HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-05; Poinsettia Shores PA A-2; Tentative Map (CT) (3)INDOOR AND OUTDOOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR
POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREA A-2)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Report # 94-94
June 7, 1994
Prepared For:
KAIZA POINSETTIA CORPORATION
7220 Avenida Encinas
Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Prepared By:
Fred Greve, P.E.
Tanya Nguyen
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
280 Newport Center Drive
Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7528
(714)760-0891
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
Page 1
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR
POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREA A-2)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
The rear yard areas in Planning Area A-2 must comply with the City of Carlsbad's 60 CNEL
outdoor noise standard. The analysis indicates that the of the rear yard areas along Avenida
Encinas will be exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL, and therefore, will require
mitigation in terms of noise barriers. Noise barriers of 6 and 6.5 feet are required for the rear
yard areas of Lots 140 through 146 adjacent to Avenida Encinas. The noise barriers should be
relative to the pad elevations of the lots. The required noise barrier heights and locations are
shown below in Table S-l and Exhibit S.
Table S-l
REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION
LOT # BARRIER HEIGHT (FT)
ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS
140 6.5
141 through 146 6.0
NOTE: Noise barriers should be relative to the pad elevations of the lots.
With the required noise barriers, all outdoor living areas in the project will meet the City's 60
CNEL outdoor noise standard. The noise barriers are required to have a surface density of at
least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be constructed of
wood studs with stucco exterior, 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material,
or a combination of these material.
«ii 6 ft Barrier
•—• 5.5 ft Barrier
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit S
Noise Barrier Height and Location
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
Page 2
INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
The buildings along Avenida Encinas will experience traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dBA
CNEL. The analysis indicates that the buildings in the project will experience a worst case traffic
noise level of approximately 65.6 dBA. This results in a maximum outdoor to indoor noise
building attenuation of approximately 20.6 dBA in order to meet the City of Carlsbad's 45 CNEL
interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations which demonstrate the noise reduction
levels are necessary for residential building attenuation requirements of greater than 20 dB.
The noise analysis was based on the architectural plans titled"Poinsettia Shores Planning Areas
A-l and A-2, The Village of Deauville", prepared by H Architects Lorimer«Case, April 27,1994.
The construction specifications for this project which were utilized in estimating the outdoor to
indoor noise reduction are presented below.
Roof is attic space construction and incorporates concrete tiles on the exterior with
gypsum drywall on the interior surface. This roof includes fiberglass insulation in
stud cavity and is sloped.
Exterior walls are wood stud construction with stucco siding and minimum 1/2 inch
gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include fiber glass insulation in
stud cavity.
Standard glass window has minimum single-strength plate glass.
Standard sliding glass door has minimum 3/16 inch glazed glass.
French entry door has solid core 1-314 inch thick wood and weather-stripping.
The results of the analysis indicated that with the standard constructions described above, the
buildings in the project will achieve outdoor to indoor noise attenuations of greater than the required
maximum noise reduction (20.6 dBA). Therefore, no building upgrades are required for any of the
buildings in the project.
A number of units along the roadway will require windows closed to achieve the interior noise
standard of 45 CNEL. In order to assume windows can remain closed to achieve this required
attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per Uniform Building
Code. This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The system must
supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-aip air obtained
directly from the outside. 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. Air conditioning is an adequate substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets
the UBC (Section 1205 (c)) requirements. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all units of
the buildings in Lots 140 through 146 along Avenida Encinas.
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
Page 3
INDOOR AND OUTDOOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR
POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREA A-2)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of Planning Area A-2 with the noise
related 'Conditions of Approval1 placed on the project by the City of Carlsbad. The project calls
for the development of single-family residential units. The report addresses the future exterior
and interior noise levels at the project site. The project site is located adjacent to AvenidaEncinas
as shown in Exhibit 1. The project will be exposed primarily to traffic noise from Avenida
Encinas, This study determines the need for any exterior and interior mitigation measures to
provide adequate protection for the residential units in the project.
2.0 NOISE CRITERIA
The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is
the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL 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 of the human ear. Time weighting
refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for
occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 PM to 10 PM) penalizes noises by 5 dB
while nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) noises are penalized by 10 dB. These time periods and
penalties were selected to reflect peoples sensitivity to noise as a function of activity.
The City of Carlsbad noise standards require that outdoor living areas not exceed a noise level of
60 CNEL. The City's indoor noise standard is 45 CNEL.
3.0 ROADWAY NOISE
The noise levels projected in the next section of this report were computed using the Highway
Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWAHighway 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. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many
distances until the distance to 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found.
Mitigation through the design and construction 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 on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise
barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the
barrier. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. The FHWA model was also
used here in computerized format to determine barrier heights.
The future traffic volume for Avenida Encinas was taken from the traffic study "Traffic Impact
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
HICHWAYr—^S
OCEAN
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OFSAN MARCOS
CITY OF ENCINITAS
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
Page 4
Analysis for Kaiza Poinsettia Development, Zone 9" prepared by P & D Technologies, April
1991. The traffic was projected for Year 2010. A vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (mph)was
utilized. The traffic distribution estimates are based upon traffic surveys, and are considered
typical for arterials in Southern California. The traffic volume and speed utilized are presented in
Table 1. The tune and traffic distributions utilized are presented in Table 2 and is considered a
worst case assumption for Avenida Encinas.
Table 1
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED
ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED
Avenida Encinas 6,900 40
Table 2
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME
OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT
VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
75.51
1.56
0.64
12.57
0.09
0.02
9.34
0.19
0.08
Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are
reported here in Table 3 are in terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These
represent the distances from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that
the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may
affect the roadway noise exposure. In addition, the wall and observer are calculated per the
FHWA Manual and are included in the Appendix.
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
PageS
Table 3
DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS
FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR (FT)
ROADWAY SEGMENT -70- -65- -60-
AVENIDA ENCINAS
Soft Site- 19 42 90
The results in Table 3 indicate that the rear yard areas along Avenida Encinas will be exposed to
traffic noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL. The nearest rear yard will experience a worst case
unmitigated traffic noise level of approximately 66.1 CNEL. The nearest building along Avenida
Encinas will experience a worst case traffic noise level of approximately 65.6 CNEL.
4.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION
Mitigation through the design and construction 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 on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise
barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and a 6 foot receiver is broken
by the barrier. The greater the distance the sound must travel around the barrier to reach the
receiver, the greater the noise reduction of the barrier. The FHWA model was also used here in a
computerized format to determine barrier heights.
The analysis indicate that/tfievputdoor living areas along Avenida Encinas will require noise
barriers. Noise barriers QJJ5.5 knd 6 feet are required for Lots 140 through 146 along Avenida
Encinas. The noise barriex^sbould be relative to the pad elevations of the lots. The required
noise barrier heights and locations are shown below in Table 4 and Exhibit 2.
Table 4
REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION
LOT # BARRIER HEIGHT (FT)
ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS
140 6.5
141 through 146 6.0
NOTE: Noise barriers should be relative to the pad elevations of the lots.
mi 6 ft Barrier
-—• 6.5 ft Barrier
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 2
Noise Barrier Height and Location
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
Page 6
The above required noise barriers will cause the combined noise levels for all outdoor living
areas to fall below 60 CNEL. The noise barriers are required to have a surface density of at least
3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be constructed of wood
studs with stucco exterior, 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a
combination of these material.
7.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
The buildings along Avenida Encinas will be experience a worst case traffic noise level of
approximately 65.6 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings will require a worst case outdoor to
indoor noise attenuation of 20.6 dBA in order to meet the City of Carlsbad 45 CNEL interior
noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations which demonstrate the noise reduction levels
are necessary for residential building attenuation requirements of greater than 20 dB.
To comply with the interior noise standard the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to
indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise levels down to acceptable levels. The outdoor to
indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission
loss of each of the building elements which make up the building. Each unique building element
has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units the critical building elements are the
roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction
achieved is dependent on the transmission loss of each element and the area of that element in
relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in
determining the total noise reduction.
For interior noise analysis, the most direct way of computing the total noise reduction is through
the use of the methodology published by the Federal Highway Administration ("Insulation of
Buildings Against Highway Noise," FHWA TS 77-202). This methodology consists of
applying a single number rating concept weighted for highway noise. The FHWA methodology
incorporates the Exterior Wall Noise Rating scale (EWNR). This is similar to the more
traditional Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating except that EWNR is specifically weighted
for transportation noise sources. The FHWA has published EWNR data for the noise reduction
characteristics of various building elements and construction techniques. This noise attenuation
data is based upon empirically derived data on construction materials in practice today.
The noise analysis were based on the architectural plans titled "Poinsettia Shores Planning Areas
A-l and A-2, The Village of Deauville", prepared by H Architects Lorimer»Case, April 27, 1994
The construction specifications for this project which were utilized in estimating the outdoor to
indoor noise reduction are presented below.
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
Page?
Roof is attic space construction and incorporates concrete tiles on the exterior with
gypsum drywall on the interior surface. This roof includes fiberglass insulation in
stud cavity and is sloped.
Exterior walls are wood stud construction with stucco siding and minimum 112 inch
gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include fiberglass insulation in
stud cavity.
Standard glass window has minimum single-strength plate glass.
Standard sliding glass door has minimum 3/16 inch glazed glass.
Entry door has solid core 1-314 inch thick wood and weather-stripping.
To assess compliance of the project with the interior noise standard, a worst case room for each
building plan was selected for analysis. In general, the worst case room is the second story
corner room with the greatest amount of window area. Corner rooms have more exterior surface
area for noise infiltration. Rooms with large window areas have the least noise reduction,
because windows typically are the weakest part of the structure. Table 5 displays some sample
of the building element areas and EWNR values (as given by the FHWA) used to compute the
total noise reduction. The total outdoor to indoor noise reductions without upgrades are given in
Table 5.
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
PageS
Table 5
DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE
REDUCTION WITHOUT UPGRADES
BUILDING AREA EWNR
ELEMENT (SQ. FT.) (DB)
without upgrades
Plan B - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom
Roof 240 36
Wall 188 40
Window (sliding) 30 22
Window (fixed) 30 26
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 25.5
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 20.6
Plan B - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom (Optional deck)
Roof 240 36
Wall 188 40
Window (sliding) 15 22
Window (fixed) 30 26
Door (entry) 19 35
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 26.8
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 20.6
Plan B - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #2
Roof 201 36
Wall 144 40
Window (sliding) 20 22
Window (fixed) 20 26
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 26.0
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 20.6
Plan B - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #3
Roof 213 36
Wall 225 40
Window (sliding) 30 22
Window (entry) 19 35
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 26.5
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 20.6
Plan C - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom (Balcony)
Roof 322 36
Wall 128 40
Window (sliding) 75 22
Window (entry) 19 35
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 23.8
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 20.6
Mestre Greve Associates
Planning Area A-2
Page 9
Table 5 (continued)
DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE
REDUCTION WITHOUT UPGRADES
BUILDING AREA EWNR
ELEMENT (SQ. FT.) (DB)
without upgrades
Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #2
Roof 160 36
Wall 195 40
Window (sliding) 45 22
Window (entry) 38 24
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 23.5
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 20.6
Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #3
Roof 130 36
Wall 154 40
Window (sliding) 30 22
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 25.2
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 20.6
The results show that with the standard construction plans the total outdoor to indoor noise
reduction with windows closed for the worst case rooms in each plan is greater than the
maximum required attenuation (20.6 dB). Thus, the buildings in the project will meet the interior
noise standard of 45 CNEL with no building upgrades as currently designed, assuming
windows are closed.
With windows open, the outdoor to indoor noise reduction of a building falls to 12 dBA.
Therefore windows must be closable for units experiencing an outdoor noise level greater than
57 CNEL. In order to assume windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation,
adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per Uniform Building Code. This
can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The system must supply two air
changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from
the outside. 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. Air
conditioning is an adequate substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the UBC
(Section 1205 (c)) requirements. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all units of the
buildings in Lots 140 through 146 along Avenida Encinas.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART H
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 94-Q4/PUD 94-03
CT 94-05/PUD 94-04
DATE: JANUARY 24. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Areas "A-l" and "A-2"
2. APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida Encinas - Suite 200
Carlsbad. CA 92008
f619) 931-9100
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 4. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two planning areas within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan: (1) Area
"A-l" consisting of 36 single family detached homes on 5.000 sq. ft. minimum sized lots on 8.4 acres
and (2) Area "A-2" consisting of 49 single family detached homes on 5.000 sq. ft. minimum sized lots
on 10.5 acres. Both planning areas are consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
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 or Negative Declaration.
* 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. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate
this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project
may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however,
if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are
shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
Note: If "YES-sig" 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 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.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? X
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features? X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site? X
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality? X
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? X
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply? X
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources? X
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object? X
-2-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? X
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects? X
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? X
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
-3-
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
19. Result in the need far new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems? X
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterbome, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20. Increase existing noise levels? X
21. Produce new light or glare? X
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X
-4-
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life 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 en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed hi connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
YES
(ag)
YES
(insig)
NO
_JL_
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project involves two planning areas ("A-l" and "A-2") within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan located
west of Interstate 5, east of Carlsbad Boulevard and north of Batiquitos Lagoon in the southwest quadrant of
the City (Location Map attached). Planning Area "A-l" (8.4 acres) is designated for up to 41 detached single
family residential units; 36 units are proposed. Planning Area "A-2" (10.5 acres) is designated for up to 50
detached single family residential units; 49 units are proposed. Reduced exhibits are attached showing the
proposed development for each of the subject planning areas. The project area has been mass graded with the
approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94) in August 1994. Approval of CT 94-01
followed the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175-D) in January 1994. Each of these
approvals (CT 94-01, MP 175-D) involved Mitigated Negative Declarations which set forth the environmental
mitigation measures required for the mass grading of the master plan property and development of the individual
planning areas. Prior to the Poinsettia Shores approvals, the master plan property was known as the Batiquitos
Lagoon Educational Park which was approved with the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR
84-03). All environmental impacts associated with the development of the master plan property have been
identified. Based on all environmental review and documentation, the master plan contains required
environmental mitigation measures on a planning area by planning areas basis. The development proposals for
PA's "A-l" and "A-2" are in compliance with the master plans's mitigation requirements. This subsequent,
planning area level, "Initial Study" is intended to supplement the existing environmental documents covering
the master plan property. Pertinent mitigation measures have either been already completed or have been
considered/implemented in the project's design. Because of this, no new environmental impacts will result from
the approval and development of these planning areas and this project will be determined to be found in prior
compliance with existing environmental review and documentation.
Construction and development pursuant to CT 94-01 will provide the necessary infrastructure to allow the
development of the master plan's planning areas including PA's "A-l" and "A-2". This includes the construction
of Avenida Enemas (a Circulation Element roadway per the City's General Plan) with a new bridge over the
railroad tracks and a new intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard, mass grading of the site and required drainage
facilities. Required grading for the development of the subject planning areas will require a grading permit,
however, only consists of final finish grading of mass graded areas.
Since the approvals of the existing Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, the
City, in September 1994, certified a Final Master Environmental Impact Report for an update of the General
Plan. The certified Master EIR (and all referenced environmental documents) is on file in the Planning
Department. The Master EIR (MEIR) serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for
subsequent projects Citywide that are consistent with the General Plan. Subsequent projects under the Master
EIR for the General Plan include the approval of development plans which implement General Plan land use
designations including tentative maps, planned development permits, condominium permits, site development
plans and other land use permits.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. As documented in EIR 84-03 and the Mitigated Negative Declarations for MP 175(D) and CT 94-01, the
site is not located near any active faults and no geologic conditions exist that would constrain the
development of the subject planning areas or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards. Development of PA "A-l" will involve approximately 13,900 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut, 20,600
c.y. of fill with 6,700 cy of import; PA "A-2" involves 22,000 cy of cut, 18,800 cy of fill and 3,200 cy
of export. All grading will be pursuant to standard grading permits issued by the Engineering
Department. This ensures that the project has proper erosion control measures and conforms with the
City's Master Drainage Plan.
2. The master plan property is mostly flat except for the lagoon bluff areas which has not been altered
through mass grading. The subject planning areas have been mass graded to accommodate refined
finished grading at the planning area level and have no unique physical features associated with them.
3. Mass grading associated CT 94-01 included drainage facilities and temporary detention basins to prevent
the erosion of soils on or off the site. In addition, the subject planning areas will be conditioned to
comply with the City's Grading Ordinance and standard landscaping and erosion control measures to
prevent soil erosion as well as adverse soil erosion offsite into Batiquitos Lagoon.
4. Development of the subject planning areas will not affect the natural sand movement patterns of the
nearby coastal littoral area. No changes will occur to the channels or any streams of the Batiquitos
Lagoon.
5. Previous environmental documentation for the site including the Mitigated Negative Declarations for
Poinsettia Shores discussed air quality, however, these discussions have now been superseded by the Air
Quality Section (5.3) of the General Plan Update Master EJR (MEIR). Implementation of the updated
General Plan, including projects in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, will result in increased gas and
electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. In turn, increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates will result.
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 could be
considered significant. Therefore, continued development to Citywide buildout consistent with the
General Plan, as partially represented by the development proposals for the subject Master Plan planning
areas, will have impacts on the air quality of the region.
Because of this, the checklist on page 2 is marked "significant" for this item. However, the certification
of the MEIR, by City Council 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 MEIR, inlcuding projects in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan,
therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required.
6. Approval of the subject planning areas will not impact or substantially change air movements, odor,
moisture or temperature. Standard grading conditions and procedures will minimize dust impacts during
grading and construction phases.
7. The project will not have any impacts on the physical dynamics of the Batiquitos Lagoon or Pacific
Ocean. Drainage infrastructure has been provided by CT 94-01 and the project will be subject to a
grading permit so that compliance with the City's Master Drainage Plan and the drainage section of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9 (which covers the master plan property) will be maintained
-7-
and no environmental impacts will result. This is also consistent with the existing Mitigated Negative
Declarations for Poinsettia Shores.
8. No significant surface waters exist on the mass graded planning area sites. In addition, ground water
resources are not associated with the master plan property or planning area sites as noted in the existing
Mitigated Negative Declarations. Appropriate drainage facilities are provided in conjunction with the
infrastructure associated with CT 94^01 to accommodate the increases in surface runoff and runoff
velocities resulting from development induced impervious surfaces and reduced absorption rates.
Drainage from roofs, streets, driveways, slopes and yards within the subject planning areas would
constitute a potentially significant impact to water quality due to urban pollutant runoff. However, the
project will be conditioned to comply with all grading permit requirements including provisions of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) so that any potential water quality impacts
including impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon will be reduced to below a level of significance. This is also
consistent with the existing Mitigated Negative Declarations associated with the master plan and master
tentative map.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 94-01 documents the lack of any significant natural resources
on the site and the previous use of the site for agriculture; the conversion from former agricultural uses
to urban uses as been mitigated prior to the final map approval of CT 94-01 consistent with that project's
Mitigated Negative Declaration through the payment and bonding of appropriate conversion fees.
10. Fuel and energy will be used during the grading and construction phases of this project in the form of
gasoline and fuel. This will be a short term impact that will not create a significant adverse impact to
fuel and energy resources.
11. EIR 84-3 for the former educational park master plan identified four archeological sites within the master
plan property; three were determined to be significant. Follow up data recovery efforts were carried out
by archeologist Brian Smith and summarized in the report, "The Archeological Excavations of Cultural
Resources at Sites W-84, W-88, W-95, W-97 and W-2251" incorporated herein by reference and on file
in the Planning Department. One of the sites had human remains which have since been reinterred in
an open space area within the master plan with the coordination and direction of a qualified Archeologist
and Native American Coordinator. This was done in compliance with the mitigation measures of EIR
84-3. As concluded hi the above referenced report, the sites are no longer considered significant. As
documented in the Mitigated Negative Declarations for MP 175(D) and CT 94-01, further mitigation to
allow mass grading of the master plan property and planning area development involved the retention of
an archeologist and paleontologist to monitor the mass grading effort. As part of the implementation of
the approval of CT 94-01, all cultural resource monitorings have been completed in compliance with
applicable City regulations and policies. No potential exists for adverse significant impacts to cultural
resources from grading or development of the master plan or the subject planning areas. Ensuring the
monitoring of cultural resources during mass grading of the site (through CT 94-01) has occurred with
regards to Planning Area "A-l" and "A-2". No historical sites, structures or objects are associated with
the master plan site or subject planning areas as documented in previous environmental reviews for the
area.
-8-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12/13. The Mitigated Negative Declarations fat MP 175(D) and CT 94-01 outline the lack of sensitive
biological resources on the master plan site. Sensitive biological resources are limited to the lagoon
and bluff areas or other sites located offsite from the subject planning areas. Consistent with the
existing Mitigated Negative Declarations, the development of the subject planning areas will not
adversely impact any biological resources. No plant species exist onsite, therefore, barriers to the
normal replenishment of existing species will not be created. Project landscaping associated with the
subject planning areas will be the only plants introduced into the area. Project level landscaping and
associated erosion control does not constitute a significant environmental impact. Biological impacts
resulting from the construction of major infrastructure (drainage alignments and facilities) have already
been identified and mitigated with CT 94-01.
14. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 94-01 outlines the historical use of the master plan site
including the subject planning areas for agriculture. Pursuant to that project and associated
environmental review, all outstanding agricultural conversion fees have been paid or bonded for with
the mass grading allowed with CT 94-01. No further mitigation measures are required and no impacts
to agricultural areas or farmlands of importance will result from the development of the subject planning
areas. As also outlined in previous environmental documents for the site, onsite soils are mostly Marina
loamy coarse sand (M1Q which is not considered "prime" agricultural lands per the Williamson Act
definition.
15/16. As discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declarations for MP 175(D) and CT 94-01, there is minimum
habitat value for animal species in the project area which has been recently mass graded. The exception
would be the animal biodiversity associated with the lagoon and adjacent wetland areas which will
remain open space and are located offsite and away from the subject planning areas so that there will
be no impacts to the habitats or diversity of sensitive animal species associated with Batiquitos Lagoon;
or their natural patterns of movements or migrations. The biological resources of the lagoon will not
be impacted by the development of the planning areas within the master plan. Domesticated animals
in the form of household pets will likely be introduced into the area by future residents; however, this
will not significantly impact the diversity or habitat of animal species.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The project will not alter the planned land uses of the subject sites as designated by the General Plan and
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Land uses and densities proposed for the subject planning areas are
consistent the master plan.
18. The project is located within Zone 9 per the City's Growth Management Ordinance. As documented in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT 94-01, development of the master plan including the subject
planing areas will not adversely impact any public services or facilities. The project is consistent with
the City's Growth Management Ordinance and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9. Public
service and facility impacts, and financing, have been accounted for with the final map approval of CT
94-01 to accommodate the master plans's residential/planning area development. In addition, the
applicant has entered into a schools agreement with the School District to mitigate school facility impacts.
-9-
19. Previous environmental reviews have documented the lack of a need for new or modified solid waste or
hazardous waste control systems. Infrastructure needs including sewer alignments and service have been
accounted for with CT 94-01. This project will receive standard conditions of approval ensuring adequate
sewer service.
20. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, which implements the mitigation requirements of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared for MP 175(D) on a planning area by planning area basis, requires that
every residential planning area be subject to a noise study that ensures compliance with the City's noise
policy. In accordance, PA's "A-l" and "A-2" have been designed to attenuate noise levels impacting their
projects in conformance with the City's noise policy to reduce noise impacts to below a level of
significance. The approval and development of the subject planning areas will not increase existing noise
levels to a level of significant environmental impact.
21. Through the site design and conditions of approval for the subject planning areas, no light or glare will
be directed offsite to adjacent planning areas or outside of the master plan property. Lighting within
planning areas will be low intensity and shielded from upward reflections. New light associated with the
development of the subject planning areas will not be a significant environmental impact.
22. The finish grading and construction proposed for the subject planning areas will not involve the
application, use or disposal of hazardous materials or substances so as to create a significant
environmental impact.
23. The approval and development of the subject planning areas will not substantially alter the density of the
human population of the area since only the densities already allowed by the General Plan and the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan are proposed. The allowed densities associated with this project are also
consistent with the City's Growth Management Program and the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP). The proposed densities of 4.3 du/ac ("A-l") and 4.7 du/ac (A-2) are within the Residential
Medium (RM) General Plan designation established by the master plan for the subject planning areas.
The RM designation allows a range of 4-8 du/ac, with a Growth Control Point of 6 du/ac.
24. The project proposes to construct market rate residential dwelling units on PA's "A-l" and "A-2"
consistent with the governing master plan. Existing housing stocks in the City will not be impacted by
this project. There will be no demand for additional housing created by the development of the subject
planning areas. This project will supply housing units; not create a need for additional housing.
25. The development of the subject planning areas will increase traffic in the area. However, as discussed
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for MP 175(D), the master plan at buildout will generate
approximately half of the traffic associated with the former educational park master plan as documented
in the applicant's traffic study by Urban Systems Associates Inc., dated May 17, 1993. In addition, the
project will comply with the circulation improvement requirements of the master plan (MP 175-D) as well
as the master tentative map (CT 94-01) and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9 so that local
traffic impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance.
While the Mitigated Negative Declarations and previous environmental documents that exist for Poinsettia
Shores evaluated circulation impacts, those discussions have now been superseded by the Circulation
Section (5.7) of the General Plan Update Final Master EIR (MEIR); especially with regards to regional
traffic impacts. Implementation of the updated General Plan, including projects in the Poinsettia Shores
-10-
Master Plan, will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will 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 1-5
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard including the intersection
of Carlsbad Blvd/Avenida Encinas which is associated with this master plan property. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections Citywide are projected to fail
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
Mitigation measures have been recommended in the MEIR to reduce circulation impacts. These include
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need and provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, sidewalks and pedestrian linkages. 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.
While local traffic impacts for the subject planning areas can be mitigated to below a level of
significance, regional impacts associated with the development and buildout of the master plan in general
are still considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout due to
regional through-traffic. Therefore, the checklist on page 4 is marked "significant" for this item. The
recent certification of the General Plan MEIR, 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 MEIR, including projects within the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is
required.
26. No existing parking facilities will be affected by the buildout the master plan including development of
the subject planning areas. The parking demand created by each planning area will be accommodated
by the provision of required parking spaces and facilities within each planning area.
27. Infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 including the Avenida Encinas roadway will provide alternative
circulation routes which could alter the present patterns of circulation or the movement of people and/or
goods. The subject planning areas will contribute to the buildout of the master plan which will impact
transportation systems and nearby intersections identified in the General Plan MEIR. Because of this,
the checklist on page 4 is marked "significant" for this item for the same reasons as discussed above
under #25 of this Initial Study.
28. The master plan site and subject planning areas are outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence
area so no impacts to or from air traffic will result. No waterborne traffic occurs in the vicinity and the
operations of the railroad right of way will not be impacted by the approval and development of the
subject planning areas.
29. The master plan circulation system as well as the design of the subject planning areas will include
standard provisions for transportation systems accommodating vehicles, with bicycle lanes and sidewalks
for pedestrian movements, so that there will be no increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
or pedestrians. There will be no significant conflicts with competing modes of transportation.
30. As documented in the MP 175(D) Mitigated Negative Declaration, no impacts to City emergency
response plans will result from buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
-11-
planning areas. In addition, the subject planning areas have been reviewed by all pertinent City
departments to ensure that there will be no impacts to any emergency response procedures or evacuation
plans.
31. Previous environmental documentation, including the MP 175(D) Mitigated Negative Declaration, does
not identify any potential significant aesthetic or visual impacts associated with the development of the
subject planning areas. Development of the proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vistas or create
an aesthetically offensive public view.
32. No impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities will be created by the
development of the subject planning areas. Residents of PA's "A-l" and "A-2" will have access to the
master plan recreation center, PA "M" (SDP 94-03), hi addition to the private recreation area associated
with unit.
-12-
ANALYSIS OF 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 project, and
rr\ n/i nmies*t oltAtnatii/A
* f
g) no project alternative.
a) Planning area phasing will not offer superior environmental benefits since proposed land uses are consistent
with MP 175(D) and major infrastructure and mass grading as been provided with CT 94-01.
b) Alternate site designs were analyzed during the processing of the subject planning areas, however, the
proposed site plans meet all development standards and design criteria as required by the master plan.
c) The proposed scale of planning area development is consistent with the allowed dwelling units and permitted
land uses for the subject planning areas.
d)N/A
e) Development at some future tune, although feasible, would not be environmentally superior since all potential
environmental impacts have been identified and mitigated. All approvals, infrastructure and mitigation of
potential environmental impacts are in place or have been completed to allow the approval and development
of the subject planning areas at this time.
f) The subject planning areas are specifically designed for the implementation of the Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan. Relocation of the project to another site is neither logical nor necessary.
g) The no project alternative would leave the subject planning area undeveloped which is not consistent with
the master plan or City's General Plan.
-13-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X 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 EIR/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR/Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that have been imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance has been 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 projects A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature
Date Planning Director
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE)
-14-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
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
ENM:Ih
January 24, 1995
-15-