HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-17; Brindisi; Tentative Map (CT) (3)* •City of Carlsbad
Community Development
September 18, 1995
Mr. Gail Kobetich, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Habitat Loss Permit for Aviara Phase III Project
Dear Mr. Kobetich:
A Habitat Loss Permit was approved by the Carlsbad City Council for the Aviara
Phase III project to take 8.68 acres of coastal sage scrub. Pursuant to the 4(d) rule
for the California gnatcatcher, this Habitat Loss Permit was transmitted to your office
and to the California Department of Fish and Game on August 13, 1995, for a 30 day
comment period. The 30 day period has elapsed, and we have received no
comments from your office or the Department of Fish and Game. Therefore, this
letter confirms that the Habitat Loss Permit now has final approval. A grading permit
for the project will be issued by the City in the near future. If you wish to be informed
of the start of grading, please let me know. Attached for your reference is a
tabulation of all coastal sage scrub losses authorized by the City of Carlsbad since
March 1993.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely;
Don Rideout
Senior Management Analyst
Attachment
c: Department of Fish and Game
Aviara Land Associates
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: The northeast corner of Ambrosia Lane and Poinsettia Lane in Local
Facilities Management Zone 19.
Project Description: Request for the approval of a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Master
Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development
Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 90 unit, multi-
family, attached condominium project and associated recreational
facilities on a pregraded 8.2 acre site located in Planning Area 19 of the
Aviara Master Plan.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby
issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited.
Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If
you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161,
extension 4451.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
JULY 27, 1998
LCPA 97-10/MPA 177(W)/CT 97-17/PUD 97-15/CDP 97-26
BRINDISI, AVIARA PLANNING AREA 19
JULY 27, 1998
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIL
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: LCPA 97-10/MPA 177(W)/CT 97-17/PUD 97-15/CDP 97-46
DATE: July 7, 1998
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Brindisi
APPLICANT: The Brehm Companies
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2835 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 230,
San Diego. CA 92108-3882
DATE El A FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 10/9/97
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Master Plan Amendment. LCP Amendment to modify development
standards applicable to Aviara Planning Area 19, Aviara Master Plan and a Tentative Tract Map
and Coastal Permit to construct 90 multi-family units on a previously-graded site.
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
| | Population and Housing
| [ Geological Problems
Q Water
M Air Quality
l^j Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| [ Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
| I Hazards | | Cultural Resources
| I Noise | | Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev.7/6/98
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[~1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[~~| 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 earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
n
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director s Signature Date
Rev.7/6/98
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence, that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev.7/6/98
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the
developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and 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.7/6/98
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Sources #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 #2 EIR
83-02(A))
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 and #2 #2 EIR
83-02(A))
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 , #2 pgs. 4-1-
4-26)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6, #2 pgs. 4-1-4-26)
D
D
D D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 EIR 83-
02(A) pgs. 4-150-4-156)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15,
#2 #2 EIR 83-02(A))
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs5.1-l -5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1
-5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15))
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 EIR 83-02(A), #3, pg.s
6-7)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2
EIR 83-02(A))
h) Expansive soils? (l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #3 pgs. 6-
7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (l:Pgs 5.1-1
-5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev.7/6/98
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 #2
EIR 83-02(A))
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?(#l:Pgs5.2-l-5..2-11, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A))
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A))
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A))
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11,#2EIR83-02(A))
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A))
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12; #2 pgs. 4-110-4-118)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
n
n
n
n
n
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, pgs. 4-63 - 4-80)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev.7/6/98
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D D
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 , pgs. 4-
119-4-149)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2 , pgs. 4-119 - 4-149)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 ,
pgs. 4-119-4-149)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2, pgs. 4-119 - 4-149)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
-5.4-24; #2 pgs. 4-119-4-149)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2 pgs.
4-94-4-109)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9; #2, pgs. 4-94 - 4-109)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pgs. 4-94- 4-109)
D
D
D
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1-5.9-15)
D
D
D D
D
Rev.7/6/98
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 -5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
D
nn
n
nn
XII. 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 -5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? (#1; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
D
n
n
n
n
nn
nn
nn.n
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A))
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 #2
EIR 83-02(A))
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10; #2 pgs. 4-160 -4-167)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10; #2 pgs. 4-150-4-157)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2
, pgs. 4-150-4-157)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 -5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1-5.8-10)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Rev.7/6/98
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the I I i—i
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually I—I i—i
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 I I i I
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
D
D
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. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review. Final Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort,
(EIR 83-02(A)), dated August 1986. MEIRfor the 1994 General Plan Update, both
on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas, Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009 .
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. All the effects from the above checklist were
adequately analyzed in EIR 83-02(A) and MEIR 93-01. Overriding Findings of
Consideration were adopted for air quality and cumulative circulation impacts as
part of the MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
Rev.7/6/98
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Please see section "Noise" on page 12 below. All impacts have been reduced to a level of
less than significant.
10 Rev.7/6/98
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
A. Project Description
The proposed project includes a master plan amendment, local coastal program amendment, tentative
tract map , condominium permit and coastal development permit for Planning Area 19 of the Aviara
Master Plan (MP-177). The tentative tract map includes 90 multi-family units at a density of 10.9 du/ac.
The development is proposed as 13 six-plexes and 4 triplexes with accompanying recreational amenities
to be constructed on a previously-graded site of 8.2 acres in size. Currently, the site is vacant and
primarily devoid of vegetation. The site is surrounded to the north and west by a City park site; to the
east by a 184 unit condominium project and to the south by a proposed 298 unit apartment project. The
proposed density is consistent with the number of units (109) allowed under the latest amendment to the
Aviara Master Plan. The proposed discretionary actions also include a master plan amendment and
accompanying Local Coastal Plan Amendment which would amend the Aviara Master Plan to permit
minor modifications to development standards (i.e., setbacks from roadways and width of driveways.
For this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reviewed
the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report EIR 82-03 (A) which
covers this property. The proposed project is consistent with this document as follows:
1. The site has already been reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-02(A);
2. The project implements all recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-02(A);
3. The project site design and architectural style will complement existing or future land uses.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and 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 in regional growth management
strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures
have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of 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.
11 Rev.7/6/98
Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments 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.
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.
Biology
A small .5 acre sliver of disturbed coastal sage habitat is located along the northern boundary of the site
with slightly more vegetation located on the City park site. This area was included as part of the mass
grading approved for Aviara Phase III in 1995. At that time it was determined that this and other Aviara
sites created 8.68 acres of impact to coastal sage scrub. A 4(d) permit was issued and 8.68 acres of the
best coastal maritime scrub were placed in placed in permanent open space for preservation. Mitigation
was deemed acceptable by the resource agencies. Although grading of this portion of the subject site is
occurring later than the rest of the mass grading operation, the impacts to the coastal sage at this location
are considered to be mitigated.
Noise
Homes in the proposed project will be subject to noise from Poinsettia Lane with a projected ADT of
17,600. First floor exterior living areas located along Poinsettia Lane would be exposed to a maximum
unmitigated traffic noise level of about 68.2 CNEL. In order to meet the City required CNEL exterior
noise standard of 60 CNEL, a noise barrier will be required to be constructed at the top of slope along
Poinsettia Lane. The noise attenuation wall will vary in height from 6.0' to 6.6' In addition, prior to the
issuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to provide proof that interior noise levels will
be reduced to 45 CNEL and that mechanical ventilation will be provided for homes located along
Poinsettia Lane. The proposed development is also located within three miles of McClellan-Palomar
Airport. Residents of this area may frequently see, hear, and interference of certain activities by aircraft
operating to and or from the Airport. As a note of disclosure to future property owners, the developer
12 Rev.7/6/98
will be required to file a Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts, Noise Forms #2 and #3, of
file in the Planning Department. All above conditions have been included as mitigation measures in this
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, CIRCULATION
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments 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.
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 1) 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.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1161,
extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort, (EIR 83-02(A)),
dated August 1986.
3. "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Update", Magellan Corporations, April
1995.
4. "Exterior Noise Analysis for Aviara PA-19", Mestre Greve Associates, October 1997.
5. Habitat Loss Permit for Aviara Phase III, September 18, 1995.
13 Rev.7/6/98
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes located adjacent to Poinsettia Lane and as shown
on Exhibits SI and S2 of the Mestre Greve (#97-204) noise study, the applicant shall demonstrate
that interior noise levels will be mitigated to a level of 45 CNEL and that mechanical ventilation will
be provided.
2. Prior to a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a noise barrier consisting of a wall, a
berm, or a combination of the two for the homes specified on Exhibit S1 of the Mestre Greve noise
study, #97-204. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot,
and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8 inch plate
glass, 5/8 plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials.
3. Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building permits, which ever occurs
first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise
impacts from the Transportation Corridor (Poinsettia Lane), in a form meeting the approval of the
Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1) on file in the Planning Department.
4. Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building permits, which ever occurs
first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise and
other impacts from the McClellan Palomar Airport in a form meeting the approval of the Planning
Director and City Attorney (see Noise Forms #2 and #3) on file in the Planning Department.
5. Prior to a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a noise barrier consisting of a wall, a
berm, or a combination of the two for the homes specified on Exhibit S1 of the Mestre Greve noise
study, #97-204. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot,
and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8 inch plate
glass, 5/8 plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^)
See attached
14 Rev.7/6/98
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 Richmond O'Neill
Project Manager
15 Rev.7/6/98
PROJECT NAME: Brindisi
APPROVAL DATE:
FILE NUMBERS: LCPA 97-10/MP 177CWVCT 97-17/PUD 97-
15/CDP 97-46
MITIGATED NEG. DEC.: July 7. 1998
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has
been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section
21081.6).
Mitigation Measure j
Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes located adjacent to
Poinsettia Lane and as shown on Exhibits SI and S2 of the Mestre Greve
(#97-204) noise study, the applicant shall demonstrate that interior noise
levels will be mitigated to a level of 45 CNEL and that mechanical
ventilation will be provided.
Prior to a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a noise
barrier consisting of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two for the
homes specified on Exhibit SI of the Mestre Greve noise study, #97-204.
The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per
square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be
constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8 inch plate glass, 5/8 plexiglass, any
masonry material, or a combination of these materials
Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building
permits, which ever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the
existing Transportation Corridor (Poinsettia Lane), in a form meeting the
approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1)
on file in the Planning Department.
Monitoring
Type
Building
Permits
Certificate of
Occupancy
Final Map
Recordation
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans
X
Verified !
Implementation Remarks
Mitigation Measure
Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building
permits, which ever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property may be subject to noise and other impacts from
the McClellan Palomar Airport in a form meeting the approval of the
Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Forms #2 and #3) on file
in the Planning Department.
Prior to a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a noise
barrier consisting of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two for the
homes specified on Exhibit SI of the Mestre Greve noise study, #97-204.
The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per
square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be
constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8 inch plate glass, 5/8 plexiglass, any
masonry material, or a combination of these materials.
Monitoring
Type
Final Map
Recordation
Certificate of
Occupancy
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Planning
Shown on
Plans
X
Verified
Implementation Remarks
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED: | V ' 9f "^ 7 '•_
' ' (To be complete by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 19
2. APPLICANT: THE BREHM COMPANIES '
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2835 CAMINO DEL RIO .SOUTH
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-3882 (619) 293-7090
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT. LCP AMENDMENT TO MODIFY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO AVIARA PLANNING AREA 19. SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, COASTAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 90 MULTI FAMILY UNITS
ON THE PREVIOUSLY-GRADED SITE.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages. :
[X] Land Use and Planning f~] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Population and Housing ( | Biological Resources [ | Utilities & Service Systems
[ | Geological Problems [ | Energy & Mineral Resources [ | Aesthetics
[~] Water Q Hazards [~~] Cultural Resources
[]] Air Quality Q Noise Q Recreation
Q Mandatory' Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
'''
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( ) .
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of .an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
( ' •)"c) Displace existing . housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ' )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D'
D;
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n:
n.
n
n
n
n
n
.n
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
S D
D
D
n.
D
D
D
d
d
n d
d
d
in.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: :
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (The proposed
project proposes amendments to the Aviara Master Plan and the
Implementing Ordinances of the Mello I Local Coastal Program. These
amendments affect development standards within the project area
only. No impact to land uses, boundary lines, or open spaces are
proposed. No amendment to the Carlsbad General Plan or Zoning
Map is proposed.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Environmental plans,
including resource preservation policies adopted by the Coastal
Commission, will not be affected by the proposed project. No ir
to coastal resource areas are proposed. This fact is supported by EIR 83-
02 and MEIR 93-01.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? (The
project is not directly adjacent to any non-compatible uses. Properties
to the east are designated for similar character and density. The project
is in full compliance with adopted land use polices, which were
supported by EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations Ce.'g. impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (Temporary •
agricultural operations are located south-easterly of the site. No
significant impact to these temporary uses should result, as concluded
by EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)? (No
impact to an established community will result as concluded in EIR 83-
02 and MEIR 93-01.)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? (The project will not generate or add to population
projections. The project is in full compliance with the Amended '
Aviara Master Plan which was utilized in projecting population for the
subject area.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly .
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (The project is located in an area planned for urban
development as concluded in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The
project is located on a vacant site.)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (The site is not located within an active fault area as
concluded in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ..)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( •.)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ' '•'
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( ) • :
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
' a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )'
b) Exposure of.people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
D
D
D
.D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
.D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
"D
D
D
D
D
D
3D
3D
b) Seismic ground shaking? (The site is not located within a seismic
area as concluded in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (The site is not
located within a seismic area as concluded in the geotechnical analyses
in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (The site is not located
within a seismic area as concluded in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (The site is not located within a seismic
area as concluded in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? (The site is already graded and consistent
with EIR 83-02.)
g) Subsidence of the land? (The project will comply with Carlsbad
policies regarding soil protection as defined and concluded in MEIR
01.)
h) Expansive soils? (The project will comply with Carlsbad policies
regarding soil protection as defined and concluded in MEIR 93-01.)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (No unique physical features
exist within the boundaries of the proposed project, as concluded in
MEIR 93-01.)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of. surface runoff? (The project will comply with Carlsbad
policies regarding surface runoff quantities and rates in compliance
with MEIR 93-01.)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding? (The project site is not subjected to flooding potential.)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (No director-
uncontrolled discharge into surface waters will result from the project
consistent with the findings of EIR 83-02.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (No '
direct or uncontrolled discharge or change of surface waters will result
from the project consistent with the findings of EIR 83-02.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (The project will result in no substantive change in the
course or direction of water movement as concluded in EIR 83-02.) .
f) Changes in the Quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (No change in groundwater or recharge capability will
result as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (No directional
or flow rate of groundwater will be affected by the project as
determined in MEIR 93-01.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) | |
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater | |
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an . | I
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? I j
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause | |
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) | |
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in: " •
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ; I I
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp j j
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( - , •) ,
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? I I
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? r~l
'e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I I
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative I |
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? • I I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
•P
D
D
D.
n.
n
D ..
n
n:
n
n:
m
n 0
E
E
0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (No impact to groundwater will
result from the project as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies? (No impact to groundwater will
result from the project as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: . .
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (The project would not violate air
quality standards as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The project would not
violate air quality standards as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any
in climate? (The project would not violate air quality standards as
determined in MEIR 93-01.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (The project will not create any
objectional odors.) • •
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (The project will
result in a minor increase in vehicular traffic at the immediate vicinity
of the site.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(The project will not involve hazards to traffic safety as concluded in
EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The project
will not result in inadequate access because it will meet Carlsbad
standards as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (The project will
not result in inadequate parking because it will meet Carlsbad
standards as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (The project will
not result in hazards because it will meet Carlsbad standards as
determined in MEIR 93-01.)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (The project will not
result in such conflicts because it will meet Carlsbad standards as
determined in MEIR 93-01.)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (The project will not result
in such impacts because it will meet Carlsbad standards as determined
in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would, the proposal result
in impacts to: ' • Vil.
..a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats . |—i j—\ r—i trr-i
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, — — '—' ^
animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? • . i—i I—I i—i r—i
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak I—i . I—I i—i . r—i
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( : ' , ;).. -.I—1 .L-' L-J ^
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? I—I . I—I i—i cri
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? . ' i—i I—i r—i 1^-1
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? • j—I . I—I 'i—i (tr-i
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and i—i i—i i—i pr-i
inefficient manner? ( ) L-' LJ L_l r2J
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral i—i i—i i—i 17-1
resource that would be of future value to the region and —' '—'
the residents of the State? ( _ )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous I—| i—| i—i tr-i
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( ) '
Possible interference with an emergency response plan r-j r~ ] Q &J
or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) .
The creation of any health hazard or potential health Q Q Q ' E
hazards? ( ) • . .__..—, IX.Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential r~] Q Q -JjJ
health hazards? ( ', .) '•:'"'•'''•"'".. ' .." . _'
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, - • • [— j Q [7] Y |
grass, or trees? ( ) •
b)
c)
d)
e)
VIII.
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)? (The project
is an already developed site. All areas of rare plants and animals are
preserved by the proposed plan, consitent with EIR 83-02.)
b) Locally designated species (E.G. heritage trees)? (No locally
designated species are located within the subject area.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? (The proposed project is located within an already graded
area. No natural- communities are within the project site.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (No
wetland habitat is located within the area as concluded in EIR 83-02 and
MEIR 93-01.)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (No wildlife dispersal .^
or migration corridor is located within the area as concluded in EIR 83-
02 and MEIR 93-01.)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (The proposed
project would not conflict with energy conservation plans as
determined in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? (The proposed project would not use energy wastefully as
determined in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
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?
(The proposed project would not result in the loss of resources as
determined in EIR 83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
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)?
(The project will not involve risk of these circumstances as determin
in MEIR 93-01.) :
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (The project will not involve
interference with these plans as determined in MEIR 93-01.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards?
(The project does not involve any health hazards.)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
(The project will not expand the exposure of people to any health
hazards.)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?
(The project will not increase fire hazards as determined in EIR 83-02
and MEIR 93-01.)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI 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:
Fire protection? ( )
Police protection? ( )
Schools? ( )
a)
b)
c)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( >
e) Other governmental services? ( )
XII. 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? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in :
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (The proposed project will not
significantly increase any noise levels over that already determined to
not have any significant impact as concluded in EIR 83-02.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (The proposed project-
will not expose people to severe noise levels above .those generally
associated with residential neighborhood activities.)
XI. 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? (No substantive increase in fire protection would
be necessitated by the proposed project as indicated in MEIR 93-01.)
b) Police protection? (No substantive increase in police protection
would be necessitated by the proposed project as indicated in MEIR 93-
01.)
c) Schools? (The proposed project is anticipated for single family
residential development by the CUSD.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (No substantive
increase in road maintenance would be necessitated by the proposed
project as indicated in MEIR 93-01.)
e) Other governmental services? (No substantive increase in any
governmental services would be necessitated by the proposed project as
indicated in MEIR 93-01.)
XII. 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? (The proposal will not result in any need for
new power or natural gas supplies as determined by MEIR 93-01.)
b) Communications systems? (The proposal will not result in any
need for communications systems as determined by MEIR 93-01.)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (The
proposal will not result in any need for water treatment or distribution
systems as determined by MEIR 93-01.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (The proposal will not result in any need
for significant new sewer systems as determined by MEIR 93-01. Septic
tanks will not be utilized by the proposed project.)
e) Storm water drainage? (The proposal will not result in any need
for significant storm drainage systems as determined by EIR 83-02 and
MEIR 93-01.)
f) Solid waste disposal? (The proposal will not result in any need for
expansion of solid waste disposal systems as determined by EIR 83-02
and MEIR 93-01.) .
g) Local or regional water supplies? (The proposal will not result in
any need for expansion of water supply systems as determined by EIR
83-02 and MEIR 93-01.)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
( ) .
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
( : )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
.c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potentialto cause a physical change which
\vouldaffectuniqueethnicculturalvalues?. ..
( ) ' ' ' _• _
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: .
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
( )b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? .
I — iLJ
I — I
LJ
I — i
I — |
I — i
I — I
I I
:
| — I
—
..
r~n
i — iLJ
I — i
LJ
i — i
r — I
• I — |
l~|
I — i
I — I
I — I
—
i i
i — iLJ
i — i
U
i — i
i — i
r— i
.E
E
D 0
D S
D ' S
XIII. ASTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (No scenic highway or
vista will be affected by the proposed project.)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (The proposed
project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. It will be
consistent with the Aviara guidelines, as determined' through the
visual impact analysis in EIR 83-02.)
c) Create light or glare? (No significant light or glare will result from
the proposed project.)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (The project involves an
already graded site which does not contain paleontological resources
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (The project site has already been
mitigated for archaeological artifacts as demonstrated in EIR 83-02.)
c) Affect historical resources? (The project involves an already graded
site which does not contain historical resources as demonstrated in EIR
83-02.)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? (The project involves an already
graded site which does not contain unique ethnic cultural resources.)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? (The project involves an already graded site and will not
restrict religious uses as demonstrated in EIR 83-02.)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? (The proposed project will not increase demand
for parks as determined by MEIR 93-01.)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (The proposed project
will not affect existing recreational opportunities a$ determined by
MEIR 93-01. and EIR 83-02))
Issues (and Supporting information Sources):
(Supplemental,documents.may.be referred to and attached)
XVI. MANDATORY F/ND/NGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the'
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of 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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
cither directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D D
n D -D
D D
XVII. 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. '' Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets: • •• ••• • •-.•••
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. • Identify which- effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
• mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. >-:':••• . • ,.,•:.:•.; ,;• ,: • • ••
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe, the-mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address. site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors,.that, were Checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with .regard, to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. •
AIR QUALITY: ... ' . . V..
The implementation.of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulatesi 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 in regional growth management strategies when' adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included', as conditions of 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. • ••,-.'•. . .
" ' •- : - l • • ' •: .....
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic'volumes. Roadway segments 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
0 Rev. m/?R/Qfi
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
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 Gity 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.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
10 Rev. 03/28/96
EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR
AVIARA PA-19
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Report #97-204
October 10,1997
Prepared For:
The Brehm Companies
2835 Camino Del Rio South
San Diego, CA 92108
Prepared By:
Fred Greve, P.E.
Mike Holritz
Mestre Greve Associates
280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7528
Phone (714)760-0891
FAX (714)760-1928
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #97-204
Pagel
SUMMARY
EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR
AVIARA PA-19
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION
The results of the analysis indicate that in order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, a noise
barrier will be required along Poinsettia Lane. The required noise barrier locations and heights to meet
the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard are shown in Exhibit SI.
The noise barriers may consist of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two. The noise barriers must
have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The
wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry
material, or a combination of these materials.
All first floor exterior living areas are projected to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard with the
noise barriers shown in Exhibit SI. The noise barriers shall be located at top-of-slope.
If balconies are planned for the project, balcony barriers may be required for the units along Poinsettia
Lane. Any balcony barriers required will need to be determined in a future study, when architectural
drawings for the project are available, and prior to the issuance of building permits. (Preliminary
analysis indicates that balcony barrier heights for some balconies may be unfeasible. Some balconies
along Poinsettia may need to be omitted).
INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Second floor exterior building surfaces in the project will be exposed to a maximum noise level of about
67.3 CNEL, and therefore will require at least 22.3 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to
meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations are necessary for
building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dB. A future study will be needed to address the
interior noise levels when architectural drawings are available, and prior to the issuance of building
permits.
MECHANICAL VENTILATION
Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed
to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows
closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate
ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the Uniform Building Code (1997 UBC Section
1207.1). 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. Mechanical
ventilation will be required for those units shown in Exhibit S2. Air conditioning units may be an
adequate substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as they meet the ventilation requirements specified
in the Uniform Building Code. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet the mechanical
ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the
project should be consulted.
REQUIRES 6.0' BARRIER
11illinium REQUIRES 6.6' BARRIER
relative to pad elevation
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit SI - First Floor Noise Barriers Required
to Meet 60 CNEL Exterior Noise Standard
UNITS REQUIRING
MECHANICAL VENTILATION
*
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit S2 - Mechanical Ventilation Requirements
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #97-204
Page 2
EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR
AVIARA PA-19
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of PA-19 with the noise related 'Conditions of
Approval' placed on the project by the City of Carlsbad. The project calls for the development of
condominiums. This report addresses the future exterior noise levels at the project site, and incorporates
the 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior noise standards adopted by the City of Carlsbad.
Site plan and grading information was taken from the "Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Area 19" by
Project Design Consultants, August 12, 1997.
The project is located in the City of Carlsbad, as shown in Exhibit 1. The project will be impacted by
traffic noise from Poinsettia Lane. This study determines any mitigation measures required for patio
areas to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard as required by the City, and addresses the 45 CNEL
interior noise standard.
2.0 CITY OF CARLSBAD NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Carlsbad specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses. Both standards
are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour time
weighted annual average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. A-weighting is a frequency
correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear.
Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise-sensitive time periods is
given more significance for occurring at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, the evening time period
(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) weights noises by 5 dB, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are weighted by
10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while
sleeping, eating, and relaxing.
The City of Carlsbad has adopted an exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL for a six foot tall observer. In
addition, the City has decided upon an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL.
\\' .'
Project Location
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #97-204
PageS
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model
published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model",
FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle
speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer code has been written
which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these
noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used.
Mitigation through the design and 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 upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier
effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is interrupted by the
barrier. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise
reduction increases. The FHWA model was also used here in computerized format to determine the
required barrier heights.
4.0 ROADWAY NOISE EXPOSURE
The projected future average daily traffic volume (year- 2010 ADT) for Poinsettia Lane was obtained
from Mr. Jim Murray at Carlsbad Traffic Engineering on October 2, 1997. The traffic volume used for
Poinsettia Lane is presented in Table 1. Traffic distribution used in the CNEL calculation is presented
below in Table 2. This arterial traffic distribution estimate was compiled by the Orange County
Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the
Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be considered typical for arterials in
Southern California.
Table 1
PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED
ROADWAY FUTURE ADT SPEED
Poinsettia Lane 17,600 55
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
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #97-204
Page 4
Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results for
Poinsettia Lane are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the 60, 60, 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. Topographic effects are included in the noise barrier analysis section (Section
5.0) of this report.
Table 3
DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS
FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS
ROADWAY DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (FT)
-70 CNEL- -65 CNEL- -60 CNEL-
Poinsettia Lane 61 131 282
The data in Table 3 and the Site Plan (Exhibit 2) indicate that first floor exterior living areas along
Poinsettia Lane would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of about 68.2 CNEL.
5.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION
For the exterior living areas which are exposed to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL, some form of
noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with
a noise barrier. Representative cross-sections along Poinsettia Lane (see Appendix for analysis data)
were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights.
The locations of these MGA-selected cross sections are shown in Exhibit 2. The results of the analysis
indicate that in order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, a noise barrier will be required along
Poinsettia Lane. The required noise barrier locations and heights to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise
standard are shown in Exhibit 3.
The noise barriers may consist of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two. The noise barriers must
have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The
wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry
material, or a combination of these materials.
All first floor exterior living areas are projected to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard with the
noise barriers shown in Exhibit 3. The noise barriers shall be located at top-of-slope.
If balconies are planned for the project, balcony barriers may be required for the units along Poinsettia
Lane. Any balcony barriers required will need to be determined in a future study, when architectural
drawings for the project are available, and prior to the issuance of building permits. (Preliminary
analysis indicates that balcony barrier heights for some balconies may be unfeasible. Some balconies
along Poinsettia may need to be omitted).
CS-X • indicates cross-section location
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 2 - Site Plan and
MGA-Selected Cross-Section Locations
REQUIRES 6.0' BARRIER
iinn 11 iimi REQUIRES 6.6' BARRIER
relative to pad elevation
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 3 - First Floor Noise Barriers Required
to Meet 60 CNEL Exterior Noise Standard
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #97-204
PageS
6.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
To comply with the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor
building attenuation to reduce the noise levels to below 45 CNEL. 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 upon the transmission loss
of each element and the surface 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 use today.
Second floor exterior building surfaces in the project will be exposed to a maximum noise level of about
67.3 CNEL, and therefore will require at least 22.3 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to
meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations are necessary for
building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dB. A future study will be needed to address the
interior noise levels when architectural drawings are available, and prior to the issuance of building
permits.
7.0 MECHANICAL VENTILATION
Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed
to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows
closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate
ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the Uniform Building Code (1997 UBC Section
1207.1). 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. Mechanical
ventilation will be required for those units shown in Exhibit 4. Air conditioning units may be an adequate
substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as they meet the ventilation requirements specified in the
Uniform Building Code. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet the mechanical ventilation
requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project
should be consulted.
UNITS REQUIRING
MECHANICAL VENTILATION
Exhibit 4 Mechanical Ventilation Requirements
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #97-204
Page 6
APPENDIX
DATA USED TO DETERMINE
FIRST FLOOR NOISE LEVELS
DESIGN DATA - PATIO AREA WITH A 6 FT. OBSERVER
(Along Poinsettia Lane)
Cross
Section
Road
Elevation
Distance
Centerline
To Wall
Base Of
Wall
Distance
Centerline
To Observer
Pad
Elevation
1 275.7 60 279.5 115 279.5
2 262.0 70 275.3 80 275.3
3 255.9 80 272.5 90 272.5
4 251.5 85 269.7 95 269.7
URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
A TtWflC ENQlttCEftlNQ, MXRK£TIN<a & PfiOJCGT SUPPORT
TO /WOUSTfl/AV0 GOVERNMENT
September 26, 1997
' IMPACT
Richmond O'Neill Phone: (6 19) 293-7<#o
Project Manager FAX: (619) 293-3056
The Brehm Communities
2835 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92108-3882
RE: Aviara Planning Areas 19 and 23
Dear Mr, O'Neill:
As you requested, Urban Systems Associates, Inc. has evaluated Aviara Planning Areas
19 and 23 for conformance to the Aviara Phase 1,2 and 3 Tentative Tract Map traffic
study dated December 7, 1992.
Our evaluation indicates that the proposed development of both of these planning
areas as residential uses would generate fewer average daily and peak hour vehicle trips
than assumed in the traffic study for the Aviara Phase 1,2, and 3 Tentative Tract Map.
Therefore, no additional unanticipated traffic impacts are expected from the
development of these planning areas as proposed by The Brehm Communities and no
short-term or long-term cumulative mitigation would be needed beyond that identified
in the original traffic study.
> • t
Furthermore, traffic mitigation improvements previously identified in the original
traffic study have been completed or are the responsibility of others so that no traffic
improvements, except street frontage improvements, would be needed until the
development of these planning areas.
Provided below are descriptions of the attachments and a summary of the Urban
Systems evaluation:
Attachments 1 and 2 show the conceptual plans for Planning Areas 19 and 23, As
shown, Planning Area 19 is proposed as 90 attached dwelling units, and Planning Area
23 is proposed as 61 detached dwelling units.
Attachment 3 shows an excerpt of land use and trip generation assumptions from the
Aviara Phase 1, 2, and 3 Tentative-Tract Map traffic study. As shown, Planning Area
003497 Page 1 of 3 A:\003497.vffxt
4540 KEARNY VILIA ROAD, SUITE 106 . SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1573 • (619) 560-4911 • FAX (619) 560-9734
The. Brehm Communities
September 27,1997
Urban Systems Associates, InL
19 was assumed as 159 attached dwelling units and Planning Area 23 was assumed as
120,000 square feet of commercial use.
The table below shows a comparison of trip generation between the previous land use
assumption and the current planned uses for these areas.
Previous Current Difference
PA 10
PA 23
At>T
1,272
4,800
AM
IN
20
86
0y|-
81
58
PM || Afvr
IN
89
240
<g>W|l
38 [720
240 1 6 10
AM
IN
12
15
OUT
46
34
™ IL^
IN
50
43
OUT*
22 -552
18 || -4,190
AM
IN
-8.
-71
OUT
-35
-24
fJM
IN
•39
-197
OUT
-16
-222
Tbtflfr 6,072 1,330 -4,742
As shown in this table, Planning Area 19 would generate 552 fewer average daily
vehicle trips than previously expected with the original planning assumptions and peak
hour trips would be lower also.
Planning Area 23, previously planned as a neighborhood commercial use, would
generate 4,742 fewer average daily vehicle trips, 95 fewer AM peak hour trips and 419
fewer PM peak hour trips.
Attachment 4 shows the previously recommended transportation improvements
expected from the Aviara Phase 1,2 and 3 Tentative Tract Map traffic study. As
described below, the previously recommended transportation improvements have been
completed or* are the responsibility of other adjacent development:
1, The 1-,5/Poinsettia Lane interchange improvements have been completed and are
• designed to accommodate buildout traffic volumes.
2, The Paseo Del Norte/Potnsettia Lane traffic signal, has been installed in
conjunction with the interchange improvements,
3, The Batiquitos Drive/Poinsattia Lane traffic signal has been installed.
4, The Alga Road/Poinsettia Lane intersection has a traffic signal installation in
progress.
003497 Page 2 of 3
The Brehm Communities Urban Systems Associates, Inc.-
September 27,1997 ._
5. Widening the south side of Alga Road in the eastbound direction approaching
El Camino Real is a required frontage improvement of the adjacent property.
6. Adding a northbound to westbound left turn lane at the Alga Road/Poinsettia
lane intersection is a required improvement of the adjacent development to the
west.
7. Cassia Road is built through the Villa Loma multi-family housing project west of
El Camino Real and a traffic signal is operational at the Cassia Road/El Camino
Real intersection, Cassia Road will be constructed through the Poinsettia Hills
project to the easterly boundary of Planning Area 19. Hillman properties will
• construct the Poinsettia Lane frontage improvements adjacent to Planning Area
19, and also construct Cassia Road between Poinsettia Lane and the Poinsettia
Hill terminus of Cassia Road. Therefore, the city's cul-de-sac length and access
roadway requirements will be satisfied for this project.
8. 5ame as 7 discussed above.
9. Traffic controls at Ambrosia Lane/Poinsettia Lane to be installed concurrently
with Poinsettia Lane improvements.
other traffic improvements are recommended for the development of
Planning Areas 19 and 23,
If you have questions or need additional information, please give me a call. •
Sincerely,
Sam P. Kab, II, P,E.
Senior Traffic Engineer
Attachments (4)
003497 Page 3 of 3 A:\003497.vpd
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING AREA 19 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
AVIARA PLANNING AREA 19
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
CARLSBAD, 'CA. - BREHM COMMUNITIES
SOURCE
Project Design Consultants
-URBAN SYSTEMS'AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 19&23
HO SCALE
003497
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING AREA 23 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
AV1ARA PARXWAYfALGA RDJrt>\
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
AVIARA P.A. 23
CARLSBAD, CA - BREHM HOMES
-SUMMARY
610.0.
3^! WET PAD ACRES
WORTH
SOURCE
Bryan Menne and Associates
V __— f *oo A M
HO SCALE
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 19&23
003497
ATTACHMENTS
TABLES . '
AVIARA PHASE t, 2, AND 3 TENTATIVE MAP TRIP GENERATION
UHXJ
URDU
MPDU
MFDU
SFDU
UFDU
SFDU
SFDU
SFDU
39
tlWT
OWT
TOUT
UNITUNITuxrr
3* UHIT35 twrr
MFDU
UFtXl
OQMMERCUL
SHW
178 KSFtwrrxwrr
OHTT
28 UKfT
3S UHTT
ItS ACRES
ACRES
10 /UNIT
10
I« /UNIT
1C AJKtT
10 /usrr
« /ACRE
/ACRECHURCfy
DAYOVRE
UFDU
MFDU
STOU
SFDC
« XJNTT
U«JT
4i UMJT
« UOTT
31 UNITas uwr
i
» JUKTT10
» KJKTT
Afl«Tyuitrr
BAX URBAN SYSTEMS*
•O
i
SOURCE
Urban Systems Associates. Inc. Transportation Analysis for
Avlara Phase i^, and 3 Tentative Tract Maps, December 7,10S2
00908SG2A
SYSTEMS-AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 198,23
003497
ATTACHMENT 4
TH9QHTMPCUT
OH.V tttla MSTAU. 8QHM.«TOO OR WHEN
8ISMM. WARRANTS
JfffUET
VttSORttMMSTAU. SIGNALS AT
•tiRBAMSySTEMS-
RGUHE19
RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
TJMCrMWS
SOURCE
Urbm Syetana Asaociatm, Inc. Traneportaton AnaJyata lor
Aviv* Phta* \2. and 3 Tentattwe Ttmct Map*, Daowbar 7,1802
A V2ARA PLANNING AREAS 19&23