cc 2024 AR 04/23 appeal of p23-0298 quick quack car wash — Vista City Council, April 23, 2024 (part 3 of 4)

03-05-24 PH 2 52 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 611 of 747

MF MF
SS
MF
CM
3 CM
2 CM
3 CM
2 CM
3 CM
2 CM
3 CM
2 CM
1 CM
1 CM
1 CM
1 L
4 D3
SS
MF
W1 D3
W1
W2
T1
RO
S
R
EJ
MF
P
W1
SS
RF V
T2
DS
L
1 CM
1 CP
P
CM
2 D1
D2
CM
3 D3
1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 53 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 612 of 747

1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 54 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 613 of 747

1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 55 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 614 of 747

1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 56 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 615 of 747

1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 57 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 616 of 747

1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 58 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 617 of 747

1'-2"
1'
-
2 "
60 "

M
I
N
I
M
U
M
X
Y
60" MINIMUM
48 "

M
I
N
.
1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 59 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 618 of 747

1 1
/
2 "
1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
03-05-24 PH 2 60 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 619 of 747

1 0
"

S
1 0
"

S
E-
M
O
E-MO
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E-MO
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
12"
W
12"
W
12"
W
12" W
12" W
66" S
D
6 " S D
3 6
"

S
D
3 6
"

S
D
36" SD
1 2
"

W
1 2
"

W
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
2 4
"

S
D
D
C
54 '
'
W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
W
S
S
FW
M
E
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
S
L
S
L
S
.

G
.

NORTH
0 feet32
1" = 16'
16 48 64

SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLS
TREES
9 Lagerstroemia indica x fauriei 'Arapaho' / Arapaho Crape Myrtle 15 gal.Moderate 2 Quercus engelmannii / Engelmann Oak 15 gal.Low
5 Tristania conferta / Brisbane Box 15 gal.Moderate
1 Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' / True Green Lacebark Elm 24" box Moderate 6 Washingtonia hybrid / Mexican/California Fan Palm 8` BTH (skinned)Low SHRUBS
24 Agave americana 'Marginata' / Variegated Century Plant 15 gal.Low 18 Agave americana protoamericana 'Blue Steel' / Blue Steel Century Plant 15 gal.Low 109 Agave attenuata 'Boutin Blue' / Boutin Blue Foxtail Agave 5 gal.Low 224 Callistemon viminalis 'Better John' / Weeping Bottlebrush 5 gal.Low 66 Dianella caerulea 'DBB03' / Cassa Blue™ Flax Lily 1 gal.Low 34 Lantana montevidensis / Purple Trailing Lantana 1 gal.Low 19 Leucophyllum langmaniae 'Lynn's Legacy' / Lynn's Legacy Langman's Sage 5 gal.Low 194 Lomandra longifolia 'Baby Breeze' / Dwarf Mat Rush 5 gal.Low 85 Yucca x `Bright Star` / Variegated Spanish Dagger 5 gal.Low

VINES/ESPALLIERS
3 Bougainvillea x `Barbara Karst` / Barbara Karst Bougainvillea Trellis 5 gal.Low

SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLS SPACING

GROUND COVERS
211 Rosmarinus officinalis 'Irene' / Dwarf Rosemary 1 gal.Low 42" o.c. 165 Senecio mandraliscae `Blue Chalk Sticks` / Senecio 1 gal.Low 30" o.c.

LANDCADD 198
7 PLANT SCHEDULE
LANDCADD 1987
LANDCADD 198
7 LANDCADD

1 9
8 7
LANDCADD 1987

LANDCADD

1 9
8 7
LANDCADD 1
9 8
7 TRANSFORMER

TRASH ENCLOSURE

PARKING

BIKE RACK/STORAGEFLAG POLE

RETAINING WALL
(SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS)

DRIVE-THRU
POI
N
S
E
T
T
I
A

A
V
E
.

B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S

P
A
R
K

D
R
I
V
E

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape
Documentation Package
11-10-23

GENERAL NOTES

1. All landscape planting areas shall receive a minimum 3" layer of non-combustible organic bark mulch top dressing. Shredded 'Gorilla Hair' type mulch shall not be used.

2. All new plant material, shall be irrigated with drip/low flow irrigation and a smart controller. Landscape Plans will comply with City of Vista Water Conservation Standards.

3. Contractor shall submit soil samples to the laboratory for analysis and recommendations. Soil sampling shall be conducted in accordance with laboratory protocol, including protocols regarding adequate sampling depth for the intended plants.

Soil analysis may include:
a. Soil texture;
b. Infiltration rate determined by laboratory test or soil infiltration rate table; c. pH;
d. Total soluble salts;
e. Sodium;
f. Percent organic matter; and
g. Recommendations.

Contractor shall submit the soil analysis report to the City as part of the certificate of completion.

The Contractor shall submit documentation to the City verifying implementation of soil analysis report recommendations to the City with certificate of completion.

5. All new trees located within 5' of pavement or permanent structure shall have a root barrier.

6. Landscape maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner.

SIDE
W
A
L
K
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K

QUICK QUACK

DRIVEWAY
VACUUM

STATIONS
CANOPY

AREA TO REMAIN AS IS
APPROX. 2:1 SLOPE

MONUMENT SIGN

AREA TO REMAIN AS IS
APPROX. 2:1 SLOPE

AREA TO REMAIN AS IS
APPROX. 2:1 SLOPE
3:1 (30%) SLOPE PER

GRADING PLAN IN

SHADED HATCHED
AREA
3:1 (30%) SLOPE PER

GRADING PLAN IN

SHADED/HATCH AREA
SLOPES THAT EXCEED 4:1 (25%)

RETAINING WALL
(SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS)

PARKING

DIEGAN COASTAL SHRUB

HABITAT IN THIS AREA SHALL

REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED

STORM WATER TREATMENT AREA-

SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
P.O. Box 2083
Petaluma CA 94952
707-280-8990
OliveStreetLandscape.com
[email protected]
03-05-24 PH 2 61 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 620 of 747

1 0
"

S
1 0
"

S
D
3 6
"

S
D
36" SD
1 2
"

W
1 2
"

W
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
2 4
"

S
D
D
C
54 '
'
W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
W
S
S
FW
M
E
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
S
L
S
L
S
.

G
.

NORTH
0 feet32
1" = 16'
16 48 64

VINES/ESPALLIERS
3 Bougainvillea x `Barbara Karst` / Barbara Karst Bougainvillea Trellis 5 gal.Low

SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLS SPACING

GROUND COVERS
211 Rosmarinus officinalis 'Irene' / Dwarf Rosemary 1 gal.Low 42" o.c. 165 Senecio mandraliscae `Blue Chalk Sticks` / Senecio 1 gal.Low 30" o.c.

PLANT SCHEDULE

TRANSFORMER

TRASH ENCLOSURE

PARKING

BIKE RACK/STORAGEFLAG POLE

RETAINING WALL
(SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS)

DRIVE-THRU
POI
N
S
E
T
T
I
A

A
V
E
.

B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S

P
A
R
K

D
R
I
V
E

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape
Documentation Package
11-10-23

GENERAL NOTES

1. All landscape planting areas shall receive a minimum 3" layer of non-combustible organic bark mulch top dressing. Shredded 'Gorilla Hair' type mulch shall not be used.

2. All new plant material, shall be irrigated with drip/low flow irrigation and a smart controller. Landscape Plans will comply with City of Vista Water Conservation Standards.

Contractor shall submit the soil analysis report to the City as part of the certificate of completion.

The Contractor shall submit documentation to the City verifying implementation of soil analysis report recommendations to the City with certificate of completion.

5. All new trees located within 5' of pavement or permanent structure shall have a root barrier.

6. Landscape maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner.

SIDE
W
A
L
K
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K

QUICK QUACK

DRIVEWAY
VACUUM

STATIONS
CANOPY

AREA TO REMAIN AS IS
APPROX. 2:1 SLOPE

MONUMENT SIGN

AREA TO REMAIN AS IS
APPROX. 2:1 SLOPE

AREA TO REMAIN AS IS
APPROX. 2:1 SLOPE
3:1 (30%) SLOPE PER

GRADING PLAN IN

SHADED HATCHED
AREA
3:1 (30%) SLOPE PER

GRADING PLAN IN

SHADED/HATCH AREA
SLOPES THAT EXCEED 4:1 (25%)

RETAINING WALL
(SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS)

PARKING

DIEGAN COASTAL SHRUB

HABITAT IN THIS AREA SHALL

REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED

STORM WATER TREATMENT AREA-

Quercus engelmannii Engelmann Oak
Tristania conferta Brisbane Box
Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' True Green Lacebark
Elm
Agave attenuata 'Boutin Blue' Boutin Blue Foxtail
Agave
Agave americana 'Marginata' Variegated Century
Plant
Agave americana protoamericana 'Blue Steel'
Blue Steel Century Plant
Callistemon viminalis 'Better
John' Weeping Bottlebrush
Dianella caerulea 'DBB03' Cassa Blue™ Flax
Lily
Lantana montevidensis Purple Trailing Lantana
Leucophyllum langmaniae 'Lynn's Legacy' Lynn's
Legacy Langman's Sage
Lomandra longifolia 'Baby Breeze' TM Breeze Mat Rush Yucca x `Bright Star` Variegated Spanish Dagger
Bougainvillea x `Barbara Karst` Barbara Karst Bougainvillea Trellis
Rosmarinus officinalis 'Irene' Dwarf Rosemary
Senecio mandraliscae `Blue Chalk Sticks`
Senecio
Verbena peruviana 'Balfirepizzim' Firehouse™
Purple Fizz Verbena
Washingtonia hybrid Mexican/California
Fan Palm
Lagerstroemia indica x fauriei 'Arapaho'
1801 Lampton Lane
Norco, CA 92860
P: 951/475/3300
www.tait.comSINCE 1964
P.O. Box 2083
Petaluma CA 94952
707-280-8990
OliveStreetLandscape.com
[email protected]
L3
03-05-24 PH 2 63 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 622 of 747

P23-0298
P1
03-05-24 PH 2 64 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 623 of 747

PLANNING PACKAGE
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
P: (616) 234-9411
www.KIMLEY-HORN.com
NORTH 0

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
20 10 20 40

PROJECT DESCRIPTION NEW CONSTRUCTION

SITE ADDRESS BUSINESS PARK DRIVE &

POINSETTIA AVENUE
APN 221-661-03-00

ZONING VISTA BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC
PLAN - AREA "A"

LAND USE COMMERCIAL SERVICE

FLOOD ZONE ZONE X
TOTAL SITE AREA ±43,266 SF / 0.99 AC
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA ±38,000 SF / 0.87 AC
PARKING REQUIREMENTS 1.5 PER WASHING BAY 1 BICYCLE
PER 20 STALLS

PARKING STALLS REQUIRED
1 SPACE PER 3 EMPLOYEES
LARGEST SHIFT = 3 EMPLOYEES
REQUIRED PARKING = 2 STALLS
PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 2 EMPLOYEE STALLS
1 ACCESSIBLE STALL
BUILDING SETBACK 20.0'
GB GB
1 2
3 SD SD
4 5
6 66" SD
7 8
9 10
11 12
NO
R
T
H

SITE DATA TABLE

ABBREVIATIONS

FL FLOW LINE

FS FINISHED SURFACE

TC TOP OF CURB

TG TOP OF GRATE

TW TOP OF WALL
LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK LINE

CENTERLINE

EASEMENT LINE

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE

SETBACK LINE

EXISTING CONTOUR

PROPOSED CONTOUR

PLANTABLE GRAVITY WALL

MASONRY BLOCK RETAINING WALL

GRADE BREAK
GUTTER PER SDRSD G-12

HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE

LANDSCAPE AREA
(XXX)

GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES
PLANTABLE MSE RETAINING WALL WITH GEOGRID. SEE SITE SECTIONS ON SHEET C5.00 TRENCH DRAIN. OUTLETS TO DRIVE THRU LANE CURB NORTH
MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM (BMP-1). TREATMENT UNIT SIZE L-4-8-V. PER DETAIL 1 SHEET C7.00 UNDERGROUND STORM WATER DETENTION VAULT WITH TOTAL VOLUME 3,640 CF. VAULT PER DETAILS ON SHEET C6.00
STORM DRAIN OUTFLOW STRUCTURE WITH ORIFICE PLATE AND OVERFLOW WEIR PER DETAIL 3 ON SHEET C7.00.

CONNECT TO EXISTING 66" STORM DRAIN CULVERT
MASONRY BLOCK RETAINING WALL, MAX HEIGHT 3'
RIBBON GUTTER PER SDRSD G-12
COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER SDRSD G-14B AND G-16
NEW SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-07
6" CURB PER SDRSD G-01
MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM (BMP-3). TREATMENT UNIT SIZE L-4-8-V. PER DETAIL 2 SHEET C7.00

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
XX" SD
XXX

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL C OF PARCEL MAP NO.15413, IN THE CITY OF VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNT ON OCTOBER 14, 1988.

FOR CONVEYANCING PURPOSES ONLY: APN 221-661-03-00

PROJECT TEAM

CIVIL ENGINEER
SCOTT HOFFMAN, P.E. (CA)
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
[email protected]
619-744-0181

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
GARRY W. CANNON C.E.G., R.C.E. (CA)
GEOCON, INC.
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
858-558-6900

SURVEYOR
JOHN P. GERVAIS, PLS
LG LAND SURVEYING, INC.
30355 CALLEJO FELIX TER
VALLEY VENTER, CA 92082
760-703-1354

ARCHITECT

MELISSA WEAVER
TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
707 N. 27TH STREET
BOISE, ID 83702
[email protected]
760-414-5933

DEVELOPER

BARRET BRADLEY
NEWMARK MERRILL COMPANIES, INC.
427 COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE K
OCEANSIDE, CA 92057
[email protected]
720-607-3032

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BUISNESS PARK DR.TYPICAL SECTION.
1":30'
POINSETTIA AVE TYPICAL SECTION.
1":30'

DETAIL A
LEGEND (CONT.)

SIDEWALK CONCRETE

APPROXIMATE RETAINING WALL

GEOGRID LIMITS

GREEN STREET DISPERSION AREA

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
36" S
D
S
L
E
E
S
L
FS 460.09
FS 460.01
FS 460.39
FS 460.34
FS 460.70
FS 460.68
FS 461.02
FS 460.95
FS 461.25
FS 461.22
FS 461.34
FS 461.31
FS 464.65
FS 464.63
FS 462.95
FS 462.93
FS 463.04
FS 463.02
FS 464.77
FS 464.75460
465
461
462
463
464
466

2.0%8.0%2.0%8.0%2.0%

PEDESTRIAN

RAMP HANDRAIL

PEDESTRIAN

RAMP HANDRAIL
FS (460.50)

PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
FS (462.85)FS (461.94)
1 0
"

S
1 0
"

S
2 4
"

S
D
12"
W
12"
W
12"
W
12"
W
12"
W
12" W
12" W
12" W
12" W
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
66" S
D
66" S
D
66" S
D
3 6
"

S
D
3 6
"

S
D
36" SD
10" S
1 2
"

W
1 2
"

W
1 0
"

S
2 4
"

S
D
D
54''W
54''W
54 '
'
W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
S
L
S
L
S
.

G
.

R
QB
X

X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X

2. 2
%
4 .
9 %

1.6%
5 .
9 %
2 .
1 %

0. 5
%
QUI
C
K

Q
U
A
C
K
CAR
W
A
S
H
3,36
3 S
.

F
.

FF 4
6 6
.
5 POIN
S
E
T
T
I
A

A
V
E
N
U
E
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S

P
A
R
K

D
R
I
V
E

1. 2
%
4 6
6 4
6 8
4 6
7 46
6 46
7 46
8 46
9 4
7 0
4 7
1 469
472
472
470
465
460
455
450
470
473
4 6
5 467
471

5.4 %

2.9 %
1 .
3 %
467
467
468
469
469
47 0
466

37.2%

37.5%
4 6
6 5.3%
3 .
6 %

0.7%

1. 3
%

3. 2
%

2. 7
%
1 .
7 %
4 6
8 46
9 467
2 .
3 %
R
TC 464.49
FL 463.99
TC 466.18
FL 465.68
TC 467.19
FS 466.69
TC 464.22
FS 463.72
TC 465.77
FL 465.27TC 464.81
FL 464.31
TC 464.83
FS 464.33
LP 463.18 TC 466.68
FS 466.18
TC 468.94
FS 468.44
TC 469.14
FL 468.64
TC 470.37
FS 469.87
TC 471.23
FS 470.73
TC 470.61
FS 470.11
TC 467.77
FS 467.27
TC 467.25
FS 466.75
TC 465.49
FS 464.99
TC 465.25
FS 464.75
TC 465.06
FL 464.56
TC 468.08
FS 467.58
FL 467.12
TC 467.40
FS 466.90
TW 462.75
TW 464.20
TW 465.18
TW 468.14
TW 470.63
BW 462.36
BW 460.10
BW 455.51
BW 464.02 BW 469.90
FF 466.50
TC 467.00
FS 466.50
FS 467.50
FS 467.24
FS 467.07
FS 466.42
FS 466.17
FF 466.50
TC 467.29
FS 466.79
TC/FS 466.73
1 1 1
7 23
4 5
6 12
TRANSITION 1' TO 0.5'

RETAINING

STEM WALL
4 6
0 4
6 5
4 5
9 4
6 1
4 6
2 4
6 3
4 6
4 TC/FS 466.25
FS 466.40
TC 466.67
FS 466.17
FS 466.89
FS 465.37
FS 465.43
TC 463.93
FS 463.43
TC/FS 466.90
TC 468.68
FS 468.18
TC 468.85
FS 468.35
TC 469.41
FS 468.91
TC 469.87
FS 469.37
TC 471.49
FS 470.99
FS 470.37
FS 470.91
±2
.
6 '
S89°46'32"E
460.08'
∆=18°23'57"
R=792.00'
S89°46'32"E
460.08'
∆=12°48'14"
R=958.00'
∆=89°59'20"
R=25.00'
∆=12°48'14"
R=958.00'
S53°04'56"W
115.54'
∆=18°23'57"
R=792.00'
S53°04'56"W
115.54'

PROPOSED

GEOGRID
TW 469.66
BW 467.06
TW 469.61
BW 465.84
TW 464.25
BW 457.54
TW 463.02
BW 456.72
TC 467.64
FS 467.14
TC 468.72
FS 468.22

42.0 '

PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT

12.0 '

5.0'

32.0 '

32.0 '
4 2
.
0 '
3 7
.
5 '
3 1
.
9 '
3 2
.
0 '
8" PVC SEWER PIPE
PER D3009 -11
54" SDCWA PIPE

PER VID GIS MAP
12" ACP WATER PIPE
PER D3009-11
10" PVC SEWER PIPE
PER D3009-6
12" ACP WATER PIPE
PER D3009-6
36" ACP WATER PIPE
PER D3009-6

1.3%
2 .
5 %
TW 465.61
BW 465.11
BW 464.14
TW 469.46
BW 469.16

10.0 '

5.5'
10 11
11 H RET: 9.67'
H RET: 7.71'
H RET: 4.10'H RET: 6.30'
H RET: 0.39'
H RET: 0.50'
H RET: 1.30'
H RET: 0.30'
H RET: 4.12'
H RET: 0.73'
H RET: 2.60'
H RET: 3.77'
TC 471.86
FS 471.36

LIMITS OF BIOLOGICAL

CONCERN PROTECT IN

PLACE AT LIMITS

LIMITS OF BIOLOGICAL

CONCERN PROTECT IN

PLACE AT LIMITS

LIMITS OF BIOLOGICAL

CONCERN PROTECT IN

PLACE AT LIMITS
10 9

32.0'
8 5
.
0 '
1 0
.
0 '
TC/FS 466.81
TC/FS 467.00
TC/FS 467.08

EXISTING DETENTION
POND PER D-3009. DO

NOT DISTURBSTORM DRAIN RISER
11 11
11 11
11 10
TW 465.44

SEE DETAIL A HEREON
FS (472.00)
FS (470.97)
FS (467.80)
FS (466.41)FS (463.00)
FS (462.00)
FS (460.48)
FS (459.00)
FS (457.50)
FS (456.97)

GREEN STREET

DISPERSION AREA PER

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

DESIGN STANDARD
GS-203. SIDEWALK

UNDERDRAINS PER
GS-5.04a.

GREEN STREET

DISPERSION AREA PER

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

DESIGN STANDARD
GS-203. SIDEWALK

UNDERDRAINS PER
GS-5.04a.TC/FS 466.90

2.7 %
10'32'
CL
84'
32'

4.5'
LS
EXIST. 10"

SEWER PIPE
EXIST 12"

WATER PIPE
5'
LS
10'32'
R/W
CL
84'
32'

4.5'
LS
EXIST. 8"

SEWER PIPE
EXIST 12"

WATER PIPE
EXIST 54" WATER
PIPE
5'
LS

5.5'
SW

5.5'
SW
EXIST 36"
STORM

DRAIN PIPE
R/W
PR. 5.0'

SIDEWALK
R/WR/W
PR. 5.0'

SIDEWALK
P23-0298
No. 94938
02/13/2024
03-05-24 PH 2 65 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 624 of 747

PLANNING PACKAGE
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
P: (616) 234-9411
www.KIMLEY-HORN.com
NORTH
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
20 10 20 40
1 2
3 4
5 6
S
W
10" S
E-MO
G
36" SD
12" W
S
Z Z Z
ZZZZ
FW
7 PROPOSED BUILDING POINT OF CONNECTION (5-FT FROM BUILDING FACE).

REFER TO BUILDING PLUMBING PLANS FOR CONTINUATION
COMBINATION 2" WATER SERVICE AND 1" IRRIGATION SERVICE PER VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT STD. DWG. 1-3
2" SCH-80 PVC DOMESTIC WATER PIPE, ANGLES PER PLAN. PIPE EMBEDMENT PER VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT STD. DWG. 5-2
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN PER VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT STD.

DWG. 1-2
THRUST BLOCK TEE PER VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT STD. DWG. 5-7 TRENCH BACKFILL PER VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT STD. DWG. 5-2 8" PVC-C900 FIRE SERVICE LINE. INSTALL THRUST BLOCKS AT ALL BENDS.

PIPE EMBEDMENT PER VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT STD. DWG. 5-2 FIRE SERVICE RPDA PER VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT STD. DWG. 1-7 REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER. MATCH EXISTING

PRIVATE WATER CONSTRUCTION NOTES SEWER NOTES
1 2
3 4
PROPOSED BUILDING POINT OF CONNECTION (5-FT FROM BUILDING FACE).

REFER TO BUILDING PLUMBING PLANS FOR CONTINUATION
8" PVC, SDR-35 (GREEN) PVC PIPE. ANGLES PER PLAN

UNDERGROUND SAND/GREASE INTERCEPTOR AND CLARIFIERS FOR
WATER RECYCLING SYSTEM. REFER TO BUILDING PLUMBING PLANS FOR SPECIFICATIONS.

CONNECT TO EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER MAIN. RECONSTRUCT EX.

MANHOLE CHANNEL TO ACCEPT NEW INCOMING PIPE.

TRENCH BACKFILL FOR PIPING PER CITY OF VISTA STANDARD SWR-11.

REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER . MATCH EXISTING.

UNDERGROUND 50 LB. GREASE INTERCEPTOR.

DRY UTILITY NOTES

PROPOSED TRANSFORMER

PROPOSED SWITCH GEAR
1 2
5 6

PROPERTY LINE/ROW

ADJACENT PROPERTY/ROW LINE

CENTER LINE

PROPOSED SETBACK LINE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE

EXISTING SEWER LINE

EXISTING WATER LINE

EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE

EXISTING UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS LINE

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE

PROPOSED SEWER LINE

PROPOSED WATER LINE

PROPOSED FIRE WATER LINE
PROPOSED UTILITY TRENCHING (VID STD. DWG. 5-2)

PLANTABLE GRAVITY WALL

MASONRY BLOCK RETAINING WALL

EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE

BACKFLOW PREVENTOR

OIL/SAND/GREASE INTERCEPTOR AND CLARIFIERS

FOR WATER RECYCLING SYSTEM
CONCRETE TEE THRUST BLOCK (VID STD. DWG. 5-7)

SS CLEANOUT
LEGEND
7 8
9 1
0 "

S
1 0
"

S
E-MO
E-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E
-
M
O
E-MO
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-M
O
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
E-MO
2 4
"

S
D
12"
W
12"
W
12"
W
12"
W
12"
W
12" W
12" W
12" W
12" W
12" W
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
8" S
66" S
D
66" S
D
66" S
D
3 6
"

S
D
3 6
"

S
D
36" SD
10" S
1 2
"

W
1 2
"

W
1 0
"

S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
W
D
D
C
V
2 4
"

S
D
D
C
54''W
54''W
54 '
'
W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
54''W
S
.

G
.

R
QB
X

X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
S
L
S
L
POI
N
S
E
T
T
I
A

A
V
E
N
U
E
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S

P
A
R
K

D
R
I
V
E
QUI
C
K

Q
U
A
C
K
CAR
W
A
S
H
3,36
3 S
.

F
.

FF 4
6 6
.
5 12
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
W
S
S
S
FW
FW

FW FW FW
W
W
W W W
W
S S
SD
S
S S S
S
S

S S S S S S
M
E
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
1 4
2 3
3 5
6 7
7 89
1 1
3 2
2 2
54 ANTICIPATED VERTICAL

DISTANCE BETWEEN
PIPES: 12.9 FT

ANTICIPATED VERTICAL DISTANCE
BETWEEN PIPES: 13.5 FT
8" PVC SEWER PIPE
PER D3009 -11
54" SDCWA PIPE

PER VID GIS MAP
12" ACP WATER PIPE
PER D3009-11
10" PVC SEWER PIPE
PER D3009-6
12" ACP WATER PIPE
PER D3009-6
36" ACP WATER PIPE
PER D3009-6

IRRIGATION SERVICE CONNECTION

INSTALL MANHOLE

PER CITY OF VISTA
STD. DWG. SM-01
RIM: 458.43
8" INV: 445.86

ANTICIPATED VERTICAL DISTANCE
BETWEEN PIPES: 3.9 FT
6 EXISTING TRANSFORMER

TO REMAIN

EX SMH #V35(193)
STA: 17+90
RIM: 457.43
IE: 445.03

MANHOLE IS TO BE LINED
WITH RAVEN 405 AS SPECIFIED
BY COV STD DWG-SWR-04
7 INSTALL 6" ROUND TRAFFIC RATED AREA DRAIN
RIM: 470.70
4" INV: 470.20
P23-0298
No. 94938
02/13/2024
03-05-24 PH 2 66 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 625 of 747

PLANNING PACKAGE
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
P: (616) 234-9411
www.KIMLEY-HORN.com
NORTH
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
2010 20 40
XX
XXX
SOURCE CONTROL BMPS*

BMP ID BMP DESCRIPTION
SC-1 PREVENT ILLICIT DISCHARGE INTO MS4, ALL
LANDSCAPE AREAS (TYP.)
SC-2 STORM DRAIN STENCILING AND SIGNAGE, ALL SD
INLETS (TYP.)
SC-5 TRASH AND STORAGE AREAS
SC-6A ON-SITE STORM DRAIN INLETS
SC-6E LANDSCAPE / OUTDOOR PESTICIDE USE
SC-6H REFUSE / TRASH COLLECTION AREAS
SC-6K VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING
SC-6O FIRE SPRINKLER TEST WATER AND RELIEF POINT
SC-6P MISCELLANEOUS DRAIN OR WASH DOWN AREAS
SC-6Q PLAZA, SIDEWALKS, PARKING LOTS
SITE DESIGN BMPS*

BMP ID BMP DESCRIPTION
SD-1 MAINTAIN NATURAL DRAINAGE PATHWAYS AND

HYDROLOGIC FEATURES
SD-2 CONSERVE NATURAL AREAS, SOILS, AND

VEGETATION
SD-3 MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREA
SD-4 MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION
SD-5 IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSION
SD-6 RUNOFF COLLECTION
SD-7 LANDSCAPING WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT

SPECIES

PERMANENT
BMP ID #

AREA TO

TRIBUTARY
TO BMP

BMP PROVIDED TREATMENT

FLOW/VOLUME
MWS-1 17,814 SF MODULAR WETLAND
SYSTEM 0.092 CFS
MWS-2 12,374 SF MODULAR WETLAND
SYSTEM 0.069 CFS
UND-1 30,188 SF UNDERGROUND
STORAGE VAULT 3,180 CF
DIS-1 1,381 SF AMENDED SOIL
SECTION 75 CF
DIS-PUB 3,000 SF GREEN STREETS
DISPERSION AREA 68 CF

STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TABLE

DRAINAGE
AREA

PERVIOUS AREA
(SQFT)

IMPERVIOUS AREA
(SQFT)

TOTAL AREA
(SQFT)

TOTAL AREA
(AC)DRAINS TO
RUNOFF

COEFFICIENT
C
DCV
(CUBIC
FEET)

FACTORED

TREATMENT

FLOW (CFS)
DMA-1 2579 15235 17814 0.41
BMP 1 0.81 791 0.0920
DMA-2 1958 10416 12374 0.28
BMP 3 0.81 543 0.0690
DMA-BLDG1 0 280 280 0.01
BLDG 0.90 N/A N/A
DMA-BLDG2 0 97 97 0.01
BLDG 0.90 N/A N/A
DMA-OFFSITE 2757 4394 7151 0.15
ONSITE 0.67 260 N/A
SELF-MIT 12081 0 12081 0.28
SELF-MIT 0.30 N/A N/A
TOTAL 19375 30422 49797 1.14 N/A 0.67 1,594 0.1610
SD

PROPOSED DRAINAGE BOUNDARY

OVERLAND FLOW DIRECTION

PROPERTY LINE/RIGHT-OF-WAY

PROPOSED CONTOUR

CENTERLINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE

DRAINAGE AREA ID

DRAINAGE AREA ACREAGE

POINT OF CONNECTION

LANDSCAPE AREA

IMPERVIOUS AREA TRIBUTARY TO DISPERSION
AREA

AMENDED SOIL DISPERSION AREA
LEGEND

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
SITE DESCRIPTION: PREVIOUSLY GRADED AND UNDEVELOPED
AREA. NO DEMOLITION NEEDED
UNDERLYING HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP: NRCS TYPE D
APPROXIMATE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: GW DEPTH > 20 FEET
EXISTING NATURAL HYDROLOGIC FEATURES: NONE
CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS: ENTIRE SITE
EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA: 1 ACRE
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: NONE

POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS

ON-SITE STORM DRAIN INLETS

SUMP PUMP/FRENCH DRAIN

LANDSCAPE / OUTDOOR PESTICIDE USE

REFUSE / TRASH COLLECTION AREA

VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING

FIRE SPRINKLER TEST AND RELIEF POINT

MISCELLANEOUS DRAIN/WASH DOWN AREA

SIDEWALKS AND PARKING LOT
*REFER TO PROJECT WQMP FOR SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION OF SITE DESIGN AND SOURCE CONTROL BMPS.

DISPERSION AREA SECTION
N.T.S.

ROOF DOWNSPOUT
CURB

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK UNDERDRAINBUILDING

BUILDING FOUNDATION

IMPERMEABLE LINER

DRIVE AISLE

AMENDED SOIL AGGREGATE

UNCOMPACTED NATURAL SOIL
SPLASH
PAD
SD
66" S
D
66" S
D
66" S
D
3 6
"

S
D
3 6
"

S
D
36" SD
W
D
D
C
V
2 4
"

S
D
D
C
S
L
S
L
S
.

G
.

R
QB
X

X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
DMA-1

0.41 AC

SELF-MIT

0.30 AC
DMA-2

0.28 AC

SELF-MIT

0.30 AC
DMABLDG1

0.01 AC
DMABLDG2

0.01 AC

DMA-OFFSITE

0.16 AC

DMA-OFFSITE

0.16 AC
47 0
MWS-1
MWS-L-4-8-V
TREATMENT RATE = 0.098 CFS
OVERFLOW RATE = 1.20 CFS
UND-1

UNDERGROUND STORAGE VAULT
HYDROMOD STORAGE CAPACITY = 3,180 CF
TOTAL STORAGE CAPACITY = 3,640 CF
MWS-2
MWS-L-4-8-V
TREATMENT RATE = 0.100 CFS
OVERFLOW RATE = 1.89 CFS
DIS-1

AMENDED SOIL DISPERSION AREA
AMENDED SOIL AREA = 344 SF
TRIBUTARY AREA =1381 SF
RETENTION VOLUME = 75 CF
SD-1

MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA
SD-2

PROTECT COASTAL SAGE
SD-2

PROTECT COASTAL SAGE
SD-3, SC-6Q
SD-8
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1, SC-2, SC-6A
SC-5, SC-6H
SC-6A
SD-5, SC-6D,
SC-6K, SC6O,
SC6P
SD-4, SD-7, SC-6E
SC-1, SC-2, SC-6A
SD-4, SD-7, SC-6E

BUILDING DOWNSPOUT
SD-3, SC-6Q
SD-3, SC-6Q
465
465
464
464
466
466
466
46 6
466
46 7
46 8
46 9
467
467
468
460
457
455 467
471
4 7
2 47
1 4
6 8
4 6
6 46
6 46
6 4
6 7
46 7
468
46 8
469
46 9
47 0
4 7
1 472
473
473
455
456
469
467
465
465
456 457
4 5
8 4
5 9
4 6
0 4
6 1

POINT OF
COMPLIANCE TO MS4
POIN
S
E
T
T
I
A

A
V
E
N
U
E
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S

P
A
R
K

D
R
I
V
E
SD-5
SD-5

DIS-PUB
AMENDED SOIL AREA = 226 SF
TRIBUTARY AREA = 3,000 SF
RETENTION VOLUME = 68 CF

BUILDING DOWNSPOUT
P23-0298
No. 94938
02/13/2024
03-05-24 PH 2 67 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 626 of 747

PLANNING PACKAGE
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
P: (616) 234-9411
www.KIMLEY-HORN.com
NORTH 0

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
30 15 30 60
66" S
D
66" S
D
3 6
"

S
D
3 6
"

S
D
36" SD
2 4
"

S
D
D
C
S
L
S
L
S
.

G
.

X X X X X X X X
X
X

X X X X X X
X X
X
B
C4
A
C4
A
C4
D
C4
F
C4
C
C4
E
C4
E
C4
F
C4
B
C4
D
C4
C
C4
QUI
C
K

Q
U
A
C
K

C
A
R
W
A
S
H
3,36
3 S
.

F
.

FF 4
6 6
.
5 POIN
S
E
T
T
I
A

A
V
E
N
U
E
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S

P
A
R
K

D
R
I
V
E
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
R
A
M
P

H
A
N
D
R
A
I
L
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
R
A
M
P

H
A
N
D
R
A
I
L
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T

SECTION A-A
HORZ: 1" = 20'
VERT: 1" = 5'
455
460
470
455
460
470

SECTION B-B
HORZ: 1" = 20'
VERT: 1" = 5'
450
460
470
450
460
470

SECTION C-C
HORZ: 1" = 20'
VERT: 1" = 5'
440
450
460
470
440
450
460
470

SECTION D-D
HORZ: 1" = 20'
VERT: 1" = 5'
440
450
460
470
480
440
450
460
470
480

SECTION E-E
HORZ: 1" = 20'
VERT: 1" = 5'
450
460
470
450
460
470

SECTION F-F
HORZ: 1" = 20'
VERT: 1" = 5'
450
460
470
480
450
460
470
480
X
X
X
X
X
MAX HEIGHT 3' CMU

SPLIT FACE WALL

9. 6
1 '
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL

3. 8
2 '

6. 1
9 '

7.0' MIN

TO DAYLIGHT

7.0' MIN

TO DAYLIGHT

7.0' MIN

TO DAYLIGHT

7.0' MIN

TO DAYLIGHT

5. 3
9 '

7.0' MIN

TO DAYLIGHT

VEDURA PLANTABLE MSE

RETAINING WALL

WITH GEO-GRID

VEDURA PLANTABLE MSE

RETAINING WALL

WITH GEO-GRID

VEDURA PLANTABLE MSE

RETAINING WALL

WITH GEO-GRID

GEO-GRID
L=10.5'

GEO-GRID
L=8.5'

GEO-GRID
L=13'

GEO-GRID
L=9.5'
PROP. UNDERGROUND

DETENTION VAULT

EXISTING GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

EXISTING GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

EXISTING GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

EXISTING GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

EXISTING GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

FALL PROTECTION FENCE

EXISTING CURB

TO REMAIN

PROPOSED SIDEWALK
MAX 3:1

21.0'

VEDURA PLANTABLE MSE

RETAINING WALL

WITH GEO-GRID

21.5'

5.0'

6.0'

FALL PROTECTION FENCE

FALL PROTECTION
FENCE
PROP. UNDERGROUND

DETENTION VAULT

FALL PROTECTION FENCE

1.5%
1:1 AREA OF INFLUENCE

FROM WALL FOOTING
P23-0298
No. 94938
02/13/2024
03-05-24 PH 2 68 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 627 of 747

PLANNING PACKAGE
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
P: (616) 234-9411
www.KIMLEY-HORN.com
P23-0298
No. 94938
02/13/2024
03-05-24 PH 2 69 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 628 of 747

PLANNING PACKAGE
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
P: (616) 234-9411
www.KIMLEY-HORN.com
MANHOLE1" IRON PLATE WEIR

WITH ORIFICE AT INVERT
CLEANOUT TYPE A5
PER SDRSD D-09
TO MS4

DETENTION OUTLET SECTION VIEW DETENTION OUTLET PLAN VIEW RIM: 462.80'

0.50" ORIFICE IE: 456.98'
FG
WEIR: 460.58'
BOTTOM OF BASIN: 456.98'
A
A

FROM UNDERGROUND

STORAGE TANK

3. 6
'

5. 8
2 '

OUTLET PIPE TO POINT

OF COMPLIANCE
OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL 3
MWS-1 DETAIL 1
MWS-2 DETAIL 2
P23-0298

QUICK QUACK VISTA

VISTA, CA
MWS-1

0.098

2.1 GPM/SF

1.0 2.20
463.18
460.18

CURB INLET
HDPE
2'
12"
463.68
P23-0298

QUICK QUACK VISTA

VISTA, CA
MWS-2

0.100

2.1 GPM/SF

1.0 1.89
465.85
462.85

CURB INLET
HDPE
2'
12"
466.35
P23-0298
No. 94938
02/13/2024
03-05-24 PH 2 70 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 629 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 1 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.

A B C
D
E
F
03-05-24 PH 2 71 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 630 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 2 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
EQ EQ
EQ
EQ
34’
29’
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.

A
B
03-05-24 PH 2 72 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 631 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 3 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
EQ
EQ
EQ
EQ
29’

21.4’
109’
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.

C
03-05-24 PH 2 73 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 632 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 4 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
EQ
EQ
EQ EQ

21.4’
34’
EAST
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.

D
03-05-24 PH 2 74 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 633 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 5 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
EQEQ
29’

21.4’
109’
NORTH
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.

E
03-05-24 PH 2 75 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 634 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 6 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
A QTY 1: Channel Letters on Background Panel
3’-3 ¼”
2’-0 ⁄”
12 ½”
2’-9 ½”
8’-3”
12 ½”
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.
03-05-24 PH 2 76 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 635 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 7 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
QTY 1: Reverse Pan Channel LED Halo Illuminated Numerals Area for this sign not included in overall signage area calculation NOTE: Address must be conrmed prior to manufacturing.

B
Numerals
Fabricated aluminum, reverse pan channel
construction with faces and returns painted Black, satin nish. Backs to be Clear Lexan with 1-1/2" stand-os to peg o numerals from building fascia.

Numerals to be internally illuminated with White LEDs.

Material Schedule
4’-9 ⁄”
1'
-
6 "

CLEAR LEXAN BACKS

W/DIFFUSER
L.E.D.
.10 ALUM. FACE

PLASTIC HAYCO

GROMMET

LOW VOLTAGE WIRE

WITH SLEEVE
.063 ALUM. LETTER

RETURN WHITE

FINISH INSIDE

GROUND WIRE

LOW VOLTAGE

POWER SUPPLY

RACEWAY
(GROUNDED)

FASTENER/SPACER

PER WALL TYPE
PRIMARY 120V (1/2”)

FLEXIBLE CONDUIT

DISCONNECT
SWITCH

TOGGLE BOLT

WEDGE ANCHOR

THRU BOLT WITH

U-CHANNEL
TYP. MOUNTING FASTENERS
L.E.D. LETTER SECTION

HALO ILLUMINATED
©2014 PACIFIC NEON COMPANY
3 in 1 1/2 in0000
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.
03-05-24 PH 2 77 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 636 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 8 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
EC QTY 2: Channel Letters on Background Panel
22”
4’-10 ¾”
3’-9 ½”
2’-5”14’-5 ⁄”
22”
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.
03-05-24 PH 2 78 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 637 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 9 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.

3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
D QTY 1: Channel Letters on Background Panel
14”
3’-0”
28”
17 ⁄”8’-10 ¾”
14”
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.
03-05-24 PH 2 79 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 638 of 747

7/28/23
Accounts/Misc/Quick Quack/Elev/
48-241 Vista, CA
Quick Quack Car Wash #48-241
NE Corner Poinsettia & Bus. Park Dr
Vista, CA 92081
Date:

RNB
Designer:

File:
00000 10 of 10
Job#
NA
Scale:

Sheet#
3 10-19-23
Revision #
Revision Description:

Customer
Approval:

Date:

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE

FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO

INSTALLATION

THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
FAIRMONT SIGN COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CANNOT BE COPIED

IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ALTERED, OR EXHIBITED IN ANY

MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FAIRMONT
SIGN COMPANY. THE EXCEPTION IS ANY PREVIOUSLY
COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COLORS PORTRAYED ARE
REPRESENTATIVE ONLY.
3750 East Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48234
t: 313.368.4000 f: 313.368.9335
www.fairmontsign.com
6'-0"
2’-8 ½”
3’-7 ⁄”
1'-4"
1'-0"
3’-3 ¼”
9”
12”
Vinyl Film Color Schedule

A B C D
3M 3630-74
Kumquat Orange
3M 3630-015
Yellow
3M 3630-26
Green
3M 3630-22
Black
Fabricated aluminum, cloud-shaped channel construction. Face to be White acrylic with 3M vinyl lm overlays (see color schedule).

Returns and trimcap to be painted Black. Cabinet to be internally illuminated with White LEDs.

Material ScheduleFQTY 1: LED Internally Illuminated Monument Sign- 18Sq Ft Push Thru Faces with Flat Cut Out Address Numbers
Basalite Split Face CMU #790 “Dark Grey” Base

EXAMPLE
Quick Quack | Vista, CA
Client:

NOTE: Renderings below utilize sample dimensions.
03-05-24 PH 2 80 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 639 of 747

EXHIBIT 2: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

QUICK QUACK CAR WASH
Project
Location
03-05-24 PH 2 81 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 640 of 747

November 28, 2023 Job No. 3-423-1168
Mr. Robert Mendoza
NewMark Merrill Companies
24025 Park Sorrento, Suit e 300
Calabasas, CA 91302
Subject: NOISE STUDY
Proposed Quick Quack Car Wash
NEC Business Park and Poinsettia Avenue
Vista, California
Dear Mr. Mendoza:

A Noise Study for the above-referenced project to be located on the northern intersection of Business Park and Poinsettia Avenue in Vista, California (subject property) was conducted. The Noise Study evaluates compliance of proposed project operations and construction with the City of Vista Municipal Code noise standards (including the adopted section of Chapter 4 of Division 6 of Title 3 of the San Diego Couty Code of Regulatory Ordinances), and City of Vista Noise Element of the general plan. The proposed project involves the development of a 3,363 square-foot car wash tunnel with ten (10) proposed covered vacuum stall systems. The car wash would operate from 7:00 AM. to 9:00 PM, seven days per week.

Please refer to Section 7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts for detailed information pertaining to the noise impacts resulting from the project operations. However, in summary, noise generated by operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the City’s noise limits for daytime hours according to the municipal code. The project plus ambient level will increase the ambient noise level at the adjacent commercially zoned properties by up to 1 dBA. The proposed car wash meets the requirement of the project not exceeding the one-hour average ambient noise level, plus three decibels.

Please refer to Section 8.0 Construction Noise Impacts for detailed information pertaining to the noise impacts resulting from the project construction. However, in summary, the project should follow the City’s General Plan and the Noise Ordinance as outlined in Section 8.3 of the following report.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully submitted,
SALEM Engineering Group, Inc.

Maria G. Ruvalcaba, EP
Project Manager
03-05-24 PH 2 82 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 641 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr &
Poinsettia Ave
Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA
Prepared for:

SALEM Engineering Group, Inc.

Ms. Maria Ruvalcaba
4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
Fresno, CA 93722
Prepared by:

MD Acoustics, LLC
Francisco Irarrazabal, INCE-USA
Mike Dickerson, INCE-USA
1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste 256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Date: 11/28/2023
03-05-24 PH 2 83 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 642 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Table of Contents
MD Acoustics, LLC ii
JN: 10982303_Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Findings and Conclusions 1

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 2

2.2 Site Location and Study Area 2

2.3 Proposed Project Description 2

3.0 Fundamentals of Noise ................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics 5

3.2 Frequency and Hertz 5

3.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels 5

3.4 Addition of Decibels 5

3.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels 6

3.6 Noise Descriptors 6

3.7 Sound Propagation 7

4.0 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Federal Regulations 9

4.2 State Regulations 9

4.3 City of Vista Noise Regulations 10

5.0 Study Method and Procedure ....................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria 15

5.2 Stationary Noise Modeling 15

6.0 Existing Noise Environment .......................................................................................................... 16

6.1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results 16

7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts .............................................................................................. 18

7.1 Stationary Source Noise 18

7.1.1 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Sources 18

8.0 Construction Noise Impact ........................................................................................................... 21

8.1 Construction Noise 21

8.2 Construction Vibration 22

8.3 Construction Noise Reduction Measures 23

9.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 24 03-05-24 PH 2 84 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 643 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Table of Contents
MD Acoustics, LLC iii
JN: 10982303_Report

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Measurement Data ................................................................................................... 1 Appendix B: SoundPLAN Input/Outputs ................................................................................................ 2 Appendix C: Equipment Reference Data ................................................................................................ 3 Appendix D: Construction Noise and Vibration Calculation Sheets ....................................................... 4

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit B: Site Plan .............................................................................................................................. 4 Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 5 Exhibit D: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix ....................................................................... 14 Exhibit E: Measurement Locations .................................................................................................. 17 Exhibit F: Operational Noise Level Contours ................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Reference Sound Level Measurements for SoundPLAN Model (dBA) ....................................... 15 Table 2: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) .............................................................................. 16 Table 3: Worst-Case Predicted Operational Noise Levels (dBA) .............................................................. 18 Table 4: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1 ........................................................................... 21 Table 5: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ......................................................... 22 Table 6: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................................. 23 03-05-24 PH 2 85 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 644 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Executive Summary
1 1.0 Executive Summary
This report has been prepared to provide the calculated noise projections from the proposed Quick Quack Car Wash (“Project”) located at the northeast corner of Business Park Drive and Poinsettia Avenue in the City of Vista, CA. All calculations are compared to the City of Vista’s noise ordinance and General Plan as well as the existing ambient condition. The Project proposes to construct a 107-foot car wash tunnel with 10 vacuum bays on approximately 1.0 acres.

1.1 Findings and Conclusions
One (1) baseline short-term ambient measurements was performed at or near the Project site and represent the current operational noise and ambient levels within the Project vicinity. The predominant source of noise impacting the existing site is traffic noise propagating from Poinsettia Avenue and Business Park Drive.

This study compares the Project’s operational noise levels to two (2) different noise assessment scenarios: 1) Project only operational noise level projections and 2) Project plus ambient noise level projections.

Project plus ambient noise level projections at commercial and industrial land uses will increase the ambient noise level by up to 1 dB decibels. The project noise levels are below the City’s noise limits; therefore, the impact is less than significant.
03-05-24 PH 2 86 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 645 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Introduction
2 2.0 Introduction

2.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This noise impact study aims to evaluate the potential noise impacts for the Project study area and recommend noise mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimize the potential noise impacts. The assessment was conducted and compared to potentially applicable noise standards set forth by the State and/or local agencies. Consistent with the City’s Noise Guidelines, the Project must demonstrate compliance with the applicable noise zoning ordinance and sound attenuation requirements.

The following is provided in this report:
•A description of the study area and the proposed Project •Information regarding the fundamentals of noise
•A description of the local noise guidelines and standards •An evaluation of the existing ambient noise environment •An analysis of stationary noise impact (e.g., blowers and vacuums) from the Project site to adjacent land uses

2.2 Site Location and Study Area
The Project site is located at the northeast corner of Poinsettia Avenue and Business Park Dr ive in the City of Vista, CA, as shown in Exhibit A. The zones directly surrounding the Project are Commercial to the north, south across Poinsettia Avenue, and Research and Light Industrial to east and west.

2.3 Proposed Project Description
The Project proposes to develop a 107-foot car wash tunnel and 10 covered vacuum stall systems. The site plan used for this is illustrated in Exhibit B. The Project operational hours are assumed to be between 7 AM to 9 PM, seven days per week.
03-05-24 PH 2 87 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 646 of 747

Exhibit A
Location Map
3 Introduction
SITE
Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA
03-05-24 PH 2 88 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 647 of 747

Exhibit B
Site Plan
4 Introduction
Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA
03-05-24 PH 2 89 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 648 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Fundamentals of Noise
5 3.0 Fundamentals of Noise
This section of the report provides basic information about noise and presents some of the terms used within the report.

3.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as the mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted.

3.2 Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency
(pitch) and amplitude (loudness). Frequency relates
to the number of pressure oscillations per second.

Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass
sounding), and high-frequency sounds are high in
pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles)
are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human
ear can hear from the bass pitch starting at 20 Hz to
the high pitch of 20,000 Hz.

3.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness.

The loudness of sound increases or decreases as the
amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure
amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per
square meter (µN/m2), also called micro-Pascal
(µPa). One µPa is approximately one hundred
billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric
pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to
describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual
sound pressures to a reference pressure squared.

These units are called decibels, abbreviated dB. Exhibit C illustrates reference sound levels for different noise sources.

3.4 Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two sounds or equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase. If two sounds differ by approximately 10 dB, the higher sound level is the predominant sound.

Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
03-05-24 PH 2 90 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 649 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Fundamentals of Noise
6 3.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
Generally, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz (A - weighted scale). It perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purposes of this report as well as with most environmental documents, the A-scale weighting is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in the noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the traffic volume on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.

3.6 Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns ; others are random. Some noise levels are constant, while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.

A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after the addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals. dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.

Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces. 03-05-24 PH 2 91 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 650 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Fundamentals of Noise

7 L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90, L99, etc.

Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".

Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level, which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.

3.7 Sound Propagation
As sound propagates from a source, it spreads geometrically. Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical sp reading versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.

As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels.

Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver.

Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt, or landscaping attenuate noise at a rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall 03-05-24 PH 2 92 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 651 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Fundamentals of Noise

8 noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance for a point source.

Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when noise receivers are located at least 200 feet from a noise source. Wind, temperature, air humidity, and turbulence can further impact how far sound can travel.

03-05-24 PH 2 93 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 652 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Study Method and Procedure

9 4.0 Regulatory Setting
The proposed Project is located in the City of Vista, California, and noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state , and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

4.1 Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
• Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts
• Promote noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was originally tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated, leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows: The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible for regulating noise from aircraft and airports.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for regulating noise from the interstate highway system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for establishing noise regulations as it relates to exterior/interior noise levels for new HUD - assisted housing developments near high-noise areas.

The federal government advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.

4.2 State Regulations
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate the compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.

The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 of the California Building Code (CBC), which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and 03-05-24 PH 2 94 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 653 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Study Method and Procedure
10 to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold. The state mandates that the legislative body of each county and City adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan.

The local noise element usually recognizes the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable, as illustrated in Exhibit D.

4.3 City of Vista Noise Regulations
City of Vista Municipal Code
The City of Vista outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Noise Element from the General Plan and Municipal Code. For the purposes of this analysis, the City’s Municipal Code and Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32) is used to evaluate the stationary noise impacts from the proposed project.

The Noise Element outlines Goals and Policies and establishes Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria.

This assessment will compare the project noise levels to the commercial noise limits since the proposed project is located directly adjacent to existing commercial land uses. The project impacts were compared to the City’s commercial noise standards.

Section 8.32.040 Adoption of County Regulations Relating to Noise Control This section adopts Chapter 4 of Division 6 of Title 3 of the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances. With Table 36.404 being replaced with Table 8.32.040 below. (a)Except as provided in section 36.409 of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise, which exceeds the one-hour average sound level limits in Table

36.404, when the one-hour average sound level is measured at the property line of the property on which the noise is produced or at any location on a property that is receiving the noise.

Table 8.32.040
(b)Where a noise study has been conducted and the noise mitigation measures recommended by that study have been made conditions of approval of a Major Use Permit, which authorizes the 03-05-24 PH 2 95 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 654 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Study Method and Procedure

11 noise-generating use or activity and the decision making body approving the Major Use Permit determined that those mitigation measures reduce potential noise impacts to a level below significance, implementation and compliance with those noise mitigation m easures shall constitute compliance with subsection (a) above.
(c) If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit in Table 36.404, the allowable one-hour average sound level shall be the one-hour average ambient noise level, plus three decibels. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating.

SEC. 36.407. REFUSE VEHICLES & PARKING LOT SWEEPERS.

No person shall operate or allow to be operated, a refuse compacting, processing, or collection vehicle or a parking lot sweeper between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., in or within 100 feet of a residential zone.

SEC. 36.408. HOURS OF OPERATION OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

Except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, construction equipment:
(a) Between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
(b) On a Sunday or a holiday. For purposes of this section, a holiday means January 1st, the last Monday in May, July 4th, the first Monday in September, the fourth Thursday in November and December 25th. A person may, however, operate construction equipment o n a Sunday or holiday between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the person's residence or for the purpose of constructing a residence for himself or herself, provided that the operation of construction equipment is not carried out for financial considerat ion or other consideration of any kind and does not violate the limitations in sections 36.409 and 36.410.

SEC. 36.409. SOUND LEVEL LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

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 decibels for an eight-hour period, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., when me asured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is being received.

City of Vista Noise Element
The noise element of a general plan provides information on current noise levels in the City. This information is used to identify the most suitable locations for various land uses, especially those uses that are most sensitive to noise impacts. In addition, the Noise Element provides the basis for the enforcement of noise associated codes and standards protecting the health and wellbeing of t he persons living in Vista.

Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures
03-05-24 PH 2 96 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 655 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Study Method and Procedure

12 Policies, goals and implementation program measures from the Noise Element that would mitigate potential impacts on noise include the following.

NE Goal 1: Protect people who live, work, and recreate in the City from excessive transportation noise with an emphasis on protecting residential neighborhoods and other noise -sensitive receptors (i.e., picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, golf courses, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals).

Policies:

NE-1.1: Discourage new noise-sensitive land uses from locating, and existing noise- sensitive land uses from expanding, in areas adjacent to roadways where noise levels are 65 dB CNEL or above.

NE-1.2: Require California Title 24 building code noise insulation with minimum 25 dB noise reduction for new development where existing /future roadway noise levels are 65 db CNEL or above.

NE-1.3: Encourage the use of open and green spaces between noise-sensitive land uses and roadways that create noise levels of 65 dB or above.

NE-1.4: Require developers to implement noise abatement that meets Caltrans' acoustical criteria if new developments cause increases in traffic volumes that result in roadway or rail noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or above at existing or planned future noise-sensitive receptors.

NE-1.5: Coordinate with Caltrans to construct noise attenuation devices to reduce and/or avoid impacts from SR -78 where necessary and feasible, should a widening project occur.

NE-1.6: Work with transit providers to minimize noise associated with transit operations.

NE-1.7: Encourage noise-compatible land uses and incorporate noise-reducing design features within transit oriented, mixed-use development near rail corridors.

NE-1.8: Support establishment of quiet zones near areas where rail crossings intersect public roads to minimize the noise impacts of train horns.

NE-1.9: Work with NCTD to eliminate freight train usage of the SPRINTER rail line during late night hours.

NE Goal 2: Protect people who live, work, and recreate in the City from unwarranted and excessive levels of noise, with special emphasis on protecting residential neighborhoods from intrusive noise.
03-05-24 PH 2 97 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 656 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Study Method and Procedure

13 Policies:

NE-2.1: Require that new equipment and vehicles purchased by the City comply with noise performance standards consistent with available noise reduction technology.

NE-2.2: Adopt and apply the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and the Interior and Exterior Noise Guidelines as guidelines to establish acceptable noise standards for various uses throughout the City.

NE-2.3: Require new development to minimize noise impacts upon adjacent uses through site and building design, setbacks, berms, landscaping, and/or other noise abatement techniques.

NE-2.4: Apply the State's Title 24 noise insulation standards to the construction of multifamily housing, residential portions of mixed -use development, new single- family developments, and conversion of existing apartments into condominiums.

NE-2.5: Require that an acoustical analysis be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer in instances where noise -sensitive uses are proposed in noise impacted areas.

NE-2.6: Encourage the design and construction of mixed-use structures to minimize commercial noise within the residential components of the development by locating the residential component of the development away from noise- generating sources such as mechanical equipment, entertainment facilities, gathering places, loading bays, parking lots, driveways, and trash enclosures.

NE-2.7: Encourage residential developments within mixed -use developments and located adjacent to commercial or retail and entertainment-related uses to notify potential residents that they may be affected by noise from these uses.

Exhibit D below presents the City’s noise and land use compatibility matrix.

03-05-24 PH 2 98 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 657 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Study Method and Procedure

14 Exhibit D: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix

03-05-24 PH 2 99 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 658 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Study Method and Procedure

15 5.0 Study Method and Procedure
The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used for this assessment.

5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria
MD conducted one (1) short-term noise measurements near the Project site, representing the noise level from the traffic conditions along Poinsettia Avenue and Business Park Drive (see Appendix A for the field sheet data).

5.2 Stationary Noise Modeling
SoundPLAN (SP) acoustical modeling software was utilized to model future worst‐case stationary noise impacts to the adjacent land uses. SP is capable of evaluating multiple stationary noise source impacts at various receiver locations. SP’s software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law and reference equipment noise level data) to calculate noise level projections. The software allows the user to input specific noise sources, spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations.

The future worst-case noise level projections were modeled using referenced sound level data for the various stationary on-site sources (vacuums, vacuum turbine motors, and car wash blowers at the exit).

The model assumes that the car wash tunnel is approximately 107 feet long, and that the exit opening is 10’ by 12’.

The blowers (12 Sonny’s blower system or equivalent) were modeled at 7-10 feet high as point sources.

The blowers will be located approximately 5 to 10 feet inside the exit of the tunnel. The reference equipment sound level data is provided in Appendix C.

The SP model assumes a total of 10 vacuums stalls and the dryer system are operating simultaneously (worst-case scenario) when in actuality, the noise will be intermittent and lower in noise level. The reference vacuum equipment sound level data is provided in Appendix C.

All other noise-producing equipment (e.g., compressors, pumps, vacuum turbine) will be housed within mechanical equipment rooms or an enclosure. Table 1 below summarizes the noise sources reference levels used in the model inputs.

Table 1: Reference Sound Level Measurements for SoundPLAN Model (dBA) Source Source Type Reference Level
(dBA)
Distance
(ft)
12 Sonny’s Blowers Point Source 103 5
Vacutech Point Source 70 1.5
Vacuum Turbine (Inside Enclosure) Point Source 43 3

03-05-24 PH 2 100 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 659 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Existing Noise Environment

16 6.0 Existing Noise Environment
One (1) 1-hour ambient noise measurements was taken at the project site to determine the existing ambient noise levels. Noise data indicates that traffic along Poinsettia Avenue and Business Park Drive is the primary source of noise impacting the site and the surrounding area.

6.1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
The results of the 15-minute measurements are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA)
Location Start Time Stop Time Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50) L(90) NM1 8:32 AM 9:32 AM 68.6 88.0 47.5 75 71.9 69.4 66.5 57.9 Notes:

1. Short-term noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Exhibit E.

For this evaluation, MD has utilized the measured ambient noise level of 68.6 dBA Leq near the project site.

03-05-24 PH 2 101 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 660 of 747

Exhibit E
Measurement Locations
17 Existing Noise Environment
#= Short-Term
Monitoring Location
1SITE
Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA
03-05-24 PH 2 102 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 661 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts

18 7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts
This assessment analyzes future noise impacts as a result of the Project. The analysis details the estimated exterior noise levels. Stationary noise impacts are analyzed from the noise sources on-site such as dryers/blowers and vacuums.

7.1 Stationary Source Noise
The following sections outline the exterior noise levels associated with the proposed Project.

7.1.1 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Sources Receptors affected by Project operational noise include commercial and industrial land uses surrounding the project site. A total of four (4) receptors (R1 – R4) were modeled to evaluate the proposed Project’s operational impact. Receiver 1 is car wash to the 190 feet to the east, across Business Park Drive.

Receiver 2 is a commercial building 330 feet to the south across the streets intersection. Receiver 3 is a warehouse facility 408 feet to the southeast across Poinsettia Avenue. Finally, Receiver 4 is an industrial building located 640 feet to the north east.

The worst-case stationary noise was modeled using SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software. Worst - case assumes the blowers, vacuums, and equipment are always operational when in reality, the noise will be intermittent and cycle on/off depending on the customer usage. This study analyzes the Project only operational noise level projections and the Project plus ambient noise level projections. When the ambient exceeds the limits outlined in Chapter 8.32, the limit becomes the hourly ambient plus 3 dB.

See Table 3 below.

Table 3: Worst-Case Predicted Operational Noise Levels (dBA)

Receptor1
Existing Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)3
Daytime
(7AM - 10PM)
Stationary Noise
Limit (dBA, Leq)
Total Combined
Noise Level
Change in Noise
Level as Result of
Project
1 69 62 70 70 1
2 69 58 70 69 0
3 69 61 70 70 1
4 69 63 70 70 1
Notes:

1.All Receptors represent commercial or industrial land uses.

2. See Appendix A for field sheet.

3. See Exhibit F for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.

The model indicates that the project-only noise level will be up to 63 dBA Leq at R-4 receptor, 62 dBA Leq at the R-1 receptor to the west, 61 dBA Leq at warehouse building R-3, and 58 dBA Leq at R-2. The project-only level will not exceed the City’s noise limits for daytime hours according to the municipal code. The project plus ambient level will increase the ambient noise level at the adjacent commercially 03-05-24 PH 2 103 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 662 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts

19 zoned properties by up to 1 dBA. The proposed car wash meets the requirement of the project not exceeding the one-hour average ambient noise level, plus three decibels. 03-05-24 PH 2 104 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 663 of 747

Exhibit F
Operational Noise Levels Contours Leq(h)
20 Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation
Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA
03-05-24 PH 2 105 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 664 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Construction Noise Impact

21 8.0 Construction Noise Impact
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different phases of construction.

8.1 Construction Noise
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generated characteristics of typical construction activities, which can be found in the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual. The data is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1

Type Lmax (dBA) at 50 Feet
Backhoe 80
Dozers 85
Truck 88
Excavator 86
Concrete Mixer 85
Grader 86
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Saw, Electric 76
Air Compressor 81
Generator 81
Paver 89
Roller 74
Notes:
1 Referenced Noise Levels from FTA noise and vibration manual.

Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 36.408 and 36.409. Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City’s Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the project vicinity. Furthermore, noise reduction measures are provided to further reduce construction noise. The impact is considered less than significant however construction noise level projections are provided.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during the grading phase. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes the use of a grader, a dozer, a tractor, a crane, and two forklift operating at 117 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor (center of the site to the west site property line). 03-05-24 PH 2 106 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 665 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Construction Noise Impact

22 Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unregulated noise levels at 117 feet have the potential to reach 75 dBA Leq at the analyzed receptor. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower and range from 64 to 74 dBA. Noise levels at 117 feet were selected as the majority of construction work will be performed in the center of the project site which is approximately 117 feet from the east property line. Beyond the east property line there is a commercial site across Business Park Drive which is the nearest receptors. Appendix D provides the calculation sheets for noise and vibration.

8.2 Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (100/Drec)n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 100ft.

Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground)

The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in Table 5 (below) provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts.

Table 5: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria

Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, Sept. 2013.

Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. 03-05-24 PH 2 107 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 666 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA Construction Noise Impact

23 Table 6 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. This data provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

Table 6: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
1 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.

At a distance of 117 feet (distance to the west property line from the center of the site), a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.016 PPV (in/sec) which may be perceptible for short periods of time during grading along the western property line of the project site, but is below any threshold of damage. The impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Appendix D provides the calculation sheets for noise and vibration.

8.3 Construction Noise Reduction Measures
Construction operations must follow the City’s General Plan and the Noise Ordinance, which states that construction, repair or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To further ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following measures should be taken:

1. Construction should occur during the permissible hours as defined Section 36.408 & 36.409 (San Diego County Code).

2. During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices.

3. The contractor should locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

4. Idling equipment should be turned off when not in use.

5. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.
03-05-24 PH 2 108 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 667 of 747

Quick Quack Car Wash – Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Noise Impact Study
City of Vista, CA References

24 9.0 References
State of California General Plan Guidelines: 1998. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research City of Vista: Noise Element of the General Plan
City of Vista: Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32

03-05-24 PH 2 109 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 668 of 747

Appendix A:

Field Measurement Data

03-05-24 PH 2 110 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 669 of 747

1-Hour Noise Measurement Datasheet
Project Name: QQ 48-241 Business Park & Poinse�a Noise
Project: #/Name: 1098-2023-003
Site Address/Loca�on: Business Park Drive & Poinse
Date: 11/20/2023
Field Tech/Engineer: Jason Schuyler/ Francisco Irarrazabal Sound Meter:XL2, NTI SN: A2A-08562-E0
Se�ngs: A-weighted, slow, 1-sec, 1-hour interval
Site Id: NM1
Site Observa�ons:

SIte is a Valley that leads up to the Target loca�on on a hill. The valley reflects sound on 3 sides and mostly sends sound upward. Traffic is heavy for the area, with Target trucks, Amazon trucks, and many residen�al traffic.
1 Source: Global Forecast System (GFS) weather forcast model03-05-24 PH 2 111 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 670 of 747

1-Hour Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.

Project Name: QQ 48-241 Business Park & Poinse�a Noise
Site Address/Loca�on: Business Park Drive & Poinse
Site Id: NM1
Figure 1: NM1 Figure 2: NM1 Figure 3: NM1
Table 1: Baseline Noise Measurement Summary
Loca�on Start Stop Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
NM1 8:32 AM 9:32 AM 68.6 88.0 47.5 75 71.9 69.4 66.5 57.9 03-05-24 PH 2 112 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 671 of 747

1-Hour Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.

Project Name: QQ 48-241 Business Park & Poinse�a Noise
Site Address/Loca�on: Business Park Drive & Poinse
Site Id: NM1
NM1 Ambient Noise Level (1-sec)
Site Topo: valley
Meteorological Cond.: 70F most sunny, winds 0 MPH
Ground Type: Sandy soil and clay, Sloping down to a run off area Noise Source(s) w/ Distance:

Road and commercial noise
NM1 dBA, Leq
08 :
3 2
:
1 3
08 :
3 3
:
1 2
08 :
3 4
:
1 1
08 :
3 5
:
1 0
08 :
3 6
:
0 9
08 :
3 7
:
0 8
08 :
3 8
:
0 7
08 :
3 9
:
0 6
08 :
4 0
:
0 5
08 :
4 1
:
0 4
08 :
4 2
:
0 3
08 :
4 3
:
0 2
08 :
4 4
:
0 1
08 :
4 5
:
0 0
08 :
4 5
:
5 9
08 :
4 6
:
5 8
08 :
4 7
:
5 7
08 :
4 8
:
5 6
08 :
4 9
:
5 5
08 :
5 0
:
5 4
08 :
5 1
:
5 3
08 :
5 2
:
5 2
08 :
5 3
:
5 1
08 :
5 4
:
5 0
08 :
5 5
:
4 9
08 :
5 6
:
4 8
08 :
5 7
:
4 7
08 :
5 8
:
4 6
08 :
5 9
:
4 5
09 :
0 0
:
4 4
09 :
0 1
:
4 3
09 :
0 2
:
4 2
09 :
0 3
:
4 1
09 :
0 4
:
4 0
09 :
0 5
:
3 9
09 :
0 6
:
3 8
09 :
0 7
:
3 7
09 :
0 8
:
3 6
09 :
0 9
:
3 5
09 :
1 0
:
3 4
09 :
1 1
:
3 3
09 :
1 2
:
3 2
09 :
1 3
:
3 1
09 :
1 4
:
3 0
09 :
1 5
:
2 9
09 :
1 6
:
2 8
09 :
1 7
:
2 7
09 :
1 8
:
2 6
09 :
1 9
:
2 5
09 :
2 0
:
2 4
09 :
2 1
:
2 3
09 :
2 2
:
2 2
09 :
2 3
:
2 1
09 :
2 4
:
2 0
09 :
2 5
:
1 9
09 :
2 6
:
1 8
09 :
2 7
:
1 7
09 :
2 8
:
1 6
09 :
2 9
:
1 5
09 :
3 0
:
1 4
09 :
3 1
:
1 3
09 :
3 2
:
1 2
40 50
60 70
80 Time
dB
A
03-05-24 PH 2 113 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 672 of 747

Appendix B:

SoundPLAN Input/Outputs
03-05-24 PH 2 114 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 673 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Octave spectra of the sources in dB(A) - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 3 Name Source type l or A
m,m²
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
KI
dB
KT
dB
LwMax
dB(A)
DO-Wall
dB
Time histogram Emission spectrum 63Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
001 - 12 Sonny - Standard
Tunnel-Facade 01 Area 190.75 104.1 57.0 49.9 72.7 0.0 0.0 3 100%/24h 71_Facade 01_61.9 56.6 67.5 69.7 61.1 56.5 44.4 33.9 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard
Tunnel-Facade 02 Area 26.03 107.0 57.0 52.0 66.2 0.0 0.0 3 100%/24h 72_Facade 02_55.5 50.2 60.5 63.2 55.5 51.3 39.3 29.3 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard
Tunnel-Facade 03 Area 190.75 104.1 57.0 49.9 72.7 0.0 0.0 3 100%/24h 73_Facade 03_61.9 56.6 67.5 69.7 61.1 56.5 44.5 34.0 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard
Tunnel-Facade 04 Area 21.57 95.6 57.0 45.1 58.4 0.0 0.0 3 100%/24h 74_Facade 04_46.6 40.8 54.9 54.9 40.8 26.7 6.2 -7.8 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard
Tunnel-Roof 01 Area 234.45 104.0 57.0 49.7 73.4 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h 69_Roof 01_62.6 57.3 68.2 70.4 61.9 57.3 45.2 34.8 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard
Tunnel-Transmissive area 01 Area 11.15 107.0 0.0 107.0 117.4 0.0 0.0 3 100%/24h 66_Transmissive area 01_81.7 90.5 102.7 111.4 112.8 112.6 103.7 91.8 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard
Tunnel-Transmissive area 03 Area 15.61 95.1 0.0 95.1 107.1 0.0 0.0 3 100%/24h 68_Transmissive area 03_74.6 82.8 99.2 105.0 99.8 89.8 72.9 57.3 Car Lane Line 114.06 42.2 62.8 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Drive-Thru - Idiling Car @ 6ft 46.8 48.3 51.8 55.5 56.4 57.6 54.0 45.9 39.5
Car Lane Line 51.55 45.7 62.8 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Drive-Thru - Idiling Car @ 6ft 46.8 48.3 51.8 55.5 56.4 57.6 54.0 45.9 39.5
Turbine Point 72.6 72.6 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech Turbine 44.9 57.3 55.1 52.0 55.6 59.5 66.2 69.5 63.7 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 Vacs Point 81.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Vacutech - in car 61.6 69.0 76.6 72.9 71.4 73.2 72.6 67.6 58.1 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 03-05-24 PH 2 115 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 674 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Contribution level - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 61.8 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Default industrial noise Point 33.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 32.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 32.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 31.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 31.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Line 13.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Line 13.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 8.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 20.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 20.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 5.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 47.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 19.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 13.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 61.6 0.0
Receiver R2 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 57.7 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Default industrial noise Point 28.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 28.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 28.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 29.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 29.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 29.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 29.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 28.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Line 7.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Line 6.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 10.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 18.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 22.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 6.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 51.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 10.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 8.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 56.4 0.0
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 60.5 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Default industrial noise Point 18.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.9 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 03-05-24 PH 2 116 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 675 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Contribution level - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Default industrial noise Point 22.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Line -2.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Line -6.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 8.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 20.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 18.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 13.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 60.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 5.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Area -6.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 35.3 0.0
Receiver R4 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 63.3 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Default industrial noise Point 20.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Line 3.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Line 3.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 7.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 14.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 16.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 11.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 63.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 7.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Area -5.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Area 36.3 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 2 03-05-24 PH 2 117 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 676 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 61.8 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Leq,d 20.0 15.3 6.3 12.8 15.3 8.2 2.4 -12.9 -30.9
Leq,d 5.3 3.4 -8.5 -3.3 -3.0 -11.9 -18.0 -33.5 -52.2
Leq,d 19.0 13.5 4.4 11.9 14.9 8.1 3.4 -10.1 -25.9
Leq,d 13.4 6.1 -2.7 8.4 9.9 -2.2 -16.2 -38.1 -57.0
Leq,d 20.0 13.0 4.1 14.5 16.1 7.7 1.9 -13.2 -31.0
Leq,d 47.2 28.1 29.7 34.6 40.7 42.7 42.2 30.5 10.3
Leq,d 61.6 34.1 39.7 51.4 59.0 56.6 47.0 28.7 8.0
Leq,d 13.9 -11.7 -28.6 -22.7 -7.7 -6.7 -4.7 -8.9 -4.8 -7.8 -4.2 -9.2 -7.2 -3.0 -3.0 0.9 2.4 2.5 3.7 2.9 5.8 6.6 3.2 0.6 -3.4 -7.8 -12.1 -18.3 -24.6 -32.4 -40.4 Leq,d 13.4 -13.4 -30.3 -24.3 -9.3 -8.2 -6.2 -10.5 -6.5 -9.4 -5.3 -10.3 -8.3 -4.1 -4.1 -0.2 2.0 2.3 3.4 2.7 5.5 6.3 2.7 0.0 -4.2 -9.0 -13.7 -20.5 -27.8 -36.7 -46.0 Leq,d 8.4 -21.2 -14.2 -7.3 -6.7 -4.1 -3.3 -4.9 -5.9 -6.8 -9.3 -9.5 -7.8 -7.2 -6.6 -3.8 -2.8 -3.1 -5.7 -1.7 -1.6 -3.3 -4.8 -8.2 -16.4 -25.3 -38.7 Leq,d 31.6 -5.2 -2.2 4.8 8.8 11.8 15.8 15.4 16.4 19.4 18.3 19.3 15.3 13.5 17.5 11.5 18.5 19.5 17.4 21.6 21.4 21.4 20.9 20.1 16.9 14.0 8.3 1.3 -6.3 -17.6 -32.7 Leq,d 32.2 -4.7 -1.7 5.3 9.3 12.3 16.3 16.0 17.0 20.0 19.0 20.0 16.0 14.2 18.2 12.2 19.1 20.0 17.9 22.1 21.9 21.9 21.4 20.7 17.5 14.8 9.2 2.4 -4.8 -15.7 -30.3 Leq,d 33.5 -3.6 -0.6 6.4 10.4 13.4 17.4 17.1 18.1 21.1 20.5 21.5 17.5 15.8 19.8 13.7 20.3 21.2 19.2 23.3 23.1 22.8 22.6 21.9 18.9 16.4 11.1 4.8 -1.8 -11.8 -25.4 Leq,d 32.8 -4.1 -1.1 5.9 9.9 12.9 16.9 16.5 17.5 20.5 19.8 20.8 16.7 15.0 19.0 12.9 19.7 20.6 18.6 22.7 22.5 22.2 22.0 21.3 18.2 15.6 10.1 3.6 -3.3 -13.8 -27.8 Leq,d 31.1 -5.7 -2.7 4.3 8.3 11.3 15.3 14.9 15.9 18.9 17.7 18.7 14.6 12.9 16.9 10.8 18.0 18.9 16.8 21.1 21.3 21.0 20.5 19.6 16.3 13.4 7.4 0.2 -7.7 -19.5 -35.1 Leq,d 30.5 -6.9 -3.9 3.1 7.1 10.1 14.1 13.3 14.3 17.3 15.6 16.5 12.5 10.8 14.8 10.8 17.5 18.6 16.8 21.6 21.3 20.9 20.3 19.2 15.7 12.2 5.6 -2.6 -11.9 -25.6 -43.6 Leq,d 30.5 -6.6 -3.6 3.4 7.4 10.4 14.4 13.7 14.7 17.7 16.0 17.0 13.0 11.3 15.2 9.2 16.7 18.6 16.6 21.1 21.1 21.0 20.4 19.4 15.8 12.5 6.0 -2.1 -11.1 -24.4 -41.8 Leq,d 30.5 -6.3 -3.3 3.7 7.7 10.7 14.7 14.1 15.1 18.1 16.6 17.5 13.5 11.8 15.7 9.7 17.1 18.0 15.9 21.0 20.8 20.6 20.1 19.4 16.1 12.8 6.4 -1.4 -10.1 -22.9 -39.7 Leq,d 30.7 -6.0 -3.0 4.0 8.0 11.0 15.0 14.5 15.5 18.5 17.1 18.1 14.0 12.3 16.3 10.2 17.5 18.5 16.4 20.6 21.0 20.7 20.1 19.3 16.0 12.9 6.9 -0.6 -8.9 -21.2 -37.4 Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 03-05-24 PH 2 118 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 677 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Receiver R2 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 57.7 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Leq,d 22.1 16.6 7.9 13.7 17.9 12.8 8.4 -6.2 -26.0
Leq,d 6.9 3.4 -6.8 -0.1 1.0 -7.2 -13.1 -29.4 -50.8
Leq,d 10.0 6.7 -3.9 3.6 3.5 -5.6 -11.3 -26.5 -46.7
Leq,d 8.2 1.7 -7.6 2.8 4.7 -7.0 -21.2 -44.0 -66.5
Leq,d 18.6 9.7 2.2 13.2 15.3 7.4 2.5 -12.1 -32.0
Leq,d 51.4 29.1 32.6 38.3 44.8 47.1 46.4 33.8 10.9
Leq,d 56.4 29.9 34.9 45.6 53.6 51.8 42.1 22.8 -1.4
Leq,d 7.3 -14.4 -31.4 -25.5 -10.5 -9.5 -7.5 -12.7 -8.7 -11.8 -11.9 -16.9 -15.0 -10.9 -10.9 -7.1 -3.8 -3.9 -3.0 -3.6 -0.8 -0.2 -4.0 -7.1 -11.9 -17.9 -24.3 -33.7 -44.3 -57.6 -72.4 Leq,d 6.0 -14.2 -31.3 -25.4 -10.6 -9.7 -7.8 -13.3 -9.5 -12.6 -13.4 -18.5 -16.7 -12.6 -12.7 -8.9 -5.0 -5.1 -4.3 -4.9 -2.2 -1.8 -5.7 -9.1 -14.2 -20.5 -27.4 -37.6 -49.5 -64.8 -82.3 Leq,d 10.5 -22.3 -15.2 -8.2 -8.1 -5.3 -4.4 -7.0 -5.1 -5.6 -7.9 -8.7 -6.1 -5.4 -4.6 -1.0 0.4 0.3 -2.2 1.7 1.7 -0.2 -2.3 -6.8 -16.7 -27.9 -44.5 Leq,d 30.0 -7.7 -4.7 2.3 6.3 9.3 13.3 12.3 13.2 18.5 16.4 17.4 13.3 11.6 15.6 9.5 17.4 18.4 16.2 20.6 20.3 19.8 19.1 17.9 14.1 10.4 3.3 -5.6 -15.9 -30.9 -50.5 Leq,d 28.2 -7.5 -4.5 2.5 6.5 9.5 13.4 12.5 13.5 16.5 14.5 15.5 11.4 9.7 13.7 7.6 15.4 16.3 14.2 18.6 18.3 17.9 17.2 16.1 12.4 8.8 2.0 -6.7 -16.5 -31.0 -50.0 Leq,d 28.7 -7.2 -4.2 2.8 6.8 9.8 13.8 12.9 13.9 16.9 15.0 16.0 12.0 10.3 14.3 8.2 15.9 16.8 14.7 19.0 18.7 18.3 17.6 16.6 13.0 9.6 2.9 -5.4 -14.9 -28.8 -47.2 Leq,d 28.4 -7.4 -4.4 2.6 6.6 9.6 13.6 12.7 13.7 16.7 14.7 15.7 11.7 10.0 14.0 7.9 15.7 16.6 14.5 18.8 18.5 18.1 17.4 16.3 12.7 9.2 2.4 -6.0 -15.7 -29.9 -48.6 Leq,d 29.7 -7.9 -4.9 2.1 6.1 9.1 13.1 12.0 13.0 18.3 16.1 17.1 13.1 11.4 15.3 9.3 17.2 18.1 16.0 20.4 20.1 19.6 18.8 17.7 13.8 10.0 2.8 -6.3 -16.8 -32.0 -52.0 Leq,d 28.7 -8.6 -5.6 1.4 5.4 8.4 12.4 11.1 12.1 15.1 15.1 16.1 12.5 10.5 14.4 8.4 16.3 17.2 15.1 19.6 19.2 18.7 17.8 16.5 12.5 8.4 0.8 -9.0 -20.4 -36.8 -58.4 Leq,d 29.4 -8.4 -5.4 1.6 5.6 8.6 12.6 11.4 12.4 15.3 15.4 16.3 12.7 10.9 14.8 8.7 16.6 17.5 15.4 20.8 20.4 19.9 19.0 17.7 13.7 9.6 2.0 -7.7 -19.1 -35.4 -56.6 Leq,d 29.5 -8.2 -5.2 1.8 5.8 8.8 12.8 11.6 12.6 15.6 15.6 16.6 12.9 11.1 15.0 8.9 16.8 17.7 15.6 20.0 20.6 20.0 19.2 17.9 13.9 9.9 2.4 -7.2 -18.3 -34.2 -55.1 Leq,d 29.4 -8.1 -5.1 1.9 5.9 8.9 12.9 11.8 12.8 15.8 15.9 16.9 12.8 11.1 15.1 9.1 17.0 17.9 15.8 20.2 19.9 19.4 18.6 17.4 13.5 9.6 2.3 -6.9 -17.6 -33.2 -53.5 Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 2 03-05-24 PH 2 119 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 678 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 60.5 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Leq,d 18.6 10.4 1.4 14.1 14.9 5.1 -1.7 -19.1 -43.1
Leq,d 13.0 4.0 -4.7 7.9 9.6 1.4 -5.1 -22.7 -46.8
Leq,d 5.7 1.4 -10.0 0.3 -0.1 -8.6 -14.5 -30.5 -53.0
Leq,d -6.4 -11.8 -22.9 -11.1 -11.0 -26.8 -43.2 -68.1 -94.5 Leq,d 20.0 8.6 1.1 15.0 17.0 8.8 3.1 -13.2 -36.6
Leq,d 60.5 30.9 35.8 49.1 56.1 56.0 53.4 37.9 11.4
Leq,d 35.3 12.6 14.1 27.0 33.4 27.9 17.9 -2.3 -29.8
Leq,d -2.6 -19.3 -36.6 -30.9 -16.3 -15.7 -14.1 -20.1 -16.7 -20.3 -15.4 -20.0 -16.9 -13.7 -14.5 -11.5 -14.1 -14.8 -14.9 -16.4 -14.8 -15.4 -20.4 -25.0 -31.5 -39.4 -48.1 -60.3 -74.6 -92.0 Leq,d -6.7 -21.2 -38.8 -33.6 -19.4 -19.2 -18.1 -24.6 -21.5 -25.5 -21.2 -25.1 -22.0 -18.9 -19.8 -16.8 -18.1 -18.2 -18.3 -19.7 -18.1 -18.7 -23.7 -28.3 -34.6 -42.3 -50.6 -62.6 -76.8 -94.7 Leq,d 8.0 -22.7 -15.8 -9.1 -9.2 -4.8 -4.2 -7.4 -5.7 -6.9 -8.6 -10.9 -9.4 -8.1 -6.0 -3.2 -2.0 -2.4 -5.2 -1.6 -2.1 -4.5 -6.2 -11.3 -21.8 -33.8 -51.0 Leq,d 22.5 -14.2 -11.2 -4.3 -0.4 2.5 6.3 4.6 5.3 10.4 13.8 16.9 12.6 9.8 13.0 6.1 7.2 7.3 4.3 7.8 6.5 5.0 3.1 0.7 -4.6 -10.1 -19.4 -31.2 -45.0 -64.1 -88.4 Leq,d 21.9 -14.3 -11.3 -4.4 -0.5 2.3 6.1 4.4 5.0 10.1 13.5 15.2 12.3 9.5 12.6 5.8 6.9 7.0 3.9 7.5 6.2 4.6 2.8 0.3 -5.0 -10.6 -19.9 -31.8 -45.7 -64.9 -89.2 Leq,d 18.6 -14.5 -11.5 -4.6 -0.8 2.0 5.8 3.9 4.5 6.9 10.3 10.6 9.1 6.2 9.2 2.2 3.3 3.3 0.2 3.7 2.3 0.7 -1.2 -3.7 -9.0 -14.5 -23.9 -35.6 -49.3 -68.2 -92.0 Leq,d 21.3 -14.4 -11.4 -4.5 -0.7 2.2 5.9 4.2 4.7 9.8 13.3 13.7 11.8 9.0 12.2 5.3 6.4 6.5 3.5 7.0 5.7 4.2 2.2 -0.3 -5.7 -11.3 -20.7 -32.6 -46.6 -65.9 -90.1 Leq,d 22.8 -14.1 -11.2 -4.2 -0.3 2.5 6.4 4.8 5.4 10.5 14.0 17.5 12.8 10.0 13.1 6.2 7.4 7.4 4.4 7.9 6.6 5.1 3.2 0.8 -4.5 -10.0 -19.3 -31.0 -44.7 -63.7 -87.8 Leq,d 23.8 -13.9 -10.9 -4.0 0.0 2.9 6.7 5.3 6.1 11.3 14.5 18.4 13.9 11.3 14.5 7.7 8.7 8.7 5.5 9.0 7.6 6.0 4.1 1.7 -3.6 -9.0 -18.2 -29.7 -43.1 -61.8 -85.5 Leq,d 23.6 -13.9 -11.0 -4.0 -0.1 2.8 6.7 5.2 6.0 11.1 14.5 18.2 13.6 11.0 14.1 7.2 8.3 8.3 5.2 8.7 7.3 5.8 3.9 1.5 -3.7 -9.2 -18.4 -29.9 -43.4 -62.1 -86.0 Leq,d 23.3 -14.0 -11.0 -4.1 -0.2 2.7 6.6 5.1 5.8 10.9 14.4 18.0 13.4 10.6 13.7 6.8 7.9 7.9 4.9 8.4 7.1 5.5 3.7 1.3 -4.0 -9.4 -18.6 -30.2 -43.8 -62.6 -86.6 Leq,d 23.0 -14.0 -11.1 -4.2 -0.2 2.6 6.5 4.9 5.6 10.8 14.1 17.7 13.1 10.3 13.4 6.5 7.6 7.6 4.6 8.1 6.8 5.3 3.5 1.0 -4.2 -9.7 -18.9 -30.6 -44.2 -63.1 -87.1 Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 3 03-05-24 PH 2 120 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 679 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Receiver R4 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 63.3 dB(A) Sigma(Leq,d) 0.0 dB(A) Leq,d 16.9 7.2 0.3 9.7 13.6 8.5 4.0 -12.8 -41.2
Leq,d 11.0 1.2 -5.4 3.8 7.6 3.0 -0.7 -16.9 -43.5
Leq,d 7.3 2.9 -6.6 1.1 1.9 -5.7 -11.2 -28.5 -57.0
Leq,d -5.9 -10.6 -21.1 -10.0 -12.1 -27.2 -43.8 -70.7
Leq,d 14.1 3.6 -2.5 8.5 10.9 4.0 0.6 -15.2 -43.4
Leq,d 63.3 28.1 35.1 44.5 54.1 58.6 60.3 47.5 19.3
Leq,d 36.3 16.3 18.4 30.0 33.7 28.7 17.5 -5.2 -40.5
Leq,d 3.0 -20.1 -37.5 -31.6 -16.7 -15.8 -12.6 -18.1 -14.2 -17.3 -14.3 -19.4 -17.5 -12.9 -12.8 -8.9 -8.4 -8.5 -7.5 -7.9 -5.0 -4.4 -8.7 -12.7 -19.0 -27.1 -37.3 -51.9 -69.7 -92.2 Leq,d 3.6 -21.6 -38.6 -32.6 -17.6 -16.6 -14.6 -18.5 -14.6 -17.6 -14.5 -19.5 -17.6 -13.3 -13.3 -9.5 -8.4 -8.2 -7.0 -6.8 -3.6 -3.4 -7.7 -11.8 -18.7 -27.8 -38.8 -54.9 -75.1 Leq,d 7.3 -25.7 -18.6 -9.0 -9.9 -7.1 -3.1 -8.5 -9.3 -9.9 -11.8 -11.8 -9.8 -7.9 -7.1 -4.0 -2.6 -2.7 -5.3 -1.6 -2.2 -5.2 -9.1 -16.4 -30.6 -48.0 -73.0 Leq,d 20.3 -13.6 -10.6 -3.6 0.4 3.4 7.1 4.6 5.6 8.5 8.9 9.8 5.8 4.1 8.0 1.9 7.6 8.4 6.1 10.4 9.7 8.6 6.9 4.3 -1.7 -8.8 -20.8 -37.0 -57.4 -85.9 Leq,d 20.2 -13.7 -10.7 -3.7 0.3 3.3 6.9 4.4 5.4 8.4 8.7 9.7 5.6 3.9 7.8 1.7 7.5 8.3 6.0 10.4 9.7 8.6 6.9 4.3 -1.7 -8.8 -21.0 -37.3 -58.0 -86.8 Leq,d 20.3 -18.6 -15.5 -8.5 -4.5 -1.4 5.0 2.5 3.6 6.6 8.4 9.4 5.3 3.6 7.5 1.4 8.6 9.4 7.1 11.4 10.7 9.7 8.0 5.3 -0.8 -8.1 -20.5 -37.3 -58.5 -88.0 Leq,d 20.0 -13.8 -10.8 -3.8 0.2 3.2 6.8 4.3 5.2 8.2 8.6 9.5 5.5 3.7 7.7 1.6 7.4 8.2 5.9 10.2 9.6 8.5 6.8 4.2 -1.9 -9.1 -21.4 -38.0 -58.9 -88.1 Leq,d 20.5 -13.4 -10.4 -3.4 0.6 3.6 8.1 5.6 6.4 9.3 9.0 10.0 5.9 4.2 8.1 2.1 7.7 8.5 6.1 10.4 9.6 8.5 6.8 4.1 -1.9 -8.9 -20.9 -36.9 -57.0 -85.1 Leq,d 19.1 -12.9 -9.9 -2.9 1.1 4.1 7.8 5.3 6.0 8.7 9.7 10.6 6.6 4.8 8.6 2.1 4.7 4.9 2.0 5.7 4.3 2.6 0.3 -2.9 -9.4 -16.7 -28.8 -44.7 -64.4 -91.5 Leq,d 19.9 -13.0 -10.0 -3.0 1.0 4.0 8.2 5.7 6.5 9.3 9.5 10.5 6.4 4.7 8.6 2.6 6.8 7.2 4.6 8.6 7.5 6.0 3.9 1.0 -5.3 -12.6 -24.7 -40.7 -60.5 -88.0 Leq,d 20.3 -13.1 -10.1 -3.1 0.8 3.8 8.2 5.7 6.6 9.4 9.4 10.3 6.3 4.5 8.5 2.4 7.4 8.1 5.6 9.7 8.8 7.5 5.7 2.9 -3.2 -10.3 -22.3 -38.3 -58.2 -85.9 Leq,d 20.5 -13.3 -10.3 -3.3 0.7 3.7 8.1 5.7 6.5 9.4 9.2 10.1 6.1 4.4 8.3 2.2 7.7 8.4 6.0 10.3 9.5 8.3 6.6 3.9 -2.1 -9.1 -21.1 -37.0 -57.0 -84.8 Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 4 03-05-24 PH 2 121 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 680 of 747

QQ Vista Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - 12 Sonny - Standard: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
Leq,d
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 5 03-05-24 PH 2 122 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 681 of 747

Appendix C:

Equipment Reference Data

03-05-24 PH 2 123 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 682 of 747

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
A A
B B
SHEET SCALE N.T.S.2 OF 2 SIZE A
PART NUMBER BL1-45HP-1

DESCRIPTION

SONNY'S ENTERPRISES

THE CARWASH FACTORY

THIS SHEET CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION,

IMAGES AND TRADE SECRETS OF SONNY'S
ENTERPRISES, INC. ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OR

DISCLOSURE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. THIS WORK IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
OF SONNY'S ENTERPRISES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

DRAWN

APPROVED

MATERIAL
FRACTION1/16"
.XX DECIMAL  0.030
.XXX DECIMAL  0.005
ANGULARITY 2°
FINISH 125

MACHINING

TOLERANCES

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
BREAK ALL SHARP CORNERS.

PART TO BE FREE OF BURRS.

CATEGORY BLOWER

THIRD ANGLE PROJECTION
LVerdecia
8/1/2012
8/26/2011
BLOWER ASSEMBLY, ONE ARCH 45HP
Enviromental Noise with Dryer OFF: 70 dba
20 Feet
86-dba10 Feet
90-dba
50 Feet
79-dba
100 Feet
75-dba
03-05-24 PH 2 124 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 683 of 747

www.mdacoustics.com
AZ Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Ste 1-461
Chandler, AZ 85249
p. (602) 774-1950
CA Office
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (805) 426-4477
Project:SuperStar Car Wash Chula Vista Site Observations:

Site Location:1555 W Warner Rd, Gilbert, AZ 85233
Date:4/5/2018
Field Tech/Engineer:Robert Pearson
Source/System:Vacutec System
Location:Vac Bay 1
Sound Meter:NTi XL2 SN:A2A-05967-E0
Settings:A-weighted, slow, 1-sec, 10-sec duration
Meteorological Cond.:80 degrees F, 2 mph wind
20 25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K 5K 6.3K 8K 10K 12.5K 16K 20K Vacutech (Holstered)Vacuum 63.3 9 17 22 29 31 35 40 41 44 43 46 48 47 49 51 51 51 52 53 52 52 50 52 53 50 47 47 48 45 39 30 Vacutech (Unholstered)Vacuum 80.7 6 19 22 28 34 37 40 43 47 46 48 48 48 49 54 55 58 58 62 65 68 70 74 75 73 69 67 65 63 60 55 Vacutech (Inside Car)Vacuum 69.6 16 28 31 38 42 45 49 51 52 55 60 61 57 55 59 53 55 56 54 57 57 57 57 57 55 54 51 48 46 42 36 Average Level*Vacuum 76.3 13 24 28 34 38 41 45 47 49 51 56 57 53 52 56 54 56 56 59 61 64 66 69 70 68 64 62 60 58 55 50 * Refers to the logarithmic average of all measurements. This measurement represents an average of the multiple vacuum positions.

Clear sky, measurements were performed within 1.5ft of source. Measurements were performed while the vacuum was positiioned at three (3) different positions. Holstered, unholstered and inside a car. This data is utilized for acoustic modeling purposes and represents an average sound level at a vacuum station.

Table 1: Summary Measurement Data
Source System Overall
dB(A)
3rd Octave Band Data (dBA)
Figure 1: Holstered Figure 2: Unholstered Figure 3: Inside Car Figure 1: Example Measurement Position
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 20 25
31 .
5 40 50 63 80
10 0
12 5
16 0
20 0
25 0
31 5
40 0
50 0
63 0
80 0 1K

1. 2
5 K

1. 6
K
2K

2. 5
K

3. 1
5 K
4K 5K

6. 3
K
8K
10 K
12 .
5 K
16 K
20 K
dB
Freq (Hz)

1.5ft from Nozzle
Vacutech sound levels03-05-24 PH 2 125 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 684 of 747

SOUND LEVEL METER READINGS

MODEL: FT‐DD‐T340HP4 (40hp VACSTAR TURBINE VACUUM PRODUCER)

READING ONE: 43 DB‐A, 3 FEET FROM TURBINE @ 45° ANGLE
AND NO BACKGROUND NOISE OR OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

READING TWO: 36 DB‐A, 10 FEET FROM TURBINE @ 45° ANGLE
AND NO BACKGROUND NOISE OR OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

READING THREE: 24 DB‐A, 20 FEET FROM TURBINE @ 45° ANGLE AND NO BACKGROUND NOISE OR OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

READING FOUR: 12 DB‐A, 30 FEET FROM TURBINE @ 45° ANGLE AND NO BACKGROUND NOISE OR OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

NOTE: THESE READINGS WERE TAKEN OUTSIDE OF 8’x10’x8’ CINDER BLOCK ENCLOSURE WITH CONCRETE SLAB AND WOOD JOIST ROOF.

SOUND LEVEL METER USED:

SIMPSON MODEL #40003 – MSHA APPROVED.

MEETS OSHA & WALSH‐HEALY REQUIREMENTS FOR NOISE CONTROL.

CONFORMS TO ANSI S1.4‐1983, IEC 651 SPECS FOR METER TYPE.

Vacutech
1350 Hi-Tech Drive, Sheridan WY, 82801
PHONE: (800) 917-9444 FAX: (303) 675-1988
EMAIL: info@vacutechllc
WEB SITE: vacutechllc.com
03-05-24 PH 2 126 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 685 of 747

Appendix D:

Construction Noise and Vibration Calculation Sheets

03-05-24 PH 2 127 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 686 of 747

Construction Phase Equipment
Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50
feet, dBA1
Edge of Site to
Receptor, feet
Center of Site to
Receptor, feet
Item Usage
Percent1 Ground Factor2 Usage Factor Receptor Item
Lmax, dBA
Recptor. Item
Leq, dBA

SITE PREP
Tractor 1 84 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 73.9 69.9
Grader 1 85 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 74.9 70.9
Log Sum 74.9 73.4
GRADE
Grader 1 84 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 73.9 69.9
Dozer 1 82 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 71.9 67.9
Tractor 1 84 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 73.9 69.9
Crane 1 81 120 120 16 0.66 0.16 70.9 62.9
Forklift 2 79 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 68.9 64.9

73.9 75.3
BUILD
Crane 1 81 120 120 16 0.66 0.16 70.9 62.9
Forklift 2 79 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 68.9 64.9
Tractor 2 84 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 73.9 69.9

73.9 74.4
PAVE
Tractor 1 84 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 73.9 69.9
Concrete Mixer Truck 4 79 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 68.9 64.9 Paver 1 77 120 120 50 0.66 0.50 66.9 63.9
Roller 1 80 120 120 20 0.66 0.20 69.9 62.9

73.9 74.2

ARCH COAT
Compressor (air)1 78 120 120 40 0.66 0.40 67.9 63.9

67.9 63.9
1FHWA Construction Noise Handbook: Table 9.1 RCNM Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors Receptor - Commercial site to the West
03-05-24 PH 2 128 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 687 of 747

Project: QQCW Business Park Dr & Poinsettia Ave Vista CA Date: 11/28/23 Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: Business Park Drive & Poinsettia Ave, Vista, CA PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =INPUT SECTION IN BLUE
Type
PPVref =0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D =117.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.10 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV =0.016 IN/SEC OUTPUT IN RED

DATA OUT RESULTS
2 Large Bulldozer
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2006, pgs 38-43.

VIBRATION LEVEL IMPACT
117 feet to the west of the center of the site

DATA INPUT
03-05-24 PH 2 129 of 12904/23/2024 PH1 688 of 747

REGULAR MEETING
March 5, 2024
The March 5, 2024, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Rosaler at 6:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner (“Cmnr.”) Hastings led the Pledge of Allegiance COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chair Rick Rosaler, Vice Chair Charles Grimm, Cmnrs. Don Looney, John Savage, Lisa De Jesus, Beth Hastings
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Student Cmnrs. Julia Takano and Daphney Ortega
STAFF PRESENT:

Community Development Director Joe Vacca
Deputy Director of Community Development/City Planner Patsy Chow Principal Planner Michael Ressler
Senior Planner Chris Winters
Associate Planner Raffi Mangassarian
Assistant City Attorney Amanda Guy
Senior Office Specialist Esmeralda Romero
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Cmnr. De Jesus Moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2024. Seconded by Cmnr. Looney.

MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED: 6-0
AGENDA CHANGES:

None.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

Item not on Agenda: Safety concerns on Copper Avenue
SPEAKERS:

Vititoria Bartch

COMMISSIONERS
Chair Rick Rosaler, Vice Chair Charles Grimm,
Lisa De Jesus, Beth Hastings, Don Looney,
John Savage
04/23/2024 PH1 689 of 747

Planning Commission - Minutes
March 5, 2024

Page 2 of 7 ends

PUBLIC MEETING ITEMS:

PH 1. P24-0017 –Type 20 Beer & Wine License– The Foothill Company, Inc.

The applicant, The Foothill Company, Inc., is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit, to allow for an ABC Type 20 Off-Sale Beer and Wine license at an existing gas station convenience store located at 1211 E. Vista Way. This project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines because it is proposed in an existing gasoline station convenience store that involves insignificant improvements or expansion of the existing use.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024- , granting a Special Use Permit for the approval of an ABC Type 20 Off-Sale Beer and Wine license at an existing gas station convenience store on a 0.93-acre site located at 1211 E. Vista Way (APN 173-300-11-00)
Associate Planner Raffi Mangassarian provided the staff presentation.

Planning Commission questions:

Clarification of rising crime rates.
o The crime rate was 132%, currently it’s at 202.9%.

Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) census tract data allowed for three liquor licenses to be issued in that area but there are currently five. o The ABC Board sets the number based on their census tract data population total.

Are there other areas within the City where ABC guidelines have been exceeded with liquor licenses?
o Numerous other areas within the City have a high concentration of alcohol license for offsite sales.

Alcohol sales are not permitted between 12:00-6:00 am. How will this be enforced?
o The business owner will be responsible for enforcement. o The Sheriff’s Department may do operations review to ensure that the hours are being enforced.

If there are any violations the license can be suspended. o A notice hearing in front of the Planning Commission would be required.

Loitering is not allowed. This license is for offsite sale only. o A Minor Use Permit would be required to consume alcohol on the property.

Chair Rosaler opened the public hearing.
04/23/2024 PH1 690 of 747

Planning Commission - Minutes
March 5, 2024

Page 3 of 7 ends

SPEAKERS:

Jim Bartell (Applicant)
Amad Atttistia (In favor)
George Lopez (In favor)
Luis Lopez (In favor)
Chair Rosaler closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission discussion:

Concerns regarding the number of alcohol licenses in the area.

The sale of alcohol is not always associated with high crime.

The applicant plans on improving lighting, landscaping, and the appearance of the existing building.
o All improvements are to the City Planner’s satisfaction.

None of the five alcohol licenses are for gas stations.

CMNR. DE JESUS MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.

SAVAGE.

ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2024-04, GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN ABC TYPE 20 OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE AT AN EXISTING GAS STATION CONVENIENCE STORE ON A 0.93-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1211 E. VISTA WAY (APN 173-300-11-00)
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 5-1 (Cmnr. Hasting opposed)
PH 2. P23-0298 – Quick Quack Car Wash, Newmark Merrill Companies, Inc.

The project applicant, Newmark Merrill Companies, Inc., is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit and Site Development Plan to construct and operate a 3,363 square foot drive-through carwash facility to include vacuum stations and associated site improvements on approximately one-acre of vacant land located at the northeast corner of Business Park Drive and Poinsettia Avenue (APN 221-661-03). The project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024- , granting a Special Use Permit and a Site Development Plan to construct and operate a 3,363 square foot drive-through car wash to include vacuum stations and associated site improvements on approximately one- acre of vacant land located at the northeast corner of Business Park Drive and Poinsettia Avenue (APN 221-661-03-00)
Principal Planner Michael Ressler provided the staff presentation. 04/23/2024 PH1 691 of 747

Planning Commission - Minutes
March 5, 2024

Page 4 of 7 ends

Planning Commission questions:

Requested clarification on the letter of opposition submitted by Austin Legal Group.

What is the quarterback station?
o An employee only area with equipment and a place to store their belongings.

Chair Rosaler opened the public hearing.

SPEAKERS:

Gina Austin (In opposition)
Barret Bradley (In favor/applicant)
Marvin Razuki (In opposition)
Sivan Hurmiz (In opposition)
Chair Rosaler closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission discussion:

Would the developer be required to replant native species? If there’s sensitive vegetation on site, it was planted when the slope was created, 20 years ago.

Does Staff have a response for Ms. Austin regarding the habitat not being adequately addressed?
o An issue was raised under the infill exemption 153323 citing that the parcel contains habitat through the Coastal Sage Scrub therefore it’s out of the categorical exemption. The language you can find in that categorical exemption is that the project site does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The area that is disturbed must be under 5 acres to be allowed to use the exemption. In the bio report it depicts that the actual area that will be developed by the proposed project does not contain sensitive habitat.

The proposed retaining wall to be constructed is outside the vegetation area so it wouldn’t disturb any resources.

A project hearing notice was mailed to Genie Vista LLC on February 21, 2024.

Legally there is no requirement to continue the public hearing.

This property is zoned for this type of business.

The proposed project is across the street from an existing carwash.

Whatever goes into the vacant space is going to generate traffic.

CMNR. GRIM MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.

SAVAGE.

ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-05, GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 3,363
04/23/2024 PH1 692 of 747

Planning Commission - Minutes
March 5, 2024

Page 5 of 7 ends

SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THROUGH CAR WASH TO INCLUDE VACUUM

STATIONS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON APPROXIMATELY

ONE-ACRE OF VACANT LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND POINSETTIA AVENUE (APN 221-661-03-00) MOTION CARRIED: Vote 6-0
PH 3. P24-0042 – City of Vista Development Code Amendment Regarding Supplemental Parking in Residential Zones
The City of Vista proposes an amendment to Chapter 8.36 Property Maintenance and Nuisance Abatement, and Chapter 18.54 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, of the Vista Development Code to allow for a supplemental parking space to be constructed adjacent to existing driveways that serve one-family and two-family residences. The Planning Commission’s review of these proposed amendments, additions, and standards is advisory to the City Council. This project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024 - , recommending City Council approval of an ordinance amending Chapters 8.36 and 18.54 of the Vista Development Code related to supplemental parking spaces for one-family and two-family dwellings
Senior Planner Chris Winters provided the staff presentation.

Planning Commission questions:

The curb cut is in the City’s right-of-way the City requires a licensed contractor to do any work. Does this still apply?
o Yes, the homeowner would be required to get a permit through the Engineering Department.

Curb cut concerns.

Concerns regarding the type of material that the driveway could be made of. o The idea is to match what already exists and the aesthetic of the neighborhood.

If there is an infeasibility to use the same material, the Director of Community Development would have some discretion to examine the case.

Adding supplemental parking is optional and not a requirement for homeowners.

The driveway could extend to the property line.

A curb cut is not required.
o The supplemental parking space would be adjacent to the existing driveway.

Chair Rosaler opened the public hearing.
04/23/2024 PH1 693 of 747

Planning Commission - Minutes
March 5, 2024

Page 6 of 7 ends

SPEAKERS:

None.

Chair Rosaler closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission discussion:

Would the maker of the motion be willing to amend to include the pavers? o Staff responded that other materials are not allowed per the City’s code. If we amend the supplemental parking space to allow for other material, it will create an inconsistency.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed code amendment, with a recommendation that the code also allow for use of pervious pavers as a construction material.

CMNR. DE JESUS MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.

LOONEY.

ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-06, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.36 AND 18.54 OF THE VISTA

DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING SPACES

FOR ONE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS
With a recommendation that the code also allow for use of pervious pavers as a construction material.

MOTION CARRIED: Vote 6-0

REPORTS/COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS
VID replaced a 6 in. waterline on Elm Dr and Independence Wy, there are concerns regarding the damage and who will ensure the repairs are conducted. o Staff will contact Greg Mayer, Engineering Director.

Deputy Director of Community Development/City Planner Patsy Chow Next meeting will be held on April 16, 2024.
o 3 public hearing items are scheduled.

Thanked the Commissioners for attending the joint dinner with the City Council at which time Patsy provided the annual report of the Planning Commission activities in 2023.

ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Rosaler adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
04/23/2024 PH1 694 of 747

Planning Commission - Minutes
March 5, 2024

Page 7 of 7 ends

SECRETARY
04/23/2024 PH1 695 of 747

Special Use Permit/Site Development Plan
Quick Quack Car Wash
P23-0298
Planning Commission Public Hearing March 5, 2024
Exhibit 3
04/23/2024 PH1 696 of 747
EXHIBIT 3

Project Location
APN: 221-661-03-00
43,266 Sq. Ft.
1 Legal parcel
Vacant land
Project Site
APN 221-661-03-00
04/23/2024 PH1 697 of 747

Aerial Photo / Existing Uses
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial Industrial
04/23/2024 PH1 698 of 747

General Plan
General Plan:

General Commercial
(GC)
Allows for:
•Commercial uses
•Banks
•Gas stations
•Restaurants
04/23/2024 PH1 699 of 747

Zoning
Zoning:

Vista Business Park
Specific Plan, Area “A”
Permitted Uses:
•Commercial
•Retail
•Restaurants
C-1
C-1
04/23/2024 PH1 700 of 747

Proposed Project

Quick Quack Car Wash
•Special Use Permit, inclusive of a Site Development Plan •3,363 sq. ft. drive-through car wash
•Landscape, parking, associated site improvements
•Drive-through car wash with complementary vacuums
•Hours: 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily
•2-3 employees
04/23/2024 PH1 701 of 747

Site Plan
3,363 sq. ft. car
wash building
9 vacuum
stations
Pay station
04/23/2024 PH1 702 of 747

Site Access
04/23/2024 PH1 703 of 747

Parking
Parking:

Total required: 10 spaces
Total provided: 12 spaces
04/23/2024 PH1 704 of 747

Retaining Walls
Max. 9.5 ft. high
plantable screen
walls
04/23/2024 PH1 705 of 747

Landscape Plan
Landscaping: 23% of the site,
exceeds the 15% requirement.

Use of native and non-native
plant materials that require
low or moderate water use.
04/23/2024 PH1 706 of 747

Floor Plan
04/23/2024 PH1 707 of 747

Architecture
One-story buildings
Maximum height of 29’-0”
Architectural Features: The
building elevations are
enhanced with such features as
decorative masonry block and
stucco exteriors, decorative
tower elements with stucco
projections, metal canopies,
metal reveals, and store front
windows.
04/23/2024 PH1 708 of 747

Vacuum Canopies
04/23/2024 PH1 709 of 747

Land Use Element:
•The project will include a high-quality design and preserve and enhance Vista’s identity and image. •The project preserves and enhances the characteristics and features of neighborhoods that share common development patterns.
•The project supports the City economic development strategies by attracting and retaining quality businesses.
•The project would revitalize and redevelop an underutilized property.

General Plan Consistency
04/23/2024 PH1 710 of 747

Circulation Element:
•The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and generates fewer than 1,000 ADT, which is a screened-out project type from Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Traffic Analysis per the Vista Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines .
•Pursuant to the TIA, a Local Transportation Analysis was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan (2023) and concluded that intersections within the Project study area are calculated to operate at acceptable LOS under existing and near-term conditions. The effects of Project-related traffic do not indicate the need for roadway improvements within the study area.

General Plan Consistency
04/23/2024 PH1 711 of 747

Resource Conservation & Sustainability Element:
•Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Assessment prepared by Salem Engineering Group, Inc. (November 2023)
•The project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
•The applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by San Diego Gas and Electric.

General Plan Consistency
04/23/2024 PH1 712 of 747

Resource Conservation & Sustainability Element:
•The project is required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code which require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials.

General Plan Consistency
04/23/2024 PH1 713 of 747

Public Safety, Facilities, and Services Element:
•The project will be required to post placards in compliance with National Fire Protection Association Section 704 requirements as it relates to any hazardous materials or wastes that are generated, handled, used or disposed of at the subject site.
•Proposed project addresses storm water quality management plan and storm water design requirements to ensure the system is adequate to prevent water runoff into the stormwater system and accommodate the proposed carwash commercial use.

General Plan Consistency
04/23/2024 PH1 714 of 747

Public Safety, Facilities, and Services Element:
•The proposed carwash operation includes a water capture and filtration system that promotes water conservation and use of reclaimed water to reduce demand for potable fresh water during carwash cycles. •The proposed carwash use will provide its fair share of the cost of public services, improvements, and operations through the application and payment of development impact fees collected at the building permit issuance stage of the project development.

General Plan Consistency
04/23/2024 PH1 715 of 747

Zoning:
•The project meets applicable requirements of the VBPSP •Consistent with uses within the area
•Adequate queuing and on-site circulation
Staff Review
04/23/2024 PH1 716 of 747

Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 2024- , granting a Special Use Permit and a Site Development Plan to construct and operate a
3,363 square foot drive-through car wash to include
vacuum stations and associated site improvements on
approximately one-acre of vacant land located at the
northeast corner of Business Park Drive and Poinsettia
Avenue (APN 221-661-03-00)
04/23/2024 PH1 717 of 747

Special Use Permit/Site Development Plan
Quick Quack Car Wash
P23-0298
Planning Commission Public Hearing March 5, 202404/23/2024 PH1 718 of 747

City Planner
City Clerk
City of Vista
Vista, CA 92084
Austin Legal Group, APC
3990O1DTOWN AVE, STEA-101
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

ATTORNEYS LICBNSBD IN
CALIFORNIA, HA WAil & TExAS

TELEPHONE
(619) 924-9600

FACSIMILE
(619) 881-0045
March 13, 2024
Writer's Email:
[email protected]
Via Personal Delivery
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision March S, 2024 It~m No. PH2; Special Use Permit/Site Development Permit P23-0298 This letter is submitted as a formal appeal of the Planning Commission's approval on May 5, 2024 of Item No. PH2, Special Use Permit and Site Development Permit P23-0298 (the ''Project'').

The reasons for the appeal include but are not limited to: (i) the improper-application of a CEQA exemption, (ii) Planning Commission findings not supported by substantial evidence, (iii) information not properly considered by the Planning Commission, and (iv) improper revisions of technical reports. Supplemental information in support of this appeal will be provided to the City in due course.

This appeal is proper as Gina Austin, on behalf of her client, wrote a letter in opposition to the Project and spoke at the public hearing. This letter of appeal is being submitted within the statutory timeframe for an appeal with the appropriate appeal fee of$665.21 payable to the City of Vista.

Community
Development
MAR 14 2024

RECEIVED
cc: Patsy Chow (via email only)
Michael Ressler (via email only)
Sincerely,

TIN LEGAL GROUP, APC
/YI-~
Austin
Exhibit 4
04/23/2024 PH1 719 of 747
EXHIBIT 4

Austin Legal Group

LAWYERS
3990 OLD TOWN AVE, STE A-112
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

LICENSED IN

CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA & TEXAS

TELEPHONE
(619)924-9600

FACSIMILE
(619)881-0045
Writer’s Email:
[email protected]
March 4, 2024
VIA EMAIL:

Patsy Chow [email protected]
Esmeralda Romero [email protected]
Planning Commission
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
RE: Agenda Item #PH2; Special Use Permit/Site Development Permit P23-0298 Dear Planning Commissioners:

This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, Genie Vista, LLC (“GVL”). For the reasons more fully explained below, GVL requests the Planning Commission deny the Project or in the alternative continue this hearing until such time as proper review of the Project has occurred.

BACKGROUND
Newmark Merrill Companies, Inc. has applied for a Special Use Permit and a Site Development Permit for a car wash on the northeast corner of Business Park Drive and Poinsettia Avenue on APN 221-661-03-00 (the “Project”). The date of the application is unknown because several property owners and tenants within the 500-foot radius of the Project did not receive notice as required by the City of Vista and the date of the application is not listed in the Staff Report. GVL became aware of the Project only when customers notified it of the posting of the Notice of Hearing on the City’s website.

The Staff Report suggests that the Project should be exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 for infill projects. The Staff Report includes a reference to various technical studies (Biological Investigation, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Assessment, Local Transportation Study, and Stormwater Quality Management Plan ) that were not attached to the Staff Report. The only technical study attached to the Staff Report was the Noise Study. The Noise Study relied on highly aggressive assumptions to conclude that the Project would increase the ambient noise level by 1dBA. The Noise Study further recommends mitigation measures in section 8.3 (page 108 of Staff Report). Such mitigation measures create, at a minimum, the need for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Upon receiving notice of the Planning Exhibit 5
04/23/2024 PH1 720 of 747
EXHIBIT 5

March 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

Commission hearing, our office requested the additional technical reports. As of the submittal of this letter we have not received copies of the reports.

DISCUSSION

A. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Is Inapplicable Because the Project Is Not Consistent With All Applicable General Plan Policies

Even without being afforded the opportunity to review the Project technical reports, it is evident from the Staff Report that staff has improperly concluded the project as exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. This infill exemption requires projects to be consistent with all applicable general plan policies and zoning designations. In addition, the project must not have the potential for significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water and if the land is vacant must be devoid of sensitive habitat. In light of the requirements of Section 15332, “the City's approval must be based on a determination that the Project is consistent with such policies or the policies do not apply.” (United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1088.)

Here, the Staff Report makes one conclusory statement on page 3 that the Project “would be consistent with the applicable designations and policies of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.” At best, the City has only analyzed consistency with the zoning requirements of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Land Use Element has many other policies that may or may not be consistent with this Project. Whether or not the project is consistent with the entirety of the Land Use Element is unknown because the other policies were not analyzed. For example, Land Use Policy 4.9 sets forth the policy of ensuring that new development complies with the Green Building Standards Code to promote, among other things, water efficiency and conservation. Neither the conditions of approval nor the plans attached reference compliance wi th the Green Building Standards Code1.

More significantly, there is absolutely no analysis that the Project is consistent with other applicable General Plan Elements (e.g. Circulation Element, Public Safety, Facilities & Services Element, Resource Conservation & Sustainability Element.) A public agency bears the burden to demonstrate its exemption determination is supported by substantial evidence. (Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568.) The City’s burden is to determine the Project’s impact on the goals and policies of each of the applicable General Plan Elements. (United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1090.) For example, the Staff Report references a Transportation Study, but does not indicate whether the study concludes that the Project is consistent with Circulation Element policies such as level of service. It is also unknown whether the Project complies with various policies of the Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element such as the goal of reducing GHG emissions or Goal 14 of promoting efficient and sustainable use of energy though conservation.

In United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles, the city of Los Angeles did not analyze the housing element policies when it deemed a project to build a hotel exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332. The City did not analyze the Housing Element because it argued the project was not a housing project. The Court held that there must be substantial evidence i n the record that the city

1 The only reference to the Green Building Code at all is with regard to a condition of approval for EV charging stations.
04/23/2024 PH1 721 of 747

March 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

actually considered the applicable policies. Because no such evidence exists, the Planning Commission should reject the recommended exemption and direct Staff to conduct further environmental review.

B. There is a Reasonable Possibility the Project will Cause a Significant Noise Impact

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 exemption is inapplicable when there are unusual circumstances. The “unusual circumstances” exception precludes the use of any categorical exemption when there is a “reasonable possibility” that the project “will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) There is clearly a “reasonable possibility” that this Project will have a significant effect on the environment related to noise impacts because a carwash by its very nature is noisy. The Noise Study recommends mitigation measures in section 8.3. Such mitigation measures, create at a minimum, the need for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

If there is substantial evidence in the whole record supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant non mitigatable effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR, even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) Due to the lack of proper noticing and the lack of public availability of the technical reports, there has not been sufficient time for a professional review of each of the technical reports. None-the-less, the “fair argument” standard is a low threshold test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) Instead of protecting the environment, the CEQA process was short-circuited in the name of expediency and further environmental review must be conducted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set for above, it is imperative that the Planning Commission deny the Project or, in the alternative, continue this hearing until such time as proper review of the Project has occurred. The City's reliance on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 exemption is improper, as the Project does not appear to be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, and there is a reasonable possibility of significant noise impacts. Furthermore, the lack of transparency regarding the application date and the failure to provide all necessary technical reports for review further underscore the need for additional analysis. It is essential that the Planning Commission ensures full compliance with CEQA and thoroughly evaluates the Project's potential environmental impacts before making any decisions. Thank you for considering our request.

Sincerely,

AUSTIN LEGAL GROUP, APC

Gina M. Austin, Esq.

cc: Michael Ressler [email protected]
04/23/2024 PH1 722 of 747

EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

QUICK QUACK CAR WASH
Project
Location
04/23/2024 PH1 723 of 747
EXHIBIT 6

Austin Legal Group

LAWYERS
3990 OLD TOWN AVE, STE A-112
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

LICENSED IN

CALIFORNIA, HAWAII & TEXAS

TELEPHONE
(619)924-9600

FACSIMILE
(619)881-0045
Writer’s Email:
[email protected]
April 16, 2024

VIA EMAIL
City of Vista City Council
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
RE: Appeal of Special Use Permit and Site Development Permit for Quick Quack Car Wash Dear City Council:

This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, Genie Vista, LLC (“GVL”). For the reasons more fully explained below, GVL requests the City Council grant the appeal and deny the project or in the alternative continue this hearing until such time as proper review of the project has occurred.

BACKGROUND
Newmark Merrill Companies, Inc. applied for a Special Use Permit and a Site Development Permit for a car wash on the northeast corner of Business Park Drive and Poinsettia Avenue on APN 221-661-03-00 (the “Project”). GVL became aware of the Project only when customers notified it of the posting of the Notice of Hearing on the City’s website only days before the Planning Commission hearing on March 5, 2024.

GVL submitted written opposition to the Planning Commission (“PC Letter”) regarding the insufficiencies of the environmental analysis and proposed exemption based upon the documents provided by staff and uploaded to the City website. (See Exhibit A attached hereto.) As a result of GLV’s letter, staff supplemented and augmented the staff report in an attempt to cure the deficiencies. This additional information remains insufficient for the application of any CEQA exemption because the Project has the potential to create a significant environmental impact.

DISCUSSION
A.CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Is Improper Because the Project Is Not Consistent With All Applicable General Plan Policies
As explained in the PC Letter, CEQA exemption 15332 requires projects to be consistent with all applicable general plan policies and zoning designations. In addition, the project must not have the potential for significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water and if the land is 04/23/2024 PH1 724 of 747
EXHIBIT 7

Vista City Council
April 16, 2024

Page 2 ends

vacant must be devoid of sensitive habitat. “The City's approval must be based on a determination that the Project is consistent with such policies or the policies do not apply.”1 A public agency bears the burden to demonstrate its exemption determination is supported by substantial evidence.2 The City’s burden is to determine the Project’s impact on the goals and policies of each of the applicable General Plan Elements.3
While staff attempted to supplement the record by u ploading technical letters the day of the planning commission hearing, the record remains replete with instances of General Plan policies that are inconsistent with the Project and a project that has the potential for significant environmental impacts. Because various General Plan policies are inconsistent with the Project, CEQA exemption 15332 is improper.

The Project Is Inconsistent with Resource Conservation & Sustainability Policy 4.6 The applicants own technical report indicates that the Project is inconsistent with Resource Conservation & Sustainability (“RCS”) Policy 4.6. RES Policy 4.6 requires the incorporation of low impact development techniques. The Project turns 0.73 acres of currently pervious land into impervious pavement. Page 27 of the Storm Water Quality Management Plan asserts that “Due to the high volume of traffic, the use of permeable pavement for these driveways in not recommended….” No other low impact development techniques were incorporated. While the necessary findings may be able to be made for a mitigated negative declaration or other environmental document, due to the inconsistency with RCS Policy 4.6, CEQA exemption 15332 is statutorily prohibited due to this inconsistency.

The Project Is Inconsistent with Resource Conservation & Sustainability Policy 5.2 RCS Policy 5.2 requires projects adjacent to sensitive vegetation and / or wildlife to be designed to ensure minimal impacts to those resources including mitigating impacts from drainage, noise, and light. The applicant’s own technical studies conclude there is sensitive habitat but the Project is not designed to insure mitigating those impacts. Because of the sensitive biology any such mitigation measures would necessarily prohibit the use of CEQA exemption 15332.

The Project Is Inconsistent with Circulation Element Policy 1.2 and Policy 1.5 Circulation Policy 1.2 set the goal of a level of service (LOS) of D or better throughout the City. Circulation Policy 1.5 requires improvements and changes when LOS reaches D or below. As explained in the letter by Urban Systems Associates, attached as Exhibit “B”, this goal is not met because the LOS will be “F” at the intersection of Poinsettia and Business Park and no improvements have been proposed to mitigate for this. For this reason alone, the 15332 Exemption is not applicable.
1 United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1088. 2 Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568. 3 United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1090. 04/23/2024 PH1 725 of 747

Vista City Council
April 16, 2024

Page 3 ends

B.CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Is Improper Because the Project Site Has Value as Habitat For Endangered Rare Or Threatened Species
In order to utilize CEQA exemption 15332, the statute requires multiple criteria be met including the “project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species”.4 Staff failed to analyze or even reference the Alden Biology letter report (“Alden Letter”) provided by the applicant because it expressly identifies sensitive habitat on the Project site including coastal sage that precludes the use of the 15332 Exemption5.

Staff’s unique interpretation that the project site lacks habitat value unless the development disturbs the sensitive habitat is without merit and unsupported by the law. Contrary to the City Attorney’s assertion, Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin6 does not support this interpretation.

Rather, in Protect Tustin Ranch, the court found that (i) there was substantial evidence in the record that the project was in fact less than five acres such that the exemption applied and (ii) the exceptional circumstances exception did not apply. The court did not conclude what constituted a “project site.” 7
In this instance there is no evidence in the record that the “project site” has no value as habitat. Every document in the record identifies the “project site” as the 43,266 sq ft. parcel identified as APN 221-661-03-00. At no point has the City ever limited the “project site” to only the area south of the sensitive habitat. Even accepting this unconventional interpretation, the applicant’s own biology report identifies potential habitat within and surrounding the Project, creating the potential for habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The Alden letter did not conclude that the Project site has no value as habitat. Rather, the Alden letter identified coastal sage and stated that the development footprint as proposed would not disturb the coastal sage. Consequently, CEQA exemption 15332 is inappropriate.

C.A CEQA Exemption Is Improper Because There Is A Reasonable Possibility The Project Will Cause A Significant Traffic Impact
Categorical exemptions are improper whenever there are unusual circumstances. The “unusual circumstances” exception precludes the use of any categorical exemption when there is a “reasonable possibility” that the project “will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”8 Unusual circumstances refer to factors or conditions that distinguish a project from others due to the fact that the project creates the potential for significant environmental impacts.
4 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15332 (c).
5 In an effort to overcome objections in the PC Letter, staff apparently requested a new environmental letter from Alden Environmental dated March 5, 2024 (the date of the hearing) as compared to the November 1, 2023 environmental letter staff used to make its recommendation. The March 5th letter attempts to discount the coastal sage by stating that it is outside the project footprint area. 6 Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951. 7 Id.
8 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15300.2(c).
04/23/2024 PH1 726 of 747

Vista City Council
April 16, 2024

Page 4 ends

A CEQA exemption is not appropriate “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.”9 CEQA broadly defines substantial evidence to include any “relevant information and reasonable inferences” that can be drawn from this information, including “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”10
As explained in the attached memorandum from Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (Exhibit B), the LLG Study provided by the applicant is inadequate as it does not address the all potential traffic impacts and safety concerns of the Project. First, the LLG Study used trip generation assumptions from the 1980s and 1990s that do not take into account modern car washes. Using the proper assumptions will dramatically alter the traffic impacts creating an LOS of F at the intersection of Business Park and Poinsettia. 11 Second, the near term cumulative conditions in the LLG Study are deficient and do not meet the City’s guidelines. Incorporation of the proper near term cumulative conditions is also likely to lead to significant traffic impacts. Finally, the location of the driveway requires moving the bus stop or the driveway which was not accounted for in the LLG Study. A proper analysis cannot be performed without determining the actual location of the bus stop and drive way.

Because there is a fair argument that the Project will create a significant traffic impact, a CEQA exemption is improper and the City must conduct proper environmental review.

D.A CEQA Exemption Is Improper Because There Is A Reasonable Possibility The Project Will Cause A Significant Noise Impact
A separate and independent reason the Project should not be approved is the likelihood of a significant noise impact. The study provided by MD Acoustics is flawed and cannot be relied upon.

RNS Acoustics conducted a peer review of MD Acoustics' Noise Impact Study and found significant errors in its analysis and assumptions. (See Exhibit C.) In using the applicant’s own assumptions, when properly analyzed at the nearest property line, the noise levels would actually be at least of 14.5 dB over the permitted limit. The MD Acoustics study is also flawed in its ambient noise assessment because it only evaluated 1 hour in the morning and the car wash hours would be from 7am to 9pm.

Based on the RNS Acoustics analysis, substantial evidence exists that the Project will create a significant noise impact. Once the Project is evaluated with the proper parameters, it is clear that the Project would exceed the City's CEQA significance thresholds and violate the City’s municipal code. Once evidence is found to be substantial, it is not appropriate for an agency to weigh that evidence against other contrary evidence.12 Rather, once there is substantial evidence in the record of a significant impact, the City has an obligation to conduct further environmental review and prepare an EIR.13
9 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75. 10 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 (a), (b).
11 LLG has used higher and more appropriate assumptions in other recent studies. See example attached to Exhibit B. 12 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903,935. 13 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359. 04/23/2024 PH1 727 of 747

Vista City Council
April 16, 2024

Page 5 ends

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident the Project raises significant concerns regarding its compliance with applicable regulations and its potential environmental impacts. The insufficiencies in the environmental analysis, inconsistencies with General Plan policies, and the presence of sensitive habitat underscore the necessity for thorough review and mitigation. The inadequacies in addressing traffic and noise impacts further emphasize the need for further environmental review before approving the Project.

Therefore, in the interest of upholding environmental standards and ensuring proper scrutiny of the Project, we respectfully urge the City Council to grant the appeal denying the project, or alternatively, to continue the hearing until comprehensive environmental review and proper mitigation measures have been undertaken.

Sincerely,

AUSTIN LEGAL GROUP, APC
Gina M. Austin, Esq.
cc: Michael Ressler
Patsy Chow
Esmeralda Romero
John Conley
04/23/2024 PH1 728 of 747

EXHIBIT A
Letter to Planning Commission
04/23/2024 PH1 729 of 747

Austin Legal Group

LAWYERS
3990 OLD TOWN AVE, STE A-112
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

LICENSED IN

CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA & TEXAS

TELEPHONE
(619)924-9600

FACSIMILE
(619)881-0045
Writer’s Email:
[email protected]
March 4, 2024
VIA EMAIL:

March 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

Commission hearing, our office requested the additional technical reports. As of the submittal of this letter we have not received copies of the reports.

DISCUSSION

A. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Is Inapplicable Because the Project Is Not Consistent With All Applicable General Plan Policies

1 The only reference to the Green Building Code at all is with regard to a condition of approval for EV charging stations.
04/23/2024 PH1 731 of 747

March 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

actually considered the applicable policies. Because no such evidence exists, the Planning Commission should reject the recommended exemption and direct Staff to conduct further environmental review.

B.There is a Reasonable Possibility the Project will Cause a Significant Noise Impact The CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 exemption is inapplicable when there are unusual circumstances. The “unusual circumstances” exception precludes the use of any categorical exemption when there is a “reasonable possibility” that the project “will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) There is clearly a “reasonable possibility” that this Project will have a significant effect on the environment related to noise impacts because a carwash by its very nature is noisy. The Noise Study recommends mitigation measures in section 8.3. Such mitigation measures, create at a minimum, the need for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set for above, it is imperative that the Planning Commission deny the Project or, in the alternative, continue this hearing until such time as proper review of the Project has occurred. The City's reliance on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 exemption is improper, as the Project does not appear to be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, and there is a reasonable possibility of significant noise impacts. Furthermore, the lack of transparency regarding the application date and the failure to provide all necessary technical reports for review further underscore the need for additional analysis. It is essential that the Planning Commission ensures full compliance with CEQA and thoroughly evaluates the Project's potential environmental impacts before making any decisions. Thank you for considering our request.

Sincerely,

AUSTIN LEGAL GROUP, APC
Gina M. Austin, Esq.
cc: Michael Ressler [email protected]
04/23/2024 PH1 732 of 747

Exhibit B
Urban Systems Letter
04/23/2024 PH1 733 of 747

ATTN:

Genie Vista, LLC
c/o Gina Austin, Esq.

E-Mail:
▼[email protected]
om
FROM:Justin P. Schlaefli PE TE TOTAL PAGES (Including Cover):2+Attachment s
DATE:April 3, 2024
TIME: 5:35:02
PM JOB NUMBER:N/A
SUBJECT:Business Park & Poinsettia Car Wash Transportation Comments (Peer Review)
Confidential Communications
This transmittal is intended for the recipient named above. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, this entire communication is confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this information. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, at our expense and destroy the information.

As requested, we have reviewed the Business Park & Poinsettia Car Wash project Local Transportation Study dated September 2023 and prepared by LLG Engineers. This peer review was conducted to determine consistency with applicable guidelines and practice within the transportation industry and based on substantial experience preparing and reviewing similar studies throughout the Southern California region. This includes studies of other car washes throughout the region. Based on this review, we find the study to not adequately address the whole potential transportation and safety impacts of the project.

As stated in the City of Vista, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (page 20), the purpose of a Local Transportation Study is as follows:
“City Planning, in coordination with Traffic Engineering, determines the need for a transportation analysis in conformance with the CEQA guidelines and City policies. The City recognizes the changes to CEQA regarding SB 743 implementation and the requirements for VMT analysis. Additionally, the City recognizes the need to maintain consistency with the most recently adopted General Plan’s Circulation Element and may require a Local Transportation Study or Local Transportation Assessment.” Further, the Guidelines state:
“An LTS will analyze the project’s influence on the surrounding intersections and roadway network utilizing level of service (LOS) for all project scenarios. The document also includes the identification 1 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92126 • (858) 560-4911 04/23/2024 PH1 734 of 747

April 3, 2024
of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities. The purpose of an LTS is to ensure the goals, objectives, and policies adopted by the City are supported and implemented while monitoring the traffic safety, capacity, and daily operations of the roadway network”.

Comments:

1. Trip Generation Assumptions are based on SANDAG studies which were conducted in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The SANDAG reference used does not reflect modern car washes and therefore, may not be the most representative trip generation based on other studies. Consulting our file for similar car washes with more recent data, the attached study was found. The trip generation rates from the study, conducted by the same consultant, would indicate that modern car wash designs, similar to what is proposed for the site have unique characteristics which could significantly alter the trip generation assumptions contained in the study. The trip generation and resulting scoping, study area, distribution and other transportation related items based on the trip generation should be updated consistent with the most recent data and studies. As noted in the City Guidelines (page 11), “In the event the land use is unique, the project applicant, in agreement with the City Traffic Engineer, should collect trip generation data at a minimum of two similar project sites”. As reflected in the attached study, trip generation for the type of car wash proposed is distinguishable from the type of car wash contained in the SANDAG reference and therefore, not necessarily reflective of what is expected to be constructed on the site.

2. The Near Term Cumulative conditions contained in the study appear to be deficient. The list of “other projects” only contains projects within the City of Vista jurisdiction even though the City of Carlsbad is adjacent. These conditions should be updated to include City of Carlsbad projects. It is noted that the City Guidelines (Page 22) do not exclude projects in adjacent jurisdictions and discuss this condition as follows: “The near-term base condition is determined by first applying a 1% annual growth factor to existing traffic volumes to account for background ambient growth in traffic. Next, traffic volumes generated by other approved or pending development projects anticipated to be constructed by the proposed project opening year are added to the adjusted existing traffic volume.”

3. There is a significant capacity constraint shown at the intersection of Business Park/Poinsettia in the Southbound Left Turn direction. According to the study, this movement is significantly exacerbated by the project resulting in an unacceptable level of service (175.1 second delay/ level of service “F”). This delay and level of service would significant impact operations at this intersection and should be corrected through adjusting the timing assumptions within the analysis software to re-allocate green time and alleviate this deficient condition.

4. The site plan driveway appears to conflict with the existing bus stop. The location of the bus stop will need to be moved which could impact transit service. This impact should be evaluated and disclosed.

Based on the forgoing comments, there appears to be insufficient information to support a determination that the proposed project would avoid significant and unmitigable transportation impacts or be inconsistent with General Plan Policies and Goals. The study should be corrected to address the comments above. Should additional impacts arise or conclusions change, the study should address the new items which may arise in addressing the comments.
2 8451 Miralani Drive, Suite A • San Diego, CA 92126 • (858) 560-4911 04/23/2024 PH1 735 of 747

ARBOR CAR WASH

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
Prepared for:

Mr. Alan Smith
Southwest Design Group
12223 Highland Ave., Ste. 106-201
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Prepared by:

Scott Sato, P.E.
4225 Oceanside Blvd., 354H
Oceanside, CA 92056
(760) 291-1400
TRAMES SOLUTIONS INC.TRAMES SOLUTIONS INC.
(0301-0001-03)
04/23/2024 PH1 736 of 747

ARBOR CAR WASH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (0301-0001-03_ARBOR CAR WASH TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT.DOC;)

4.0 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section of the report quantifies the number of trips generated by the proposed project and other known developments in the area.

A. Project Traffic

1.Ambient Growth Rate
Some traffic volume increases on roadways can be attributed to vehicles originating outside of the study area. These types of trips either end up within the study area or pass-through onto an outside destination. Therefore, to account for these trips (termed ³ambient growth´), a growth rate can be applied to existing traffic volumes.

A 2 ambient growth rate that has been used in this study to account for traffic not attributed to the project or other planned developments within the study area. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Transportation Department staff has previously reviewed and approved this rate.

2.Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is attracted and produced by a development. The trip generation for the project is based upon the specific land use which has been planned for this development. For the purpose of this analysis, the following land use assumption is evaluated:
x An automated car wash facility with a 140 foot long tunnel The amount of vehicular trips generated by a project is typically determined from the trip rates included in the ITE Trip Generation manual. The latest version (10th edition) only provides the PM peak hour rate for one observation. Therefore, due to the small data set collected by ITE for an automated car wash, empirical count data has been collected at a Fast 5 ;press car wash in the City of Murrieta (Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Jackson Ave.) to determine the amount of peak hour and daily vehicles that occur at this facility. Trip generation rates for the proposed development are driven by the amount of cars that can be washed during the peak hour. It is our understanding that a higher number of cars can be washed as the length of the service tunnel is increased. Therefore, the peak hour and daily trip rates shown in Table 4-1 were based on tunnel length.

The daily and peak hour trip generations for the proposed project are shown on Table 4-2. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 710 new trip-ends per day with 37 new vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 66 new vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that a pass by reduction (AM-37, PM-35) and a 5 internal trip 1504/23/2024 PH1 737 of 747

ARBOR CAR WASH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (0301-0001-03_ARBOR CAR WASH TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT.DOC;) reduction was assumed. The pass-by reduction percentages were based on a survey conducted at the Lighting Express Car Wash (17111 Hawthorne Blvd., Lawndale, CA).

TABLE 4-1

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES

LAND USE

SOURCE QUANTITY
PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES1
DAILY
AM PM

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Automated Car Wash Empirical
Data 140 Feet 0.25 0.21 0.46 0.38 0.41 0.79 8.45
1 Source: Fast 5 ;press car wash in the City of Murrieta (Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Jackson Ave.) TABLE 4-2

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

LAND USE QUANTITY

PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM PM

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Arbor Car Wash 140 Feet 35 29 64 53 57 111 1,183
Pass-by Reduction (AM–37%:PM–35%)1 -13 -11 -24 -19 -20 -39 -414 Internal Trip Reduction (5%) -2 -1 -3 -3 -3 -6 -59
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS 20 17 37 31 34 66 710
1 Pass-by reduction percentages were based on surveys at Lightning Express Car Wash, 17111 Hawthorne Blvd, Lawndale, CA

3. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The project’s trip distribution patterns are based on the proximity of the project to the proposed driveway locations, the surrounding trip attractors, and the regional freeway interchanges. The trip distribution pattern for the project is illustrated on Figure 4-A.

4. Other Trip Generation Factors
The project land use is comprised of primary, pass-by and internal traffic. Primary traffic refers to trips that are intending to go to the project as their primary destination. Pass-by traffic consists of vehicles that stop at the site on their way to a primary destination. Internal traffic consists of trips that are anticipated to occur between the future gas station and those that go to the project. A 5 reduction in traffic has been assumed for these trips.

1604/23/2024 PH1 738 of 747

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT

NEWPORT POINTE
Menifee, California
April 28, 2021
(Update of the April 5, 2021 Report)
Prepared for:

Salim Development Group, LLC
1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 202
Corona, CA 92882
LLG Ref. 2-18-3987-1
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:

Zawwar Saiyed, P.E. Keil D. Maberry, P.E.

Senior Transportation Engineer Principal
&
Justin Tucker
Transportation Engineer II
04/23/2024 PH1 739 of 747

5.1 Project Trip Generation Forecast
Trip generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017].

Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed Project. As shown in Table 5-1, the trip generation potential for the proposed Project was estimated using ITE Land Use Code 492: Health Fitness Club rates, ITE Land Use Code 565:

Day Care Center rates, ITE Land Use Code 850: Supermarket rates, ITE Land Use Code 930: Fast Casual Restaurant rates, ITE Land Use Code 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window rates, and Express Car Wash rates derived from traffic counts conducted on Friday, February 7, 2014 at the Victorville Speedwash located at 12147 Industrial Boulevard. Appendix B also contains the traffic count data for the Victorville Speedwash.

Table 5-2 presents the daily and peak hour Project traffic volume forecast for a “typical” weekday.

The bottom portion of Table 5-2 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate 5,518 daily trips, with 246 trips (141 inbound, 105 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 456 trips (240 inbound, 216 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour.

Please note that the aforementioned overall project trip generation includes adjustments for internal capture and for pass-by as recommended by ITE. The Project trip generation for the grocery store, fast-food restaurant, express car wash, and fast casual restaurant project components include adjustments for pass-by trips per the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, published by ITE (2014), to account for trips that are already in the everyday traffic stream on the adjoining streets (i.e. Newport Road) and will stop as they pass by the Project site as a matter of convenience on their path to another destination. Per the Trip Generation Handbook, pass-by reduction factors for the express car wash land use are not provided, thus pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 820:

Shopping Center were utilized, which has a PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 34%. The daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages for the express car wash land use were estimated to be 10%.

The daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages were estimated to be 10% for the express car wash land use. The Trip Generation Handbook recommends a PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 36% for the grocery store land use. The daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages were estimated to be 10% for the grocery store land use. The Trip Generation Handbook recommends an AM peak hour pass-by percentage of 49% and a PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 50% for the fast-food restaurant land use. The daily pass-by percentage was estimated to be 25% for the fast-food restaurant land use. Given that the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition does not provide pass-by reduction factors for the fast casual restaurant land use, pass-by reduction factors for ITE Land Use 932: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were utilized, which has a PM peak hour pass-by percentage of 43%. The daily and AM peak hour pass-by percentages for the fast casual restaurant land use were estimated to be 10%.
04/23/2024 PH1 740 of 747

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-18-3987-1 Newport Pointe, Menifee
N:\3900\2183987 - Newport Pointe, Menifee\1 - Report\3987 - Newport Pointe Project Final TIA, 04-28-21.docx 14 The trip generation methodology and forecasts were approved by City of Menifee staff prior to proceeding with further analysis.

5.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The general, directional trip distribution pattern for the proposed Project is presented in Figure 5-1.

Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:
▪the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. Newport Road, the I-215 Freeway, etc.), ▪expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals,
▪ingress/egress availability at the Project site, and
▪input from City of Menifee staff.

The anticipated AM and PM peak hour Project volumes associated with the proposed Project are presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively. In addition, Figure 5-3 also presents the daily traffic volumes for the key study roadway segments. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 5-2 and 5-3 reflect the trip distribution characteristics shown in Figure 5-1 and the trip generation forecast presented in Table 5-1.
04/23/2024 PH1 741 of 747

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-18-3987-1 Newport Pointe, Menifee
N:\3900\2183987 - Newport Pointe, Menifee\1 - Report\3987 - Newport Pointe Project Final TIA, 04-28-21.docx 16 TABLE 5-2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST11
F
ITE Land Use Code /
Project Description
Daily
2-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Project Trip Generation Forecast:
▪Fast Casual Restaurants (10,370 SF)3,268 14 7 21 81 66 147 Internal Capture Reduction (Daily: 36%, AM: 48%, PM: 37%)12 -1,172 -7 -3 -10 -25 -29 -54 Subtotal 2,096 7 4 11 56 37 93
Pass-By Reduction (Daily: 10%, AM: 10%, PM: 43%)13 -210 -1 0 -1 -24 -16 -40 Fast Casual Restaurants Total 1,886 6 4 10 32 21 53
▪Grocery Store (18,041 SF)1,926 41 28 69 85 82 167
Internal Capture Reduction (Daily: 43%, AM: 28%, PM: 25%)12 -821 -13 -6 -19 -24 -17 -41 Subtotal 1,105 28 22 50 61 65 126
Pass-By Reduction (Daily: 10%, AM: 10%, PM: 36%)13 -111 -3 -2 -5 -22 -23 -45 Grocery Store Total 994 25 20 45 39 42 81
▪Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through (800 SF)377 16 16 32 14 12 26 Internal Capture Reduction (Daily: 36%, AM: 47%, PM: 39%)12 -135 -8 -7 -15 -5 -5 -10 Subtotal 242 8 9 17 9 7 16
Pass-By Reduction (Daily: 25%, AM: 49%, PM: 50%)13 -61 -4 -4 -8 -5 -3 -8 Grocery Store Total 181 4 5 9 4 4 8
▪Day Care Center (160 Students)654 66 59 125 59 67 126
Internal Capture Reduction (Daily: 12%, AM: 24%, PM: 7%)12 -81 -8 -22 -30 -2 -7 -9 Day Care Center Total 573 58 37 95 57 60 117
▪Express Car Wash (110 Linear Feet of Wash Tunnel)1,306 41 31 72 68 70 138 Internal Capture Reduction (Daily: 43%, AM: 28%, PM: 25%)12 -556 -14 -6 -20 -20 -14 -34 Subtotal 750 27 25 52 48 56 104
Pass-By Reduction (Daily: 10%, AM: 10%, PM: 34%)13 -75 -3 -2 -5 -16 -19 -35 Express Car Wash Total 675 24 23 47 32 37 69
▪Health Fitness Club (40,000 SF)1,380 27 25 52 79 59 138 Internal Capture Reduction (Daily: 12%, AM: 23%, PM: 7%)12 -171 -3 -9 -12 -3 -7 -10 Health Fitness Club Total 1,209 24 16 40 76 52 128
Gross Project Trip Generation (No Reductions) 8,911 205 166 371 386 356 742 Net Driveway Trip Generation (Internal Capture Reduction Only) 5,975 152 113 265 307 277 584 Total Net Project Trip Generation (Int. Cap. & Pass-By Reductions)5,518 141 105 246 240 216 456 11 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2017)]. 12 Consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, published by ITE (2014), Project trip generation was adjusted to account for internal capture between the retail, grocery store, restaurant, day care, car wash, gas station, and oil/lube service station components of th e Project. 13 Source: Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, published by ITE (2014). Pass-by trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets, which contain direct access to the generator.
04/23/2024 PH1 743 of 747

Exhibit C
RNS Accoustics Letter

04/23/2024 PH1 744 of 747

Phone: 858 224 3959
4858 Mercury St, Suite 106, San Diego, CA 92111
WWW.RNSACOUSTICS.COM | [email protected]
April 12, 2024
Genie Vista LLC
c/o Gina Austin, Esq.

RE: Quick Quack Car Wash Vista, CA Noise Impact Study Peer Review We have reviewed the Noise Impact Study submitted by MD Acoustics in regards Business Park & Poinsettia Car Wash project dated 11/28/2023. Based on our review, we have found that there are likely to be significant noise impacts which violate the City of Vista Municipal Code Noise Ordinance.

Property Line Noise Impacts
Section 8.32.040 of the City of Vista Municipal Code states the following:
“Except as provided in section 36.409 of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise, which exceeds the one-hour average sound level limits in Table

36.404, when the one-hour average sound level is measured at the property line of the property on which the noise is produced or at any location on a property that is receiving the noise.” This clause indicates that any noise generated should be evaluated for compliance at property line of the noise source as well as any location of receiving properties.

The blowers at the end of the car wash tunnel are expected to be the loudest noise sources during typical operations of the facility. Based on the current site plan, the blowers are approximately 42ft from the nearest property line (North). Modelling by MD Acoustics predicts the noise level of the blowers to be 103 dBA measured at 5 ft (Table 1, pg. 15 of MD Acoustics Study) The blowers are considered to be stationary point sources with respect to sound propagation. For point sources, the sound reduction over a certain distance follows the inverse square law which states that sound is attenuated at a rate of 6dB per doubling of distance (Section 3.7, pg. 7 of MD Acoustics Study):
dL = Lp2 - Lp = 10 log (R2 / R1)2
= 20 log (R2 / R1)
where
dL = difference in sound pressure level (dB)
Lp1 = sound pressure level at location 1 (dB)
Lp2 = sound pressure level at location 2 (dB)
R1 = distance from source to location 1 (ft)
R2 = distance from source to location 2 (ft)
Using the provided sound pressure level value of 103 dBA at 5ft for R1 and the distance of the nearest property line of 42ft for R2, the resulting sound pressure level at the property line due to the blowers is calculated to be 84.5 dBA. The current site plan shows the ground between the blowers and the property line as hard surface, which does not provide additional sound absorption.

Based on this analysis, we expect the sound level at the nearest property line to be approx. 84.5 dBA which exceeds the 70 dBA sound limits in Table 8.32.040 for Vista Business Park by 14.5 dB The MD Acoustics noise impact study summarizes their findings of compliance in Table 3, pg. 18 of their report. This table indicates various receptor locations that were evaluated. However, all the locations (R1 – R4) are at great distances from the source property line as required by the City of Vista Municipal Code. A sound level map is also provided (Exhibit F, pg. 20 of MD Acoustics Study) that shows the propagation of noise from the blowers, however, the contours (blue) that cover the areas needed to establish compliance include all noise greater than 65 dBA. This means that any receiver area within the blue contour could represent a sound level as high as 103 dBA.
04/23/2024 PH1 745 of 747

Ambient Noise
The second metric used for indicating a significant noise impact is the contribution of the project to the current ambient noise profile.

A significant increase to ambient noise is defined as greater than 3 dB of the current ambient noise level. (Table 8.32.040(c) City of Vista Municipal Code)
The expected hours of operation for the facility is 7AM – 9PM, 7 days a week. In reviewing the ambient study done by MD Acoustics, it was found that only a single hour of noise was utilized for their ambient noise evaluation at the proposed project site. The measurement was conducted at 8:30am and consisted of primarily traffic from the nearby roadway. An hourly average of 69 dBA was measured for this hour.

Given the car wash operation hours, we would expect the ambient noise to be much less than 69 dBA for the evening hours between 6pm – 9pm. This would lower the ambient noise threshold causing significant ambient noise impacts.

Based on our findings in the previous section, the hourly ambient noise at the nearest property line is expected to be approx. 84.5 dBA.

This is greater than 10 dB of the single hour measurement previously measured by MD Acoustics and is likely even higher if the ambient noise is evaluated for the entire duration of noise generating activities. Both scenarios result in a project plus ambient noise increase of greater than 3 dB which exceeds requirements by the City of Vista.

Conclusions
Based on our peer review of the noise impact study provided by MD Acoustics in support of Quick Quack Car Wash, it is our professional opinion that the project will generate significant noise impacts for neighboring properties. It is expected to exceed the nearest property line noise limits by a minimum of 14.5 dB due to the quantity and location of the blowers. The ambient noise due to the car wash operations is also expected increase by 14.5 dB at the same location.

We recommend that the study be corrected to address these potential impacts and mitigation measures be implemented to ensure the thresholds set by City of Vista Noise Ordinance are met.

Sincerely,
RNS Acoustics
Ryan Sema
President, CEO
RNS Acoustics, LLC
04/23/2024 PH1 746 of 747

EXHIBIT 8: PROJECT PLANS

FULL SIZE (LIMITED DISTRIBUTION)
04/23/2024 PH1 747 of 747
EXHIBIT 8

Date: April 23, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ressler, City Planner
Joseph Vacca, Community Development Director
Subject: PH1, Quick Quack Car Wash, Addition of Planning Division Conditions No. 7(l) and 7(m)
City staff is requesting that the City Council add Planning Division Conditions No. 7(l) and 7(m) as shown in italics text below:

7.General Requirements
l.Noise generated by the approved facility shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (VMC Chapter 8.32), including the applicable property line noise standards. Compliance with the noise standards shall be tested and documented prior to final inspection and opening of the car wash.
m.If avoidance of construction activities during the avian breeding season (typically February 1 through August 31) is not feasible, the Applicant and/or Owner shall hire a Qualified Biological Monitor with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to conduct a pre- construction bird survey beginning 30 days prior to initiation of any construction activities. The bird surveys shall be conducted to detect the nests of protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area (and/or within 500 feet for raptors). If nesting activity is not detected, construction may proceed.

The Qualified Biological Monitor shall immediately notify the City

ADD TO PACKET
PH1

4882-1449-4391, v. 1 2
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 and Wildlife. Based on the submitted information, the City Planner, in consultation with the Qualified Biological Monitor, will determine whether to allow the narrower buffer.

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com T
F

April 22, 2024 By E-Mail

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
c/o City Clerk
Kathy Valdez
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Dr.

Vista, California 92084
[email protected]
Re: April 23, 2024 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item PH1, Appeal of P23-0298, Quick Quack Car Wash
Responses to Genie Vista, LLC Appeal and April 16, 2024 Letter regarding Quick Quack Car Wash Special Use and Site Development Permits APN: 221-661-03-00
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:

We write on behalf of Newmark Merrill Companies, Inc. (Newmark) to address the administrative appeal and letter submitted by Austin Legal Group on behalf of Genie Vista, LLC (April 16 letter) regarding the Quick Quack Car Wash project (Project). Genie Vista, a commercial business, has challenged the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and the City’s determination of its exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to delay or derail a perceived competing project.

In this letter, we correct inaccuracies and respond to comments raised in the April 16 letter, its attachments, and exhibits. The City has required that the Project undergo extensive review, including analysis by City staff, environmental consultants, and the Planning Commission during an open, thorough, planning, and environmental review and public hearing process. Contrary to the April 16 letter, public notices have been provided in the manner set forth in the City Code, including by mailing notice to all properties within 500 feet, by posting, and by publication. The City, in conjunction with the Project applicant, have thoroughly and timely addressed all comments received, and responded to every issue raised, none of which pose a barrier to the City’s approval of the Project.

We urge the City Council to review this letter response, along with the staff reports, expert consultant findings, and Planning Commission approval, deny the appeal, and affirm the Project’s CEQA exemption.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 2 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Discussion
A.The Project is Exempt Under the Infill Exemption Set forth at CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 because the Project is Consistent with All Applicable General Plan Policies
As grounds for the appeal, the April 16 letter asserts that “various General Plan policies are inconsistent with the Project,” presenting a selective list of purported inconsistencies. In response, the Project qualifies for an exemption under the Class 32 categorical exemption for In- Fill Development Projects, as described in Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project satisfies all five criteria for the infill exemption:
(a) The Project is consistent with the designations and all applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance;
(b) The development is situated within City limits on a site of less than five acres, surrounded predominantly by urban uses;
(c) The Project site does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d) Project approval would not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site is adequately served by all required public utilities and services.

The Project’s satisfaction of the above criteria is supported by detailed facts and findings in the City’s staff report and analyses conducted by expert consultants working on the Project.

First, the Project aligns with, is permitted under, and consistent with, the site’s zoning designation of Vista Business Park Specific Plan Area “A” and the General Plan's GC – General Commercial designation. The Project is also consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, including those referenced in the April 16 letter, as discussed in detail below.

Second, the April 16 letter misrepresents the legal standard to establish consistency with General Plan policies. Under the first element of the infill exemption, city officials are tasked to consider the applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the project conforms with those policies. The exemption is appropriate where supported by substantial evidence. (United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1090; Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 271-273.)
Importantly, “‘[s]tate law does not require perfect conformity between a proposed project and the applicable general plan.’” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755,

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 3 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
776.) Instead, compatibility with the plan's objectives, policies, general land uses, or programs, or being “in harmony” with the plan's policies, suffices. (Id.; Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 411-412; Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1124.) An agency possesses broad discretion to interpret and balance the plan’s policies in light of its purposes. (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 515-518; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 720; Pacific Palisades Residents Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1338, 1366.) Significant deference is accorded to an agency’s consistency determination. (Ibid.)

1. The Project Is Consistent with Resource Conservation & Sustainability (RCS) Policy 4.6.

The April 16 letter asserts the Project is inconsistent with RCS Policy 4.6 by converting 0.73 acres of pervious land into impervious pavement.

In response and contrary to the comment, RCS Policy 4.6 does not mandate the use of permeable pavers or other specific materials or require the entire site remain pervious. Rather, the policy offers permeable pavers as an illustrative example of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques that can be employed to manage stormwater and urban runoff effectively. Specifically, RCS Policy 4.6 provides as follows:

Require the incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques in accordance with current stormwater regulations to manage stormwater and urban runoff, reduce runoff and pollution, and assist in maintaining or restoring the natural hydrology of the site. Examples of LID techniques include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Use permeable paving or pavers for sidewalks and parking areas instead of impervious material, such as concrete and asphalt.
b. Incorporate bioretention facilities, such as cells (small -scale shallow vegetated depressions), bioswales, (linear bioretention features that may mimic natural stream channels), tree box filters (stand -alone or connected mini - bioretention areas that are installed beneath trees), and other bioretention features in site design for development projects and subdivisions.
c. Utilize rain barrels and cisterns to manage rooftop runoff and /or utilize rooftop runoff to provide water for irrigating lawns and gardens. d. Install street trees in stand-alone or connected tree box filters. (Emphasis added.)

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 4 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
The Project aligns with RCS Policy 4.6 by incorporating LID techniques in accordance with current stormwater regulations, as detailed in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (January 17, 2024). Consistent with Policy 4.6, the Project incorporates LID techniques in accordance with current stormwater regulations. The Project’s stormwater plan demonstrates the Project's use of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) and LID techniques, including:
• Recapturing and recycling car wash discharge to minimize runoff; • Designing impervious areas to recycle runoff from the washing area; • Implementing landscaping to reduce irrigation needs and promote surface infiltration, avoiding use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution. Indeed, extensive landscaping is provided covering approximately 23% of the Project site.
• Minimizing impervious surfaces to essential drive aisles, parking spaces, and walkable areas.
• Incorporating pervious soil sections and open planter modular wetland systems for stormwater retention and treatment.

These techniques are integral to the Project’s design, shown throughout Project plans, and are consistent with RCS Policy 4.6 objectives.

Further, the Project is subject to uniform development conditions ensuring compliance with current stormwater regulations. Engineering Conditions 6 (A)-(L) require submission and approval of a stormwater quality management plan (SWQMP) incorporating BMPs in accordance with City and regional water quality standards. Concerning construction, conditions also require the Project to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities.

The LID techniques incorporated in the SWQMP are appropriate for this Project and consistent with RCS Policy 4.6. By contrast, increasing pervious area, as described by the April 16 comment, would exacerbate stormwater and runoff as it would hinder the Project's ability to capture and recycle runoff from the washing area effectively.

For each of these reasons, the Project is consistent and in harmony with RCS Policy 4.6.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 5 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS

2. The Project Is Consistent with Resource Conservation & Sustainability Policy 5.2.

The April 16 letter comments that the Project is inconsistent with RCS Policy 5.2 because “there is sensitive habitat but the Project is not designed to insure mitigating those impacts.” In response, RCS Policy 5.2 states:

In areas that are adjacent to sensitive vegetation and /or wildlife communities, continue to require development, uses, and activities to be designed and managed to ensure minimal impacts to those resources. Examples include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Provide buffers or barriers between the development and the biological resources. Buffers from the edge of the existing natural tree canopy should be established based on scientific analysis of the existing site conditions and the development proposal by a qualified biologist. New buildings or parking areas should not be permitted within any buffer area.
b. Prohibit parking lots and other developed areas from draining into sensitive resources.
c. Require land uses that use chemicals or fertilizers or generate by- products that are potentially toxic or harmful to wildlife, sensitive species, and habitats to incorporate measures to mitigate those impacts.
d. Require development to incorporate measures that avoid degradation of habitats from erosion and sedimentation.
e. Ensure that sensitive species are protected from night lighting from nearby development.
f. Mitigate noise impacts from development, uses, or activities on nearby sensitive species through noise reduction measures and /or restriction of hours during the breeding season of sensitive species.
g. Require development that is adjacent to sensitive resources to landscape their sites with native, non-invasive vegetation that is similar to or compatible with the adjacent resources; and prohibit horticultural regimes (irrigation, fertilization, pest control, and pruning) that could alter site conditions in natural areas. h. Enforce fire and brush management plans so that both biological and safety goals are met.

Based on a review of RCS Policy 5.2, the Project has been designed to minimize and avoid impacts in a manner fully consistent with this policy.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 6 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
First, Project plans and the SWQMP demonstrate a deliberate effort to avoid the Diegan Coastal sage scrub area during development. Diegan Coastal sage scrub would be fully avoided, as it is located downslope of the Project site and protective fencing will be utilized as a barrier between the site and sage scrub during construction, followed by the post-construction installation of a

9.5-foot plantable retaining wall along the northern edge. These barriers would protect it from potential indirect impacts such as human encroachment and trampling during Project construction and operation.

Second, the Project site is served by all required public utilities (e.g., stormwater, sewer), and the Project would connect to those utilities; therefore, drainage from the site would not flow into the Diegan coastal sage scrub remaining on site (or into the canyon off site to the north). Further, the SWQMP contains required measures to prevent drainage into sensitive resources and minimize habitat degradation from erosion and sedimentation. It also specifies the avoidance of impactful fertilizers and pesticides.

Third, the Project has been designed and conditioned to minimize night lighting. Project lighting will be consistent with City Development Code Section 18.58.260 (Outdoor Lighting Facilities and/or Fixtures). Planning Condition 2(e) requires lighting to be designed, located, and directed so that it is confined to the building site, with minimum reflectance off-site, with parking lot lighting reduced to a minimum after 11:00 p.m. Lighting that could spill into the Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat would be shielded and projected downward to minimize potential light emission into those habitat areas. The City Planner must review and approve nighttime security light levels prior to Project occupancy. The Photometric Plan provided as part of the Site Development Plan depicts the proposed lighting location and design.

Fourth, the Noise Study prepared by Salem Engineering, Inc. shows noise impacts would be less than significant. Gnatcatcher was not observed or detected on the Project site or surrounding survey area, and the Project would directly impact only disturbed habitat and developed areas. If gnatcatcher were to occur nearby the site, the project is required to comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code requirements. To clarify these requirements, the applicant has agreed to and recommends the addition of a standard condition outlining these requirements. (See, Attachment.)
Construction and operational noise will be further controlled through restricted hours and other standard development conditions. Construction activity would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, subject to limited exceptions; and hours of operation would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (See Engineering Condition (f)(1), Planning Condition (5)(a).) Other standard and uniform development conditions would further reduce noise, including: landscape conditions requiring conformance with planting plans and maintenance of screening shrubs; construction air quality conditions limiting idling and promoting use of electric equipment; storm water conditions

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 7 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
implementing setbacks and fencing; and standard environmental conditions (12)(a)-(k), requiring compliance with the City’s Noise Control Ordinance (e.g., Standard Environmental Condition 12 (a)-(k)).

Fifth, Project landscaping would comply with the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 18.56) and its Landscape Manual, featuring native and drought-tolerant species as described in the Project landscape plan. (See Landscape Standard Condition 17.) Additionally, eradication of invasive species would be part of clearly identified maintenance activities. (See Landscape Standard Condition 21.) Finally, standard fire conditions would be implemented to ensure compliance with environmental and safety goals, addressing fire hydrant flows, fire sprinklers, access, and extinguishers.

Accordingly, the Project is consistent and in harmony with RCS Policy 5.2 by proactively incorporating measures to avoid and/or substantially minimize any potential impacts on nearby sensitive vegetation and wildlife communities.

3. The Project Is Consistent with Circulation Element Policies 1.2 and 1.5.

The April 16 letter asserts the Project is inconsistent with Circulation Policies 1.2 and 1.5 because “the LOS will be ‘F’ at the intersection of Poinsettia and Business Park and no improvements have been proposed to mitigate for this.”
In response, and at the outset, the comment does not address the proper application of the CEQA infill exemption to the Project. Under CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21099 (b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay measures by level of service (LOS) or similar capacity or congestion metrics is not considered a significant impact on the environment.

Id. LOS has been replaced by Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in CEQA transportation analyses, as reflected in the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Senate Bill 743, and the CEQA Section 15064.3. While CEQA does not preclude agencies from also requiring a LOS or other traffic analysis, the adequacy of such an analysis is not a basis for challenge under CEQA. (See Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 624 [General Plan's impacts on LOS cannot constitute a significant environmental impact].)
In any event, the comment misinterprets the General Plan policies and delay standards. Policy

1.2 states merely states a goal to maintain LOS D in certain areas of the City, not a strict requirement. Policy 1.5 outlines mitigation options when LOS reaches “D” or below; while Policy 1.6 limits mitigation based on feasibility, funding availability, compatibility with surrounding land uses, compatibility with other City policies, or benefits gained for the other modes such as walking or biking.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 8 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Regarding the LOS at the referenced intersection, the Project's traffic analysis indicates the intersection would operate at LOS D, meeting the City's Circulation Element goal. Pursuant to the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Section 10, Local Transportation Study and Local Transportation Analysis Guidelines), the assessment of LOS considers the entire intersection's performance rather than individual movements, contrary to the commenter's claim of LOS F. The Local Transportation Study (LTS) Study supporting this conclusion was reviewed and approved by City traffic engineering staff, affirming that no mitigation is necessary.

Lastly, the Project incorporates significant improvements aligned with Circulation Element policies, including new sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, and bike lanes, demonstrating compliance with Policy 1.6 and other relevant policies.

Thus, the concerns raised regarding LOS at the intersection do not affect the Project’s eligibility for the CEQA infill exemption, and the Project's traffic analysis and planned improvements align with City policies to address circulation goals effectively. There is no inconsistency.

B. The Exemption Determination under Section 15332 is Proper Because the Project Site Does Not Contain Any Habitat for Endangered, Rare or Threatened Species.

The April 16 letter claims the “project site” has value as habitat for endangered rare or threatened species. The record before the Council clearly demonstrates the Project site contains no such habitat.

Regarding the definition of the "project site," the letter incorrectly argues that it encompasses the entire legal parcel rather than just the specific areas slated for development. Not so. Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, 960 is instructive here. In that case, the court clarified that for the purposes of the infill exemption (Section 15332), the “project site” comprised only the areas designated for disturbance or development. Despite the overall size of the “site” – 12 acres – “only 2.38 acres is being altered by the project.” (Id. at p. 960-961.) “No new development or construction activity related to the proposed project” would occur beyond that boundary. Thus, despite the overall size of the legal parcel, the “project site” considered in the applying the infill exemption was confined to specific portions—2.38 acres in that instance— where construction and alterations would occur.

Similarly, here, the Project’s biological resource study dated March 5, 2024 acknowledges that the legal parcel includes 0.1 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, located downslope of the developed portions of the Project site. This does not mean that the actual Project site contains habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The development footprint, as detailed in various Project plans such as the Landscape, Grading, Drainage, Utility, and Architectural Site

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 9 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Plans, clearly exclude the area containing sage scrub. This area will be entirely avoided and left untouched by the Project and thus is not part of the “Project site.” This conclusion aligns with Protect Tustin Ranch and the underlying environmental protection goals of CEQA. Moreover, if it were simply a matter of “moving” the 0.1 acres of sage scrub “offsite,” Newmark could simply re-draw plans to not show the area at all. Instead, the inclusion of this area on the plans—outside the Project site and development footprint—serves to emphasize its importance for avoidance, protection, and preservation during construction and operation activities.

Additionally, the Project applicant’s biota consultant has prepared an updated letter report, Biological Technical Letter for the Proposed Quick Quack Car Wash (April 2024), based on an additional biological resource reconnaissance at the site, that further refutes the April 16 letter.

See Exhibit 1. The updated biological letter report confirms the absence of any habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species onsite. The site was previously graded and is in a disturbed condition, and is generally surrounded by roadways, commercial, and industrial uses.

One sensitive vegetation community, Diegan coastal sage scrub, was mapped on the northern edge of the site; however, it occurs outside the proposed development limits and the proposed development would entirely avoid impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub.

Furthermore, the updated letter report confirms that no sensitive plant or animal species were observed or detected at the site; that no aquatic features exist onsite; and that the Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. For each of these reasons, the City’s exemption determination is proper.

C. The Exemption Determination is Proper because There Is No Reasonable Possibility the Project will Cause a Significant Traffic Impact, and No “Unusual Circumstances” Exist with this Car Wash Project The April 16 letter states a CEQA exemption is improper because unusual circumstances apply.

The letter states an exemption is not appropriate whenever there is a fair argument of a significant environmental effect. The letter then asserts the trip generation assumptions are inaccurate; that proper assumptions will alter the results concerning delay or “level of service” (LOS); that cumulative conditions in the study were deficient; and that the location of the bus stop and driveway requires moving one or the other.

In response, the comment fails to establish the applicability of the “unusual circumstances” exception to a categorical exemption.
“As to projects that meet the requirements of a categorical exemption, a party challenging the exemption has the burden of producing evidence supporting an

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 10 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
exception.” ([Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086] at p. 1105[].) For the unusual circumstances exception, this may be done in one of two ways. One may identify “evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” (Ibid.) Alternatively, one may show evidence (1) the project is unusual because it ‘has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location’; and (2) there is ‘a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance.’” (See Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, 961.) The April 16 letter lacks evidence to support its claim that the Project qualifies for an exception to the categorical exemption. It fails to demonstrate either a significant effect stemming from the Project or a unique feature that distinguishes it from the exempt class and would reasonably lead to significant traffic impacts.

The applicant's technical consultant, Linscott Law and Greenspan (LLG), has conducted a Local Transportation Study and provided an Updated Transportation Letter Report (attached) addressing the traffic comments raised. The analyses, which are referenced and included herein at Exhibit 2, affirm that the Project will not result in any significant traffic impacts.

Further, the Project does not possess unique characteristics that would set it apart from other developments falling under the same exemption. It comprises modest components—3,812 square feet of drive-through car wash buildings, parking, and vacuum areas—on a site occupying less than 5 acres within an already established business park. This scale and scope align closely with typical projects falling within the class eligible for the CEQA exemption.

For these reasons, the City’s exemption determination is proper and supported because there is no reasonable possibility the Project will cause a significant traffic impact and no “unusual circumstances” preclude reliance on the infill exemption.

D. The Exemption Determination is Proper because There Is No Reasonable Possibility the Project will Cause a Significant Noise Impact The April 16 letter claims the infill exemption is improper because there is a reasonable possibility of significant noise impacts. The letter cites comments in a letter from RNS Acoustics reviewing the Project noise study performed by MD Acoustics, and asserts the Project would exceed the City’s CEQA significance thresholds and violate the City’s municipal code.

The applicant's technical consultant, MD Acoustics, has reviewed and responded to the opinions of RNS Acoustics in an updated letter report, Special Use Permit P23-0298, Noise Impact Study City of Vista, CA; Response to Comments (April 2024), referenced and included herein at

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 11 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Exhibit 3. These responses confirm the accuracy of the noise analysis and conclusion that the Project will not result in any significant noise impacts.

Specifically, MD Acoustics clarifies that the prior noise study dated November 28, 2023 considered a worst-case scenario using very conservative assumptions that do not reflect typical anticipated daily noise levels at the site. These assumptions include constant operation of all onsite equipment (blowers, vacuums, and equipment); use of the loudest possible equipment; full queue of idling cars at all times; and that there would be no stopping or idling between use. In reality, actual car wash operations would see ebbs and flows of customers, non-constant operation; operation of some pieces of equipment but not others; potential use of quieter equipment; and idling between use, leading to significantly reduced noise levels when using the City’s Leq, time-averaged standard (the City’s Noise Ordinance uses a one-hour averaged standard.)
Additionally, the prior noise study did not account for the noise reduction provided by the 9.5- foot plantable retaining wall on the northern boundary or the differences in grade/height along that boundary. MD Acoustics has updated its analysis to incorporate these site conditions into the noise model.

Without adjusting the conservative assumptions and only accounting for the retaining wall and grade variations, MD Acoustics' updated report demonstrates that noise levels at the property line would be 70 dBA or below, well within the City's noise standards. With more realistic operating conditions—such as non-constant equipment operation and a less-than-full queue—the noise levels would be significantly lower and comfortably below the City's thresholds.

Furthermore, MD Acoustics explains that noise increases over ambient levels would be minimal (less than 1 dB) and below the City's significance thresholds. Additionally, the surrounding industrial area does not contain noise-sensitive land uses that would be adversely affected by the Project's noise emissions.

Finally, to confirm the noise analysis, the Project would be required to comply with the following additional standard noise condition agreed to by the applicant:

Noise generated by the approved facility shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (VMC Chapter 8.32), including the applicable property line noise standards. Compliance with the noise standards shall be tested and documented prior to final inspection and opening of the car wash.

This standard condition would ensure that the City’s noise standards are not exceeded by the Project.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 12 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Conclusion
In summary, the April 16 letter and its attachments fail to raise any significant issues related to the Project’s approval or CEQA compliance. We respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, and find it exempt from CEQA.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Kimberly A. Foy

Kimberly A. Foy
of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

Attachment
1) Recommended Additional Standard Conditions
Exhibits
1) Alden Environmental, Biological Technical Letter for the Proposed Quick Quack Car Wash, April 2024.
2) Linscott Law and Greenspan (LLG), Updated Transportation Letter Report, April 2024. 3) MD Acoustics, Special Use Permit P23-0298, Noise Impact Study City of Vista, CA; Response to Comments, April 2024.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
April 22, 2024

Page 13 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Attachment 1
Recommended Additional Standard Conditions
Biological Resources:

If avoidance of construction activities during the avian breeding season (typically February 1 through August 31) is not feasible, the Applicant and/or Owner shall hire a Qualified Biological Monitor with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to conduct a pre-construction bird survey beginning 30 days prior to initiation of any construction activities. The bird surveys shall be conducted to detect the nests of protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area (and/or within 500 feet for raptors). If nesting activity is not detected, construction may proceed.

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, 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 and Wildlife. Based on the submitted information, the City Planner, in consultation with the Qualified Biological Monitor, will determine whether to allow the narrower buffer.

Noise:

EXHIBIT "1"

1 April 22, 2024

Mr. Barret Bradley
NewMark Merrill Companies
427 College Boulevard, Suite K
Oceanside, CA 92057

Subject: Biological Technical Letter for the Proposed Quick Quack Car Wash

Dear Mr. Bradley:

This letter report presents the results of field investigations conducted on the proposed Quick Quack Car Wash project site to provide the City of Vista (City) and project applicant with information necessary to assess impacts to biological resources under applicable federal, State, and City regulations.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The approximately 1.0-acre legal parcel is in the City, northeast of the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue and Business Park Drive (APN 221-661-03-00; Figures 1 and 2). The site is vacant land zoned for general commercial use. The project would construct and operate a 3,363 square foot drive-through car wash. The facility would connect to existing public utilities and include nine vacuum stations, landscaping, and 12 parking spaces. A retaining wall along the project’s northern boundary would separate the site from the adjacent undeveloped canyon area. Access to the car wash would be from Poinsettia Avenue. The project’s hours of operation would be 7:00 am to 9:00 pm daily. Night lighting would be minimized and directed inward, toward the facility and away from the canyon area to the north.

METHODS

Biological reconnaissance visits were conducted on June 10, 2023 and again on April 19, 2024. Prior to the first visit, available maps, aerial imagery, and existing conditions material for the site and vicinity were reviewed including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed species database, and SanBIOS database. No focused surveys were conducted for sensitive animal species; however, they were searched for opportunistically during the visits, including looking and listening for the federal listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). While the date of the first survey, June 10, was past the blooming period for most sensitive, annual plant species (i.e., March through May), the second site visit on April 19 was during the blooming period, and sensitive plant species were specifically searched for during the visit.

2 The entire parcel and a buffer approximately 100 feet wide was walked (except the roadways), and vegetation was mapped on aerial imagery. The parcel and the 100-foot buffer comprise the overall biological study area. Lists of plant and animal species observed were compiled (Attachments A and B), and representative photographs were taken (Attachment C).

Queries were made of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD) for aquatic resources on site or adjacent to the site. In addition to reviewing the results of the NWI and NHD database queries, the site was visually inspected for features (e.g., streambeds) that could be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water Quality Control Board.

RESULTS

Environmental Setting

The parcel is triangular-shaped and bounded generally on the south Business Park Drive and on the west by Poinsettia Avenue. An entrance driveway for a Target store is east of the site, and immediately adjacent to the site to the north is a strip undeveloped land that supports native vegetation as well landscaping associated with the Target store. The surrounding uses are commercial and industrial in nature (Figure 2).

Historic aerial imagery shows the parcel undeveloped and supporting mostly native vegetation as late as the mid-1980s. In 1987, the entire parcel was graded as part of construction of Business Park Drive and Poinsettia Avenue and appears to have been left in that disturbed condition ever since (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2023).

Elevations on the parcel range from approximately 455 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 475 feet AMSL. Soils on site are mapped as Huerhuero loam (2 to 9 percent slopes), Altamont clay (9 to 15 percent slopes), and Las Flores fine sand (2 to 9 percent slopes; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2023).

The site is within the boundaries of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP; SANDAG 2003); however, the City does not yet have an approved Subarea Plan to implement the MHCP provisions. As such, the MHCP has no bearing on this project.

Vegetation Communities

One sensitive vegetation community, Diegan coastal sage scrub, was mapped on the northern edge of the parcel outside of the proposed development limits (Figure 3; Table 1). The proposed development would entirely avoid impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub.

Non-sensitive disturbed habitat, ornamental plantings, and developed land also occur on the parcel and within the proposed development limits (Figure 3; Table 1).

3 Table 1

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ON PARCEL
Vegetation Community Area
Diegan coastal sage scrub 0.10
Disturbed habitat 0.90
Ornamental <0.01
Developed <0.01
TOTAL 1.00
1Measured in acres

The project also would include impacts off site that would affect non-sensitive communities: 0.03 acre of developed land, <0.01 acre of ornamental plantings, and 0.10 acre of disturbed habitat along Poinsettia Avenue and Business Park Drive (Figure 3).

Sensitive Plant Species

One sensitive plant species, Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), which is a large, perennial, evergreen shrub, was reported to the CNDDB from an area that could include the site and the larger survey area. Nuttall’s scrub oak was observed off site (Figure 3); however, it was not observed on site.

As a perennial, evergreen shrub, it would have been observed on site if it was present.

Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) was observed off site in the larger survey area in southern willow scrub (Figure 3); however, it was not observed on site. This species can occur in coastal sage scrub, but typically occurs in meadows, seeps, marshes, swamps, or other wet areas (like southern willow scrub). It is also a perennial plant that would have been observed on site if it was present.

Eight other sensitive plant species have been reported to the databases in the vicinity of the parcel; the potential for each to occur is addressed below.

California adolphia (Adolphia californica)
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and grassland habitats. This species was not observed on or adjacent to the site. As a perennial shrub, it would have been observed if present on site.

Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens) Occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. This species was not observed on or adjacent to the site. As a perennial shrub, it would have been observed if present on site.

Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) Occurs in maritime chaparral that is not present on site or in the larger survey area. This species was not observed on or adjacent to the site. As a perennial shrub, it would have been observed if present on site.

4 Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri)
An annual herb that occurs in openings of chaparral, coastal scrub, and grassland with clay soils and blooms March through May. The second site visit was conducted during the blooming season for this species and it was not observed. The potential for this species to be present on site is very low considering the disturbed nature and small area of coastal sage scrub habitat, the overall disturbed nature of the site, and the lack of suitable soils.

San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia)
Occurs in openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, grassland, and vernal pools with clay soils. It is an annual herb that blooms April through June. The second site visit was conducted during the blooming season for this species and it was not observed. The potential for this species to be present on site is very low considering the disturbed nature and small area of coastal sage scrub habitat, the overall disturbed nature of the site, and the lack of suitable soils.

Summer holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia) Occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland that are not present on site or in the larger survey area. This species was not observed on or adjacent to the site. As a perennial shrub, it would have been observed if present on site.

Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
This species occurs in clay soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, grassland, and vernal pools. It is an annual herb that blooms March through June. The second site visit was conducted during the blooming season for this species and it was not observed. The potential for this species to be present on site is very low considering the disturbed nature and small area of coastal sage scrub habitat, the overall disturbed nature of the site, and the lack of suitable soils. USFWS Critical Habitat has been designated in the region for this federal listed threatened (and State listed endangered) species, but the site is not within or adjacent to it.

Wart-stemmed ceanothus (Ceanothus verrucosus)
Occurs in chaparral that is not present on site or in the larger survey area. or in the larger survey area. This species was not observed on or adjacent to the site. As a perennial shrub, it would have been observed if present on site.

Sensitive Animal Species

No sensitive animal species were observed or detected on site or within the larger survey area. One sensitive animal species was reported to the databases in the vicinity of the parcel: coastal California gnatcatcher. USFWS Critical Habitat has been designated in the region for this federal listed threatened species, but the parcel is not within or adjacent to it. The gnatcatcher was not observed or detected on site or in the larger survey area, but its habitat is Diegan coastal sage scrub, and there is more sage scrub in the vicinity of the site.

There is some potential for the gnatcatcher as well as other birds to nest in the Diegan coastal sage scrub on site and on the parcel north of the development area, but due to the small, 0.1-acre area of the habitat and the high level of traffic noise, nesting would most likely occur in the canyon north of the project site.

5 Jurisdictional Features

There are no aquatic features on the parcel or adjacent to it per the NWI and NHD database query results, and no drainages, swales, ponds, basins, or wetland habitat areas were observed on site. The site, therefore, does not support features that could be considered jurisdictional. The project development area is entirely within the parcel and outside of the adjacent canyon area to the north,

REGULATORY ISSUES

Biological resources on site or that may be subject to regulatory administration by the federal government, State of California, and City as follows.

Federal

Endangered Species Act

The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) designates threatened and endangered animals and plants and provides measures for their protection and recovery. “Take” of listed animal species and of listed plant species in areas under federal jurisdiction is prohibited without obtaining a federal permit. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm includes any act that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife. Activities that damage (i.e., harm) the habitat of listed wildlife species require approval from the USFWS for terrestrial species. The FESA also generally requires determination of Critical Habitat for listed species. If a project would involve a federal action potentially affecting Critical Habitat, the federal agency would be required to consult with USFWS.

USFWS Critical Habitat has been designated in the vicinity of the site for the federal listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, but the site is not within or adjacent to it.

The City has no take authorization (see City of Vista, MHCP below). Therefore, FESA Section 7 and Section 10 provide two pathways for obtaining authority to take listed species. Under Section 7 of the FESA, a federal agency that authorizes, funds, or carries out a project that “may affect” a listed species or its Critical Habitat must consult with USFWS. Under Section 10 of the FESA, private parties with no federal nexus (i.e., no federal agency will authorize, fund, or carry out the project) may obtain an Incidental Take Permit to harm listed species incidental to the lawful operation of a project.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S. Code Sections 703-711) includes provisions for protection of migratory birds, including the non-permitted take of migratory birds. The MBTA regulates or prohibits taking, killing, possession of, or harm to migratory bird species listed in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 10.13. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds (like the coastal California gnatcatcher), and many others. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a “take.” The MBTA is an international treaty for the conservation and management of bird species that migrate through more than one country, and is enforced in the United States by the

6 USFWS. The MBTA was amended in 1972 to include protection for migratory birds of prey (raptors).

The project would comply with the MBTA.

State of California

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) established that it is State policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated rare, threatened, or endangered by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission. CESA authorizes that private entities may “take” plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA and CESA, pursuant to a federal Incidental Take Permit if the CDFW certifies that the incidental take is consistent with the CESA (Fish & Game Code Section 2080.1[a]). For State-only listed species, Section 2081 of the CESA authorizes the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit for a State listed threatened or endangered species if specific criteria are met. The City has no take authorization (see City of Vista, MHCP below).

California Environmental Quality Act

Primary environmental legislation in California is found in the CEQA and its implementing guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), requiring that projects with potential adverse effects or impacts on the environment undergo environmental review. Adverse impacts to the environment are typically mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with existing laws and regulations. Mitigation is not required for impacts that are considered less than significant.

California Fish and Game Code

Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Raptors and owls and their active nests are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW. Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory, non-game bird as designated in the MBTA (including the coastal California gnatcatcher). These regulations could require that construction activities (particularly vegetation removal or construction near nests) be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle unless surveys by a qualified biologist demonstrate that nests, eggs, or nesting birds will not be disturbed, subject to approval by CDFW and/or USFWS. The project will comply with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5.

7 City of Vista

MHCP

The City is enrolled in the MHCP but does not yet have an approved Subarea Plan that would describe how it would implement the provisions of the Final MHCP Plan (SANDAG 2003). The City must submit a Subarea Plan to the USFWS and CDFW in support of an application for permits and authorizations to incidentally “take” listed threatened or endangered species or other species of concern. Without a Subarea Plan, the City has no take authorization under the FESA or CESA.

General Plan 2030

The City’s General Plan 2030 Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element (City 2011) has the following goal and relevant policies that are applicable to the project.

RCS Goal 5: Preserve and protect, to the extent practicable, the range of natural biological communities and species native to the City and region; and conserve viable populations of endangered, threatened, and key sensitive species and their habitats.

RCS Policy 5.1: Continue to require development that is proposed in areas identified or expected to contain sensitive vegetation and wildlife communities to consult with wildlife agencies (i.e., United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) early in the development review process regarding special status plant and wildlife species; conduct biological assessments, as appropriate; and develop and implement project-specific mitigation measures to mitigate impacts on threatened and endangered species.

The site was assessed in June 2023 and April 2024 for its potential to support sensitive vegetation communities and sensitive plant and animal species. Sensitive Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs outside the proposed development limits, but no sensitive plants or animals were found. The project is designed to completely avoid impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, and impacts to the gnatcatcher (whose habitat is Diegan coastal sage scrub) are not expected because the gnatcatcher was not observed/detected on or adjacent to the site, nor has it been reported to databases on/adjacent to the site (potential indirect noise impacts are addressed under RCS Policy 5.2.f. below), and the Project design minimizes indirect impacts through appropriate barriers, lighting, drainage, noise conditions, and landscaping. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to these resources, and no mitigation would be required. Due to the lack of sensitive plant and animal species, there is no need for consultation with the wildlife agencies.

8 RCS Policy 5.2: In areas that are adjacent to sensitive vegetation and /or wildlife communities, continue to require development, uses, and activities to be designed and managed to ensure minimal impacts to those resources. Examples include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Provide buffers or barriers between the development and the biological resources.

Buffers from the edge of the existing natural tree canopy should be established based on scientific analysis of the existing site conditions and the development proposal by a qualified biologist. New buildings or parking areas should not be permitted within any buffer area.

The project is designed to completely avoid impacts to sensitive Diegan coastal sage scrub, and it would incorporate a maximum 9.5-foot-tall, plantable retaining wall along the northern border of the car wash facility providing a barrier between the developed project and the remaining habitat on the parcel, thereby protecting it from potential indirect impacts such as human encroachment and trampling during project operation.

b. Prohibit parking lots and other developed areas from draining into sensitive resources.

The project site is served by all required public utilities (e.g., stormwater, sewer), and the project would connect to those utilities; therefore, drainage from the site would not flow into the Diegan coastal sage scrub (or into the canyon off site to the north).

c. Require land uses that use chemicals or fertilizers or generate by-products that are potentially toxic or harmful to wildlife, sensitive species, and habitats to incorporate measures to mitigate those impacts.

The project site is served by all required public utilities (e.g., stormwater, sewer), and the project would connect to those utilities; therefore, any potentially toxic or harmful drainage from the site would not flow into the Diegan coastal sage scrub (or into the canyon off site to the north).

d. Require development to incorporate measures that avoid degradation of habitats from erosion and sedimentation.

All project drainage would be directed into public facilities (e.g., stormwater, sewer), thereby avoiding erosion or sedimentation of the remaining Diegan coastal sage scrub.

e. Ensure that sensitive species are protected from night lighting from nearby development.

Project lighting will be consistent with City Development Code Section 18.58.260 (Outdoor Lighting Facilities and/or Fixtures). Project lighting will provide sufficient and adequate lighting for security and safety purposes, and any lighting that could spill into the Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (or into the canyon to the north) would be shielded and projected downward to minimize potential light emission into those habitat areas.

9 f. Mitigate noise impacts from development, uses, or activities on nearby sensitive species through noise reduction measures and /or restriction of hours during the breeding season of sensitive species.

The coastal California gnatcatcher was not observed or detected on site or in the larger project survey area. There is some potential for the gnatcatcher as well as other birds to nest in the Diegan coastal sage scrub adjacent to the development area, but due to the small,

0.1-acre area of the habitat and the high level of traffic noise, nesting (should the species occur) would likely occur in the canyon further north of the project site. Gnatcatcher breeding (as well as other avian breeding) would be protected by the project as the project will comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code to protect avian nesting.

In addition, the Project would be subject to standard noise conditions, which would minimize noise impacts through restricting hours of operation and ensuring compliance with the City’s Noise Control Ordinance.

g. Require development that is adjacent to sensitive resources to landscape their sites with native, non-invasive vegetation that is similar to or compatible with the adjacent resources; and prohibit horticultural regimes (irrigation, fertilization, pest control, and pruning) that could alter site conditions in natural areas.

Project landscaping will comply with the City’s Landscape Manual (2022), which states:
“The use of invasive plants as identified in the current California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory is prohibited” and “moderate or limited invasive species may be used if the City Planner determines that the location of the project does not pose a risk for the plant to become invasive in the wild.” Additionally, control of invasive species would be part of clearly identified maintenance activities. (See Landscape Standard Condition 21.)

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Direct Impacts

Vegetation Communities

The project would directly impact approximately 0.80 acre of the parcel, consisting of disturbed habitat and developed area. The remaining 0.20 acre of the parcel, consisting of Diegan coastal sage scrub, disturbed habitat, and ornamental vegetation would be avoided (Table 2). Off-site impacts (within adjacent disturbed/developed area) would total 0.13 acre. The only sensitive vegetation community is Diegan coastal sage scrub, and the project would completely avoid direct impacts to this community. Impacts to the other communities would be less than significant because they are not sensitive. No mitigation would be required.

10 Table 2
IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES1
Vegetation Community
On Site2 Off Site
Impact Area3 Existing
Area
Impact
Area
Remaining
Area
Diegan coastal sage scrub 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.0
Disturbed habitat 0.90 0.80 0.10 0.10
Ornamental <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01
Developed <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.03
TOTAL 1.00 0.80 0.20 0.13
1Measured in acres
2Within limits of parcel boundary
3Impacts located outside of the parcel boundary

Sensitive Plant Species

No sensitive plant species were observed. Given the long-disturbed and developed nature of the proposed development limits (that avoid Diegan coastal sage scrub), no sensitive plant species are expected, and no direct impacts to sensitive plant species would occur. No mitigation would be required.

Sensitive Animal Species

The proposed development would avoid all Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat; therefore, there would be no direct impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher. There were no other sensitive animal species reported to the databases on site or in the vicinity, and due to the very limited amount of Diegan coastal sage scrub on the parcel (0.10 acre), all of which would be avoided, no direct impacts to sensitive animal species are expected. No mitigation would be required.

Jurisdictional Features

There are no aquatic features or wetland habitats on site that could be considered jurisdictional.

Therefore, there would be no impacts to such features, and no mitigation would be required.

Indirect Impacts

The City’s General Plan 2030 Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element Goal 5 includes policies to, “Preserve and protect, to the extent practicable, the range of natural biological communities and species native to the City and region; and conserve viable populations of endangered, threatened, and key sensitive species and their habitats.” The project is designed to comply with the relevant policies and, therefore, is consistent with the General Plan goal; no mitigation would be required.

Further, indirect impacts during construction and operation would be minimized through project design, compliance with state law, and incorporation of standard conditions, as outlined under the discussion of RCS Policy 5.2, above.

11 CONCLUSION
Project impacts would be limited to non-sensitive vegetation communities and developed land that do not support sensitive species or jurisdictional/wetland features. The project would completely avoid the only sensitive vegetation community on the parcel, Diegan coastal sage scrub.

There is some potential for the coastal California gnatcatcher, as well as other birds, to nest in the Diegan coastal sage scrub on the parcel, but due to the small, 0.1-acre area of the habitat and the high level of traffic noise, nesting (if the species occurs) would occur in the canyon north of the project site.

Regardless, the project would comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code to protect avian nesting during construction activities.

The project, therefore, would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts on any sensitive biological resource due to project design and compliance with the MBTA, California Fish and Game Code, and City policies; therefore, no mitigation would be required.

The project site is, consequently, considered to have no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and should meet the biological criterion for a CEQA exemption under Section 15332(c) – In -Fill Development Projects.

Sincerely,
Greg Mason
Senior Biologist
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Regional Location
Figure 2 – Project Location
Figure 3 – Biological Resources
Attachment A – Plant Species Observed
Attachment B – Animal Species Observed
Attachment C – Representative Photographs

12 References:

City of Vista. 2022. City of Vista Landscape Manual. February 8. https://www.cityofvista.com/home/showpublisheddocument/5294/637799359584930000

2011. General Plan 2030 Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element. December. https://records.cityofvista.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=712583

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2023. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer

SANDAG 2003. Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (Volume 1). https://www.sandag.org/- /media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-and-programs/environment/regional-habitat- conservation/volume-1-final-multiple-habitat-conservation-program-plan-2003-03-01.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

!Project Site
!"a$
?t
Ag
A¦
?n
!"_$
%&s(
!"^$
A¸
!"^$!"a$
Sa n Die go
Figure 1
0 42 Miles
²Regional Location

QUICK QUA CK CAR W ASH

La Mirada Dr
M
elro
s
e D
r
W S a n Ma r c o s B l v d
A¸
S Rancho Santa Fe Rd
Lake San Marcos
Linda Vista Dr
Melrose Dr
PalomarAirport Rd
Poi nsetti a L n
S y c a m o r e Ave
B
u
sin
ess
P
a
r
k
Dr
Poinsettia Av e

CARLS BAD
VISTA
S.D. COUNTY

SAN MARCOS
Figure 2
0 2,0001,000 Feet
²Project Location

QUICK QUA CK CAR W ASH
Pa rce l Bou ndary

P o i n s e t ti a A v e
B
u
sin
e
ss
P
ark
Dr
9 87654
321
151413
12 11
10 F FF
F F
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F FF
Figure 3
0 7035Feet
²Biological Resources

QUICK QUACK CAR WASH
Parcel BoundarySurvey Area
Proposed Development Limits
F Photo Location
Special Status SpeciesSpiny Rush (Juncus acutus)Nuttall's Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa) VegetationSouthern Willow ScrubDiegan Coastal Sage ScrubOrnamentalDisturbed HabitatDeveloped

A-1
Attachment A PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT1

ANGIOSPERMS – MONOCOTS
Avena fatua2 wild oat DH
Bromus hordeaceus2 soft chess DH
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens2 foxtail chess DH

ANGIOSPERMS – DICOTS
Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis black elderberry SWS Anacardiaceae Malosma laurina laurel sumac CSS
Rhus integrifolia lemonadeberry CSS
Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare2 fennel CSS
Asteraceae Artemisia californica California sagebrush CSS Ambrosia confertiflora weak-leaf burbush SWS
Bacharis salicifolia mule fat SWS
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush CSS
Centaurea melitensis2 star thistle DH
Encelia farinosa brittlebush CSS
Eriophyllum confertiflorum golden yarrow CSS
Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed DH
Hypochaeris glabra2 smooth cat’s-ear DH
Isocoma menziesii coastal goldenbush DH, CSS
Sonchus oleraceus2 common sow thistle DH
Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass CSS
Brassicaceae Brassica nigra2 black mustard DH, CSS
Sisymbrium irio2 London rocket DH
Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata2 Australian saltbush DH Salicornia pacifica Pacific pickleweed SWS
Salsola tragus2 Russian thistle DH
Cucurbitaceae Marah macrocarpa wild cucumber CSS
Fabaceae Melilotus alba2 white sweet clover DH
Fagaceae Quercus dumosa3 Nuttall’s scrub oak CSS
Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium2 red-stem filaree DH
Juncaceae Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii3 southwestern spiny rush SWS Lamiaceae Salvia apiana white sage CSS
Salvia mellifera black sage CSS
Malvaceae Malva parviflora2 cheeseweed DH
Myrsinaceae Lysimachia arvensis2 scarlet pimpernel CSS Phrymaceae Mimulus aurantiacus monkey-flower CSS
Platanaceae Platanus racemosa western sycamore SWS
Poaceae Cortaderia jubata2 pampas grass SWS
Polygonaceae Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat DH, CSS Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow SWS
Saururaceae Anemopsis californica yerba mansa SWS
Verbenaceae Verbena lasiostachys verbena CSS

1Habitat acronyms: DH=disturbed habitat, CSS=Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, SWS=southern willow scrub 2Non-native species
3Sensitive species

B-1
Attachment B

ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

INVERTEBRATES
Apis mellifera western honey bee
Pieris rapae cabbage white butterfly
Pogonomyrmex barbatus harvester ant
Toxomerus marginatus margined calligrapher butterfly

VERTEBRATES

Reptiles
Elgaria multicarinata southern alligator lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard

Birds
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
Chamaea fasciata wrentit
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Melospiza melodia song sparrow
Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird
Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren

Attachment C
Representative Photographs- April 19 2024

Photo Point 1.

Photo Point 2.

Photo Point 3.

Photo Point 4.

Photo Point 5.

Photo Point 6.

Photo Point 7.

Photo Point 8.

Photo Point 9.

Photo Point 10.

Photo Point 11.

Photo Point 12.

Photo Point 13.

Photo Point 14.

Photo Point 15.

EXHIBIT "2"

MEMORANDUM
N:\3766 - Quick Quack Car Wash\City Council Comments\RTC Memo_final.docx To: Mr. Barret Bradley
Newmark Merrill Companies
Date: April 22, 2024
From: Shankar Ramakrishnan, P.E. /
Charlene Sadiarin, P.E.

LLG
LLG Ref: 3-24-3766
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash Responses to Comments
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared the below Responses to Comments for the Quick Quack Car Wash Project in the City of Vista. The responses below are provided for a comment letter dated April 16, 2024, prepared by Austin Legal Group (included as Attachment A).

1. Page 2 of Austin Legal Group letter: The comment argues that the Project is inconsistent with the Circulation Policy 1.2 and Policy 1.5 and the CEQA Exemption 15332 is not applicable.

Per City of Vista Circulation Element Policy 1.2 and City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Section 10, Local Transportation Study and Local Transportation Analysis Guidelines), the acceptable level of service is LOS D. In relation to the CEQA exemption, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC Section 21099 (b)(2)), CEQA Section 15064.3, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be used as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts on the environment for a land use project after July 1, 2020. Therefore, the evaluation of potential transportation impacts associated with the Project reflects consistency with City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Senate Bill 743, and the CEQA Section 15064.3, which establishes VMT as the appropriate metric to evaluate transportation impacts.

Furthermore, City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Section 10, Local Transportation Study and Local Transportation Analysis Guidelines), the average delay per vehicle (which corresponds to an LOS letter grade) for a signalized intersection is set for the intersection as a whole, not to an individual movement. The commenter incorrectly cites that the LOS F is for the overall intersection. The overall intersection LOS for the Business Park Drive / Poinsettia Avenue intersection is LOS D, which meets the City’s circulation element goal.

The Local Transportation Study (LTS) Study was reviewed and approved by the City of Vista traffic engineering staff.

Mr. Barret Bradley
April 22, 2024

Page 2 ends

N:\3766 - Quick Quack Car Wash\City Council Comments\RTC Memo_final.docx

2. Page 4 of Austin Legal Group letter: As explained in the attached memorandum from Urban Systems Associates, Inc., the LLG Study provided by the applicant is inadequate as it does not address all potential traffic impacts and safety concerns of the Project. First, the LLG Study used trip generation assumptions from the 1980s and 1990s that do not take into account modern car washes. Using the proper assumptions will dramatically alter the traffic impacts creating an LOS of F at the intersection of Business Park and Poinsettia.

See response to comment 5 regarding trip generation. See response to comment 7 regarding commenter’s incorrect assertion of traffic impact based on LOS and delay.

3. Page 4 of Austin Legal Group letter: The near term cumulative conditions in the LLG Study are deficient and do not meet the City’s guidelines. Incorporation of the proper near term cumulative conditions is also likely to lead to significant traffic impacts.

See response to comment 6.

4. Page 4 of Austin Legal Group letter: The location of the driveway requires moving the bus stop or the driveway which was not accounted for in the LLG Study. A proper analysis cannot be performed without determining the actual location of the bus stop and driveway.

See response to comment 8.

5. Exhibit B to Austin Legal Group Letter, page 2 of Urban Systems Letter: The comment argues that the trip generation rate used to estimate project trips relies on SANDAG studies in the 1980’s and 1990’s that do not reflect modern car washes. The comment asserts the trip generation rate should be updated based on most recent data. The comment argues trip generation data should be collected at two similar sites and attaches traffic analyses from Rancho Cucamonga and Menifee.

The City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIA Guidelines) directs the use of SANDAG’s Not So Brief Trip Generation Rates (2002) to calculate trip generation for development projects. The City has discretion to determine which methodology to use and SANDAG’s rates are well-supported and based on extensive local San Diego data. The regional planning agency in the San Diego County is SANDAG and SANDAG’s Trip Generation Rates are used currently and are widely used by agencies in the San Diego County including City of Vista, City of Oceanside, City of Carlsbad, City of San Marcos, and City of Chula Vista among many others. The City of Vista and the other agencies listed above use SANDAG Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) maps to determine VMT implications for development projects, which are based on local San Diego data including population,

Mr. Barret Bradley
April 22, 2024

Page 3 ends

N:\3766 - Quick Quack Car Wash\City Council Comments\RTC Memo_final.docx demographics, driving patterns, and land use mix. Therefore, many agencies such as those listed above, including City of Vista, determined that it was reasonable and accurate that local trip generation rates published by SANDAG be adopted and used to ensure consistency.

The commenter merely speculates that the SANDAG trip generation rates does not reflect modern day car washes and therefore “may not be” the most representative trip generation rate without providing any specifics on operating characteristics of modern day car washes.

There are two trip generation rates for carwashes in SANDAG’s Trip Generation data – automatic or self-serve. In calculating the trip generation for the Project, the Project proposes an automatic car wash and therefore, LLG correctly applied the trip generation rate of 900/site/day per the SANDAG’s trip generation rates. The Project site includes one (1) automatic car wash tunnel and does not include any self-serve car wash characteristics.

The Project site as designed clearly falls in the SANDAG automatic car wash category and therefore, no deviation from the published rates was needed.

Additionally, while the commenter has provided trip generation data for car washes from other jurisdictions in Rancho Cucamonga and Menifee and believes the local data is outdated, the commenter does not offer any local San Diego car wash specific trip generation rates to demonstrate that the trip generation data used in the LTS is inaccurate.

The commenter provided car wash projects are not an accurate comparable to the proposed Project given that the Rancho Cucamonga project proposes a gas station with car wash while the Menifee project proposes a car wash as a part of a larger mixed-use development, as compared to the proposed Project proposes a standalone carwash. Finally, the City of Vista is the lead agency, not Rancho Cucamonga or Menifee, and CEQA gives the lead agency the discretion to select its trip generation rate.

Regardless, if anything, the trip generation estimates provided by the commenter on two non-San Diego car wash projects show that the Project’s trip generation was conservatively overestimated compared to the total project trips shown in these studies. Per the commenter’s trip generation estimates for the Arbor Car Wash in Rancho Cucamonga, the trip generation for a 140-foot car wash tunnel calculated trips using empirical data shows 769 trips per day. If the daily trips are baselined using the 140-car wash tunnel, for the proposed Project’s car wash tunnel of 108 feet, the total daily trips would be calculated as 593 daily trips, which is 51% higher than 593 trips. Similarly, the Menifee car wash uses a trip generation rate of 11.87 per linear foot of carwash tunnel, the total daily trips for the 110-foot express car wash were calculated as 675, which is well below the 900 trips used in the proposed Project for a similarly sized car wash.

Another way of calculating trip generation estimate is to utilize the national publication of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The trip generation estimates included in this manual are based on national data and were used as an additional data source. Per the ITE

Mr. Barret Bradley
April 22, 2024

Page 4 ends

N:\3766 - Quick Quack Car Wash\City Council Comments\RTC Memo_final.docx Trip Generation Manual, for automatic car washes, only the weekday PM peak hour generator is provided and calculated to show 78 peak hour trips. The Project total PM peak hour trips were analyzed as 81 trips, which is higher than the ITE trip generation estimate.

Based on all of the above, it is concluded that the trip generation for the Project was accurately conducted per lead agency requirements. Additionally, in comparison to the empirical data for modern day car washes provided by the commenter and a review of national trip generation data, it is concluded that the usage of SANDAG trip generation rates for the proposed Project results in a conservative trip analysis.

6. Exhibit B to Austin Legal Group Letter, page 2 of Urban Systems Letter: The comment states the Near Term Cumulative LOS analysis should have included additional cumulative projects in Carlsbad and that the list “appears to be deficient”.

The commenter merely speculates that the cumulative projects list is deficient without providing any substantial evidence or specifics on which specific cumulative projects were omitted. The Proposed Project was circulated for public review and the associated technical reports were posted on City of Vista’s website. The City of Carlsbad did not provide any comment on this issue relating to any specific project being excluded. During the writing of the report, a review of planning projects in the City of Carlsbad was conducted, which concluded that there was no reasonably foreseeable cumulative project in the Project vicinity that would change the findings of the traffic analysis. Regardless, a 1% growth factor was applied to provide a conservative analysis. Furthermore, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC Section 21099 (b)(2)), CEQA Section 15064.3, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be used as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts on the environment for a land use project after July 1, 2020. Therefore, the evaluation of potential transportation impacts associated with the project reflects consistency with City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Senate Bill 743, and the CEQA Section 15064.3, which establishes VMT as the appropriate metric to evaluate transportation impacts.

7. Exhibit B to Austin Legal Group Letter, page 2 of Urban Systems Letter: The comment states there is a capacity constraint at the intersection of Business Park Drive /Poinsettia Avenue that would result in LOS “F” and, the commenter states, a significant impact that should be corrected through adjusting timing assumption.

The commenter is incorrect in noting that a significant impact is identified using the LOS metric. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC Section 21099 (b)(2)), CEQA Section 15064.3, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be used as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts on the environment for a land use project after July 1, 2020.

Mr. Barret Bradley
April 22, 2024

Page 5 ends

Vista City CouncilApril 23, 2024

Vista City Council
April 23, 2024