise level to a maximum as described in Section II Noise Element Policies at: 1. 5-feet above finished grade level; and 2. 20-feet from the rear/side of the structure, unless the rear/side yard is less than 20-feet deep where the measurement shall be taken at the property line. (Where the useable rear/side yard is less than 20-feet deep, the measurement may be taken at the back of the useable rear/side yard, as may be approved by the Planning Director.) Where exterior space above the first floor/story of a residential structure is proposed to be used to meet Planned Development (PD) recreational space standards as required pursuant to Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the exterior space shall be mitigated to the City Standard in order to receive credit as recreational space. Noise Report: A gathering of information and the technical analysis, evaluation and/or prediction of noise caused be, or affecting a project and a report of the findings and recommendation. (Noise Guidelines Manual Section IV) Sound: Any pressure variation (in air, water or other medium) that the human ear can detect. STC: Sound Transmission Class. An indication of the ability of a common wall between two units to attenuated sound originating in either unit from propagating into the other unit. (Refer to Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code) IX. TECHNICAL APPENDIX IX. TECHNICAL APPENDIX Page A. STATE NOISE REQUIREMENTS 1. California Health and Safety Code .................................................................................. A-1 2. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 “Noise Insulation Standards” Summary ......................................................................... A-1 3. California Code of Regulations Title 21 (Airport) “Noise Standards” ........................................................................................... A-2 4. California Noise Insulation Standards ............................................................................ A-3 5. Sound Transmission Control (Ch. 35) ............................................................................. A-10 B. NOISE CONTOUR MAPS (REDUCED SIZE) 1. Existing Noise Contours (1990) ...................................................................................... B-1 2. Future Noise Contours (2010) ........................................................................................ B-2 C. VEHICULAR NOISE ASSESSMENT 1. FHWA-RD-77-108 ........................................................................................................... C-1 2. Hard (Reflective Sites) – Soft (Absorbing) Sites .............................................................. C-1 3. Determination of “Hard” Site Versus “Soft” Site ........................................................... C-2 4. City of Carlsbad Traffic Mix ............................................................................................ C-3 5. Distances to Roadway CNEL Contours – Existing and Future ......................................... C-6 6. Distances to Roadway CNEL Contours – Future ............................................................. C-8 D. RAIL NOISE ASSESSMENT Railroad Noise Assessment – Wyle Laboratories Report WCT 73-5 ..................................... D-1 E. McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT 1. Airport Influence Area Map ............................................................................................ E-1 2. Palomar Airport Noise Control Plan ............................................................................... E-2 F. RELATIONSHIP OF NOISE ENERGY AND NOISE PERCEPTION TO DECIBEL SCALE.................. F-1 G. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ........................................................................ G-1 H. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION FOR ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS (City of Carlsbad) ......... H-1 I. FORMS 1. Notice Concerning Proximity of the Planned or Existing transportation corridor(s) ..... I-1 2. Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts ....................................................... I-4 3. Aircraft Noise Notification Signs..................................................................................... I-7 4. Notice of Aircraft Noise Impact Area ............................................................................ I-9 J. NOISE REPORT APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST 1. Noise Report Submittal Form ......................................................................................... J-1 2. Application Requirements for Noise Report Application ............................................... J-2 3. Noise Report: Staff Review Checklist ............................................................................ J-5 A. STATE NOISE REQUIREMENTS A-1 A. STATE NOISE REQUIREMENTS 1. California Health and Safety Code In order to preserve and protect the public health and safety of the residents of the State of California, the State Legislature enacted, and from time to time amends, certain laws, regulations and standards regarding noise. Some of these regulations affect the relationship of noise sources to residential dwellings and may also require certain acoustical performance of dwellings that are affected by community noise. The authority to develop these standards is in Section 17922.6 of the State Housing Law, Division 13, Part 1.5, as found the in the State Health and Safety Code. Section 18901, et. seq., of the Health and Safety Code establishes the State Building Standards Law, and charges the Building Standards Commission with developing and publishing building standards and codes. The State Building Standards Code is Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, now called the California Code of Regulations. 2. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, “Sound Transmission” In compliance with the State law, the City of Carlsbad enforces Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 12, Section 1207, “Sound Transmission.” These standards are summarized below (with code references in brackets). The full text of the referenced codes follows this section. a. An STC rating of 50 (laboratory) for party wall assemblies [1207.7]. b. An IIC rating of 50 (laboratory) for floor-ceiling assemblies [1207.8]. c. An STC rating of 26 for entrance doors (with perimeter seals) from interior corridors [1207.7]. d. 45 dB CNEL, or less, interior noise level for habitable rooms [1207.11.2]. e. Ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment when the interior noise level is met by requiring windows to be unopenable or closed [1207.12]. f. An Acoustical Analysis Report which illustrates compliance with the prescribed interior noise levels shall be prepared when the project is proposed within the 60 dB CNEL contour from any aircraft, vehicular, rail or industrial noise source [1207.11.3]. The City’s Noise Policy also applies to single family dwellings. This includes the provisions of Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 12, Section 1207, “Sound Transmission” as permitted by action taken pursuant to Section 17922.7 (b) and (c) of the Health and Safety Code. A-2 3. California Code of Regulations Title 21 (Airport) “Noise Standards” Noise standards governing the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines for all airports are described in California Code of Regulations Title 21, Division of Aeronautics, Subchapter 6 “Noise Standards.” The regulations are designed to cause the airport proprietor, aircraft operator, local governments, pilots and Department of Aeronautics to work cooperatively to diminish noise. The regulations are achieved by controlling and reducing noise which affects communities in the vicinity of airports. Due to the length of Title 21 it has not been reprinted in this Manual. 4. California Noise Insulation Standards Section 1207 [HCD 1 & HCD2] SOUND TRANSMISSION 1207.1 Purpose and scope. The purpose of this section is to establish uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings from the effects of excessive noise, including, but not limited to, hearing loss or impairment and interference with speech and sleep. This section shall apply to all buildings for which applications for building permits were made subsequent to August 22, 1974. 1207.2 Definitions. The following special definitions shall apply to this section: SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC) is a single-number rating used to compare walls, floor- ceiling assemblies and doors for their sound-insulating properties with respect to speech and small household appliance noise. The STC is derived from laboratory measurements of sound transmission loss across a series of 16 test bands. Laboratory STC ratings should be used to the greatest extent possible in determining that the design complies with this section. FIELD SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (FSTC) is a single-number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to derive the FSTC are measured in the field. All sound transmitted from the source room to the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or floor-ceiling assembly. This section does not require determination of the FSTC, and field-measured values of noise reduction should not be reported as transmission loss. IMPACT INSULATION CLASS (IIC) is a single-number rating used to compare the effectiveness of floor-ceiling assemblies in providing reduction of impact-generated sounds such as footsteps. The IIC is derived from laboratory measurements of impact sound pressure level across a series of 16 test bands using a standardized tapping machine. Laboratory IIC ratings should be used to the greatest extent possible in determining that the design complies with this section. FIELD IMPACT INSULATION CLASS (FIIC) is a single-number rating similar to the IIC, except that the impact sound pressure levels are measured in the field A-3 NOISE ISOLATION CLASS (NIC) is a single-number rating derived from measured values of noise reduction between two enclosed spaces that are connected by one or more paths. The NIC is not adjusted or normalized to a standard reverberation time. NORMALIZED NOISE ISOLATION CLASS (NNIC) is a single-number rating similar to the NIC, except that the measured noise reduction values are normalized to a reverberation time of one- half second. NORMALIZED A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL DIFFERENCE (Dn) means for a specified source room sound spectrum, Dn is the difference, in decibels, between the average sound levels produced in two rooms after adjustment to the expected acoustical conditions when the receiving room under test is normally furnished. DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound exposure level for a 24-hour period with a 10 db adjustment added to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) is a metric similar to the Ldn, except that a 5 db adjustment is added to the equivalent continuous sound exposure level for evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) in addition to the 10 db nighttime adjustment used in the Ldn. 1207.2.1 Masonry. The sound transmission class of concrete masonry and clay masonry assemblies shall be calculated in accordance with TMS 0302 or determined through testing in accordance with ASTM E 90. 1207.3 Relevant standards. The current edition of the following standards is generally applicable for determining compliance with this section. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428- 2959. ASTM C 634, Standard Terminology Relating to Building and Environmental Acoustics. ASTM E 90, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements. ASTM E 336, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Airborne Sound Attenuation Between Rooms in Buildings. ASTM E 413, Classification for Rating Sound Insulation. ASTM E 492, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Impact Sound Transmission Through Floor-Ceiling Assemblies Using the Tapping Machine. ASTM E 497, Standard Recommended Practice for Installation of Fixed Partitions of Light Frame Type for the Purpose of Conserving Their Sound Insulation Efficiency. ASTM E 597, Recommended Practice for Determining a Single-Number Rating of Airborne Sound Isolation in Multi-unit Building Specifications. ASTM E 966, Standard Guide for Field Measurements of Airborne Sound Insulation of Building Facades and Facade Elements. A-4 ASTM E 989, Standard Classification for Determination of Impact Insulation Class (IIC). ASTM E 1007, Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Tapping Machine Impact Sound Transmission Through Floor-Ceiling Assemblies and Associated Support Structures. ASTM E 1014, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. 1207.4 Complaints. Where a complaint as to noncompliance with this chapter requires a field test, the complainant shall post a bond or adequate funds in escrow for the cost of said testing. Such costs shall be chargeable to the complainant if the field tests show compliance with this chapter. If the tests show noncompliance, testing costs shall be borne to the owner or builder. 1207.5 Local modification. The governing body of any city or county or city and county may, by ordinance, adopt changes or modifications to the requirements of this section as set forth in Section 17922.7 of the Health and Safety Code. 1207.6 Interdwelling sound transmission control. 1207.6.1 Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units or guest rooms from each other and from public or service areas such as interior corridors, garages and mechanical spaces shall provide airborne sound insulation for walls, and both airborne and impact sound insulation for floor-ceiling assemblies. Exception: Impact sound insulation is not required for floor-ceiling assemblies over nonhabitable rooms or spaces not designed to be occupied, such as garages, mechanical rooms or storage areas. 1207.7 Airborne sound insulation. All such acoustically rated separating wall and floor-ceiling assemblies shall provide airborne sound insulation equal to that required to meet a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 50 based on laboratory tests as defined in ASTM E 90 and E 413. Field-tested assemblies shall meet a noise isolation class (NIC) rating of 45 for occupied units and a normalized noise isolation class (NINIC) rating of 45 for unoccupied units as defined in ASTM E 336 and E 413. ASTM E 597 may be used as simplified procedure for field tests of the airborne sound isolation between rooms in unoccupied buildings. In such tests, the minimum value of Dn is 45 db for compliance. Entrance doors from interior corridors together with their perimeter seals shall have STC ratings not less than 26. Such tested doors shall operate normally with commercially available seals. Solid-core wood-slab doors 13/8 inches (35 mm) thick minimum or 18 gauge insulated steel-slab doors with compression seals all around, including the threshold, may be considered adequate without other substantiating information. Field tests of corridor walls should not include segments with doors. If such tests are impractical, however, the NIC or NNIC rating for the composite wall-door assembly shall not be less than 30. Penetrations or openings in construction assemblies for piping, electrical devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, soffits or heating, ventilating or exhaust ducts shall be sealed, lined, insulated or otherwise treated to maintain the required ratings. A-5 1207.8 Impact sound insulation. All acoustically rated separating floor-ceiling assemblies shall provide impact sound insulation equal to that required to meet a IIC rating of 50 based on laboratory tests as defined in ASTM E 492 and E 989. Field-tested assemblies shall meet a field impact insulation class (FIIC) rating of 45 for both occupied and unoccupied units as defined in ASTM E 1007 and E 989, with the exception that the measured impact sound pressure levels shall not be normalized to a standard amount of absorption in the receiving room. Floor coverings may be included in the assembly to obtain the required ratings. These coverings must be retained as a permanent part of the assembly and may be replaced only by other floor coverings that provide the required impact sound insulation. 1207.9 Tested assemblies. Laboratory-tested wall or floor-ceiling designs having STC or IIC ratings of 50 or more may be used by the building official to determine compliance with this section during plan review phase. Field tests shall be required by the building official when evidence of sound leaks or flanking paths is noted, or when the separating assembly is not built according to the approved design. Generic sound transmission control systems as listed in the Catalog of STC and IIC Ratings for Wall and Floor-Ceiling Assemblies, as published by the Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health Services, or the Fire Resistance Design Manual, as published by the Gypsum Association, may be used to evaluate construction assemblies for their sound transmission properties. Other tests from recognized laboratories may also be used. When ratings for essentially similar assemblies differ, and when ratings are below STC or IIC 50, field testing may be used to demonstrate that the building complies with this section. For field testing, rooms should ideally be large and reverberant for reliable measurements to be made in all test bands. This is often not possible for bathrooms, kitchens, hallways or rooms with large amounts of sound-absorptive materials. Field test results should, however, report the measured values in all bands, noting those which do not meet relevant ASTM criteria for diffusion. It should be noted that STC ratings do not adequately characterize the sound insulation of construction assemblies when the intruding noise is predominantly low-pitched, as is often produced by amplified music or by large pieces of mechanical equipment. It should also be noted that the transmission of impact sound from a standardized tapping machine may vary considerably for a given design due to differences in specimen size, flanking transmission through associated structure and the acoustical response of the room below. Laboratory IIC values should therefore be used with caution when estimating the performance of hard-surfaced floors in the field. Additionally, IIC ratings may not always be adequate to characterize the subjectively annoying creak or boom generated by footfalls on a lumber floor. 1207.10 Certification. Field testing, when required, shall be done under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical testing and engineering, who shall forward test results to the building official showing that the sound isolation requirements stated above have been met. Documentation of field test results should generally follow the requirements outlined in relevant ASTM standards. A-6 1207.11 Exterior sound transmission control. 1207.11.1 Application. Consistent with local land-use standards, residential structures located in noise critical areas, such as proximity to highways, county roads, city streets, railroads, rapid transit lines, airports or industrial areas, shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noises beyond prescribed levels. Proper design shall include, but shall not be limited to, orientation of the residential structure, setbacks, shielding and sound insulation of the building itself. 1207.11.2 Allowable interior noise levels. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 db in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan. Note: Ldn is the preferred metric for implementing these standards. Worst-case noise levels, either existing or future, shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with this section. Future noise levels shall be predicted for a period of at least 10 years from the time of building permit application. 1207.11.3 Airport noise sources. Residential structures to be located where the annual Ldn or CNEL (as defined in Title 21, Division 2.5, Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 5001, California Code of Regulations) exceeds 60 db shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will achieve prescribed allowable interior level. For public-use airports or heliports, the Ldn or CNEL shall be determined from the airport land-use plan prepared by the county wherein the airport is located. For military bases, the Ldn shall be determined from the facility Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) plan. For all other airports or heliports, or public-use airports or heliports for which a land-use plan has not been developed, the Ldn or CNEL shall be determined from the noise element of the general plan of the local jurisdiction. When aircraft noise is not the only significant source, noise levels from all sources shall be added to determine the composite site noise level. 1207.11.4 Other noise sources. Residential structures to be located where the Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 db shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will limit exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior level. The noise element of the local general plan shall be used to the greatest extent possible to identify sites with noise levels potentially greater than 60 db. 1207.12 Compliance. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for a building permit. The report shall show topographical relationships of noise sources and dwelling sites, identification of noise sources and their characteristics, predicted noise spectra and levels at the exterior of the proposed dwelling structure considering present and future land usage, basis for the prediction (measured or obtained from published data), noise attenuation measures to be applied, and an analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction showing that the prescribed interior noise level requirements are met. A-7 If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment. The ventilation system must not compromise the dwelling unit or guest room noise reduction. 1207.13 Field testing. When inspection indicates that the construction is not in accordance with the approved design, or that the noise reduction is compromised due to sound leaks or flanking paths, field testing may be required. A test report showing compliance or noncompliance with prescribed interior allowable levels shall be submitted to the building official. Measurements of outdoor sound levels shall generally follow the guidelines in ASTM E 1014. Field measurements of the A-weighted airborne sound insulation of buildings from exterior sources shall generally follow the guidelines in ASTM E 966. For the purpose of this standard, sound level differences measured in unoccupied units shall be normalized to a receiving room reverberation time of one-half second. Sound level differences measured in occupied units shall not be normalized to a standard reverberation time. B. NOISE CONTOUR MAPS (REDUCED SIZE) C. VEHICULAR NOISE ASSESSMENT C-1 C. VEHICULAR NOISE ASSESSMENT 1. FHWA-RD-77-108 The City of Carlsbad accepts the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) methodology for vehicular noise prediction, as modified for CNEL, and “CALVENO” energy curves which represent the noise output of typical California motor vehicles. The paragraph below is an abstract of the pertinent document (FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model): This report presents the FHWA method for predicting noise generated by constant speed highway traffic. The report is intended to be a users manual as well as a reference document detailing the development, use, and limitations of the prediction method. In the main body of the report, the prediction procedure is presented in a step-by-step fashion and includes numerous example problems designed to highlight important concepts and features. For those interested in the theoretical development of the model, an extremely detailed derivation is presented in the appendices. The basis of the model is equivalent sound level, Leq, although an adjustment for conversion to L10 is provided. The method incorporates three classes of vehicles: automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks. Adjustments for absorptive groundcovers and finite length barriers are also included. Certain special topics such as nonuniform highway sites and determination of equivalent day-night levels, Ldn, are also included. The publication date of FHWA-RD-77-108 was December 1978. Due to the length of this document, it is not reprinted in this Manual. 2. Hard (Reflective) Sites – Soft (Absorbing) Sites1 The manner in which noises varies with distance is a function of many factors, one being the path which the noise travels. “Soft” sites, which correspond to a decrease of 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance (abbreviated 4.5 dB/DD), occur when there are absorbing characteristics such as soft ground, intervening structures and vegetation between the source and receiver, AND when both the source and receiver are located close to the ground. Most other cases are considered by the City to be “hard” sites, which corresponds to a decrease of 3 decibels per doubling of distance (abbreviated 3 dB/DD). However, any empirically determined dB/DD drop-off rate may be used if based on accepted field measurements. Special instances may occur in which the change in noise level over distance is neither “hard” nor “soft,” particularly in the case of stationary noise sources. In these cases, each drop-off rate will be individually identified and justified. For traffic noise, the City enforces the guidelines for determination of hard/soft site analyses as set forth in the Federal Highway Administration’s “Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108.” 1 For consistency, the terms “Hard” and “Soft” sites will be used, in accordance with FHWA methodology C-2 The City Considers all sites “hard” sites unless situation 3.b in the following DETERMINATION OF “HARD” SITE VERSUS “SOFT” SIDE exists, in which case “soft” site analysis is applicable. 3. Determination of “Hard” Site Versus “Soft” Site DETERMINATION OF “HARD” SITE VERSUS “SOFT” SITE (Criteria for Selection of Drop-Off Rate per Doubling of Distance1) Situation Drop-Off Rate Site Class 1. All situations in which the source or the receiver are located 3 meters above the ground or whenever the line- of-sight* averages more than 3 meters above the ground. 3 dB/DD Hard 2. All situations involving propagation over the top of a barrier 3 meters or more in height. 3 dB/DD Hard 3. Where the height of the line-of-sight is less than 3 meters and a. There is a clear (unobstructed) view of the highway, the ground is hard, and there are no intervening structures. 3 dB/DD Hard b. The view of the roadway is interrupted by isolated buildings, clumps of bushes, scattered trees, or the intervening ground is soft or covered with vegetation. 4.5 dB/DD Soft * The line-of-sight is a direct line between the noise source nominal height and the observer’s ear height (1.5 meters or 5 feet above ground). EXAMPLE A B C D 0 0 0 0 50 100 200 400 DISTANCE IN FEET Let the average A-weighted sound level at point A be 70 decibels. Using a “Hard” site analysis, the sound level will decrease at a rate of 3 dB/DD. Therefore, if the sound level is 70 decibels at point A, the sound levels at points B, C, and D will be 67 decibels, 64 decibels, and 61 decibels, respectively. Using a “Soft” site analysis, the sound level will have a drop-off rate of 4.5 dB/DD. The sound levels at points B, C and D will be 65.5 decibels, 61 decibels, and 56.5 decibels, respectively, again with the assumption that the sound level is 70 decibels at point A. 1Excerpt from FHWA-RD-77-108 C-3 4. City of Carlsbad Traffic Mix In order to achieve the desired accuracy from computerized traffic noise prediction models, it is necessary to know the approximate proportion of certain motor vehicle types that comprise the typical population of vehicles using the roadway facilities in an area. The physical count of vehicle types was conducted at several representative locations in Carlsbad to characterize the “mix” of vehicles. The computerized noise models are particularly sensitive to the percentages of trucks in the traffic flow, therefore, the “truck” components were carefully determined during the counting procedures. The three vehicle types most generally used in noise modeling (and which were used in noise modeling for Carlsbad) are automobiles, including pickup trucks, light duty trucks, and motor homes; medium trucks, including busses; and heavy trucks (3 axle to 5+ axle), which includes dump trucks, trash trucks, semi trucks, etc. The Carlsbad Traffic Vehicle Mix Study provided counts from seven locations. Approximately half of these count locations represented designated truck routes with the City. The locations are listed below: • Carlsbad Boulevard – North of Poinsettia (Truck Route) • La Costa Road – West End of Golf Course • Palomar Airport Road – East of 5 Freeway (Truck Route) • Rancho Santa Fe Road/Calle Barcelona (Truck Route) • El Camino Real – South of College Boulevard (Truck Route) • Tamarack Road/Adair • Carlsbad Village Drive/Madison The projected total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from the study counts were compared to existing City traffic-count- based ADT to cross check count validity. Reasonable agreement was observed between study count data and existing City data. The study count data was analyzed. It was observed that the “non truck route” and “truck route” facilities did carry appreciably different percentages of trucks. This would cause noticeable differences in the results of noise modeling. We believe that noise modeling done in the City should use the appropriate “truck route” or “non truck route” vehicle mix to obtain the most representative vehicle noise impact values for City arterial highways. State of California highway vehicle mix data should be utilized for modeling State Highway 78 or Interstate 5. The following summary matrix contains the typical vehicle mix percentages found on the City of Carlsbad arterial highways. C-4 CARLSBAD TRAFFIC MIX Vehicle Category Non Truck Route Designated Truck Route Average Total Automobiles 97.89% 95.24% 96.38% Medium Trucks 1.83% 3.52% 2.79% Heavy Trucks 0.28 1.25% 0.83% The following information was obtained in order to cross check and compare the Carlsbad Traffic Mix Study results with data from other jurisdictions in the general area. Typical San Diego Area Vehicle Mix Obtained from Various Agencies • SAN DIEGO COUNTY A = 93 – 98% MT = 1 – 7% HT = ½ - 4% Range of mix values from Dr. Alex Segal, Noise Specialist County of San Diego, Planning Department; February 25, 1992 • SAN DIEGO CITY A = 96 – 97% MT = 2 – 3% HT = 1 – 2% Range of mix values from Frank Haffner, Noise Specialist City of San Diego Building Department; February 26, 1992 • SAN DIEGO CALTRANS 1990 EXISTING; ROUTE 76 BETWEEN FOUSSAT ROAD AND NORTH SANTA FE AVENUE (PEAK NOISE HOUR – LEVEL OF SERVICE C) A = 97.41% MT = 1.5% HT = 77% Report provided by Neal Davis; Caltrans District 11 Environmental Brach; February 26, 1992 • SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) A = 97.3% MT = 1.5% HT = 1.2% From Regional Vehicle Occupancy and Classification Program 1990 Summary and 1985 Summary provided by Bill Tuomi, SANDAG; March 2, 1992 • TYPICAL ORANGE COUNTY AREA VEHICLE MIX A = 97.41% MT = 1.85% HT = .74% Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Annual Traffic Census, Average of 31 major intersections, 1975. Currently used for traffic noise modeling. We believe that the regional data presented above does validate the results of the Carlsbad Traffic Mix Study. C-5 YEAR 1990 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR DATA, CITY OF CARLSBAD ******Distance (ft) from Road Centerline to CNEL Contour****** Roadway From To 75 dB CNEL 70 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL 60 dB CNEL 55 dB CNEL I-5 SR-78 La Costa Ave 326 703 1514 3261 SR-78 I-5 College Blvd 140 302 651 Alga Rd Poinsettia Ln Melrose Dr 108 233 501 1080 Avenida Encinas Cannon Rd Palomar Airport Rd 108 233 501 1080 Avenida Encinas Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Ln 42 90 194 417 Avenida Encinas Poinsettia Ln Windrose 108 233 501 1080 Camino Vida Roble Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real 42 90 194 417 Cannon Rd Carlsbad Blvd El Arbol 108 233 501 1080 Cannon Rd El Arbol Paseo Del Norte 108 233 501 1080 Cannon Rd Paseo Del Norte Car County Drive 42 90 194 417 Carlsbad Blvd N. City Limits State St 108 233 501 Carlsbad Blvd State St Mountain View Dr 42 90 194 Carlsbad Blvd Mountain View Dr Tierra del Oro 408 233 501 Carlsbad Blvd Tierra del Oro Palomar Airport Rd 42 90 194 Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd La Costa Ave 108 233 501 College Blvd Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real 108 233 501 El Camino Real SR-78 0/25 mi n/o Chestnut Ave 130 280 603 El Camino Real 0.25 mi n/o Chestnut Ave Cougar Dr 108 233 501 El Camino Real Cougar Dr 0.5 mi s/o Camino Vida Roble 130 280 603 El Camino Real 0.5 mi s/o Camino Vida Roble Dove Ln 108 233 501 El Camino Real Dove Ln Levante St 130 280 603 El Camino Real Levante St Olivenhain Rd 108 233 501 El Fuerte St Alga Rd Alicante Rd 42 90 194 417 Carlsbad Village Dr Ocean St Carlsbad Blvd 42 90 194 417 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad Blvd Pontiac Dr 408 233 501 1080 Carlsbad Village Dr Pontiac Dr Chatham Rd 42 90 194 417 Carlsbad Village Dr Chatham Rd Tamarack Ave 108 233 501 1080 C-6 YEAR 1990 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR DATA, CITY OF CARLSBAD ******Distance (ft) from Road Centerline to CNEL Contour****** Roadway From To 75 dB CNEL 70 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL 60 dB CNEL 55 dB CNEL Carlsbad Village Dr Tamarack Ave Glasgow Dr 42 90 194 417 Faraday Ave College Blvd Orion St 108 233 501 Kelly Dr Park Dr El Camino Real 42 90 194 417 La Costa Ave El Camino Real Camino de los Coches 108 233 501 1080 Marron Rd Jefferson St El Camino Real 108 233 501 1080 Marron Rd El Camino Real Avenida de Anita 42 90 194 417 Melrose Dr Alga Rd Corintia Dr 130 280 603 Melrose Dr Corintia Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd 108 233 501 Monroe St Carlsbad Village Dr Marron Rd 108 233 501 1080 Olivenhain Rd El Camino Real Amargosa Dr 42 90 194 Olivenhain Rd Amargosa Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd 108 233 501 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Village Dr I-5 42 90 194 Palomar Airport Rd I-5 Paseo Del Norte 108 233 501 Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Yarrow Dr 130 280 603 Palomar Airport Rd Yarrow Dr Loker Ave 108 233 501 Palomar Airport Rd Loker Ave East City Limits 42 90 194 Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Camino del Parque 108 233 501 1080 Paseo Del Norte Camino Del Parque Poinsettia Ln 42 90 194 417 Poinsettia Ln Carlsbad Blvd Paseo Del Norte 42 90 194 Poinsettia Ln Paseo Del Norte Alga Rd 108 233 501 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Melrose Dr La Costa Ave 42 90 194 Rancho Santa Fe Rd La Costa Ave Olivenhain Rd 130 280 603 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Olivenhain Rd South City Limits 42 90 194 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad Blvd I-5 42 90 194 417 Tamarack Ave I-5 Adams St 108 233 501 Tamarack Ave Adams St El Camino Real 42 90 194 C-7 YEAR 2010 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR DATA, CITY OF CARLSBAD ******Distance (ft) from Road Centerline to CNEL Contour****** Roadway From To 75 dB CNEL 70 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL 60 dB CNEL 55 dB CNEL I-5 SR-78 La Costa Ave 374 807 1738 3744 SR-78 I-5 College Blvd 179 386 822 Alga Rd Poinsettia Ln El Camino Real 77 166 358 770 Alga Rd El Camino Real Melrose Dr 219 471 1015 Camino de los Coches Rancho Santa Fe Rd La Costa Ave 77 166 358 770 Camino Vida Roble Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real 77 166 358 770 Cannon Rd Carlsbad Blvd I-5 97 209 450 Cannon Rd I-5 East City Limits 115 247 433 Carlsbad Blvd North City Limits Grand Ave 142 307 661 Carlsbad Blvd Grand Av Carlsbad Village Dr 154 331 713 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Poinsettia Ln 142 307 661 Carlsbad Blvd Poinsettia Ln La Costa Ave 154 331 713 College Blvd Marron Rd Poinsettia Ln 115 247 533 El Camino Real SR-78 Marron Rd 280 603 1298 El Camino Real Marron Rd Chestnut Ave 229 494 1063 El Camino Real Chestnut Ave La Costa Ave 280 603 1298 El Camino Real La Costa Ave Olivenhain Rd 229 494 1063 El Fuerte St Faraday Ave Alicante Rd 77 166 358 770 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad Blvd I-5 97 209 450 Carlsbad Village Dr I-5 Tamarack Ave 77 166 358 770 Faraday Ave Cannon Rd College Blvd 47 102 219 417 Faraday Ave College Blvd Melrose Dr 77 166 358 770 Kelly Dr (Hidden Valley) Palomar Airport Rd Cannon Rd 77 166 358 770 La Costa Ave Carlsbad Blvd I-5 115 247 533 La Costa Ave I-5 Saxony Rd 154 331 713 La Costa Ave Saxony Rd El Camino Real 142 307 661 La Costa Ave El Camino Real Melrose Dr 115 247 533 C-8 YEAR 2010 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR DATA, CITY OF CARLSBAD ******Distance (ft) from Road Centerline to CNEL Contour****** Roadway From To 75 dB CNEL 70 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL 60 dB CNEL 55 dB CNEL Marron Rd Jefferson St East City Limits 77 166 385 Melrose Dr Faraday Ave Questhaven 115 247 533 Melrose Dr Questhaven South City Limits 115 247 533 Monroe St Marron Rd Carlsbad Village Dr 77 166 358 770 Olivenhain Rd El Camino Real Rancho Santa Fe Rd 280 603 1298 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Blvd I-5 280 603 1298 Palomar Airport Rd I-5 Camino Vida Roble 229 494 1063 Palomar Airport Rd Camino Vida Roble Business Park Dr 280 603 1298 Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln 77 156 358 Poinsettia Ln Carlsbad Blvd Melrose Dr 115 247 533 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Melrose Dr Olivenhain Rd 229 494 1063 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Olivenhain Rd South City Limits 115 247 533 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad Blvd I-5 56 120 259 Tamarack Ave I-5 0.5 mi w El Camino Real 47 102 219 471 Tamarack Ave 0.5 mi w El Camino Real Carlsbad Village Dr 77 166 358 770 D. RAIL NOISE ASSESSMENT D-1 D. RAIL NOISE ASSESSMENT Railroad Noise Assessment – Wyle Laboratories Report WCR 73-5 The City of Carlsbad had accepted a methodology for rail noise assessments as contained in Wyle Laboratories Report WCR 73-5. The report, entitled “Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations,” is summarized in the following abstract from the document: In recognition of the need for assessment of the noise emitted by railroad operations, this report has been prepared under sponsorship of Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Union Pacific Railroad, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, and Association of American Railroads. The report is intended to provide substantial background data to aid Federal rule making efforts on railroad noise and to satisfy the requirements for “Noise Elements” in the State of California, Government Code Section 65302(g). (Senate Bill 691)…in satisfaction of these requirements. This report incorporated A-weighted noise measurements of both line and yard operations, and weights their duration in terms of total integrated sound energy for each event or combined series of events. Additionally, a methodology has been presented for application to line and yard operations which allows inclusion of weighting factors for time of day of the noise event and numbers of events during defined time periods. The publication date of this document was July 1973. Due to the length of the document, it is not reprinted in this manual. Notes: (1) Other methodologies may be proposed and will be evaluated for possible inclusion into this Manual in accordance with procedures established for its periodic amendments. (2) Predictions made by the procedures in Report WCR73-5, or other approved models, may be validated by measurements of sound levels and corresponding parameters such as average train speed, number of engines, and distance from the track, etc. E. McCLELLAN PALOMAR AIRPORT E-1 E-2 E-3 F. RELATIONSHIP OF NOISE ENERGY AND NOISE PERCEPTION TO DECIBEL SCALE F-1 F. RELATIONSHIP OF NOISE ENERGY AND NOISE PERCEPTION TO DECIBEL SCALE1 “Decibel” noise rating units are convenient, but may also be confusing because their mathematical behavior is not necessarily intuitive. Decibels are convenient because they numerically compress a huge range of sound pressures (to which the ear is sensitive) into a smaller range of values between 0 dB(A) (threshold of hearing), 120 dB(A) (pain) to 140 dB(A) (hearing damage). They may be confusing because a doubling of sound energy is expressed by an increase of dB units from whatever dB value existed before the increase. For example, 63 dB represents twice as much sound energy as does 60 dB, 76 dB is twice as much energy as 73 dB, etc. Increases of less than double may also be represented (by a number smaller than 3 dB units) and decreases in noise energy may be similarly represented by a minus sign before the decibel value. There is an additional factor which also contributes to confusion when discussing impact or significance of decibel changes. This factor is the subjective human perception of loudness as it relates to our assessment of “noise” (or sound). In general, for common sounds, a reasonable person of normal sensibilities will exhibit the following correspondence: Change of Perception Plus 1 dB Barely noticeable Plus 2-3 dB Somewhat louder Plus 5 dB Distinctly louder Plus 8-9 dB Twice as loud Determinations of “Significance” of environmental noise increases are generally based upon the perceived changes in loudness in addition to absolute noise levels expressed in terms of Leq, Day-Night Level (LDN) or CNEL. 1 Lecture on Environmental Noise, Rob Green, Senior Acoustics Specialist, Bruel and Kjaer Instruments, Inc., Basic Acoustics Seminar, March 7, 1989. G. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS G-1 G. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by heavy construction equipment can reach high levels. Noise levels of typical construction equipment are presented below. Note that the noise levels presented are for a close distance of 50 feet from equipment noise source to receiver. The noise levels shown decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of the distance. Therefore, at 100 feet, the noise levels will be about 6 dB less than at 50 feet. Similarly, at 200 feet, the noise levels would be 12 dB less than at 50 feet. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS IN dB(A) Distance from Source Source 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 400 ft Heavy Trucks 84-89 78-83 72-77 66-71 Pickup Trucks 72 66 60 54 Dump Trucks 88 82 76 70 Concrete Mixer 85 79 73 67 Jackhammer 88 82 76 70 Scraper 80-89 74-82 68-77 60-71 Dozer 87-102 81-96 75-90 69-84 Paver 80-89 74-83 68-77 60-71 Generator 76 70 64 58 Shovel 91 85 79 73 Crane 75-88 69-82 63-76 55-70 Loader 73-86 67-80 61-74 55-68 Grader 88-91 82-85 76-79 70-73 Caterpillar 88 82 76 70 H. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS H-1 H. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS (City of Carlsbad) A. Either I: A degree in engineering, physics or a closely related field, and four (4) years acoustical engineering experience; Or II: An equivalent combination of education and relevant experience as determined by the City of Carlsbad; AND Either A: Is a Registered Engineer in the State of California; Or B: Has passed the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Professional Examination. OR B. Is certified as an Acoustical Consultant by the County of San Diego, the County of Orange or other jurisdiction with comparable requirements. I. FORMS I-1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND) WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ) ) City Clerk ) CITY OF CARLSBAD ) 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive ) Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 ) Space above this line for Recorder’s use Assessor’s Parcel Number CLICK HERE Project Number and Name CLICK HERE NOTICE AND WAIVER CONCERNING PROXIMITY OF THE PLANNED OR EXISTING CLICK HERE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR(S) CASE NO: CLICK HERE This Notice Concerning Environmental Impacts is made by (name of legal owner) CLICK HERE, a(n) (individual, corporation, etc.) CLICK HERE, hereinafter referred to as the "Owner" is developer of certain real property situated in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. RECITALS A. The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of vehicles including public and private vehicles which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. Purchaser acknowledges and accepts these existing and future impacts and forever waives any and all causes of action against the City of Carlsbad, and covenants not to sue the City of Carlsbad, its agents, servants or employees as to any damages or injuries resulting from said impacts. B. The Owner is the developer and/or holder of the title to certain real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California, more fully described as: C. The property is located adjacent to the CLICK HERE Transportation Corridor (hereafter described as corridor) on which transportation vehicles such as automobiles, trucks, motorcycles and/or vehicles for rail and transit are proposed to travel. D. The property has been developed in compliance with City and State Noise criteria which may include mitigation in the form of setbacks, earthen berms, masonry walls and/or structure upgrades. E. Owner has no control over the operations of the corridor including the types of vehicles, trips and traffic, nor the frequency of the trips. F. It is the desire of Owner to give notice to any potential purchaser of the real property of its proximity to the corridor and the fact that purchases may be subject to the impacts of said proposed transportation corridor. I-2 NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the above Recitals, owner does, for itself, and its successors and assigns, give the following notice and makes the following waiver: 1. Owner has and shall develop the property in accordance with a Subdivision Tract/Parcel Map (CT/PM - CLICK HERE) approved by the City of Carlsbad, which approval includes the requirement of the City of Carlsbad, that the development of the property is consistent with the Land Use & Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad. 2. That Owner has no responsibility or control over the operation of the corridor, including without limitation, the types or number of vehicles operating on the corridor. 3. That the vehicle operations on the corridor may create significant impacts affecting the purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property and that purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property reside there subject to sight and sound of vehicle operation. 4. The property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to this Notice. This Notice shall run with the property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the property. 5. The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of vehicles including public and private vehicles which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. Purchaser acknowledges and accepts these existing and future impacts and forever waives any and all causes of action against the City of Carlsbad, and covenants not to sue the City of Carlsbad, its agents, servants or employees as to any damages or injuries resulting from said impacts. I-3 Executed this __________ day of _____________________, 20________. *OWNER: (Name of Owner) By: (sign here) (print name here) (title and organization of signatory) By: (sign here) (print name here) (title and organization of signatory) (Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Contractor must be attached.) (Chairman, president or vice-president and secretary, assistant secretary, CFO or assistant treasurer must sign for corporations. Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.) (If signed by an individual partner, the partnership must attach a statement of partnership authorizing the partner to execute this instrument). CITY OF CARLSBAD APPROVED AS TO FORM: RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney By: Assistant City Attorney ________________________________ Date I-4 THIS DOCUMENT IS A COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DOCUMENT TO BE OBTAINED THROUGH THE COUNTY Recorded for the benefit of ____ (insert airport name) Return to: (property owner) (SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER’S USE) AIRPORT OVERFLIGHT AGREEMENT This Airport Overflight Agreement concerns the real property situated in ______________________(insert City name), County of San Diego, State of California, described as: (insert legal description) This Airport Overflight Agreement provides disclosure of the condition of the above described property in recognition of, and in compliance with _______ (insert local zoning ordinance section or other implementation document reference) effective _______ (insert date), and related state and local regulations and consistent with the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission’s policies for overflight agreements provided in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport. This property is located in the Overflight Area for the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to an airport and aircraft operations (for example, noise, vibration, overflights or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You should consider what airport annoyances, if any, affect the property before you complete your purchase and whether they are acceptable to you. The undersigned owner(s) of the property subject to this agreement hereby agree, for themselves and their successors, to the conditions associated with being within the Overflight Area for McClellan-Palomar Airport. This Airport Overflight Agreement shall run with the property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the property. OWNER(S) ______________________________________ _______________ Name Date ______________________________________ _______________ Name Date (Attach California All Purpose Acknowledgement) I-5 AIRCRAFT NOISE NOTIFICATION SIGNS The adopted formats for satisfaction of aircraft noise impact notification signs requirements are illustrated on Page I-8 and I-9. A. The description of the graphical sign is as follows: 1. The sign shall be a minimum of 18” tall by 12” wide; 2. The background shall be dark blue; 3. The text and graphics shall be white or silver; 4. All graphic symbols including the plane silhouette and sound waves shall be on the sign; 5. The text shall consist of the words “AIRCRAFT NOISE IMPACT AREA” in 1½ inch block style letters as shown on page I-8; 6. The signs shall be fabricated in a professional manner. B. An informational text sign shall be located adjacent to the graphical sign and be fabricated as follows: 1. The sign shall be 18” tall by 12” wide; 2. The background shall be white; 3. The text shall be black; 4. The text shall consist of verbiage as shown on page I-9; 5. The signs shall be fabricated in a professional manner. The requirement for aircraft noise notification signs will be applied to all new residential developments located within the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport (Review Area 1 and Review Area 2), and shall be posted in a conspicuous manner in all sales offices associated with said development. I-6 AIRCRAFT NOISE NOTIFICATION SIGN I-7 NOTICE OF AIRCRAFT NOISE IMPACT AREA New residential development property included within tract(s) _____ and offered for sale by this office is located approximately ___miles(s) _____(north, south, east, west) of McClellan-Palomar Airport, City of Carlsbad. NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You should consider what airport annoyances, if any, affect the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of aircraft including public and private aircraft which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. For more information, please see your sales representative at: . J. NOISE REPORT APPLICATION CHECKLIST J-1 NOISE REPORT SUBMITTAL FORM Acoustical Analysis Report No.: Project No. Type of Acoustical Analysis Report Feasibility Noise Report One-Step Complete Noise Report Phased Noise Report Project Address: (Street Address/Tract No.) No report necessary. The project will satisfy all City of Carlsbad noise exposure limits without a formal analysis and report. Explanation: This submittal is for: Tentative Tract/Parcel Map Approval Issuance of Grading Permits: Mass/Precise Final Map Recordation Issuance of Building Permits Noise Reduction Topography Modification Berming Berm/Wall Combination Freestanding Sound Wall Patio Walls Balcony Walls Upgraded Windows Mechanical Ventilation None required 3 copies of Noise Report (one with compute calculations) copy of project floor plans (1” = 40’ minimum scale) copy of project plot plan (1” = 40’ minimum scale) folded in 8½ x 11 or 8½ x 14 format. Contact for Information/Clarification: at at (Name) (Phone No.) Date: Submitted by: STATEMENT OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT All information and calculations contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The project is designed to meet existing requirements as determined by the City of Carlsbad. I have supervised the preparation of this noise study. I am a City/County Certified Acoustical Consultant. Date: Signed: FOR CITY USE ONLY Submittal received and accepted for review: Date: By: Acoustical Report reviewed and additional information requested: Date: By: Acoustical Report accepted as complete and adequate: Date: By J-2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOISE REPORT APPLICATION Noise Report Submittal Requirements 1. Submit completed Noise Report Applications Form specified by the City, stating the reason for submittal of the report (e.g., grading/recordation, building permits, etc.). 2. Submit three copies of the noise report to the City. One copy shall be complete with calculations, two copies may be summary reports. 3. Certify that the acoustical report is true and accurate. Noise Report Contents The following should be included in a complete Noise Report: Uniquely identify each report by a report number. (Typically, the acoustical consultant will number the report in reference to his own accounting system. This number, shall distinguish each report from subsequent reports or revisions.) Include the City-issued project identification number (e.g., Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, Tentative Tract, Parcel Map, etc., on the Noise Report). Provide a street address (where on has been assigned), or nearest cross streets plus distance and direction from intersection thereof, or other common description of project location. Provide a vicinity map clearly showing the site of the development. Identify the noise standards that apply to the project. For example “State Noise Insulation Standards,” “City Standard 60 dB CNEL Exterior,” etc. Provide a legible plot plan (and floor plan) at a scale not less than 1 inch = 40 feet, folded in an 8½ x 11 inch format. The methodology used for measurement or prediction of motor vehicle noise levels shall be stated. The procedures in FHWA-RD-77-108, as modified for California (CALVENO curve and CNEL), must be used for traffic noise prediction, with all variables identified, and justified where appropriate (e.g., absorptive (soft) or reflective (hard), gradient, stop-and-go conditions, number and width of travel lanes and medians, etc.). Notes: 1. Vehicle speeds, ADT’s and traffic mix, per level of service “C,” shall be stated and source of information identified. 2. Equivalent distance, per the FHWA model for calculations of noise impact shall be used. 3. Centerline of roadway shall be used for reference distance to observer, structure, etc. (Do NOT use the centerline of the near travel lane for reference.) 4. No credit is permitted for future quieting of motor vehicle noise sources. J-3 5. CNEL shall be used, except for most non-residential projects, when Leq for specified time period is required. 6. On-site measurement data, if used to validate the predicted noise levels for an acoustical analysis, shall be adjusted to reflect the annualized ADT for the site prior to determination of “existing” noise impact levels. The dates, times and exact locations of the measurements shall be stated. 7. Residential projects are to mitigate the projected buildout noise level to a maximum as described in Section II Noise Element Policies at 5 feet above finished grade level, 20’ from the rear/side of the structure, unless the rear/side yard is less than 20’ deep where the measurement shall be taken at the property line. 8. Where exterior space above the first floor/story of a residential structure is proposed to be used to meet the Planned Development (PD) Recreational Space Standards as required pursuant to Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The exterior space shall be mitigated to the City Standard in order to receive credit as recreational space. Where applicable a detailed barrier analysis shall be submitted with the report, to include the following: 1. Location of source, barriers, useable outdoor living area, structures/dwellings, etc. 2. Worst-case section view of site, including elevations, either scaled or dimensioned. 3. Barrier geometry (NOTE: 5 foot observer height above datum and source heights per the FHWA model shall be used, except where modification is required by the City.) 4. Residential site to be mitigated to the City Noise Standards 20’ from the rear/side of the structure, unless the rear/side yard is less than 20’ deep where the measurement shall be taken at the property line. 5. Discussion of the structural/construction details required to maintain acoustical integrity of the barrier, including treatment of penetrations, gates, etc. If railroad or aircraft noise affect the site, measurement of noise impact or the method of prediction shall be stated. Where CNEL contour maps are available, their use may be required by the City. If railroad or aircraft noises do not affect the site, so state. Indicate tabular form the required sound transmission loss of windows, along with typical thickness and configuration, required to satisfy City standards for interior noise levels. When specifying windows of greater than 3/16 inch thickness, list one or more products by manufacturer’s name and model number that will satisfy the acoustical requirements. (When glazing requirements exceed this thickness, the sound transmission loss will vary with each manufacturer. For example, one manufacturer’s ¼ inch thick window assembly may provide a transmission loss of 26 dB, while another manufacturer’s ¼ inch thick window assembly may only provide 23 dB of transmission loss). In the front of the report, include a “Summary” section on colored paper in which specifications and location of all sound attenuating design features or products shall be listed, preferably in tabular form. List all items: DO NOT REFER TO TABLES IN TEXT OF REPORT. J-4 Include worksheets for composite wall analyses including transmission loss assumptions, unless the prescriptive A-weighted insertion losses of 20 dB (windows closed) or 12 dB (windows open) are used, as found in the City Noise Element of the General Plan. Specify in the text of the report (preferably in tabular format) which residential structures and units, if any, require closed windows to meet interior noise standards and in such cases included the following paragraph: Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved sound attenuating duct or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. State the requirements for maintaining building shell acoustical integrity and enumerate items of a critical nature: e.g., tight-fit chimney damper, exhaust fan back-draft damper, no mail slot, full skirting for mobile-home coaches, air conditioning intake and exhaust ducting, etc. A through-the- wall air conditioner shall be treated as a separate component when calculating composite wall attenuation values. The following CNEL data shall be provided as appropriate: Existing and Future CNEL, before noise reduction measures; Worst-case outdoor living area CNEL/Leq before noise reduction measures; Worst-case CNEL/Leq incident upon structure prior to noise reduction measures; and Worst-case interior CNEL/Leq after noise reduction by building components and/or exterior barriers. J-5 NOISE REPORT: STAFF REVIEW CHECKLIST I. Verify that the standard Noise Report Submittal Form is attached and properly filled out. (See attached Appendix J for form) II. Verify that the report has been prepared in compliance with the minimum requirements contained in the Noise study and Report Section of the Noise Guidelines Manual. III. Check the following: A. Vehicular noise impacts (unmitigated) 1. Verify location of project with respect to latest adopted General Plan Noise Element Future Noise Contours including McClellan-Palomar Airport noise contours. 2. FHWA RD-77-108 methodology utilized with CALVENO reference curves, and modification for CNEL or Leq as appropriate for project. 3. Soft/hard site parameter. Reflective (hard)/absorptive (soft) site condition criteria are strictly followed. All uses of soft-site analyses require justification. Second, or higher, floor is always considered hard-site. 4. Source identity and date for Average Daily Traffic (ADT’s) (Existing and Future) is stated and appears reasonable for highway type. 5. Check average traffic speed, angle of view, roadway gradient, standard or truck vehicular mix, reference distance to centerline, site geometry, etc. 6. Check internal traffic and noise generated by larger projects. B. Railroad noise impacts (unmitigated) 1. Verify location of project with respect to latest adopted General Plan Noise Element Existing or Future Noise Contours. 2. Wyle methodology; or, Alternative methodology, specify document # or source; or, City’s adopted General Plan Noise Element Contour Maps were utilized. 3. If modeled, did consultant verify with the Train Master (who/date) the number of trains per day, approximate length (number of cars), approximate number of locomotives, speed, temporal split, etc.? 4. If modeled, did consultant check with Train Master (who/date) for any unusual conditions at or near project site, e.g., routine horn usage for safety, etc.? 5. Was model calibrated by field measurements or not considered necessary? J-6 C. Aircraft Noise Impacts (unmitigated) 1. Verify location of project with respect to latest adopted General Plan Noise Element Future Noise Contours including airport noise contours contained in the McClellan- Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 2. Any other aircraft sources, e.g., helipad, helistop, military, etc.? D. Other noise sources 1. Check to see if report addresses other noise sources near project: dog kennel, car wash, public safety or hospital facility, parking lot, commercial or retail centers, loading docks, air conditioner pool/spa pumps, industrial, manufacturing, or institutional activities, etc. 2. Check to see if report addresses potential land-use incompatibilities (i.e., residential uses adjacent to non-residential uses). 3. Check to see if report predicts project-generated noise. E. Check for compatibility with the combination of all noise sources. IV. Check analyses of noise reduction measures. A. Residential 1. Exterior noise levels a. Private outdoor living areas (1) Yards (2) Patios (3) Balconies, mitigated, or (a) Exempt due to small size (less than 6 feet deep) (b) Exempt due to mandatory use for emergency egress b. Common outdoor living areas – barbeque areas, Jacuzzi areas, tot lot, rest area, etc. (1) Barbeque areas, Jacuzzi areas, tot lot, rest area, etc. 2. Interior noise levels a. 45 dB CNEL in all habitable spaces (Residential Standard) (1) Windows partially open yield 12 dB of Noise Reduction (standard construction) (2) Windows closed yield 20 dB of Noise Reduction (standard construction) (a) Mechanical ventilation requirement J-7 (b) Cooling requirement (c) Fresh air make-up requirement with sound attenuation (3) Windows closed, required noise reduction over 20 dB (a) Upgraded glazing – verify parameters and analyses (b) Analysis with standard windows – verify parameters and analysis (c) Mechanical ventilation (d) Cooling requirement (e) Fresh air make-up requirement with sound attenuation (f) Leaks, seals, weather stripping, etc. (g) Other acoustical upgrades B. Other Noise Sensitive Uses 1. Hotels/motels, fire stations, convents, boarding schools, board and care, nursing homes and hospitals contain some rooms which are classified as residential and some rooms which are classified as non-residential. Interior residential standards apply to habitable spaces. 2. Check for onsite noise generating conditions, such as mechanical equipment, internal project traffic, warning devices, etc. C. Noise Reduction Measures (Exterior and Interior) 1. Verify data input parameters (elevations, distances, prescribed location of “observer,” etc.) 2. Verify heights and location and expected noise attenuation performance of barrier(s). (a) If the calculated height of a required barrier is greater than permitted under Carlsbad Municipal Code, a project redesign is required, or a variance must be applied for. (b) Check that barrier height is specified above observer datum. (c) Check that on project plans the barrier design has been properly illustrated on exhibits and is specified. 3. Check for design errors J-8 (a) Barriers – decorative cut-outs, flanking paths, drainage openings, gates, insufficient design criteria and use of inappropriate material or construction technique. (b) Ventilation requirements not addressed, insufficient, or non-sound attenuating. (c) Fireplace, chimney damper, kitchen and bathroom exhaust vents, weather stripping, closures, seals, etc., not clearly specified. (d) Through-the-wall air conditioners should be analyzed for fresh air make-up and acoustical transmission loss performance. D. Check for inconsistencies within report. (Example: Verify that the noise reduction measures mentioned in text of the report are the same as those shown on the Exhibits and in the Summary). V. Compliance with Environmental Documentation A. For projects with previous environmental review, check for any acoustical mitigation measures specified in Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Impact Statement, or Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure that these measures are incorporated into the project. B. Ensure that acoustical mitigations addressed in the noise report are recommended for incorporation into the project. From:Enchanted Seashells To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Planning Commission Meeting Date:Saturday, September 12, 2020 6:02:19 PM As I'm sure you know, this is a HORRIBLE project. I have no idea how it got this far along in the process. I'm sure if any of you actually lived in the impact zone, you would have voted against it, but like most developments in Carlsbad, ifyou are not individually or specifically negatively affected by it, nothing happens. You don't care. One of the most egregious details is that we'll be forced to deal with an additional 600+ cars to our congested area. The proposed parking is awful, a two-car garage for each townhome, but no guest parking available. Street parking will be less than 0.5 parking spots for each townhome. Guess where they will park? Along Kelly Drive. It's another ill conceived idea. STOP it now. Carlsbad used to be lovely but all the over development has ruined its potential to be special. Rosanne Bentley4940 Hillside Dr. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission Sept. 16, 2020 Marja Acres I am a stakeholder and live in the Loma Laguna community directly behind the proposed project. Our community has worked directly with the developer to modify the project and New Urban West has agreed to the following: 1. The proposed townhomes directly behind our community will not have rooftop decks for the first two units directly adjacent to the homes along Park Drive. 2. There will be no Short Term Rentals in the Marja Acres Community and that this will be written into the CC&Rs of the HOA. 3. The first level of the market rate town homes will not contain renters or be divided into separate living units which will require more parking in the project. 4. The two car garage parking for the market rate townhomes cannot be opened as a carport thus allowing more living space and less parking. 5. A 6ft Masonry wall will be built to divide the two communities as per city law, but mainly to provide a noise and privacy barrier to keep noise levels at a minimum afterward. Our community is asking that the 6ft. masonry wall be built prior to the construction since the property next to our homes was farmed in the 60’s and 70’s when widespread harmful chemicals were used in farming. Due to the nature of potentially harmful chemicals in the dust from that farmland (which may occur due to the minimum amount of soil testing) will become aerosolized and wind will carry that dust into our lungs and our homes. About a third of our community is elderly or have significant illnesses so we ask for the wall in advance of construction. We have documentation that from the nearby Robertson Ranch project that toxaphene was found in excess levels on that property, and we know that toxaphene binds to the soil irreversibly. This is harmful to the public if inhaled. We are also asking that the wall be built prior to the construction due to the expected noise from this project. The Noise Guidelines Manual, dated July 2013 City of Carlsbad, states “State Law requires local governments to address noise issues in their planning process. To fulfill this responsibility, the state grants local government significant powers to control noise producing activity and to reduce or eliminate noise “problems” primarily by controlling land use.” We were told that the wall will be built “later” during construction but we ask that the wall with footings be built in advance of construction. Thank you, Jason and Samantha Castagna 4902 Loma Laguna Dr Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (858)449-2276 From:Lela Panagides To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Planning Commission to be read at the Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:18:07 PM Dear Commissioners, Thank you for continuing to serve the city even during these most challenging of times. I amwriting to you to express my concern about the development of Marja Acres and its impact on traffic congestion on El Camino Real and Cannon Blvd. A decade ago, astute residents of Carlsbad starting sounding the alarm and raising red flags to City Council about the invalid and faulty assessments and grading levels that were being usedto rate road segments and intersections. (These letters and comments to City Council are all public record). Grades of ‘A’ and ‘B’ were given to street intersections that should havereceived grades of ‘C’ and ‘D.’ One of those intersections was Cannon Rd. and El Camino Real. As a result, development was approved at Robertson Ranch and more recently, LaCaldea, even though Cannon and ECR were actually deficient and not operating at acceptable levels. This critical error and lack of oversight continued for many years throughout Carlsbadallowing development to continue without action being taken to address the growing traffic and congestion problems. Keep in mind that when zoning changes from commercial to residential as it did in 2016 when the City Council approved La Caldea, average daily trips were projected as lower thancommercial zoning allowance. The reality for residents who drive on these roads is that congestion and traffic have only increased and will continue to do so with additionaldevelopment and no corresponding mitigating action to address traffic impact. Furthermore, when schools reopen, this section will become inundated with cars driving to nearby schoolsas well as commuters using Cannon to cut through to the I-78. Our municipal code supports our Growth Management Plan and states that: “no developmentoccurs unless adequate facilities or improvements will be available to meet demands created by development. “ The intent is to have developers pay for the improvements and to shutdown development until such commitments are made. Given impacts of egregious (and preventable) mistakes that are irreversible and will foreverchange the character of this city, I strongly encourage you to carefully review such plans and solicit a comprehensive and community-based traffic and circulation mitigation plan beforemaking any final recommendations or decisions. Regards Lela Panagides Carlsbad resident CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Bob Wilcox To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres project Date:Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:53:11 AM Hello, I am a Carlsbad resident and home owner writing in support of the proposed Marja Acres project on El Camino Real. I think this is exactly the type of project we need more of toalleviate the housing crisis in Carlsbad. It provides affordable workforce housing in a jobs rich area. This will reduce traffic as people can live closer to where they work, and they're offeringfree or discounted bus passes to residents, which is even better. I hope that for the sake of our community's affordability, traffic and environmental impact, you will help this project along in whatever ways you can. Sincerely, Bob Wilcox 6815 Sand Aster dr CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Eric Northbrook To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Support Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:34:25 AM Dear Planning Commission, Today, I am writing in support of Marja Acres because this project supports my short and long-term goals. I am mid-way into my career, and I love what I do. I am fortunate to work inthe City of Carlsbad but not fortunate enough to also live there. Instead, I spend roughly three hours commuting to and from work each day. I am excited about Marja Acres because I seethis project as a real opportunity for me to live where I work and, in a city, that I love. Having the opportunity to spend less time in the car will significantly improve my quality of life andallow me to invest in my community. Please support the Marja Acres project. Thank you, Eric Northbrook CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Nate Lacy To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres Support Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:06:01 AM Planning Commission, I support Marja Acres because it is a distinctly Carlsbad-centric project meant to help the community thrive by creating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low-income housing for seniors, adding needed park space, and creating a true community space. Complemented with a small urban farm and a balance of retail, Marja Acres will welcome ablend of families, seniors, and individuals to enjoy all that Carlsbad has to offer. Please vote yes for Marja Acres. Thank you, Nate Lacy Regards, Nate Lacy Carlsbad, CA 92010 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Gregory J. Corso To:Planning Subject:MARJA ACRES TO BE READ AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 10:38:54 PM Commissioners, I have lived at 4925 Park Drive since 1994 and enjoy the quiet neighborhood and dark night skys. I am concerned about the prominent location of this project creating light pollution, even indirect lighting sources create a glow that can diminish the dark sky. The roof top deck feature is the primary outdoor space for these townhomes. I am concerned of the noise created from dogs barking from the roofs decks , and the density of having so many homes having their outdoor space being elevated and the noise that will come from this arrangement. This condition can be further amplified if short term vacation rentals are allowed, with roof top partying. The increased traffic from this development will further congest El Camino real. The density of townhomes and apartments adjacent to an established single family neighborhood warrants your thoughtful review, we have one opportunity to get this right, please consider my concerns as you discuss the merits of this project. They are valid concerns, and likely can be mitigated if addressed now. Sincerely, Gregory J. Corso 760.434.9710 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. North County Advocates is a non-profit 501© 3 public benefit corporation. TIN 27-3158348. www.northcountyadvocates.com 9/13/2020 Dear Chair and Planning Commission: Regarding Marja Acres, the following comments are submitted on behalf of North County Advocates. The staff report for this project on page 45, Table 14 states that compliance with the Open Space requirements of the general Plan is "NA" or not applicable. There is no such determination allowed under the Growth Management Plan. The project is located in LFMZ 1. The open space performance standard requires 15% open space in each LFMZ not including environmentally constrained lands. LFMZ 1 is not in compliance with this performance standard and that fact is obscured and denied by the notation “NA” in Table 14 and in other text throughout the referenced EIR. Because of failure to meet the open space standard this project is not in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Howard Krausz, President North County Advocates September 12, 2020 To: Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad RE: Marja Acres Project From: Susan Blosch, Carlsbad City Resident Dear Planning Commission: As I write to you, I am looking out my upper floor window looking to the east. I imagine how different my view will be when the Marja Acres project is completed. What I imagine will be a view of multi- storied buildings, light poles and rooftop balconies. What I see now is greenspace and the tops of palm trees. Said viewed acreage has been mostly farmland for the last several decades…aprox. 6 decades. We are stake holders in the process and end result of this development. One of my concerns regarding the proposed development is the quality of soils to be disturbed during the construction process. If I read the final EIR correctly, (Appendix F 7.0 forward) there was soils testing done in the area but it was described as a “shallow soil sampling”. My first question is whether a shallow soil sampling is really sufficient? Considering the land use has been of agricultural and animal in nature for over 50 years, wouldn’t it make sense that through plowing, tilling, furrowing, natural seepage and erosion that the chemicals used, for decades, would naturally exist at a deeper level? It seems to me that the chemicals existing within one foot of the air might actually evaporate or otherwise be mitigated through the air? Is it possible that a deeper soils sampling might show a more concentrated level of arsenic, DDT and or other pesticides/heavy metals-containing herbicides? How will the dust be mitigated during the construction process? My husband is a cancer patient and also suffers from environmental allergies. It is important to his health that all possible irritants and poisons from disturbing the land near our home be contained. Secondly, my concerns are of the parking accommodations being proposed for the entire development but most particularly those residential structures nearest El Camino Real. With only 2 parking spaces allotted for townhomes with garages and slightly more than 1 street parking spot per 4 residential units, this means residential visitors will have less than 0.5 parking spot available for each residential unit. I could not find in the report details regarding parking availability for the “Age restricted affordable apartments”. Is the developer assuming “age-restricted” individuals don’t own a car, or have visitors? Where will they overflow parking occur? Most likely, Kelly Drive? Most likely in front of my home! I have not heard of the final plan for traffic calming in my neighborhood. If in fact, Kelly Drive is redesigned to support slower traffic and possibly lesser street parking to current residents, how well will it handle overflow parking from the Marja Acres development? Our street parking is already limited! Lastly, I walk along El Camino Real regularly. The speed limit on ECR is 55 mph. With 600+ more vehicles in and out of the Marja Acres development, I would like to see the speed limit reduce along this corridor. As residents near the intersection of ECR and Kelly Dr. we experience many traffic accidents annually and I believe that speed is a factor. Please study and report on the possibility of reducing the speed limit on El Camino Real. Thank you for your time, Susan Blosch, 33 year resident 4811 Kelly Drive September 12, 2020 To: Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad RE: Marja Acres Project From: Susan Blosch, Carlsbad City Resident Dear Planning Commission: We are stake holders and will be directly impacted by the process and end result of this development. One of my concerns regarding the proposed development is the quality of soils to be disturbed during the construction process. If I read the final EIR correctly, (Appendix F 7.0 forward) there was soils testing done in the area but it was described as a “shallow soil sampling”. My first question is whether a shallow soil sampling is really sufficient? Considering the land use has been of agricultural and animal in nature for over 50 years, wouldn’t it make sense that through plowing, tilling, furrowing, natural seepage and erosion that the chemicals used, for decades, would naturally exist at a deeper level? It seems to me that the chemicals existing within one foot of the air might actually evaporate or otherwise be mitigated through the air? Is it possible that a deeper soils sampling might show a more concentrated level of arsenic, DDT and or other pesticides/heavy metals-containing herbicides? How will the dust be mitigated during the construction process? My husband is a cancer patient and also suffers from environmental allergies. It is important to his health that all possible irritants and poisons from disturbing the land near our home be contained. Secondly, my concerns are of the parking accommodations being proposed for the entire development but most particularly those residential structures nearest El Camino Real. With only 2 parking spaces allotted for townhomes with garages and slightly more than 1 street parking spot per 4 residential units, this means residential visitors will have less than 0.5 parking spot available for each residential unit. I could not find in the report details regarding parking availability for the “Age restricted affordable apartments”. Is the developer assuming “age-restricted” individuals don’t own a car, or have visitors? Where will they overflow parking occur? Most likely, Kelly Drive? Most likely in front of my home! I have not heard of the final plan for traffic calming in my neighborhood. If in fact, Kelly Drive is redesigned to support slower traffic and possibly lesser street parking to current residents, how well will it handle overflow parking from the Marja Acres development? Our street parking is already limited! Lastly, I walk along El Camino Real regularly. The speed limit on ECR is 55 mph. With 600+ more vehicles in and out of the Marja Acres development, I would like to see the speed limit reduce along this corridor. As residents near the intersection of ECR and Kelly Dr. we experience many traffic accidents annually and I believe that speed is a factor. Please study and report on the possibility of reducing the speed limit on El Camino Real. Thank you for your time, Susan Blosch, 4811 Kelly Drive 33 year resident From:Catherine A. Ferguson To:Planning Subject:Planning Commission Comment - Item 1 Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:32:34 AM Hello, Please accept this email as a public comment for the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday September 16th. I would like to comment on Item #1 – Marja Acres and urge the Commission to approve the project. I am the Vice President and Cofounder of the North County YIMBY Group. We are a pro-housing group dedicated to creating an equitable North County. We support the Marja Acres Project for several reasons. First, the region is in a housing crisis, and this project will add almost 300 multi-family units to an area dominated by unaffordable single-family housing. Carlsbad needs to approve project such as this in order to meet its required RHNA allocation. This project is a great opportunity to increase the City’s numbers and provide a different type of housing product that will add diversity to the housing stock. Second, the affordable senior units and fee bus passes will give local seniors the opportunity to live in the community and maintain an independent lifestyle longer. Third, as is the case in most situation, the NIMBY comments against the project are thinly veiled attempts to keep lower-income people and minorities out of the heavily white, rich neighborhood. This area is predominantly wealthy, single family housing. The neighbors decry the project will “lower their home values”, but what they really mean is that people like them will not want to buy a house near people like the ones who will live in these homes – less wealthy and possibly minorities. Additionally, lowering home prices – i.e. making housing more affordable to all San Diegans - is a GOAL of the housing movement. Current housing process in San Diego are out of control. According to a quick Zillow search, the available homes near the Marja Acres site are all asking for above $800k and the majority are over $1m. We need to lower housing prices to allow young people to achieve the goal of homeownership in North County. Finally, this site has been slated for dense housing in the General Plan for years and this project makes good use of an underutilized site. The GP actually designates it for a denser project. If the City does not build housing on the sites designated for such projects, it will be in violation of its own GP and several State Housing Laws. For the reasons stated above, and several others I have not mentioned, I hope the Planning Commission will approve the project and help increase the housing supply in Carlsbad. We, as a region, need to step up and build housing so all San Diegans can afford to live in our wonderful County. Thank you, Catherine Ferguson ▪ Attorney At LAw Lounsbery Ferguson ALtonA & PeAk 960 CAnterbury PLACe, suite 300 esCondido, CA 92025 t: 760-743-1226 ext. 111 F: 760-743-9926 CAF@LFAP.Com www.LFAP.Com the information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of thetransmission. it may therefore be protected from unauthorized use or dissemination by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-productprivileges. if you are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any review, use,dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. you are also asked to notify us immediately bytelephone and to delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form. thank you in advance for yourcooperation.irs CirCuLAr 230 disCLosure: to ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the irs, we inform you that, to the extent thiscommunication (or any attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not written to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-relatedpenalties under the internal revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressedherein (or in any such attachment). CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kathy Fellows To:Planning Subject:Please read aloud at planning commission meeting on Sept 16 Date:Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:50:45 PM I'm writing regarding the Marja Acres proposal. I'm a Carlsbad resident who must turn leftfrom northbound El Camino Real onto Kelly Drive daily, an experience I’ll be sharing withthe hundreds of residents of this development if it is approved. Traffic on El Camino Real isalready stop and go in this area during rush hour, and the backup at this intersection will behazardous. Even now I’ve nearly been rear ended by northbound cars due to theinadequate length of the left turn lane. Wildfire season is a potent reminder that residentshave to be able to evacuate if necessary, and the increased traffic would jeopardize theirsafety. Affordable housing is needed, but there are too many issues with the density of thisdevelopment, both for the people who will live there and for those of us who travel on ElCamino Real. The developer applied for the state's density bonus, but this has only 46affordable units and the majority, or 248 of the units will not be low cost. It's difficult tounderstand how this was approved so far. The city of Carlsbad recently sent a survey to gather input from residents on the city’shousing plan. The report is outlined in a brochure, and it’s introduction begins as follows:“The City of Carlsbad is committed to involving the public in the city decision makingprocess, based on several key principles: Members of the public have a right to beinvolved in decisions affecting their lives. According to the report, the following input was received from residents: Highest priority on where new housing should be located: 1. where it will have the least impact on the environment overall2. where it will have the least impact on traffic in Carlsbad3. new housing should be concentrated in smart growth areas; areas where transitshops and services already exist4. new housing should blend in with the character of surrounding neighborhood5. new housing should be spread evenly across all parts of the city The Marja Acres project doesn’t satisfy these concerns. There are issues surroundingenvironmental impact and traffic. It’s not near public transport or services, will not blend inwith the character of the area, and is directly across El Camino Real from RobertsonRanch, another new high density development. The report ends with these lines: “Thank you to those who participated in the online surveyto help the city update its housing plan to reflect the community's needs, values andpriorities. An unprecedented 4,200 people participated.” Based on these responses I feel the commission should pay attention to the concerns andsafety of its residents and scale this project back. Thank you for the opportunity to write. Katherine Fellows 4781 Endeavor Lane Carlsbad CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Erik Bruvold To:Planning Subject:Please Read into record – Support for Majra Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 4:13:11 PM Please read into the record: Dear Planning Commissioners,My name is Erik Bruvold and on behalf of the SDNEDC, I would like to express our supportfor the Marja Acres project. We have previously submitted a comment letter for yourconsideration. Carlsbad has a tremendous opportunity to make a positive impact by tackling the ever-growing housing shortage and start an effort to reduce commutes. Between 2013 and 2019 thefive “Innovate 78” cities added 39,000 new jobs. Over that same period of time, these five citiesadded a little over 9,000 new housing units. That ratio of more than four new jobs on thecorridor chasing every one new home is not sustainable. The results are predictable: rising home prices, rents, and continuing to place burdens onfamilies while straining our local economy. Housing not built here just means workerscontinue to be displaced to Southern Riverside County and further congesting our freewaysand contributing to even more GHG emissions. Marja Acres addresses this deficit by adding 248 attainably priced homes, 46 affordable units,an urban farm, and free transit for residents… all within thousands of jobs. Join us in supportof a better jobs to housing balance and support Marja Acres. Thank you. W. Erik Bruvold Chief Executive Officer San Diego North Economic Development Council 100 East San Marcos Blvd, Suite 400 San Marcos, CA 92069 ebruvold@sdnedc.org 760-510-5919 (office) 858-361-1540 (cell) CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Steven Ahlquist To:Planning Subject:Please Support Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:34:34 AM Dear Planning Commission, PLEASE READ INTO HEARING RECORD I am a a 55 year resident of Carlsbad, having graduated from CHS in 1969. As a retired banker who worked in senior management for many of San Diego’s premier banks for over 30 years,I have seen Carlsbad grow from a sleepy beach community to the vibrant city it has become, due in great part to the wise decisions of past Planning Commissioners and City Council fromthe 1960’s and beyond. I worked for one of the retailers in Plaza Camino Real that opened on March 12, 1969. I finally was able to become a homeowner in Carlsbad in 1984, andappreciate that previous city leaders had the vision to allow Carlsbad to grow with residential communities, so that I too could own a home here. I fully support Marja Acres for the vision they too have to create affordable homes forworking residents as well as low income seniors, who would not otherwise be able to stay in our great city. Carlsbad needs more housing opportunities so people are able to live closer towork. This community provides diverse variety to meet the needs of families, seniors and our workforce. Marja Acres has approximately 248 townhomes designed for professionals andfamilies that work in Carlsbad and also about 50 desperately needed low-income apartments for seniors. Please do not turn down the opportunity for more Carlsbad residents to stay in ourcommunity or those that work in many of the first class businesses that have moved to Carlsbad over the past thirty years. Many cannot live here due to the high cost of residentialhousing and are forced to commute from other cities east and south of Carlsbad. Those who purchase or rent homes in Marja Acres will no longer have to commute from another city anduse the outrageously expensive Carlsbad Connector to get from Poinsettia Station to their workplace. (I am so very thankful that you stopped this service that offered nothing to thecitizens of Carlsbad, but only to those working here and living south of us). Marja Acres will be the first residential project in the city to offer free transit passes to its residents. Thesepasses can be utilized with all regional transportation services including NCTD breeze buses to rail lines and even the MTS Trolley Service. I support this project as it focuses on the goalis to reduce local resident’s car trips, road congestion, and working towards reducing our carbon footprint. Planning Commissioners and City Council, I urge you to approve MarjaAcres as this is the type of sustainable, forward-thinking project that we need in Carlsbad. I live in the residential neighborhood adjacent to Marja Acres and I support Marja Acres because it is a distinctly Carlsbad-centric project meant to help the community thrive bycreating attainably priced housing for families and deed-restricted low-income housing for seniors, adding needed park space, and creating a true community space. Please vote yes forMarja Acres. Steven Ahlquist 4989 Via Marta Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Lenska Bracknell To:Planning Subject:Please Support Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:34:37 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to you today in support of Marja Acres, a mixed-use project proposed by New Urban West on El Camino Real. Our region and our city continue to face housing challenges. People want to work where they live, and we often hear business leaders describing thedifficulties they face attracting and retaining employees due to the lack of housing opportunities in our region. This project is designed in a way that makes new, moderntownhomes attainable. Clustering homes near employment centers and near neighborhoods that already exist is a great way to improve climate action goals, reduce commutes and complement the communitycharacter. Marja Acres would be a welcomed asset to our City, please vote yes. Sincerely, Lenska Bracknell CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Eric Armstrong To:Planning Subject:Please Support Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:23:13 AM Dear Planning Commission, I would like you to know that fully support the proposed Marja Acres project in the City of Carlsbad. There is a huge need for workforce housing and unfortunately, I see the struggleslocal employees and family members have to endure as it relates to housing. From our engineers to our technicians, it is our priority to make a positive impact both in the lives of our employees and our community. We were fortunate to be able to buy our home in Carlsbad in 1991 before prices ran up to whatthey are today. I see the value that Marja Acres will provide by creating attainable work-force housing for the city’s employees – from engineers to teachers. Their sustainable design willallow for more people who work in Carlsbad and live closer to their place of employment cutting down commute times, time away from family and reducing our carbon footprint. In myline of work, I constantly see challenges related to housing, whether it is from blue-collar employees who have to commute from Riverside or reoccurring challenges in recruitment as itrelates to housing. We need to continue to encourage responsible community projects that build opportunities for our future workforce. Please join me in support of Marja Acres. Sincerely, Eric Armstrong 2817 La Nevasca Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Nicolette Peterson To:Planning Subject:Please Support Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:23:15 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission, Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I am writing today in SUPPORT of Marja Acres. As a millennial looking to buy my first home, this project creates a real and attainableopportunity for me. I have a good job that in most other communities would afford me the opportunity to buy a home. However, I understand that California is different. Still, clustering housing nearemployment centers like the one on Faraday is key to our region’s Climate Change goals of reducing GHG emissions and alleviating long commutes. A Recent SANDAG study showed that more than 80% of people in North County drive 25miles or more to work. I don’t want to be one of those statistics and there is no meaningful long range transportation option for me that doesn’t involve a car for the first few miles of mycommute. Therefore, I enthusiastically support Marja Acres so we can make meaningful strides to achieving our climate goals and I can hopefully buy my first home. Thank you, Nicolette Peterson Carlsbad Resident Regards, Nicolette Peterson , CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Brendan Dentino To:Planning Subject:Please Support Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:24:18 AM Dear Planning Commission, I urge you to support Marja Acres. Housing is a real challenge in the City of Carlsbad and the San Diego County region, and we need to embrace positive projects like this as we plan andadvocate for our future. Supporting Marja Acres will help the inventory with 248 new townhomes, 46 affordable senior units and offer local commercial amenities. All of which is desperately needed. Pleasejoin me in support of smart planning. Regards, Brendan Dentino CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Brendan Dentino To:Planning Subject:Please Support Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:24:18 AM Dear Planning Commission, I urge you to support Marja Acres. Housing is a real challenge in the City of Carlsbad and the San Diego County region, and we need to embrace positive projects like this as we plan andadvocate for our future. Supporting Marja Acres will help the inventory with 248 new townhomes, 46 affordable senior units and offer local commercial amenities. All of which is desperately needed. Pleasejoin me in support of smart planning. Regards, Brendan Dentino CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kathleen Mandig To:Planning Subject:Please Support Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:24:23 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to pledge my support for Marja Acres, a sustainable, mixed-use community that improves accessibility to housing and transportation to those who need it most. This project isforward-thinking and has the ability to effect change in the City of Carlsbad by improving our quality of life through housing and building community. Marja Acres will provide a balanced intergenerational lifestyle and promote healthy living. There will be an urban farm, walkable eateries and shops, and free transit passes for residents.It would be great to have more access to affordable housing, greater access to a work-life balance and access to living in a community that reduces their carbon footprint. Please support this project that helps improve the health and wellness for residents. MarjaAcres will be the first residential project in the city to offer free transit passes to its residents. These passes can be utilized with all regional transportation services including NCTD breezebuses to rail lines and even the MTS Trolley Service. I support this project as it focuses on the goal is to reduce car trips, road congestion, and working towards reducing our carbonfootprint. Planning Commissioners and City Council, I urge you to approve Marja Acres as this is the type of sustainable, forward-thinking project that we need in Carlsbad. Our city continues toface housing challenges, now more than ever with growing affordability issues and new RHNA targets. This project is designed in a way that makes new, modern townhomesattainable and offers 48 affordable apartments. Clustering homes near employment centers and near neighborhoods that already exist is a great way to improve climate action goals, reducecommutes and complement the community character. Please join me in support of Marja Acres. Sincerely, Kathleen Mandig CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Lindsey Walker To:Planning Subject:Please Vote Yes on Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:34:40 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission, Marja Acres will be the first residential project in the city to offer free transit passes to its residents. These passes can be utilized with all regional transportation services includingNCTD breeze buses to rail lines and even the MTS Trolley Service. I support this project as it focuses on the goal is to reduce car trips, road congestion, and working towards reducing ourcarbon footprint. So many workers have to commute in to Carlsbad for work. by increasing mobility and home opportunities we can start to reduce time in traffic and increase our quality of life. Planning Commissioners and City Council, I urge you to approve Marja Acres as this is thetype of sustainable, forward-thinking project that we need in Carlsbad. Sincerely, Lindsey Walker CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Nate DeYoung To:Planning Subject:Project Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:06:04 AM Dear Planning Commission, Please support of Marja Acres, a mixed-use community proposed by New Urban West. This project is more than a development, it is a lifestyle. Not only will it provide an opportunity forpeople to buy a new home in Carlsbad, it also offers amenities for healthier choices and community gathering. There will be an urban farm onsite offering fresh produce, workshops, events and ingredientsto be used at the project’s farm-to-table restaurant. By having so many resources at our doorstep our dependence on our cars will also be greatly reduced. The bus stop directly infront of the project is also a big plus for neighbors and the senior community who will live there too! Robust bike infrastructure and transit options create alternative transportationoptions for access to our nearby businesses. Marja Acres is new way of thinking about where you live, and how you live. Please join me in support of the New Urban West project. Regards, Nate DeYoung CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kevin Perry To:Planning Subject:Support Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:05:53 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to you today in support of Marja Acres, a mixed-use project proposed by New Urban West on El Camino Real. Our region and our city continue to face housing challenges.People want to work where they live, and we often hear business leaders describing the difficulties they face attracting and retaining employees due to the lack of housingopportunities in our region. This project is designed in a way that makes new, modern townhomes attainable. Clustering homes near employment centers and near neighborhoods that already exist is agreat way to improve climate action goals, reduce commutes and complement the community character. Marja Acres would be a welcomed asset to our City, please vote yes. Sincerely, Kevin Perry CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Noelle Demmer To:Planning Subject:Support Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:05:56 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to pledge my support for Marja Acres. I have lived in North country my whole life. I am shocked at the prices for senior living communities. It is so sad to me that are lowincome elderly aren't taken into consideration for affordable housing. I hope that one day soon we can start to develop some nice places for them to live. Any project that would improve thequality of life and promote healthy living should strongly be considered. Please support and approve Marja Acres. Thank you, Noelle Demmer CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Anne Distel To:Planning Subject:Support Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:24:25 AM Dear Planning Commission, Support Marja Acres I am a 68 year old widow who has worked all her life. I have lived in San Diego area (and raised my children here) since 1969. I have owned and rented and owned a retail business inDel Mar for 10 years and always done some type of community service work. But I’m afraid for my future. I rent and have a room Moro make ends meet. I am on temporary disability butwill not be able to return to the same type of physical work. I am not alone. We seniors need help. The community you are establishing sounds wonderful but I could only afford about$600-800 a month for rent. Please consider this. I am one of the lucky ones. Most seniors have to live on that for rent, car payments, insurance gas food etc. Please recognize the seriousnessof our dilemmas. We have worked long and hard. Paid our taxes. Given back to our communities. Thank you, anne distel CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Melissa Flores From:Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:48 PM To:Planning Cc:City Clerk Subject:To Be Read Aloud - Marja Acres Planning Commission (494 Words) Dear Planning Commission, I urge you to send this developer back to refine the plans for Marja Acres. The traffic and parking plans are untenable. There was no “boots on the ground” common sense applied to living with these parking and traffic plans. Please provide a common sense, local perspective and tell this developer to DO BETTER. Parking – Completely insufficient parking with unrealistic assumptions made. 1. Senior Units – 46 Units. 47 Parking Spaces. Where do visiting family, house keepers, in-home services/care or even a plumber park? 2. The developer assumes 2 cars will be parked in the 2-car garages with no driveways….Have you seen the closet space in these plans? Where do the surfboards, bikes, camping gear, holiday ornaments, tools, “life stuff” live? At best, if the occupants are minimalists and tidy – one car will fit in the garage. For a sports-minded family, or roommate situation, the garage will hold all this “life stuff.” Where are these families supposed to park their cars? 3. Rentals = Roommates. Roommates means one car per occupant, so a 3-bedroom townhome, one can expect 3 cars. Where do they park? 4. Where do visitors park? Are these residents never permitted to have visitors? There is no “real life” experience applied to these parking plans. El Camino Real is a 50-60 mph road, so there certainly is no parking along that road. The EIR shows that the property has a high-water table. Can the property support underground parking? If so, the builder should be required to provide it. If not, the builder should build fewer units. The development will drive resident parking down Kelly and into the older residential neighborhoods – certainly not a good neighbor policy. As for the argument that ECR is a transit corridor…. Have you ridden a bus along that route lately? It’s a joke, which is why the buses are empty. It takes an hour by bus for a 10-minute trip in a car. Residents won’t be using the buses, so that assumption is incorrect and useless. Traffic – Traffic is going to be a disaster. The only way to enter the complex driving northbound, is to make a U-turn at Kelly. The left turn lane holds about 7-8 cars. That lane will back up into the traffic lane on ECR, which reduces the traffic flow on the road. Cars will either slam on the brakes or swerve at the last minute to avoid the overflow of cars from the left turn lane. Add kids from the 800 – 1000 new homes and apartments in Robertson Ranch, walking to Kelly Elementary, or worse the stressed parents driving to and from pickup – a complete nightmare, gridlock, road rage scenario. And this is AFTER we’ve gone through 2 years of road improvements on ECR over the past few years…. The developer needs to build a double left turn lane at Kelly. The project isn’t ready. Please Vote No. Send the developer back to DO better. Thank you. Vickey Syage (Resident) 2 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Kris Wright To:Planning Subject:To BE READ ALOUD at the Marja Acres Planning Commission meeting Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:02:13 PM Marja Acres Planning Commission Sept. 16, 2020 Three points: 1. The developer, New Urban West has chosen the State Density Bonus over the Carlsbad Inclusionary Housing ordinance which has increased the number of market rate housing units by 65 and decreased the number of affordable housing by 4 from the original plans. Our affordable housing RHNA numbers are sorely deficient while Carlsbad is well supplied with market rate homes. With the General Plan Update in 2016, it was determined that “any development project on the Marja Acres site is required to provide 20% inclusionary housing units.” According to the staff report, we are getting only 15%. With the developer requesting an addition to the Growth management Point to add housing units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, the developer was able to get an additional concession, according to City Council Policy #43 which allows more residential units than allowed in the Growth Management Plan. My concerns are that the additional units are simply too much for the area. I favor the City of Carlsbad’s Inclusionary Housing plans over the State Density Bonus chosen by the developer. 2. In addition, the NOP for this project was completed in December 2018, well before the state mandated VMT (vehicle miles travelled) went into effect on July 1, 2020. Originally the Traffic Report utilized the LOS analysis which found that the development would change the current grading to a “D” or unacceptable level on the Kelly Drive to Lisa St. segment. Instead, the Planners jumped the gun and allowed the developer an early use of the VMT which should not have occurred. It seems that the planners allowed a discretionary approval on a case by case basis, thus favoring the developer. 3. Although the parking requirements have exceeded City standards, parking is only available within two car garages for each market rate unit, with no driveways. According to the Fire Marshal, the alleys leading to the garages and ending in a dead end must be designated fire lanes. Given no guest parking lots, street parking along the private drive will be the only avenue for excess parking, with less than 0.5 parking spaces per market rate townhome. This presents a huge potential for illegal parking or parking on the nearby Kelly Drive. Given the VMT usage in the EIR, a Transportation Coordinator MUST be hired by the HOA within the auspices of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to be tasked to ensure that all Marja Acres residential parking will occur within the boundaries of the HOA and that illegal parking is enforced. This will be critical to the surrounding residential areas, especially to residents living along Kelly Drive. Please include in the CC&R’s. Thank you. Kristine Wright 4902 Via Arequipa Carlsbad, CA 92008 -- Kris Wrightkriswrt222@gmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Sue I. To:Planning Subject:To be read at the Marja Acres Planning Commission Mtg 9/16/2020 Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:38:37 PM Honorable chair and members of the planning commission, I would like to post a public comment about the Marja Acres project before the commission this afternoon. I know this project has been in the works for awhile now and many of the initial promises made to our neighbors and friends have been changed throughout this process. First thing to address is the impact to an established Carlsbad neighborhood with initial plans for a community garden and and other broken promises made to appease the established neighborhood in the beginning of this process. I would like to recognize the commissioners and council who represent us. I know staff does a great job but in this process we should have more representation of the neighbors who are most concerned about this project, a citizens review board so all neighbors can be represented. This project, is like a moving train, our citizens should have input on variety of issues that keep the developer on board and in sync with the community. There are community concerns and one or two citizens should not have to do all the heavy lifting. We need a citizens review board. Susan Igoe CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Carla Partida To:Planning Subject:Yes! I support Marja Acres. Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 9:05:59 AM Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, I support Marja Acres because without it, there will be many homeless seniors. Carlsbad needs Senior housing. Please approve the 48 new units of much needed low- to extremely-low income senior housing in our community Sincerely, Carla Partida 6022 Paseo Acampo #146 92009 Regards, Carla Partida , CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Barbara McWherter To:Teri Delcamp Subject:Yes! I support Marja Acres Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:01:19 AM Dear Planning Commission, I support Marja Acres because there are many seniors who rely on S.S. only and are in need of Affordable Housing. Carlsbad needs Senior housing. Please approve the 48 new units of much needed low- toextremely-low income senior housing in our community Sincerely, Barbara McWherter CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Barbara McWherter To:Planning Subject:Yes! I support Marja Acres Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:26:02 AM Dear Planning Commission, I support Marja Acres because there are many seniors who rely on S.S. only and are in need of Affordable Housing. Carlsbad needs Senior housing. Please approve the 48 new units of much needed low- toextremely-low income senior housing in our community Sincerely, Barbara McWherter CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Steve Linke To:Planning Subject:Marja Acres project review (Planning Commission 9/16/2020 meeting) - addendum Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:28:39 PM Planning Commissioners: This is a follow-up to my letter from earlier today. Now that I have had a chance to review the additional correspondence in the staff report, I would like to comment on two letters in particular. One is from Matthew Gelfand of Californians for Homeownership, an organization sponsored by the California Association of Realtors with the mission of suing cities that deny housing development applications, and the other is from Marco Gonzalez of Coast Law Group on behalf of the Marja Acres project developer/applicant, NUWI Carlsbad, LLC. The correspondents seem to be claiming that the City failed to inform the applicant of any inconsistency of the project with an applicable City provision within 60 days of the application being deemed complete, so the project needs to be declared consistent by default. Apparently, the City deemed the application complete on 12/24/2018 and took no action, so the applicant is claiming that their project needed to be considered consistent as of 2/22/2019. The correspondents also seem to be claiming that the City cannot now make a factual finding to disapprove the project or reduce its density, because the City did not identify in the 4/15/2019 draft EIR any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. I am not seeking to have the project disapproved, but I want the developer to pay their fair shares to mitigate the significant traffic impacts the project will have on the area. To that end, I want to highlight a topic from my earlier letter. If the applicant wants to stake a claim to the 12/24/2018 “application deemed complete” date, then the rules in effect on that date apply. That means that the project’s transportation-related impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) need to be assessed using Carlsbad’s level of service (LOS) methodology. The traffic study done back at that time was based on the LOS methodology and claimed that there would be no significant impact. However, due to either incompetence or an intent to deceive, that traffic study was fatally flawed. Had it been done correctly, it would have shown a significant and quantifiable impact on the environment using the objective standard that existed on the date the application was deemed complete (vehicle LOS of E/F, which is inconsistent with Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan, Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, and General Plan). The correspondents also cited the section of the Housing Accountability Act that raises the issue of local governments trying to limit housing by requiring payment of high fees (§65589.5(a)(1)(B)). However, it is also important to point out §65589.5(f)(3) of the same law, which states: “This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project…” Best regards, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.