ATTACHMENT 3A - MAINTENANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
For Attachment 3A, provide a BMP operation and maintenance plan (0&M Plan). The checklist below identifies minimum elements to be included with the 0&M Plan. An 0&M Plan template is available at:
http://www.citVofvista.com/services/city-departments/community-development/building-planning- permits-applications/land-development-autocad-templates/storm-water-forms ❑X Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s)
0 Use of 0&M Plan template, or plan of equivalent content
BF-1
Biofiltration
BMP MAINTENANCE FACT SHEET
FOR
STRUCTURAL BMP BF-1 BI OFI LTRATION
Biofiltration facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via underdrain or overflow to the downstream conveyance system.
Biofiltration facilities have limited or no infiltration_They are typically designed to provide enough hydraulic head to move flows through the underdrain connection to the storm drain system. Typical biofiltration components include:
■ Inflow distribution mechanisms(e.g,perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) • Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows(e.g.,splash blocks or riprap) ■ Shallow surface ponding far captured flows
• Side slope and basin bottom vegetation selected based on climate and ponding depth • Non-floating mulch layer
■ Media layer(planting mix or engineered media)capable of supportingvegetation growth • Filter course layer consisting of aggregate to prevent the migration of fines into uncompacted native soils or the aggregate storage layer
■ Aggregate storage layer with underdraIn(s)
• Impermeable liner or uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility ■ Overflow structure
Normal Expected Maintenance
Biofiltration requires routine maintenance to:remove accumulated materials such as sediment,trash or debris; maintain vegetation health; maintain infiltration capacity of the media layer, replenish mulch; and maintain Integrity of side slopes, inlets, energy dissipators, and outlets. A summary table of standard inspection and maintenance indicators is provided within this Fact Sheet.
Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure
If any of the following scenarios are observed, the BMP is not performing as Irrtended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or erosion.Corrective maintenance, increased inspection and maintenance,BMP replacement,ar a different BMP type will be required.
• The BMP is not drained between storm events.Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours foI lowing a storm event poses a risk of vector(mosquito)breeding.Poor drainage can result from clogging of the media layer,filter course,aggregate storage layer,underdrain,or outlet structure.The specific cause of the drainage issue must be determined and corrected. • Sediment, trash, or debris accumulation greater than 25%of the surface ponding volume within one month. This means the load from the tributary drainage area is too high, reducing BMP function or clogging the BMP.This would require pretreatment measures within the tributary area draining to the BMP to intercept the materials.Pretreatment components,especially for sediment,will axtend the life of components that are more expensive to replace such as media,filter course,and aggregate layers. • Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow that is not readily corrected by adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan.If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade,the[City Engineer]shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction.
BF-1 Page 1 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
Other Spode Corrsiderations
Biofiltration is a vegetated structural BMP.Vegetated structural BMP&that are constructed in the vicinity of,or connected to,an existingjurisdictionaI water or wetland could inadvertently result in creation of expanded waters or wetlands.As such,vegetated structural BM Ps have the potential to come under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers,SIDRWQCB,California Department of Fish and Wildlife,or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This could result in the need for specific resource agency permits and costly mitigation to perform maintenance of the structural BMP. Along with proper placement of a structural BMP, routine maintenance is key to preventingthis scenario.
BF-1 Page 2 ofi 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR BF-1 BIOFI LTRAT ION The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection,operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless res po n si h i lity has heen formal lytransferred to a n age n cy,com m u n ity faci I it ies d istrict,homeowners associat bo n,p ro pe rty ow n e rs a sso ci at i o n,o r of h er s pecia I d ist rict.
MaIntenancefrequencies listed in this table are a ve rageAypi ca I frequencies.Actual maintenance needs are site-specific,and maintenance may be required more frequently.
Maintenance must he performed whenever needed,ha sed on maintenance indicators presented in this table.The B M P owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections to see when maintenance is needed based an the maintenance indicators.Du ring the first year of operation of a structural BMP,inspection is recommended at least once prior to August 31 and then monthly from September through May.Inspection during a storm ere nt is also recommended.After the initial period of frequent inspections,the minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based an the results of the first year inspections.
ThresholdlIndkator Maintenance Act ion Typical Maintenance Frequency Accumulation of sediment,litter,or debris Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, • Inspect monthly. If the BMP is 25%full'or more in without damage to the vegetation or compaction of the one month,increase inspection frequency to monthly media layer. plusafter every 0.1-inch or Iargerstorm event. • Remove any accumulated materials found at each
inspection.
Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear blockage. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event.
• Remove any accumulated materials found at each
inspection.
Damage to structural components such as weirs,inlet or Repair or replace as applicable • Inspect annually. outlet structures • Maintenance when needed.
Poor vegetation establishment Re-seed,re-plant,or re-establish vegetation per original • Inspect monthly. plans. • Maintenance when needed.
Dead or diseased vegetation Remove dead or diseased vegetation,re-seed,re-plant, • Inspect monthly. or re-establish vegetation per original plans. • Maintenance when needed.
Overgrown vegetation Mow or trim as appropriate. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed.
2/3 of mulch has decomposed, or mulch has been Remove decomposed fraction and top off with fresh Inspect monthly. removed mulch to a total depth of 3 inches. • Replenish mulch annually, or more frequently when needed based on inspection.
•"25%fuII'is defined as 34 of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure(e.g.,if the height to the a utf low o pen i ng is 12 inches from the bottom elevation,then the materials must be removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation—this should be marked on the outflow structure).
BF-1 Page 3 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR BF-1 81ORLTRATI0N[Continued from previous page] Thresholdlinclkator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flaw Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the • Inspect monthly. irrigation system. • Maintenance when needed.
Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow Repairlre-se edlre-plant eroded areas, and make • Inspect after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event.if appropriate corrective measures such as adding erosion erosion due to storm water flow has been Observed, control blankets,adding stone at flow entry points,or increase inspection frequency to after every 0-1-inch minor regrading to restore proper drainage according or larger storm event. to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by . Maintenance when needed. If the issue is not restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade,the corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan [City Engineer]shall be contacted prior to any additional and grade,the[City Engineer]shall be contacted prior repairs or reconstruction. to any additional repairs or reconstruction.
Standing water in BMP for longer than 24 hours Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger fallowing a storm event irrigation system, removing obstructions of debris or storm event. If standing water is observed, increase Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours invasive vegetation, clearing underdrains, or inspection frequency to after every 0-1-inch or larger following a storm event may be detrimental to
repairingfreplacingclogged or compacted soils. storm event. vegetation health • Maintenance when needed.
Presence of mosquitos larvae If mosquitosilarvae are observed: first, immediately • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger remove any standing water by dispersing to nearby storm event. If mosquitos are observed, increase For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult landscaping; second, make corrective measures as inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger mosquitos,see applicable to restore BMP drainage to prevent standing storm event. htto:ll www.mosguito.orelbioloey water. • Maintenance when needed.
If mosquitos persist fallowing corrective measures to
remove standing water,or if the BMP design does not
meet the 95-hour drawdown criteria due to release
rates controlled by an orifice installed on the
underdrain,the [City Engineer] shall be contacted to
determine a solution.A different BMP type,or a Vector
Management Plan prepared with concu rrence fro m the
County of San Diego Department of Environmental
Heakh,may be required.
Underdrain clogged Clear blockage. • Inspect if standing water is observed for longer than 2 4-9 5 hours foIIowinga storm event.
• Maintenance when needed.
BF-1 Page 4 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
References
American Mosquito Control Association.
http://www.m osq u[to-or�J
California Storm Water Quality Association(CASQ4).2003.Municipal B M P Handbook. httos:// www.casoa.orOresources/bmo-handbookslmunicioaI-bmp-hand book County of San Diego.2014.Low Impact Development Handbook. h tto 7//www.sa nd ieeocounty.epV/opnte nt/sd c/d o w/wa tersh e d s/su sm pA id.htm I San Diego County Copermittees.2016.Model BMP Design Manual,Appendix E,Fact Sheet BF-1- http-:// www.proiectcleanwater.org(Index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=250<emid=220 BF-1 Page 5 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Bidiltration
Page Intentionally Blank for Double-Sided Printing
BF-1 Page 6 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.:
Permit No.: APN(s):
Property/Development Name, Responsible Party Name and Phone Number, Pro perty Ad d ress of BMP: Responsible PartyAddress:
INIS PECTIC,N AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BIO FI LTRATIO N PAGE 1 of 5 Threshold/Indicator MaiMenanee Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance ConduRed Accumulation of sediment,litter,or debris LJ Remove and properly dispose of Maintenance Needed? accumulated materials,without damage tothe vegetation
❑YES LJ If sediment,litter,or debris accumulation I I NO exceeds 25'%of the surface ponding
I I N/A volume within one month(25%tuIf*),
add a fo re bay o r other pre-treatment
measures within the tributary area
draining to the BMP to intercept the
materials.
I I other/Comments:
Poor vegetation establishment Fl Re seed,re-plant,or re-estah Iish Maintenance Needed? vegetation peroriginal plans
Fl YES ❑other/Comments:
❑NO
❑NIA
"'25%full"is defined as 34 of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure[e.g.,if the height to the a utf low o pen i ng is 12 inches from the bottom elevation,then the materials must he removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation—this should he marked on the outflow structure).
BF-1 Page 7 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.:
Permit No.: APNts):
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BI 0 FI LTRATIO N PAGE 2 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Dead or diseased vegetation LJ Remove dead or diseased vegetation,re- Maintenance Needed? seed,re-plant,or re-establish vegetation per original plans
LJ YES I I other/Comments:
Fl No
Fl N/A
Overgrown vegetation ❑Mow or trim as appropriate Maintenance Needed? ❑Other/Comments:
❑YE5
❑NO
I I N/A
2/3 of mulch has decomposed, or mulch has ❑Remove decomposed fraction and top off been removed with fresh mulch to a total depth of 3 Maintenance Needed? inches
❑YE5 ❑Othe r/Comments:
❑NO
❑N/A
BF-1 Page 8 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.:
Permit No.: APN(s):
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BI 0 FI LTRATIO N PAGE 3 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Erasion due to concentrated irrigation flow LJ Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and Maintenance Needed? adjust the irrigation system
LJ YES I—I Other/Comments:
rl NO
rl N/A
Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff LJ Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, flow and make appropriate corrective
Maintenance Needed? measures such as adding erosion control blankets,adding stone at flow
❑yE5 entry points,or minor re-gradingto
I I No restore properdrainageaccordingta
❑NIA the original plan
1.1 If the issue is not corrected by restoring
the BMP to the original plan and grade,
the[City Engineer]shall be contacted
prior to any additional repairs or
reconstruction
Fl Other/Comm ents:
BF-1 Page 9 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.:
Permit No.: APN(s):
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BI0FILTRATION PAGE 4 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Obstructed inlet or outlet structure ❑Clear blockage Maintenance Needed? ❑other/Comments:
LJ YES
Fl No
Fl N/A
underdrain clogged (inspect underdrain it LJ Clear blockage standing water is observed for longer than 24-96
hours foIlowinga storm event) ❑Other/Comments:
Maintenance Needed?
❑YES
LJ NO
❑N/A
Damage to structural components such as weirs, Fl Repair or replace as applicable inlet or outlet structures
❑Other/Comments:
Maintenance Needed?
I I YES
❑NO
Fl N/A
BF-1 Page 10 of 11
January 12,2017
BF-1
Biofiltration
Date: Inspector: BMP€D No.:
Permit No.: APNts):
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BI 0 FI LTRATIO N PAGE 5 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Standing water in BMP for longer than 24-96 LJ Make appropriate corrective measures hours foIlowinga storm eve nt• such as adjusting irrigation system, Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 removing obstructionsof dehris or invasive vegetation,clearing
hours following storm event may he underdrains,or repairingJreplacing detrimental to vegett ation heahh
clogged or compacted sails
Maintenance Needed?
n Other J Comm errts:
❑YES
IINO
I 1 N/A
Presence of mosquitos/larvae I I Apply corrective measuresto remove standing water in BMP when standing
For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa,and adult wate r occu rs fo r longer t h a n 24-96 mosquitos,see hoursfollowing a storm event.—
Other/Comments-
Maintenance Needed?
I I YES
n NO
n N/A
•Surface pond ing longer than a pp roximate ly 24 hou rs fo I lowi n g a storm event may he detrimental to vegetation health,and surface ponding Iongerthan approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector[mosquito}breeding.Poor drainage can result from clogging of the media layer,filter course,aggregate storage layer,underdrain, or outlet structure.The spec6ccause of the drainage issue must be determined and corrected. ••If mosquitos persist fallowing corrective measures to remove standing water,or if the BMP design does not meet the 96-hour drawdown criteria due to release rates controlled by an orifice installed on the underdrain,the[City Engineer]shall be contacted to determine a solution.A different BMP type,or a Vector Management Plan prepared with concu rrence from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health,may be required.
BF-1 Page 11 of 11
January 12,2017
ATTACHMENT 3B - MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
All projects are required to maintain designed functionality of structural BMPs in perpetuity. Privately- owned projects must record a Storm Drain Maintenance Agreement with the County of San Diego Assessor's Office. A template Storm Drain Maintenance Agreement is available at:
I. Purpose and Scope
This section was prepared based on the Chapter 7 of the City of Vista BMP Design Manual. The goal is to insure that the Project proponent accepts responsibility for all facilities maintenance, repair, and replacement from the time they are constructed until the ownership and maintenance responsibilities is formally transferred to the new owner. Facilities shall be maintained in perpetuity and comply with the City's self-inspection, reporting, and verification requirements.
II. Inspection, Maintenance Log and Self-Verification Forms Fill the forms in the Structural BMP Maintenance Plan (Attachment 3a) for each BMP using the maintenance schedule and the inspection-maintenance checklists. These forms shall be signed by the responsible party and retained for at least (5) years. Use the DMA Exhibit for the location of BMPs. (Make duplicate copies of these forms and fill out those, not the original ones.)
III. Updates, Revisions and Errata
This maintenance plan is a living document and based on the changes made by maintenance personnel, such as replacement of mechanical equipment,addition maintenance procedure shall be added and maintenance plan shall be kept up to date.
Please add the revisions and updates to the maintenance plan to this section if any, these revisions maybe transmitted to the City at any time. However, at a minimum, updates to the maintenance plan must accompany the annual inspection report.
IV. Introduction
The Camino Largo Project proposes the development of a forty six(46)lot residential subdivision,with individual level building pads on 8.86 gross acres. The project also proposes the minor widening and improvement of the Camino Largo private drive, which will include paving, sidewalks with curb and gutter.
The graded site will include forty six (46) new residential lots with driveways and landscaping areas along five (5)streets north of Camino Largo.Approximately 53%of the property will be impervious. Biofiltration basins are proposed for the two main drainage basins for POC-1 and POC-2. Proposed grading has been minimized as much as possible to maintain existing slope and drainage patterns.
V. Responsibility for Maintenance
A. General
Kyun Tae Kim and Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family Trust will enter into a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement (SWFMA)with the City of Vista to maintain designated facilities herein this section for the Camino Largo Project.
The SWFMA will serve as the mechanism to ensure that proper inspection and maintenance is done in an efficient and timely manner.
Responsible Party
Kyun Tae Kim
Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family Trust
2359 Pio Pico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
POC-1
There is one (1) biofiltration basin which will outlet into an existing storm drain along-side North Santa Fe Avenue south of Camino Largo and discharge from the site at POC-1.
POC-2
(760)420-1267
Kyun Tae Kim and Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family will have the direct responsibility for maintenance of Stormwater controls. Funding for the maintenance activities shall be provided by Camino Largo Project or other mechanism to the satisfaction of the City.
Whenever the property is sold and whenever designated individual change, immediately the updated contact information must be provided to the City of Vista.
The Camino Largo Project falls within the "Second Category" of the City of Vista (City) Maintenance Mechanism because the use of biofiltration basins are Best Management Practices (BMPs). The developer would provide the City with security to substantiate the maintenance agreement,which would remain in place for 5 years. The amount of the security would equal the estimated cost of 2 years of maintenance activities.
The security can be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or other form acceptable to the City. If a stormwater utility or other permanent mechanism is put into place, it could assume either a primary or backup maintenance role.
B. Staff Training Program
Staff training and education program shall be carried out twice a year, once prior to the rainy season(October 1 St)and once during the early dry season (April 3011)
The inspection and maintenance training program consists of the operation and function of the biofiltration basins. Please refer to the Structural BMP Maintenance Plan (Attachment 3a)for fact sheets and checklists.
It is the responsibility of 1017 Sycamore Avenue to convey the maintenance and inspection information to the employees. Maintenance personnel must be qualified to properly maintain stormwater management facilities.
Inadequately trained personnel can cause additional problems resulting in additional maintenance costs.
C. Records
Kyun Tae Kim and Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family Trust shall retain education, inspection, and maintenance forms and documents for at least five (5)years.
D. Safety
Keep safety considerations at the forefront of inspection procedures at all times. Likely hazards should be anticipated and avoided. Never enter a confined space(outlet structure,manhole,etc.)without proper training or equipment. A confined space should never be entered without at least one additional person present.
If a toxic or flammable substance is discovered, leave the immediate area and contact the local Sheriff at 911.
Potentially dangerous (e.g., fuel, chemicals, hazardous materials) substances found in the areas must be referred to the local Sheriff's Office immediately for response by the Hazardous Materials Unit. The emergency contact number is 911.
VI. Summary of Drainage Areas and Stormwater Facilities A. Drainage Areas
POC-1
DMA 1 will drain into a biofiltration basin which will outlet into an existing storm drain along-side North Santa Fe Avenue south of Camino Largo and discharge from the site at POC-1.
POC-2
DMA 2 will drain into a biofiltration basin, which outlets via a storm drain into a natural swale at POC-2.
Additional offsite areas along the easterly boundary and towards the northeast is diverted around the development via drainage channels and rip rap, to discharge as historically over Camino Largo and sheet flow into a natural swale.
B. Treatment and Flow-Control Facilities
The BMP biofiltration basins in DMA 1 and DMA 2 are responsible for handling hydromodification requirements for POC-1 and POC-2. Basins 1 and Basin 2 will have a ponding depth of 6 inches. BMPs are comprised of an 18-inch layer of amended soil (a highly sandy, organic rich compost with an infiltration capacity of at least 5 in/hr),and a 7-inch reservoir layer of gravel for additional detention,and to accommodate the French drain system. Below the reservoir layer, the basins will include 3 inches of saturated storage.
Flows will discharge from the basin via a low-flow orifice outlet within the gravel layer to the receiving storm drain system. A riser structure will be constructed within the BMP with multiple low-flow orifices and an emergency overflow, such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the storm drain system.
VII. Facility Documentation
Please see Structural BMP Maintenance Plan (Attachment 3a) regarding BMPs details and maintenance fact sheets.
Vill. Maintenance Schedule and Checklist
Fill out the Checklists in the Structural BMP Maintenance Plan (Attachment 3a)for each BMP. The required maintenance activities are at the end of the section. At the discretion of the project proponent, a qualified stormwater company may be hired to perform the required inspection and maintenance and provide necessary reports.
EXHIBIT: STORM WATER BMP SHEET
• • • • • . . . � . . . . � : ' • �66 a.W- 1 k
all I
FM
,..;.,► 1
al ®RM
• ••: ' ' ' I - _ -������; _ +ter ®R MEN
MO
1m"WIN
g—g-ams M, �: . 7�■ • .��-
I gill
Arm
��;•��y�� -� ; ��'� �r�l �`'�; `` / -►_:�'►`����� MONSOON � � �•l=+� �����.�'' � • '�: ��� � � �� �♦♦♦���♦♦��1 ICI �-dow
i w �.�: � ♦♦V''♦♦♦♦�� IN
MO -110160
WON
* �- , .�.� �Vfir �•� � ��w�� �� � ��, ,�,,.�► �� . . 1, �► ,• �1 ♦I /�� �►� �J, �, �� ,. 1 �i � -� �.�.. � � �;-., r� ovate f _ ��� ,.,�v.L� v�.'• '� � �.� ��-�! � �►� __�I IPM . mill
WIN
h,_ all,._ , 17a -.0
I1 INW, IM
\e FW
Lq
♦ ri>,
'�� moo... �� ; x � ���.. �y ���� !�►�� \7� � A���r �� WAR ..�RIW4lpP
♦ .NOM
ram. �► �►� M \� �,• .�\����` ���� �����o�� - ,�,���� / �,�,/ / i ��� � ��A ��� ��' wit- ��- t�.� �IO ` �\ WftN►• a �• " \\9 A IMP al
Em
.� .
slowl
OR
Ap
WE
slow, , ♦- .a���.� / s
NN
��♦ •� I �! • • • ���e� / �1� �•�� ♦ ' '' r; ewe • r .► ► ® • • . • • Ell
♦ s' gop
-
� - . � � I , �, � �., � � ,.�\��\������� �� •..-- �^ ® � _
MAN
�� ` �` •., a ��- ".` INTIF'� ��'= `is►�' 0-
-Mv
r
l2a
P"� 0,
WPM
SIR#
INN 0. N
IMF
Rm-
PE
WIN dMIN®RN
MI/M
r
rt
FBI NO
` �► / s ` - ♦♦t�♦♦♦♦� , ♦� `,• ��. \_••� � �'� : - •.,.� •, r E::i. ��i:-�� Syr -_ :, � \ ..♦'�.�`,�.��id��,,'`� �` �` �-, � � 'A1�•y���/ � ,�y,, r•-. ,�. �;sy�4 � .3%p: ;, >�;4 s"it. :f�/•- �, ♦♦ ��=,��i�♦ ,��` 'P
--��� .MR II - r /! -,�A \
NN
All
0 �• a } ..
I - Y
-' '�W,j����1�'••!� ► • �� � / ♦ t�. • ��� � I � ��y_. r ✓fir" � �� • � IlkO�O��� >/rF f �� Hs '.ar>.•,.3ta:•:j Y,'a�;�i•',s;:6 ,:.. o✓„ • • • • • • ' ' • • land lanni civil en ineerin surve in
�� Q ���� � ��� ♦ • • • ♦ • :• • ��4�, �11 d� � � g' y '!Cr,84 S r' -err ►�.4 +.*i
1'I I /%'J �l��'�� •J � �, _ CF/-.j�'• '':'.. {r '%"ri:%:•�. ;5`:C:::ic AMINO
1Ml
a
,�\ \ � ` � � Y /� `� S`�Ir�,+�•�/.:'�:.-. Jr/.;'...L�:���'�"--it ��'� A ♦ � ,�� �� �•�.- �q �c;:fe84c`i..J;>:::>:;-;:;:+;;r..r::yr.<.. - ..::,:i �:;.; • r 1 / �yy %r'Yi.'
MAINTENANCE INDICATORS AND ACTIONS FOR DEEP ROUTED, DENSE, BIOFILTRATION BMPS DROUGHT TOLERANT TYPICAL MAINTENANCE INDICATORS TYPICAL MAINTENANCE ACTIONS TYPE G-2 CATCH BASIN PLANTING SUITABLE FOR - O 5 PER D-8 WELL DRAINED SOIL - ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT(OVER 2 REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF LEGEND INCHES DEEP OR COVERS VEGETATION), ACCUMULATED MATERIALS WITHOUT — LITTER, OR DEBRIS DAMAGE TO THE VEGETATION. CONFIRM THAT SOIL IS NOT CLOGGING AND THAT THE i��7 S 2 7 �Q�!j 1O FREEBOARD = 12.00" (CONJUNCTIVE USE FACILITY) AREA DRAINS AFTER STORM EVENT.TILL OR FC REPLACE SOIL AS NECESSARY. 1= -F- 4 77 HC POOR VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT ENSURE VEGETATION IS HEALTHY AND ,,—I— _ O BASIN HEIGHT HMAX = 30.00" DENSE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FILTERING AND 3O 6 PC 3" MULCH — — — — — — I O3 PONDING DEPTH = 6.00" TO PROTECT SOILS FROM EROSION. _ _ _ _ _ _ REPLENISH MULCH AS NECESSARY (IF LESS T THAN 3 INCHES DEEP), REMOVE FALLEN I— — 18" AMENDED SOIL MIN. INFILTRATION RATE 5"/HR — 11 O RISER INVERT HTOP = 18.00" LEAVES AND DEBRIS, PRUNE LARGE SHRUBS _4 PEA GRAVEL OR TREES, AND MOW TURF AREAS. I I O5 *EMERGENCY WEIR INVERT = 18.00" OVERGROWN VEGETATION-WOODY MOW OR TRIM AS APPROPRIATE, BUT NOT — 7" GRAVEL LAYER O VEGETATION NOT PART OF DESIGN IS LESS THAN THE DESIGN HEIGHT OF THE U R 6 FOR V2 STORAGE *LOWER SLOT INVERT = 6.00" PRESENT AND GRASS EXCESSIVELY TALL VEGETATION (TYPICALLY 4-6INCHES FOR O 0 El 1 1 - 5" HIGH X 34" LONG OPENING
(GREATER THAN 10 INCHES) GRASS). CONFIRM THAT IRRIGATION IS OUTFLOW
ADEQUATE AND NOT EXCESSIVE AND THAT
O *UPPER SLOT INVERT = 7.00"
SPRAYS DO NOT DIRECTLY ENTER THREE 3 12" RCP I _ 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE 1 — 4" HIGH X 10" LONG OPENING OVERFLOW GRATES. REPLACE DEAD PLANTS OUTLET(PIPES I L
CONFORMING TO ASTM D
AND REMOVE NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE — I CON OR EQUIVALENT PC POLLUTANT CONTROL WSEL = 6.00" WEEDS. 30 ML LkRESTRICTER EROSION DUE TO CONCENTRATED REPAIR/RE-SEED ERODED AREAS AND IMPERMEABLE 3" DEAD STORAGE HC HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL WSEL = 13.92" IRRIGATION FLOW ADJUST THE IRRIGATION. OUT OF V2 STORAGE AREA, LIDLINER* EXIST. GROUND CAP TO LIMIT FLOW BELOW UNDERDRAIN EROSION DUE TO CONCENTRATED REPAIR/RE-SEED ERODED AREAS AND MAKE DRAIN DOWN HOLE, d = 4.00" FC FLOOD CONTROL WSEL = 18.00" STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES SUCH
AS ADDING EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS,
BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL, BMP 1 *ELEVATION MEASURED FROM BASIN SURFACE
ADDING STONE AT ENTRY POINTS, OR
RE-GRADING WHERE NECESSARY. REMOVE NOT TO SCALE
OBSTRUCTIONS AND SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATIONS SO WATER DISPERSES. *30 MILLINER NOTE: 30—MIL IMPERMEABLE LINER FOR BIORETENTION CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING STANDING WATER (BMP NOT DRAINING). IF WHERE THERE IS AN UNDERDRAIN, SUCH AS SPECIFICATIONS: SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM D792): 1.2 (G/CC, MIN.); TENSILE (ASTM D882): 73 MOSQUITO LARVAE ARE PRESENT AND IN PLANTER BOXES AND MANUFACTURED (LB/IN—WIDTH, MIN); ELONGATION AT BREAK (ASTM D882): 380 (%, MIN); MODULUS (ASTM D882):
PERSISTENT, CONTACT THE SAN DIEGO BIOFILTERS, CHECK THE UNDERDRAIN PIPING 30 (LB/IN—WIDTH, MIN.); AND TEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D1004): 8 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM SHEAR VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM AT(858) TO MAKE SURE IT IS INTACT AND STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 58.4 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM PEEL STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 15 (LB/IN, IN). 694-2888. MOSQUITO LARVICIDES SHOULD UNOBSTRUCTED. ABATE ANY POTENTIAL SEE COLORADO LINING INTERNATIONAL PVC 30 BE APPLIED ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY VECTORS BY FILLING HOLES IN THE GROUND HTTP: //WWW.COLORADOLINING.COM/PRODUCTS/PVC.PDF) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
NECESSARY AND THEN ONLY BY A LICENSED IN AND AROUND THE BIOFILTER FACILITY INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTOR. AND BY INSURING THAT THERE ARE NO
AREAS WHERE WATER STANDS LONGER
THAN 96 HOURS FOLLOWING A STORM. DEEP ROUTED, DENSE, OUTLET INLET OR OUTLET STRUCTURE CLEAR OBSTRUCTIONS. DROUGHT TOLERANT DAMAGE TO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS REPAIR OR REPLACE AS APPLICABLE. TYPE G-1 CATCH BASIN PLANTING SUITABLE FOR SUCH AS WEIRS, INLET, OR OUTLET - _ O 5 PER D-8 WELL DRAINED SOIL -- STRUCTURES - - LEGEND-
BEFORE THE WET SEASON AND AFTER RAIN WHERE CISTERNS ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM — _— EVENTS: REMOVE SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS 12. �I FROM SCREENS AND OVERFLOW DRAINS i �- S 2 7 �Q -' j 0FREEBOARD = 12.00" (CONJUNCTIVE USE FACILITY) AND DOWNSPOUTS: ENSURE PUMPS ARE —I C�OF_ 4 HC FC FUNCTIONING, WHERE APPLICABLE; CHECK I ( ) BASIN HEIGHT HMAX = 30.00" INTEGRITY OF MOSQUITO SCREENS; AND; — 3O 6 PC 3" MULCH —I
CHECK THAT COVERS ARE PROPERLY SEALED
AND LOCKED. I _ — — — — — I 3 PONDING DEPTH = 6.00" 18" AMENDED SOIL MIN. INFILTRATION RATE 5"/HR — ' ' I I O RISER INVERT HTOP = 18.00" 4 PEA GRAVEL
*EMERGENCY WEIR INVERT = 18.00"
O O O jo
7" GRAVEL LAYER *LOWER SLOT INVERT = 6.00"
O = FOR V2 STORAGE 1 — 3" HIGH X 32" LONG OPENING OUTFLOW = 7O *UPPER SLOT INVERT = 7.00" 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE 1 — 2" HIGH X 6" LONG OPENING TWO (2) 12" RCP i i i i CONFORMING TO ASTM D OUTLET PIPES _ I L
PC POLLUTANT CONTROL WSEL = 6.00"
30 ML I - _i I I i , 3034 OR EQUIVALENT IMPERMEABLE 3" DEAD STORAGE HC HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL WSEL = 6" LINER* EXIST. GROUND \�_RESTRICTER CAP TO LIMIT FLOW OUT OF V2 STORAGE AREA, LID BELOW UNDERDRAIN FC FLOOD CONTROL WSEL = 18.00"
DRAIN DOWN HOLE, d = 3.00"
BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL, BMP 2 *ELEVATION MEASURED FROM BASIN SURFACE
NOT TO SCALE
*30 MILLINER NOTE: 30—MIL IMPERMEABLE LINER FOR BIORETENTION CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM D792): 1.2 (G/CC, MIN.); TENSILE (ASTM D882): 73 (LB/IN—WIDTH, MIN); ELONGATION AT BREAK (ASTM D882): 380 (%, MIN); MODULUS (ASTM D882):
30 (LB/IN—WIDTH, MIN.); AND TEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D1004): 8 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM SHEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 58.4 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM PEEL STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 15 (LB/IN, IN).
SEE COLORADO LINING INTERNATIONAL PVC 30
HTTP: //WWW.COLORADOLINING.COM/PRODUCTS/PVC.PDF) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MALE NATIONAL PIPE THREAD
PVC ADAPTER CAST
IN SIDE OF RISER WALL RISER WALL
a 7GRA
° ° ° � A GEQR,
UNDERDRAIN ORIFICE a
THREADED FEMALE NATIONAL
PIPE THREAD PVC CAP
WITH DRILLED ORIFICE 6" FRENCH DRAIN,
PERFORATED PVC PIPE bhAinc,
d °°G Dafnd pDaPI�WOf g, dA engheedngo surve hg III=1 I I i 11-1 11-
11 —III—III 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
BOTTOM OF BASIN CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700
- d d
a
a
d
a d °
a
a
d � G
6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE ° d
a
UNDERDRAIN ORIFICE d ` ° BMP EXHIBIT THREADED FEMALE NATIONAL a °
PIPE THREAD PVC CAP ° d° a CAMINO LARGO WITH DRILLED ORIFICE a d
CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA
RESTRICTOR CAP DETAIL BMP 1 & 2
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 2 OF 2
K:\Civil 3D\1154\DWG\SWMP\BMP-TSM.dwg, 12/7/2021 11:47:08 AM
ATTACHMENT 4 - REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Section 8.2.2 of the BMP Design Manual identifies minimum requirements for storm drain construction plan sheets. Use this checklist to ensure project construction plans submitted for review include necessary information for storm drain improvements. Construction plans must include the following:
0 All items identified in Section 8.2.2 of the BMP Design Manual.
VISTA
IRRIGATION
VIDDISTRICT
CAMINOLARGO WATER SUPPLYSTUDY
LN 2021-038
November 15, 2021
Prepared By: Robert Scholl, P.E.
Approvals:9t_
GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
This water supply study is based on current criteria. It is not a representation, expressed or implied, that the Vista Irrigation District (District) will furnish water at a future date. Applications for service are governed by separate rules and regulations, and are the subject of separate District proceedings, apart from this water supply study.
The location of existing improvements and the recommendations of this hydraulic analysis are presented in schematic form only. It is the responsibility of the Developer/Engineer to design the final improvements, including independent investigation of existing conditions.
This Study is based on the current adopted land use utilized in the City of Vista's General Plan 2030(General Plan). The study addresses the incremental facility impacts of this Project only and does not include or consider any additional projects within District's service area that have deviated from General Plan land uses. Any land use changes within the vicinity of the Study area may necessitate a revision to the Study. The District shall determine if and when revisions to the Study are necessary. Costs for revising this Study shall be borne by the Developer.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The proposed development on the north side of Camino Largo (Project) is a single-family subdivision consisting of 46 dwelling units on approximately 9.3 acres (APN 159-240-07). The property is located adjacent to and east of N. Santa Fe Drive and was within the unincorporated County of San Diego and its North County Metro subplan; however, on October 1, 2018, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission approved the annexation of the property into the City of Vista. The Project is also located within the District's Sphere of Influence and water service boundary.
The purpose of this study is to serve as a nexus document for setting development conditions. It evaluates the configuration of the proposed water system, District service rights, and the ability of the existing water distribution system to serve the Project during peak hour and maximum day plus fire flow demand conditions. Evaluation includes:
➢ Water distribution system; including the need to upsize or install new pipelines and appurtenances.
Camino Largo Water Supply Study
October 28,2021
➢ Access and utility easements; including evaluation of the adequacy of existing easements, and the need for new easements.
SOURCE OF WATER,PROPOSED FACILITIES,AND EASEMENTS
The proposed Project lies completely within the District's 565 Pressure Zone, which is supplied from the 3.1 million gallon(MG) San Luis Rey Reservoir,the 0.6 MG E-1 Reservoir and multiple pressure regulating stations. Figures 1 through 3 show the development's location, existing water infrastructure within the vicinity of the development, and proposed facilities.
The site supported agricultural uses and is served by a 2-inch meter(account#9995-0950) that is connected to the District's 10-inch pipeline within N. Santa Fe Avenue. Based on the Tentative Subdivision Map provided by the Developer, a public water system is proposed through the project; the water system would connect to the District's existing system within N. Santa Fe Avenue along the western end of the Project. The District reviewed this configuration and finds it suitable for a single-family residential development of this size. The District will require full width (curb to curb) access and utility easements over all private roads within the development.
WATER FLOW PROJECTIONS AND DESIGN CRITERIA
The Project's land use designation by the City of Vista's General Plan 2030 is Rural Residential, which allows up to one dwelling unit per acre. The Project developer is proposing to build 46 single-family residences on 9.3 acres,which equates to approximately five dwelling units per acre.
To meet the new density requirements, the developer is proposing a General Plan Amendment to adjust the land use to Medium Density Residential, which would allow up to ten dwelling units per acre.
Based on the unit demand factor of 1,100 gallons per day(gpd)/acre developed in the Master Plan for single-family residential land use and site size of 9.3 acres, the projected average annual water demand for the Project is 10,230 gpd.
The Master Plan outlines the District's water system design criteria, which are as follows:
Peaking Factors
➢ Maximum day demands: 200% of average annual demands ➢ Peak hour demands: 300% of average annual demands System Pressure
➢ Peak hour demand conditions: 40 pounds per square inch (psi) minimum ➢ Maximum day demand plus fire flow: 20 psi minimum
➢ Static: 150 psi maximum
Fire Flow
➢ The City of Vista Fire Marshal has set the required fire demand at 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for the Project.
Camino Largo Water Supply Study
October 28,2021
Pipeline Fluid Velocity
➢ Peak hour demand conditions: 8 feet per second (fps) maximum ➢ Maximum day demand plus fire flow: 16 fps maximum
Pipeline Diameter
➢ Short dead-end, no hydrants: 4-inch diameter minimum ➢ Feeding hydrants: 8-inch diameter minimum
HYDRAULIC ANALYSES
A hydraulic analysis was performed on the District's distribution system with the proposed Project's water demands and facilities incorporated. The Project proposes a 2,400-foot, 8-inch diameter water system extension within the development, connecting to the District's 10-inch pipeline within N. Santa Fe Avenue as shown in the Tentative Subdivision Map and Figure 3. Two fire hydrants are proposed within the development on Camino Largo to provide fire protection.
The analysis was carried out using the District's InfoWater® 02.4 water distribution computer model. The modeled pressure results at each of the two proposed fire hydrants to be installed and the high point within the development are summarized in the table below.
Hydraulic Modeling Results
Elevation Static Peak Hour Max Day +
Node Location (ft) Pressure Pressure FF Pressure (psi) (psi) (psi)*
VID Pipe @ Fire 300 115 107 97
Hydrant #1
VID Pipe @ Fire 316 108 100 82
Hydrant #2
VID Pipe @ High 345 95 88 N/A
Point of Development
*Simulated fire flows are within the distribution system water mains,analyses do not represent actual flow available through a fire hydrant assembly or fire sprinkler system.
No existing system deficiencies were identified in any pipe segments within the Project limits or in the vicinity of the development during any scenario. Results from the analysis show that the required fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm can be met at both proposed fire hydrants on Camino Largo.
The District makes no guarantee that the available fire flow and pressures are presently available, nor guarantee that the flow and pressure will be available in the future due to continued growth that places additional demands for water on the water distribution system. Availability of flow and pressure is also subject to shutdowns and variations required by the operation of the District's distribution system.
Camino Largo Water Supply Study
October 28,2021
CONCLUSION AND CONDITIONS
The proposed Project is proposing a General Plan Amendment to adjust the land use to allow up to ten dwelling units per acre. Based on the unit demand factor of 1,100 gpd/acre for single-family residential land use and a site size of 9.3 acres,the projected average annual water demand for the Project is 10,230 gpd.
The Study did not identify any existing system deficiencies within the Project limits or in the vicinity of the development during peak hour demand or maximum day plus fire flow demand scenarios. The following improvements were assumed to be constructed as part of this development:
➢ The installation of approximately 2,400-feet of public 8-inch pipeline within the Project that will connect to the District's existing 10-inch water main in N. Santa Fe Drive.
Camino Largo Water Supply Study
October 28,2021
o -
y, � u �
O
d� 0 cln 01
\sa7lal�r� AVM ViSin 3 '-
o� Q 0 D
S- L
Q) E iL
LO U
3 >
L
N\ o
z
a
� � o
LU
m (D�
V) Lit
O
1 N I I
� I I
W O
co
�Awls
�' ,�
1 1
\Vol
n
0 O L O
V O O
CV 'O M
C,
7 Ln
m Ln 4
a o LL
Q >
' o
h-
■ �z
Camino Largo Water Supply Study
October 28,2021
ti `o u
o 7 T
ul
n �_ O
24 c T J N
o O N
O
Q1
•�fA r�j � � L
�l
Q GR�S�P b„
4 OO OO
O
ELI 2
�Q
U
-I
0 Ell
CD
F�
o �P
1 P�
(D O L O
LI Q O O
d CV
C
C LO O o N
o a)
O Z p LL
XLLJ
d
1SN�O�S o
o
Camino Largo Water Supply Study
October 28,2021
ti
i p AS
U �
4 O
o "—' :1 �}
o LI yr
Q r�
O Q J
C.P0- O
:- IT
� � U
3 L
o
ui =
2 -b
�6 ui
'a
0 }
c
T
2 8 OI L
C
01 N �
u7 O
00 C
I 6 LL
a
_ a C_
�S -0 -0 a
0B'0 � � 0) o
° °
a LU
co
a
IS/MND Appendix G
Noise Assessment Study
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Camino Largo Residential
Project
Noise Assessment Study
December 2021 1 02951 .00013.001
Submitted to:
City of Vista
Community Development Department
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084-6275
Prepared for:
California West Communities
5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 110
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of the Report.........................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location..................................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Description .............................................................................................................1
1.4 Noise and Sound Level Descriptors and Terminology........................................................1
1.4.1 Descriptors.............................................................................................................1
1.4.2 Terminology...........................................................................................................2
1.5 Noise and vibration-Sensitive Land Uses............................................................................3
1.6 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................3
1.6.1 California Noise Control Act...................................................................................3
1.6.2 City of Vista General Plan, Noise Element.............................................................3
1.6.3 City of Vista Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32, Noise Control).....4
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..............................................................................................................6
2.1 Surrounding Land Uses.......................................................................................................6
2.2 Existing Noise Environment................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Ambient Noise Survey............................................................................................6
3.0 ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................7
3.1 Methodology.......................................................................................................................7
3.1.1 Ambient Noise Survey............................................................................................7
3.1.2 Noise Modeling Software ......................................................................................8
3.2 Assumptions........................................................................................................................8
3.2.1 Construction ..........................................................................................................8
3.2.2 Operations.............................................................................................................9
3.3 Guidelines for the Determination of Significance.............................................................10
4.0 1 M PACTS.........................................................................................................................................11
4.1 Issue 1: Excessive Noise Levels.........................................................................................11
4.1.1 Operational On-site Noise Generation................................................................11
4.1.2 Operational Off-site Transportation Noise Generation.......................................11
4.1.3 On-site Construction Noise Generation...............................................................12
4.1.4 Construction Traffic Noise...................................................................................15
4.2 Issue 2: Excessive Vibration..............................................................................................15
4.2.1 Construction Vibration.........................................................................................15
4.2.2 Operational Vibration..........................................................................................15
4.3 Issue 3: Airport Noise Exposure........................................................................................16
4.3.1 Aircraft Noise.......................................................................................................16 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page
4.4 Issue 4: Noise Compliance for New Uses..........................................................................16
4.4.1 Exterior Noise Levels............................................................................................16
4.4.2 Interior Noise Levels............................................................................................17
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................................................17
6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................18
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Carrier 38HDR060 Split System Condenser
B Construction Noise Modeling Outputs
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location.............................................................................................................................2 2 Project Vicinity.................................................................................................................................2 3 Site Plan ...........................................................................................................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Interior and Exterior Noise Guidelines ............................................................................................4 2 Applicable Exterior Property Line Noise Limits................................................................................5 3 Maximum Sound Levels (Impulsive)................................................................................................6 4 Noise Measurement Results............................................................................................................7 5 Recorded Traffic Volume and Vehicle Mix.......................................................................................7 6 Carrier HDR060 Condenser Noise....................................................................................................9 7 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................9 8 Off-site Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................................................12 9 Construction Equipment Noise Levels...........................................................................................13 ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADT average daily traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Vista
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CY cubic yard
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Hz Hertz
kHz kilohertz
LDN Day-Night level
LEQ equivalent sound level
LLG Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers
LMAX maximum noise level
mPa micro-Pascals
mph miles per hour
NSLU noise-sensitive land use
PPV peak particle velocity
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
SPL sound pressure level
STC Sound Transmission Class
SwL sound power level
TNM Traffic Noise Model
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
iii
This page intentionally left blank
iv
Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an assessment of potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Camino Largo Residential Project (project).The project is located on a 9.3-acre project site in the City of Vista.
The project site is located at the northeast corner of North Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo.The project involves removal of structures associated with an existing nursery and the construction of 46 two-story single-family residential units.
Anticipated construction activities would generate temporary elevated noise levels for nearby residences to the west and south.Although the use of construction equipment is not anticipated to exceed City noise ordinance limits, construction noise may exceed ambient conditions by 10 dBA.
Mitigation measure NOI-1 would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Construction would not generate substantial vibration.
Operational noise impacts would be less than significant.The project's heating,ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems would not exceed allowable City limits within the noise ordinance at the nearest property lines.The project would add traffic to nearby roadways, but transportation noise impacts to off-site land uses would be less than significant.
The backyard exterior use areas of the proposed residences at Lots 1 and 2 would be exposed to noise from vehicular traffic along North Santa Fe Avenue that would exceed the applicable 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) limit set forth in the City of Vista's General Plan Noise Element. Mitigation measure NOI-2 would be required to construct barriers and reduce noise levels to the 65 CNEL exterior limit at these locations.Through incorporation of mitigation measure N0I-3, which relates to exterior wall and window construction, interior noise levels at Lots 1 and 2 would not exceed the applicable interior 45 CNEL limit for residential uses.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
ES-1
Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 This page intentionally left blank
HELIX
Environmental Planning
ES-2
Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 1 .0 INTRODUCTION
1 .1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report analyzes potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Camino Largo Residential Project (project).The analysis includes a description of existing conditions in the project vicinity and an assessment of potential impacts associated with project implementation. Analysis within this report addresses the relevant issues listed in the Noise and Land Use sections of Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 1 .2 PROJECT LOCATION
The 9.3-acre project site (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 159-240-07) is located northeast of the intersection of North Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo in the City of Vista (City), south of the City's boundary with the County of San Diego. Guajome Adobe Park is located to the west and rural single- family residences and undeveloped land are to the south and east. See Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Project Vicinity.
The existing site contains remnants of the former nursery, including hoop frames of the former greenhouses, palm trees in box planters, and piles of green waste.There is a structure that is associated with the former nursery operations located in the south-central portion of the site and trucks and machinery scattered throughout the site.
1 .3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would construct 46 two-story single-family residential units. Access would be provided by four private drives extending north from Camino Largo. Resident parking would be provided via two-car garages and individual driveways, with additional parking provided along one side of each private drive.
The project would provide two water quality/retention basins onsite. One is located on the southwest corner of the site and another at the southeast edge of the site. See Figure 3,Site Plan.
The project site is currently occupied by an active palm nursery. The project would involve the demolition of existing structures which includes a greenhouse and shed.The project would require an amendment to the City General Plan from Rural Residential (R-R)to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and a zone change from A-1 to R-113.
1 .4 NOISE AND SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS AND TERMINOLOGY
1.4.1 Descriptors
All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting (dBA)to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans.Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ, with a specified duration.The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dBA weighting, and noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting.This is similar to the Day Night sound level (LDN), which is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dBA weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening HELIX
Environmental Planning
1 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 hours. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on dBA.These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances.
1.4.2 Terminology
1.4.2.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air)to a hearing organ, such as a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound.
In the science of acoustics,the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two.The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determines the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver.The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound.
1.4.2.2 Frequency
Continuous sound can be described by frequency(pitch) and amplitude (loudness).A low-frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz (kHz), or thousands of Hertz.The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.
Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source.
Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro-Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this wide range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of dBA.The threshold of hearing for the human ear is about 0 dBA, which corresponds to 20 mPa.
1.4.2.3 Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through standard arithmetic.
Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness,the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than from one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dB when it passes an observer,two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA—rather, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dBA louder than one source.
Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1 dBA changes in sound levels,when exposed to steady, single-frequency("pure-tone") signals in the mid-frequency(1,000 Hz to 8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of HELIX
Environmental Planning
2 Camino Largo
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
ORANGE SAN DIEGO ""'4.RvailLoke
COUNTY COUNTY _
1•�>i r
- �. -��= l.�Nf' : ice Jrb'• Qr�:�' .. :. �! FALLBROOK " - r; 1?°•1i:'
CAMP PENDLETON
F
(3 O'Neill Lake
f turf ; �J WARNER
SPRINGS
Lake Henshow
©
OCEANSIDE/- VISTA
m
Lake Wohlford
SAN X�
MARCOS ESCOND�IDO '
CARLSBAD Sutherland
Lake � L"r" Reservoir
.J
Marcos
JULIAN
ENCINITAS"—* Lake °
Hodgesy,�LakeRamona _ RAMONA r%
o !•'" Lake Poway 4 1
M SOLANA
BEACH �.._./ POWAY
o DEL MAR m
o
�..
o San Vicente
o � %•� � Reservoir
oMiramar Reservoir El Capitan Reservoir
E Pacific
Santee SANTEE _
Ocean Lakes Lake — m
LA m r
,.�..� Jennings
JOLLA�i ALPINE �.
/' J
0 Lake EL CAJON ^ ~
a I i' _ Murray ®. L 1... ..r
Z!
,n' F �.�.,� f �(L_o"veland Reservoir .
SAN LA MESA �.
DIEG\fO r�LEMON
Mi GROVE
8 CORONADO NATIONAL Sweetwater ake Barrett L
Reservoir m
m v CITY mr'
poi %p j'^ Otoy
Reservoir` DULZURA 1
Uc CHULA©TA 1
IMPERIAL "'' —
BEACH QiOTAY— �l
UNITED STATES
MEXICO.!
a TIJUANA
0 8 Miles Source: Base Map Layers(SanGIS,2016) HELIX Regional Location
Environmental Planning
Figure 1
Camino Largo
Project Site y4r "
O Ambient Noise Measurement Location
•y � ,yam 00,t }4 �• _ �i- � L' =n W.
w
fib= L "Osborne St `
m N Santa Fe Ave Com�no Lar o �'
. Barsby St—
•..I n�Q
I pi�P
QJ
Museum WaY '`.' a- y v i,► 4. ...,
r
°�
�f"'
o*. °"", +'� '�� _ „` t-ro S`,,��`� r► - for St ., ... o �. M � ,fir•,'�,; - _ - Tay
ViirisN r
F/ores�n �.e -
��F fILLi�1 - Rebecca.AVe
a76
be Estates IN Kria —" Gail Dr
� Ado Dr �: Pp Ors ,�Q' #PIN OPAL _ I. Knd
0 700 Feet Source: Aerial(NearMaps,2019) HELIX Project Vicinity
Environmental Planning
Figure 2
Camino Lar o
x 309 4 �x
_tE N8820'SJ"W.59J B6•... - __ x _v
J20`..\
335
x 310T1 x �
- � ¢O -.340 —330 N L�2 3 s.• _.. � 0 x
o� 57 3 LOI n /✓ 45 x LET F /
/ j59P2kpOV p�Z1 _ _ P_ 5 \ `O'�..� P�314Y .lx .•\$,•\. x
� I
cS
I o —
0 9
x M I
� � �i " E g19 qg5 18 p9 � � ✓✓ '✓ csi ? // i`� _ 5
cw Jc'
een� x : �, •- - 1 / �3 0 / 1 Of
q s
N, s
t
/
7 / w
30' 15' 0' 30' 60' 90'
� lY\\ �� " � PROP � P� o ✓' �l \ ' 12 5 51P C �.
m
ry \\\\\ \\ \ N/o
'LG
V \
C G
Source:BHA,Inc.2021
HELIX Site Plan
Environmental Planning
Figure 3
Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 1 to 2 dBA are generally not perceptible. It is widely accepted, however,that people begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dBA increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.
No known studies have directly correlated the ability of a healthy human ear to discern specific levels of change in traffic noise over a 24-hour period. Many ordinances, however, specify a change of 3 CNEL as the significant impact threshold.This is based on the concept of a doubling in noise energy resulting in a 3 dBA change in noise, which is the amount of change in noise necessary for the increase to be perceptible to the average healthy human ear.
1 .5 NOISE AND VIBRATION-SENSITIVE LAND USES
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, including residences, hospitals, schools, hotels, resorts, libraries, sensitive wildlife habitat, or similar facilities where quiet is an important attribute of the environment. Noise receptors are individual locations that may be affected by noise. NSLUs in the project vicinity include single-family residences to the north, south, and east.
Land uses in which ground-borne vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment, such as research, manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018) are considered "vibration-sensitive."The degree of sensitivity depends on the specific equipment that would be affected by the ground-borne vibration. In addition, excessive levels of ground-borne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can result in annoyance to residential uses or schools. Vibration-sensitive land uses in the project area include the nearby single- family residences.
1 .6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
1.6.1 California Noise Control Act
The California Noise Control Act is a section within the California Health and Safety Code that describes excessive noise as a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas.The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
1.6.2 City of Vista General Plan, Noise Element
The Noise Element of the City's General Plan includes a noise/land use compatibility matrix for assessing the suitability of different categories of planned land uses based on exterior noise level exposure (Table NE-3 from the City General Plan; City 2012). For the project's land use (Single Family Residential), the Noise Element specifies exterior noise levels up to 60 CNEL as normally acceptable and up to 70 CNEL is conditionally acceptable. Noise levels exceeding 70 CNEL are generally unacceptable for single-family residential uses.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
3 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 In addition,the City defines specific maximum noise levels that shall not be exceeded for both interior and exterior use areas. A proposed project shall not generate noise levels that exceed these standards.
The City limits interior noise levels to 45 CNEL for single-family residential development.Table 1, Interior and Exterior Noise Guidelines, provides limits for various types of land uses.
Table 1
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE GUIDELINES
Maximum Noise Level Maximum Noise Level
Land Use (LDN or CNEL,dBA) (Lon,or CNEL,dBA)
interiorl,Z Exterior
Residential—Single Family, Multi-family, Duplex 45 653 Residential—Nursing Homes, Hospital 45 653
Private Offices,Church Sanctuaries, Libraries, Board
Rooms, Conference Rooms,Theaters,Auditoriums, 45 - Concert Halls, Meeting Halls, etc.
Schools 45 654
General Offices, Reception, Clerical,etc. 50 - Bank Lobby, Retail Store, Restaurant,Typing Pool,etc. 60 Manufacturing, Kitchen,Warehousing, etc. 65 - Parks, Playgrounds,etc. - 654
Golf Courses,Outdoor Spectator Sports,Amusement 4 Parks,etc. 70
Source:City 2012
1 Noise standard with windows closed.Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment.
z Indoor environment excluding bathrooms,toilets,closets,and corridors. 3 Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes,multi-family patios and balconies(with a depth of 6 feet or more)and common recreation areas.
4 Outdoor environment limited to playground areas,picnic areas,and other areas of frequent human use.
LDN=Day-Night Level;CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level;dBA=A-weighted decibel
1.6.3 City of Vista Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32, Noise Control)
Sections 8.32.010 through 8.32.060 of the City of Vista Municipal Code pertain to City noise requirements and enforcement of violations.The City has adopted the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance for the purpose of controlling excessive noise levels, including noise from construction activities.
Table 2,Applicable Exterior Property Line Noise Limits, lists the applicable exterior property line noise limits.This table is specific to the City of Vista and replaces the table in Section 36.404 of the County of San Diego noise ordinance. It is unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise to the extent that the one-hour average sound level at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property exceeds these limits.The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zones is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
4 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 Table 2
APPLICABLE EXTERIOR PROPERTY LINE NOISE LIMITS
Applicable Limit One-hour
Zone Time Average Sound Level
(Decibels)
A-1, E-1,0, OSR 7:00 a.m.—10:00 p. m. 50
R-16, MHP 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a. m. 45
R-M
7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 50
C-1,C-2,0-3, C-T, OP, M-U and 7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 60 Downtown Specific Plan 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 55 M-1, I-P,all areas of the Vista Business
Park Specific Plan and Specific Plan 14 Any time 70 Source:City 2014
A-1=Agricultural;C-1 and C-3=Commercial;C-T=Commercial Transient; E-1=Estate;I-P=Industrial; M-1=Light Manufacturing; MHP=Mobile Home Park;M-U=Mixed Use;0=Open Space;0-3=Office Park; OP=Office Professional;OSR=Open Space Residential;R-1 and R-16=Single-family Residential; R-M=Multi-family Residential
The project site will be zoned R-113(Single-family residential). Neighboring parcels to the south and east are zoned A-1 (Agricultural), and the parcel to the north is zoned C-1 (Commercial).
The adopted County of San Diego Noise Ordinance also stipulates controlling construction noise. San Diego County Code Sections 36.408 and 36.409, Construction Equipment, state that, except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, construction equipment:
A. Between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
B. On Sunday or a holiday. For the purposes of this section, a holiday means January 1,the last Monday in May,July 4,the first Monday in September, December 25, and any day appointed by the President as a special national holiday or the Governor of the State as a special State holiday. A person may, however, operate construction equipment on a Sunday or holiday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the person's residence or for the purpose of construction of a residence for himself or herself, provided that the operation of construction equipment is not carried out for financial consideration or other consideration of any kind and does not violate the limits in Sections 36.409 and 36.410.
C. Except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate construction equipment or cause construction equipment to be operated,that exceeds an average sound level of 75 dBA for an 8-hour period, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is being received.
Section 36.410 of the County of San Diego's ordinance provides additional limitation on construction equipment beyond Section 36.404 pertaining to impulsive noise. Except for emergency work or work on a public road project, no person shall produce or cause to be produced an impulsive noise that exceeds the maximum sound level shown in Table 3, Maximum Sound Levels(Impulsive),when measured at the HELIX
Environmental Planning
5 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is received,for 25 percent of the minutes in the measurement period.
Table 3
MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS(IMPULSIVE)
Occupied Property Use Decibels(dBA) LMAX
Residential,village zoning or civic use 82
Agricultural,commercial or industrial use 85
Source:County of San Diego Municipal Code Section 36.410 The minimum measurement period for any measurements is one hour. During the measurement period, a measurement must be conducted every minute from a fixed location on an occupied property.The measurements must measure the maximum sound level during each minute of the measurement period. If the sound level caused by construction equipment or the producer of the impulsive noise exceeds the maximum sound level for any portion of any minute, it will be deemed that the maximum sound level was exceeded during that minute.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Adjacent lands surrounding the project site include single-family residences within unincorporated San Diego County to the north; single-family residences to the east, undeveloped land and single-family residences to the south. See Figure 2 for nearby land uses.
2.2 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The existing noise environment is dominated by traffic noise from North Santa Fe Avenue.The project is subject to some distant aircraft noise,though the site is not located near an active airport.The nearest airports are Oceanside Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.7 miles to the west, and McClellan-Palomar Airport, located approximately 7.4 miles to the south.
2.2.1 Ambient Noise Survey
Two measurements were taken for the ambient noise survey, including one measurement at the project site and one along North Santa Fe Avenue to the west.The first measurement was taken along the southern boundary of the project site along Camino Largo, approximately 600 feet west of North Santa Fe Avenue.The second measurement was taken along North Santa Fe Avenue, at a location approximately 850 feet west of Osborne Street.A traffic count was conducted at this location to estimate the breakdown of heavy trucks (three or more axles), medium trucks (double tires/two axles), and automobiles along North Santa Fe Avenue.The measured noise levels are shown in Table 4, Noise Measurement Results. Traffic counts for the timed measurement and the one-hour equivalent volume are shown in Table 5, Recorded Traffic Volume and Vehicle Mix. Measurement locations are shown on Figure 2.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
6 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 Table 4
NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measurement 1—Traffic
Date: December 8,2021
Conditions: Temperature: 55°F.Wind Speed: 1 mph. 77%humidity.Sunny.
Time: 8:24 a.m.—8:34 a.m.
Location: Along the southern boundary of the project site 600 feet west of North Santa Fe Avenue
Measured Noise Level: 47.1 dBA LEo
Notes: Ambient nature sounds. Noise primarily from traffic on Santa Fe Avenue, landscaping equipment,and distant aircraft.
Measurement 2—Ambient
Date: December 8,2021
Conditions: Temperature: 55°F.Wind Speed: 1 mph. 77%humidity.Sunny.
Time: 8:47 a.m.—9:02 a.m.
Location: West of project site approximately 850 feet west of Osborne Street and 60 feet from the North Santa Fe Avenue centerline.Adjacent to North Coast Church parking lot.
Measured Noise Level: 67.9 dBA LEo
Notes: Noise dominated by traffic along North Santa Fe Avenue.
Table 5
RECORDED TRAFFIC VOLUME AND VEHICLE MIX
Measurement Roadway Traffic Autos MTl HT 1 North Santa Fe 15-minute count 196 7 1 Avenue
One-hour equivalent 784 28 4
Percent 96.7% 0.9% 2.3%
1 Medium Trucks(double tires/two axles)
z Heavy Trucks(three or more axles)
3.0 ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS
3.1 METHODOLOGY
3.1.1 Ambient Noise Survey
The following equipment was used to measure existing noise levels at the project site:
• Larson Davis LxT Noise Meter
• Larson Davis Model CA250 Calibrator
• Windscreen and tripod for the sound level meter
The sound level meter was field-calibrated immediately prior to the noise measurements to ensure accuracy. All sound level measurements conducted and presented in this report were made with a sound level meter that conforms to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for HELIX
Environmental Planning
7 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4-1983 R2006). All instruments were maintained with National Institute of Standards and Technology traceable calibration per the manufacturers' standards.
3.1.2 Noise Modeling Software
Modeling of the exterior noise environment for this report was accomplished using two computer noise models: Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA)version 2019 and Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5. CadnaA is a model-based computer program developed by DataKustik for predicting noise impacts in a wide variety of conditions. CadnaA assists in the calculation, presentation, assessment, and mitigation of noise exposure. It allows for the input of project related information, such as noise source data, barriers, structures, and topography to create a detailed CadnaA model, and uses the most up-to- date calculation standards to predict outdoor noise impacts. CadnaA traffic noise prediction is based on the data and methodology used in the TNM.
TNM was released in February 2004 by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and calculates the daytime average hourly LEQ from three-dimensional model inputs and traffic data (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2004).TNM was developed from Computer Aided Design (CAD) plans provided by the project applicant. Input variables included road alignment, elevation, lane configuration, area topography, existing and planned noise control features, projected traffic volumes, estimated truck composition percentages, and vehicle speeds.
Peak-hour traffic volumes are estimated based on the assumption that approximately 10 percent of the average daily traffic would occur during a peak hour.The one-hour LEQ noise level is calculated utilizing peak-hour traffic. Peak hour LEQ can be converted to CNEL using the following equation, where LEQ(h)pk is the peak hour LEQ, P is the peak hour volume percentage of the average daily trips (ADT), d and e are divisions of the daytime fraction of ADT to account for daytime and evening hours, and N is the nighttime fraction of ADT:
CNEL= LEQ(h)pk+ 10log10 4.17/P + 10log10(d +4.77e+ 10N) The model-calculated one-hour LEQ noise output is therefore approximately equal to the CNEL (Caltrans 2013).
Project construction noise was analyzed using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM; USDOT 2008), which utilizes estimates of sound levels from standard construction equipment.
3.2 ASSUMPTIONS
3.2.1 Construction
Construction would require the use of equipment throughout the site for the full term of construction.
General project construction activities would include site clearing, demolition, grading, underground utility installation, physical building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings.The most prominent noise-generating standard construction equipment anticipated to be used on the site includes excavators,front-end loaders, backhoes, scrapers, dozers, rollers, pavers, and mounted impact hammers.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
8 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 Demolition would be required for an existing on-site structures and pavements. Grading of the site would require approximately 44,130 CY of export,which is anticipated to be exported via 2,758 haul truck trips over the course of 20 days.Approximately 138 trucks per day, or 17 trucks per hour,would be required.
3.2.2 Operations
The proposed project's operational noise sources are anticipated to include heating,ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and vehicular traffic. Upon completion,the project would also be exposed to vehicular traffic noise from North Santa Fe Avenue.
3.2.2.1 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Units The analysis assumes that the buildings would use a typical to larger-sized residential condenser mounted on ground level pads.The unit used in this analysis is a Carrier 38HDR060 split system condenser(see Appendix A, Carrier 38HDR060 Split System Condenser).The manufacturer's noise data is provided below in Table 6, Carrier HDR060 Condenser Noise.
Table 6
CARRIER HDR060 CONDENSER NOISE
Noise Levels in Decibels'(dB)Measured at Octave Frequencies Overall Noise Level in 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 KHz 2 KHz 4 KHz 8 KHz A-weighted Scale(dBA)'
63.0 61.5 64.0 66.5 66.0 64.5 55.5 72.0
' Sound Power Level(SwL)
KHz=kilohertz
3.2.2.2 Vehicular Traffic
Traffic volume data along North Santa Fe Avenue for Existing and Existing+ Project conditions were provided by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers (LLG; 2021). Approximately 25 percent of the project's traffic would travel north along North Santa Fe Avenue, and 75 percent would travel south.
Based on the site visit, a typical traffic distribution along North Santa Fe Avenue is 96 percent automobiles, 3.5 percent medium trucks, and 0.5 percent heavy trucks.This breakdown was used in this analysis for non-project traffic.Table 7, Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes, summarizes the ADT data for the segments of Santa Fe Avenue, Osborne Street, and Taylor Street relevant to this analysis.
Table 7
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing Project Existing+ Existing+
Roadway Segment Cumulative+
ADT ADT Project ADT
Project ADT
North Santa Fe Avenue
North of Project 16,834 115 16,949 17,982 South of Project 16,279 345 16,624 17,382 Source:LLG,SANDAG 2020
HELIX
Environmental Planning
9 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021
3.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would result in a significant adverse impact if it would:
Threshold 1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the Vista General Plan or noise ordinance.
Per the Vista Noise Ordinance, impacts would be significant if the project would generate noise levels at a common property line with the adjacent agricultural zones to the south and east that would exceed the following one-hour average exterior noise levels: 50 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.The adjacent single-family residential properties to the north of the project site are within unincorporated San Diego County. While the proposed project is not subject to the regulations of the County of San Diego,the same 50 dBA daytime limit and 45 dBA nighttime limits are considered at these property lines for analysis purposes.
For traffic-related noise, impacts are considered significant in areas where traffic noise at single-family residential uses exceeds 65 CNEL and implementation of the project would result in an increase of the noise level by 3 CNEL or more.
Construction activity would be considered significant for nearby residences if it exceeds an 8-hour average exterior noise level of 75 dBA, or a maximum impulsive noise level of 82 dBA on an occupied residential use.The ordinance prohibits construction and building work between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, on Sundays, or on a holiday. Construction noise exceeding 10 dBA above ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be considered a substantial increase.
Threshold 2: Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
Excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the "strongly perceptible"vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.1 inch per second peak particle velocity(PPV) or the damage potential criteria to relatively old residential structures 0.5 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources (such as impact pile drivers,vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment), as specific by Caltrans (2020).
Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise.
Excessive noise exposure is defined as noise levels that exceed the standards in the City General Plan Noise Element for the associated land use.
Threshold 4: Noise compliance for new uses.
Future land uses would be compliant with the City General Plan Noise Element if the project's residential exterior use areas are exposed to noise levels below 65 CNEL and interior noise levels below 45 CNEL.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
10 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021
4.0 IMPACTS
4.1 ISSUE 1 : EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS
Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the Vista General Plan or noise ordinance.
4.1.1 Operational On-site Noise Generation
The project would include HVAC units at ground-level locations adjacent to each proposed residence.
Specific locations and planning data for the future HVAC units is not available at this stage of project design; however,the project applicant has indicated that HVAC units would be located on the sides of the proposed residences. Further, as mentioned in Section 3.2.2.1, modeling assumed that the HVAC unit would be a Carrier 38HDR060 split system condenser. A single unit typically generates a noise level of 56 dBA at a distance of 7 feet.
Based on the site plan shown in Figure 3, the closest proposed lot to the nearest off-site residential property line would be Lot 3. For the single-family homes, it is likely that the HVAC units would be installed adjacent to the house structure.The nearest off-site residential structure would be approximately 45 feet from the closest potential HVAC location. At this distance, the HVAC would generate a noise level of approximately 39.8 dBA, which would not exceed the City's nighttime allowable hourly limit of 45 dBA; therefore, impacts from the project's operational noise would be less than significant.
4.1.2 Operational Off-site Transportation Noise Generation The project would generate vehicular traffic that would utilize North Santa Fe Avenue and have the potential to result in increased noise levels at existing single-family residences along the roadway.TNM software was used to calculate the noise contour distances for Existing and Existing+ Project conditions along North Santa Fe Avenue. As noted in the assumptions, Existing and Existing+ Project traffic noise levels presented in this analysis are based on traffic volumes provided by LLG (2021). Refer to Table 7 for the forecasted ADT data for existing and project-added traffic volumes.
The off-site roadway modeling represents a conservative analysis that does not consider topography or attenuation provided by existing structures.The results of this analysis for the CNEL at the nearest NSLUs to the roadway centerline of North Santa Fe Avenue are shown below in Table 8, Off-site Traffic Noise Levels.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
11 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 Table 8
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
CNEL at CNEL at
CNEL at Distance
Distance to Distance to Distance to
Roadway Segment Nearest Nearest to Nearest NSLU Nearest Direct' (Existing+ Impact
NSLU NSLU Project) NSLU Change
(Existing) from Existing
North Santa Fe Avenue
North of Project 100 feet 62.6 62.7 0.1 No South of Project 50 feet 69.4 69.5 0.1 No 1 A direct impact to off-site uses would occur if existing noise levels exceed 65 CNEL at single family residences and the project more than doubles(increases by more than 3 CNEL)the existing noise level.
NSLU=noise sensitive land use;CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level Impacts would be significant in areas where traffic noise at single-family residential uses exceeds the 65 CNEL maximum noise level specified in the City's General Plan Noise Element and implementation of the project results in a significant increase in noise levels, which is considered greater than a perceptible change of 3 CNEL over existing conditions.As shown in Table 8, noise levels would increase by 0.1 CNEL for nearby residences along North Santa Fe Avenue.This increase would not be a perceptible increase and noise impacts from project-generated traffic would be less than significant.
4.1.3 On-site Construction Noise Generation
Construction of the project would require site clearing, demolition of existing structures, grading, installation of underground utilities/infrastructure, construction of new buildings, paving, and architectural coating.The magnitude of the noise impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of each construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening structures. Construction would generate elevated noise levels that may disrupt nearby residences north, south, and east of the project site. Construction equipment would be continuously moving across the site, and equipment is not anticipated to be located at a single location during a typical workday.Therefore, construction equipment is modeled at an average distance of 100 feet from the nearest NSLUs.Table 9, Construction Equipment Noise Levels, provides the 100-foot distance noise levels for equipment anticipated to be used for general construction activities.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
12 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 Table 9
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Percent LMAX dBA LEQ
Unit Operating Time at 100 feet at 100 feet Backhoe 40 71.5 67.6
Compactor 20 77.2 70.2
Compressor 40 71.6 67.7
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 72.8 68.8
Concrete Pump Truck 20 75.4 68.4
Dozer 40 75.6 71.7
Dump Truck 50 70.4 66.5
Excavator 40 74.7 70.7
Front End Loader 40 73.1 69.1
Paver 50 71.2 68.2
Roller 20 74.0 67.0
Excavator/Loader/Dump Truck 40 74.7 73.9
Source:RCNM; USDOT 2008
LMAX=maximum noise level;dBA=A-weighted decibel; LEQ=equivalent sound level Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location and would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day. Further, not all the pieces of equipment included in Table 9 would be used within 100 feet off-site residences.A dozer and an excavator may be working on the site simultaneously but would not be working near one another at a given time due to the nature of their respective operations.An excavator, loader, and dump truck were analyzed together for construction noise impacts due to their likelihood of being used in conjunction with one another.
Based on these assumptions, grading operations using an excavator, loader, and dump truck at the nearest NSLU would be 73.9 dBA LEQ at 100 feet (see Appendix B, Construction Noise Modeling Outputs).
Therefore, construction noise from this equipment was modeled to be below the noise ordinance limit defined in Threshold 4 of 75 dBA LEQ(8-hour), however noise levels may exceed the existing ambient noise levels by 10 dBA.
Ambient noise levels were conducted at the project site approximately 600 feet east of North Santa Fe Avenue. During this short-term measurement, noise levels of 47.1 dBA were taken. Furthermore, using the TNM modeling results for the existing conditions of North Santa Fe Avenue, noise levels 100 feet from the roadway would be approximately 62.7 dBA CNEL1 . By both measures, construction noise levels would likely exceed the existing ambient noise environment by 10 dBA. Mitigation measure N0I-1 would incorporate a construction noise management plan including the use of temporary sound barriers to reduce noise levels at neighboring NSLUs.
NOI-3 Construction Noise Management Plan. Noise levels from project-related construction activities shall not exceed the noise limit specified in San Diego County Code Sections 36.408 and 36.409 of 75 dBA(8-hour average), when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise is located or any occupied property where noise is being received.A Construction Management Plan that describes the measures included on the construction plans to ensure compliance with the noise limit shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the 1 As described in Section 2.2.2,the CNEL metric includes evening and nighttime noise levels.Construction would not occur during those hours.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
13 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021 City of Vista Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of the grading permit.The following measures may be included to reduce construction noise:
• Construction equipment to be properly outfitted and maintained with manufacturer- recommended noise-reduction devices.
• Diesel equipment to be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory- recommended mufflers.
• Mobile or fixed "package" equipment(e.g., arc-welders and air compressors)to be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.
• Electrically powered equipment to be used instead of pneumatic or internal-combustion powered equipment,where feasible.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (e.g., in excess of 5 minutes)to be prohibited.
• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas to be located as far as practicable from noise sensitive receptors. • The use of noise-producing signals, including horns,whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.
• No project-related public address or music system shall be audible at any adjacent sensitive receptor.
• Temporary sound barriers or sound blankets may be installed between construction operations and adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Due to equipment exhaust pipes being approximately 7 to S feet above ground, a sound wall at least 10 feet in height above grade,to block the line-of-sight between project construction activities and residences along the northern, southern, and eastern property lines.These barriers would mitigate noise levels to within acceptable levels.To effectively reduce noise levels, the sound barrier should be constructed of a material with a minimum weight of two pounds per square foot with no gaps or perforations and remain in place until the conclusion of demolition, grading, and construction activities. • The project applicant shall notify residences within 100 feet of the project's property line in writing within one week of any construction activity such as demolition, hard rock handling, concrete sawing, asphalt removal, and/or heavy grading operations.The notification shall describe the activities anticipated, provide dates and hours, and provide contact information with a description of a complaint and response procedure. • The on-site construction supervisor shall have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process for the affected resident shall be established prior to construction commencement to allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
14 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021
4.1.4 Construction Traffic Noise
As discussed in Section 3.2.1., it is anticipated that 2,758 round trips, or 5,516 one-way haul truck trips would be required for soil export over the course of 20 workdays during the grading phase of construction,which would equate to 276 one-way haul truck trips, or passes, per day. Over the course of an eight-hour construction day, it is assumed 34 haul truck trips would occur per hour.This daily traffic level associated with soil export is anticipated to be the highest daily traffic level associated with project construction.
The additional 34 construction trips were added to the existing traffic volumes on North Santa Fe Avenue south of the project site. Using TNM, receivers were modeled at 50 feet from the roadway centerline (the approximate distance to the nearest single family residential NSLUs), and construction haul trips were modeled as heavy trucks. As presented above in Table 8 of Section 4.1.2, the modeled existing traffic noise level along this segment of North Santa Fe Avenue is 69.4 CNEL.The addition of the project's haul truck trips during the grading phase of construction would increase noise levels to
70.1 CNEL, which represents a 0.7 CNEL increase.This would not be a perceptible increase and impacts from construction traffic noise to existing NSLUs would be less than significant.
4.2 ISSUE 2: EXCESSIVE VIBRATION
Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels?
4.2.1 Construction Vibration
A possible source of vibration during general project construction activities would be a vibratory roller, which may be used for compaction of soil beneath building foundations and could be used within 50 feet of the off-site residence north of Lot 3. Most usage of a vibratory roller, however, would occur at distances greater than 50 feet from any single residence due to the mobile nature of its use across the project site.A vibratory roller would create approximately 0.210 inch per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet(Caltrans 2020).A 0.210 inch per second PPV vibration level would equal 0.098 inch per second PPV at a distance of 50 feet.Z This would be lower than the structural damage impact to older structures of 0.5 inch per second PPV and the "strongly perceptible" impact for humans of 0.1 inch per second PPV.
Additionally, off-site exposure to such ground-borne vibration would be temporary as it would be limited to the short-term construction period.Therefore, even though vibration may be perceptible at nearby residences,temporary impacts associated with the roller(and other potential equipment) would be less than significant.
4.2.2 Operational Vibration
As a residential development,the project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration during operations;therefore, no impacts would occur.
z Equipment PPV=Reference PPV*(25/D)n(inches per second),where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet,and n=1.1(the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground);formula from Caltrans 2013b.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
15 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021
4.3 ISSUE 3: AIRPORT NOISE EXPOSURE
Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise from a nearby public use airport or private airstrip?
4.3.1 Aircraft Noise
The project is subject to some distant aircraft noise,though the site is not located near an active airport.
The nearest airports are Oceanside Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.7 miles to the west and McClellan-Palomar Airport, located approximately 7.4 miles to the south. At these distances, no effects related to airport noise would occur at the project site, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.4 ISSUE 4: NOISE COMPLIANCE FOR NEW USES
4.4.1 Exterior Noise Levels
Future on-site residential land uses would be exposed to noise from vehicular traffic along North Santa Fe Avenue west of the project site.The noise levels associated with vehicular traffic were modeled at the project site using TNM. Modeling used Horizon Year+ Project ADT to conservatively assess future traffic noise conditions at the project site.The new residential land uses would not be compliant with the General Plan Noise Element limits if exterior use areas are exposed to noise exceeding 65 CNEL.
Using TNM, noise level contours were generated for North Santa Fe Avenue.The model provides the distances at which noise levels would exceed 65 CNEL.The 65 CNEL noise level contour would extend approximately 100 feet from the roadway centerline.The backyard exterior use areas of Lots 1 and 2 are located approximately 90 feet from the North Santa Fe Avenue.Therefore, at this distance,these areas may not be compatible with the City General Plan limits for residential developments. Mitigation measure NOI-2 would require the placement of permanent noise walls to reduce noise levels at these locations.
NOI-2 On-Site Noise Barriers. Noise levels within the backyard areas of Lots 1 and 2 may be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City General Plan noise compatibility standards and shall be reduced to below 65 CNEL.
Noise reduction for these exterior use areas shall be accomplished through on-site noise barriers (walls).The wall shall be at least 6 feet in height and would break the line-of-sight between the backyards and North Santa Fe Avenue.To appropriately reduce noise levels,the wall should be constructed at the pad elevation for each Lot.
The sound attenuation barrier must be solid. It can be constructed of masonry,wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those materials, as long as there are no cracks or gaps, through or below the wall.Any seams or cracks must be filled or caulked. If wood is used, it can be tongue and groove and must be at least one inch total thickness or have a density of at least
3.5 pounds per square foot. Where architectural or aesthetic factors allow,glass or clear plastic 3/8 of an inch thick or thicker may be used on the upper portion, if it is desirable to preserve a view.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
16 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021
4.4.2 Interior Noise Levels
Traditional architectural materials are conservatively estimated to attenuate noise levels by 15 CNEL; therefore, if exterior noise levels at a building fagade exceed 60 CNEL, interior noise levels may exceed the 45 CNEL limit set forth in the City General Plan Noise Element for residential uses.The 60 CNEL noise level contour generated by North Santa Fe Avenue would extend 170 feet from the roadway centerline.
The residences on Lots 1 and 2 have fagades that are located within 110 feet of the North Santa Fe Avenue and would therefore be exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL.To ensure that the project's habitable rooms do not exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation measure N0I-3 would be required.
NOI-3 On-site Interior Noise Level Reduction. For the project's Lot 1 and 2 habitable areas (both living rooms and bedrooms),the following measures shall be incorporated in the design of the project to reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL or less:
• Minimum exterior wall requirement of STC 46 with a construction of standard 3/8-inch exterior one coat stucco over 1.0-inch rigid R-4 insulation over 1/2-inch shearwall on 2x6 studs with 5/8-inch Type "X" Drywall.
• Minimum window requirement of STC 28 with a vinyl frame window construction of dual glazing window thickness 1/8-inch and 1/2-inch air gap. • Appropriate means of air circulation and provision of fresh air intake shall be incorporated in the project to allow windows to remain closed for extended intervals of time so that acceptable levels of noise can be maintained on the interior. • Buildings shall provide mechanical ventilation in accordance with the 2019 California Mechanical Code.
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Jason Runyan, Noise Specialist
Joanne Dramko,AICP, Principal Noise Specialist, QA/QC
Kara Palm, Project Manager
Ana Topete,Word Processing
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
HELIX
Environmental Planning
17 Camino Largo Residential Project Noise Assessment Study I December 2021
6.0 REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission. 2019. California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020.Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.
2013.Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September. 2004. California Department of Transportation,Traffic Noise Model (TNM).
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). 2021. Camino Largo Local Transportation Study.
November 30.
San Diego, County. 2020. Municipal Code.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Vista, City of(City). 2014. City of Vista Municipal Code, Section 8.32, Noise Control.April. 2012. City of Vista General Plan, Noise Element.
HELIX
Environmental Planning
18 Appendix A
Carrier 38HDR060 Split System
Condenser
ELECTRICAL DATA
38HDR VOLTAGE RANGE* COMPRESSOR OUTDOOR FAN MOTOR MIN FUSE/ UNIT V-PH-Hz NEC kW CKT HACR BKR
SIZE Min Max RLA LRA FLA Hp Out AMPS AMPS 018 208/230-1-60 187 253 9.0 48.0 0.80 0.125 0.09 12.1 20 024 208/230-1-60 187 253 12.8 58.3 0.80 0.125 0.09 16.8 25 030 208/230-1-60 187 253 14.1 73.0 1.45 0.25 0.19 19.1 30 208/230-1-60 187 253 14.1 77.0 1.45 0.25 0.19 19.1 30 036 208/230-3-60 187 253 9.0 71.0 1.45 0.25 0.19 12.7 20 460-3-60 414 506 5.6 38.0 0.80 0.25 0.19 7.8 15 208/230-1-60 187 253 21.8 117.0 1.45 0.25 0.19 28.7 50 048 208/230-3-60 187 253 13.7 83.1 1.45 0.25 0.19 18.6 30 460-3-60 414 506 6.2 41.0 0.80 0.25 0.19 8.6 15 208/230-1-60 187 253 26.4 134.0 1.45 0.25 0.19 34.5 60 060 208/230-3-60 187 253 16.0 110.0 1.45 0.25 0.19 21.5 35 460-3-60 414 506 7.8 52.0 0.80 0.25 0.19 10.6 15 * Permissible limits of the voltage range at which the unit will operate satisfactorily FLA - Full Load Amps
HACR - Heating, Air Conditininng, Refrigeration
LRA - Locked Rotor Amps
NEC - National Electrical Code
RLA - Rated Load Amps (compressor)
NOTE: Control circuit is 24-V on all units and requires external power source. Copper wire must be used from service disconnect to unit.
All motors/compressors contain internal overload protection.
SOUND LEVEL
Unit Size Standard Typical Octave Band Spectrum (dBA) (without tone adjustment) Rating (dB) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 018 68 52.0 57.5 60.5 63.5 60.5 57.5 46.5 024 69 57.5 61.5 63.0 61.0 60.0 56.0 45.0 030 72 56.5 63.0 65.0 66.0 64.0 62.5 57.0 036 72 65.0 61.5 63.5 65.0 64.5 61.0 54.5 048 72 58.5 61.0 64.0 67.5 66.0 64.0 57.0 060 72 63.0 61.5 64.0 66.5 66.0 64.5 55.5
CHARGING SUBCOOLING (TXV-TYPE EXPANSION DEVICE)
UNIT SIZE-VOLTAGE, SERIES REQUIRED SUBCOOLING °F (°C) 018 12 (6.7)
024 12 (6.7)
030 12 (6.7)
036 12 (6.7)
048 12 (6.7)
060 12 (6.7)
6 Appendix B
Construction Noise Modeling
Outputs
Roadway Construction Noise Model(RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 12/7/2021
Case Description:
----Receptor#1----
Baselines(dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Residential Residential 70 70 70
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 100 0
Compactor(ground) No 20 83.2 100 0 Compressor(air) No 40 77.7 100 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 100 0 Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 100 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 100 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 100 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 100 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 100 0
Paver No 50 77.2 100 0
Roller No 20 80 100 0
Results
Calculated(dBA) Noise Limits(dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 71.5 67.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Compactor(ground) 77.2 70.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Compressor(air) 71.6 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 72.8 68.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Pump Truck 75.4 68.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 75.6 71.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 70.4 66.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 74.7 70.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 73.1 69.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 71.2 68.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 74 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77.2 79.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
IS/MND Appendix H
Local Transportation Study
LINSCOTT
GREENSPAN
engineers
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
CAMINO LARGO
Vista, California
November 30, 2021
LLG Ref. 3-21-3452
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of: LinscoM Law& Zahira Chayeb John Boarman, RE Greenspan,Engineers Transportation Engineering Technician II Principal 4542RuffnerStreet Suite 100
San Diego,CA 92111
858.300.8800 T
858,300.8810 F
www.ligengineers.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Appendices...........................................................................................................................................ii Listof Figures.....................................................................................................................................iii Listof Tables......................................................................................................................................iii
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Project Description ....................................................................................................................2
3.0 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Existing Street Network...................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Vehicles Miles Traveled Assessment...................................................................................... 10
5.0 Analysis Approach and Methodology.................................................................................... 11
5.1 Analysis Approach............................................................................................................ 11
5.2 Analysis Methodology...................................................................................................... 11
5.2.1 Signalized Intersections ........................................................................................ 11
5.2.2 Unsignalized Intersections.................................................................................... 13
5.2.3 Street Segments..................................................................................................... 13
6.0 Substantial Effect Criteria...................................................................................................... 14
7.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions.............................................................................................. 16
7.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service......................................................................... 16
7.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service ........................................................................... 17
8.0 Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment............................................................................ 18
8.1 Project Trip Generation..................................................................................................... 18
8.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment........................................................................................... 18
9.0 Cumulative Traffic................................................................................................................... 22
9.1 Descriptions of Cumulative Projects ................................................................................ 22
9.2 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation ............................................................................... 23
10.0 Analysis of Existing+ Cumulative Projects Scenarios.........................................................28
10.1 Existing+Project Conditions........................................................................................... 28
10.1.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations....................................................................... 28
10.1.2 Daily Street Segment Operations.......................................................................... 28 LiNScorr,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
I
10.2 Existing+ Cumulative Projects without Project Conditions ............................................ 28
10.2.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations....................................................................... 28
10.2.2 Daily Street Segment Operations.......................................................................... 28
10.3 Existing+ Cumulative Projects +Project Conditions ...................................................... 29
10.3.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations....................................................................... 29
10.3.2 Daily Street Segment Operations.......................................................................... 29
11.0 Analysis of Horizon Year Scenarios.......................................................................................32
11.1 Horizon Year Baseline Conditions & Traffic Volumes.................................................... 32
11.2 Horizon Year Conditions.................................................................................................. 32
11.2.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations....................................................................... 32
11.2.2 Daily Street Segment Operations.......................................................................... 32
11.3 Horizon Year with Project Conditions.............................................................................. 33
11.3.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations....................................................................... 33
11.3.2 Daily Street Segment Operations.......................................................................... 33
12.0 Site Access.................................................................................................................................38
13.0 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit..............................................................................................39
13.1 Pedestrian Mobility........................................................................................................... 39
13.2 Bicycle Mobility............................................................................................................... 39
13.3 Transit Mobility................................................................................................................ 39
14.0 Conclusion................................................................................................................................40
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. Intersection and Segment Manual Count Sheets
B. Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets—Existing C. Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets—Existing+Project D. Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets—Existing+ Cumulative Projects E. Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets—Existing+ Cumulative Projects +Project F. Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets—Horizon Year G. Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets—Horizon Year+Project H. Cumulative Projects Traffic Study Excerpts
I_ City of San Diego Roadway Classification
LiNScorr,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
;4>'Rg1,,i Kos'(1'_1 R2[ 1',47'.6,..
II
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE# PAGE
Figure2-1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................... 3 Figure2-2 Project Area Map............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2-3 Conceptual Site Plan....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram.......................................................................................... 8 Figure 3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes................................................................................................ 9 Figure 8-1 Project Traffic Distribution........................................................................................... 19 Figure 8-2 Project Traffic Volumes................................................................................................ 20 Figure 8-3 Existing+Project Traffic Volumes.............................................................................. 21 Figure 9-1 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 25 Figure 9-2 Existing+ Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes......................................................... 26 Figure 9-3 Existing+ Cumulative Projects +Project Traffic Volumes......................................... 27 Figure 11-1 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 36 Figure 11-2 Horizon Year+Projects Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 37
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE# PAGE
Table 5-1 Intersection LOS & Delay Ranges..................................................................................... 12 Table 7-1 Existing Intersection Operations........................................................................................ 16 Table 7-2 Existing Street Segment Operations .................................................................................. 17 Table 8-1 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 18 Table 9-1 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation................................................................................ 24 Table 10-1 Existing+ Cumulative Projects Intersection Analysis .................................................... 30 Table 10-2 Existing+ Cumulative Projects Street Segment Operations ........................................... 31 Table 11-1 Horizon Year Intersection Analysis................................................................................. 34 Table 11-2 Horizon Year Street Segment Operations........................................................................ 35 LINscoTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov 2021 Report.3452.doex
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
CAMINO LARGO
Vista, California
November 30, 2021
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) has prepared this study to document the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening process and conduct a Local Mobility Analysis for the proposed Vista Camino Largo ("Project"). The Project consists of 46 single-family residential units located on the northeast corner of the N. Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo intersection.
The following items are included in this traffic study:
■ Project Description
■ Existing Conditions Description
■ VMT Assessment
■ Analysis Approach and Methodology
■ Substantial Effect Criteria
■ Existing Conditions Analysis
■ Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment
■ Cumulative Projects Discussion
■ Near-Term Capacity Analysis
■ Site Access and Circulation Review
■ Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Assessment
■ Recommendations
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Camino Largo Project is located on the northeast corner of the N. Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo intersection in the City of Vista. The Project is proposing to develop 46 single-family residential houses. The General Plan designation for this parcel Rural Residential. This project will require a General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential. Access to the Project would be provided via Camino Largo.
Figure 2-1 depicts the vicinity map, and Figure 2-2 is the Project area map. Figure 2-3 depicts the conceptual site plan.
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
2 i
Project Site
OCEANSIDE
VISTA
SAN MARCOS ESCONDIDO
CARLSBAD
S.D.
COUNTY
ENCINITAS
S.D.COUNTY S.D.COUNTY
SOLANA
BEACH POWAY
SANTEE
SAN DIEGO
EL CAJON
LA MESA�P
i
LEMON
GROV
CORONADO
f
NATIONAL
CITY 4 �
�H ULAVISTA
Ef)
�J'Lr
N:\0000\Figures
LINSCOTT Date:10/26/2021 Figure 2-1 Time:9:30 AM
Vicinity Map
Camino Largo
olf Course Y
ZQ
y
IT
I
t+l IZtu�Ra 'I�
NORTH VALLEY I
i! `o r
Gopher t;any
is River Rb
76 Guajame
AE
Regional Park
pn�a �a OSbornl St
Mission Sari Luis Rey
k. 9
Antique Gas & Steam Project
SAN LEIIS,Ri=Y Engine Museum © Site
f�! �ySy1o�PVe 7{7 'reYiorSt Wa`% A
M y
T W R
� i
V E Y RANCH
m erfbs� W Bohier Dr ro Bcbier Dr
{ RANCHO sideSty oe
DEL ORO
e
o Py Y pS Old G� =
� e9`
a Ave 9
Moonlight Amphitheatre
esa45 �4rp4 to r
vae
Dc
� Olive4
i ❑live Ave
n
Oceanside Blvd
Vista
a
a�TRI-CITY 43
;F _-Ronald P6ckardpr. 4
MIRA COSTA o° 7 f;_ y �
r A I N a " Google o� ti`. °, At,Vista Dt a
N:134521Figures Figure 2-2
r Date:10/25/21
Project Area Map
Camino Largo
--4EDWY-LOTH
A
15 —2 —06
SUBDI UISI Bq
V\CURED
PN —
i1 /
15 24 8��V�L _ • �® ����� _ � I /
l
APN \ \ �
159-240-21 �
% 100' 50' 0 100 200 300
SCALE: 1" = 100'
.....s OIAI
0—
N\3452Tigur Figure 2-3
Date:10125121
Site Plan
Camino Largo
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Effective evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project requires an understanding of the existing transportation system within the project area. Figure 3-1 shows the Existing conditions diagram, including intersection control and lane configurations. The study area includes the following intersections and street segments based on the anticipated distribution of the project traffic:
Intersections
1. N Santa Fe Ave & Osborne St
2. N Santa Fe Ave & Camino Largo
3. N Santa Fe Ave & Taylor St
4. N Santa Fe Ave &Bobier Dr
Street Seaments
N Santa Fe Avenue
• North of Osborne Street to Melrose Drive
• Osbore Street to Camino Largo
• Camino Largo to Taylor Street
• Taylor Street to E. Bobier Drive
• South of Bobier Drive to Cananea Street
3.1 Existing Street Network
The principal roadways in the Project study area are described briefly below. Roadway classification was determined based on a review of the City of Vista Circulation Element and information gathered from field observations.
N. Santa Fe Avenue is classified as a 4-Lane Major street on the City of Vista Circulation Element.
It is built as a 2-lane street with a two-way left-turn lane in the majority of Project study area.N. Santa Fe Avenue is built as a 4-lane divided roadway north of Melrose Drive. Between Melrose Drive and Osbore Street,N. Santa Fe Avenue varies from a 3-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane and a 4-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane. Between Osborne Street and Museum Way, N. Santa Fe Avenue is built as a 2-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane. Between Museum Way and Taylor Street, N. Santa Fe Avenue is built as a 3-lane roadway with a two-way left- lane. Between Taylor Street and Bobier Drive,N. Santa Fe Avenue is built as a 2-lane roadway with a two-way left- lane. South of Bobier Drive,N. Santa Fe Avenue is built as a 4-lane roadway with a two-way left-lane and then transitions into a 4-lane divided roadway about 500 feet south of Bobier Drive. Limited on- street parking is permitted on the west side of the road.No bicycle facilities are provided on N. Santa Fe Avenue in the Project vicinity.A contiguous sidewalk currently exists on the west side of the street.
The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
6 Osborne Street is an un-classified roadway. It is built as a two-lane undivided roadway. No on-street parking is permitted.No bicycle facilities are provided.No sidewalks provided. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Camino Largo is an un-classified roadway. It is built as a two-lane street and provides access to the Project Site. No on-street parking is permitted. No bicycle facilities are provided. No sidewalks provided. There is no posted speed limit.
Taylor Street is classified as a 2-Lane Collector (w/Two-Way Left-Turn Lane) on the City of Vista Circulation Element. It is built as a two-lane street with a two-way left-turn lane in the Project study area. On-street parking is permitted on both the north and south sides of the road.No bicycle facilities are provided on Taylor Street in the Project vicinity. A contiguous sidewalk currently exists on the both the north and south sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Bobier Drive is classified as a 4-Lane Major street on the City of Vista Circulation Element. It is built as a four-lane street with a two-way left-turn lane in the Project study area. On-street parking is permitted on both the north and south sides of the road. Bicycle lanes are provided on Bobier Drive in both the eastbound and westbound directions in the Project vicinity. A contiguous sidewalk currently exists on the both the north and south sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM/PM peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted in October 2021 at four (4) study intersection and five (5) street segments. The intersection counts were conducted between the hours of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM.Appendix A contains the count sheets.
Figure 3-2 depicts the Existing traffic volumes.
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
7 ldkeRa V Osborne S1
2 --------------------
35mph
3U+ 45mph BL eV Project Site
BL
0 l�
Osborne St 3
a
z
0 O TaY�r 3r
2U 35mph
�O aG
+ Camino Largo
f ooe
. Pa
a
z
Adobe Estates Dr Taylor St
® Study Intersection
z 0 Traffic Signal
® Stop Sign
11� Turning Movements
IQ0_L 2/4/6 11 Number of Travel Lanes G E Bobier Dr 4U+ 35mph Posted Speed Limit 4U+ W Bobier Dr BL ® 0g Oomph W.Bobier Or 40mph BL
ff E.Bobier Or u i D Divided/Undivided Roadway
Two-Way Left-Turn Median
U_
LL BL Bike Lane +
Z
oL Right Turn Overlap Phase z
mm 0
NA3452\Figures Figure 3-1
LINSCOTT Date:11/1/2021
Time:1:46 PM Existing Conditions Diagram
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
G�dlo�
ldkeRd �Spotne St
--------------------
Project Site
16,834 � o�a�go ,.,---'
0 7 M
M
385/168
215/99 a
t9
t Osborne St
I
M M
Q �N
O N
(n
Z
OTaY/or st
v
1/0
0/1
O�
trey
Camino Largo I<-01
061
Q (ND M
io 0
z
N
M 262/69
6/1
248/68
Adobe Estates Dr
Taylor St
23/7 i
0/2
19/9 a'
rn
in
z
O O N
�7 N
oM N 114/184
6431462 462 E Bobier Dr
�231/165 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
E.Bobier Dr
195/193 r # Study Intersections ¢' 506/674 d
184/137 d N v Li
Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes49
r=
M N ~ Z
Z XX,XXX Street SegmentADT —z
CY) 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 3-2
LINSCOTT Date:10/26/2021
Time:9:11 AM Existing Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
4.0 VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED ASSESSMENT
An assessment was conducted to determine the impacts on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Project. This assessment utilizes methodologies presented within the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory developed to assist with implementation of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), which resulted in a shift in the measure of effectiveness for determining transportation impacts from Level of Service(LOS)and vehicular delay to VMT. VMT analyses are required for use in all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents no later than July 1, 2020.
The VMT analysis thresholds are based on the City of Vista's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
The Project proposes 46 single-family residential houses which will generate a total of 460 trips per day as shown in Table 8-1. The project is not consistent with the General Plan.
Per the City of Vista's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines,projects that are considered inconsistent with the General Plan and generate an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 500 trips or less do not need a VMT analysis.
Due to the Project's ADT volumes, it is presumed that the Project has no significant transportation impacts for the purposes of CEQA, and no VMT-related improvements are required. 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
10 5.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
5.1 Analysis Approach
The following scenarios were analyzed in the traffic report:
■ Existing
■ Existing+Project
■ Existing+ Cumulative Projects
■ Existing+ Cumulative Projects+Project
■ Horizon Year
■ Horizon Year+Project
5.2 Analysis Methodology
Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments.
There are various methodologies used to analyze signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and street segments. The measure of effectiveness for intersection and segment operations is level of service (LOS), which denotes the operating conditions which occur at a given intersection or on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads.
LOS is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed,travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Levels of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections,as well as for roadway segments. In the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), 6th Edition, Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The level of service analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time.
Table 5-1 depicts the intersection LOS and corresponding delay ranges, which are based on overall intersection delay (signalized intersections) and the average control delay for any particular minor movement(unsignalized intersections), respectively.
5.2.1 Signalized Intersections
For signalized intersections, level of service criteria is stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay,queue move- 30 LINScoTT,LAw&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
11 up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Following is a brief description of the Levels of Service A through F.
Level of service A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle).
This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.
Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
Level of service B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of Average delay.
Level of service C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
Level of service D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher volume (demand) / capacity (v/c) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
Individual cycle failures are frequent.
TABLE 5-1
INTERSECTION LOS&DELAY RANGES
LOS Delay(seconds/vehicle)
Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections A 80.1 >50.1
Source:Highway Capacity Manual6'Edition.
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
12 Level of service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 seconds to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression,long cycle lengths,and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
Level of service F describes operations with delay in excess of over 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
5.2.2 Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized intersections, level of service is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement: level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Level of Service F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This level of service is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor- street approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size; that is, the critical gap remains constant no matter how long the side-street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form of side-street vehicles selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior, which are more difficult to observe in the field than queuing.
5.2.3 Street Segments
Roadway segment Level of Service (LOS) standards and thresholds provide the basis for analysis of roadway segment performance. Roadway segment analysis is based upon the comparison of daily traffic volumes (ADTs) to the City of Vista Circulation Element Roadway Classification — Capacity and Levels of Service Table (provided in Appendix F). This table provides segment capacities for different street classifications,based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
13 6.0 SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT CRITERIA
The Circulation Element of the Vista General Plan 2030 Update (December 2011, page 3-14) states, "the City has established LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions in designated areas. Intersections and roadway segments operating at LOS D or better are considered to operate at acceptable levels of service." Roadway segment capacity and LOS standards are generally used as long range planning guidelines to determine the functional classification of roadways. The actual capacity of a roadway facility varies according to its physical attributes. Typically, however, the performance and LOS of a roadway segment is heavily influenced by the ability of an intersection to accommodate peak hour volumes. Within Vista and the San Diego region as a whole, intersection performance rather than roadway segment performance is considered a better indicator of poor traffic operations. Therefore, it should be used as the basis for traffic impact analyses and recommendations for corrective improvements.
A project is considered to have a substantial effect on the operation of an intersection when one of the following occurs:
■ THE ADDITION OF PROJECT TRAFFIC RESULTS IN A SERVICE DROP FROM LOS D OR BETTER TO LOS E OR F.
Under this condition, the project applicant would be responsible for direct project impact mitigation necessary to restore the intersection to LOS D conditions or better. ■ WHEN AN INTERSECTION IS OPERATING AT LOS E OR F UNDER THE NO-
PROJECT SCENARIO AND THE PROJECT ADDS MORE THAN AN ADDITIONAL TWO SECONDS OF AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY.
Under this condition, the project applicant would be responsible for direct project impact mitigation necessary to restore the intersection LOS to pre-development conditions or better.
■ IN THE LONGER-RANGE CUMULATIVE CONDITION, IF THE ADDITION OF
PROJECT TRAFFIC RESULTS IN A SERVICE DROP FROM LOS D OR BETTER TO
LOS E OR F, OR IF AN INTERSECTION IS OPERATING AT LOS E OR F AND THE
PROJECT CONTRIBUTES TO THE AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY (REGARDLESS
OF TIME), THE PROJECT IS DETERMINED TO HAVE A CUMULATIVELY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
Under this condition, the project applicant would be responsible for mitigating the intersection LOS to pre-development conditions or better. Identified cumulative transportation related impacts can be mitigated by participation in the City of Vista's Impact fees for Arterial Streets and Traffic Signals program.
As stated previously, roadway segment Level of Service (LOS) standards and thresholds provide the basis for analysis of roadway segment performance. Roadway segment analysis is based upon the comparison of daily traffic volumes (ADTs) to the City of Vista Circulation Element Roadway Classification—Capacity and Levels of Service Table (provided in Appendix F). This table provides segment capacities for different street classifications, based on traffic volumes and roadway LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
14 characteristics. The City of Vista's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines(December 2020 Final) page 25 states:
"The actual capacity of a roadway facility varies according to its physical attributes. Typically, the performance and LOS of a roadway segment is heavily influenced by the ability of the intersections to accommodate peak hour volumes. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes and/or to meet the street cross sections in the Circulation Element adjacent to the project boundary.Within the City of Vista and the region as a whole, intersection performance, rather than roadway segment performance, is a more accurate and realistic indicator of true traffic operations and is used as the basis for defining traffic impacts."
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
15 7.0 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis of existing conditions includes the assessment of the study area intersection and street segment using the methodologies described in Section 5.0.
7.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Table 7-1 summarizes the existing intersection level of service. As seen in Table 7-1, the study area intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better.
Appendix C contains the Existing intersection analysis worksheets.
TABLE 7-1
EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control Peak Existing
Type Hour Delaya LOSb
1. N Santa Fe Ave/Osborne St Signal AM 23.5 C PM 15.0 B
2. N Santa Fe Ave/Camino Largo TWSC e AM 13.6 B PM 16.5 C
3. N Santa Fe Ave/Taylor St Signal AM 29.9 C PM 17.2 B
4. N Santa Fe Ave/Bobier Dr Signal AM 50.1 D PM 46.9 D
Footnotes: SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. Two-Way Stop Controlled.Worst delay is reported.
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 80.1 F > 50.1 F
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
16 7.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service
Table 7-2 summarizes the existing roadway segment operations. As seen in Table 7-2, several study area segments are calculated to currently operate worse than LOS C:
• N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Osborne Street and Camino Largo • N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Camino Largo and Taylor Street • N. Santa Fe Avenue: Between Taylor Street and Bobier Drive TABLE 7-2
EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Functional Capacity ADT° LOS d Classification a (LOS E)
N.Santa Fe Avenue
North of Osborne Street 4-Lane Collector 25,000 16,834 B (undivided)
Osborne Street to Camino Largo 2-Lane Collector(with 15,000 15,120 F TWLTL)
Camino Largo to Taylor Street 2-Lane Collector(with 15,000 16,279 F TWLTL)
Taylor Street to Bobier Drive 2-Lane Collector(with 15,000 17,844 F TWLTL)
South of Bobier Drive 4-Lane Collector 25,000 19,477 C (undivided)
Footnotes:
a. City of Vista Circulation Element roadway classification at which the roadway currently functions. b. The capacity of the roadway at Level of Service E.
c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
d. Level of Service.
e. Volume to Capacity.
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
17 8.0 TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT
8.1 Project Trip Generation
The project trip generation was calculated using the trip rates published by the San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)in the (Not So)Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 for residential homes.
Table 8-1 tabulates the total project traffic generation.As shown in Table 8-1,the project is calculated to generate 460 ADT with 11 inbound/26 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 32 inbound/ 14 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
TABLE 8-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use&Size Trip Rate ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % of In:Out Volume %of In:Out Volume
ADT ADT
Split In Out Split In Out
Single-family 46 Dwelling Units(DU) 10 /DU 460 8% 30:70 11 26 10% 70:30 32 14 Footnotes:
a. Rate is based on SANDAG's(Not So)Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,April 2002.
8.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment
The project traffic was distributed and assigned to the street system based on the project's proximity to state highways and arterials. Figure 8-1 depicts the Projects Trip Distribution. Figures 8-2 depicts the Project Traffic Volumes and Figures 8-3 depicts the Existing+Project Traffic Volumes. 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
18 G�dlo�
`d keRa ' psbotne S1
--------------------
12% Project Site
G
0 0
I�
+ 13%
pOsborne St
I �
o0
N M
in
Z
O TaY/org/ 5%
04 N
25%
75%
�y0
Camino Largo 00e,
. P
a o U,
r—
Z
O
o U.
Adobe Estates Dr
Taylor St
o
0 r`
in
z
0 0 0
000
LO
E Bobier Dr 10%
10% 0W.Bobier Dr 4
E.BobierDr ® Study intersection
10%
Inbound Trip Distribution
LL LD ��� Outbound Trip Distribution c
xx% Regional Trip Distribution 0
Z
N:\3452\Figures Figure 8-1
LINSCOTT Date:10/27/2021
Time:1:00 PM Project Traffic Distribution
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
ldkeRd �Spotne St
--------------------
55 Project Site
A G
0 2/4 W
t Osborne St
I
Q N N
M M
(n
Z
O O 23 TaY/ors/
M
6/4
20/10
trey
Camino Largo
a
N
(n
Z
O
M�
M�
1/2 N
Adobe Estates Dr N
t Taylor St
I
Q N
N
r
Z
M�M
416 E Bobier Dr
1/3 46 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
E.Bobier Dr
1/3 i >
#) Study Intersections ¢
Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 49
in Z XX,XXX Street SegmentADT N z 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 8-2
LINSCOTT Date:11/1/2021
Time:1:54 PM Project Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
ldkeRd �Spotne St
--------------------
Project Site
16,889
G2tN�°
0 �o
385/168
217/103
Q
t Osborne St
I
Q V N
(n
Z
OTaY/or st
�n w
vM
/4
� 20/11
trey
Camino Largo
N
(n
Z
O
263/71
6/1
248/68
Adobe Estates Dr
Taylor St
23/7 —4 i
0/2
19/9 a'
rn
in
z
O O N
�7 N
oM N 115/187
6431462 462 E Bobier Dr
�231/165 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
E.Bobier Dr
196/196 i #1 Study Intersections ¢' 506/674 d
184/137 d N Li
M Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 49
Nv� o in
Z XX,XXX Street SegmentADT ti z
o> 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 8-3
LINSCOTT Date:1:04P 021
Time:1:04 PM Existing + Project Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
9.0 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC
There are other planned projects within the vicinity, which will add traffic to the roadways and intersections in the study area. Based on a review of other potential projects within the area, it was determined that the following cumulative development projects should be included in the traffic analysis.
In addition to the traffic produced by the cumulative projects in the vicinity, an additional 5% growth factor was incorporated to account for other potential cumulative traffic.
LLG prepared the traffic studies for 3 of the 5 cumulative projects. Appendix H includes excerpts from those traffic studies.
9.1 Descriptions of Cumulative Projects
Detailed below are brief descriptions of these cumulative projects.
1. North Santa Fe Plaza Apartments
The Santa Fe Apartments project is a 19-unit apartment and a 760 square foot coffee shop project located at 1558 N. Santa Fe Ave. The project is calculated to generate 646 ADT with 36 AM peak hour trips (18 inbound and 18 outbound) and 47 PM peak hour trips (26 inbound and 21 outbound trips).
2. Alliance North Santa Fe
The Alliance North Santa Fe project is a 60-unit apartment project located at 1559 N. Santa Fe Ave.
The project would generate 360 ADT with 29 AM peak hour trips (6 inbound and 23 outbound) and 32 PM peak hour trips (22 inbound and 10 outbound).
3. Vista Marketplace Expansion
The Vista Marketplace Expansion project is a 4,980 square foot retail expansion project located at 1461 N. Santa Fe Ave. The project would generate 596 ADT with 24 AM peak hour trips (14 inbound and 10 outbound) and 60 PM peak hour trips (30 inbound and 30 outbound).
4. Melrose Heights
The Melrose Heights project is a mixed use project that includes 301 apartment units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space. The project is located at the intersection of N. Melrose Drive and Oceanside Boulevard/West Bobier Drive. The project would generate 4,049 ADT with 340 AM peak hour trips (125 inbound and 215 outbound) and 360 PM peak hour trips (230 inbound and 130 outbound).
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
22 5. Modera Melrose
The Modera Melrose project is a project that includes 280 apartment units and 10,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The project is located at the southeast corner of the Melrose Drive and Bobier Drive intersection. The project would generate 2,880 ADT with 182 AM peak hour trips (56 inbound and 136 outbound) and 271 PM peak hour trips (166 inbound and 105 outbound).
9.2 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation
The above cumulative projects are estimated to generate a total of 8,543 trips,with 611 AM peak hour trips (219 inbound and 392 outbound) and 770 PM peak hour trips (474 inbound and 296 outbound).
Table 9-1 tabulates the total cumulative project traffic generation Figure 9-1 depicts the Cumulative Projects AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 9-2 depicts the Existing+Cumulative Projects AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes.Figure 9-3 depicts the Existing +Project+Cumulative Projects AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
23 TABLE 9-1
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION
Cumulative Projects Land Use Quantity ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total
1. North Santa Fe Plaza Apartments 19 DU 114 2 7 9 7 3 10 Apartments Coffee Shop' 0.76 KSF 532 16 11 27 19 18 37
2. Alliance North Santa Fe Apartments 60 DU 360 6 23 29 22 10 32
3. Vista Marketplace Retail' 4.98 KSF 598 14 10 24 30 30 60 Expansion
4. Melrose Heights Mixed-Use 313 DU 4,059 125 215 340 230 130 360
5. Modera Melrose Commercial 10 KSF 1,200 29 19 48 60 60 120 /Retail
Apartments 280 DU 1,680 27 107 134 106 45 151 TOTAL 8,543 219 392 611 474 296 770 Footnotes:
a. Rate is based on SANDAG's (Not So)Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,April 2002.
b. Rate used:Fast food without drive thru
C. Rate used:Neighborhood shopping center
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
24 ldkeRd �Spotne St
--------------------
1,093 Project Site
ZIP
O
19/8
12/7
Osborne St
M
M�
(/J
Z
OTaY/or st
v
+ Qt
trey
Camino Largo e
ovrn
N�V
Z
22/30
55165 65 E Bobier Dr
17/22 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
} E.Bobier Dr
10/11 #1 Study Intersections ¢'
57/68 �d
9/7 d M LL
Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 49
N r Z
Z XX,XXX Street SegmentADT � z
T
Z 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 9-1
LINSCOTT Date:10/27/2021 Time:1:02 PM Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
G�dlo�
ldkeRd �Spotne St
--------------------
17,927 Project Site
G2tN�°
0 W N
7 M
I�N
404/176
227/106 W
Osborne St
7 N
M M
(n
Z
0 O TaY/or st
N
O
M
w
1/0
0/1
trey
Camino Largo I<-01
Q O M
N O
(n
Z
O
275/72 CO
6/1CO
261/74
Adobe Estates Dr
Taylor St
24/7 i
0/2
20/9
�N
(n
Z
O N V
�V N
M 136/214
6981527 527 E Bobier Dr
248/187 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
E.Bobier Dr
205/204 i #1 563/742 Study Intersections ¢' d
193/144 d N Li
N Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 49
M N O z
Z XX,XXX Street SegmentADT r- z
N 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 9-2
LINSCOTT Date:10/27/2021 Time:1:03 PM Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
G�dlo�
ldkeRd �Spotne St
--------------------
17,982 Project Site
0 W N
7 M
N N
404/176
229/110 �1
t Osborne St
I
Q �N
N N
(n
Z
OTaY/or st
N
(D CO
M M
/4
� 20/11
trey
Camino Largo
M
N
N�
(n
Z
O
276/74 N
6/1 CO
261/74
Adobe Estates Dr
Taylor St
24/7 —4 i
0/2
20/9 a'
Z
�V N
M 137/217
6981527 527 E Bobier Dr
248/187 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
E.Bobier Dr
206/208 i #1 563/742 Study Intersections ¢' d
193/144 d N Li
Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 49
M N c' z
Z XX,XXX Street SegmentADT c"!z
N 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 9-3
LINSCOTT Date:1 021
Time:1:03:03 PM Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
10.0 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SCENARIOS
10.1 Existing + Project Conditions
10.1.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Table 10-1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations under Existing+Project conditions. As seen in Table 10-1,with the addition of project traffic,the study intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.
Appendix C contains the intersection analysis worksheets.
10.1.2 Daily Street Segment Operations
Table 10-2 summarizes the Existing+Project roadway segment operations.As seen in Table 10-2,with the addition of project traffic the study segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C on a daily basis with the exception of the following segments which are calculated to currently operate at LOS F:
• N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Osborne Street and Camino Largo • N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Camino Largo and Taylor Street • N. Santa Fe Avenue: Between Taylor Street and Bobier Drive It is important to note that per City guidelines and as previously discussed in Section 6, intersection performance rather than segment performance is more accurate and a better indicator of true traffic operations and therefore intersections are used as the basis for defining traffic impacts.
10.2 Existing + Cumulative Projects without Project Conditions
10.2.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Table 10-1 summarizes the Existing + Cumulative Projects without project traffic peak hour intersection operations. Table 10-1 shows that in the Existing+Cumulative Projects without Project, the study intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersection:
• N Santa Fe Ave & Bobier Dr—LOS E (AM/PM)
Appendix D contains the intersection analysis worksheets.
10.2.2 Daily Street Segment Operations
Table 10-2 summarizes the Existing + Cumulative Projects roadway segment operations. As seen in Table 10-2,with the addition of cumulative projects traffic,the study segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D on a daily basis with the exception of the following segments which are calculated to currently operate at LOS F:
• N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Osborne Street and Camino Largo LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
28 • N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Camino Largo and Taylor Street • N. Santa Fe Avenue: Between Taylor Street and Bobier Drive
10.3 Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Conditions
10.3.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Table 10-1 summarizes the Existing+Cumulative Projects with Project traffic peak hour intersection operations. Table 10-1 shows that in the Existing+Cumulative Projects with Project traffic,the study intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersection:
• N Santa Fe Ave & Bobier Dr—LOS E (AM/PM)
The increase in delay due with the addition of project traffic is not greater than 2.0 seconds in either the AM or PM peak hour. Therefore,the addition of project traffic does not create a substantial effect.
Appendix E contains the intersection analysis worksheets.
10.3.2 Daily Street Segment Operations
Table 10-2 summarizes the Existing + Cumulative Projects with Project traffic roadway segment operations. As seen in Table 10-2, in the Existing+Cumulative Projects with Project traffic the study area street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D on a daily basis with the exception of the following segments which are calculated to currently operate at LOS F:
• N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Osborne Street and Camino Largo • N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Camino Largo and Taylor Street • N. Santa Fe Avenue: Between Taylor Street and Bobier Drive It is important to note that per City guidelines and as previously discussed in Section 6, intersection performance rather than segment performance is more accurate and a better indicator of true traffic operations and therefore intersections are used as the basis for defining traffic impacts.
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
29 TABLE1O-1
EXISTING+CUMULATIVE PROJECTS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Existing+
0` Existing+ Existing+ A
Control Peak ExistingYP Cumulative Projects Cumulative Intersection Type Hour Project without Project Projects with Project
Delay' LOSb Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1.N Santa Fe Ave/ AM 23.5 C 23.7 C 0.2 28.5 C 28.6 C 0.1 Osborne St Signalized PM 15.0 B 15.1 B 0.1 16.8 B 16.9 B 0.1
2.N Santa Fe Ave/ TWSC d AM 13.6 B 20.7 C 7.1 14.2 B 22.2 C 8.0 Camino Largo PM 16.5 C 16.5 C 0.0 17.4 C 17.5 C 0.1
3.N Santa Fe Ave/ AM 29.9 C 30.2 C 0.3 32.9 C 33.2 C 0.3 Taylor St Signalized PM 17.2 B 17.6 B 0.4 18.1 B 18.7 B 0.6
4. N Santa Fe Ave/ AM 50.1 D 50.7 D 0.6 56.3 E 57.0 E 0.7 Bobier Dr Signalized PM 46.9 D 47.9 B 1.0 55.7 E 57.0 E 1.3 Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED b. Level of Service.
C. Increase in delay due to Project traffic in seconds. d. TWSC=Two-Way Stopped Controlled.Worst delay reported. Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 80.1 F > 50.1 F
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
30 TABLE10-2
EXISTING+CUMULATIVE PROJECTS STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Existing Existing Existing+Project Existing+Cumulative Existing+Cumulative Street Segment Capacity Projects without Project Projects with Project (LOS E)a ADTb LW V/Cd ADT LOS V/C Ae ADT LOS V/C ADT LOS V/C Ae N Santa Fe Avenue
North of Osborne Street 25,000 16,834 B 0.673 16,889 B 0.676 0.003 17,927 C 0.717 17,982 C 0.719 0.002 Osborne Street to 15,000 15,120 F 1.008 15,235 F 1.016 0.008 16,165 F 1.078 16,280 F 1.085 0.007 Camino Largo
Camino Largo to Taylor 15,000 16,279 F 1.085 16,624 F 1.108 0.023 17,382 F 1.159 17,727 F 1.182 0.023 Street
Taylor Street to Bobier 15,000 17,844 F 1.190 18,166 F 1.211 0.021 19,886 F 1.326 20,208 F 1.347 0.021 Drive
South of Bobier Drive 25,000 19,477 C 0.779 19,707 C 0.788 0.009 21,158 D 0.846 21,388 D 0.856 0.010 Footnotes:
a. The capacity of the roadway at Level of Service E
b. Average Daily Traffic
C. Level of Service
d. Volume to Capacity ratio
e. Increase in V/C ratio due to the addition of project traffic. 30 LINscoTT,LAw&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.docx
31 11.0 ANALYSIS OF HORIZON YEAR SCENARIOS
11.1 Horizon Year Baseline Conditions &Traffic Volumes In order to forecast future traffic volumes for Horizon Year conditions, per the City's guidelines, the SANDAG Series 14 Model was utilized. The project traffic volumes were added onto the Horizon Year(Year 2050)Baseline scenario to develop Horizon Year(Year 2050)with Project traffic volumes.
For the purposes of the 2050 analysis, no roadway network improvements were assumed.
Figure M-1 shows the Horizon Year without Project traffic volumes.Figure 11-2 shows the Horizon Year+Project traffic volumes.
11.2 Horizon Year Conditions
11.2.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Table 11-1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations under the Horizon Year conditions. As seen in Table 11-1,the study intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections:
• N Santa Fe Ave & Osborne Street—LOS E (AM)
• N Santa Fe Ave & Taylor Street—LOS E (AM)
• N Santa Fe Ave & Bobier Dr—LOS E/F (AM/PM)
Appendix F contains the intersection analysis worksheets.
11.2.2 Daily Street Segment Operations
Table 11-2 summarizes the Horizon Year roadway segment operations.As seen in Table I1-2,the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS D on a daily basis with the exception of the following segments which are calculated to operate at LOS F:
• N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Osborne Street and Camino Largo • N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Camino Largo and Taylor Street • N. Santa Fe Avenue: Between Taylor Street and Bobier Drive 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
32 11.3 Horizon Year with Project Conditions
11.3.1 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Table 11-1 summarizes the Horizon Year with Project traffic peak hour intersection operations. Table 11-1 shows that in the Horizon Year with Project traffic, the study intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections:
• N Santa Fe Ave & Osborne Street—LOS E (AM)
• N Santa Fe Ave & Taylor Street—LOS E (AM)
• N Santa Fe Ave & Bobier Dr—LOS E/F (AM/PM)
The increase in delay due with the addition of project traffic is not greater than 2.0 seconds in either the AM or PM peak hour. Therefore,the addition of project traffic does not create a substantial effect.
Appendix G contains the intersection analysis worksheets.
11.3.2 Daily Street Segment Operations
Table 11-2 summarizes the Horizon Year roadway segment operations.As seen in Table 11 2,with the addition of projects traffic,the study segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D on a daily basis with the exception of the following segments which are calculated to currently operate at LOS F:
• N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Osborne Street and Camino Largo • N Santa Fe Avenue: Between Camino Largo and Taylor Street • N. Santa Fe Avenue: Between Taylor Street and Bobier Drive It is important to note that per City guidelines and as previously discussed in Section 6, intersection performance rather than segment performance is more accurate and a better indicator of true traffic operations and therefore intersections are used as the basis for defming traffic impacts. 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
33 TABLE 11-1
HORIZON YEAR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Peak Horizon Year Horizon Year+ Ae
Intersection Control
1 Hour Project
Delay' LOSb Delay LOS
1.N Santa Fe Ave/Osborne St Signalized AM 58.8 E 59.2 E 0.4PM 27.3 C 27.4 C 0.1
2.N Santa Fe Ave/Camino TWSC d AM 25.3 D 34.4 D 9.1 Largo PM 21.9 C 25.0 C 3.1
3.N Santa Fe Ave/Taylor St Signalized AM 63.5 E 65.0 E 1.5 PM 27.8 C 30.6 C 2.8
4.N Santa Fe Ave/Bobier Dr Signalized AM 71.6 E 72.3 E 0.7pM 81.5 F 82.9 F 1.4 Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED b. Level of Service.
C. Increase in delay due to Project traffic in seconds. d. TWSC=Two-Way Stopped Controlled.Worst delay reported. Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 80.1 F > 50.1 F
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
34 TABLE11-2
HORIZON YEAR STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Existing Horizon Year Horizon Year+Project
Street Segment Capacity
(LOS E)a ADTb LOSe V/Cd ADT LOS V/C Ae N Santa Fe Avenue
North of Osborne Street 25,000 18,795 C 0.752 18,850 C 0.754 0.002 Osborne Street to Camino 15,000 23,900 F 1.593 24,015 F 1.601 0.008 Largo
Camino Largo to Taylor Street 15,000 23,800 F 1.587 24,145 F 1.610 0.023 Taylor Street to Bobier Drive 15,000 22,700 F 1.513 23,022 F 1.535 0.022 South of Bobier Drive 25,000 20,685 D 0.827 20,915 D 0.837 0.010 Footnotes:
a. The capacity of the roadway at Level of Service E
b. Average Daily Traffic
C. Level of Service
d. Volume to Capacity ratio
e. Increase in V/C ratio due to the addition of project traffic. 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
35 Gvdlo�
ld�eRa �sbotne St
--------------------
18,795 Project Site
0 N r
(O M
O O
O
�470/200 w
300/140 Cp
O
t Osborne St
I
0 oM
Q O N
O O
(n
Z
O TaY�r S/
N 5/5
5/15
Q�
trey
Camino Largo
0 o�
z
c� N
0 0 340/90
10/0
300/80
Adobe Estates Or
Taylor St
30/10 i
20/10 o0
Z
M O OO
��N
M M 150/240
690/500 E Bobier Dr
250/180 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
E.Bobier Or
250/250 i r #1 Study Intersections ¢' 540/720 d coo d
190/140 �
a' LL
N(NO
Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 49
Ln
N 00 Z
Z XX,XXX Street Segment ADT cic z
N 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 11-1
LINSCOTT Date: 021
2:47 P
Time:2:47 PM Horizon Year Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
Gvdlo�
ld�eRa �sbotne St
--------------------
18,850 Project Site
0 N r
(D M
�O
M
�470/200 �
302/144
Osborne St
N NO
(D N
M M
r�
(/J
Z
O TaY�r S/
M
o
N O
11/9
25/15
Q�
trey
Camino Largo eOel
Q �N
O M
(n
Z
O
O
�� W
341/92 O
10/0 IV
300/80 IV
Adobe Estates Dr
Taylor St
30/10 - i r
20/10 -
N O
Q O�
n
In
Z
�O N
M M M 151/243
6901500 500 E Bobier Dr
250/180 W Bobier Dr O
W.Bobier Dr 4
E.Bobier Dr
251/253 r # Study Intersections ¢' 540/720 d d
190/140 a' LL
Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 49
Ln
Z XX,XXX Street Segment ADT 47 z
N 0
N:\3452\Figures Figure 11-2
LINSCOTT Date: 021
2:48 P
Time:2:48 PM Horizon Year + Project Traffic Volumes
GREENSPAN
Camino Largo
12.0 SITE ACCESS
Full access to the project site is provided along Camino Largo as shown in Figure 2-3, Conceptual Site Plan. A two-way left turn-lane is present along N Santa Fe Avenue at Camino Largo and allows for southbound left turns into the project site outside the southbound through movement. The two-way left-turn lane along N Santa Fe Avenue also facilitates outbound left turns from Camino Largo by providing a refuge lane and enabling drivers to only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time.
The intersection analysis at the Camino Largo/N Santa Fe intersection results in LOS C or better in all scenarios. The presence of the two-way left-turn lane and the acceptable LOS results leads us to determine that no improvements are deemed necessary. It is recommended that a stop sign be installed on Camino Largo at N Santa Fe Avenue.
30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
38 13.0 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT
13.1 Pedestrian Mobility
Sidewalks are provided intermittently along N Santa Fe Avenue. There is an existing sidewalk on the east side of the street 300 feet north of N. Paseo Marguerita to about 330 feet south of Taylor Street.
There is also an existing sidewalk on the west side of the street between Museum Way to Bobier Drive.
According to the City of Vista's 2030 General Plan, Chapter 3: Circulation Element, a future pedestrian facility is planned on N. Santa Fe Avenue from Bobier Drive to the northern city boundary.
Taylor Street has a contiguous sidewalk on both the north and south sides of the street. Bobier Drive also has a contiguous sidewalk on both the north and south sides of the street. Camino Largo and Osborne Street have no sidewalks.
13.2 Bicycle Mobility
No bicycle facilities are provided on N. Santa Fe Avenue in the Project vicinity between Osborne Street and Bobier Drive. A Class II bikeway does exist on N. Santa Fe Avenue south of Bobier Drive for 1.5 miles. A future bike lane is proposed in the City of Vista's 2030 General Plan, Chapter 3:
Circulation Element on N. Santa Fe Avenue between Bobier Drive northward to the Oceanside City limit.
No bicycle facilities are provided on Taylor Street in the Project vicinity. There is a planned bike lane on Taylor Street between N. Santa Fe Avenue and E. Vista Way.
Bicycle lanes are provided on Bobier Drive in both the eastbound and westbound directions in the Project vicinity.
13.3 Transit Mobility
Transit service in Vista is provided by North County Transit District. There are currently two (2) bus routes #303 and#318 serving in the project vicinity.
Route 303 is a High Frequency Route that travels between the Oceanside Transit Center and the Vista Transit Center via Town Center North. Route 303 traverses along N Santa Fe Avenue in the study area. Service is Monday through Sunday with frequencies of 30 minutes.
Route 318 travels between the Oceanside Transit Center and the Vista Transit Center via Oceanside Boulevard and Bobier Drive. Route 318 traverses along Bobier Drive in the study area. Service is Monday through Sunday with frequencies of 30 minutes.
LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
39 14.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis in this report, the Project does not result in any transportation deficiencies and hence no improvements are required.
As discussed in Section 4.0, the project is screened out from needing to conduct a VMT analysis and no significant CEQA transportation impact would occur.
A stop sign is recommended to be installed on Camino Largo at N Santa Fe Avenue intersection. 30 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.3-21-3452 Camino Largo
N:\3452\Report\Nov2021 Report.3452.doex
40 IS/MND Appendix I
Responses to Comments
Responses to Comments
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073,the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)was circulated for a 20-day period between May 11, 2022, and May 30, 2022 to interested parties for review and comment. No new significant environmental effects were identified during the public comment period.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requires the decision-making body to consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process.There is no requirement for a formal response to each of the comments received (unlike the requirement for a Final Environmental Impact Report). However, in order to provide the Lead Agency with additional information upon which to base their decision,the following Responses to Comments have been prepared. Five comment letters were received,four of which were received during the comment period, and this document contains a copy of the comment letters and the City of Vista's response.
The City of Vista has prepared this Responses to Comments package to address environmental comments received during the CEQA public review period.The comments have been made a part of the public record.The comments received on the IS/MND during the public review period did not result in changes or clarifications to the text of the IS/MND.As such, no new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. No new significant environmental impacts would result from the project or from new mitigation measures proposed for implementation.
TABLE RTC-1
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Comment Letter Agency/Name Date
A Cheryl Madrigal,Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural 5/13/2022 Resources Manager, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
B Joe and Paula Gregory 5/20/2022
C Michael Jacobs 1 5/29/2022
D Ursula Sack(GuARD) 5/31/2022
E Michael Jacobs 2 6/7/2022
RTC-1
COMMENTS RESPONSES
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians c°otLi'i,��o
CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT o 'm
One Goco mment Center Lane Valley Center CA 921162
(760)749-1092 1 Fax:(760)749-9901 1 rincrns-asn.gnr
May 13,2022
Sent via emall:pchow(q�ci.trlsta.cmus
Ms.Patsy Chow
City of Vista
Community Development Dept.
200 Civic Center]hive
Vista,CA 920X4-6275
Re:Candno Largo P21-0300,City of Vista,California
Dear Ms.Chow,
This letter is tN ittan on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luisztlo Indians("Rincon Band"or"Band"),a fxkrally A-1 The comment is an introductory statement and notes that the project A-1 recognized Indian Tribe and sovereign government. Thank you for providing uswilh the Notice oflntenlloAdupl site is located within the territory of the Luiseno people and within it Mitigated Negative Declaration(NIND)for the above referenced prv{eat.The identified location is within the Rincon's area of historic interest. It also states that Rincon generally Territory of the Luiseflo people.and is also within Rino:on's specific area of Historic interest. agrees with the conclusions and mitigation measures of the Draft Initial A-2 We have reviewed tlw provided documents and agree in general with the measures,which include archaeological Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).As this comment does and tribalmonitoring,a monitoring report,and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains. not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the As mentioned in our letter from April S,2022 and throughout our consultation,the Tribe asks that the cultural IS/MND, no further response is required.
A-3 materials collected during the survey work will be reburied on-site. 'We recognize that measure CR-1 was implemented to accommodate our ratluesi,but we believe that it is critical to include explicit language to include A-2/A-3 As noted in Response to Comment A-1, Rincon generally agrees with the reburial or ilems that have been taken from the property prior to the actual start of the ground-disturbing activities associaled with this,project,Wc1herefarerecommendlbero0uwingrevisiou; proposed mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS/MND but has requested revisions to Mitigation Measure CR-1.As such, Mitigation CR-1 Isolated cultural items. including the cultural materials m•aviously collected from the project site dunngthoHELIXsurvckshallberctumcdtodncsiteatalocationdctcnnimodpriortoissuanceofgrading Measure CR-1,contained in Section V on page 3-18 of the Final IS/MND A-4 permit and fiwffw identified on the final grading plans as an cmirotuncntally sensitive area to bo deed has been revised as follows:
restricted in perpetuity, mutually agreed upon location (agreed upon by the Tribes and the Applicant!0,%Ni r) A-4 CR-1 Isolated cultural items, including;the cultural materials previously We do request that the Rincon Band be notified of any changes in project plans.In addition,we request a copy or collected from the p ro i ect site for evaluation during;the survey,shall be the final monitoring report,whets available and ask that Rincon be afforded the opportunity to monitor the ground A-5 returned to the site at a location determined prior to issuance of grading disturbances associated vnth this project.
permit and further identified on the final grading plans as an A-6[jif you have additional questions or concerns,please;do not hesitate,to contact our office at your convenience at environmentally sensitive area to be deed restricted in perpetuity, 60)297-2635. mutually agreed upon location (agreed upon by the Tribes and the A-7�ThankyoufortheoppoMmitytoprotectanndprescrvoourculturalassets. Applicant/Owner).
Ho Manetti Tishman Tamer launc F_Gomalcz .lohn Constantino Joseph Linton A-5 In accordance with proposed Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3 Cbainuan Vice Chair C.—Akl vba Cnnca4lavber C—dMavbar contained in Section V of the IS/MND,a cultural resource monitoring program will be implemented during ground-disturbing construction RTC-2
COMMENTS RESPONSES
(cont.)activities(as specified in Mitigation Measure CR-2)that includes a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor.While the Native surcorcly. American monitor has not yet been retained as it is premature to do so at this point in the project entitlement process, Rincon will be afforded the opportunity to provide the required Native American monitoring for chcryl':ladrigal the project. Rincon will be provided a copy of the final monitoring report 'fribel Hisloric Proscrvahon Officer
WhiralRosourmManager and will also be notified of any changes in project plans.
A-6/A-7The comment is a concluding statement and provides contact information.
As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the IS/MND, no further response is required.
RTC-3
COMMENTS RESPONSES
----------Forwarded message----------
From:joe gregory
Date:May 20,2022 2:37 PM
Subject:re:Camino Largo development
To:Patsy Chow
Cc:
Dear Ms Chow,
This letter is in response to the letter my husband and I received last week.Our main concern is th e high density of this development.This B-1 The comment notes that the area is zoned as R-1,which is a residential area is zoned RI.The beauty of this area is the mral charm and large animal friendly atmosphere.The horse crossing signs are an example of B-1 the equestrian influence in this area. The R1 zoning also respects and preserves the integrity and history of the Gmqome Ranch.The 9.3acres zone in the City of Vista. However,as identified in Chapter 2, page 2-1 of plus Werearh me that de the twoelopme tofthnwere put of the reswasinoriginalGuajomeRanch ouses.Halfac the IS/MND,the project site is zoned as Agricultural (A-1)and designated We realize that development of this 9.3 acres was inevitable but not 46 houses.Half acre lots would be less than ideal but acceptable.
If a development does go through we do have some concerns and questions. in the Vista General Plan as Rural Residential (RR).The project would B-2 Cwateror rather a lack ofitin southern California require both a zone change to Residential (R-1-13,small lot subdivision, B-3 will signs be posted(no through street no turn around)to prevent vehicles from blocking our and our neighbor's driveway? 3,600 square foot[sf] lots)and General Plan amendment to Medium B-4=ill this be a gated development? Density Residential (MD Residential).Surrounding properties have a B-5 variety of zoning designations ranging from Specific Plan (SP)and A-1 to 4 where will our mail box and trash pickup be located?
the south;A-1, RR,and Commercial (C-1)to the north; Office B-6 C ill Camino Largo still be accessible for our large RV as well as fire trucks,first responders etc? Professional (OP)to the northwest; Estates (E-1)and Open Space(OS)to B-7 E 6 46 houses equates to 92 vehicles which add to carbon emissions and noise pollution the east and northeast;and A-1 to the west and northwest.Thus,the B-g [email protected] project area is not characterized by a single zone or exclusively Respectfully, designated for residential uses.
Joe and Paula Gregory
The comment notes the equestrian influence in the area;currently the project site supports a nursery that is no longer operable and does not support equestrian uses.The project would not impact or preclude the use of existing equestrian facilities in the project area.
The comment further states that the R-1 zoning preserves the integrity and history of Guajome Ranch.The site's current A-1 zoning allows for a variety of land uses such as packing or processing plants for crops,silos, accessory buildings (including workshops and barns),farm labor housing, and residential care/transition homes(see response to item I c., page 3-5 of the IS/MND). Many of these uses would differ from the residential land uses in the project area. Further,as noted above, none of the surrounding land uses are zoned as R-1 and many of the land uses would allow for more intense development such as a variety of office, professional, and commercial uses. In addition,the project provides landscaped areas (including slopes)that would support a variety of groundcover and shrubs with mature trees within the eastern and northern perimeter of the project site as well as within buffers between individual rear yards.Guajome Ranch is to the west of the project site, across North Santa Fe Avenue,As shown on Figure 3,Site Plan (in Attachment A of the IS/MND), a 6,572-sf biofiltration basin would be RTC-4
COMMENTS RESPONSES
B-1 (cont.)constructed in the southwest corner of the project site.Sloped landscaped areas and the rear yards of the two residences along the western portion of the project site would separate the project development from North Santa Fe Avenue.Guajome Ranch itself is approximately a quarter of a mile to the northwest of the project site.
Given the project design features and distance to Guajome Ranch,the project would not impact the integrity and/or history of Guajome Ranch by introducing a new or incompatible use.
While the project would result in denser development than allowed under the current zoning and land use designation, it would be similar to the residential neighborhood to the south in terms of development patterns,and architectural features.
Lastly,the comment introduces a list of questions and/or concerns,each of which is addressed in Responses to Comments B-2 through B-7 below.
B-2 The comment indicates that there is a lack of water in Southern California.As discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, response to item b.on page 3-58 of the IS/MND,water purveyors would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.The adequate supply of water as identified by the water purveyor is included in the project's Conditions of Approval.
B-3 The comment asks if signs will be posted to prevent vehicles from blocking driveways of adjacent properties.As described in Chapter 2, page 2-2 of the IS/MND, project parking would be provided via two-car garages and individual driveways. In addition,the five internal private cul-de-sac streets would be 40-feet wide curb to curb to accommodate on street parking on both sides of the internal streets,which would meet the proposed parking requirements set forth in the small lot subdivision/residential development ordinance(Chapter 18.33 of the Vista Municipal Code [VMC]).Thus, it is not anticipated that residents or guests would require additional parking at off-site locations. Camino Largo would be improved from an unclassified gravel road to a two-way paved street with a curb and gutter system and sidewalks with the pavement along Camino Largo extending to a minimum width of 28 feet.
In accordance with VMC Section 10.32.110,
RTC-5
COMMENTS RESPONSES
B-3 (cont.) parking is prohibited on streets less than 20 feet in width and on one side of the street as indicated by signs on streets that are 30 feet to 20 feet in width. Currently there is no parking allowed on Camino Largo.
With project implementation,there would continue to be no parking allowed on Camino Largo. Street signs would be posted by the City similar to current conditions.As such,vehicles associated with the project would not block existing driveways.
B-4 As identified in Chapter 2,Environmental Setting and Project Description, page 2-2 of the IS/MND,access would be provided by five private cul-de- sac streets that extend from Camino Largo.These cul de sacs would not be gated.
B-5 The location of mailboxes for the project has not been determined and will require consultation with the United States Post Office. It is anticipated that a single cluster mailbox unit would adequately serve the project.The applicant intends to request that the project mailbox unit be located centrally along Camino Largo,south of Lot 21.Trash pickup will be curbside at the individual residences along internal project streets.
The improvements to Camino Largo would not impact existing mailboxes or trash pickup locations.
B-6 As discussed in Response to Comment B-3, Camino Largo would be improved from an unclassified gravel road to a two-way paved street with a curb and gutter system and sidewalks.The pavement along Camino Largo would be improved to a minimum width of 28 feet.Thus, the current street conditions would be upgraded and the improved roadway would better accommodate recreational vehicles and emergency vehicles access to Camino Largo.
As identified in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, response to item f., on page 3-31 of the IS/MND,the project would be required to adhere to the design requirements as established by VMC Title 19 (Streets/Sidewalks)and the Fire Department.These standards ensure that private streets are properly sized and located to facilitate emergency vehicle access and the positioning of emergency response crews during emergencies. In addition, in Section XV,Public Services, response to item a1., page 3-50 of the IS/MND,the project applicant is required to submit project plans to Vista Fire Department(VFD)for review and plan RTC-6
COMMENTS RESPONSES
B-6 (cont.)check approval with respect to applicable fire protection standards set forth in Chapter 16.04 of the VMC.Approval is required prior to the issuance of building permits.Through this routine process, VFD confirms that the project meets all of the applicable fire codes set forth by the State Fire Marshal and the City's building code, including sufficient fire flow and emergency access for fire engines and crews including continued access to surrounding properties.
B-7 The comment states that with the increase in vehicles associated with the project,there would be an increase in carbon emissions and noise pollution.
As discussed in Section II,Air Quality,on pages 3-12 through 3-13 of the IS/MND,a carbon monoxide(CO) hotpsot screening analysis was performed as part of a project-specific Air Quality,Greenhouse Gas Emissions,and Energy technical report prepared for the project(included as Appendix A of the IS/MND).As identified,there would be no potential for a CO hotspot or exceedance of State or federal CO ambient air quality standard. In addition, in Section II and shown in Tables AQ-1 and AQ-2, on pages 3-6 3-7 of the IS/MND,the project would not exceed construction-or operation-related carbon dioxide or any other regulated air pollutant emission thresholds set by SDAPCD.Air quality impacts were assessed as less than significant.
A Noise Assessment Study was prepared and included as Appendix G of the IS/MND.The Noise Assessment Study is summarized in Section XIII, Noise,of the IS/MND and addresses traffic-related noise.Traffic noise impacts would be significant in areas where traffic noise at single-family residential uses exceeds the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) maximum noise level of 65 CNEL specified in the City's General Plan Noise Element,and implementation of the project results in a significant increase in noise levels,which is considered greater than a perceptible change of 3 CNEL over existing conditions.The results of the analysis at the nearest noise sensitive land uses to the roadway centerline of North Santa Fe Avenue were presented in Table N-4 on page 3-45 of the IS/MND.As shown in Table N-4 noise levels would increase by 0.1 CNEL for nearby residences along North Santa Fe Avenue.This increase would not be a perceptible increase and noise impacts from project-generated traffic were assessed as less than significant.
RTC-7
COMMENTS RESPONSES
B-7 (cont.)Therefore,while the project would result in increases in traffic related carbon emissions and noise levels,the project does not exceed the established thresholds for either and associated impacts were concluded to be less than significant under CEQA.
B-8 The comment provides contact information.As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the IS/MND, no further response is required.
RTC-8
COMMENTS RESPONSES
from: Parer Ch.,
To: tiara Palm
Subject: Fw&Camino Laigo scranVOpen letter to Co Council Date: Tuesday,May 31,2022 3:04:08 PM
----------Forwarded message----------
From:Michael Jacobs
Date:May 29,2022 2:34 PM
Subject:Camino largo scram/CJpen letter to City Council To:John Conley ,Patsy Chow
Cc:
Dear Vista Community..the cite council has a development request to change zoning on a 9.3 acre C-1 The project would involve the construction of 46 two story detached plot of land on No.Santa Fc/Camino Largo(a private access and fire road)by California West Communities(a housing development company in Carlsbad).The current zoning is rural with a single-family residential units on land that is currently zoned Agricultural unit pre acre.Cal West, which doesn't even own the property,but has it in escrow, wants to (A-1).The A-1 zoning would allow for up to nine residences on the site. ntaaimize their profits by rezoning it to allow them to put in 48 units with accompanying vehicles Thus,the project would require a zone change from A-1 to Residential per unit.Their proposal includes using Camino Largo,with the land the road is on,owned by it's C-1 southern neighbor and not by('at West.(This is a clear land grab engineered to be able to put (R-1-13, small lot subdivision, 3,600 square foot [sf] lots). In addition,the more units on the Santa Fe acreage that they have in escrow.)This scheme would also create a project site has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential major amount of traffic delay for the residents and users of Camino Largo during school and high (RR)and the project would require a General Plan Amendment to use hours(well exceeding the limit of 2 minutes in the IS).The North Vista area is traditionally a more family and space oriented community.this proposed project reflects downtown thinking and designate the site as Medium Density Residential (MD Residential) (10 money malting over real community.Please reject this illegitimate proposal and require the dwelling units [d u]/acre). builders to adhere to the current zoning.Thank you for your consideration in this unseemly matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Jacobs Camino Largo is a private road and utility easement;the existing 28 feet Camino Largn!Viata resident of reciprocal access would be transferred to the project developer with the sale of the property.Additionally,with the proposed project,Camino Largo would be widened and paved to a minimum width of 28 feet and improved with a curb and gutter system (see Chapter 2,Environmental Setting and Project Description, page 2-2 of the IS/MND).
The comment states that the project would create a major amount of traffic delay for the residents and users of Camino Largo during school and high use hours(well exceeding the limit of 2 minutes in the IS).
As identified in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic,of the IS/MND,a Local Transportation Study(LTS)was prepared for the proposed project and is included as Appendix H of the IS/MND.As identified in response to item XVII a.,of the IS/MND, implementation of the project would not result in an increase of traffic that would conflict with the City's thresholds of acceptable operating conditions and thereby the City's General Plan Update 2030 Circulation Element in relation to vehicular RTC-9
COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-1 (cont.)traffic.As shown in Table 10-1 of the LTS, under the existing plus project traffic scenario,there would be a 7.1 second delay and under the existing plus project plus cumulative traffic scenario an 8.0 second delay at the intersection of Camino Largo and North Santa Fe Avenue. Further as shown in Table 10-1 of the LTS the intersection would continue to operate at LOS C or better during both AM and PM peak hours under both scenarios and thus, is considered to operate at an acceptable LOS.
The comment also mentions that the north Vista area is traditionally more family and space oriented and infers that the project is not reflective of the community character of area.The project proposes four- bedroom,two-story single-family homes,similar to those in the Sandalwood neighborhood to the south of the project site and maintains land uses that are intended for families.Currently the project site is a non-operational nursery that has structures that are in various states of disrepair.Conversely,the site would transform the site to the residential land uses, providing 14,923 sf of open space that would be landscaped with groundcover,shrubs,and mature trees that would be maintained by the project's homeowner's association,contributing to improved visual quality of the site.The project's frontage along Camino Largo would include landscaping, retaining walls, and sidewalks set back from the roadway to accommodate pedestrian usage.
Lastly,the comment concludes by expressing opposition to the proposed zone change.As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the IS/MND, no further response is required.
RTC-10
COMMENTS RESPONSES
From: Patsy Chow
To: Ka a Palm
Subject: Fwd:Camino Largo project MND comments from GuARD Date: Tuesday,May 31,2022 3:02:49 PM
----------Forwarded message----------
From:Ursula Sack
Date:May 30,2022 2:28 PM
Subject:Camino Largo project MND comments from GuARD
To:Patsy Chow
Cc:
The Camino Largo project,increasing density from 8 homes to a whopping 46,will have a D-1 The comment states that the proposed increase in residential density of significant impact on the surrounding semi-rural community,but the MND comes to the the project site would result in a significant impact on the surrounding D-1 opposite conclusion by leaving out pertinent information,and ignoring the City's policies community and that the IS/MND comes to the opposite conclusion by regarding land uses in the areas bordering rural County land. leaving out pertinent information and ignoring City policies. However, no When the property was annexed by the City,it was appropriately designated Rural supporting facts or other evidence is provided within this comment. It is D-2 Residential/Agricultural(one dwelling unit per acre),as is the City's policy,in order to keep presumed that specifics are identified in subsequent comments. No the land consistent with surrounding County land. further response is required;see Responses to Comments D-2 through In a breath-taking twist of logic,the MND claims that this property,in its long-established D-7. use as a nursery,is not consistent with the surrounding lands,which include a 4-acre horse D-3 ranch,a handful of homes on one acre lots,a County park,and an open space creek bed with D-2 It is noted that when the project site was annexed into the City in green trees,which borders the property along the south side of Camino Largo.
October of 2018 the project site was assigned a RR designation.At the That green,open space creek bed separates Vista's higher density residential areas from the time of annexation,the City approved an IS/MND that evaluated the D-4 semi-rural lands of Camino Largo and all its surrounding properties. It is a natural and subdivision of the property into eight lots. However,that project did not logical boundary between urban and semi-rural lands.
move forward and has since been rescinded. Subsequent to LAFCO's The MND does not acknowledge the existence of that creek bed,even though it separates approval of the annexation Of subject project site,the property owners D-5 the property from the Sandalwood housing development to the south by as much as 300 feet. attempted to move the eight lots subdivision project forward but they Instead,the MND falsely claims that the Camino Largo property is"immediately adjacent"to the high density housing. were not successful in doing so. After several years of project dormancy and inactivity,California West Communities have decided to propose a It is false to claim that 46 homes on the property would constitute a"cohesive development different residential product at this location that becomes the subject of pattern"with Sandalwood,which is not adjacent to the property and has no connection to it. this request for consideration by the Planning Commission and City The MND falsely claims that the proposed project is in compliance with LUCI Goal 2 and D-6 LUCI Policy 2.4,when in fact the project violates these land use policies. Council. Basically, proposing a total of 46 single-family dwelling units and associated site improvements where eight single-family residential The MND does not consider any of the other City policies regarding preservation of semi- homes were once proposed back in 2017. rural lands and community character,even though these policies are prominent in the General Plan. The General Plan emphasizes that Vista's citizens overwhelmingly suppor preserving Vista's semi-rural character and agricultural land uses. The comment also references"City policy"with regard to the initial RR Another striking preference of Vista citizens appears in the recently updated Housing land use designation and consistency with surrounding County lands. No D-7
Element. Vista's citizens oppose rezoning with higher densities,in order to provide the specific"City policy" is identified or cited.Additionally, it should be noted 2,561 units necessary for Vista to meet RHNA housing goals. And the Housing Element that unincorporated lands within the County Of San Diego(i.e.,County analysis clearly showed that amending the General Plan to increase density is not necessary lands)only border the project site on the north and east. Land to the immediate west and south are located within the City of Vista.The RTC-11
COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-12
COMMENTS RESPONSES
in order for Vista to meet those housing goals. D-3 As discussed in Section XI, Land Use and Planning,of the IS/MND,the project would be consistent with the existing community character of the Upzoning this property is not necessary in order to meet the City housing targets. And yet, surrounding area.The project has been designed to adhere to the "while the project would conflict with the current agricultural zoning in terms of density D-7 being proposed,the City's intent is to allow for increased density through small lot General Plan Land Use and Community Identity Goal 2 of sharing cont. subdivision at this location,"according to the MND. common development patterns among neighborhoods.The proposed Where did"the City's intent"regarding this location come from? Is there an established residences are designed to complement the existing residential City policy or ordinance that is driving this intent? Was there public notice,discussion,and neighborhood to the south by mirroring similar architectural features public input regarding this decision? such as materials and a neutral color palette. Moreover,the northern Dis MND can be boiled down to the following statement: This proposed development is perimeter of the site would be sloped,supporting ornamental D-8nsistent with what we have already decided wiube built there. landscaping providing separation between the residences and the land uses to the north that are within the City's sphere-of-influence but Ursula Sack outside of the City's jurisdictional boundaries.
Secretary/Treasurer
Guajome Alliance for Responsible Development(GuARD) The comment states that the MND claims that the property is not (760)691-0964
consistent with surrounding lands; however,there is no reference to where this statement occurs in the IS/MND. No such claim is made in the IS/MND.A description of existing site conditions and surrounding land uses occurs in several sections of the IS/MND,such as Chapter 2 (Environmental Setting, pages 2-1 through 2-2),Section Lc(Aesthetics, page 3-5), and Section Xl.a and Xl.b(Land Use, pages 3-36 through 3-40).
The analysis of community character and land use consistency in the IS/MND focuses on the proposed project and the changes resulting from converting the property from a defunct nursery to residential uses.As discussed in Section XI,Land Use and Planning,of the IS/MND and in Response to Comment D-2 above,the project would be consistent with the existing community character of the surrounding area.
D-4 While there is a drainage to the south of Camino Largo,this drainage does not represent a physical barrier that creates a logical boundary between urban and semi-rural lands.The project area contains a variety of land uses and various development intensities such that there is not a clear division of land use types or densities north and south of the drainage. In fact,the land immediate to the north of the project site northeast of the intersection of North Santa Fe Avenue and Osborne Street is designated as neighborhood commercial and zoned as commercial, indicating that there is no established land use pattern that land north of the drainage is intended to be solely rural.
RTC-13
COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-5 The comment is that the IS/MND does not acknowledge the creek bed to the south.The creek bed,which is south of Camino Largo and is not part of the project site, is referenced as an unnamed drainage or channel in the IS/MND in Section X(Hydrology and Water Quality, page 3-34).
The first sentence of the first paragraph on page 2-2 of the IS/MND has been revised as follows:
The project site is located immediately south of the City's northwest boundary. Land uses surrounding the project site include Osborne Street, rural residential and nurseries to the north, North Coast Church to the north/northwest, rural residential,a+W-an unnamed drainage,and toe single-family homes in the Sandalwood
neighborhood to the south, Rancho Guajome Adobe Museum and Rancho Guajome Regional Park(in the City of Oceanside)to the west (see Figure 2 in Attachment A).
In addition,The IS/MND does state in Section XI, Land Use and Planning, page 3-37, response to item b.,that the proposed residences would be compatible with the like land uses that already exist to the south in relation to the homes in the Sandalwood neighborhood. Page 3-37,sixth paragraph,second sentence of the IS/MND is revised to state the following:
Therefore,these actions would not constitute a conflict with a land use plan adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect as the proposed residences would be compatible with the like land uses that already exist south of immediately-do-,.eRt # the project site.
D-6 The comment states that it is false to claim that 46 homes on the property would constitute a "cohesive development pattern"with Sandalwood,which is not adjacent to the property and has no connection to it and that the MND falsely claims that the proposed project is in compliance with LUCI Goal 2 and LUCI Policy 2.4,when in fact the project violates these land use policies.The Sandalwood neighborhood is approximately 240 feet(0.04 mile)south of the proposed project.
RTC-14
COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-6 (cont.)The project site is within an area developed primarily with residential uses, in addition to a church,a museum, and county park nearby.The proposed project includes the construction of 46 single- family homes on a parcel that contains remnants of a non-operational nursery located within an area that has residential land uses to the south and east.Section XI,Land Use and Planning,on page 3-36,the IS/MND discusses the project's consistency with the General Plan Land Use and Community Identity Policy 2.4 that discourages subdivision design that disrupts the existing development pattern within established neighborhoods.The homes would be single-family and similar in architectural design and size to the neighborhood that is approximately 240 feet to the south and therefore,would not disrupt the existing pattern of development.Currently the site supports the remnants of a former nursery that is no longer operational. Conversely,the project would be a continuation of single-family residential development south of the site,creating a cohesive development pattern.
The comment states that The MND does not consider any of the other City policies regarding preservation of semi-rural lands and community character,even though these policies are prominent in the General Plan.
The comment does not identify specific policies. Policies that are applicable to the proposed project within the context of CEQA are discussed in Section XI,Land Use and Planning,of the IS/MND. In addition,the comment asserts that the General Plan emphasizes that Vista's citizens overwhelmingly support preserving Vista's semi-rural character and agricultural land uses.There are a variety of land use designations surrounding the site, including Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Commercial Office(CO),and Specific Plan (SP)and corresponding zones as discussed in Response to Comment B-6.Therefore,this area has not been designated in the General Plan to be solely maintained as semi- rural and agricultural.
D-7 As part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA),the City is required to identify vacant or underutilized properties that could support the City's housing needs (see Section II,Air Quality, item a., page 3-8, Section XI,Land Use and Planning, item b, page 3-37,and Section XIV, Population and Housing, item a., page 3-49 of the IS/MND).To do so,the City undertakes a site inventory analysis.As part of this analysis,which was included as Appendix B to the City's General Plan Housing Element RTC-15
COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-7 (cont.) Update,the project site was identified as an area that is currently underutilized and can support additional housing to meet the City's needs.While there was no density identified for the project parcel,the site is included in the City's overall efforts to develop an additional 2,561 housing units. Prior to CalWest(applicant)submitting the project application,the Vista City Council held a public meeting on June 22, 2021 to discuss the proposed project and the potential rezone.The meeting was noticed via the City's website and a notice was sent to all properties within 500 feet of the project site and all persons on the City's notification list.
D-8 The comment is a concluding statement that reiterates the overall concern about community character and land use consistency. Refer to Responses to Comments D-2 through D-7 for specifics raised in this comment letter.
RTC-16
COMMENTS RESPONSES
From: Patsv Chow
To: Kara Palm
Subject: FW:Over use of Camino/no use No.Santa Fe
Date: Wednesday,June 8,2022 11:39:32 AM
Kara,below email from Michael Jacobs I just mentioned to you. By the way,I never heard back from GuARD president Joyce H.. Only comment from them was from Ursula Sack.
Thanks
Patsy
-----Original Message-----
From Michael Jacobs
Sent:Tuesday,June 7,2022 2:47 PM
To:John Conley ,Patsy Chow
Subject:Over use ofCamino/no use No.Santa Fe
Greetings,I an writing to state my appraisal of the projected development of 48 homes next to the intersection of E-1 The proposed project would construct 46 single-family homes that would CaminoLargo/No.Santa Fe. All of these homes are designed to exit and enter onto Camino Largo.Camino Largo be accessed via five cul de sacs that extend from Camino Largo. is a fire road that services the current residents.The projected plan has 5 roads leading onto and out of Camino Currently, Camino Largo is private street with a utility easement and E-1 Largo but none of them utilizing No Santa Fe.This over use of a fire road will cause access risk to the existing and future homes in the community in case of fire.This over use plan design of one street will impact egress and ingress reciprocal access granted to the project site that would be transferred particularly during school hours and traffic hours.The project designers should follow the example of the nearby with the sale of the property and provides vehicular access to Sandlewood Community developers and design at least two access points,in other words a second one using No Santa Fe,thereby reducing down congestion on the Camino Largo fire road and allowing freer access ofthe fire neighboring properties.With the proposed project,there would be five vehicles in case of emergency.This would additionally lessen the pollution and noise factor centered in one area and cul de sacs that would connect to Camino Largo.Additionally,with the spread it out over a second section of the development. project,Camino Largo road would be widened and paved to a minimum Furthermore,the use of Camino Largo by Choice Nursery is extremely questionable and the survey used by them to width of 28 feet.The comment suggests that the proposed project establish access is flawed.In any event,the land under Camino Largo is owned by the front neighbor whose property borders the fire road.Cal West wants to take that land and expand the road exponentially to accommodate should have a second access point along North Santa Fe Avenue to E 2 their projected design.It's a pure land grab to avoid using art of the development land foregress/ingress of the P J g P g gP Preduce congestion and provide for emergency vehicle access on Camino development's vehicles.Please don't allow this maneuver.
Largo.
The best result would be to maintain current zoning for this property,support the existing more open nature of North E-3 County,and not permitting over development ofVista'sremaining available open spaces.Please don't support high The circulation network for the proposed project is designed to safe) density development,a downtown life style,and traffic congestion! p p p g y accommodate the proposed project traffic in addition to existing and Thank yon, future traffic in the project area.Consideration is given to line of sight, Michael Jacobs
Camino Largo resident turning movements,and roadway capacity. Further,as stated in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic,on page 3-54 of the IS/MND,the improvements to Camino Largo,as well as the cul-de-sacs would be conditioned to be designed in accordance with City standards. Linscott, Law, and Greenspan (LLG) prepared a Local Transportation Study(LTS) for the proposed project.The LTS,which is included as Appendix H of the IS/MND,was prepared using the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.As indicated in the LTS and in Section XVII of the IS/MND,the project as proposed would not have a significant impact upon transportation and traffic.Therefore,the project would not create congestion on Camino Largo such that would warrant a second vehicular access point for the project.
RTC-17
COMMENTS RESPONSES
E-1 (cont.) Furthermore,Section XV,Public Services,on page 3-50 of the IS/MND, notes that the project applicant is required to submit project plans to the Vista Fire Department(VFD)for review and plan check approval with respect to applicable fire protection standards set forth in Chapter 16.04 of the City's Municipal Code approval is required prior to the issuance of building permits.Through this routine process,VFD confirms that the project meets all applicable fire codes set forth by the State Fire Marshal and the City's building code, including sufficient emergency access for fire engines and crews.Additionally,as discussed in Section XVII,on page 3-55 of the IS/MND,once operational, access to the project site would be through improvements to the unclassified private street Camino Largo as well as the cul-de-sacs would have sufficient storage for traffic exiting the site.The project has also been designed to incorporate all required VFD standards to ensure adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding areas.Thus,a secondary access point to provide for emergency vehicles would not be necessary.
With regard to air emissions and noise, refer to Response to Comment B-7.
E-2 The commentor questions the use of Camino Largo as a project access and the survey used to establish access. Please see Response to Comment C-1. Camino Largo is a private road and utility easement.There is a 28-foot-wide easement attached to the proposed property that would transfer to the proposed applicant.The applicant would improve the southern portion of the road and install a curb and gutter system as well as a sidewalk.The entire proposed width of Camino Largo would be a minimum of 28 feet in relation to the current 20 feet to accommodate these features.
E-3 The comment is a concluding statement that expresses opposition to the proposed rezone and density of the project.As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the IS/MND, no further response is required.
RTC-18
IS/MND Appendix J
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section 1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires a lead or responsible agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)when approving or carrying out a project (Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code).The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) are implemented as detailed in the draft environmental document.As lead agency for the Camino Largo Residential Project (project),the City of Vista (City) is responsible for implementation of this MMRP per the requirements of CEQA. In this context,this MMRP was prepared to provide a monitoring guide to facilitate the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures and related compliance reporting.
Once the City adopts the MMRP, the mitigation monitoring/reporting requirements will be incorporated into the appropriate permits and construction documents (i.e., engineering specifications, engineering and construction plans, etc.). In accordance with the requirements,this MMRP lists each mitigation measure, describes the timing for implementation and verification, and identifies the responsible party or parties as detailed below in Section 3.
Section 2 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures
This MMRP was developed for the project following the circulation of the Draft IS/MND.The MMRP will be in place through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and long-term management and will facilitate the implementation of mitigation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or reduce significant environmental effects.The City will be responsible for administering the MMRP and ensuring that all parties, including its contractors, comply with its provisions.The City may delegate implementation and monitoring activities to staff, consultants, or contractors.The City will require that its construction contractors submit an environmental compliance plan for approval by the City and construction manager prior to the beginning of construction activities.This plan shall document how the contractor intends to comply with all measures applicable to the contract, including the application of best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with instructions listed in the construction specifications.The City also will ensure that monitoring is documented through systematic compliance verification and reporting and that deficiencies are promptly corrected.
Section 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Implementation This MMRP was prepared to verify compliance with individual mitigation measures proposed in the Draft IS/MND for the project and adopted as part of the Final IS/MND.Table 1 of this MMRP identifies each mitigation measure by environmental resource and the entity responsible for its implementation.
Certain inspections and reports may require preparation by qualified individuals, and these are specified as needed.The timing and method of verification for each measure are also specified. 1 Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary ResponsibleTS econdary Responsible Verification Party Party
Biological Resources
BR-1 If avoidance of construction activities Prior to and during City of Vista Community California Department of during the avian breeding season (typically construction Development Department Fish and Wildlife February 1 through August 31, but as early as
January 1 for some raptors as determined by a
Qualified Biological Monitor) is not feasible,the
Applicant and/or Owner shall hire a Qualified
Biological Monitor with experience in conducting
breeding bird surveys to conduct weekly on-site
bird surveys beginning 30 days prior to initiation
of any construction activities(including, but not
limited to,staging,grubbing and clearing).The
weekly bird surveys shall be conducted to detect
the nests of protected native birds and raptors
occurring in suitable nesting habitat that could
be disturbed during construction activities, and
(as access to adjacent areas allows)any other
such habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance
area (and/or within 500 feet for raptors).The
surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the
last survey being conducted no more than three
days prior to the initiation of construction
activities.The Qualified Biological Monitor shall
provide the City Planner with a summary report
of the results of the recommended protective
measures described above to document
compliance with applicable State and federal
laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.
If an active nest is located,construction activities
within 300 feet of the bird nest(or within
500 feet for raptor nests)or otherwise as
determined by the Qualified Biological Monitor,
2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
must be postponed until the nest is vacated and
juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence
of a second attempt at nesting. Flagging,stakes,
and/or construction fencing shall be used to
demarcate the inside boundary of the buffer of
300 feet(or 500 feet) between the construction
activities and the nest.All contractors working
on-site shall be instructed by the Qualified
Biologist on the sensitivity of the area.The
Qualified Biological Monitor shall immediately
notify the City Planner if project activities
damage active avian nests.
If the Qualified Biological Monitor determines
that a narrower buffer between the project
activities and observed active nests is warranted,
he/she shall submit a written explanation to
support this determination (e.g.,species-specific
information; ambient conditions and birds'
habituation to them;etc.)to the City Planner,
and upon request to the California Department
of Fish &Wildlife. Based on the submitted
information,the City Planner, in consultation
with the Qualified Biological Monitor,will
determine whether to allow the narrower buffer.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
CR-1 Isolated cultural items, including the Prior to the issuance of a City of Vista Community Consulting Tribes cultural materials previously collected from the grading permit and Development Department project site for evaluation during the survey, during construction shall be returned to the site at a location
determined prior to issuance of grading permit
and further identified on the final grading plans
as an environmentally sensitive area to be deed
restricted in perpetuity, mutually agreed upon
3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
location (agreed upon by the Tribes and the
Applicant/Owner).
CR-2 Cultural resource mitigation monitoring Ongoing during City of Vista Community Consulting Tribes and shall be conducted to provide for the construction Development Department Qualified Archaeologist identification,evaluation,treatment, and
protection of any cultural resources that are
affected by or may be discovered during the
construction of the proposed project.The
monitoring shall consist of the presence of a
Qualified Archaeologist and a Native American
Monitor for, but not limited to, any tree removal,
demolition and/or removal of remnant
foundations, pavements,abandonment and/or
installation of infrastructure;grading or any
other ground disturbing or altering activities,
including the placement of imported fill
materials(note: all fill materials shall be absent
of any and all cultural resources);and related
off-site road improvements or utility installations
in Camino Largo or North Santa Fe Avenue,
private driveways and/or streets.Other tasks of
the monitoring program shall include the
following:
• The requirement for cultural resource
mitigation monitoring shall be noted on all
applicable construction documents,
including demolition plans,grading plans,
etc.
• The Qualified Archaeologist and Luiseno
Native American Monitor shall attend all
applicable pre-construction meetings with
the Contractor and/or associated
Subcontractors.
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
• The Qualified Archaeologist shall maintain
ongoing collaborative consultation with the
Luiseno Native American monitor during all
ground disturbing or altering activities,as
identified above.
• The Qualified Archaeologist and/or Luiseno
Native American monitor may halt ground
disturbing activities if archaeological artifact
deposits or cultural features are discovered.
In general,ground disturbing activities shall
be directed away from these deposits for a
short time to allow a determination of
potential significance,the subject of which
shall be determined by the Qualified
Archaeologist and the Luiseno Native
American monitor.Ground disturbing
activities shall not resume until the Qualified
Archaeologist, in consultation with the
Luiseno Native American monitor,deems
the cultural resource or feature has been
appropriately documented and/or
protected.At the Qualified Archaeologist's
discretion,the location of ground disturbing
activities may be relocated elsewhere on the
project site to avoid further disturbance of
cultural resources.
• The avoidance and protection of discovered
unknown and significant cultural resources
and/or unique archaeological resources is
the preferable mitigation for the proposed
project. If avoidance is not feasible a Data
Recovery Plan may be authorized by the City
as the Lead Agency under CEQA. If data
recovery is required,then the Luiseno
Native American monitor shall be notified
5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
and consulted in drafting and finalizing any
such recovery plan.
CR-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Prior to the issuance of a City of Vista Community Consulting Tribes and the Applicant or Owner,and/or Contractor shall grading permit Development Department Qualified Archaeologist provide a written and signed letter to the City's
Director of Community Development,stating
that a Qualified Archaeologist and a Luiseno
Native American Monitor have been retained at
the Applicant or Owner and/or Contractor's
expense to implement the monitoring program,
as described in the pre-excavation agreement.A
copy of the letter shall be included in the
Grading Plan Submittals for the grading permit.
CR-4 Prior to the release of the grading bond,a Post grading activities City of Vista Community Consulting Tribes and Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report, and prior to release of Development Department Qualified Archaeologist which describes the results,analysis and grading bond conclusions of the cultural resource mitigation
monitoring efforts(such as, but not limited to,a
Research Design, Data Recovery Program,etc.)
shall be submitted by the Qualified
Archaeologist,along with the Luiseno Native
American monitor's notes and comments,to the
City's Director of Community Development for
approval.
CR-S The landowner shall relinquish ownership Ongoing during City of Vista Community Consulting Tribes of all cultural resources collected during the construction and prior to Development Department cultural resource mitigation monitoring the release of the conducted during ground disturbing activities, grading bond and from any previous archaeological studies or
excavations on the project site to the consulting
tribes for respectful and dignified treatment and
reburial on the project site. If reburial on site is
not feasible,curation at the San Diego
Archaeological Center shall occur.All cultural
6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
materials that are associated with burial and/or
funerary goods will be repatriated to the Most
Likely Descendant as determined by the Native
American Heritage Commission per California
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
CR-6 As specified by California Health and Safety Ongoing during City of Vista Community Consulting Tribes and Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are construction Development Department Qualified Archaeologist found on the project site during construction or
during archaeological work,the person
responsible for the excavation,or his or her
authorized representative,shall immediately
notify the San Diego County Coroner's office by
telephone. No further excavation or disturbance
of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains(as
determined by the Qualified Archaeologist
and/or the Native American monitor)shall occur
until the Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to
Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a
discovery occurs,a temporary construction
exclusion zone shall be established surrounding
the area of the discovery so that the area would
be protected (as determined by the Qualified
Archaeologist and/or the Native American
monitor), and consultation and treatment could
occur as prescribed by law.As further defined by
State law,the Coroner would determine within
two working days of being notified if the remains
are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner
recognizes the remains to be Native American,
he or she shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC)within 24 hours.
The NAHC would decide as to the Most Likely
Descendent. If Native American remains are
7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
discovered,the remains shall be kept in situ("in
place"),or in a secure location in close proximity
to where they were found, and the analysis of
the remains shall only occur on-site in the
presence of a Luiseno Native American monitor.
Hazards
HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Prior to the issuance of a County of San Diego DEH SDRWQCB the project applicant shall prepare a Soils grading permit Management Plan that shall be reviewed and
approved by the County of San Diego
Department of Environmental Health (DEH).
Appropriate engineering controls shall be
incorporated into the improvement plans,as
may be required by DEH and San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB).
Evacuation, management and disposal of
impacted soils shall be managed as
approved/required by DEH,SDRWQCB,and local,
state and federal requirements.
Land Use
LU-1 On-Site Noise Barriers. Noise levels within Prior to the issuance of City of Vista Community the backyard areas of Lots 1 and 2 may be an occupancy permit Development Department exposed to noise levels exceeding the City
General Plan noise compatibility standards and
shall be reduced to below 65 CNEL.
Noise reduction for these exterior use areas shall
be accomplished through on-site noise barriers
(walls).The wall shall be at least 6 feet in height
and would break the line-of-sight between the
backyards and North Santa Fe Avenue.To
appropriately reduce noise levels,the wall
should be constructed at the pad elevation for
each lot.
8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
The sound attenuation barrier must be solid. It
can be constructed of masonry,wood, plastic,
fiberglass,steel,or a combination of those
materials, as long as there are no cracks or gaps,
through or below the wall.Any seams or cracks
must be filled or caulked. If wood is used, it can
be tongue and groove and must be at least one
inch total thickness or have a density of at least
3.5 pounds per square foot.Where architectural
or aesthetic factors allow,glass or clear plastic
3/8 of an inch thick or thicker may be used on
the upper portion, if it is desirable to preserve a
view.
LU-2 On-site Interior Noise Level Reduction. For Prior to the issuance of a City of Vista Community the project's Lot 1 and 2 habitable areas(both building permit Development Department living rooms and bedrooms),the following
measures shall be incorporated in the design of
the project to reduce interior noise levels to
45 CNEL or less:
• Minimum exterior wall requirement of STC
46 with a construction of standard 3/8-inch
exterior one coat stucco over 1.0-inch rigid
R-4 insulation over 1/2-inch shearwall on
2x6 studs with 5/8-inch Type "X" Drywall.
• Minimum window requirement of STC 28
with a vinyl frame window construction of
dual glazing window thickness 1/8-inch and
1/2-inch air gap.
• Appropriate means of air circulation and
provision of fresh air intake shall be
incorporated in the project to allow
windows to remain closed for extended
9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
intervals of time so that acceptable levels of
noise can be maintained on the interior.
• Buildings shall provide mechanical
ventilation in accordance with the 2019
California Mechanical Code.
Noise
N0I-1 Construction Noise Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a City of Vista Community Noise levels from project-related construction grading permit and Development Department activities shall not exceed the noise limit during construction specified in San Diego County Code Sections
36.408 and 36.409(adopted as Subsection
8.32.020 through 8.32.060 of the City's
Municipal Code)of 75 dBA-8-hour average,
when measured at the boundary line of the
property where the noise is located or any
occupied property where noise is being received.
A Construction Management Plan that describes
the measures included on the construction plans
to ensure compliance with the noise limit shall
be prepared by the project applicant and
submitted to the City of Vista Planning Division
for approval prior to issuance of the grading
permit.The following measures may be included
to reduce construction noise:
• Construction equipment to be properly
outfitted and maintained with
manufacturer-recommended noise-
reduction devices.
• Diesel equipment to be operated with
closed engine doors and equipped with
factory-recommended mufflers.
• Mobile or fixed "package"equipment
(e.g., arc-welders and air compressors)to be
10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
equipped with shrouds and noise control
features that are readily available for
that type of equipment.
• Electrically powered equipment to be used
instead of pneumatic or internal-combustion
powered equipment,where feasible.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines(e.g., in excess of 5 minutes)to be
prohibited.
• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment
staging, parking,and maintenance areas to
be located as far as practicable from noise
sensitive receptors.
• The use of noise-producing signals, including
horns,whistles,alarms,and bells,shall be for
safety warning purposes only.
• No project-related public address or music
system shall be audible at any adjacent
sensitive receptor.
• Temporary sound barriers or sound blankets
may be installed between construction
operations and adjacent noise-sensitive
receptors. Due to equipment exhaust pipes
being approximately 7-8 feet above ground,
a sound wall at least 10 feet in height above
grade, located along the northern,southern
and eastern property lines between the
project and neighboring residences would
mitigate noise levels to within acceptable
levels.To effectively reduce noise levels,the
sound barrier should be constructed of a
material with a minimum weight of two
11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing Primary Responsible Secondary Responsible Verification Party Party
pounds per square foot with no gaps or
perforations and remain in place until the
conclusion of demolition,grading,and
construction activities.
• The project applicant shall notify residences
within 100 feet of the project's property line
in writing within one week of any
construction activity such as demolition,
hard rock handling,concrete sawing,asphalt
removal,and/or heavy grading operations.
The notification shall describe the activities
anticipated, provide dates and hours,and
provide contact information with a
description of a complaint and response
procedure.
• The on-site construction supervisor shall
have the responsibility and authority to
receive and resolve noise complaints.A clear
appeal process for the affected resident
shall be established prior to construction
commencement to allow for resolution of
noise problems that cannot be immediately
solved by the site supervisor.
12