Loading...
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-