The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 82-13; Hamsayeh Ardeshiri; Tentative Map (CT) (5)D Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5596 CARLSBTDfc^BN,! 92008 D K?«98-558 2 p 5 artment Citp of Cartebab O Engineering Department (714)438-5541 D Housing & Redevelopment Department 3096 Harding St. (714) 438-5611 ti! Planning Department (714) 438-5591 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of El Fuerte Street, 140 feet west of Cacatua Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pour-lot planned usnit development with access off a 325 foot long private drive. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments frcm the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: July 27, 1982 MICHAEL JTHOLZM5ELLER CASE NO: CT 82-13/PUD-43 Land Use Planning Manager APPLICANTS HamsayehArdeshiri PUBLISH DATE: August 4, 1982 ND-4 5/81 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES a Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5596 D 120° ELM AVENUECARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 D Engineering Department (714)438-5541 D Housing & Redevelopment Department 3096 Harding St. (714)438-5611 jH Planning Department (714) 438-5591 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: west of Cacatua Street. South side of El Fuerte Street, 140 feet PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Four-lot planned usnit development with access off a 325 foot long private drive. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: July 27, 1982 CASE NO: CT 82-13/PUD-43 APPLICANT: Hamsayeh/Ardeshiri PUBLISH DATE: August 4, 1982 MICHAEL Land Use Planning Manager ND-4 5/81 D Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5596 DEVELOPMENTAL S^s^y^ 120° ELM AVENUE SERVICES • IS^B CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (B714?4n398.55e2P5artment Cl't? Of €&{&& D Engineering Department (714) 438-5541 D Housing & Redevelopment Department 3096 Harding St. (714)438-5611 XPlanning Department PUBLIC NOTICE OF PREPARATION (714)438-5591 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a Negative Declaration for the following project: Project Description: Four-lot planned unit development with access off a 325 foot long private drive. Project address/Location: Southside of El Fuerte Street, 140 feet west of Cacatua Street. Anticipated significant impacts: None We need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have on the environment and your suggestions for ways the project could be revised to reduce or avoid any significant environmental damage. Your ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the environ- mental review of this project. Your comments on the environmental impact of the proposed project may be submitted in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than July 27, 1982. DATED: July 6, 1982 CASE NO: CT 82-13/PUD-43 MICHAEL J. BetZMII APPLICANT: Hamsayeh/Ardeshiri Land Use Planning Manager PUBLISH DATE: July 10, 1982 ND 3 5/81 FEE $100.00 RECEIPT NO: •ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I (To be Completed by APPLICANT) CASE NO: C^T %3 - J B/Pu £>.- DATE: Applicant: ' G.M. HAMSAYEH & P.A. ARDESHIRI ' • Address of Applicant: 2245 La Amatista Del Mar, California 92014 ' ' ^ Phone Number: (714) 755-8672 Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): GENERAL INFORMATION; Description of Project: Planned. Unit Development (4 lots) Lot 552, La Costa Meadows, Unit 3, Mag_#707_6 Project Location/Address: Lot 552, El Fuerte Street, La Costa, California Assessor Parcel Number: 215 - 370 - 28 Zone of Subject Property: R-l-75 Proposed Use of Site: Residential List all other applicable applications related to this project: None ND 1 EIR l o 2. Describe the .activity area, including distinguishing natural and manniade characteristics;, also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. 3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. (For a more specific discussion of' energy conservation requirements see • Of the city's-SIR Guidelines). N/A . .-..-... 4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 4 units, 3,000 sq.ft. approximately, prices undetermined at this time single family, ., • . ' 5, If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, . . e. id loading facilities. .'.,..: N/A 6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A • v . 7. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. , . N/A . • ' • ' I. ENVIRONMENTAL 'IMPACT ANALYSIS Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. (Discuss all items checked yes. Attach additional sheets as necessary).. YES NO 1) Could the project significantly change present "land uses in the vicinity of the activity? ^ 2) Could the activity affect the,use of a rec- reational area, or area of important • aesthetic value? • x 6) Could the activity decrease the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? 8) Could the activity significantly affect a historical or archaeological site or its settings? •12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity area? 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? x 4) Could the activity result in the displacement • of community residents? .. • - x 5) Could the activity increase the number of low -and moderate cost housing units in the city? x 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area uniqua, that is, net.' found in other parts of the County f State, or Nation? . • x x~ 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? x 10) Does the activity area serve as a habitat, food source nesting place, source of water, etc. for rare or endangered wildlife on fish species? £ 11) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or pilant life? • x 13) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelonds? x *" . * • ' 14) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's beaches? 20) Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? 28) Will . the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? . 15) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of agricultural lands? • _ x__ 16) Could the activity serve to encourage develop- ment of presently undeveloped areas or intesify development of already developed areas? ' ' • • * 17), Will the activity require a variance from established environmental standards (air, water, ' ' ' x noise, etc) ? • 18) Will the activity require certification, • authorization or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federcil environmental control agency? • ___ _ x • Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the city? __ _ x 21) . Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? . • _ ___ - ___ 22) Will the activity involve construction of . facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? „_____ *_• 23) Will the activity involve constriction of facilities in the area of an active fault? . _____ _ x_ 24) Could the activity result in the generation . of significant amounts of noise? . ' _; _ _ _ _ 25) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? ' ' . ' _ ____ 26) Will the a.ctivity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? _______ _x 27) Could the. activity result in a significant change in the quality of any por-tion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note, surface, ground water, off-shore) . , ' _______ '_f 29). Will there be a .significant change to existing land form? x -4- (a) indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards & " ~*' " • J- - (b) percentage of alteration to the present land forin . (c) maximum height of cut or fill slopes 30) Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains, or streets? • j .; ' x_ 31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger' project or series of projects? ...... . ^. •5— II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT 'ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section I but you think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I (If additional space is needed for answering any questions attach additional sheets as may be needed). EL DORADO ENGINEERS, INC. 2555 Morena Blvd, Suite D San Diego, Califopnda 92110 Signature #^!&j^^ / (/ (Personcompleting report)Robert L. Dawson, President Date Signed May 17, 1982 -6- •ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT"FORM - Part II (To Be Completed By The PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. DATE: I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLI LA 3. DATE CHECKLIST SUBMITTED: \Q II. "ENVIRONMENTAL"IMPACTS "(EMANATIONS OF ALL AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS ARE TO BE WRITTEN UNDER Section III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth Will the proposal have signi- ficant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or ero- sion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ND 2 c. % c. Yes Maybe No 2. Air: Will the proposal have signi- results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? . / b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, mositure or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water: Will the proposal have sigi- ficant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water move- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? /s d. Change in the amount of sur- face water in any water body? \ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X -2- c • c Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal have signi- ficant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? i b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? . ^ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- , ment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _____ ' * 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal have signi- ficant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or micro fauna)? yL b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? )\^ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or , movement of animals? ^ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal signi- Ficantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the pro- posal significantly produce new light or glare? ^ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of / an area? X- -3- c • c. • c 9. Natural Resources. Will the pro- posal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of haz- ardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal significantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal signi- ficantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will flie proposal have significant re- sults in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b4 Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing trans- portation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ' f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -4- Yes Maybe No c » (.. Yes Maybe No 14. Public Services. Will the pro- posal have a significant effect upon, or have significant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? x c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational . facilities? *> e. Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the develop- y ment of new-sources of energy? ^ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ^ b.. Communications systems? ' ' ' ' >( c. Water? * d. Sewer or septic tanks? e,, Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? ' ' ' ' X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal Have signigicant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _____ )C -5- ' ^' Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the pro- posal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 13- Recreation. Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Yes Mabe No 21. ANALYZE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT' SUCH AS: a) PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT; b) ALTERNATE SITE DESIGNS; c) ALTERNATE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT; d) ALTERNATE USES FOR THE SITE; e) DEVELOPMENT AT SOME FUTURE TIME RATHER THAN NOW; f) ALTERNATE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED USE; g) NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. ' -d- c III.- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUTION Yes Mavbe No 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a.) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN- TIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, OR CURTAIL THE DIVERSITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT? )( b) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN- TIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM, TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TERM, ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT- TERM IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RE- LATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE PERIOD OF TIME WHILE LONG-TERM IMPACTS WILL ENDURE WELL INTO THE FUTURE.) )C c) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, .BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? (A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TOO OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RE- SOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL, BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE ! ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.) )( d) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRON- MENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY? ef A UTS , TflWb fct&eSS Off f. ?T-f fwT $m? - -me -7- *> t «.•'•.' ^ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) f/^r 5 we -nw: DM IV. DETERMINATION. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ** I find the proposed project GOULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A conditional negative declaration will vd.ll be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: 1 V. MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) -9- MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) vi APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATIONG MEA- SURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date: Signature of Applicant -10- I I I I I • ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR OFF-SITE CANNON AND CAMELOT ROADS I I I I I I Prepared by I I I I I RECON NUMBER R-1201A • MARCH 23, 1987 I I REC0N Regional Environmental Consultants 1276 Morena Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92110-3815 275-3732 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4 I B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 6 C. NOISE 7 FIGURES • 1: Cannon Road Alternate A Location 2 2: Camelot Road Westerly Extension 3 3: Noise Contours along Alternate A of Cannon Road 10 TABLES I 1: Noise Model Parameters 8 2: Noise Model Results ~_ 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following is a summary of additional environmental information which pertains to a couple of minor deviations concerning off-site improvements associated with the Carlsbad Highlands project. These are a rerouting of Cannon Road between El Camino Real and future College Boulevard and extensions of a secondary access (Camelot Road). The issues addressed are cultural resources (archaeology and history), biology, and noise. The rerouting of Cannon Road pertains to the construction of the Alternate A alignment of Cannon Road between El Camino Real and College Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad (Figure 1). Cannon Road deviates to the north for distance ranging up to 500 feet. The original Cannon Road alignment was addressed as an off-site condition in the Draft Environmental Information Report for Carlsbad Highlands prepared by Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON) in 1981. The proposed Camelot Road westward extension is about 1,250 feet in length and connects with future College Boulevard (Figure 2). The alternate Camelot south westward extension is about 1,150 feet in length and also connects with College Boulevard. The proposed connection intersects with College Boulevard about 2,000 feet north of the College Boulevard/Cannon Road intersection. The alternate connection joins College Boulevard about 1,200 feet north of this intersection. ~_ The construction of Cannon Road between El Camino Real and College Boulevard and both proposed and alternate extensions of Camelot Road will not create any significant impacts to cultural and biological resources and from vehicular noise. FIGURE 1. CANNON ROAD ALTERNATE A ALIGNMENT ,«£C0A/, R-1201A 3/87 ,'\ ftLTERNAT EXTENSIO FIGURE 2. CAMELOT ROAD WESTERLY EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES R-1201A 3/87 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Existing Conditions Biological field surveys of the Carlsbad Highlands project site and off-site improvement areas were completed in November and December, 1980, and January, 1981 (RECON 1981:60) and were updated for the Cannon Road Alternate A alignment recently. For most of its length (2,000 feet) the Alternate A alignment will cross cultivated land, with the remaining 100 feet crossing old field or pasture, which is characterized as southern California grassland. No plant or animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered on state or federal lists were observed on the new road alignment. The proposed extension of Camelot Road will cross cultivated land for 650 feet of its length. It will also cross a remnant riparian woodland (50 feet in width) made up of sycamores and willows at the eastern end of the alignment. The riparian area closely follows a stream course and averages one or two trees in width. While most of the adjacent floodplain is in cultivation for tomatoes or other crops, the bed of the stream supports a relatively mature assortment of sycamore and willow trees. The western end of the alignment crosses weedy disturbed coastal sage scrub for about 100 feet and coastal sage scrub for about 450 feet of its length. The alternate extension of Camelot Road will cross cultivated land for 750 feet of its length. It will also cross a remnant riparian woodland (50 feet in width) made up of sycamores and willows at the eastern end of the alignment. The riparian area closely follows a stream course and averages one or two trees in width. While most of the adjacent floodplain is in cultivation for tomatoes or other crops, the bed of the stream supports a relatively mature assortment of sycamore and willow trees. The western end of the alignment crosses weedy disturbed coastal sage scrub for about 350 feet of its length. 2. 1 mpacts The Carlsbad Highlands draft EIR did not identify any significant biological impacts associated with the portion of Cannon Road which will be replaced by Alternate A. The loss of cultivated land and pasture land as a result of the Cannon Road new alignment is also not considered significant. The proposed Camelot westerly extension crossing of cultivated land is not considered significant. The 60-foot wide road will result in the loss of about five sycamore trees or 0.06 acres of riparian woodland. Implementation of the project will require the preparation of a California Department of Fish and Game 1603 Streambed Alteration agree- ment. It is the current policy of the Department of Fish and Game that 1603 agreements specify no net loss of wetland. With the inclusion of this permit requirement in the project and conformance with the conditions identified in the agreement, there is no significant impact to the riparian area. About 0.8 acre of disturbed non-disturbed coastal sage scrub will be lost as a result of Camelot Road construction. The I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I potential impact to the disturbed non-disturbed coastal sage scrub is not considered significant. The alternate Camelot extension will result in similar biological impacts as the proposed route. The exception is that this alignment will not impact any non-disturbed coastal sage scrub. 3. Mitigation With the inclusion of the 1603 agreement requirement in the project and conformance with the conditions identified in the agreement, there is no significant impact to the riparian area and no mitigation measures are required. Other impacts to biological resources are also not considered significant and no mitigation is required. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Existing Conditions A cultural resource survey was conducted of the Cannon Road Alternate A alignment and the two westerly extensions of Camelot Road. No archaeological or historical sites are located within the proposed alignments of both of these roads. 2. Impacts Since no cultural resources were found along the roadway alignments no significant impacts will occur. 3. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since no impacts have been identified. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C. NOISE 1. Existing Conditions The Cannon Road realignment is located in the city of Carlsbad, between the extension of College Boulevard and El Cam i no Real. Presently, the site is undeveloped. The road alignment runs east-west and passes by an existing mobile home park. As part of the design of the road, the possible effects of noise on the residents of the mobile home park were assessed. This assessment was completed using the Federal Highways Administration Noise Prediction Model. Because of the distance of the proposed alignment of Cannon Road, and the existence of a wall along the northern edge of the mobile home park, between the road and the park, noise resulting from traffic on Cannon Road in the mobile home park is well below the City of Carlsbad standard of 65 dBA CNEL. For the purposes of this study, the Federal Highway Administra- tion (FHWA) Noise Prediction Model was used to address vehicle noise. Cross sections were chosen to represent critical points in describing the noise environment on the property and how it is affected by topography and road alignments. A cross section was placed near El Camirio_Real, near College Boulevard, and in the central area of the alignment. The grade of the proposed alternative is below the mobile home park near El Camino, and above the park near College. Cannon Road is classified as a major road. The predicted noise levels are based on a future average daily traffic (ADT) of 14,800 ADT. This buildout volume was provided by SANDAG (McFarlan 1987:Personal Communications). A traffic mix of 95, 3, and 2 percent for autos, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, respectively, was used. The equivalent lane distance was used for the placement of the noise sources, barriers, and receptors. The noise model input parameters are shown in Table 1. This data describes receptors placed at several points on the property. This information was used to determine future noise levels and to create a contour map of L^n noise levels for the year 2005. 2. Impacts The General Plan of the City of Carlsbad establishes 65 dBA Ldn as the noise level normally acceptable for residential development. Table 2 presents the results of the calculations for the data provided in Table 1, and Figure 3 shows noise contours projected for the project area in the year 2005. Future traffic volumes on Cannon Road will not result in an L^n noise level in excess of 65 dBA for receptors in the existing mobile home park. TABLE 1 NOISE MODEL PARAMETERS Subtended Angle Receptor Reference Level for Cannon Near El Camino Center of Mobile Home Park Near College Left -87 -87 -85 -87 Right 87 87 87 87 Source to Barrier (feet) 50 272 462 149 Barrier to Receptor (feet) 0 15 15 15 Height of Barrier (feet) 0 15 5 -5 Height of Receptor (feet) 5 15 5 -5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 2 NOISE MODEL RESULTS Daytime Nighttime Receptor Hourly Leq Hourly Leq Reference level for Cannon 68 62 Near El Camino 51 45 Central Area 48 42 Near College 56 50 Ldn _ 70 53 50 58 FIGURE 3. NOISE CONTOURS RESULTING FROM 14800 ADT ON PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF CANNON ROAD • flECCW, R-1201A 3/87 I I 3. Mitigation • Since there will be no significant noise impact, as a result of • the proposed alignment of Cannon Road, no mitigation measures are required. I I I I I I I I A* I I I I I I I I 11