The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 00-16; Poinsettia Properties PA 2, 3, & 4 Part II; Tentative Map (CT)CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING May 13,1999 Benchmadt Pacific CWE 199.192.2 5055 Avenida Endnas, Suite 210 Catkbad, Califoniia 92008 ATTN: Brian Mutphy SUBJECT: San Diegp County Health Department C.ritt^n for Pesticide Residue Mitigation Dear Ladies and Gendemen: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to present some of the pertinent information r^^rding die miogation of pesticide residues in soils used for residential applications. We have spoken with Mn Kevin Heaton and Mr. David FeHx, bodi of die County of San Di^, and have reviewed die information in the most recent edition of the County Site Assessment and Mitigation MasiaaL Based on the information firom those sources the following is presented; 1) The pesticides used for the agricultural operations were presumably ^lied in accordance with standards and procedures in effect at die time of the pesticide application. The pesticide residues are therefore not generally classified as hazardous waste unless they are transported £rom the site. 2) In general, the pnxredures used as mitigation for pestidde-in^jacted soils have included removal, deep burial, dilution by mixing, or a combination of the procedures. The County of San Diego does not prohibit dilurion by mixing but they discourage it due to rhangtig regulatoty standards, increased ability to detect low levels of residues, and public perception. They also discourage exporting the pestidde-affected soils {com the original site due to the possibility th^it the soils would then need to be regulated as "hazardous waste". 3) The County of San Dido's preferred option is to buty the pestidde-affected soils on-site in an area would the soils would not be disturbed by fiiture grading or excavarion. Previous locarioos used for soil burial indude deep canyon fills, deep utility trenches, at the base of tall fill slopes, common ^eenbdt areas, or excavations made specifically to create a suitable disposal area. 4) The County of San Diego apparently does not r^;ulate the hundMng of pestidde-affected soils on grading projects but is willing to review proposed grading plans and offer support or suggestions to 4925 Mercury Street • San Diego, CA 92111 619-496-9760 • FAX 619-496-9758 CWE 199.192 May 13,1999 the proposed mitigation measures. This is usually done through Ae Voluntaty Assistance Program; the County employee currently managing this program is Nasser Siooit at (619) 338-2239. If you have any questions after reviewing this letter; please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respect&illy submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Curtis R Burdett, C.RG. #1090 CRB:crb cc (2) Submitted End.: Excerpts fixsm County SA/M Manual No 1090 CERfllFED 9IGINEBVNG GEOUOGST 1996 SAM Manual -''Secfion3 : - " - SOIL AND WATER INVESTIGATION " P ag e 31 - ^ /- ' 7. Containers, Preservation and Holding Time Correct handling of samples is needed to eliminate bias and cross contamination prior to laboratoiy analysis. See EPA SW-846for correct handling procedures. E. PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED SITES Pesticide contaminated soil Is an area of growing environmental concem. This Is generally due to land use changes involving proposed housing developments on fomier agricultural lands. Legally applied pesticides, and the resulting in-situ residues in soil, are not regulated as hazardous waste. However, to adequately evaluate the risk to human health and tiie environment posed by the presence of residual pesticides, it Is necessary to conduct botii a site assessment and a risk assessment 1. Considerations for Pesticide Investigations a. TTLC Total Threshold Limit ConcentiBtions (TTLCs) are to be used to determine if a waste is hazardous, for purposes of treatment or disposal. TTLCs are not healtii-based levels and should not be used to set clean-up levels for remedi^on of pesticide-contaminated sites. b. Acceptable Risk The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses one excess cancer deatii in 1,000,000 as the maximum acceptable risk. Caltfomia's Proposition 65 uses one excess cancer deatii in 100,000 as ttie risk level above which public notification is required. These risk levels should be kept In mind when preparing Community Health & Safety Plans and Risk Assessments. c. Contaminant Depth While the highest levels of some pesticide residues are found in the upper few feet of soil, the complete horizontal and vertical extent of contamination must be detemiined. Sampling only at deeper deptiis may miss the highest levels of contamination, while sampling on^ at shallower deptiis may not be sufflcient to delineate the extent of pesticide residues. Surfeu:& sampling may only allow assessment of exposures where ttie soil Is to be left undisturbed. Proposed construction and/or excavation of subsurface soil will require subsurface sampling to adequately assess potential exposures. d. Background Contamination There Is no 'natural' background concentration of pesticides In soil. However, because of widespread pesticide usage ttiroughout tiie County, varying concentrations of pestiddes may be expected to be found most anywhere. Therefore, background samples obtained off-site could also contain pesticide residues. The DEH suggests using CAL- EPA's guidance documents. 2. Waste Classification Unless pesticide contaminated soil is determined to be a waste, it cannot be considered a hazardous waste (as defined in Section 25117 of the Califomia Health and Safety Code) despite existing concentrations, if the following conditions are met, the DEH would not Count/ of San Diego . .QAM Manual IQQR SectibniS:' - : - Paae 32. * '. ^^-.^ - 1996 SAM Manual SOIL AND WATER INVESTIGATION consider soil contaminated by the leqal application of pestiddes to be a waste as defined in Section 25124 (a) of ttie Califomia Healtti and Safety Code. a. The soil wiil not be disposed of or removed from the site in any manner. If the soil is to be transported off-site, a hazardous waste detennination must be perfonned as required in Section 66471 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. Contaminated soil determined to be a hazardous waste must be disposed of in acconlance witti applicable State and Federal regulations. Any soil which is contaminated, and determined to be non-hazanJous, will require the written approval of ttie DEH and ttie Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to being transported off-site. b. The soil will not be heated on-site. A hazardous waste determination must be perfonned prior to treatinent of contaminated soil. If the soil Is detemiined to be hazardous, a fadlity permit, variance, or pennlt-by- nile must be obtained as required by tiie Caiifomia Healtti and Safety Code and the California Code of Regulations. Any activity canied out for the purpose of rendering soil less hazardous, or solely Intended to dDute or mbc the contaminated soil with clean soii, wouid be considered treatment c. The soil will not pose a tiireat to public healtti or tiie environment. 3. Community Healtii and Safety It is tiie responslbllily of the property owner, developer, contrador, and other responsible parties to condud on-site activities in a manner tiiat will not tiireaten public health and safety, or in any way degrade or tiireaten ttie environment Both Immediate and long-term effects of these activities must be considered. The DEH will require immediate con-ective action, as needed, to proted public healtii and/or tiie environment. Prior to conducting any activity on-site, tiie DEH strongly suggests that a Community Health and Safety Plan be prepared. The purpose of ttiis plan is to document measures ttiat will be taken to proted The surrounding community. DEH will review and comment on a Community Healtti and Safety Plan upon remittance of the standard review fee. Measures must be taken to prevent fugitive dust emissions, vapors, erosion, and any off-site migration of pestidde contaminated soil. Grading, tiienchlng, drilling, and ail constixiction activities must be conduded In a manner which protects public health and ttie environment. Effective dust control is tiie most important measure which will prevent public exposure to pestiddes. Responsible parties wiil be accountable for monitoring off-site dust migration during any activity conduded on-site. Any activity generating dust emissions must be Immediately stopped if off-site migration of dust is deteded. 4. Notification Section 25249.6 of the Caiifomia Heafth and Safety Code (Proposition 65) requires waming an individual before exposure to any chemical known to cause cancer. It Is the opinion of the DEH ttiat exposure to many pesticide contaminated soils would require a dear and reasonable waming to any Indivklual conducting any activity which exposes that Indhridual to ttie soil. Waming requirements may also extend to fuhjre tenants, lessees, maintenance personnel and the general public. In addition, Sedion 25359 of ttie Califomia Health and Safety Code requires an owner of non-residenti'al real property to provide, prior to the sale, lease, or rental of ttie real property, written notice of the release of a hazardous substance. It Is the opinion SAM Manual 1996 County of San Diego Cmftmnmanffil MAfllth Mav 20,1999 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Benchmark Pacific 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 ATTN: Brian Murphy CWE 199.192.3 SUBJECT: Pestidde Residue Mitigation, Planning Area 5, Poinsettia Properties Spedfic Plan, Carlsbad, Califocnia Dear Ladies and Gendemen: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to present our opinion regarding the proposed mitigation of pestidde residues in soils at the Poinsettia Properties site. We understand that Bridge Housii^ the pending buyer of Planning Area 5, proposes to mitigate the presence of pestidde residues in the on-site soils by excavating the upper three to six feet of soil and burying the uppermost two feet of excavated soil at the bottom of the excavation. The burial option proposed is accq)table to us. Based on previous conversations with personnd firom the San Diego County Health Department, we understand that this is their preferred (though not the only acceptable) mitigation alternative. If you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respeafiilly submitted, CHRISTUN WHEELER ENGINEERING Curtis R Burdett, C.E.G. #1090 CRB:crb cc: (2) Submitted 4925 Mercury Street -•- San Diego, CA 92111 • 619-496-9760 • FAX 619-496-9758 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Apnl 12,1999 Benchmark Pacific CWE 199.192.1 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 ATTN: Brian Murphy SUBJECT: Report of Limited Pesticide Sampling, Poinsettia Properties - Parce l A, Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have pei formed some limited sampling and te.-iting for pesticide residues of the near-surface soils at the subject site. Tliis limited ^unpling and testing was perfonned in order to evaluate the amount of pesticide residues in the soils and detennine wheth<;r the residues are below regulatory limits for residential uses. Elaven samples were obtained at representative locanons at a depth of approximately one foot to two feet bdow the existing ground surfiice; the sample locations are shown on the accompanying Plate No. 1. The samples were submitted to an approved environmental testmg laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures for analysis. The results of the laboratory tests indicate that detectable amounts of pesticide residues were detected in all of the samples obtamed on April 2, 1999 i t a depth of approximately one foot to two feet. Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLC) for toxaphene and DDT/DDE/DDD are 5.0 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively. Preliminary remediation jpals (PRCs) for residential soil established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for toxaphene, DDT/DDE, and DDD are 0.4 mg/kg, 1.7 mg/kg, and 2.4 mg/kg, respectivdy. A summary of tho TTLCs, the PRGs, and the laboratory test results are presented below; complete copies of the test results are presented at the rear of this report. Threshold Limit DPP DDE DDI Toxaphene (ppm) 1115 (ppb) 1000 1000 1000 5,000 PEG DDD DDE DDI Toxaphene (ppm) 2.4 1.7 1.7 0.4 (ppb) 2400 1700 1700 400 4925 Mercury Street > San Diego, CA 92111 • 619-496-9760 • FAX 619-496-9758 CWE 199.192.1 — April 12,1990 - Sampk I/^cation PDP DDE DDT Toxaphene (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) PP2NW 309 670 192 253 (PTAS # 1) PP2NE 37 121 76 121 (PTAS #2) PP2NE(dup) 60 166 118 495 PP2SW 34 143 60 503 (PTAS # 3) PP2SE 57 153 138 192 (PTAS #4) PP3 1,090 2,170 921 ' 744 (PTAS # 5) PP4W 471 1,370 476 618 (PTAS #6) PP4E 353 1,330 364 558 (PTAS #7) PP5N 451 2,290 570 1,770 (PTAS #8) PP5SW 522 1,770 373 1,450 (PTAS #9) PP5SE 184 914 197 935 (PTAS # 10) PP6 452 1,410 500 1,560 (PTAS #11) CWE 199.192.1 Apnl 12, 1999 Tlie laboratory test results mdicate the foUowi-ig. 1) One sample (PP 3) was slightly above the TTLC for PPD; none of the samples were above the PRG for POD. 2) Six samples were above the TTLC for DDE; four of the samples were above the PRG for PDE. 3) No samples were above either the TTLC or die PRG for PPT. 4) No samples were above the TTLC for toxaphene; nine samples were above the PRG fot toxaphene. 5) The samples tested ranged kom less than the recommended limit to slighdy abos'C the recommended limit, to as much as approximitely four times the recommended limit. Based on the laboratory test results, it is our opinion tbit after site preparation procedures associated with the anticipated improvements, the amount of pesticide residues remaining in the near-surface soils' should be sufficientiy low so that "no significant risk" tD the health and safety of workers and residents is present The "no significant risk" level assumes that that tht; occurrence of one excess lifetime cancer in a population of one million is "not significant". The samples tested ranged frc>m less than the recommended limit to sli^itiy above the recomaiended limit, to as much as approxunately four times the recommended limit. It is expected that after bidding thie near-surface soils with other on-site soils and/or imported soils, the levels will be reduced to lielow both the TTLC and the PRG limits. It nuy be advisable to verify this during and after grading; operations. If you liave any questions after reviewing this litter, please do not hesitate to contact i:his office. RespeafuUy submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Curtis R. Burdett, C.E.G. #1090 CRB:crb cc: (2) Submitted //&-yl^- ff'y / y If ' l(' 'C.90 - CERTIRSD ENGiMF£.RING QEQUOGIST 3 5' a n O I H H JD O 03 CARLSBAO BLVD. NORTH 0- 125- 2^ 500' Pacific Treatment 4340 Viewridge Avenue, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92123 Analytical Services, Inc. (619) 560-7717 • Fax (619) 560-7763 Analytical Chemistry Laboratory April 12,1999 Christrian Wheeler Engineering Attn.: Curtis Burdett 4925 Mercury Street San Diego, Califomia 92111 Project Name/No.: Poinsettia Properties Laboratory Log No.: 0752-99 Date Received: 04/02/99 Sample Matrix: Eleven soil samples PONo.: 199.192 Please find the following enclosures for the abo\'e referencfed project identified: 1) Analytical Report 2) QA/QC Report 3) Chain of Custody Form .Certificate of Analysis.. Samples were analyzed pursuant to client request utilizing EPA or other ELAP approved methodologies. Date of extraction, date of analysis, detection limits and dilution factor are reported for each compound analyzed. All samples were analyzed within the method required holding time firom sample collection. Data for each analytical method was evaluated by assessing the following QA/QC functions, as applicable to the methodology: • Quality Control Standard • Surrogate Percent Recovery • Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) percent recoveries for all analyses • Matrix Spike Recovery/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery (MSR & MSDR) and/or • Relative Percent Difference (RPD fi-om MSR & MSDR) / certify that this data report is in compliance both technically and for completeness. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data report has been authorized by the following signature. /Janis Columbo / / Vice President/Laboratory Director Water • Soil • Waste • Wastewater • Marine Sediment & Tissues • Elutriate Analyses Thcf Produce Results! ANALYSIS RES ULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: METHOD BLANK SAMPLE ID: N/A DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: N/A DATE RECEIVED: N/A DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08/99 MATRIX: SOLID SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) 2 ^ * ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND DDD 2 ND DDE 2 ND DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 , ND ENDOSULFAN 1 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN/SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 ND ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOFiTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 26-146 % RECOVERY 126 [y'j Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 43-10 viewndge A>fe., suite A • san Diego, CA 92123 (6i9) 560-7717 FAX (619) seo- '763 ANALYSIS RES ULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLOFJNE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-1 SAMPLE ID: PP2NW DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 MATRIX: SOIL SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPOR TING LIMITS PPE; (UG/KG) RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 _ • ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 309 * 4,4-DDE 20 670 * 4,4.DDT 20 192 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 253 ** ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOF TING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 26-146 % RECOVERY 115 * NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF-10) NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. \PaclfiC Tt-eatment Analytical Services, Inc. 43'i0Vlevwtd'3e Ave,, suite A. SanOiego.CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-;763 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLOFlINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/No.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-2 SAMPLE ID: PP2NE DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99 DATE EXITIACTED: 04/06/99 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 MATRIX: SOIL SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS PPE. (UG/KG) RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 _ . ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 37 4,4-DDE 2 121 4,4-DDT 2 76 DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 121 ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOF.TING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDIN'JLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 26-146 % RECOVERY 117 * NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. I Pacific Tt-eatment Analytical Services, Inc. Am vievmoge Ave., suite A • san oiego. CA 92123 (6i9) 560-7717 FAX (619) sec- 763 ANALYSIS RES ULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-2 (DUPLICATE) SAMPLE ID: PP 2 NE (DUPLICATE) DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE EXTRACTED: DATE ANALYZED: MATRIX: SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 04/02/99 04/02/99 04/06/99 04/08-09/99 SOIL 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPE (UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 60 4,4.DDE 20 166 * 4,4-DDT 2 118 DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 495 ** ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 25-146 "/<, RECOVERY 126 * NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) *• NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MAN" TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. [y'lPac/ffC treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 43< OViewndge Ave.. Smte A ^San Diego, CA 92123 .619)560-7717 FAX (619) 560-V763 ANALYSIS RES ULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-3 SAMPLE ID: PP2SW DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE EXTRACTED: DATE ANALYZED: MATRIX: SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 04/02/99 04/02/99 04/06/99 04/08-09/99 SOIL 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS PPE (UG/KG) RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 _ » ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 34 4,4-DDE 20 143 * 4,4.DDT 2 60 DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 503 * ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINCiLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 21J-146 % RECOVERY 119 * NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) *« NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MAW TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF 0TF;ER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. |^^^Pac//7c Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340Vlewrid(ieAve..SulteA'SanOiego.CA92123 (619)560-7717 FAX (619) 560-7763 ANALYSIS RES ULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/No.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-4 SAMPLE ID: PP2SE DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE EXTRACTED: DATE ANALYZED: MATRIX: SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 04/02/99 04/02/99 04/06/99 04/08-09/99 SOIL 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS PPE. (UG/KG) RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 _ ' ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 57 4,4-DDE 20 153 * 4,4-DDT 20 138 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 192 * ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOF TING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 26-146 % RECOVERY 125 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. ry^JPac/ffC Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 43<l0Viewridge Ave., suite A. San oiego, CA 92123 (619) 56O-7717 FAX (619) seo-763 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLOEJNE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-5 SAMPLE ID: PP3 DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE EXTRACTED: DATE ANALYZED: MATRIX: SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 04/02/99 04/02/99 04/06/99 04/08-09/99 SOIL 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS PPB (UG/KG) RESULTS PPB (UGTCG) ALDRIN ALPHA-BHC BETA-BHC GAMMA-BHC DELTA-BHC CHLORDANE 4,4-DDD 4,4-DDE 4,4-DDT DIELDRIN ENDOSULFAN I ENDOSULFAN II ENDOSULFAN SULFATE ENDRIN ENDRIN ALDEHYDE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE METHOXYCHLOR TOXAPHENE 2 2 2 2 2 20 20 200 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 20 25 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,090 * 2,170 ** 921 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 744 "** ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 2f-]46 % RECOVERY 130 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A C IFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=100) ••* NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESIICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. ^'^^PacifiC Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340VlewridgeAve..SulteA*SanOiego.CA92123 (Hig)560-7717 FAX (619) 560-7'63 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLOBJNE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-6 SAMPLE ID: PP4W DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 MATRIX: SOIL SAMPLE V0L7WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS PPB (UG/KG) RESULTS PPB (UG/TCG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 _ . ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 471 * 4,4-DDE 20 1,370 * 4,4-DDT 20 476 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 618 * ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOR TNG LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 26-146 % RECOVERY 121 • NOTE; THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A CIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=tO) " NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHiiR PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. [y3'|PaciffC Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 434c Vievmdge Ave., suite A .San oiego, CA 92123 (619) 56O-7717 FAX (619)560-7763 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLOF INE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-7 SAMPLE ID: PP4E DILUTION FACTOR: I DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE EXTRACTED: DATE ANALYZED: MATRIX: SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 04/02/99 04/02/99 04/06/99 04/08-09/99 SOIL 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 353 * 4,4-DDE 20 1,330 * 4,4-DDT 20 364 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 558 ** ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORT ING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26 146 127 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A D FFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) ** NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE. THE QUANTITATION OF OTHE R PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. \Pacific Treatment Analytical SeryHces, Inc. 4340 viewridge Ave., suite A ^San oiego, CA 92123 (6i9) 560-77i7 FAX(619)560-77I)3 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-8 SAMPLE ID: PP5N DILUTION FACTOR; 10 DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 MATRIX: SOIL SAMPLE V0L7WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 20 ND ALPHA-BHC 20 ND BETA-BHC 20 ND GAMMA-BHC 20 ND DELTA-BHC 20 ND CHLORDANE 200 ND 4,4-DDD 20 451 4,4-DDE 200 2,290 * 4,4-DDT 20 570 DIELDRIN 20 ND ENDOSULFAN I 20 ND ENDOSULFAN 11 20 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 20 ND ENDRIN 20 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 20 ND HEPTACHLOR 20 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 200 ND METHOXYCHLOR 200 ND TOXAPHENE 250 1,770 ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 103 * NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF-100) NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. f'yS'l Pac//?C Ti-eatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340'/lewrtdge Ave., Suite A.San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 550-7717 FAX{619)560-77f3 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-9 SAMPLE ID: PP 5 SW DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE EXTRACTED: DATE ANALYZED: MATRIX: SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 04/02/99 04/02/99 04/06/99 04/08-09/99 SOIL 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS PPB (UG/KC}) RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 522 * 4,4-DDE 50 I,no * 4,4-DDT 20 373 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 1,450 * ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGL Y TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABDL RECOVERIES 26-146 % RECOVERY 133 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DII TERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) *• NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=25) NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. \Paciflc Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 viewridge Ave., suite A* San oiego. CA 92123 (61<)) 560-7717 FAX (619)560-776:1 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-10 SAMPLE ID: PP5SE DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 MATRIX: SOIL SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS PPB (UG/KG) RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 184 * 4,4-DDE 20 914 * 4,4-DDT 20 197 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 935 * ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGL Y TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER TCMX ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES 26-146 % RECOVERY 120 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DI)-TEREN1 DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) »• NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. Pacific Tieatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 viewridge Ave., suite A . san oiego. CA 92123 (6in) 560-7717 FAX (6i9) 560-776:i ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PROJECT NAME/Nc: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-11 SAMPLE ID: PP6 DILUTION FACTOR: 1 DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 MATRIX: SOIL SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 452 * 4,4-DDE 50 1,410 ** 4,4-DDT 20 500 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ' ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 1,560 *** ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGL Y TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLi: RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 132 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DII'TERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A D FFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=25) NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHEil PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. MjS^'i Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 viewridge Ave., suite A • san oiego. CA 92123 (6i9) 550-7717 FAX (6i9) 560-775:1 QA/QC REPORT METHOD: EPA 8080-SOIL DATE ANALYZED: 04/08/99 QA/QC SAMPLE: 0752-99-2 ACCEPTABLE LCS,MS/MSD CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE RPD CRITERIA SPIKED ANALYTE LCS % R MS%R MS D % R RPD % % GAMMA-BHC 124 127 132* 4 32-127 <30 HEPTACHLOR 105 125* 132* 5 34-111 <30 ALDRIN 109 121 128* 6 42-122 <30 DIELDRIN 138 125 62* 26 36-146 <30 ENDRIN 123 135 !45 7 30-147 <30 4,4-DDT 123 329* :-64* 10 25-160 <30 LCS % R - LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE PERCENT RECOVERY MS % R = MATRIX SPIKE PERCENT RECOVERY MSD % R = MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE PERCENT RECOVERY RPD = RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE * NOTE: POOR RECOVERY ATTRIBUTABLE TO SAMPLE MARIX EFFECTS. Pacific TYeatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 viewridge Ave., suite A. San oiego. CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX (619)560-776:1 4 - Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 4340 Viewridge Avenue, Suite A San Oiego.CA 92123 Phone (619) 360-7717 FaX(el^ Client: OhrlBtlan Mieeler Engineering PTAS LOG # PTAS DATE/TIME STAM^.p REQUESTED ANALYS Address: 4925 Hegcury Street San Diego CA 92111 Attn: Curtis Burdett Phone: (619) 496-9760 Ssmpled by: F„; (619) 496-9758 Billing Address: S^n^^ Project: PO#: Client Ssmple ID Sample Date Sample Time Sample Matrix Container(s) # Type* PTAS ID# s 11 S I I V 10 Container Types: B-Br«ssTube; V^VO^fg^lassT^'Plsslic; 0=Other (list) RELINQUISHED BY DATE/TIME RECEIVED BY Tamper-Proof Sgt|>Ji)t»d: Yes orrecl Conlaincrst' No ibient Warm w/ZHS: Yes Signature Print / / All Samples Properly Preserved: Xs. ^^^^ Jf^^ Disposal: N/C (aqueou<f*^PTAS (|@SS.Oflii^ipie) Turnaround Time: 24 hr ''48>tf 3 day 4 day ^Normal Company ( Signature Prim <? A y./i Company W Retum Signature Signature Print Print Comments: Company Company Signature Sigranire Print Print Company ComDanv I >ca uiG ligiii iu reium samples mat doni matcn our waste protile. White - PTAS Canary - Accounting Pink - Client (w/Repoit) Ooldenrod - Client (Relinquish Samples) (Rev. 5/97) Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc, CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD ^ . 4340 Viewridge Avenue, Suite A San Diego, CA 92123 Phone (619) 560-7717 Fax(6l9) $iS0-7/fi^ PTAS LOG # PTAS DATE/TIME STARtP ^3: Client: C' L.. , C • - L ^ L, -... ' . • REQUESTED ANALYSIS - Address: 1 Vganics) K 1 _l 1 1 i Tt Vganics) Attn: Phone: 1 Pesti( ft M u 1 Sampled by: Fax: 1 1 X 1 •3 > 'olati ik (CACTitl 2 0 s Billing Address: 1 1 I J CO 0 iA 0 ik (CACTitl 1 £ 0 s s O £ <s 00 : Metals ik (CACTitl 5 ( Project: / . PO#: 1 CO § 8020 8010 0808 0 r* oo 0 r~ n eo : Metals 6 hi Client Sample ID Sample Date Sample Time Sample Matrix Container(s) # Type* PTAS ID0 418.1 TPH( 601/: 601/: 608/: 624/: 625/: STLC TCLP 3 X 0. 1 ! cll 11 X 2 3 4 5 4 6 7 8 V 9 10 • PT AS r»«i>TV»« th; right to : While - PTAS Canary • Accounting Pink - Client (w/Report) Goldenrod - Client (Relinquish Samples) (Rev. 5/97) NOISE ANALYSIS FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTY CITY OF CARLSBAD Report #01-80 April 13,2001 Prepared for: John Laing Homes 895 Dove Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Mike Holritz, INCE Mestre Greve Associates 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone (949)760-0891 FAX (949)760-1928 Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 2 of 17 SUMMARY NOISE ANALYSIS FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTY CITY OF CARLSBAD EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION A number of rear yard areas in the project will be exposed to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL, and therefore will require noise barriers to meet the City's 60 CNEL standard. The required noise barrier locations and heights are listed in Table SI and Table S2. and are shown in Exhibit SI. Table SI REQUIRED FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS ALONG THE SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILROAD LOT PAD ELEVATION REQUIRED TOP-OF-WALL ELEVATION Wall Height (ft) Above Berm Barrier Height (ft) Above Pad Lot 155 50.9 58.9 5.0 8.0 Lot 149 51.2 59.2 5.0 8.0 Lot 117 51.7 60.2 5.5 8.5 Lot 106 52.0 60.5 5.5 8.5 Lot 101 52.1 60.6 5.5 8.5 Lot 100 52.7 60.2 4.5 7.5 Lot 95 49.9 56.4 3.5 6.5 Lot 94 49.4 56.4 4.0 7.0 Lot 66 47.6 55.1 4.5 7.5 Lot 65 47.1 55.6 5.5 8.5 Lot 26 47.7 56.2 5.5 8.5 Grading plans show a small berm at the property line along the railroad. The noise barriers along the railroad shall be constructed at the top of this slope. Barrier heights along the railroad tracks are expressed in terms of the required top-of-wall elevations. These elevations can be achieved using natural topography, berms, or walls, or a combination thereof. The required top-of-wall elevations are shown at several locations along the railroad. The top-of-wall elevations shall progress in a linear manner between these specified points. TOW = 58.9' ll TOW = 59.2' f TOW = 59.2' 1 TOW = 59.2' TOW = 59.2' 1 TOW = 57.7' TOW = 59.7' TOW = 60.2' TOW = 60.2' TOW = 60.5' TOW = 60.5' TOW = 60.6' TOW = 60.2' TOW = 56.4' TOW = 56.4' TOW = 56.4' TOW = 55.1' TOW = 55.1' TOW = 55.6' \- Wall Ht = 3.0' Wall Ht = 3.0' TOW = 56.2' I 1- Wall Ht = 3.0' Wall Ht = 6.0 BARRIER LOCATIONS MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit SI - First Floor Noise Barriers Needed To Meet The 60 CNEL Exterior Noise Standard a o .mm ca e U O C3 CZ3 Homes Requiring Mechanical Ventilation MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit S2 - Mechanical Ventilation Requirements Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 3 of 17 The noise barrier along the railroad must have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The noise barriers may be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The wall along the railroad may be constructed of 3/8" plate glass, 3/4" plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Table S2 REQUIRED FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS ALONG POINSETTIA LANE AND AVENIDA ENCINAS LOT BARRIER HEIGHT (FT) Along Poinsettia Lane Lots 18 through 22 6.0@ Along Avenida Encinas Lot 170 and Lot 171 3.0t Lots 191 through 201 S.Oj Lots 1 through 18 3.0t @ - Denotes height above pad elevation t - Denotes height above top-of-slope The noise barriers along Poinsettia Lane and along Avenida Encinas must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. These walls may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8" plate glass, 5/8" plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. All first floor exterior living areas in the project are projected to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard with the noise barriers listed above. The noise barrier heights are relative to top-of slope. Rear yards satisfy the City's requirement for providing mitigated exterior living areas. Therefore, the City is not requiring balconies to meet the exterior noise standard. Balcony barriers will not be required. Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 4 of 17 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS Building surfaces along Avenida Encinas and along Poinsettia Lane will be exposed to noise levels of less than 65 CNEL, and therefore will require less than 20 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices conmion in Califomia, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, all rooms along Avenida Encinas and along Poinsettia Lane are projected to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. Second floor building surfaces along the railroad will be exposed to noise levels about 67.4 CNEL, and therefore will require at least 22.4 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values, the exterior to interior noise reduction was calculated for a number of rooms in the project. The results of the analysis indicate that the worst case room will achieve an outdoor to indoor noise reduction of 22.8 dB. This exceeds the worst case required reduction of 22.4 dB. Therefore, all rooms are projected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. MECHANICAL VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Mechanical ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table S3 and shown in Exhibit S2. Air conditioning units may be an adequate substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as they meet the ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet the mechanical ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 5 of 17 Table S3 MECHANICAL VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Along the San Diego Northem Railroad Home on Lot 26 Homes on Lots 65 and 66 Homes on Lots 94 through 98 Homes on Lots 100 and 101 Homes on Lots 106 and 107 Homes on Lots 116 and 117 Homes on Lots 132 and 133 Homes on Lots 148 and 149 Homes on Lots 154 and 155 Along Poinsettia Lane Homes on Lots 19 through 25 Along Avenida Encinas Homes on Lots 170 and 171 Homes on Lots 191 through 201 Homes on Lots 1 through 18 Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 6 of 17 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTY CITY OF CARLSBAD 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of the "Poinsettia Property (Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4)" with the noise related 'Conditions of Approval' placed on the project by the City of Carlsbad. The project calls for the development of single-family homes. This report addresses the future noise levels at the project site, and incorporates the 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior noise standards adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The project is located in the City of Carlsbad, as shown in Exhibit 1. The project will be impacted by traffic noise from Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas. The project will also be impacted by railroad noise from the nearby San Diego Northem Railroad. (Due to distance and intervening projects, the San Diego Freeway is not projected to be a significant impact). This report determines any mitigation measures necessary for the project to meet the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard and the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Grading and site plan information was obtained from the "Site Development Plan for the Poinsettia Property (Planning Areas 2, 3, & 4)" by Hunsaker & Associates, March 26, 2001. Building constmction details were obtained from the architectural drawings for "Poinsettia" by Dahlin Group Architects, April 3, 2001. 2.0 CITY OF CARLSBAD NOISE STANDARDS The City of Carlsbad specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses. Both standards are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24- hour time weighted annual average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise occurring during certain noise- sensitive time periods is given more significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise that occurs during the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. The City of Carlsbad has adopted an exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL for a five foot tall observer. In addition, the City has decided upon an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 7 of 17 3.0 METHODOLOGY The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Mitigation through the design and constmction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is broken by the barrier. As the path length that the sound travels around the barrier increases, the level of noise reduction increases. The FHWA model was also used here in computerized format to determine the required barrier heights. 4.0 NOISE EXPOSURE 4.1 Traffic Noise Exposure The traffic volumes for Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane were obtained from "The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Program EIR" by Coton/Beland/Associates. The projected future average daily traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and roadway grades used in the CNEL calculations are presented in Table 1. Traffic distribution which was used in the CNEL calculation is presented below in Table 2. Arterial traffic distribution estimates are based upon traffic surveys, and can be considered typical for arterials in Southem Califomia. Table 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS, AND ROADWAY GRADES USED IN CNEL CALCULATIONS ROADWAY ADT SPEED GRADE Avenida Encinas 14,000 35 <3% Poinsettia Lane 11,000 40 <3% Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 8 of 17 Table 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Tmck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Tmck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centeriine of each roadway to the contour value shown. Data used in the CNEL calculations are included in the Appendix. Table 3 DISTANCE TO TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (FT) ROADWAY -70 CNEL--65 CNEL--60 CNEL- Poinsettia Lane 26 56 120 Avenida Encinas 24 53 113 The exterior living areas in the project must comply with the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard. The results in Table 3 and the site plan (Exhibit 2) indicate that rear yard observers along Avenida Encinas would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of about 64.0 CNEL. Rear yard observers along Poinsettia Lane would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of about 62.0 CNEL. Mitigation measures to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard are discussed in Section 5.0. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 2 - Site Plan -a a o '« Oi a u s: o o c c/3 LANE MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 2A - Site Plan Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 9 of 17 4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure The San Diego Northem railroad line passes near the westem boundary of the site. To determine train noise levels, the Wyle Model was used ("Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations," Wyle Laboratories Report WCR-73-5, July, 1973). The noise generated by train operations can be divided into two components; noise generated by the engine or locomotive, and noise generated the railroad cars. The characteristic frequency of the engine is different than the characteristic frequency of the cars. The noise generated by the engine is the result of the mechanical movements of the engine parts, and to a lesser extent, the exhaust system. The noise generated by the cars is a result of the interaction between the wheels and the railroad track. A zero source height is used for the car noise, and a source height of 10 feet is utilized for the locomotive. Mitigation through the design and constmction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most conmion way of alleviating traffic and railroad noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is broken by the barrier. As the path length that the sound travels around the barrier increases, the level of noise reduction increases. The Wyle Model was also used here in computerized format to determine barrier heights. The railroad line will be used for freight and passenger train operations. Projected future freight and commuter railroad operations were obtained from the "Noise Assessment of the NCTD Passing Track, City of Encinitas", Report #96-171 by Mestre Greve Associates, November 7, 1996. Updated Amtrak operations were confirmed with the schedule posted on the Intemet. (The projected commuter operations were confirmed by Mr. Pete Aadland of NCTD on July 24, 2000). The projected future operational data presented in Table 4 was utilized in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project train noise levels on the project site. The train noise model used for Amtrak and commuter trains was calibrated in order to more closely match actual measured noise levels. Measured Amtrak and commuter train noise levels were approximately 10.1 dB lower than the model predicts. This may be due to continuously welded rails and/or quieter engines. Amtrak and commuter train noise levels were adjusted to reflect the 10.1 dB difference. Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 10 of 17 The results of the train noise projections are displayed in Table 5 in terms of noise levels at distances of 100, 200, and 400 feet from the tracks. These projections do not include topography or barriers which may reduce the noise levels. Table 4 RAILROAD OPERATIONS MODELED OPERATION FREIGHT AMTRAK COMMUTER Day 3 11 16 Evening 1 1 2 Night 2 1 3 Number of Engines 2 1 1 Number of Cars 60 6 8 Speed 50 90 60 Table 5 RAILROAD NOISE LEVELS DISTANCE (FEET) 100 200 400 CNEL 68.9 65.0 59.3 The worst case proposed exterior living area is approximately 143 feet from the railroad tracks. At this location, if shielding is not present, the worst case noise level associated with train operations was estimated to be 67.5 CNEL. Mitigation measures to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard are discussed in Section 5.0. Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 11 of 17 5.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION A number of rear yard areas in the project will be exposed to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL, and therefore will require noise barriers to meet the City's 60 CNEL standard. A number of cross sections (see Appendix for analysis data) were chosen and analyzed to determine the required barriers. The results of the analysis indicate that noise barriers are required along the San Diego Northem Railroad, along Avenide Encinas, and along Poinsettia Lane. The required noise barrier locations and heights are listed in Table 6 and Table 7. and are shown in Exhibit 3. Table 6 REQUIRED FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS ALONG THE SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILROAD REQUIRED Wall Barrier PAD TOP-OF-WALL Height (ft) Height LOT ELEVATION ELEVATION Above Berm Above'. Lot 155 50.9 . 58.9 5.0 8.0 Lot 149 51.2 59.2 5.0 8.0 Lot 117 51.7 60.2 5.5 8.5 Lot 106 52.0 60.5 5.5 8.5 Lot 101 52.1 60.6 5.5 8.5 Lot 100 52.7 60.2 4.5 7.5 Lot 95 49.9 56.4 3.5 6.5 Lot 94 49.4 56.4 4.0 7.0 Lot 66 47.6 55.1 4.5 7.5 Lot 65 47.1 55.6 5.5 8.5 Lot 26 47.7 56.2 5.5 8.5 Grading plans show a small berm at the property line along the railroad. The noise barriers along the railroad shall be constmcted at the top of this slope. Barrier heights along the railroad tracks are expressed in terms of the required top-of-wall elevations. These elevations can be achieved using natural topography, berms, or walls, or a combination thereof. The required top-of-wall elevations are shown at several locations along the railroad. The top-of-wall elevations shall progress in a linear manner between these specified points. The noise barrier along the railroad must have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The noise barriers may be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The wall along the railroad may be constructed of 3/8" plate glass, 3/4" plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. TOW = 58.9' ll TOW = 59.2' f TOW = 59.2' 1 TOW = 59.2' TOW = 59.2' I TOW = 57.7' TOW = 59.7' TOW = 60.2' TOW = 60.2' TOW = 60.5' TOW = 60.5' TOW = 60.6' TOW = 60.2' TOW = 56,4' TOW = 55.1' TOW = 55.1' TOW = 55.6' TOW = 56.2' Wall Ht = 3.0' Wall Ht = 3.0' Wall Ht = 3.0' Wall Ht = 6.0 BARRIER LOCATIONS MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 3 - First Floor Noise Barriers Needed To Meet The 60 CNEL Exterior Noise Standard 1 Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 12 of 17 Table 7 REQUIRED FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS ALONG POINSETTM LANE AND AVENIDA ENCINAS LOT BARRIER HEIGHT (FT) Along Poinsettia Lane Lots 18 through 22 6.0@ Along Avenida Encinas Lot 170 and Lot 171 3.0t Lots 191 through 201 3.0t Lots 1 through 18 3.0t @ - Denotes height above pad elevation t - Denotes height above top-of-slope The noise barriers along Poinsettia Lane and along Avenida Encinas must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. These walls may be constmcted of stud and stucco, 3/8" plate glass, 5/8" plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. All first floor exterior living areas in the project are projected to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard with the noise barriers listed above. The noise barrier heights are relative to top-of slope. Rear yards satisfy the City's requirement for providing mitigated exterior living areas. Therefore, the City is not requiring balconies to meet the exterior noise standard. Balcony barriers will not be required. Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 13 of 17 6.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS Building surfaces along Avenida Encinas and along Poinsettia Lane will be exposed to noise levels of less than 65 CNEL, and therefore will require less than 20 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With constmction practices common in Califomia, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, all rooms along Avenida Encinas and along Poinsettia Lane are projected to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. Second floor building surfaces along the railroad will be exposed to noise levels aboiit 67.4 CNEL, and therefore will require at least 22.4 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations are needed for building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dB. Construction details presented below were taken from the architectural drawings prepared for the project by Dahlin Group Architects. Roofs are attic space constructions and incorporate composition sfiingles on tiie exterior and gypsum drywall on tiie interior surface of tfie living area. Attic spaces are insulated witfi fiberglass insulation, and roofs are sloped. Tfiis roof/ceiling assembly was estimated to acfiieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR=35. (Ttiis is rougfily equivalent to a noise reduction rating ofSTC=39). All exterior walls tfiat are adjacent to tfie railroad are to be wood stud construction with, stucco exteriors and minimum 1/2 inch, gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include fiberglass insulation in the stud cavities. The walls were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR=40. (This is roughly equivalent to a noise reduction rating of STC=44). Windows are assumed to be single glazed. Most windows are operable. The operable windows were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR=22. (This is roughly equivalent to a noise reduction rating of STC=24). The fixed windows were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR=26. (This is roughly equivalent to a noise reduction rating of STC=28). The entry doors were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR=26. (This is roughly equivalent to a noise reduction rating of STC=28). Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values, the exterior to interior noise reduction was calculated for a number of rooms in the project. Results of the EWNR calculations are presented in Table 8. Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 14 of 17 Table 8 DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION Room AREA EWNR Building Element (SQ. FT.) (dB) Second Floor, Plan 1, Master Bedroom Window (operable) 49.5 22 Entry Door 24.0 26 Wall 290.5 40 Roof/Ceiling 304.0 35 Room Absorption 0 Total Noise Reduction: 23.3 dB Second Floor, Plan 1, Bedroom #3 Window (operable) 33.0 22 Wall 197.5 40 Roof/Ceiling 155.3 35 Room Absorption 0 Total Noise Reduction: 23.4 dB continued next page Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 15 of 17 Table 8 (continued) DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION Room Building Element AREA (SQ. FT.) EWNR (dB) Second Floor, Plan 1, Loft Window (operable) Wall Roof/Ceiling Room Absorption -3 24.8 107.2 145.0 22 40 35 Total Noise Reduction: 26.1 dB Second Floor, Plan 2, Bedroom #2 Window (operable) Wall Roof/CeiHng Room Absorption 0 38.5 184.5 149.5 22 40 35 Total Noise Reduction: 22.8 dB The data in Table 8 indicate that the worst case room will achieve an outdoor to indoor noise reduction of 22.8 dB. This exceeds the worst case required reduction of 22.4 dB. Therefore, all rooms are projected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 16 of 17 7.0 MECHANICAL VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating constmction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Mechanical ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table 9 and shown in Exhibit 4. Air conditioning units may be an adequate substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as they meet the ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet the mechanical ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Table 9 MECHANICAL VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Along the San Diego Northem Railroad Home on Lot 26 Homes on Lots 65 and 66 Homes on Lots 94 through 98 Homes on Lots 100 and 101 Homes on Lots 106 and 107 Homes on Lots 116 and 117 Homes on Lots 132 and 133 Homes on Lots 148 and 149 Homes on Lots 154 and 155 Along Poinsettia Lane Homes on Lots 19 through 25 Along Avenida Encinas Homes on Lots 170 and 171 Homes on Lots 191 through 201 Homes on Lots 1 through 18 Homes Requiring Mechanical Ventilation MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 4 - Mechanical Ventilation Requirements Mestre Greve Associates Report #01-80 Page 17 of 17 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS USED TO DETERMINE NOISE LEVELS MT Poinsettia 4-2001 (SdB SM) MacTrain "Poinsettia Property", Carlsbad John Laing Homes - Pablo Leon 949-265-6854 (also contact Mike Howes @ Hofman Planning 760-438-1465) REPORT#01-80 [EARLIER REPORTS FOR THIS PARCElT FRED/MIKE; April 2001 Train Ops ftom Report #96-171 (MB) TRAIN NOISE PREDICTION MODEL - TUMH LAST MODIFICATION - JULY 26,2000 #00-165 AND #97-4 AND #95-188 LOCAL TRAIN TYPE : FREIGHT FREIGHT AMTRAK COMM. TOTAL OPS DISTRIBLITOR Day Operations TOTAL 6 Day Operations 3 0 22 f6 41 (7 a.m. - 7 p.m.) DAY 3.0 Evening Operations 1 0 4 2 7 (7 p.m. - 10 p.m.) EVENING 0.8 Night Operations 2 0 2 3 7 (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) NIGHT 2.3 Average Length 4300 Average Length 4300 0 560 720 f X where N=±x(A+B-d) Number of Engines 2 1 1 1 Engine: 1000 1.7699115 or x=2/Wavelength Number of Cars 60 0 6 8 Cars: 2000 3.539823 Speed 50 50 90 60 TOTALS SEL CarSEL O 100' 101.6 0.0 85.2* 84.6* 101.8 * - Amtrak & Commuter SEL's include a 10.1 dB reduction Engine SEL a 100' 99.5 0.0 86.6* 88.6* 100.0 to match measurements at site on 7-27-00 104.0 ITERATED CONTOURS OTHER DISTANCES distances to DISTANCE ++++++++++++ CNEL LEVEL ++++++++++++ CNEL (CNEL VALUES) (CNEL VALUES) four bidgs 50' 71.2 0.0 59.7 60.6 71.9 76' 70.0 i4r 67.4 nr (Lot 26) 100' 68.4 0.0 56.9 57.8 69.1 200' 65.0 225' 64.0 Lot 66 200' 64.5 0.0 53.0 54.0 65.1 363' 60.0 260' 62.8 Lot 94 400' 58.7 0.0 47.4 48.6 59.4 525' 57.0 290' e).9 far (Lot 96) far (Lot 96) CROSS Rail Distance Base Of Dist. To Pad Observer Wall Barrier Reduction DX Attenuation CNEL HEO'D relative SECTION Elevation To Wall Wall Observer Elevation Height Height Car Engine Car Engine (60 standard) roiv to pad (assumed 3' berm) 5.0 dB safety 0.0'safety 155 (no mit) 53.1 160 53.9 166 50.9 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.3 66.6 no mit 155 53.1 160 53.9 fee 50.9 5 5.0 13.9 10.6 2.5 2.3 54.5 TOW=58.9' 8.0 149 (no mit) 53.1 160 54.2 166 51.2 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.3 66.6 149 53.1 160 54.2 166 51.2 5 5.0 13.9 10.6 2.5 2.3 54.4 TOW=59.2' 8.0 117 (no mit) 52.8 146 54.7 152 51.7 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 67.4 117 52.8 146 54.7 152 51.7 5 5.5 14.9 11.8 1.7 1.7 54.1 TOW=60.2' 8.5 106 (no mit) 52.1 140 55.0 147 52.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 67.5 106 52.1 140 55.0 f47 52.0 5 5.5 14.6 11.4 1.6 1.6 54.6 TOW=60.5' 8.5 101 (no mit) 52.2 139 55. f 145 52.1 5 0.0 0.0 6.6 1.5 is 67.6 101 52.2 139 55.1 145 52.1 5 5.5 14.9 11.9 1.5 1.5 54.2 TOW=60.6' 8.S 100 (no mit) 51.8 210 55.7 220 52.7 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.4 64.3 100 51.8 210 55.7 220 52.7 5 4.5 11.6 8.4 5.0 4.4 54.5 TOW=60.2' 7.5 95 (no mit) 51.6 265 52.9 271 49.9 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 6.0 62.6 95 51.6 265 52.9 271 49.9 5 3.5 9.4 7.2 6.9 6.0 54.3 TOW=56.4' 6.5 94 (no mit) 51.4 240 52.4 246 49.4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 5.3 63.4 94 51.4 240 52.4 246 49.4 5 4.0 11.2 8.4 6.0 5.3 53.7 TOW=56.4' 7.0 66 (no mit) 51.2 190 50.6 196 47.6 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.6 65.3 66 51.2 190 50.6 f96 47.6 5 4.5 12.7 9.4 4.0 3.6 54.4 TOW=55.1' 7.5 65 (no mit) 51.1 145 50.1 151 47.1 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 67.4 65 51.1 145 50.1 f5f 47.1 5 5.5 14.7 11.5 1.7 1.7 54.3 TOW=55.6' 8.5 26 (no mit) 50.8 137 50.7 143 47.7 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 67.6 26 50.8 137 50.7 f43 47.7 5 5.5 14.7 11.6 1.4 1.4 54.5 TOW=56.2' 8.5 MZ Poinsettia Prop 4-2001 Ave Encinas "Poinsettia Property", Carlsbad Johnl-aingHomes-PabloI^on 949-265-6854 (also contact Mike Howes @ Hofman Planning 760-438-1465) REPORT #01 -80 I EARLIER REPORTS FOR THIS PARCEL: #00-165 AND #97-4 AND #95-188 | Date 4-11-61 Roadway Name Avenida Encinas Figure 5-9 Day Eve Night Equiv. Vehicles per day 14,000 Colon Belaud EIR Auto 75.51% 12.57% 9.34% 208.6% Posted Speed Limit (mph) 35 MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% Grade Adj. (dB) 0 <}% HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% Vehicle Noise Red (dB) 0 (TRAFFIC ONLY) CNEL @ 15 meters (TRAFFIC ONLY) To get other noise levels, (TRAFFIC ONLY) To get other distances (ft), Put in other noise levels CNEL PREDICTION WORKSHEET - CALVENO Last Update: 7/1 Q/90-fg Created From: MZ Arterial Mix CNEL MASTER Last Revised: 3-24-95 Soft Hard Dist Soft Hard CNEL Soft Hard Auto 64.0 65.2 SO 65.3 66.6 5? 179 455 Medium Truck 56.2 57.8 60 64.1 65.8 58 154 362 Heavy Trucl< 57.5 58.7 nearest bidg BO 62.3 64.6 59 132 287 Total 65.4 66.7 85 61.9 64.3 60 113 228 90 61.5 64.0 67 97 181 95 61.1 63.8 62 83 144 100 60.8 63.6 63 71 114 105 60.5 63.4 64 61 91 110 60.2 63.2 65 S3 72 115 59.9 63.0 66 45 57 120 59.6 62.8 67 39 46 farthest bidg 125 59.4 62.6 68 33 36 200 56.3 60.6 69 28 29 60 CNEL Standard 250 54.8 59.6 70 24 23 Nearest Observer Check -75 62.7 64.8 Actual Cross Road Distance Base Of DIst. To Pad Observer Wall "Barrier Reduction" ++ CNEL++ Traffic Wall Section Elevatton To Wall Wall Observer Elevation Height Height Auto MT HT Soft Hard Shielding TOTAL Specified 0.0 dB safety 770 62.4 60 63.2 66 58.5 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.5 66.4 o:o 63.5 with wall 62.4 60 632 66 58.5 5 0.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 59.8 64^ 0.0 59.8 3.0' 170 62.4 60 63.2 So worst 58.5 5 witti wall 62.4 60 632 90 58.5 5 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 58.6 e^A 0.0 58.6 3.0' 191 64.5 60 64.0 75 58.0 5 0.0 4.9 5.0 0.6 59.6 643 0.0 59.0 witti wall 64.5 60 64.0 75 58.0 5 0.0 4.9 5.0 0.0 59.0 64,2 0.0 59.0 3.0' 201 66.8 60 66.8 75 62.1 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 62.7 64:8 0.0 62.7 with wall 66.8 60 66.8 75 62. J 5 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 64:0 0.0 59.7 3.0' 1 66.7 60 66.7 70 63.4 5 OO 0.0 0.0 66 63.1 66.1 00 63.1 with wall 66.7 60 66.7 70 63.4 5 2.0 4.9 5.0 0.0 59.5 64^ 0.0 59.5 3.0' 5 65.4 60 65.4 70 60.9 5 OO 0.0 6.0 6.6 63.1 66.1 o.d 63.1 with wall 65.4 60 65.4 70 60.9 5 7.0 4.9 5.0 0.0 59-3 6^ 0.0 59.5 3.0' 10 64.4 60 64.4 75 58.9 5 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 64:0 m 59.7 with wall 64.4 60 64.4 75 58.9 5 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 64:9 0.0 59.7 3.0' 11 63.5 70 63.5 76 59.1 5 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 62.6 64:8 o:s 62.6 with wall 63.5 70 63.5 76 59. J 5 1.0 4.9 5.0 0.0 59.0 6M 0.0 59.0 3.0' 17 60.6 75 60.6 SO 56.1 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.3 64.6 ao 62.3 with wall 60.6 75 60.6 80 56.1 5 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 59.3 64:7 0.0 59.3 3.0' Page 1 of 2 MZ Poinsettia Prop 4-2001 Poinsettia "Poinsettia Property", Carlsbad John Laing Homes - Pablo Leon 949-265-6854 (also contact Mike Howes @ Hofman Planning 760-438-1465) REPORT #01-80 I EARLIER REPORTS FOR THIS PARCEL: #00-165 AND #97-4 AND #95-188 Date 4-ff-Of Roadway Name Poinsettia Lane Vehicles per day 11,000 Posted Speed Umit (mph) 40 Grade Adj. (dB) 0 Vehicle Noise Red (dB) 0 (TRAFFIC ONLY) CNEL @ 15 meters Soft Hard Auto 64.6 65.8 Medium Truck 56.1 57.6 Heavy Truck 57.0 58.2 Total 65.8 67.0 Figure 5-9 Day Eve Night Equiv. Colon Beland EIR Auto 75.51% 12.57% 9.34% MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% <3% HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% nearest bidg farthest bklg Nearest Observer Check - (TRAFFIC ONLY) To get other noise levels, Put in other distances (ft) (TRAFFIC ONLY) To get other distances (ft), Put in other noise levels Dist. Soft Hard CNEL Soft Hard 50 65.7 67.0 57 1S0 496 60 64.5 66.2 58 163 394 70 63.5 65.5 59 140 313 80 62.6 64.9 60 120 248 90 61.9 64.4 61 103 197 100 61.2 64.0 62 88 157 lis 60.3 63.3 63 76 124 120 60.0 63.2 64 65 99 130 59.5 62.8 65 56 79 140 59.0 62.5 66 48 62 150 58.5 62.2 67 41 50 250 55.2 60.0 68 35 39 500 50.7 57.0 69 30 31 1000 46.2 54.0 70 26 25 65 62.2 64.7 CNEL PREDICTION WORKSHEET - CALVENO Last Update: 7/10/90-fg Created From: Last Revised: MZ Arterial Mix CNEL MASTER 3-24-95 60 CNEL Standard Cross Road Distance Base Of DIst. To Pad Observer Wall "Barrier Reduction" from Actual Wall Section Elevation To Wall Wall Observer Elevation Height Height Auto lUT HT Soft Hard Poinsettia TOTAL Specified 0.0 dB safety 19 (no mit) 57 63 55.6 85 55.6 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.2 64.7 62.2 62.2 planned 6.0' with wall 57 63 55.6 85 55.6 5 6.0 6.0 5.4 0.0 57.7 BOA 57.7 57.7 traff barr 19 (rid hilt) 55 m 55.6 85 55.6 5 0.0 0.0 £05 0.6 e2":2 64:? 62.2 62.2 planned 6.0' with wall 55 63 55.6 85 55.6 5 6.0 6.6 5.9 5.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 traff barr 22 (ho hiii) 56 m 51.4 88 5f.4 5 ao 0.0 6.0 0.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 planned 6.0' with wall 56 63 51.4 88 5J.4 5 6.0 5.2 5.0 0.0 58.0 gQ_g 58.0 58.0 traff barr 24 (no mit) 60 50 60 90 50.6 5 &:o 6:2 5.3 6:0 57.3 57.3 57.3 with wall 60 50 60 90 50.6 5 0.0 6.2 5.3 0.0 57.3 57.3 57.3 none 2S (ho hilt) 65 50 65 95 49.4 5 ao 9.6 8.0 5.5 53.3 53.3 53.3 with wall 65 50 65 95 49.4 5 0.0 9.0 8.0 5.5 53.3 gg_g 53.3 53.3 none 22s liV (no mit) 71 50 71 105 49.7 5 0.0 10.6 9.5 6.9 51.1 64,0 51.1 51.1 with wall 71 50 71 105 49.7 5 0.0 10.6 9.5 6.9 51.1 54_Q 51.1 51.1 none by 0.1 increments Page 2 of 2 "Poinsettia Propeily", Carlsbad (Formerly "Parcel A") John Laing Homes - Timothy McSunas 949-476-9090 (also contact Mike Ryan @ CastleLyons 760-432-2626) REPORT #00-165 FRED / MIKE; July 2000 SOUND LEVEL METER 2054750 CALIBRATOR 2242109 SYSTEIM 1 PA6>£ t of 2-1 DATE: 7-27-00 CALraRATION LOCATION : Before: TIIME: ^:£>0 After: •— TEMP: 4»5"* WIND; 5tf6KT COVER: O^C^h^T #of #of TIME TRAIN TYPE Engines Cars NB/SB SPEED Horn ?? Lmax SEL NOTES -— — Ho — — — % •• — — rv/5 N/O — S(J i.e<s? - 1 : OO ( Ve-S w / a. • Z^ \ Ho •.H< 6RArPiOl» Mt — — — — — • sn 3 •• V3 Ho vJ / btifi» /)(. H = MW I'' = ^8 — — — — — L£<S1 = 5-/ W : \3 5^ ^0 "Poinsettia Properly", Carlsbad (Formerly "Parcel A") John Laing Homes - Timothy McSunas 949-476-9090 (also conlact Mike Ryan @ CastleLyons 760-432-2626) REPORT #00-165 FRED/MIKE; July 2000 SOUND LEVEL METER 2054750 CALIBRATOR 2242109 SYSTEM 1 DATE: 7-27-00 CALIBRATION LOCATION : Before: -— TIME: ir-l?" After: ^3. TEMP: ^O" WIND: Sl.|<»*^T COVKR: CLcA^tfiG #of #of TIME TRAIN TYPE Engines Cars NB/SB SPEED Horn ?? Lmax SEL NOTES (« W : to \ MR Ho SI.') :^ -— — — — -SH 1 s $:i3 Ho No % IL : W3 1 n Mo 90.1 13 .oZ. Ho \^ : 2.0 3o loZ.S TffHT^ re FR-T IS : Ho — — — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 00-16/PUD 01-01/SDP 00-12/CDP 00-44 DATE: April 16. 2001 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Propeities Planning Areas 2. 3. & 4 2. 3. 4. 5. APPLICANT: John Laing Homes ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 19600 Fairchild. Suite 200 Irvine. CA 92612 949-476-9090 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 14. 2000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of a Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit Development, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Pennit to create 219 detached small-lot single familv homes with associated recreation areas on a 41.6 acre site located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. n Land Use and Planning I I Population and Housing I I Geological Problems • Water lEI Air Quality ^ Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services 1X1 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources O Aesthetics n Hazards ^ Cultural Resources ^ Noise CH Recreation r~1 Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) n I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I~l 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. r~l I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. r~1 1 find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Neg. Dec is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. IXI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Program EIR (EIR 96-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. No further CEQA compliance was required for those activities having no effect beyond those previously analyzed in the Program EIR. No new impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project and no new mitigation measures are necessary, therefore, no further environmental review is required. The Planning Director determined that the proposed project is pursuant to and in conformance with Specific Plan 210 for which a Program EIR was prepared and certified, therefore, the project is exempt under Section 65457 of the Califomia Govemment Code and a Notice of Exemption will be issued. Planner Signature ' Date Planning Directbr's Si^ature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the ElA-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#1, pg. 3 - 13, #2, sections 1.F.3 &1.F. 13) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1, pg 3 - 13) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l,pg. 5.1 - 10) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#1, pg. 5.1 - 10) e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (#1, pg. 5.1 -10) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#1, pg. 5.2 - 2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastmcture)? (#1, pg. 5.2-2) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1, pg. 5.2 - 2) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault mptiire? (#2, pgs. 5.1 -1 - 14) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) h) Expansive soils? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact • • • • • • • • • KI • • • • • • • • • • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Kl • • • KI • • • K] • • • Kl • • • IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?(#l,pgs. 5.11-1 -8) g b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l,pgs. 5.11-1 -8) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1, pgs. 5.4-1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1, pgs. 5.4-1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs. 5.4- 1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1-7) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs. 5.4-1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l,pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 -7) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation • Incorporated • Kl • • • • Kl • • • • • • • • • • • • Kl • • • • • • • • • KI Kl • • • • • • • • • • • • KI Kl • • • • • • KI • • • KI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 - 7) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicychsts? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 - 7) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 - 7) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 -25;#l,pgs. 7-1 -7) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1-10) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1 - 10) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1, pgs. 5.6- 1 - 10) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1 - 10) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1-10) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#2, pg. 5.12.1; #2 pgs. 5.13-1 - 9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#2, pg. 5.12.1; #2 pgs. 5.13- 1 -9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#2, pg. 5.12.1; #2 pgs. 5.13-1-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • No Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 X. XI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs. 5.5-1 - 12) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l,pgs. 5.5-1 - 12) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1) b) Police protection? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5- 1 and 5.12.6-1) c) Schools? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6- 1) e) Other govemmental services? (#1, pgs. 5.10- 1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1) UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#2, pgs. 5.12.1-1) b) Communications systems? (#2, pgs. 5.12.5-1) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#1, pg. 5.10-3 & 4) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (# 1, pgs. 5.10-3 & 4) e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs. 5.10-11- 5 through 8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#2, pgs. 5.12.4-1) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#2, pgs. 5.12.2-1 through 6) XII. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1-3) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1-3) c) Create tight or glare? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1 - 3) Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significant Impact • No Impact • • • K • • • • Kl • • • • • K • • • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • • • n • Kl • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • KI • • • KI • • • • • • KI • • Kl • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1 - 3) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1-3) c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1 - 3) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1-3) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1-3) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1 -7) XVI. FINDINGS OF MANDATORY SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII, EARLIER ANALYSES. b) c) Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • • • No Impact • • • • • • • • n • Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative Rev. 03/28/96 declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project consists of a request for a Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit for the development of Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. The proposed tentative map will allow for the subdivision of three parcels totaling 41.6 acres into 219 single-family PUD lots, one RV storage lot, one sewer pump station lot, two passive recreation areas (10,045 sq. ft. & 11,504 sq. ft), numerous landscaped open space lots, and one 1.33 acre open space lot (P.A. 3) which will contain the required active recreation facilities for P.A. 2 and 4. In January 1998 and October 1998, the City Council and Califomia Coastal Commission respectively approved the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. This document addresses eight plarming areas wrapping around the east, west and south sides of the Poinsettia Transit Station. The Specific Plan was designed to create a transit-oriented development (TOD) project located near the rail station and the nearby major transportation corridor. Interstate 5. The subject site is located within the southwest quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 22. Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 are bounded on the north by the Poinsettia Coaster Station, a vacant mixed use lot (PA 6), and a multi-family affordable housing project. Avenida Encinas borders the east side of the site with auto dealerships. Kaiser Permanente and a variety of motel uses located east of the roadway. Poinsettia Lane borders the south side of the site with Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park located south of the roadway. Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park and single-family detached condominiums in Planning Area 7 are located across the San Diego Northem Railroad r.o.w. which is adjacent to the west side of project. The site slopes down fi-om the east to the west with a change in elevation of approximately 12 to 16 feet from Avenida Encinas to the railroad right-of-way. Vemal pools were identified with the project EIR in an off-site location within the railroad corridor right-of-way. The EIR mitigation measures require a minimum 100 foot buffer where vemal pools are present in order to provide an adequate watershed and buffer area for the vemal pool habitat. The 100 foot buffer area is included as an expansion of the required 40 foot railroad right-of-way buffer/trail area. The site was graded previously and used as a nursery and is devoid of any native vegetation. In May 2000, the property owner applied for a Coastal Development Permit (CUP 00-13) to stockpile soil for the development of the site. Approximately 155,000 cubic yards of soil were imported and stockpiled on the site, and no additional import for the site is anticipated. The project will be accessed at two points on Avenida Encinas. An "egress only" road is centrally located at the north end of the site and connects into Embarcadero Way. The project features a 1.33 acre Community Recreation Center in PA 3 which is located at the primary entrance to the site across from Macadamia Drive. In addition to the large park feature, two smaller (10,000 square foot minimum) passive recreation parks are located near the north and south ends ofthe site. Numerous "pocket parks" and landscape green belts are located throughout the project, as well as landscaped setbacks along the perimeter ofthe project. The development proposal includes 219 single-family PUD lots which range in size from 3,600 to 7,131 square feet. In order to establish pedesfrian movement and interaction between the residents, the residences have been designed with front porches which open up onto tree-lined streets. Public pedesfrian links are located within the development to provide access to the future mixed use project in PA 6 and to the fransit station. Pedesfrian frails will also be provided along the perimeter of the project within the landscape buffers on Avenida Encinas, Poinsettia Lane, and the railroad pedesfrian open space corridor. All public improvements and required public facilities and improvements have been incorporated into the project design. The proposed project was included in the Program EIR (EIR 96-10) prepared for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan which was certified in January 1998. The Program EIR addressed subsequent discretionary approvals of the specific plan, including actions such as subdivisions, zone changes, planned unit developments, etc. All future development, at the time of project review, was required to be examined to determine whether the environmental impacts were fully analyzed in the Program EIR. No further CEQA compliance in the manner of a Negative Declaration is required for those activities having 11 Rev. 03/28/96 no effect beyond those analyzed in the Program EIR. Staff has determined that there are no new impacts created by this subdivision beyond those discussed in EIR 96-10 except with regard to fraffic. In 1999 the City's armual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report indicated an unanticipated intersection level of service failure at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, this failure is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of insignificance. With this mitigation measure in place, no further environmental documentation is necessary; the project is considered exempt under Section 15182 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included within the scope of the updated 1994 General Plan MEIR will result in increased gas and elecfric power consumption and vehicle miles fraveled. Such projects will result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nifrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major confributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle frips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of fransportation including mass fransit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management sfrategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan and the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Coimcil Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included within in the updated 1994 General Plan MEIR will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout fraffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-fraffic over which the City has no jurisdictional confrol. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impacts on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of fransportation such as frails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedesfrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation sfrategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-fraffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City sfreets creates 12 Rev. 03/28/96 impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to confrol. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout ofthe General Plan due to regional through-fraffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan and the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan , therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. BIOLOGY The project is adjacent to off-site vemal pools located within the railroad right-of-way. In order to provide an adequate watershed and buffer area from the vemal pools, the EIR mitigation measures require a 100 foot buffer from the vemal pools, the installation of a chainlink fence between the project site and the railroad right-of-way, and native, drought-tolerant landscaping within the railroad corridor. The project has been designed and will be conditioned to comply with the required mitigation measures. NOISE Submittal of a detailed exterior/interior acoustical analysis was included as a mitigation measure in the Program EIR to determine what mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to acceptable amounts. The Noise Analysis prepared for Planning Areas 2, 3, & 4, indicates that the subject site is impacted by railway noise from operations on the San Diego Northem Railroad as well as existing and future fraffic noise generated on Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane. Noise levels within the residences are required to be mitigated to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The noise study indicates that based upon the constmction details provided, and with a closed window condition, all rooms are projected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve the required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the UBC. Therefore, the noise study indicates that mechanical ventilation will be required for all homes abutting Avenida Encinas, Poinsettia Lane, and the railroad corridor. The noise study also indicated that private rear yards along Avenida Encinas, Poinsettia Lane, and the railroad corridor would be exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. In order to mitigate exterior noise levels to less than 60 dBA CNEL, noise barriers are required along the rear yards. The noise barriers will be constmcted as maximum 6 foot high decorative block walls. In instances where noise barriers greater than 6 feet are required, the barrier will be located on a maximum 3 foot high berm (as measured from residential building pad height). Since the private rear yards will satisfy the City's requirement for providing mitigated exterior living areas, second floor balconies will not be required to be mitigated to meet the exterior noise level standards. Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis will be required to ensure that proposed building constmction will lower interior noise levels to below the 45 CNEL standard. The combination of walls, berms, building constmction and mechanical ventilation will reduce noise levels to acceptable City standards. AESTHETICS 13 Rev. 03/28/96 The certified Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR determined that there would be no significant impact to visual aesthetics from any project within the specific plan area. When the Local Coastal Plan amendment for the specific plan was reviewed by the Coastal Commission, a modification was added to require a viewshed analysis examining view impacts from Interstate 5. In analyzing the view impacts on Parcel B, the applicant prepared a viewshed analysis for Parcels A and B located on the north side of Poinsettia Lane. Parcels A and B. north of Poinsettia Lane There are two areas of potential impact related to these parcels. This includes the parking lot south of the Volvo dealership and the cul-de-sac north ofthe Rainfree Motel. The viewshed analysis determined that the elevation of the freeway at these locations is 71.5' with a car occupant at an elevation of about 75'. At the two test sites, ocean horizon views are obscured by the vegetation located at the Carlsbad State Beach. Vegetation along the State park reaches a consistent height of 79' to 83'. Along the northem properties, there is no potential loss of ocean horizon views because there are no ocean views at the 75' elevation. CULTURAL RESOURCES The certified Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR determined that the site is a "Potentially Significant Fossil Area" from the Quatemary period. Based on initial findings, the paieontological resource potential was rated as moderate. Because paieontological resources are largely a buried resource, there is no way to accurately predict what fossils are present within a site or their individual significance to the scientific commimity before they are discovered. As required by the program EIR, the project is conditioned to implement mitigation measures, including retention of a qualified paleontologist during grading and excavation operations, to insure that impacts to paieontological resources will be les than significant. 1. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Impact Report and Addendum, dated July 1997, certified January 1998. 2. Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update, dated March 1994, certified September 1994. 3. Viewshed Analysis, dated October 10, 1998. 4. Noise Analvsis for the Poinsettia Propertv. City of Carlsbad, Mesfre Greve Associates, April 13, 2001. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) Not Applicable ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) Not Apphcable APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES 14 Rev. 03/28/96 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 15 Rev. 03/28/96 City of Carlsbad Planning Department INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILING OUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I This environmental Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type of environmental documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your application, per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project. Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is checklist that is merely checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes" or "no" answer. This is especially important when a Negative Declaration is being sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II. 1635 Faraday Avenue . Carlsbad, Ca 92008-7314 . (760) 602-4600 . (760) 602-8559 p:\a|q)lications\234l\004\environinental impact assessment fonn.doc ^^^^ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 2. APPLICANT: JOHN LAING HOMES 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:. 19600 FAIRCHILD. SUITE 200, IRVINE. CA 92612 (949) 476-9090 (To be completed by staff) 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROJECT PROPOSES 256 UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 41.6 ACRES. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED NORTH OF POINSEHIA LANE. WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS AND EAST OF THE SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILROAD. (LFMP ZONE 22). SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. I I Land Use and Planning r~l Population and Housing n Geological Problems lEl Water Air Quality 0 Transportation/Circulation 1 I Biological Resources n Public Services I I Utilities & Services Systems n Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics n Hazards lEl Noise I I Cultural Resources r~l Recreation • Mandatory Findings of Significance p:\apptications\2341\004\environmental impact assessment form.doc Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 required that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environment Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported be an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported id the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impacf is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • An Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the envirormient. p:\applications\2341\004\cnvironmentalimpiictassessmcnlform.doc 2 RCV. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effect, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less that significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and fhe proposed mitigation measures appears at the end ofthe fonn under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be detennined significant. p:\aH)iicaiions\2341\004\cnvironmcntal impact assessment form.doc 3 RCV. 03/28/96 Q 1.) JULY '97 FIND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPENDICES. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Q Source # (s): (1) b) Conflict with applicable enviromnental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Q ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts Q to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (1) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [ | established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local Q population projections? (1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or Q indirectly (e.g. through projects in an underdeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable | | housing? (1) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • • • • No Impact • • • III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1) b) Seismic ground shaking? (1) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1) d) Seiche, tsumani, or volcanic hazard? (1) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1) f) Erosions, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1) g) Subsidence of the land? (1) h) Expansive soils? (1) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1) IV. WATER. Would the proposal resuh in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?) (1) • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • • • • p:\applicationsV234l\004\environmental impact assessment form.doc Rev. 03/28/96 o Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1) e) Changes in currents, or the course or dkection of water movements? (1) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1) d) Create objectionable odors? (1) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • K • • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • • • • X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Q Q ^ (1) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp | | | | | | curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (1) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemadve transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (1) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? \_\ [_] (1) • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats | | | | | | (includmg but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (1) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? | | | | | [ (1) p:\applications\234 l\004\cnvironmental impact assessment form.doc Rev. 03/28/96 W .y'\ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (1) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteflil and inefficient manner? (1) c) Result in the loss of availability of known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? (1) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (1) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1) b) Exposure to people to severe noise levels? (1) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X • m • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • a) Fire protection? (1) • • • X b) Police protection? (1) • • • c) Schools? (11) • • • d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1) Other govemmental services? (1) • • X • e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1) Other govemmental services? (1) • • • XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial aherations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (1) • • • b) Communications systems? (1) • • X • p:\applications\234 l\004\environmental impact assessment ronn.doc Rev. 03/28/96 y^ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Impact c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution Q facilities? (1) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1) Q e) Storm water drainage? (1) Q f) Solid waste disposal? (1) Q g) Local or regional water supplies? (1) | | Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • • • • No Impact • XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1) c) Create light or glare? (1) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resoiu'ces? (1) b) Disturb archeological forces? (1) c) Affect historical resources? (1) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or elimmate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X • • • • • • X • • • • • • X p:\applications\234l\004\environmental impact assessment form.doc Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS Potentially Significant Impact • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15065(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fi'om the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated of refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. p:\applications\234)\004\environmental impact assessment fonn.doc Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfiir, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively sigmficant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concunent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management: 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of the project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the 'Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement of Oveniding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, Including this project, therefore, no fiirther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments wall be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growrth Management performance standards at buildout. p:\applicalions\234 l\004\cnvir(Himemal impact assessment form.doc 9 RCV. 03/28/96 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concunent with need; 1) provisions to develop altemative modes if transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout to the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Cotmcil Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement of Oveniding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) SEE EIR DATED JULY 1997 PREPARED BY COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) SEE ATTACHED p:\applicalions\234 l\0t}4\envirDnmental impact assessment rorm.doc 10 Rev. 03/28/96 fcity c FILE COPY of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The following project is located within the City of Carlsbad Coastal Zone. A coastal permit application for the project has been acted upon. SENT TO COASTAL COMMISSION ON _ Filing Date: Application #: CT 00-16/ PUD 01-01/SDP 00-12/ CDP 00-44 8/14/00 Case Name: Poinsettia Properties PA 2. 3. & 4 Applicant: John Laing Homes ' Decision Date: 7/24/01 Address: Phone: ACTION: 19600 Fairchild. #200 Irvine. CA 92612 949-265-6854 Agent (if different): Hofman Planning Associates Address: 5900 Pasteur Ct. #150 Carlsbad. CA 92008 Phone: 760-438-1465 • • APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DENIED (Copy of final resolution/decision letter is sent to: Coastal Commission, any persons who specificaUy requested it, and the applicant). COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL STATUS: NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION. I I APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30603. An aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days following Coastal Commission receipt of this notice. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date the Coastal Commission's appeal period will conclude. Appeals must be made in writing to the Coastal Commission's district office at the following address: Califomia Coastal Commission, 7575 Metropolitan Dr., Suite 103, San Diego, Califomia 92108-4402, Telephone (619) 767-2370. The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is govemed by Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the Cityof Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 16. Any petition or other paper seeHng judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than ninety (90) days following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten (10) days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost ofpreparation of such a record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended lo nol later than thirty (30) days following the dale on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to Ihe party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 92008. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ® SENDER: COfJIPLETE THIS SECTION Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Print your name and address on ttie reverse so ttiat we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 1. Article Addressed to: A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Delivery 7'K C. Signature ^ yc^"^' y • Agent • Addressee D. Is delivery address different from item 1 ? d Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: C3 No 3. Service Type '^f3'Certified Mail • Express Mail • Registered • Return Receipt for Merchandise • Insured Mail • C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) • Yes 2. Article Number (Copy from sen/ice /abe/) PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only No inJ nly, No Insurance Coverage Provided) m*- CITY OF CARLSBAD ^ ^ifltXtf^ Planhing Department 1? ^ 163^ Faraday Avenue Cafrisbad CA 92008 <i60) 602-4600 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: County Clerk County of San Diego Mailstop 833, Attn: Mita PO Box 121750 San Diego CA 92112-1750 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (Califomia Environmental Quality Act). Project Title: Poinsettia Properties PA 2, 3, & 4 Project Location - Specific: West of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane and Embarcadero Way. APN 214-450-26. 27. & 28 Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - County: San Diego Description of Project: Subdivide 41.6 acres for the development of 219 single-family lots, a 1.33 acre Community Recreation Center, and associated recreation, open space, and RV storage facilities. Name of Public Agency Approving Project; Citv of Carlsbad Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Barbara Kennedy Exempt Status: (Check One) Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); Exemption - State type and section number: Section 15182 - Residential proiects pursuant to a Specific Plan • Statutory Exemptions - State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: The project is pursuant to and in conformance with the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan SP 210 for which a program EIR (EIR 96-10) was prepared. Lead Agency Contact Person: Barbara Kennedy If filed by applicant: Telephone: (760) 602-4626 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? MICHAEL ALL J. HOLZMlfcEER, PWhing Director 4^ Date Signed by Lead Agency I I Signed by Applicant FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON AUG 1 6 2001 pn<;TFn AUG l ^ 20Q1 RRMOVED -^FP I g 9nni RETUxRNED TO AGENCY ON DEPUTY SEP 1 5 2001 Revised 6ctober 1989 Citv of Carlsbad Office of the City Cierk Records Management Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Request for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Devi subdivide a 41.6 acre site for the development of 219 single-family Community Recreation Center, and numerous open space lots. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located v\/est of Avenida Encinas, between Poinsettia Lane and Embarcadero Way. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 214-450-26 APPLICANT: John Laing Homes 19600 Fairchild St., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92612 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City Council in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on July 24, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies ofthe staff report will be available on or after July 20, 2001. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Barbara Kennedy at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-4626. APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2808 ® challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad prior to the public hearing. 1. Appeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: n This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. ^ This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego Office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402. CASE FILE: CT 00-16/PUD 01-01/SDP 00-12/CDP 00-44 CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES P.A. 2, 3, & 4 PUBLISH: JULY 11, 2001 POINSETTIA PROPERTIES P.A. 2,3, & 4 CT 00-16/PUD 01-01/SDP 00-12/CDP 00-44 y PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: June 7, 2001 Proof of Publication of Notice of Public I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. San Marcog Dated at this of TTtr ., California day June, 2001 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Hearing r^^»,D, .=T,. PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: May 2, 2001 DESCRIPTION: Request for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide a 41 6 acre site for the development of 219 single-family residential lots, a Community Recreation Center, and numerous open space lots. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone lo-cated west of Avenida Encinas, between Poinsettia Lane and Embarcadero Way ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 214-450-26 APPLICANT John Laing Homes 19600 Fairchild St., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92612 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the Council Chambers, 1200 ?nA,®''f c Carlsbad, California, on June 20, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearinq and provide the decision makers with any oral or written com- ments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed bv public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after June 14 2001 If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision please contact Barbara Kennedy at the Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 4626 Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602- APPEALS POINSETTIA PROPERTIES P.A. 2, 3, & 4 CT 00-16/PUO 01-01/SDP 00.12/CDP 00-4' The time within which you may judicially challenge this Ten- tative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Devel- opment Plan, and Coastal Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, ancTis very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned De- velopment Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal De- velopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hear- ing described in this notice, or in written correspondence de- livered to the City of Carisbad prior to the public hearing. 1. Appeals to the City Council: Where the decision is appeal- able to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Plan- ning Commission. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commis- sion, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carls- bad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period wiil conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108- 4402 CASE FILE: CT 00-16/PUD 01-01/SDP 00-12/CDP 00-44 CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PA. 2, 3, & 4 Legal 70234. June 7, 2001 c o FILE CO Citv of Carlsbac Y Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: May 2, 2001 DESCRIPTION: Request for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide a 41.6 acre site for the development of 219 single-family residential lots, a Community Recreation Center, and numerous open space lots. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located west of Avenida Encinas, between Poinsettia Lane and Embarcadero Way. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 214-450-26 APPLICANT: John Laing Homes 19600 Fairchild St., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92612 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on June 20, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after June 14, 2001. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Barbara Kennedy at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-4626. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us •r , J i»1 ' • . ,- * •! i 3 's^^ APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad prior to the public hearing. 1. Appeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: I I This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. [XI This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402. CASE FILE: CT 00-16/PUD 01-01/SDP 00-12/CDP 00-44 CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES P.A. 2, 3, & 4 PUBLISH: JUNE 7, 2001 POINSETTIA PROPERTIES P.A. 2, 3, & 4 CT 00-16/PUD 01-01/SDP 00-12/CDP 00-44 T h e 0 d 0 [• e T 2 4b bth St End n i t a s C A Val las 92024-3256 Lakeshore Gardens Property 18915 Nordhoff St 5 Northrldge CA 91324-3790 Nichols Geneva M 1506 S Coast Hwy Laguna Beach CA 92651-3227 Donahue Schrlber Realty Group 18818 Teller Ave 277 Irvine Ch 92612-1612 Kay T Moorsteen 1777 NE Loop 41012 San Antonio TX 78217 Glendora Motorcars Co Inc 6830 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad CA 92009-3201 Hoehn Group The 5454 Paseo Del Norte Carlsbad CA 92008-4426 H k h Corp Eleven Gr y Plz 3003 77046-1105 John Tohidi 10501 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles CA 90024-6 3 0 2 O Kaiser Foundation Health Plan 393 E Walnut St Pasadena CA 91188-0001 Herrlck Holdings Ltd 755 Raintree Dr 200 Carlsbad CA 92009-3298 William J Wade 14651 Dallas Pky 500 Dallas TX 75240-8809 Carlsbad City 755 Raintree Dr 200 Carlsbad CA 92009-3298 S L & B H 5055 Avenida Carlsbad CA Encinas 210 92008-4375 Poinsettia Housing Associates 1 Hawthorne St 400 San Francisco CA 94105-3901 S L & B H 5 0 5 5 Avenida Carlsbad CA Encinas 210 92008-4375 Robert H Ha rutunian 803 Skysail Ave Carlsbad CA 92009-3706 Judy E Kern 807 Skysail Carlsbad CA Ave 92009-3706 O Alma F Solomon 1342 Stanford St 4 Santa Monica CA 90404 2 541 George & Lynda Young 802 Windward Ln Carlsbad CA 92009-3716 David Moore 801 Windward Ln Carlsbad CA 92009-3716 Larry E Iverson 803 Winward Ln CarIsbad CA 92009-3716 Alfonso A & Janine Zuniga 804 Windcrest Dr Carlsbad Cfl 92009-3712 Michael & Dina Dennis 805 Windward Ln Carlsbad CA 92009-3716 G/tegovY & Renee Bujewskl 802 Windcrest Dr Cariabad CA 92009-3712 Gary E Wyko 806 Windcrest Dr Carlsbad CA 92009-371 O Harbor Pointe Homeowners Assn 7720 El Camino Real 2a Carlsbad CA 92009-8510 Shea Homes Limited Partnership 10721 Treena St 200 San Diego CA 92131-1039 Marc K & Kelly Mcguire 7107 Leeward St Carlsbad CA 92009 Richard & Gwen Ojaiva 6894 Tradewinds Dr Carlsbad CA 92009 John M Weakley 140 Breakwater Rd Carlsbad CA 92009 i) * * * 31 Printed * * * o 5 r Current Resident 7201 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad CA 92009-4642 Current Resident 7020 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad CA 92009-4691 Current Resident 751 Macadamia Dr Carlsbad CA 92009-3205 o o o "2 <B Current Resident 6860 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad CA 92009-3201 Current Residj Babiloni, -sbad CA 92009 Current Resident 750 Raintree Dr 231 Carlsbad CA 92009-3206 Current Resident 751 Raintree Dr Carlsbad CA 92009-3206 ^ CITY OF CARLSBAD ^ LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECKBOXES) ^ %jr% 5 • Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit • Administrative Variance Coastal Development Permit • Conditional Use Permit 12 Condominium Permit • Environmental Impact Assessment • General Plan Amendment • Hillside Development Permit • Local Coastal Plan Amendment • Master Plan • Non-Residential Planned Development • Planned Development Permit (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) • Planned Industrial Permit • Planning Commission Determination • Precise Development Plan • Redevelopment Permit [3 Site Development Plan • Special Use Permit • Specific Plan • Tentative Parcel Map Obtain from Engineering Department ^ Tentative Tract Map -B—Vdiidiice (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) • Zone Change D List other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 214-450-26. 27&28 3) PROJECT NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTY 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: THE PROJECT PROPOSES 247 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 41.6 ACRES 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) BENCHMARK PACIFIC (SEE ATTACHED COMPLETE LIST) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) JOHN UMNO HOMES MAIUNG ADDRESS 5055 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 210 MAILING ADDRESS 19600 FAIRCHILD, SUITE 200 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (760) 438-8477 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE IRVINE, CA 92612 (949)476-9090 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AND THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURE SHEET 6-19-00 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL TH^ ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRpprtO T\^BST^m^mVJlEDGE. SIGNATURE DOUGLAS M. AVIS, MANAGING PARTNER DATE SIGNATURE" TIMOTHY MCSUNAS DATE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHED NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 16 1 OF 2 p:\apptfcstion5\2341 \004^eneral application.doc 8) LOCATION ©F PROJECT: AVENIDA ENCINAS ON THE BETWEEN WEST STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET) POINSETTIA LANE AND CANNON ROAD (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 22 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING RES 41.6 RDM-Q 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING 2470 RM/0 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 15) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 247 247 RM RDM-Q 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. lAA/E CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURE SHEET SIGNATURE DOUGLAS M. AVIS, MANAGING PARTNER FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED RECEIVED AUG 14 2000 CITY OF CARLSBAD DATibMWWlWQ.IQg"p&}M RECEIVED RECEIVED BY DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2 p:\applications\2341\004^enerai app4icatjon.doc O 0 SIGNATURE FOR OWNER: HSiyBP/MICHAN, L.P., a California limited paratnership BY: HBM Poinsettia L.P., a California limited partnership, General Partner BY: Benchmark Pacific Management, Inc., a California corporation. General Partner By: Doii^las M. Avis, President Via/ City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other country city, and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names and titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person N/A Corp/Part JOHN LAING HOMES Title. N/A Title. N/A Address N/A Address 19600 FAIRCHILD. STE. 200. IRVINE. CA 92612 2. OWNER (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e. partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.) If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names and titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title. N/A Corp/Part SEE ATTACHED LIST OF OWNERS N/A Title N/A Address N/A Address 5055 AVENIDA ENCINAS. STE 210 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue . Carlsbad, Ca 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 . (760) 602-8559 p:\appllcations\2341 \004\disclosure statement.doc NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. List the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Person N/A Title N/A Corp/Part N/A Title N/A Address N/A Address N/A Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? • Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): N/A NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledgCj^ SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE iyWI/M/^M^i4^ i?IZ^^ Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date DOUGLAS M. AVIS. MANAGING PARTNER Print or type name of ovwier BENCHMARK PACIFIC TIMOTHY McSUNAS, JOHN LAING HOMES Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5\98 Page 2 of 2 p:\appl)cations\2341V)04VJisclosure statement.doc Question #2, Ownership: Ownership Entity 25.12% HSL/BP/MICHAN, LP., a California limited partnership By: HBM Poinsettia L.P., a California limited partnership, General Partner Douglas M. Avis, President Address: 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 25% STRATA/POINSETTIA, a California general partnership By: Strata Equity Corporation, a California corporation. General Partner Carlos Michan, President Address: 4250 Executive Square, Suite 440 LaJolla, CA 92037 18.25% BENCHMARK PACIFIC POINSEITIA, LP., a California limited partnership By: Benchmark Pacific, Inc., a California corporation. Its Sole General Partner Douglas M. Avis, President Address: 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 17.88% HSL PROPERTIES, INC., a Califomia corporation Humberto S. Lopez, President Address: 1037 South Alvemon, Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85711 13.75% STRATA EQUITY CORPORATION, a California corporation Carlos Michan, President Address: 4250 Executive Square, Suite 440 LaJolla, CA 92037 SIGNATURE FOR OWNER: HSL/BP/MICHAN, L.P., a California limited paratnership BY: HBM Poinsettia L.P., a California limited partnership. General Partner BY: Benchmark Pacific Management, Inc., a California corporation, General Partner By: 6uglas M. Avis, President STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD The Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code sets a fifty (50) day time restriction on Planning Commission processing of Tentative Maps and a thirty (30) day time limit for City Council action. These time limits can only be extended by the mutual concurrence of the applicant and the City. By accepting applications for Tentative Maps concurrently with applications for other approvals which are prerequisites to the map; i.e., Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Report, Condominium Plan, Planned Unit Development, etc., the fifty (50) day time limits and the thirty (30) day time limits are often exceeded. If you wish to have yovir application processed concurrently, this agreement must be signed by the applicant or his agent. If you choose not to sign the statement, the City will not accept your application for the Tentative Map until all prior necessary entitlements have been processed and approved. The undersigned understands that the processing time required by the City may exceed the time limits, therefore the undersigned agrees to extend the time limits for the Planning Conmiission and City Council action and fully concurs with any extensions of time up to one year fi-om the date the application was accepted as compete to properly review all of the applications. SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE 6-19-00 Signature Date DOUGLAS M. AVIS, MANAGING PARTNER OWNER Name (print) BENCHMARK PACIFIC Relationship to Application (Property Owner-Agent) FRM0037 p:\app1jcations\2341\004\statementofagreement.doc 6/20/00 12:51 PM SIGNATURE FOR OWNER: HSiyBP/MICHAN, L.P., a Califomia limited paratnership BY: HBM Poinsettia L.P., a Califomia limited partnership, General Partner BY: Benchmark Pacific Management, Inc., a California corporation, General Partner By: Douglas M. Avis, President City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: JOHN LAING HOMES Set Id: S000000449 Description CDP00044 CP000009 CT000016 SDP00012 Total Amount 1,590.00 7,900.00 13,820.00 6,770.00 30, 080. tg)i3 Ui 30080 ••00 Receipt Number: R0014415 Transaction Date: 08/14/2000 Pay Type Method Description 26040 Amount Payment Check Payment Credit Crd VISA 26,040.00 441712300 4,040.00 Transaction 7\mount: 30, 080.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECT NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES (PARCEL A - AREAS 2.3. & 4) APPLICANT NAME: JOHN LAING HOMES Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation. THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES INTO 246 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. PROJECT DESIGN PROPOSES TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES WITHIN THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN. THERE ARE THREE PRODUCT TYPES PROPOSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT: 1) GARDEN PRODUCT, INCORPORATING EXCLUSIVE USE AREAS AVERAGING 44 FEET WIDE BY 80 FEET DEEP LOCATED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT. THIS PRODUCT TYOE IS PROPOSED TO BE TRADITIONAL "STREET LOADED" AND WILL CONSIST OF TWO-PACK DETACHED HOMES HAVING DRIVE ACCESS OFF THE STREET WITH ONE GARAGE NEAR THE FRONT ANFD THE OTHER TOWARD THE REAR UTILIZING A HOLLYWOOD STYLE DRIVEWAY. oo> Vi o z X ca 2§ \ Co cO 2) CORONADO HOMES LOCATED IN THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE SITE ARE DETACHED HOMES HAVING GARAGES IN THE REAR WITH VEHICLE ACCESS FROM ALLEYS. EXCLUSIVE USE AREAS DOE THIS PRODUCT AVERAGE 40 FEET BY 90 FEET. THESE HOMES FRONT THE LOCAL STREETS WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS WHERE ACCESS IS TAKEN FROM COMMON AREA LANDSCAPED WALKS. 3) PASEO HOMES, LOCATED IN THE WESTERLY PORTION, ARE SIMILAR TO THE ALLEY- LOADED PRODUCT HAVING GARAGES IN THE REAR AND VEHICLE ACCESS VIA SHORT ALLEYS. THE HOMES FRONT A "PASEO", A LANDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN WAY, WITHIN COMMON USE AREAS OF THE INDIVIDUAL DETACHED RESIDENCE'S INFLUENCE. ACCESS IS TAKEN FROM A WALK THAT MEANDERS THROUGH THE PASEO. THIS PRODUCT'S AREA OF INFLUENCE IS AN AVERAGE 44 FEET BY 80 FEET INCORPORATING EXCLUSIVE USE FROM THE ALLEY TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND COMMON USE OF THE PASEO. A FEW OF THE PASEO HOMES FRONT LOCAL STREETS AT THE END OF THE BLOCKS. ProjDesc.frm p:\applications\2341\004\project description.doc UTILITIES SERVING THE RESIDENCES ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE STREETS AND ALLEYS. WATER WILL BE SUPPLIED FROM AN EXISTING 12" MAIN IN AVENIDA ENCINAS. SEWAGE WILL BE COLLECTED AT A SEWER LIFT STATION AND PUMPED INTO THE EXISTING SEWER TRUNK WITHIN THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY STORM WATER RUNOFF WILL BE CONTAINED AT INLETS AND TRANSMITTED VIA PIPE THROUGH THE SITE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER WHERE CONNECTION WILL BE MADETO THE MASTER PLANNED STORE DRAIN. CERTAIN AMENITIES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT. ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, A COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITY SHALL BE PROVIDED AS WELL AS R.V. STORAGE. THE RECREATION FACILITY AREA FOR ACTIVE USES IS PROPOSED TO BE 1.4 ACRES. THE PROPOSED AREA FOR R.V. PARKING EXCEEDS THE REQUIRED MINIMUM. A 20-FOOT PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE PARKWAY ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS AND AN AVERAGE 40-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE RAILROAD PEDESTRIAN/OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR ARE ALSO PROPOSED AS WELL AS A PUBLIC ACCESS PARKWAY RUNNING NORTH-SOUTH THROUGH THE SITE. TWO 10,000 SQ. FT. PASSIVE OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE SITUATED AT EACH END OF THE PROJECT SITE. Rev. 4/91 ProjDesc.frm p:\appllcat)on$^2341\004\p^ojecl description.doc arlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^ (760) 729-9291 • FAX (760) 729-9685 ...a world class district June 21, 2000 State of Califomia Department of Real Estate 107 South Broadway, Room 7111 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Project Name: Poinsettia Properties Planning Areas 2, 3 and 4 Developer: John Laing Homes Location: Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas Project Size: 246 detached condominium units APN No.: 214-450-26, 27 and 28 (old APN: 214-450-25) Carlsbad Unified School District has reviewed the above project and its impact on school attendance areas in this District. At this time, the schools of attendance for this project are: Pacific Rim Elementary School (K-5) 1100 Camino de las Ondas Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 602-6070 Aviara Oaks Middle School (6-8) 6900 Ambrosia Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 602-6040 Carlsbad High School (9-12) 3557 Monroe Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-1726 The Governing Board wishes to advise the Department of Real Estate and residents of Carlsbad that at present the Carlsbad Unified School District elementary schools are operating at full capacity. It is possible, therefore, that the students generated from this project may not attend the closest neighborhood school due to overcrowded conditions and, in fact, may attend school across town. You should also be aware that there are no school buses for regular student transportation from home to school. The Governing Board wishes to also inform you that conditions imposed upon new development within the City ofCarlsbad requires mitigation of school impacts. Sincerely, GajlewFreeman Assistant Superintendent, Business Services cc: Hunsaker & Associates VIEW CORRIDOR-POINSETTIA PROPERTIES-PLANNING AREAS 1 a 8 1 1^^ ryi y 4* PA-2 r. 'tf I — - "•"^mmm J. ^^^ROnS^^Ss^^PROPERTIE^PLANNING AREAS 2&7 COASTAL COMMISSION VIEW CORRIDOR EXHIBIT 'GIRL F.22