HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-06; Poinsettia Shores PA A-3; Tentative Map (CT) (5)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 94-06/PUD 94-05 and CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
DATE: March 22. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Areas A-3 and A-4
2. APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-9100
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 25. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two planning areas within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan: (1) Area "A-3"
consisting of 50 detached single family homes on 5.000 sq ft minimum lots on 10.7 acres, and (2) Area
"A-4" consisting of 61 detached single family homes on 5.000 sq ft minimum lots on 12.6 acres. Both
planning areas involve Tentative Tract Maps (to subdivide land) and Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Permits pursuant to the City's Planned Development Ordinance and are consistent with the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
- Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
X Air Quality X Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 1/30/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect hi 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 are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 0
N-
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director Signature(—' Date
Rev. 1/30/95
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 hi the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and (c) none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all of the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental
document have been required or incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document
is required (Prior Compliance).
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.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
Rev. 1/30/95
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part n analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #1)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source tt's: 1,3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #1)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source tt's: 1,2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #1)
JL.
X
X
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #1)
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source tf's: 2,4)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #*s: 2,4)
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source Ws: 2,4)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #*s: 2,4)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source tf's: 2,4)
f) Erosion, changes hi topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Source #*s: 2,4)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source tf's: 2,4)
h) Expansive soils? (Source tf's: 2,4)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source tf's:
2,4)
JC_
X
JL
X
X
X
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source
#s: 2,5)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #*s: 2,5)X
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Source ^s: 2,5)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? (Source t's: 2,5)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #2)
f) Change hi the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JL
X
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any ah" quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
^s: 1,2,8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source tf's:
1,2)
c) Alter ah" movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source #*s: 1,2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source tt's: 1,2)
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#s: 1,6,8)
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#fe 1,2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #*$: 1,2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #*s: 1,2)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #s: 1,2)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #*s: 1,2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source #s: 1,2)
X
_ JL_
X
VH. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #s: 1,2,3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source ^s: 1,2)
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source
1,2,3)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source ^s: 1,2,3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source tf's: 1,2,3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #*s: 1,2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #*s: 1,2)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#s: 1,2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source tf's:
1,2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
tf's: 1,2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source tf's: 1,2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source tf's: 1,2)
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #*s:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source tf's: 1,2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source #*s: 1,7)
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source tt's: 1,9)
b) Police protection? (Source tf's: 1,9)
c) Schools? (Source ^s: 1,9)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source tf's: 1,9)
e) Other governmental services? (Source tf's: 1,9)
XH. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source Ws: 1,9)
b) Communications systems? (Source #1)
JL.
x
10 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source tf's: 1,9)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #*s: 1,9)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source tf's: 1,9)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source tf's: 1,9)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source tf's: 1,9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Xni. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #1)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #1)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #1)
JL
X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source tf's: 1,2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source tt's: 1,2)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source Ws: 1,2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source ^s: 1,2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source tf's: 1,2)
11 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#1)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#1)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of 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 endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
12 Rev. 1/30/95
XVH. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of
the CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. All pertinent
earlier analyses have been identified at the beginning of the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.
The Source Documents identified have been cited as appropriate in the checklist and environmental
discussion.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
1. Air Quality and Circulation Impacts: Statements of Overriding Consideration made with the City's
General Plan Master EIR (Source Document #8).
2. Archeological and Paleontological Impacts: Mass grading monitoring required by Source Document #1
and 2.
3. Noise Impacts: Noise study (Source #7) was required by Source Document #1.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Mitigation measures specific to this project include: (1) Archeological and paleontological monitoring which
was carried out during the mass grading of the site in accordance with the approval of CT 94-01, and (2)
noise mitigation designed into the project pursuant to a site specific noise analysis conducted for the
proposed project.
13 Rev. 1/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1161)
1. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact
Assessment Form Part H dated July 26, 1993.
2. Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental
Impact Assessment Form Part n dated April 1, 1994.
3. West Batiquitos LCP certified by the Coastal Commission May 12, 1994
4. Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants dated June 4, 1986.
5. Hydrology Study prepared by O'Day Consultants dated April 30, 1993.
6. Transportation Analysis for Poinsettia Shores by Urban Systems Associated dated May 17, 1993.
7. Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l by Mestre Greve Associates dated July 19, 1994.
Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-2 by Mestre Greve Associates dated June 29, 1994.
8. City of Carlsbad General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 approved by City Council Resolution No. 94-246.
9. Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) documents including amendment LFMP 87-09(A) (approved
January 4, 1994) and the Zone 9 Finance Plan (approved September 6, 1994)
PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Planning Areas A-3 and A-4 are proposed in full compliance with all applicable provisions of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan. The proposed densities are within the limits established by the master plan which designated these
planning areas with Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designations. Area A-3 proposes 50 detached single
family homes (51 allowed) on 5,000 sq ft minimum sized lots and Area A-4 proposes 61 detached single family
homes (62 allowed) on 5,000 sq ft minimum sized lots. The proposed architecture for A-3 and A-4 is the same
featuring three floor plan types that range from approximately 2,340 sq ft to 3,175 sq ft. All plan types have a
maximum building height of 28 1/2 feet. All applicable development standards and design criteria are complied
with. Areas A-3 and A-4 are within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as shown on the attached Location Map.
The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175-D) was approved in January 1994 and incorporated a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Source Document #1) which was intended to identify environmental impacts and related
mitigation measures to allow the buildout of the residential portion of the master plan. As a result, the master plan
contains environmental mitigation measures on a planning area by planning area basis. The subject planning areas
have either completed applicable mitigation measures or incorporated them into their project design. Subsequent
to the master plan approval, the Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01) was approved in August 1994
and incorporated another Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document #2) to allow mass grading of the
master plan property, construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway, and construction of drainage improvements
on the west side of the master plan site. The subject planning area sites are already mass graded from the approval
14 Rev. 1/30/95
of CT 94-01. All necessary infrastructure to serve the buildout of the residential planning areas has either already
been constructed or are financially secured to guarantee their construction concurrent with need.
Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a residential project, developed
consistent with applicable General Plan designations, to be determined in prior compliance with existing
environmental review if an EIR has been certified for the subject General Plan. Such is the case with the City's
General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01 (Source Document #6) certified in September 1994. This document
is referenced in addressing the Air Quality and Circulation impacts associated with master plan buildout.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION (The brief discussions below are intended to summarize and/or
supplement the evidence contained in the pertinent Source Documents as noted on the checklist).
1. Land Use and Planning
a)-c), e): The proposed planning areas implement the governing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in conformance
with all master plan standards and guidelines, the Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designation and the
coastal regulations of the West Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program (LCP).
d): All agricultural conversion fees required for the mass grading of the master plan site associated with the
approval of CT 94-01 have been paid or secured to the City's satisfaction. Mass grading of the site is near
completion at this time.
2. Population and Housing
a)-c): Local population projections and limits will not be exceeded by the buildout of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan including the development of the subject planning areas. Development of the Avenida Encinas
roadway and related infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 will induce the buildout of the master plan in
accordance with the General Plan and zoning regulations including Growth Management compliance.
3. Geologic Problems
a)-i): The sites for Planning Areas A-3 and A-4 have recently been mass graded per the approval of CT 94-
01. Refined finish grading is required for the construction of building pads and internal roadways. A-3
requires approximately 4,300 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 13,500 cy of fill and 9,200 cy yards of import. A-4
requires approximately 17,100 cy of cut, 21,300 cy of fill and 4,200 cy yards of import. Standard grading
permit procedures will apply. No seismic, geologic of surface substrate hazards are associated with the master
plan site including the subject planning area sites.
4. Water
a)-i): The development of streets and residential units will increase the amount of impervious areas and
change existing absorption rates, however, all proposed drainage for buildout of the master plan's residential
planning areas meets City and Engineering Department standards. Major drainage infrastructure has been
provided by approval of CT 94-01. No flood hazards will be created by the development of the subject
planning areas. No adverse impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon system will be created by the buildout of the
master plan including the subject planning areas. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards are required to reduce urban pollutant quantities in drainage runoff. No impacts to any groundwater
resources will be created by buildout of the master plan.
15 Rev. 1/30/95
5. Air Quality
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 and will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result hi
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the
San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions
are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and
intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through
the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient
building and site design; and 5) participation hi regional growth management strategies when adopted. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a
"non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies
to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
b)-d): Development of the subject planning areas will not expose sensitive receptor to known significantly
adverse pollutants or significantly change any air characteristics including moisture, temperature or odor.
6. Transportation/Circulation
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan and will result hi 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 freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected
to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
16 Rev. 1/30/95
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision
of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such
as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3)
participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from
a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of
the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study"
checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,
by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation
impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
b)-g): All streets will meet City standards, facilitate emergency vehicle access into the subject planning areas,
create no conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists and will not interfere with railroad activities. Various
master plan components incorporate bicycle racks, provisions for buses and mass transit and pedestrian trails
and linkages which will benefit the residents of the subject planning areas.
7. Biological Resources
a)-e): No biological resources or sensitive habitat are associated with the subject planning area sites. All open
space requirements of the master plan have been secured to allow buildout of the master plan. The Batiquitos
Lagoon and associated wetlands and sensitive bluffs will not be impacted by the development of Areas A-3
and A-4.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
a)-c): Non-renewable resources, energy and mineral resources will not be affected by the development of the
subject planning areas.
9. Hazards
a)-e): No hazards will be associated with the construction and development of the subject residential planning
areas. Emergency vehicle access is provided to adequately serve Areas A-3 and A-4. Flammable hazards or
explosion potential will not created by the project.
10. Noise
a): The development of residential dwelling units will not significantly increase existing noise levels.
b): As required previous environmental review and corresponding mitigation measures, Areas A-3 and A-4
have been designed pursuant to the recommendations of site specific noise studies to that compliance with the
City's Noise policy and element of the General Plan will be maintained and no significant noise impacts will
17 Rev. 1/30/95
result.
11. Public Services
a)-e): Both subject planning areas comply with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the requirements and
standards of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and related documents. Therefore, all necessary
public facilities and services will be adequately provided to serve the buildout of the master plan including
Areas A-3 and A-4.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
a)-g): Provisions for adequate utilities, water treatment, sewage, storm water drainage and water supplies have
been secured and/or accounted for via the infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 and compliance with the
Zone 9 LFMP. Coast Waste Management has reviewed the subject planning areas and have indicated that
adequate solid waste disposal service can be provided.
13. Aesthetics
a)-c): No scenic vista or highway considerations are pertinent to the subject planning areas. No aesthetic
impacts will result from development of Areas A-3 and A-4. Planning Area A-4 is a blufftop site and was
required to proposed development that will not adversely impact the aesthetic qualities of the blufftop area.
In response, the project complies with the master plan setback requirement of 100 feet from the bluff edge.
This setback distance is over twice the setback currently observed by the Rosalena subdivision's blufftop
homes (45 feet). In addition, a lower building height as measured to the peak is established for this planning
area as compared to the Rosalena homes or the development that would have been allowed under the previous
master plan for the site.
14. Cultural Resources
a)-e): No cultural resources of any kind are associated with the subject planning area sites. All required
archeological and paleontological monitoring that was required during the mass grading process has been
satisfactorily completed. No historic or significant ethnic cultural or religious resources will be impacted by
the development of Areas A-3 and A-4.
15. Recreation
a)-b): No recreational facilities currently exist on or near the subject planning areas. Passive recreation areas
are provided throughout the site designs of Areas A-3 and A-4 usually near the interface with the master plan's
trail system. Another planning area in the master plan (Area M) is designated and designed as a multiple use
active and passive recreation center intended for the use of master plan residents, including those of Areas A-3
and A-4. No impacts to recreational resources or opportunities will result from the development of the subject
planning areas.
18 Rev. 1/30/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION 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
19 Rev. 1/30/95
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
POINSETTIA SHORES
RA A-3--CT 94-06/PUD 94-05
RA. A-4--CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES
(PLANNING AREAA-3)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Report #94-117
July 1, 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
Carlsbad, CA 92660-7528
(714) 760-0891
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Pagel
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
TO MEET CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS
The outdoor living areas in Planning Area A-3 must comply with the City of Carlsbad outdoor
noise standard of 60 CNEL. A number of outdoor living areas facing the Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway (AT & SF), and Avenida Encinas will experience noise levels in excess of 60
CNEL, and therefore, will require exterior mitigation to comply with the noise standard. The
results indicate that required sound walls of 7.5 feet will be required for the lots adjacent to the
railroad in order to meet the City's 60 CNEL noise standard. Additionally, sound walls of 6 feet
will be required for the lots along Avenida Encinas. The sound walls will be required for the lots
adjacent to the AT & SF railway and Avenida Encinas, and should be relative to the top of slope.
The top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad elevation and the railroad or
roadway elevation. The noise barrier height and location are also shown in Table S-l and
Exhibit S. The data used in the noise barrier analysis is shown in the Appendix.
Table S-l
REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION
, Barrier Height (feet) Top-of-Wall
LOT # relative to top of slope Elevation
ALONG AT & SF RAILROAD
(below 60 CNEL for outdoor areas)
49 7.5 61.1
48 7.5 61.5
ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS
24 through 29 6.0
32, 33, 44, 47 6.0
NOTE: Sound wall should be relative to top of slope. Top of slope refers to the higher
elevation between the pad and the roadway or railroad elevation.
With the above noise barriers, all outdoor living areas in the project will be reduced to below 60
CNEL. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot,
and have no openings or cracks. The noise barriers may be a wall, berm, or a combination of the
two. The wall may be constructed of 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry
material, or a combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be acceptable if
properly designed as noise barriers.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit S
Noise Barrier Height and Location
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 2
INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
The proposed project must comply with the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The building at
the AT & SF railroad and Avenida Encinas intersection will experience a worst case combined
noise level 68.9 CNEL. The buildings along Avenida Encinas will experience a worst case noise
level of 64.0 CNEL. The results are maximum required outdoor to indoor attenuations of 24.9
dBA for the buildings along the railroad, and 19 dBA for the buildings along Avenida Encinas, in
order to meet the City of Carlsbad 45 CNEL interior noise standard.
Preliminary architectural drawings were provided by H. Architects Lorimer»Case, "Poinsettia
Shores Planning Area A-4, The "Village of Honfleur". 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 7/8 inch stucco siding and
minimum 1/2 inch gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include
fiberglass insulation in stud cavity.
Standard glass window has minimum 1116 inch single-strength plate glass.
Standard sliding glass door is 3116 inch glazed glass.
French door has solid core 1-314 inch thick wood with a minimum of 118 inch
glazed glass, and is weather stripped.
The results of the noise analysis indicate that the outdoor to indoor noise attenuations of the units
along the AT & SF railroad (Lots 48 and 49) will be less than the required noise reduction (24.9
dBA). Therefore, these units will required window upgrades in order to achieve the indoor
noise standard of 45 CNEL. (The units along Avenida Encinas will not require any building
upgrades). The following table identifies the building upgrades that will be necessary. The
upgrades are required for all windows of the units of any building plans in Lots 48 and 49 facing
the railroad, as specified in Table S-2.
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
PageS
Table S-2
REQUIRED BUILDING UPGRADES FOR SECOND FLOOR ONLY
UPGRADE REQUIRED
TYPE NOISE
PLAN UNIT (See list below) REDUCTION (DB)
UNITS FACING AT & SF RAILWAY IN LOTS 48 AND 49 ONLY
Plan A Corner optional master bedroom #2 B 24.9
Plan B
Plan C
Corner master bedroom
Corner bedrooms #2 and #3
Corner master bedroom
Corner bedrooms #3 and #4
B
A
A
B
24.9
24.9
24.9
24.9
UPGRADE TYPE LIST FOR TABLE S-2:
A. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); e.g. 1/4" Glazed operable window
B. EWNR = 26 (STC = 28); e.g. 3/8" Glazed operable window
NOTE: 1. Add 4 dB to all operable window ratings to get fixed window ratings.
2. Window and door call-outs above are examples; any windows or doors
with the same or higher STC/EWNR ratings may be used.
With the above required window upgrades in Lots 48 and 49 (only), all the homes in Planning
Area A-3 will meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL, assuming windows are closed. 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 acceptable 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 24 through 29. 32. 33. 44. 47 through 51 along Avenida Encinas and the
railroad.
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 4
NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREA A-3)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
!
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to address compliance of Planning Area A-3 with the City of
Carlsbad outdoor and indoor noise standards. The project is located in an incorporated area along
Avenida Encinas and the AT and SF railroad. The future noise environment at the site will be
affected by traffic and train noise. The vicinity map is presented in Exhibit 1. The site plan and
noise barrier locations are presented in Exhibit 2. This study determines the total outdoor to
indoor building noise attenuation and makes recommendations on methods to increase the
building noise reduction characteristics.
2.0 NOISE CRITERIA
The Noise Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan specifies outdoor and indoor noise
limits for various land-uses. The standards are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL or
Community Noise equivalent Level is a 24 hour time weighted annual average noise level. Time
weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during the evening period (7 PM to 10 PM) is
penalized by 5 dB, while nighttime (10PM to 7 AM) noises are penalized by 10 dB. These time
periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's sensitivity to noise as a function of
activity. The exterior noise limit for outdoor living areas is 60 CNEL. The interior noise level
standard is 45 CNEL.
Grading plans were provided by O'Day Consultants, "Site Development Plan for Poinsettia
Shores Planning Area A-3", April 22, 1994. Preliminary architectural drawings were provided
by H. Architects Lorimer»Case, "Poinsettia Shores Planning Area A-3, The "Village of
Honfleur".
3.0 UNMITIGATED NOISE EXPOSURE
The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise
Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic
volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise
level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the
time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them
results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Noise contours are found by iterating over
many distances until the distance to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found.
The project site is exposed to traffic noise from Avenida Encinas. The future traffic projection for
the roadway was obtained from the "Traffic Impact Analysis for Kaiza Poinsettia Development,
Zone 9, Carlsbad", April 1991. The traffic volume and speed utilized are presented in Table 1,
and the interior roadways are shown in Table 2. The time and traffic distributions utilized are
presented in Table 2.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF
SAN MARCOS
PACIFIC
CITY OF ENCINITAS
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
PageS
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
Utilizing the traffic data presented above and the FHWA Model, distances to the 60, 65 and 70
CNEL contours were determined. The distances from the centerline of the roadways to the
contours are presented below in Table 3. These projections do not take into account any barriers,
topography, or buildings that may reduce noise levels.
Table 3
DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS
ROADWAY DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR (FT)
SEGMENT -70- -65- -60-
Avenida Encinas 19 42 90
The results in Table 3 show that a number of outdoor living areas in the project will be exposed
to traffic noise levels greater than 60 CNEL and will require noise mitigation. Outdoor observers
will experience a worst case traffic noise level of 63.2 CNEL along Avenida Encinas.
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 6
2.5 Future Railroad Noise
The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe (A.T. and S .E) Railroad tracks run adjacent to the south side
of the site. The "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations," (Wyle
Laboratories Report WCR-73-5, July 1973) was used to model the train noise levels on the
project site. The noise generated by a train pass-by can be divided into two components; that
generated by the engine or locomotive, and that due to the railroad cars. The characteristic
frequency of the engine is different than that for the cars. The effective radiating frequency is 800
Hz for the locomotive engines, and 1200 Hz for the portion of the noise generated by the cars.
The noise generated by the engine is the result of the mechanical movements of the engine parts,
the combustion process, the horn if used, and to a lesser extent the exhaust system. The noise
generated by the cars is a result of the interaction between the wheels and the railroad tracks. A
zero source height is used for the car noise, and a source height of 10 feet above the track is
utilized for the locomotive. The train noise levels are calculated by summing the noise generated
by the locomotive and the noise generated by the cars.
Data on railroad operations were obtained from Bill Farguhar at the North San Diego County
Transit Development Board on April 14, 1993. The railroad line will used for freight, Amtrak
and commuter train operations. The times, speeds as well as number of evening, night-time, and
day-time train pass-bys were used with the train noise model to project future train noise levels
for different types of trains. Future train operations will include 24 commuter train pass-bys, 28
Amtrak pass-bys, and 4 freight train pass-bys for the year 2010. Table 4 shows the time
distribution of the trains.
Table 4
TRAIN TIME DISTRIBUTION
TIME -—NUMBER OF OPERATIONS PER DAY—-
PERIOD Day Evening Night Speed (mph)
COMMUTER 12 6 6 60
AMTRAK 21 5 2 90
FREIGHT 1 1 2 50
The operational data was utilized in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project train noise levels
on the project site. The train model for Amtrak and commuter trains was calibrated to more
closely simulate actual measured noise levels. Measured Amtrak train noise levels were
approximately 9.1 dBA lower than the model predicts. This may be due to continually welded
tracks or quieter engines. Commuter and Amtrak train noise levels were modified to reflect the
9.1 dBA difference. Freight train noise levels were not modified.
The results of the train noise projections are displayed in Table 5 in terms of noise levels
experienced on the site at distances of 100, 200, 400 and 800 feet from the tracks. The noise
projections do not include the effects of topography or barriers which may reduce the noise
levels.
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page?
Table 5FUTURE RAILROAD NOISE LEVELS
Distance from Tracks CNEL Noise Level
100 feet 69.2
200 feet 65.2
400 Feet 69.6
800 feet 54.0
The results in Table 5 and the site plan indicate that the area along the A.T. and S. E Railroad will
be exposed to noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL. The nearest outdoor living area will be located
approximately 120 feet from the centerlineof the tracks and will be exposed to a maximum
unmitigated train noise level of 68.3 CNEL. The nearest building will be located approximately
130 feet from the centerline of the tracks and will be exposed to a worst case train noise level of
approximately 68.1 CNEL.
4.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION
The residential units in the project must comply with the City of Carlsbad 60 CNEL outdoor
noise standard. The outdoor living areas will experience traffic and train noise levels in excess
of 60 CNEL, and therefore, will require mitigation measures in terms of noise barriers. The
results indicate that required sound walls of 7.5 feet will be required for the lots along the AF &
SF railroad in order to meet the City's 60 CNEL noise standard. Additionally, sound walls of 6
feet will be required for those lots adjacent AvenidaEncinas. The required sound walls should
be relative to the top of slope, and the top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad
elevation and the rail/road elevation. The noise barrier height and location are shown in Table 6
and Exhibit 2. The data used in the noise barrier analysis is shown in the Appendix.
Mestrc Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 8
Table 6
REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION
Barrier Height (feet) Top-of-Wall
LOT # relative to top of slope Elevation
ALONG AT & SF RAILROAD
(below 60 CNELfor outdoor areas)
49 7.5 61.1
48 7.5 61.5
ALONG AVEN1DAENCINAS
24 through 29 6.0
32, 33, 44, 47 6.0
NOTE: Sound wall should be relative to top of slope. Top of slope refers to the higher
elevation between the pad and the roadway or railroad elevation.
With the noise barriers shown in Exhibit 2 and Table 6, the exterior noise levels at all outdoor
living areas in Planning Area A-3 will be reduced to below 60 CNEL. The noise barriers must
have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks.
The noise barriers may be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The wall may be
constructed of 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination
of these materials. Wood and other materials may be acceptable if properly designed as noise
barriers.
5.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
The proposed project must comply with the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. 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 weighting 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 highway noise sources, i.e., it accounts for the specific frequency components of
highway noise. The FHWA has published EWNR data for the noise reduction characteristics of
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 2
Noise Barrier Height and Location
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 9
various building elements and construction techniques. This noise attenuation data is based upon
empirically derived data on construction materials in practice today.
The proposed project must comply with the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The building
facing the AT & SF railway and Avenida Encinas will experience a worst case combined train
and traffic noise level of approximately 68.9 CNEL, resulting in a maximum required building
attenuation of 24.9 dBA to meet the City of Carlsbad 45 CNEL interior noise standard.
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 7/8 inch stucco siding and
minimum 1/2 inch gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include
fiberglass insulation in stud cavity.
Standard glass window has minimum 1116 inch single-strength plate glass.
Standard sliding glass door is 3/16 inch glazed glass.
French door has solid core 1-3/4 inch thick wood with a minimum of 1/8 inch
glazed glass, and is weather stripped.
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 4 displays a 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 with and without upgrades are also
given in Table 4.
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 10
Table 4DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE
REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPGRADES
BUILDING
ELEMENT
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
EWNR
(DB)
no upgrades
EWNR
(DB)
with upgrades
Plan A - Second Floor Corner Optional Master Bedroom #2
Roof 252 36 36
Wall 290 40 40
Window (operable) 63 22 26
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 23.0 27.8
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9
Plan B - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom
Roof 432 36 36
Wall 343 40 40
Window (operable) 105 22 26
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 22.9 27.4
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9
Plan B - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #2
Roof 173 36 36
Wall 175 40 40
Window (operable) 35 22 26
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 22.1 26.6
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9
Plan B - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #3
Roof 156 36 36
Wall 158 40 40
Window (operable) 43 22 24
Total Noise Reduction (dB): 22.4 26.0
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 24.9
Mestrc Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 11
Table 4 (continued)
DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE
REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPGRADES
BUILDING AREA EWNR
ELEMENT (SQ. FT.) (DB)
no upgrades
Plan C - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom
Roof 324
Wall 268
Window (operable) 50
Window (fixed) 30
Total Noise Reduction (dB):
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB):
Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #2
Roof 121
Wall 63
Window (operable) 25
Total Noise Reduction (dB):
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB):
Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #3
Roof 142
Wall 136
Window (operable) 38
Door (entry) 19
Total Noise Reduction (dB):
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB):
Plan C - Second Floor Corner Bedroom #4
Roof 223
Wall 173
Window (operable) 25
Window (entry) 38
Total Noise Reduction (dB):
Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB):
36
40
22
22
23.0
24.9
36
40
22
27.3
24.9
36
40
22
26
23.1
24.9
36
40
22
24
22.9
24.9
EWNR
(DB)
with upgrades
36
40
24
28
26.8
36
40
26
26
26.4
36
40
26
24
26.0
Mestre Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 12
The analysis indicated that the units along the AT & SF railway in Lots 48 and 49 (only) will
require window upgrades to meet the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. The following table
identifies the building upgrades that will be necessary. The upgrades are required for all
windows of the units of any building plans in Lots 48 and 49 facing the AT & SF railway.
Table 5
REQUIRED BUILDING UPGRADES FOR SECOND FLOOR ONLY
UPGRADE REQUIRED
TYPE NOISE
PLAN UNIT (See list below) REDUCTION (DB)
UNITS FACING AT & SF RAILWAY IN LOTS 48 AND 49
Plan A Corner optional master bedroom #2 B 24.9
Plan B
Plan C
Corner master bedroom
Corner bedrooms #2 and #3
Corner master bedroom
Corner bedrooms #3 and #4
B
A
A
B
24.9
24.9
24.9
24.9
UPGRADE TYPE LIST FOR TABLE 5:
A. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); e.g: 1/4" Glazed operable window
B. EWNR = 26 (STC = 28); e.g. 3/8" Glazed operable window
1. Add 4 dB to all operable window ratings to get fixed window ratings.
2. Window and door call-outs above are examples; any windows or doors with
the same or higher STC/EWNR ratings may be used.
The results in Table 5 show that with the above required window upgrades, all units will provide
an outdoor to indoor noise reduction greater than the maximum required attenuation for the
buildings. Thus the buildings in the project will meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL
with the above upgrades, assuming windows are closed.
With windows open the building outdoor to indoor noise reduction falls to 12 dBA. Therefore
windows must remain closed 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 acceptable 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 24 through 29. 32. 33. 44. 47 through 51 along Avenida Encinas and the
railroad.
Mestrc Greve Associates
Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area A-3)
Page 13
APPENDIX
DATA USED TO DESIGN NOISE BARRIERS
Cross Road Distance Base Of Dist. To Pad
Section Elevation To Wall Wall Observer Elevation
Observer Wall
Height Height
49
48
39
40
ALONG AT & SF RAILROAD
120
120
53.6
54.0
125
125
53.6
54.0
ALONG3
6
6
7.5
7.5
51.8
56.4
61.6
63.4
64.2
65U
65.5
60.
61.6
63.4
64.2
65.1
65.5