Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 98-06; Poinsettia Shores - PA C; Tentative Map (CT)
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES, SANTALINA (PA-C) CITY OF CARLSBAD Report #00-39 February 17, 2000 Prepared For: Greystone Homes 5780 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Tanya Moon Mestre Greve Associates 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660-7528 Phone (949)760-0891 FAX (949)760-1928 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 1 SUMMARY NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES SANTALINA (PA-C) CITY OF CARLSBAD EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The outdoor living areas in Poinsettia Shores Santalina must comply with the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard. The outdoor living areas in the project are the rear yards and second floor balcony decks. The results indicate that sound walls of 6 feet will be required for the rear yard areas of Lots 2 through 8 and 20 through 28, and a sound wall of 9 feet for Lot 1 facing 1-5. The sound walls should be relative to the pad elevations of the lots. The noise barrier locations and heights required to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard are listed below in Table S-l and shown in Exhibit S. There is an existing continuous perimeter wall of 6 feet high located along the north, south and east boundary lines of project site. This wall is sufficient in mitigating noise levels to below 60 CNEL for all lots with the exception of Lots 1 and 27. As mentioned above, the sound wall at Lot 1 will need to be 9 feet in order to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard (the top-of-wall at Lot 1 should be 119.5 elevation.) The sound wall of 6 feet high on the south side of Lot 28 will need to be extended to half of Lot 27. The second floor balcony decks in the project are less than 6 feet in depth, and therefore, are exempted from requiring noise barriers. Table S-l REQUIRED EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER LOCATIONS AND HEIGHTS REARYAJRD LOT # BARPJERS (FT) ALONG 1-5 1 9.0 2 through 9 6.0 20 through 27 6.0 28 6.0 ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS 1 6.0 2 5.0 NOTE: Noise barriers should be located on top of slope. 6 ft Barrier si 3 § ^ U) Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 2 All rear yard areas in the project are projected to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard with the noise barriers listed above in Table S-l and Exhibit S. .In Orange County, walls greater than 6 feet high are not considered to be aesthetic. For the proposed project; walls greater th'an 6 feet will require a variance, and therefore, plans should be modified for the recommended 9.0 foot sound wall at Lot 1 to include a combination of berm and wall. 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. A 6.0 foot continuous sound wall was specified at the area along the San Diego Creek Channel. The City requests access gates from Mermaid Lane to the San Diego Creek Channel Trail. In order to remain an effective noise barrier, the gates must maintain a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot. This can typically be achieved by using 1-1/2 inch plywood or heavy gauge metal. The gate must close snugly or must overlap at the point of closure. The gap at the bottom of the gates shall be kept to a minimum, and should be provided with a resilient flap to reduce flanking noise under the gates. INTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION With the above recommended noise barriers, first floor exterior building surfaces behind the noise barriers will be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 CNEL, and therefore will require less than 20.0 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, all first floor rooms in the project are projected to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. Second floor building surfaces in the project will be exposed to maximum combined noise levels ranging between 60 and 76.8 CNEL, and therefore will require at least 15 to 31.8 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations are necessary for bv;M; — ~r The results of the noise analysis indoor noise attenuation less th are closed. Therefore, window i The following table identifies tl window upgrades are specified ii M""ts than 20 dB. living units will provide outdoor to ise reductions, assuming windows r some of the units exposed to 1-5. be necessary. The units requiring 1 6 .ff\P Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 3 Table S-2 REQUIRED WINDOW UPGRADES FOR SECOND FLOOR ONLY Building UNIT UPGRADE TYPE (See list below) UNITS ALONG 1-5 Lotl Plan D3 PlanDl Lot 2 Plan Al Plan A3 Lot 28 Plan B2 Plan B3 Second floor retreat Second floor master bedroom Second floor bedroom 2 Second floor bedroom 3 Second floor master bedroom/sitting Second floor retreat Second floor bedrooms 2 and 3 Second floor bedroom 2 Second floor bedroom 3 Second floor bedroom 2 and retreat Second floor master bedroom Second floor bedroom 2 Second floor bedroom 3 and library Second floor master bedroom Second floor retreat and bedroom 3 D,G C, F and G B,G A,G A A A A A C, F and G B,G A,G AandE A NOTE: Upgrades will be required for all windows of the above specified units. UPGRADE LIST FOR TABLE S-2: A. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); i.e., 1/4" single glazed glass window B. EWNR = 30 (STC = 34); i.e., 3/8" laminated glass window C. EWNR = 32 (STC - 38); i.e., 1/2" laminated glass window D. EWNR = 36 (STC = 42); i.e., dual glazed (1/2", 1/2" air space, 3/16") window E. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); i.e., 1/4" single glazed glass door F. EWNR = 30 (STC = 34); i.e., 3/8" laminated glass door G. Require attic vent baffles (refer to Exhibit 3.) NOTE: 1. Add 4 dB to all operable window ratings to get fixed window ratings. 2. Window and door call-outs above are examples; any windows or doors with the same or higher STC/EWNR ratings may be used. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 4 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 (1998 California Building Code, Section 1203.3). This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. 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 all units in the project since the entire project will be exposed to noise in excess of 57 CNEL. 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. Local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 5 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES SANTALINA (PA-C) CITY OF CARLSBAD 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of Poinsettia Shores Santalina, Planning Area C (PA-C) with the noise related 'Conditions of Approval' placed on the project by the City of Carlsbad. The project calls for the development of multi-family homes. The project is located in the City of Carlsbad, as shown in Exhibit 1. 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 were obtained from the grading Plans for "Poinsettia Shores Santalina" prepared by O'Day Consultants, stamped dated January 24, 2000. 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 five foot tall observer located five feet within the property line. In addition, the City has decided upon an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. 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. CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 6 Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination walb^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 NOISE EXPOSURE 4.1 Roadway Noise The projected future average daily traffic volume (buildout ADT) for Avenida Encinas was obtained from the traffic study "Traffic Impact Analysis for Kaiza Poinsettia Development, Zone 9" prepared by P & D Technologies, April 1991. The future (2020) traffic for 1-5 was obtained from CALTRANS (San Diego), February 7, 2000. The traffic volumes and speeds used for Avenida Encinas and 1-5 are presented in Table 1. Traffic distributions used in the CNEL calculation are presented below in Table 2. The truck mix used in the FHWA Model for the 1-5 Freeway were 3.9% medium trucks and 4.0% heavy trucks obtained from the Caltrans Highway Traffic Manual (1997). Table 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED Avenida Encinas 6,900 45 1-5 Freeway 235,000 65 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page? Table 2 ARTERIAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT TIME TIME TIME Arterials Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Automobile 71.84 11.05 9.21 Medium Truck 3.03 0.47 0.39 Heavy Truck 3.13 0.48 0.40 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results for I- 5 are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. 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- -60 CNEL- -60 CNEL- 1-5 Avenida Encinas 552 23 1190 50 2564 109 The data in Table 3 indicate that first floor exterior living areas along 1-5 would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of approximately 73.8 CNEL at Lot 1. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) PageS 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 1-5 (see Appendix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The outdoor living areas in the project are the rear yards and second floor balcony decks. The results indicate that sound walls of 6 feet will be required for the rear yard areas of Lots 2 through 8 and 20 through 28. and a sound wall of 9 feet for Lot 1 facing 1-5. The sound walls should be relative to the pad elevations of the lots. The noise barrier locations and heights required to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard are listed below in Table 4 and shown in Exhibit 2. There is an existing continuous perimeter wall of 6 feet high located along the north, south and east boundary lines of project site. This wall is sufficient in mitigating noise levels to below 60 CNEL for all lots with the exception of Lots 1 and 27. As mentioned above, the sound wall at Lot 1 will need to be 9 feet in order to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard (the top-of-wall at Lot 1 should be 119.5 elevation.) The sound wall of 6 feet high on the south side of Lot 28 will need to be extended to half of Lot 27. The second floor balcony decks in the project are less than 6 feet in depth, and therefore, are exempted from requiring noise barriers. Table 4 REQUIRED EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER LOCATIONS AND HEIGHTS REAR YARD LOT # BARRIERS (FT) ALONG 1-5 1 9.0 2 through 9 6.0 20 through 27 6.0 28 ' 6.0 ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS 1 6.0 2 5.0 NOTE: Noise barriers should be located on top of slope. 6 ft Barrier B8 | §o;O 1 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 9 All rear yard areas in the project are projected to meet the 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard with the noise barriers listed above in Table 4 and Exhibit 2. In Orange County, walls greater than 6 feet high are not considered to be aesthetic. For the proposed project, walls greater than 6 feet will require a variance, and therefore, plans should be modified for the recommended 9.0 foot sound wall at Lot 1 to include a combination of berm and wall. The noise barriers may consist of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two. The noise banners 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, material, or a combination of these materials. A 6.0 foot continuous sound wall was specified at the area along the San Diego Creek Channel. The City requests access gates from Mermaid Lane to the San Diego Creek Channel Trail. In order to remain an effective noise barrier, the gates must maintain a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot. This can typically be achieved by using 1-1/2 inch plywood or heavy gauge metal. The gate must close snugly or must overlap at the point of closure. The gap at the bottom of the gates shall be kept to a minimum, and should be provided with a resilient flap to reduce flanking noise under the gates. 6.0 INTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION With the exterior mitigation measures specified in Section 5.0, first floor exterior building surfaces behind the noise barriers will be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 CNEL, and therefore will require less than 20.0 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, all first floor rooms in the project are projected to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard' without building upgrades. Second floor building surfaces in the project will be exposed to maximum combined noise .levels ranging between 60 and 76.8 CNEL, and therefore will require at least 15 to 31.8 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations are necessary for building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dB. To comply with the interior noise standard the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise levels down to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements which make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent on the transmission loss of each element and the area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 10 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. When noise enters a building from the outside, it undergoes a reduction in level we have defined a Noise Reduction (NR)- The amount of NR obtained depends on the type of construction used for the walls of the building, the sizes and types of windows and doors, the presence of noise leaks such as ventilation openings, and the building insulation. When a structure is composed of several different transmitting elements, the transmission loss of the composite structure must be determined. Standard procedure first entails calculating the composite transmission loss in each one-third octave band. Then a single number rating such as EWNR may be determine from this composite transmission loss curve. However, a composite EWNR value may be determined with little error by obtaining the EWNR of each structure element and combining these values independently of frequency. The NR can be measured directly, or it may be calculated from the following relations: NR= EWNRc0mposite-10 log S/A-6, dB where EWNR is the noise reduction of a composite structure, 10 log S/A is room absorption factor, S is the area of exterior wall through which the noise is transmitted, and A is the total room absorption. The EWNR methodology evaluates the transmission loss of a building element based on a typical highway spectrum. In a typical building, many walls have windows and doors so that the EWNR must be known for these elements. The FHWA contains EWNR values for commonly used wall constructions, window and door units, and miscellaneous elements such as through- the-wall air conditioners. These EWNR values are noise reduction characteristics of various building elements and construction techniques. This noise attenuation data is based upon empirically derived data on construction materials in practice today. The construction specifications for this project which were used in estimating the outdoor to indoor noise reduction are presented below. These specifications were obtained from architectural plans prepared by Danielian Associates Architectural and Planning, stamped dated January 21,2000. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 11 Roofs are double joist constructions and incorporate concrete tiles on the exterior and gypsum drywall on the interior surface. Joist spaces are insulated, and roofs are sloped. Exterior walls are wood stud construction with plaster and 7/8 " stucco and minimum 1/2 inch gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include insulation in the stud cavity. Windows were assumed to be single-strength 1/16 inch glass. Most windows are operable. All windows should be air tight. Standard glass doors are assumed to have 3/16 inch glazing and should be air tight. Other entry doors are assumed to be 1-3/4 solid core wood and weather-stripped. To assess compliance of the project with the interior noise standard, a worst case room for each building plan was selected for analysis. In general, the worst case room is the second story corner room with the greatest amount of window area. Corner rooms have more exterior surface area for noise infiltration. Rooms with large window areas have the least noise reduction, because windows typically are the weakest part of the structure. Table 5 displays a sample of the building element areas and EWNR values (as given by the FHWA) used to compute the total noise reduction. The total outdoor to indoor noise reductions with and without upgrades are given in Table 5. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 12 Table 5 DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPGRADES ELEMENT AREA SQ. FT.) EWNR (DBA) no upgrades EWNR (DBA) with upgrades Plan Al - Second Floor Corner Bedroom 2 Roof 115 Wall 60 Window (operable) 20 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan A3 - Second Floor Non-corner Bedroom 3 Roof 162 Wall 54 Window (operable) 20 Window (fixed) 23 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan B2 - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom Roof 219 Wall 154 Window (operable) 60 Door (glass) 23 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan B2 - Second Floor Non-corner Bedroom 2 Roof 122 Wall 70 Window (operable) 20 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 36 40 22 22.4 23.7 36 40 22 26 25.5 25.7 36 40 22 24 22.3 29.4 36 40 22 28.8 29.4 36 40 24 24.3 45 40 32 30 29.6 45 40 26 30.4 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 13 Table 5 (continued) DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPGRADES ELEMENT AREA SQ. FT.) EWNR (DBA) no upgrades EWNR (DBA) with upgrades Plan B2 - Second Floor Corner Bedroom 3 Roof 168 Wall 279 Window (operable) 20 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan Cl - Second Floor Corner Bedroom 2 Roof 148 Wall 260 Window (operable) 25 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan C3 - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom Roof 239 Wall 267 Window (operable) 50 Door (glass) 23 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan D3 - Second Floor Corner Retreat Roof 132 Wall 215 Window (operable) 60 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): Plan DB - Second Floor Non-corner Bedroom 2 Roof 107 Wall 147 Window (operable) 30 Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction (dB): 36 40 22 25.8 26.4 36 40 22 24.9 27.7 36 40 22 24 22.7 21.1 36 40 22 21.7 31.8 36 40 22 25.9 37.5 45 40 24 26.4 45 40 26 32.0 45 40 29 32.1 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 14 Table 5 (continued) DATA USED TO COMPUTE THE EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPGRADES ELEMENT AREA SQ.FT.) EWNR (DBA) no upgrades EWNR (DBA) with upgrades Plan D3 - Second Floor Corner Master Bedroom Roof Wall Window (operable) Door (glass) Total Noise Reduction (dB): Worst Case Required Noise Reduction 240 258 60 23 (dB): 36 40 22 24 22.2 28. 8 45 40 30 30 29.0 The results of the noise analysis indicate that a number of units of the buildings will provide outdoor to indoor noise attenuation less than the maximum required noise reduction, assuming windows are closed. Therefore, window upgrades will be necessary for the units facing the roadways. The following table identifies the window upgrades that will be necessary. The units requiring window upgrades are specified in Table 6. Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 15 Table 6 REQUIRED WINDOW UPGRADES FOR SECOND FLOOR ONLY Building UNIT UPGRADE TYPE (See list below) UNITS ALONG 1-5 Lotl PlanD3 PlanDl Lot 2 Plan Al Plan A3 Lot 28 PlanB2 Plan B3 Second floor retreat Second floor master bedroom Second floor bedroom 2 Second floor bedroom 3 Second floor master bedroom/sitting Second floor retreat Second floor bedrooms 2 and 3 Second floor bedroom 2 Second floor bedroom 3 Second floor bedroom 2 and retreat Second floor master bedroom Second floor bedroom 2 Second floor bedroom 3 and library Second floor master bedroom Second floor retreat and bedroom 3 D,G C, F and G B,G A,G A A A A A C, F and G B,G A,G AandE A NOTE: Upgrades will be required for all windows of the above specified units. UPGRADE LIST FOR TABLE 6: A. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); i.e., 1/4" single glazed glass window B. EWNR = 30 (STC = 34); i.e., 3/8" laminated glass window C. EWNR = 32 (STC = 38); i.e., 1/2" laminated glass window D. EWNR = 36 (STC = 42); i.e., dual glazed (1/2", 1/2" air space, 3/16") window E. EWNR = 24 (STC = 26); i.e., 1/4" single glazed glass door F. EWNR = 30 (STC = 34); i.e., 3/8" laminated glass door G. Require attic vent baffles (refer to Exhibit 3.) NOTE: 1. Add 4 dB to all operable window ratings to get fixed window ratings. 2. Window and door call-outs above are examples; any windows or doors with the same or higher STC/EWNR ratings may be used. 18 Inches VIEW LOOKING DOWN FROM TOP OF VENT '•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'''•'•'•'•'•'•'•^'•'•'•'•'•'•i''''^''^''*^ '•*.*• v«* •!••"•.;• *•;•"•"••"**;•" •!;•* •"••"•"••" •!*•" •"••"•!••" %••" •"••"•"•1 ."•*/.* •*•.*•"*.*•".•.'"*.*."•*.•."•".•.*•*.•."•".".*• *."•""." "/.*•'• •"•••*••".*.' !*•.•!*.%I"-.'I"-.'I"*.'.*'.•!"•.• I|-.*t. ** ."I V^"*.*!*.*^'.*!"*.*!"'.*^''."I" Ceiling Joist 2x4 Strut 1" Thick Noise Insulation Material 5/8" Gypsum Board Edge Of Vent Opening 2x4 Strut 1" Thick Noise Insulation Material (e.g., Owens Corning 703 or 705 Compressed Fiberglas) Mounted On 5/8" Gypsum Board Edge Of Noise Insulation Material (hidden behind roof) MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 3 Example of Attic Vent Baffle Construction Detais (roof) Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 16 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 (1998 California Building Code, Section 1203.3). This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum often feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all units in the project since the entire project will be exposed to noise levels in excess of 57 CNEL. 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. Local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Shores (PA-C) Page 17 APPENDIX DATA USED TO DETERMINE NOISE LEVELS DESIGN DATA - OUTDOOR LIVING AREA WITH A 5 FT. OBSERVER Lot Road Elevation Distance To Wall Base Of Wall Distance To Observer Pad Wall Elevation Height 1ST FLOOR 1 2 4 8 20 20 23 26 28 80 78 74 69 65 61 57 51 47 STI51 FLOOR 1 2 87 85 1-5 FREEWAY 180 110.5 194 190 113 240 200 115 283 210 122 285 220 120 243 230 120 253 240 123 288 250 125 335 260 124.5 268 AVENIDA ENCINAS 72 109.7 77 75 109.3 80 108 108 107.2 102.6 104.3 104.47 114.4 121.7 123.5 9.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 109.7 109.7 6.0 5.0 tor i CULTURAL RESOURCE MONITORING FOR CONSTRUCTION GRADING OF THE SANTALINA COMMUNITY PROJECT CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Report Prepared for: Greystone Homes January 2000 Kyle Consulting January 2000 Kyle Consulting - Santalina Community Project Scale: 1:24,000 Source: USGS 7.5' Encinitas, California Quadrangle 4 NORTH 1-3 Figure 1-2 Project Location Map people hunted, fished, milled plant foods, and collected and processed shellfish. The continuation of this occupation to roughly 1,300 years ago, has been termed by various researchers as La Jolla Complex, Pauma Complex, and Encinitas Tradition. Artifacts and cultural patterns associated with Early Period occupation include large dart or aflati points, obsidian from the Coso Range in north central California, inhumation of the dead, and an absence of pottery. Occupation from 1,300 years ago (Late Period) to historic contact is well documented in San Diego County. Artifacts and cultural patterns reflecting the Late Period occupation include small projectile points, pottery, obsidian from Obsidian Butte located near Salton Sea in the desert, and cremation of the dead. Early Hispanic explorers identified the people living in the central and southern portions of the county as Kumeyaay/Diegueiio after the Mission San Diego de Alcala and the people living in northern San Diego County as Luiseno after the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia. The APE is located within the traditional Luiseno territory (Kroeber 1925). 1.4 PREVIOUS WORK Prehistoric site CA-SDI-211/SDM-W-95, originally recorded by Malcolm Rogers in the 1920s, was located in the southeast portion of the APE. Archaeologists Claude Warren and D. L. True completed unit excavation and analysis of cultural material for some of the sites located adjacent to the Batiquitos Lagoon that were affected by construction of Interstate 5 during the 1960s. Warren and True were part of the Archaeological Survey of the University of California at Los Angeles that removed important deposits prior to freeway construction. The portion of site CA-SDI-211 located within the proposed Batiquitos Bluffs project area and outside of the Caltrans right-of-way was tested by Smith and Moriarty in 1985 and determined to be significant. Subsequently Smith and Moriarty (1985) completed a data recovery program on CA-SDI-211 and four other prehistoric sites, SDM-W-84, SDM-W- 88, SDM-W-97, and SDM-W-2551. Smith recovered over 2,000 artifacts and a large quantity of shellfish remains to a depth of 100 cm during the data recovery program for CA-SDI-211. Artifacts included debitage, cores, flaked lithic tools, groundstone, stone bowls, charmstones, shell beads, shell pendants, worked bone fragments, and crystals. Unit excavation identified three human burials, as well as prehistoric fire hearths and other features. The human remains, in consultation with Native American representatives, were 1-4 SECTION 3 REFERENCES CITED Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California (first edition). Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. Smith, Brian F. 1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring of the Poinsettia Shores Project. Unpublished manuscript on file at the South Coast Information Center, San Diego State University. Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty III 1985 The Archaeological Excavations of Cultural Resources at the Batiquitos Pointe and Batiquitos Bluffs Project, Sites W-84, W-88, W-95, W-97, and W-2551. Unpublished manuscript on file at the South Coast Information Center, San Diego State University. 3-1 APPENDIX A KEY PERSONNEL RESUME CAROLYN E. KYLE Kyle Consulting Cultural Resource Management 2495 Bartel Place, San Diego, California 92123 (858) 569-0534 EDUC ATIO N M.A. Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1988 B.A. Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1983 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Register of Professional Archaeologists (formerly Society of Professional Archeologists) Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology San Diego County Archaeological Society PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Kyle Consulting June 1998 to Present Ms. Kyle has completed a cultural resource survey and preparation of a report of finding for the Otay Water District; data recovery programs for a portion of CA-SDI-48, located within the Ballast Point Submarine Base; and site CA-SDI-11424, located on Otay Mesa; and constraint level studies for large areas hi Valley Center and Otay Mesa. These studies were completed in compliance with state, federal, County of San Diego, and City of San Diego guidelines. Ms. Kyle is currently completing work for the portions of a fiberoptics alignment that are located in the states of California, Arizona, and Nevada. This study includes record searches, field surveys, and preparation of required documents and reports for each alignment. Review agencies include State Office of Historic Preservation, Caltrans, the Bureau of Land Management, and various Cities and Counties. These studies will be completed in compliance with Section 106 and local guidelines. Gallegos & Associates October 1991 to June 1998 Ms. Kyle, as senior archaeologist at Gallegos & Associates, completed a full range of cultural resource studies. Duties included preparation of research designs and supervision of projects with the authority to direct fieldwork and subcontract to appropriate research consultants, as well as preparation of a report of finding for each project. Projects completed in compliance with federal Section 106 guidelines include: a test of one prehistoric and two historic cultural resources for the Rancho del Oro Road/Highway 78 interchange project, surveys and testing programs for Camp Pendleton Housing, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, North Torrey Pines Bridge, and State Route 905. The State Route 905 project included preparation of a testing program research design for a large habitation site and a management plan that set criteria for determination of Otay Mesa site types and provided recommendations for future work on Otay Mesa. Ms. Kyle served as Project Archaeologist for the following projects that were completed for Caltrans: the State Route 905 survey and test; survey and test programs for the Rancho del Oro/Highway 78 interchange project and the Twin Oaks Valley Road/Highway 78 interchange project; and surveys for the North Torrey Pines Bridge widening project; and the Leucadia Boulevard/Interstate 5 interchange project. The cultural resources located within the proposed Carolyn E. Kyle Page 2 of5 impact area of the Rancho del Oro Road/Highway 78 interchange project include a standing adobe and the location of a melted adobe. Projects completed in compliance with City of San Diego and CEQA guidelines include surveys for the San Diego Bikeways project, the Tijuana Trolley Transport Pedestrian Path and Border Gate project in San Ysidro; a constraint level analysis for the San Ysidro Redevelopment project, a data recovery program for the East Mission Gorge Pump Station, a monitoring program for construction of the East Mission Gorge Force Main, surveys for Pipelines 2A and 4, test of three sites for the Kumeyaay Lake Campground, and a data recovery program of a prehistoric habitation site for the Remington Hills project in Otay Mesa. Ms. Kyle has served as Project Archaeologist for a number of projects completed in compliance with the County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines . These projects include surveys for the proposed Valley Center Sewerage and Water Reclamation Facilities, the Pomerado Reclamation Plant, and the Julian Water Control Facilities; a testing program of two prehistoric and two historic resources for the proposed widening of Valley Center Road; and a data recovery program for the proposed Skyline Church project. Ms. Kyle served as Project Archaeologist for a significance testing program of a prehistoric site located on property owned by the University of California at San Diego (UCSD). Ms. Kyle also assisted historian Roxana Phillips with a significance assessment of buildings associated with historic Camp Matthews, located within the campus. Additional projects completed include: a study with Ms. Phillips of the Spanish Landing area for the Port of San Diego, a survey for the Vista Irrigation District Potable Water and Water Reclamation project, an overview study for the City of Escondido, and a field survey for the widening of Carlsbad Boulevard. County of San Diego February 1989 to October 1991 Environmental Analyst for the Department of Planning and Land Use/Archaeological Specialist. Duties included initial review of submitted projects, determination of required environmental studies, review of submitted studies, and presentation of determination and subsequent findings to the County Board. Reviewed archaeology reports submitted by consultants in response to County determinations. Responsible for report review and recommendations for cultural resource work necessary for the proposed 22,000-acre Otay Ranch project. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company 1985 to February 1989 Project Archaeologist responsible for direction of cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and data recovery programs. Major projects include the data recovery program for Ballast Point, Batiquitps Ridge, Kuebler Ranch - Otay Mesa, San Diego Mission, and Westwood Valley. Responsible for direction of field and laboratory crews, coordination of artifact analysis, and principle author of reports of findings. Archaeological Consultant 1983 to 1985 Archaeological consultant with various firms including WESTEC, RECON, RBR & Associates, and Brian F. Mooney & Associates. Positions for these firms included both laboratory and field crew member for: Johnson-Taylor Adobe, under the supervision of Dr. Susan Hector, RECON; Fieldstone Northview, Unit 4, Encinitas, under the supervision of Dennis Gallegos, WESTEC; data recovery program for a large prehistoric village at Sabre Springs, Poway, under the direction of Sean Cardenas, RBR & Associates. Carolyn E. Kyle Page 3 of5 MA jo R REP o RTS 1999 Cultural Resource Survey for the Sycamore Estates Project, Cities of San Diego and Poway, California. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 1999 Cultural Resource Constraint Study for the Valley Center Sewer Moratorium EIR Project County of San Diego, California. Prepared for the County of San Diego. 1997 SR 905 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation. Overview and testing program to identify and evaluate properties to determine National Register status of cultural resources within the proposed APE. Prepared for the City of San Diego and Caltrans. 1995 Archaeological Testing of Seven Sites for the Stardust Golf Course Realignment Project. A significance test of cultural resources located adjacent the San Diego River. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 1995 Otay Mesa Road Widening Project Cultural Resources Technical Report: Archaeological testing of nine cultural resources. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 1994 Remington Hills Project: Archaeological Testing of Seven Sites Otay Mesa, San Diego, California. Archaeological significance testing of seven prehistoric sites. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 1994 Historical/Archaeological Test for the Casa de Aguirre Adobe Site, City of San Diego, California. A test using mechanical and hand excavation to identify presence/absence of remains of the Casa de Aguirre adobe. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 1994 Cultural Resource Survey and Test for the California Department of Corrections, R. J. Donovan-El Correctional Facility Project, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. A literature review, record search, and 174-acre field survey that identified the presence of previously recorded site CA-SDI-8654. A subsequent significance test was completed for the portion of the site located within the project area. Prepared for the California Department of Corrections. 1993 Data Recovery Program for a Portion of Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-10148 East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main, San Diego, California. A data recovery program to mitigate impacts to portions of CA-SDI-10148, identified as significant after construction was begun. Analysis of recovered artifacts identified a 2,000 year old milling tool kit. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 1993 Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI-11606, CA-SDI-11057A, and CA- SDI-11057B Kumeyaay Lake Campground, San Diego, California. A significance test prepared for the City of San Diego. 1993 Cultural Resource Survey and Test of Five Sites for the Otay Water District Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline Alignments. A significance test that identified one significant and four not significant cultural resources. Prepared for the Otay Water District. 1993 'A Constraint Study for the Otay Valley Regional Park FPA. This study included a literature 'review, record search, identification of constraints and opportunities, and recommendations for the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park. 1993 HistoricayArchaeological Test Report for Sites CA-SDI-9775, CA-SDI-9775, CA-SDI- 13187, and CA-SDI-13188 East County Square Development San Diego County, California A significance test prepared for the County of San Diego. Carolyn E. Kyle Page 4 of 5 1992 Historical/Archaeological Survey and Testing for CA-SDI-5352 and CA-SDI-12730, Otay Mesa, San Diego, California. A testing program for a 250-acre parcel on Otay Mesa. 1991 Six Thousand Years of Occupation at Batiquitos Ridge. Report involved excavation of a five percent phased sample inventory to provide mitigation of development impacts. 1990 Early Period Occupation at the Kuebler Ranch Site SDi-8654, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. A data recovery program for a 7,000 year old site on Ofay Mesa prepared for the County of San Diego. 1988 Cultural Resource Inventory and CEQA Test for Site Importance, Rancho Bernardo Lake Course. Inventory of 315 acres, identification and testing often prehistoric sites for the J. W. Colachis Company. 1988 Cultural Resource Survey and Testing Program for the East Mesa Detention Facility, San Diego California. Project involved the survey of 523 acres, the identification and testing of eight prehistoric and one historic site. Three of these sites were quarry localities on Otay Mesa. Report prepared for the County of San Diego. 1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDi-48 (W- 164), San Diego, California. Report involved the excavation of a 2.5 percent sample within a coastal shell midden site, dated from 6000 to 1500 years before present. Report prepared for the U.S. Navy. 1987 Cultural Resource Inventory for Rancho La Quinta. Inventory of 1272 acres identifying six prehistoric sites within Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. Report prepared for the Landmark Land Company. 1986 Archaeological Investigation at Westwood Valley, San Diego, California. Ten sites located within the Westwood Valley, Rancho Bernardo in San Diego, County. PUBLIC ATIO NS Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDi-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. In press. A 2,000 Year Old Milling Tool Kit from CA-SDI-10148, San Diego, California. In: Proceedings for California Archaeology, Vol. 8, 1995 An Overview of the Late Prehistoric Village in the Westwood Valley, Rancho Bernardo, California in Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology. PROFESSIONAL PAPERS PRESENTED "An Overview of the Ballast Point Data Recovery Program at Site SDi-48, San Diego, California." Paper presented at the Society for California Archaeology Meetings, City of Commerce, California. "An Overview of the San Diego Mission Excavations." Paper presented at the San Diego County Archaeology Society. "An Overview of the Late Prehistoric Village in Westwood Valley, Rancho Bernardo, California." Paper presented at the Society for California Archaeology Meetings, Fresno, California. Carolyn E. Kyle Page 5 of5 "An Overview of the Prehistoric Village in Westwood Valley, Rancho Bernardo, California." Paper presented at the San Diego County Archaeological Society. "A 2,000 Year Old Tool Kit from CA-SDI-10148, San Diego California." Paper presented at the Society for California Archaeology Meetings, Ventura, California. "A Prehistoric Milling Tool Kit from CA-SDI-10148, San Diego, California." Paper presented at the Society for California Archaeology Meetings, Ventura, California. REFERENC ES Gary Fink Supervisor County of San Diego Department of Public Works Environmental Services Building 6, Operations Center 5555 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 874-4007 Sean Cardenas City of San Diego Development Services Department 1222 First Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 236-6521 Marty Rosen Caltrans District 11 2829 Juan Street San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 688-6751 APPENDIX B FIELD MONITORING FORMS JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 10/26/99 DAY OF WEEK: Tuesday TIME: 0730-1700 PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle DISCIPLINE: IE] Cultural Resources Other: Carlsbad. CA Construction Equipment Used:_Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: M Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0730-1630 Today the City of Carlsbad delivered the grading plans: so grading could begin. First thing this morning there was a pre-grade meeting. I informed Mickey and Keith of Grevstone that Marty Rosen of Caltrans would need 48 hours notice to come out to the job site before any encroachment within the Caltrans ROW would be allowed. I also requested, for Carolyn. that the small sliver of native soils between the project area and the Caltrans fence at the southeast edge of the Project be left alone. requested that the Native soils be treated like the Caltrans property and graded very slowly if grading was needed. I requested that the area be flagged-offso that no accidental grading would occur there. Grevstone agreed to both conditions. I also informed them that a Native American monitor would be required for the Caltrans ROW. Keith said he would call Carolyn to inform her that they wanted Marty Rosen and a Native American monitor on Thursday. I was informed later that day that Marty and Carolyn would be present on Thursday and 0730. The surveyors will stake the project boundaries in the southeast corner tomorrow. I called Bennae Calac severai times leaving her messages. She called me back late and asked that Tcall her at the Cupa Center at (760) 742-1590 after 1300 tomorrow. Brushing will continue tomorrow. 1630-1700 Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES S COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 10/27/99 DAY OF WEEK: Wednesday TIME: 0700-1630 PROJ PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle C Carlsbad, CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader iCT NUMBER: DISCIPLINE: E Cultural Resources Other: COMPLIANCE: OB Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700- 1530 The brushing continues and the flagged-off area is still intact. The surveyors were here all day, but they did not have time to mark the proiect boundary within the site area at the southeast end.I looked at the grading plans, and nothing occurs within the native soils, except a gate. I called Rick at Grevstone and he informed me that he thought something was planned for that area, but that he did not have the landscape plans yet. He said I should call Mickey. I called Mickey; but he did not have the plans either. He said the landscape plans were due today. I informed Carolyn that I could only see one location that had three units adjacent each other. That may be the location of one of the burials found by Brian Smith. If that is the case, the area where he found that buria' may still be intact adiacent the proiect area. I called Benae Calac at 1440 and she said that Adele will be here tomorrow at 0700. Brushing will continue tomorrow. 1530-1600 Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES &. BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 10/28/99 DAY OF WEEK: Thursday TIME: 0700-1630 -PROJ PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle D Carlsbad, CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader iCT NUMBER: DISCIPLINE: [*0 Cultural Resources Other: COMPLIANCE: S Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700- 1600 Adele and I arrived before the Caltrans meeting and I told her the history of the project area. We met with Marty Rosen of Caltrans and walk over the Caltrans ROW. Later Mickev came by and we all talk about the project. Marty asked Mickey if he could try to minimize the impact to W-95. Carolyn came later and we talked about the types of conditions we would stop grading within the Caltrans ROW. It was agreed that stone features (hearths) and burials would be the type of features stopped for. Since this was a previously recorded site, it was agreed that we would not stop grading just because we located intact deposits. After lunch, the slope adjacent the Caltrans ROW was brushed. The boundaries of W-95 are recorded very well. The shell concentration is within 30 meters of the bend in the project boundary near the southeast edge of the project. One feature was destroyed during tree removal. Numerous fire-cracked rocks were observed in the disturbed soils when the loader took out the tree roots in the Caltrans slope area within W-95. Brushing will continue tomorrow: but in fill soils. No monitoring will be required until Monday. Monday, only an archaeological monitor will be reciuired. On Tuesday, Grevstone will be removing the Caltrans fence and brushing within the Caltrans ROW. On Tuesday, both a Native American and archaeological monitor will be required 1600-1630 Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE PATE: 11/1/99 DAY OF WEEK: Monday TIME: 0700-1700 PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle DISCIPLINE: S Cultural Resources D Other: Carlsbad. CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: IE) Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700- 1630 Today, only an archaeological monitor was needed. Grevstone was not scheduled to grade within the Caltrans ROW. We have told Grevstone that the job site only needs to be monitored within the Caltrans ROW and in the extreme southeast corner of the project area. Today. Grevstone graded within the extreme corner of the project area. The area is the location of W-95. The soul is fill dirt. Much of the fill dirt is the midden deposit removed and then re-compacted for the old house pad. Lots of shell fire-cracked rocks and artifacts were noted: but not collected. This area will not need to be monitored again. The project boundary area is still flagged-ofF and will be monitored. On Tuesday, both a Native American and archaeological monitor will be required since Grevstone plans on brushing within the Caltrans ROW. 1630-17QQ Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 11/2/99 DAY OF WEEK: Tuesday TIME: 0700-1530 PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle DISCIPLINE: S Cultural Resources D Other: Carlsbad. CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: IEI Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700-1500 Charles Devers and I arrived at the job site at 0700. Grevstone was scheduled to brush the Caltrans ROW. Brushing begin around 0900. The brushing was completed at lunchtime. The removal of brush caused very little damage to W-95. In order to remove the brush from the Caltrans ROW, several sections of the chainlink fence was removed. One or two fence posts were also removed. The removal of the fence posts turned out to be the most destructive activity. The bases of the posts are 3-feet deep and encased in concrete. A 2 to 3-foot hole had to be dug around the posts. We left the job site after Mickey told us there would not be any excavation the rest of the day. Mickey told us the fence posts would be removed tomorrow. On Wednesday both a Native American and archaeological monitor will be required 1500-1530 Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 11/3/99 DAY OF WEEK: Wednesday TIME: 0700-1700 PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle DISCIPLINE: S Cultural Resources D Other: Carlsbad. CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: E Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700-1645 Charles Devers and I arrived at the job site at 0700. Grevstone began grading the slope along the Caltrans ROW. The fence is being removed and a new temporary fence will be erected approximately 10-feet behind the old fence. The fence posts in the old fence are buried 3-feet and are encased in concrete. These are very difficult to remove. The grading bar on the D-6 broke trying to remove the first fence post. Very little of the slope was graded today. A small amount of shell was observed; but not collected. I called Marty Rosen and gave him an update of the project. On Thursday, both a Native American and archaeological monitor will be required. 1645-1700 Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 11/4/99 DAY OF WEEK: Thursday TIME: 0700-1700 PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle DISCIPLINE: H Cultural Resources D Other: Carlsbad. CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: E] Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700-1645 Darren Hill and I arrived at the job site at 0700. Greystone continued grading the slope along the Caltrans ROW. The fence posts are still being removed and a new temporary fence will be erected approximately 10-feet behind the old fence. The fence posts are first drilled. The dill is about 1-foot in diameter. All but the last 6 fence posts holes were excavated The post are being encased in concrete. About half of the slope was graded today. The are within W-95 still has not be graded. A small amount of shell several fire-cracked rocks and several groundstone artifacts were observed: but not collected. On Friday, both a Native American and archaeological monitor will be required 1645-1700 Notes I Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES El COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 11/5/99 DAY OF WEEK: Friday TIME: 0700-1700 PROJECT-NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle DISCIPLINE: [3 Cultural Resources D Other: Carlsbad. CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: El Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700- 1645 Darren Hill and I arrived at the job site at 0700. Greystone continued grading the slope along the Caltrans ROW. The fence posts are still being removed All of the fence posts holes have now been excavated. Tomorrow the fence crew will erect the new Caltrans fence. About half of the slope was graded today. The area within W-95 still has not been graded. A small amount of shell, several fire-cracked rocks and several groundstone artifacts were observed: but not collected. A rock feature was discovered approximately 390 feet north of the property boundary angle point near the southeast corner of the project area. This feature has been flagged-off. I called Carolyn Kyle and she said she would come out to the site tomorrow (Saturday) at approximately 0900. On Saturday, both a Native American and archaeological monitor will be required. 1645-1700 Notes Steven H. Briggs DATE:11/6/99 DAY OF WEEK: Saturday TIME: 0800-1600 PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle Carlsbad. CA PROJECT NUMBER: DISCIPLINE: EEO Cultural Resources D Other: JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: S Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0800-1530 Charles Devers and I arrived at the job site at 0800. Grading cam not begin until 0800 on the weekends. The scrapers did not grade today, but Greystone continued grading the slope along the Caltrans ROW. The fence crew finished erecting the new Caltrans fence. The entire slope outside the boundaries of W-95 has been partially graded. The area within W-95 has just begun to be graded. Two rock features were discovered today 20 and 50 feet north of the angle point near the southeast corner of the project area. These features were flagged-off. I called Carolyn Kyle and she said she contact Marty Rosen of Caltrans about the new discoveries. All three features found today and yesterday are within _or extend into the Caltrans ROW. On Monday. both a Native American and archaeological monitor will be required. 1530-1600 Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IU COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 11/8/99 DAY OF WEEK: Monday TIME: 0700-1500 PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) RosewincLCircle DISCIPLINE: S Cultural Resources D Other: Carlsbad, CA Construction Equipment Used:_Dozer and Loader :OMPLIANCE: El Acceptable D Unacceptable D Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700-1445 Darren Hill and I arrived at the job site at 0700. All day long we were told that grading may occur in the Caltrans ROW; but no grading occurred. At 1445 Richard informed us that grading would not occur today or tomorrow: but that it would occur first thing Wednesday morning. I told Darren that we would need a Native American monitor on Wednesday. 1445-1500 Notes Steven H. Briggs JAMES & BRIGGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES m COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT n NONCOMPLIANCE DATE: 11/10/99 DAY OF WEEK: Wednesday TIME: 0700-1530 •PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT/LOCATION (attach figure if necessary) Rosewind Circle DISCIPLINE: [3 Cultural Resources D Other: Carlsbad. CA Construction Equipment Used: Dozer and Loader COMPLIANCE: H Acceptable D Unacceptable Q Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: 0700-1500 Adele Nelson and I arrived at the job site at 0700. Greystone was scheduled to grade around features B and C: but no grading will occur there until the new subcontractor excavates for the sound barrier wall. The slope within the Caltrans ROW will not be graded around features B and C. Greystone also changed the plans in the area I had previously flagged-off near the southeast corner of the project area. They decided not to kev-into the existing slope cut in this area. Instead, they decided to barely brush the vegetation off and then fill-over the slope base. They needed to get permission from the soil tech. He gave his permission after talking with his boss at Leighton & Associates. The brushing was very minimal. Richard and Mickey informed me that rough grading was now complete. Mickey said that Greystone was considering selling the project "as is". Mickey was not sure who would be responsible to excavate the features. I told him that the features needed to be excavated soon: as the natural weathering process would destroy them. I called Carolyn Kyle and told her the same information. I told Adele to tell Benae that we would call when the features were going to be excavated or when the grading was going to resume assuming that we received the contract for the mitigation of thejfeatures. No archaeological or Native American monitors will be needed until Greystone calls Carolyn Kyle. Mickey told me Matt from Grevstone would contact Carolyn about the future grading or mitigation activities. 1500-1530 Notes Steven H. Briggs ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDP 98-Q4/CDP 98-27 DATE: NOVEMBER 12. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES - AREA C APPLICANT: AREA C HOMEBUILDING PARTNERS. L.P. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4141 JUTLAND DR. SUITE 200. SAN DIEGO. CA 92117 PHONE: (619)490-6903 DATE El A FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 02-27-98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subdivision of Poinsettia Shores Master Plan-Planning Area C located south of Avenida Encinas between 1-5 and Windrose Circle into a total of 40 lots (28 residential duplex lots. 1 private street and 11 open space lots with 56 airspace condominiums. The project includes regrading of the hillside parcel from terraced pads to accommodate an attached mutli-family project accomplished as part of the master plan mass grading to terraced pads to accommodate duplex lots with airspace condominiums. The proposed duplex condominium units ranee in size from 1.874 square feet to 2.250 square feet. 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 |^<] Air Quality [X] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services | | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics I I Hazards I I Cultural Resources Noise | | Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q 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. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. g<] 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. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature (J Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 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. 03/28/96 • 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. 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): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2:Pgs 1-19) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1-5.6-18) 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;#2:Pgs 1-19) 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15;#2:Pgs 1-19) 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;#2:Pgs 1-19) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19; #5) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs l-19/#5) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19; #5) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgsl-19/#5) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- ll;#2:Pgsl-19;#4) D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-ll;#2:Pgs 1-19; #4) 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-ll;#2:Pgs 1- 19) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-1 l;#2:Pgs 1-19) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-ll;#2:Pgs 1-19) 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-ll;#2:Pgs 1-19) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-ll;#2:Pgs 1-19) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- ll;#2:Pgsl-19) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-ll;#2:Pgs 1-19) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D 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) 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)I — I D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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 1-19) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4- 24;#2:Pgs 1-19) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19) D 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) 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) 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 1-19) n n n n n n 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 n n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15; #2-Pg 13; #4) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 -5.9-15;#2:Pgs 1-19) n n n 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: 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? () e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D D 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? () 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 D D D D D D D D D D D 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) c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) D D D XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10;#2:Pgs 1-19) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10;#2:Pgs 1-19) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10;#2:Pgs 1-19) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2:Pgs 1-19) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2:Pgs 1- 19) D D D D D D D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 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 | 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 | cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 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. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project involves the subdivision and regrading of Planning Area C, a 9.64 acre previously graded hillside parcel located south of Avenida Encinas between 1-5 and Windrose Circle in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, into a total of 40 lots (28 residential duplex lots, 1 private street and 11 open space lots), and the airspace subdivision of 56 condominium units. The proposed multi-family project complies with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan regulations governing the site in that lots are not individually owned and units are airspace condominiums. The proposed project involves 69,000 cubic yards of grading with 9,000 cubic yards of import required to convert the site from terraced pads suitable for an attached condominium project to terraced building pads suitable for duplex lots containing condominium units. Increases in grade elevations from those approved by the Master Plan mass grading are 2' or less across the site. 1. Land Use and Planning The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations on the property (RM) and is consistent with the Master Plan governing development of the site, which allows the proposed 56 units. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding existing and future uses since both are governed by the approved Master Plan which allows a variety of types of residential development and some supporting recreational and other supporting uses. The site is currently undeveloped but has been mass graded consistent with the approved Master Plan in anticipation of this development. Therefore, the proposed project will not disrupt any existing agricultural uses or any established community. Pursuant to the conditions of the previously approved Master Plan tentative map (CT 94-01), all agricultural conversion fees required for the development of this Master Plan have been paid or secured to the City's satisfaction. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 2. Population and Housing The project will not result in substantial growth or growth in excess of population projections. This project was anticipated by the City's General Plan and the Master EIR adopted with the General Plan Update through the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The site is undeveloped. Therefore, no existing housing will be displaced. 3. Geologic Problems A geotechnical study was prepared for the project site in January 1998 by Leighton and Associates, Inc. This report concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed development subject to the design recommendations included in the report. When developed as recommended, the project will not result in any geologic problems, including faults, ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides, or soils problems (expansion). Grading and construction activities on the site will be governed by the City's standard regulations for erosion control. The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Regrading of the site for the project will necessitate 9,000 cubic yards of import. 4. Water The development of the subject site will result in changes to absorption rates over the natural undisturbed condition. However, all drainage for the project is consistent with the Master Plan as determined by the LFMP 9 drainage facilities plan and drainage facilities will meet the City's Engineering standards. The project will not result in creation of any water-related hazards or any changes to surface or ground waters. There will also be no impacts to the course or direction of any water bodies. 5. Air Quality The implementation of 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. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 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. 6. Traffic Circulation The project, which will generate 448 ADT, is consistent with the parcel's RM General Plan land use designation and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan; therefore, it is within the scope of the City's MEIR for the 1994 General Plan update. Roadway improvements have been constructed in accordance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and Zone 9 LFMP to adequately handle all traffic generated by development within the master plan boundaries; therefore, no additional mitigation, in the way of roadway improvements, is necessary. The implementation of 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. 6. Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 12 Rev. 03/28/96 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. 7. Biological Resources The project site does not contain any biological resources or sensitive habitat. It has been previously mass graded in preparation for development. Therefore, there will be no negative impacts to biological resources as a result of this project. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources The proposed project will not result in negative impacts to energy and mineral resources. The site contains no mineral resources, and the project is not in conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. 9. Hazards There will be no hazards or health hazards associated with the development of this site with the planned residential units. The project's circulation system is designed to comply with any applicable requirements for emergency response/evacuation plans. The project site is surrounded by similar residential development and will not result in, nor be subject to, increased fire hazard from brush, grass, or trees. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 10. Noise In accordance with mitigation required as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for the Master Plan, a noise analysis has been prepared for Planning Area C by Mestre Greve Associates which specifies the location, height, and alternative materials of noise walls necessary to attenuate roadway noise from 1-5 and Avenida Encinas to meet City standards. These recommendations for noise walls have been incorporated into the proposed project; therefore, exterior noise levels will not exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL standard. Interior noise levels will exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL standard with windows open; therefore, the project will be conditioned to require mechanical ventilation for all buildings in the project. Additionally, prior to building permit issuance, the recommendations of an indoor noise analysis performed to determine the need for building upgrades for residential units adjacent to 1-5 must be incorporated into the final architectural plans. 11. Public Services The proposed project will not result in significant negative impacts to public services. The project was anticipated by the City's General Plan buildout analysis and will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9. This condition will ensure that all necessary public services standards are met prior to or concurrent with the development. 12. Utilities and Services Systems The proposed project will not result in significant negative impacts to utilities and services systems. The project was anticipated by the City's General Plan buildout analysis and will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9. This condition will ensure that all necessary improvements are provided prior to or concurrent with the development. 13. Aesthetics The proposed project will not result in negative aesthetic impacts in that buildings will be minimally visible from arterial roadways and a combination of landscaped slopes, enhanced retaining walls, and enhanced architectural building and roof elements will complement the physical setting. The project is located adjacent to 1-5, however, the project will not result in significant light or glare since units are separated by a 6' - 7' high sound/screen wall and landscaping. 14. Cultural Resources No cultural resources are associated with the subject project site. All required cultural/archaeological/paleontological monitoring required for the development of the Master Plan was completed satisfactorily during the mass grading of the site. The project site does not serve any religious or sacred uses. 15. Recreational The project site does not currently provide any recreational opportunities. When developed as 14 Rev. 03/28/96 proposed, the site will provide recreational opportunities for the residents of the planning area in the form of private yards and a trail system. The Master Plan also includes a centralized active recreational area for the residents of the Master Plan area. Because the proposed project is a different product type from that considered by the original Master Plan, the project will be conditioned to obtain more park credits or pay additional park in-lieu fees above those already paid under the original Master Plan project approval. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note: AH source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update certified September 6, 1994. 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01/HDP 94-03), approved July 6, 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 3. "Preliminary Drainage Study for Poinsettia Shores Area C" dated January 28, 1998 prepared by O'Day Consultants, Inc. 4. "Indoor and Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area C)" revised February 15, 1998, prepared Mestre Greve Associates. 5. "Geotechnical Report for Tentative Map Purposes, Poinsettia Shores, Planning Area C, Carlsbad California", dated January 27, 1998 prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be complete by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Planning Area C; Poinsettia Shores Master Plan 2. APPLICANT: Area C Homebuilding Partners, L.P. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4141 Jutland Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92117 (619) 490-6903 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION- ^ Tentative Map, Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Permit and Hillside DevelopmentrPermit for a 56 duplex unit project within Planning Area C of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. 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. | | Land Use and Planning [ | Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services | | Population and Housing | ] Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics | | Water | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources [x"| Air Quality \X\ Noise | | Recreation Q Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 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. 03/28/96 • 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. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to'and attached) 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)? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D No Impact Cxi II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local I—I population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or I—I indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable I—| housing? ( )D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) 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?" ) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 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? ( ) D D n D E n n d 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents'may be referred tor and attached) 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? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact D D n n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn n n n Less Than Significan t Impact n n inn No Impact n n LX] n Lx] V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existina or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( )D D n n n n n n n s EX] [x; VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ' d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? D n n n n n n n n n n n n (2 fxl Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental'documentsmaybe njfar^.i&and attached) 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? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources inefficient manner? ( in a wasteful and ) 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? ( ) 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)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? () e)Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush. grass, or trees? ( ) 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: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D n D D D D D D D [x] D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D LH D LH [x] No Impact [x] LX] E m [x] [x] LI] [x] LX] LI] LX] E m D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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? ( ) 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 potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 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? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact D D n n I I I I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D | I ^ n n n nnnn n n n n n n D D nnn nnnn nnn nnnn s LH [x] S [x] LI LH nnn nnnn n K n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D 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: 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. 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 9 Rev. 03/28/96 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. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE! ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 PART I EIA for PLANNING AREA C of the POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN L LAND USE PLANNING a) No impact. The proposed project will conform with General Plan and Zoning designations. b) No impact. The proposed project will conform with applicable environmental plans and policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. c) No impact. The subdivision will be developed to compliment the remainder of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and will be subject to the Planning Area C Development Standards. d) No impact. The site has been graded as part of the mass grading for the entire Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Furthermore, EIR 84-3 states that none of the soils on the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan site are considered "prime" agricultural lands per the Williamson Act definition. (1) e) No impact. The project site does not contain an established community and will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established communities. No homes are currently located on this site. IL POPULATION AND HOUSING a) No impact. The proposed project will not alter the planned distribution of population or housing in the area. b) No impact. The proposed project will use existing infrastructure and will not induce growth in other areas. c) No impact. The site for the proposed project will not displace existing housing since the site is currently vacant. The affordable housing obligation for the project has been satisfied by an affordable housing agreement that covers the entire Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS a) No impact. As stated in the EIA Part II for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, "... the site is not located near any active faults and no geologic conditions exist that would constrain development of the master plan property or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards". 1 b) Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not expose people to significant seismic ground shaking due to the distance of the known active faults from the site. Furthermore, all potential impacts associated with the development of this planning area have already been identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance as shown by the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1) c) No Impact. This project will not expose people to seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, due to the distance of the known active faults from the site as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 & 4) d) No impact. The proposed project will not expose people to impacts involving seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The site is not located in an area of volcanic activity and does not have a history of seiche or tsunami hazards. e) No impact. Due to the topography of the project site, the proposal will not result in exposing people to landslides or mudflows as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 &4) f) No impact. The site has already been graded as part of the mass grading for the entire Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. g) No impact. The proposed project will not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 &4) h) No impact. The proposed project will not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 & 4) i) No impact. No unique geologic or physical features are known to exist at the project site. IV. WATER a) Less than significant impact. Construction of 56 duplex unit within Planning Area C, which was graded with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan mass grading, will not significantly change absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff beyond that which was anticipated by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. b) No impact. The site is not in an area that is prone to flooding or other water hazards, as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 & 4) c) Less than significant impact. Discharge into surface water will not be significantly altered and surface water quality will not be significantly affected by the proposed project as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 & 4) d) Less than significant impact. The project will not significantly affect the amount of surface water in any water body. e) No impact. As shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01), the project will not significantly affect currents, or the course or direction of water movements. (1 & 4) f) Less than significant impact. The project will not significantly affect the quantity of ground waters as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 & 4) g) No impact. Since the proposed project will not use ground water, the project will not alter direction or rate of flow of ground water. h) Less than significant impact. As shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01), the project will not significantly impact groundwater quality. (1 & 4) i) No impact. The proposed project will not cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies since the project will not use ground water nor impact a significant area otherwise available for groundwater percolation. Y» AIR QUALITY a) Potentially significant impact. Although the project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, as virtually any development within the San Diego Air Basin will, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted in the City of Carlsbad's Final Master EIR for this cumulative impact. (2) b) No impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94- 01). (1&4) c) No impact. As shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01), the project will not alter air movement, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate. Additionally, there are two access roads into this project. (1 & 4) d) No impact. The proposed residential duplex units will not create objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a) Less than significant impact. The proposed 56 duplex units will result in an additional 560 ADT, which would not create traffic congestion in or near the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area. Furthermore, the maximum number on units (70) allowed in Planning Area C per the approved Poinsettia Shores Master Plan would create an additional 700 ADT. The proposed project will therefore result in 140 fewer ADT than anticipated for this planning area per the master plan. (3) b) No impact. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. As stated in the EIA Part II, "The master plan circulation system will include standard provisions for transportation systems accommodating vehicles with bicycle lanes and sidewalks for pedestrian movements so that there will be no increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians." (4) c) No impact. The proposed project will provide adequate emergency access. As stated in the EIA Part II, "The master plan's circulation system, as well as individual planning areas' circulation, will be reviewed by all pertinent City departments to ensure that there will be no impacts to any emergency response procedures or evacuation plans." (4) d) No impact. Parking for the project will be sufficient. Parking requirements for the site will comply with the Planned Development requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. e) No impact. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. As stated in the EIA Part II, "The master plan circulation system will include standard provisions for transportation systems accommodating vehicles with bicycle lanes and sidewalks for pedestrian movements so that there will be no increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians". (4) f) No impact. The proposed project will conform with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. g) No impact. No impact to railroad, airport or waterborne traffic is anticipated. As stated in the EIA Part II, "The master plan site is outside of the McClellan- Palomar Airport influence area so no impacts to or from air traffic will result. No waterborne traffic occurs in the vicinity and the operation of the railroad right-of- way will not be impacted by the master plan or the planned railroad crossing bridge of AvenidaEncinas". (4) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No impact. As shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01), the project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats. Furthermore, the site has already been graded as part of the mass grading for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. (1 & 4) b) No impact. The site has been graded as part of the mass grading for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and does not contain locally designated species. c) No impact. The site has been graded as part of the mass grading for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and does not contain locally designated natural communities. d) Less than significant impact. The project will not significantly impact wetland habitat as shown by the previous EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1 & 4) e) No impact. Mitigation for any impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors has been mitigated by the mitigation for the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Furthermore, the site has already been graded as part of the mass grading for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. (4) . ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) No impact. The proposed project will conform with adopted energy conservation plans. b) No impact. The proposed project will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner as determined by the EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. (1 & 4) c) No impact. As determined by the EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, the proposed project will not 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 EIA Part II states that "EIR 84-3 documented the lack of any natural resources on the master plan property." (1 & 4) XL HAZARDS a) No impact. The proposed project will not store any hazardous materials and therefore will not propose a risk of accidental explosion or release of any hazardous substances. As stated in the EIA Part II, "The grading and construction proposed for the master plan will not involve the application, use or disposal of hazardous materials or substances". (4) b) No impact. The proposed project will be designed so as not to interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. As stated in the EIA Part II, "The master plan's circulation system, as well as individual planning areas' circulation, will be reviewed by all pertinent City departments to ensure that there will be no impacts to any emergency response procedures or evacuation plans". (4) c) No impact. Subdividing this parcel for residential duplex lots will not result in health hazards as determined by the EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. (1 & 4) d) No impact. There are no existing health hazards on the site. e) No impact. The site has been graded as part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan mass grading and is devoid of flammable vegetation. Therefore, the project will not result in increased fire hazards. X, NOISE a) Less than significant impact. The development of duplex units within Planning Area C will not significantly increase existing noise levels. As stated in the EIA Part II, "... development of individual planning areas will not substantially increase noise levels beyond the short term grading and construction noise impacts". (4) b) Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Due to the proximity of Planning Area C to Interstate 5, noise mitigation will be required as discussed on page 99 of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. (3) EIA Part II states that "The project area is impacted by noise from the 1-5 freeway and the railroad right-of- way. Mitigation for the master plan amendment will include the requirement that residential planning areas have detailed noise studies done at the tentative map/PUD level to assure compliance with City's noise policy". (4) XL PUBLIC SERVICES a - e) Less than significant impact. The master plan allows for 70 units within Planning Area C. The proposed project, consisting of 56 duplex units, will therefore result in lower demand on public services than anticipated by the approved Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. (3) Xn. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a - g) Less than significant impact. The proposed project will tie into utilities and services systems already in place for the remainder of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area and will not result in a need for new systems or supplies for utilities and services systems. Furthermore, the master plan allows for 70 units within Planning Area C. The proposed project, consisting of 56 duplex units, will therefore result in lower demand on utility and services systems than anticipated by the approved Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (3). All performance standards and public improvement/infrastructure requirements of the amended Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan will be met and maintained in compliance with the City's Growth Management Program. Xin. AESTHETICS a) No impact. The proposed project will not affect scenic highway or vista. The project site is currently vacant and has already been graded as part of the mass grading for the entire Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. b) No impact. The proposed project will not have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect. The project site is currently vacant and has already been graded as part of the mass grading for the entire Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. c) Less than significant impact. The project will be designed in such a manner as to not create significant light or glare. Per the EIA Part II, "Lighting within Planning Area C will be low intensity and shielded from upward reflections. New light will not be a significant impact". (4) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No impact. Possible impacts were mitigated at the time of grading per the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1) b) No impact. Possible impacts were mitigated at the time of grading per the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01). (1) c) No impact. No historical resources are known to exist within the project area. d) No impact. Unique ethnic cultural values are not known to be associated with this site. e) No impact. No religious or sacred uses are known to exist within the project area. XV. RECREATION a) No impact. Park facilities provided by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan will be more than adequate for this project. b) No impact. Recreation opportunities do not currently exist within the project site. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No impact. The project site has been mitigated for potential impacts to the environment as part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. No additional significant impacts to habitat or the environment are expected to occur with the proposed project. b) Less than significant impact. The project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, however, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted for this cumulative impact. Furthermore, the project provides for alternate forms of transportation to reduce potential air quality impacts. c) No impact. The proposed subdivision will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. XVn. EARLIER ANALYSIS a) Source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161. 1. EIR 84-03, which was certified for the Master Plan property with the approval of the previous (BLEP) Master Plan on October 22, 1995. The City of Carlsbad issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan on August 12, 1993, which incorporates analysis form the certified EIR and outlines the necessary mitigation. 2. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update", March 1994 3. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)), dated October 20, 1993 and approved by Planning Commission on November 3, 1993. 4. Environmental Impact Assessment Part II for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) dated July 26, 1993 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration Dated August 12, 1993. b) Sections I thru XV of the above EIA Part I were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the EIA Part II and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Air quality impacts related to this project were also addressed by the EIA Part II and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Noise related impacts will be mitigated as required by the noise study accompanying the tentative map application. c) See the attached EIA Part II and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Mitigation Measures AIR QUALITY a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation Although the project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted with the approval of the City of Carlsbad's Final Master EIR for this cumulative impact (see p 2.0-4). Furthermore, the project provides for alternate forms of transportation, as stated on page 120 of the Rancho Carrillo EIR, to reduce potential air quality impacts. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels Page 9 of the El A Part II for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan states that"... development of individual planning areas will not substantially increase noise levels beyond the short term grading and construction noise impacts. The project area is impacted by noise from the 1-5 freeway and the railroad right-of-way. Mitigation for the master plan amendment will include the requirement that residential planning areas have detailed noise studies done at the tentative map/PUD level to assure compliance with the City's noise policy. This noise study accompanies the tentative map application. 10 uAHA POINSETTIA.— HOFMAX ENVIRONMENTAL tMFACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U (TO 3E COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) . CASE NO. MP 175fDVGPA 91-05/LFMP 87-09CAVLCPA 91-02 DATE: JULY 26. 1993 3.A.CKGR.GUND 1. CASE NAME: Poinsertia Shores Master Plan . APPLICANT: Kaizs Poinsgrtia .Corporation 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200. _ Carlsbad. CA 92008 T6191931-9100 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Julv 6. 1993 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Master Plan Amendment. General Plan Amendment. Local Facilities Management Flan Amendment, and Local .Coastal. Program Amendment TO change, the land uses associated wi:h ;che former Beticuilos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan from RM. RMH. RC, P. N, TS/C and OS :o RM. RH. NRR. TS/C and OS on a 162 acre master plan as shown on ihe attachedL exhibits. The masrer plan amendment will establish land use regulations for the site ancLguide the development cf individual planniagLareas, 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 foOowing 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 Ciry wiih information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may causs a significant affect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sjgnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and 'YES-insig1' respectively. 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 other7vise be determined significant. V.-.:i.-. ?G::'SETTlA -.-- HOFMAN PLANING PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO Csig) (L-sigj 1. Result in 'unstable earth conditions or increase die exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? i _X_ 2. Appreciably change the topography CT any unique physical features? __ _ X 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the sire? X 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ccaan or any bay, inlet or lake? ' ' 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? ____ 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisr.ure, or temp-ianire? 7, Substantially change die course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waisnO? X 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface v/ater, ground water or public water supply? X 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? X 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _„ X 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X ©61C' ^k j^'? KAIZA POINSETTIA^-- HOFMAN PLANNING BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into 2n area, - or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of <iny agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals inco an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? X 18, Substantially affect pubL'c utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? X — HOFMAN PLAX HUMAN ENVIRONMENT VALL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIPSCTLY: YES 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous v-*?.ste control systems? 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. 26. 23. 29. 30. 31. 32, increase existing noise levels? Produce new Ugh' or glare? Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but net limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Substantially alter the derj>ity of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Generate substantial additional traffic? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation of movement of people and/or goods? Alter waterbome, rail or air traffic? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES (insig) NO X _£_ x X -4- KAllA POINSETTI.-. ^-- HOFMAN PLANNING MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 33. Docs the project have the potentiaJ to substantially degrade the quality of die environment, substantially reduce the habitar of 2 fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, cr eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definirivs period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Curaulatively con- siderable" means thai the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable furors projects.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES (si?) YES (insig) NO 14:33 'SCi'c *?- i3SC KAllA POINSETTIA HOFMAN PLANNING DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project involves the amendment of the former Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park (BLE?) Master Plan for properly as shown an the anached location map. The land uses allowed under BLEP centered around a university/educational use with supporting and related land uses. The current master plan amendment CMP 175-D) proposes to rename the project to the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and to replace the educational uses with residential uses. The master plan has a total of 451 dwelling units left to develop which the applicant will pursue in combination with a Stare allowed 25% density bonus to assist with affordable housing compliance. Also being processed with the master plan amendment is a General Plan amendment (GPA 91-05) and a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 91-02) to implement the proposed changes to the master plan. A Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment will also be processed to refiner the land use changes within the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Zone. The site is currently vacant with die exception of the Rosalena single family neighborhood. With the approval of BLEP (October 22. 1985), an environmental impact report was certified (EIR 84-3) for the master plan property. All environmental impacts associated with BLEP have been identified and mitigation measures are in place where appropriate. The amended master plan will involve land uses of lesser intensity than the previously approved educational park with less traffic and public facilities impacts. The applicants Environmental Impact Assessment Part I included traffic, noise and geotechnical studies. This Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporates analysis from the certified EIR and will outline the necessary mitigation on a master plan level to offset archaeology, paleontology, visual resources, and noise impacts. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. As documented in EIR. 84-03 and the applicant's geotechnical report dated June 4, 1986 by Woodward-Clyde Consultancs, rhe site is not located near any active faults and no geologic conditions exist that would constrain the development of the master plan property or increase the exposure of people or property co geologic hazards. 2. The master plan property is mostly flat except for the lagoon bluff areas which will not be altered through project grading. An existing manufactured slope on the eastern edge of the master plan site will be cut to provide fill for the roadway and bridge embankments supporting Avenida Encinas. Otherwise, no appreciable change to the area's topography will occur and EIR 84-3 did not identify any unique physical features. 3. At the master plan level as well as tentative map/planning area level, the project will be conditioned to comply with the City's Grading Ordinance and standard landscaping and erosion control measures to prevent soil erosion onto the site as well as soil erosion offsice into Batiquitos Lagoon. 4. Development of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan will not affect the natural sand movement patterns of the nearby coastal Uttcral area. No changes will occur to the channels of any streams or the Batiquitos Lagoon. The project will be required to maintain existing/construct new drainage facilities as needed to prevent any impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon. -6- (IS 23 33 14:34 m.!:|:^l >3:>t3 KAIZA POINSETTI.i —- HOFMAX PLAXMXG 5. The primary' impacts ;o air quality will result from automobile and truck emissions. EIR 34-3 stated that the increase in air pollution emissions should be considered insignificant, in addition the master plan's proposed land uses and associated average daily trips (ADT) will be reduced from approximately 26,500 ADT (associated with the current BLEP master plan) to 12,300 ADT (associated with the amended Poinsettia Shores master plan). This will reduce impacts to air quality compared to the BLEP master plan. 6. Approval of this master plan and the development of individual planning areas will not impact or substantially change air movements, odor, moisture or temperature. Standard grading conditions and procedures will minimize dust impacts during grading and construction phases. 7. The project will not change the course or flow of marine, lagoon or flood waters. The master plan will be conditioned, to maintain existing/construct new drainage facilities to remove pollutants from storm water and prevent undssired drainage from flowing into the Batiquitos Lagoon drainage basin. 8. Standard grading, erosion control and landscaping per the City's Landscape Manual will control run-off and prevent pollutants in run-off from reaching the Batiquitos Lagoon. These standard measures will prevent any impacts to the quantity or quality of lagoon water, surface water, ground water or public water supplies. 9. EIR 84-3 documented the lack of any natural resources on the master plan property. 10. Fuel and energy wiH be used during the grading and construction phases of this project in the form of gasoline and fuel. EIR 34-3 stated that BLEP could be adequately served by SDG&E for its naniral gas and electrical needs. Since the Poinsettia Shores project is less intense than the BLE? project, this project's demands on fuel and energy are not significant. 11. EIR 84-3 identified four archeological sites within the master plan property; three were determined to be significant. Follow up data recovery efforts were carried out by archeologist Brian Smith and summarized in the report, "The Archeological Excavations of Cultural Resources at Sites W-84, W- 88, W-95, W-97 and W-2251" incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department. One of the sites had human remains which have since been reinterred in an open space area within the master plan with the coordination and direction of a qualified Archeologist and Native American Coordinator. This was done in compliance with the mitigation measures of EIR 84-3. As concluded in the above referenced report, the sites are no longer considered significant. Further mitigation at this point involves the retention of an archeologist for pre- grading conferences and monitoring during grading operations where cultural sites are located. Paleontological resources also may be present on-site. Adherence to the Gty"s standard pakontological mitigation program will be required in conjunction with grading of the site. BIOLOGICAL gNVIRQNMEEvJT 12/13. The majority of the project area (including all of the developable area of the property) is currently vacant and undeveloped. Previously, the site had been used for agriculture so there is no habitat value on the master plan property except for the lagoon, bluffs and wetland areas * • c— HOFMAX PLANNING which will be preserved in permanent open space. Therefore, there will be no impacts to sensitive plant species and no barriers to the normal replenishment of existing plant species will be created. Project landscaping v.ill be the only plants introduced into the area. 14. The master plan property has fat-in used for agricultural purposes in the past, however, no land within the master plan property is currently being used for agriculture. Furthermore, EIR 34-3 stares rhat ncne of the soils on the site are considered "prime" agricultural lands per the Williamson Act definition. 15/16. Since the project area is primarily vacant and undeveloped, there is minimum habitat value for animal species in the area. The exception would be the animal biodiversity associated with the lagoon and adjacent wetland areas which will remain open space so that there will be no impacts to the habitats or diversify of sensitive aniaial species or their natural patterns of movements or migrations. The biological resources of the lagoon will not be impacted by the development of the master plan's property. Domesticated animals in the form of household pets will likely be introduced into the area by future residents; however, this will not significantly impact the lagoon area's habitat or animal species diversity. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT. 17. The land uses currently allowed on the site are outlined in BLEP and center around a university/educational use wirh supporting residential, office and commercial uses. The proposed master plan amendr.ient specifically seeks to alter the allowed uses on the east side to all residential (spreading the master plan's remaining allowed residential dwelling units) and leaving the west side with the currently allowed uses with the exception of the area north of Avenida Encinas which is proposed to go from a neighborhood commercial designation to an unplanned area designation, subject to future planning efforts. The proposed land uses are more compatible with existing/allowed adjacent land uses than the land uses contained in BLEP. Since the area is zoned Planned Community (PC) and requires master planning, the proposed land use changes associated with the current master plan amendment (and corresponding General Plan amendment) do not constitute a significant impact to the planned land uses of the area. 18. The BLEP master plan did not substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services. The proposed master plan amendment will also net affect any public facilities or services since the intensity, traffic generation and demand on public facilities/services will be less than currently allowed. AH performance standards and public improvement/infrastructure requirements of the amended Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan will be met and maintained in compliancs with the City's Growth Management Program. 19. No new or modified solid waste or hazardous waste control systems will be required from the development of this master plan area. Overall sewer requirements will decrease from approximately 252,000 gallons per day (BLEP) to 151,140 gallons per day (Poinseraa Shores). The master plan will be conditioned to provide a sewer pump station for the east side of the master plan necessary to service the master plan area. The west side may be required to provide a sewer pump station during detailed planning and development efforts for the west side in the future. OS 23 i)3 14:36 'S'Sl'J iii S3S6 Ii.il2A POINSETTIA^--- HOFJiAN PLANNING 20. Approval of the master plan amendment and development of individual planning areas will not substantially increase noise levels beyond the short term grading and construction noise impacts. The project area is impacted by noise from the 1-5 freeway and the railroad right of way, Mitigation for the master plan amendment will include the requirement that residential planning areas have detailed noise studies done ai the tentative map/PUD level to assure compliance with the City's noise policy. 21. Through the site design and conditions of approval for individual planning areas, no light or glare will be permitted to he directed ofrsite of the master plan property. Lighting within planning areas will be low intensity and shielded from upward reflections. New light will not be a significant impact. 22. The grading and construction propossd for the master plan area will not involve the application, use or disposal of hazardous materials or substances. 23. The allowed density associated with this project is contained in BLEP which essentially allows a total of 451 new dwelling units ro be built on the master plan property. This density is consistent net only with BLEP'but with the City's Growth Management Program and the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (L.FMP). While the applicant will be pursuing a State allowed 25% density bonus in conjunction with affordable housing units, the overall proposed density can be physically accommodated onsita and will not constitute a substantial altering of the area's density. 24. The project proposes to construct housing units on the east side of the master plan. The west side may create a need for housing in the area if the non-residential land uses for the west side are actualized. Overall, this project will supply housing units; not create a. need for additional housing. 25. The Poinsettia Shores project will generate less traffic than the currently allowed BLEP project (approximately 26,500 ADT vs. 12,300 ADT) as documented in the applicant's traffic study by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated May 17,1993. A substantial increase in traffic will not result from the Poinsettia Shores project and all major roadways, through their alignment and classification, will be able to adequately serve the master plan. 26. A large demand for new parking facilities will not be created by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, Each planning area snd associated use will provide required parking per the code. 27. The proposed land uses of Poinsettia Shores will impact roadways and intersections more than the currently vacant land does, however, it will be less of an impact than BLEP. As mentioned, the planned circulation and roadway alignment system will be adequate to serve the area and be in compliance with the Zone 9 LFMP. 28. The master plan site is outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area so no impacts to or from air traffic will result. No waterborne traffic occurs in the vicinity and the operations of the railroad right of way will not be impacted by the master plan or the planned railroad crossing bridge of Avenida Encinas. •9* KAIZA POIXSETTIA^-— HOD1A.V 29. The master plan circulation system will include standard provisions for transportation systems accommodating vehicles with bicycle lanes and sidewalks for pedestrian movements so that there will be no increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 30. The master plan's circulation system, as well as individual planning areas' circulation, will be reviewed by all pertinent Gry departments to ensure that there- will be no impacts to any emergency response procedures Of evacuation plans. 31. The master plan has the potential TO create a significant visual impact through the development of structures near the lagoon environment. EIR 84-3 established certain development standards to act as visual mitigation to the impacts created by blufftop development. A 45-50 foot minimum structural setback from the blufftop was established and will be a minimum requirement for blufftop planning areas, A larger setback wjll be required through the master plan and planning area approval processes. To assist in reducing visual impacts to insignificance, EIR 84-3 specified a reduced building height limit for single story structures and a minimum percentage of single story units within a planning area. In addition, specifications were outlined with regards to accessory structures and allowances for public access/trails within the blufftop setback area. EIR 84-3 also required a buffer of at least SO feet between the mobile home park to the north and any structures within the master plan. Part of the mitigation program associated with this environmental review and the master plan amendrnenr will be the formulation of development standards designed to mitigate visual impacts. Standards will be established for each blufftop planning area with the master plan amendment approval. These standards will be similar, or more restrictive, to those items outlined in EIR. 84-3 and will include: a minimum structural setback from the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park, a minimum structural blufftop setback, a reduced height limit for single story structures (based on the Qt/s current height definition), a minimum percentage of single story structures per planning area, and provisions for public access/trails within blufftop setback areas. 32. No impacts to the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities will be created by the development of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The master plan will, however, create recreational opportunities in the form of a recreational center with such amenities as a swirnming pool, tennis courts and passive areas. In addition, the master plan will provide a public access lagoon blufftop trail along the project"s southern perimeter. -10- OS 2o 93 -14 : 3 >S KAIZA POIXSETTI.^— HOFMAN FLAXXIXG ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH A5: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate seals of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and g) no project alternative. a) The development cf the master plan area will take place in at least two phases. The first phase will develop the east side of the master plan and the second phase will develop the west side. The east side development may occur in more than one phase. b) No site designs for individual planning areas are being approved with this master plan amendment- However, some development standards will be established for planning areas to guide the site designs of individual planning areas. The circulation and roadway design of Avenida Encinas is being established by this amendment and is the result of staffs review to ensure compliance with City's standards as well as to ensure a master planning approach to the sire. c) The proposed scale of development is in keeping with the allowed dwelling units available for the master plan property and is less intense in non-residential square footage and scale than the BLEP master plan. d) The area is zoned PC which requires a master plan. Since a master plan exists, an amendment is the proper way to modify allowed land uses. The proposed residential land uses are compatible and acceptable alternatives to the educational uses allowed under BLEP. Agricultural uses are not economically viable or desired by the current master plan property owner. e) The west side of the master plan b set up to be planned in detail and developed at some future time. Near terra developments will focus on the east side's residential planning areas. f) Conceivably, alternate sites for the proposed land uses exist. However, the subject master plan property is capable of accommodating the proposed land uses and no significant unmitigable environmental impacts will be created. g) The no project alternative would leave the site mostly vacant and undeveloped as it currently is. The City and existing residents within the master plan are anticipating continued planning and development efforts on this property to remove the educational uses of BLEP. The no project alternative does not contain significant environmental benefits. -11- US 23 y:, 14:3S OGi;.^. 53S6 KAIZ.-. POINSETTI^-- HOFMAN PLANNING DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ find char the proposed projecr COULD _NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environ.rr.emal effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. ...X_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a signifkanr effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Date Planning Directed"-1 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES-HP APPLICABLE) Land Use/yisual Impacts 1. The master plan amendment will establish a minimum structural setback from the existing mobile home park for all planning areas adjacent to it. This minimum setback shall be equal to, or greater than, the setback/buffer outlined in EIR 84-03. 2. The Master Plan Amendment will establish development standards for the east side's residential planning areas adjacent to the lagoon bluff top that will be similar to, or more restrictive, than those outlined in EIR 84-03. Tnese standards shall address: A. A minimum bluff top structural setback. B. Reduced single story height limitations. C. A minimum percentage of single story structures. D. Provisions for public access along the bluff top perimeter. 14:39 <S'6l9^fcL S3S6 KAlZA POINSETTLJ^-- HOFMAN PLANNING 3. The Master Plan Amendment will establish development standards for the west side's planning area adjacent to the lagoon bluff which will be similar to, or more restrictive, than those outlined in EIR 34-03. These standards shall address: A, A rninirnurn blufftcp structural setback. B, Building height limitations. C, Provisions for public access along the bluff top perimeter. Archaeology The Master Plan Amendment will be conditioned to require a qualified archaeologist to monitor all grading activities near or on the archaeological sites documented in EIR 84-03, Paleontology The Master Plan Amendment will be conditioned to require a qualified paleontologist to be involved with all grading operations and comply with the City's standard paleontological mitigation program. Noise The Master Plan Amendment will be conditioned to require residential planning areas to have detailed noise studies done and incorporated at the tentative map/PUD approval level to assure compliance with the City's noise policy. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE ATTACHED -en,-i- POINSETTI.^- HOFMAN PLACING THIS IS 70 ClrOTFf THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE .ABOVE MrTTGATINCr MEASURES AND CONCUR v/TTH THZ ADDITION CP TM1S2 MEASURES TO THE PROJECT, / ' a i» cor August 3» 1993 Sa&bluif ,4 California Gtneral Partntrahip Sy: H*cfc«tt Manageswn* Corporation,a Califerni* Corporation, Iti Ttrry Cf President 0 8 23 •• y .3 14:42 S3S6 KAIZA POINSETTI^-- HOFMAN PLANNING PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN EXISTING GENERAL PLAN City of Carlsbad Planning Dep«ai titient MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: A 162 acre PC (Planned-Community) zoned, Master Plan property on the north side of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of 1-5, east of Carlsbad Boulevard and south of the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park in the southwest quadrant of the City. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Master Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land uses associated with the former Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan from RM, RMH, RC, P, N, TS/C, and OS to RM, RH, NRR, TS/C, and OS, General Plan designations. The Master Plan Amendment will guide the development of individual planning areas. The City of C<irisbad 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 Lss Pahrias 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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (619) 43S-1161, extension 4441. DATED: AUGUST 12, 1992 MICHAEL X HOLZMILLER CASE NO: MP 17S(D)/GPA 91-05/ Planning Director LFMP 67-09(A)/LCPA 91-02 CASE NAME: PQLNSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN PUBLISH DAT?.. AUGUST 12, 1993 Cjtv lif_tjrjsbad s«* Here Below: i sea t j I Cutset -• Street AdC'tss: 20?* '.25 City: Car's&ad Phone: (e?9H3S-1161. «xt. l*U.\ CflcTty: San 9iego PSOJECT LOCATION ty: _T,.arisbad Cross Streets: y_'jf.--re_in';ersfc::on g* Cj'U&M Si-.;1. evare/AygHda Enciriai Total Acre«: 1&2 Assessor's Psreti No. t'_6-&_gQ-_'^/jjiS- Up-1 •'^ig. "9, 25 ,37.29-3? Section! Twp. Sangt: •-it.-.i-> 2 «iles: Stars .i«y *: _•_-? , Waterways: Pacific Ocean ard Bat!goitc« Airscrta: . R«il«ay»: ATtSf Schools: KOP Early Cora veg Dee Draft E:R (Pr: sr SCfl NO. ; Keg Bee HOI EA iraft £18 FOHSI OTHEK:joint Mnal Other ACTIOi Gerx-ral P\sn L'pdat* 3*n«f»l Pl«n Aitendrnw Rencnl ?l<jn tlement Comnunity Plan Rezon* Planr«»O U'.ii Sit» Pisn Ust P*r*ft Land OlvUfon CSt£«<vii(en, Pircil Mip, Trtct Map, *tc.) C6«»tit Permit Other J..CPA OEVEi.OP»BIT < <t<ia°enti«l: Unit*Wtttr Facilftfts: Type iiroi.oyt*« Transportition: Ft. Acre» 6nployt«* Hining: Sq. Ft. Acrt* &iploy««* Povtr: MG: Min«ril watts Uaata Tr«fnent: Hazardous waste: iSet T>ce X Other: Uno'.*nr«d Af»> PSOJECT ISSUES DISOJSSE33 il Jt _ *esth«tic/V(fuat _ Agricultural Land _ Air Sualtty Pl«(r\/f lood!r«e ?or»«l kirri/F<r«Septic Sy«t Water Quality w«ter Sucoly/ irotrri yattr Coastal Zone Moite Balance soil £rc«lon/C«HJ«ctfotVCfec(ina Solid Wajtt Toxic/Hi jiPdoui Economic/ JCC9fiscal veaetttfon Wildlife Growth inducing Isndusa cuaulit(v« Effect Other Land U»e/tcn1rQ/G«nerel ?ltn V>&* "his master plan property is currtntir vtcanl except for 75 aingle faeilly lota (70 tajilt, 5 vacant). The PC zone reoulre* master planning. The current land ^*« d*«ix«tier* reflect the educational uae* of tfie fonaer 8ati»lite4 LMCWO Educational Perk C3LEP) .Naiter Plan. Thit waster Plan Amendment will replace educatlanal and related u«e» nith r«iiiential u«e». Project 3eacriptfcn A «8St«f Plan Ane«in»nt, Semrai Plan Xi>nx4wnc, Locsl racilitlee Hanaflewent Plan Aawndnamt, and Local Coaatil Prograa •.3 chance tne land use« sa^^'s-rt with the formar Satiqulro* 1.89000 Educatianel Park «»ater Plan fro" BH, *"H, RC, P, K. TS/C, ana cs to UN, RH, HRR, TS/C, ana cc ijer^ral Plan beaignatiors. The Meter Plan Ajaeroment will guide tne oereiocfflefit of indivieual planning area*. s -. cl«arinQhoy»e will «<«-,of; i-sont t ficarlsn •xro-r* 'or aU new proj»cta. If * SCN nua*«r alr*«or exiita 'or « project (e.Sr; s hotice Of Frsperat-.cn sr p4-8v\<xa draft *wufient) please fill it in. *avt»ed Octooer <}&f (' INDOOR AND OUTDOOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREA C) CITY OF CARLSBAD Report #98-19.A January 29, 1998 <?o (Revised February 13,1998) 22 Q CC r- > 2: -^- uj O O O ^ !-U Prepared For: COLRICH COMMUNITIES 4141 Jutland Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92117 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Tanya Moon MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660-7528 (714)760-0891 Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C ...... Page 1 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREAC) CITY OF CARLSBAD EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The outdoor living areas in Planning Area C must comply with the City of Carlsbad outdoor noise standard of 60 CNEL. A number of rear yard areas in the project will be exposed to traffic noise from Avenida Encinas and the Interstate 5 Freeway (1-5). The analysis indicates that these outdoor living areas will be exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of approximately 69.2 CNEL along the 1-5 Freeway, and 62.2 CNEL along Avenida Encinas. Therefore, in order to meet the 60 CNEL noise standard, the outdoor living areas along these roadways will need noise mitigation measures in terms of sound walls. In order to meet the 60 CNEL noise standard, noise barriers will be required for the outdoor living areas adjacent to the 1-5 Freeway and Avenida Encinas. The required noise barriers should be relative to the top of slope. The top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad elevation and the roadway elevation. The required noise barrier heights and locations are shown below in Table S-l and Exhibit S. Table S-l REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION Cross Base of Noise Barrier Top-of-Wall Section No. Wall Height (ft) (1-5 Freeway) ALONG INTERSTATE 5 (below 60 CNEL for outdoor areas) 1 111.0 2 114.0 3 - 117.0 4 122.5 5 120.0 6 121.5 7 123.0 8 124.0 9 126.7 ALONG AVENIDA ENCINAS 10 109.7 11 109.3 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 118.0 120.0 123.0 128.5 126.0 127.5 129.0 130.0 133.7 -- —- NOTE: The required noise barriers should be relative to the top of slope. The top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad elevation and the roadway elevation. 7 ft Barrier T.O.W. - 130.0 6 ft Barrier T.O.W. - 129.0 6 ft earner T.O.W." 127.5 TO.W. = 126.0 IA6 ft Barrier T.O.W. - 128.5 6 rt Barrier r.o.w. = 123.0 sSft Barrier T.O.W.. 120.0 7 ft Barrier C.S. 1 6 ft Barrier T.O.W.. 118.0 i mv'; lestre Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C Page 2 With the required noise barriers, all outdoor living areas in the project are projected to meet the City's 60 CNEL outdoor noise standard. The noise barriers are required to have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be constructed of wood studs with stucco exterior, 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these material. INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The buildings along Avenida Encinas and the 1-5 Freeway will experience traffic noise levels in excess of 60 dBA CNEL. The analysis indicates that the second story buildings in the project will experience worst case traffic noise levels of 72.7 along the 1-5 Freeway, and 62.0 dBA along Avenida Encinas. The results are maximum outdoor to indoor noise building attenuations of approximately 27.7 dBA for the second story buildings facing the 1-5 Freeway, and 17.6 dBA for the second story buildings facing Avenida Encinas in order to meet the City of Carlsbad's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The analysis were based on hard site conditions. (It should be noted that the analysis of the buildings include noise reductions due to the berm/walls located between the project site and the freeway.) Detailed engineering calculations which demonstrate the noise reduction levels are necessary for residential building attenuation requirements of greater than 20 dB. An indoor noise analysis is required to determine the need for building upgrades for the residential units adjacent to the 1-5 Freeway when detailed architectural plans become available, and prior to issuance of building permit. Since all outdoor-to-indoor noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dBA when the windows are open, any building within the 57 dBA CNEL contour line are projected to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed, therefore, requiring mechanical ventilation. All units in the project will need windows closed to meet the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. In order to assume windows can remain closed to achieve the required attenuations, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per Uniform Building Code. This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The system must supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Air conditioning may be an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the UBC (Section 1205 (c)) requirements. The system must meet the requirements of the UBC, and this should be coordinated with the mechanical engineer for the project. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all units of the buildings in the project. lestre Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C PageS OUTDOOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR POINSETTIA SHORES (PLANNING AREAC) CITY OF CARLSBAD 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of Planning Area C with the noise related 'Conditions of Approval' placed on the project by the City of Carlsbad. The project calls for the development of multi-family residential units. The report addresses the future exterior noise levels at the project site. The project site is located adjacent to Avenida Encinas and the Interstate 5 Freeway as shown in Exhibit 1. The project will be exposed primarily to traffic noise from these roadways. This study determines the need for any exterior mitigation measures to provide adequate protection for the residential units in the project. 2.0 NOISE CRITERIA The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is a 24 hour time weighted annual average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 PM to 10 PM) penalizes noises by 5 dB while nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) noises are penalized by 10 dB. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect peoples sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. The City of Carlsbad noise standards require that outdoor living areas not exceed a noise level of 60 CNEL. The City's indoor noise standard is 45 CNEL. 3.0 ROADWAY NOISE The noise levels projected in the next section of this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWAHighway Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distance to 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. The FHWA model was also used here in computerized format to determine barrier heights. The future traffic volume for Avenida Encinas was taken from the traffic study "Traffic Impact CITY OF OCEANSIDE PACIFIC MESTRE CREVE ASSOCIATES CITY OF VISTA CITY OF SAN MARCOS Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map festre Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C Page 4 Analysis for Kaiza Poinsettia Development, Zone 9" prepared by P & D Technologies, April 1991. The traffic was projected for Year 2010. The traffic volumes and speeds utilized are presented in Table 1. The time and traffic distributions utilized are presented in Table 2 and is considered a worst case assumption for Avenida Encinas. The truck mix used with the FHWA Model for the 1-5 Freeway were 3.26% medium trucks and 3.73% heavy trucks taken from the Caltrans Highway Traffic Manual (1988). Table 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED Avenida Encinas 6,900 45 1-5 Freeway 215,600 65 Table 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT FOR ARTERIAL VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck 75.51 1.56 0.64 12.57 0.09 0.02 9.34 0.19 0.08 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are reported here in Table 3 are in terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. In addition, the wall and observer are calculated per the FHWA Manual and are included in the Appendix. Mefestre Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C PageS Table 3 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR (FT) ROADWAY SEGMENT -70- -65- -60- Avenida Encinas (soft site) 23 50 109 Interstate 5 Soft site Hard site 511 2190 1,101 6,925 2,373 21,899, The results in Table 3 indicate that the outdoor living areas along Avenida Encinas and the 1-5 Freeway will be exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL. The nearest outdoor living areas along the 1-5 Freeway will experience a worst case traffic noise level of approximately 69.2 CNEL (soft site). Also, the nearest second story buildings along the 1-5 Freeway will experience a worst case traffic noise level of 72.7 CNEL (hard site). (Hard site conditions does not include noise reduction due to ground absorption as in soft site conditions). The analysis for the buildings includes the shielding effects due to the berm/walls located between the project site and the freeway. Additionally, the nearest outdoor living areas along Avenida Encinas will experience a worst case traffic noise level of approximately 62.0 CNEL. 4.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/Derm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and a 6 foot receiver is broken by the barrier. The greater the distance the sound must travel around the barrier to reach the receiver, the greater the noise reduction of the barrier. The FHWA model was also used here in a computerized format to determine barrier heights. A number of outdoor living areas in the project will be exposed to traffic noise from Avenida Encinas and the Interstate 5 Freeway (1-5). The analysis indicates that these outdoor living areas will be exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of approximately 69.2 CNEL along the 1-5 and 62.2 CNEL along Avenida Encinas. Therefore, in order to meet the 60 CNEL noise standard, the outdoor living areas along the roadways will need noise mitigation measures in terms of sound walls. The required noise barrier heights and locations are shown below in Table 4 and Exhibit 2. The required noise barriers should be relative to the top of slope. The top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad elevation and the roadway elevation. Mtfestre Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C Page 6 Table 4 REQUIRED NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT AND LOCATION Cross Base of Noise Barrier Top-of-Wall Section No. Wall Height (ft) (1-5 Freeway) ALONG INTERSTATE 5 (below 60 CNEL for outdoor areas) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALONG 10 11 111.0 114.0 117.0 122.5 120.0 121.5 123.0 124.0 126.7 AVENIDAENCINAS 109.7 109.3 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 118.0 120.0 123.0 128.5 126.0 127.5 129.0 130.0 133.7 —— NOTE: The required noise barriers should be relative to the top of slope. The top of slope refers to the higher elevation between the pad elevation and the roadway elevation. The above required noise barriers are projected to reduce the noise levels for all outdoor living areas to below 60 CNEL. The noise barriers are required to have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. They may be constructed of wood studs with stucco exterior, 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these material. 7.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The analysis indicates that the second story buildings in the project will experience worst case traffic noise levels of 72.7 along the 1-5 Freeway, and 62.0 dBA along Avenida Encinas. The results are maximum outdoor to indoor noise building attenuations of approximately 27.7 dBA for the second story buildings facing the 1-5 Freeway, and 17.6 dBA for the second story buildings facing Avenida Encinas in order to meet the City of Carlsbad's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The analysis were based on hard site conditions. (It should be noted that the analysis of the second story buildings include noise reductions due to the berm/walls located between the project site and the freeway.) Detailed engineering calculations which demonstrate the noise reduction levels are necessary for residential building attenuation requirements of greater than 20 dB. An indoor noise analysis is required to determine the need for building upgrades for the residential units adjacent to the 1-5 Freeway when detailed architectural plans become available, and prior to issuance of building permit. T.O.W. - 130. 6 ft Barrier T.O.W. = 126.0 6 ft Barrier \estre Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C Page? Since all outdoor-to-indoor noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dBA when the windows are open, any building within the 57 dBA CNEL contour line are projected to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed, therefore, requiring mechanical ventilation. The buildings in the project will need windows closed meet the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. In order to assume windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per Uniform Building Code. This can be achieved with mechanical ventilation to provide fresh air. The system must supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Air conditioning may be an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the UBC (Section 1205 (c)) requirements. This should be coordinated with the mechanical engineer of the project. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all buildings in the project. festre Greve Associates Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores, Area C PageS APPENDIX DATA USED TO DESIGN NOISE BARRIERS Cross Road Section Elevation Centerline Distance To To Wall Centerline Base Of Wall Distance To Observer Pad Elevation Observer Wall Height Height 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 80 78 74 69 65 61 57 51 47 10 11 87 85 72 75 INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY 200 210 225 240 250 265 270 280 340 111 114 117 122.5 120 121.5 123 124 126.7 250 230 300 315 275 290 320 350 363 109.7 109.7 108 102.9 105 ' 105 120.3 125.3 126.7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 ALONG AVENIDAENCINAS 109.7 109.3 77 80 109.7 109.7 6 6 6.0 5.0