Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-08-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 6624
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6624 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO REPLACE AN EXISTING BRIDGE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON SOUTHBOUND CARLSBAD 6 BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 0.06 MILE SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND 1 MILE NORTH OF 7 POINSETTIA LANE IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WITHIN LOCAL 8 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22. 9 CASE NAME: ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CASE NO.: CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 10 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with 11 the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the City of Carlsbad, "Owner," described as 13 Public right-of-way on a portion of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane 14 ("the Property"); and , s WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and 17 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 18 WHEREAS, as part of the public review of the Mitigated Negative 19 Declaration, the City received two comment letters, one from the California Department of 20 Parks and Recreation, and the other from the California Coastal Commission; and 21 WHEREAS, staff wrote response letters to the two comment letters received, 22 _, the two comment letters, and staffs responses are attached; and 24 WHEREAS, as part of its response to the comments, page 4 of the EIA Part 25 II was modified slightly as a result of comments received during the public review period, 96ZD in order to clarify what is meant by the creek being subject to tidal influence during 27 extreme high tides; and 28 WHEREAS, the minor addition does not require recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA Section 15073.5(c)(4), since the additional information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to 2 the environmental document; and 3 WHEREAS, the minor addition to the EIA Part II is shown as bolded and 4 - underlined; and 6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on August 19, 2009, hold a duly 7 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and o WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 9 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 10 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 11 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 13 Program. 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 1 ^ Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 17 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 18 Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND" according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form 2Q - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 21 Findings: 22 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 24 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for ENCINAS CREEK 25 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - CDP 09-08, SUP 09-03, AND HMP 09-06 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments 26 thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and 27 b. that the addition of a sentence on Page 4, which occurred after the 30-day 28 public review of the draft MND, and resulted in no changes to the project, does not require recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration since the changes are consistent with the description of "new information" in CEQA PC RESO NO. 6624 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 15073.5(c)(4), which states recirculation is not required if "new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration;" and c. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and d. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and e. based on the El A and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on August 19, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, L'Heureux, Nygaard, Schumacher, and Vice Chairperson Douglas ABSENT: Chairperson Montgomery ABSTAIN: FARRAH DOUGLAS, Vice Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6624 -3- STATE OF CAUEORNIA. RESOURCES AGENCY . AP»oliia3iTOfzineOT«r,GovtnW DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RVTHCOLEMAN, DIRECTOR San Dfego Coast Dittrtct 4477 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 (619)688-3250 FAX (619) S8W229 July 23,2009 PamDrew City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 DearPafn; In preparing the CEQA review for the City of Carlsbad's Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement, your EDAW/AECOM consultant Michelle Fehrensen recommended that I -write you a formal comment to the MND (CASE No. CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06, dated 5/14/09). My first comment is that if the rip-rap work at the creek mouth is more extensive than just the rearrangement of the boulders, that is if your contractor has to cut into undisturbed sediments, you would need an archaeological monitor. If you work with a California Indian archaeologist, you have in one person both the archaeological monitor and the Indian descendent reviewer. The site in question is San Diego Museum of Man SDM-W-111 (probably the same site as South Coastal Information Center CA- SDI-17408). My second comment is that there are palaeontological materials in the creek, and that it would be wise to contact Tom Demere of the Natural History Museum to determine what would be necessary. This is in regard to your Item (V) "Cultural Resources" (d) palaeontology, which may or may not be the "less than significant impact" that has been marked. My third comment is that the proposed impacts to Item (la) "scenic vistas5' and (Ic) "existing visual character" would actually be significant, unless mitigated. The MND reviewer writes that the scenic vista is only impacted if a passing driver can't see the beach. The actual meaning, however, is for impacts to fixe historic view as a whole. This would be for the beach-goer, for those residing above the creek, etc. Looking at the exhibit photos, Figures 3 and 4, one sees the real scenic vista, what Carlsbad residents and visitors have seen for decades. It is this California coastal bridge, dating from the 1920's remodels, that is one of the contributing elements that make Carlsbad, California, special. No one denies that the bridge must be replaced, but the modernistic, minimalist design (Figure 5) will not keep the historic image of Encinas Creek. My task as a park service cultural reviewer is to keep these elements of our beaches, these remnants of our remarkable lifestyle, protected, or hi this case, replaced in kind. As Carlsbad replaces these historic spots, the remarkable history of what drew residents to this early beach town are eliminated. Decades ahead, residents of your city will wonder why these places were replaced in a rapid move to modernity and convenience. I would recommend that you speak with the engineering department about the desirability of replicating of the original, historic coastal bridge. In lieu of that, perhaps some historic design elements could be introduced in keeping with the historic bridge you are replacing. We are preparing an in-house CEQA document (Tracking No. QS/09-SD-23) for those impacts on state land only, and which will record these same comments for the clearing house. If there are any questions, Pam, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number/email below. Sincerely, Therese Muranaka, PhD., R.P.A- Associate State Archaeologist California Department of Parks and Recreation 4477 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 TEL: 619-778-2553/FAX: 619-688-3229 ILE "S-S-o? f Carlsbad -PIartning Department August 5, 2009 Therese Muranaka, Ph.D., R.P.A. Associate State Archaeologist California Department of Parks and Recreation 4477 Pacific Highway ; San Diego, CA 92110 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - CDP 09-08/CUP 09-03/HMP 09-06/HMPO 09-06 Dear Ms. Muranaka: Thank you for submitting comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the City of Carlsbad's Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement project (SCH No. 2009061110). This response letter was written to address your comments in your letter e-mailed to the City dated July 23, 2009. Your concerns are in relation to 1) proposed work on the rip-rap located to the west of the bridge; 2) paleontological materials located in the creek; and 3) the proposed impacts to "scenic vistas" and "existing visual character" of the existing and proposed bridge. 1) With respect to the riprap, the City has decided to take this opportunity to properly place the eroded riprap back in place to protect the road and bridge from wave action during extreme high tides. The existing riprap, which has been dislodged and scattered on the beach overtime, would be configured and supplemented with an additional 1,307 cubic yards of 2-ton riprap and 697 cubic yards of one-quarter-ton riprap on the west side of the bridge and roadway. The new riprap would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing riprap nor higher than the existing road, and would be similar in color and shape to the existing riprap. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting.Program (MMRP) has a mitigation measure CULT-1, which states, "The City of Carlsbad shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to perform construction monitoring during all ground disturbing activities. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, work shall be halted in that area and redirected until the resources are evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate data recovery actions are implemented if required." In addition, mitigation measure CULT-2, states, "In the event of discovery of any human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site and the County Medical Examiner shall be contacted. If the Examiner determines that the remains may be those of a Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted and Native American consultation shall be undertaken to determine appropriate steps to be taken." These mitigation measures apply to all "ground disturbing" activities including removal of rip-rap that might cut into undisturbed sediments as mentioned in your letter. 1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 * (760) 602-4600 « FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us GDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 - ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT August 5, 2009 Page 3 2) The replacement of the Encinas Creek Bridge would involve limited excavation of native soils and the likelihood of significantly impacting any paleontological resources is low. However, the City has contacted Tom Demere at the San Diego Natural History Museum for his input regarding paleontological materials in the area of the bridge and creek. Absent any information to the contrary, the City considers impacts to paleontological resources to be less than significant. 3) While your concerns regarding the potential historic and aesthetic impacts of replacing the bridge are understandable, the CEQA significance criteria for aesthetic impacts (indentified in Section I: Aesthetics of the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (IS), dated 5/14/09) do not require an evaluation of 'Historic Landscapes.' In addition, the bridge is not considered a historic resource, either by Caltrans or by the City. According to Caltrans' General Guidelines For Identifying and Evaluating Historic Resources (February 1999), a historic landscape is a geographic area which has undergone past modification by human design or use in an identifiable pattern, or is the relatively unaltered site of a significant event, or is a natural landscape with important traditional cultural values. If the modifications, event, or values are over 50 years old, and the landscape possesses both significance and integrity in accordance with criteria for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the landscape may be eligible for the NRHP. According to the same guidelines, generally only identifiable landscapes over 50 years old which possess some level of significance and integrity will require a full formal evaluation to determine eligibility. The guidelines can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/cultural/languide.pdf. As described in Section V: Cultural Resources of the IS, the bridge was identified by Caltrans as a Category 5 bridge, which means that it is not eligible for the NRHP. Further, per CEQA §15064.5(a)(4), the City has the discretion to determine what is considered to be a historic resource in Carlsbad if there is not a classification in the NRHP. The City has not identified the bridge as a historic feature. Because neither Caltrans nor the City has identified the bridge as a historic feature, it is not considered a historic resource pursuant to CEQA §15064.5. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviews the Caltrans Historical Bridge list to verify the listing category. However, from the inception of this project, the City and the engineering consultant worked closely in an effort to minimize the impacts to public views of and through this site. To that end, the City selected a Type 80SW Concrete Barrier on the west side to maintain the "openness" exhibited with the old baluster railing (which is no longer an approved railing). Therefore, not only the scenic view of the ocean is maintained from the driver's perspective, but also from the residents just north east of the site looking south west. It should be noted that all views from the east side looking west are actually at a higher elevation than the project site, and therefore their visual impact, if any, is greatly minimized. Similarly, we took great care and consideration to actually enhance the scenic views of the beach goers. Currently, the view is actually "uninviting" for several reasons: 1. The bridge exhibits severe corrosion with concrete broken off and exposed steel completely corroded; and 2. The rectangular opening of 23' + or - is very dark because the bridge is too wide. GDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 - ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT August 5, 2009 Page 3 _ The proposed structure greatly enhances the beach goers view because: : 1 . New concrete properly designed and built will not exhibit any distress; 2. Using an arch-type span will present a more pleasant and open view into the creek; 3. Reducing the width of the bridge will substantially increase natural light going through the bridge; 4. Increasing the opening to 36' not only provides for an efficient flow, but adds an elegance to the overall structural arch system; and 5. Colored concrete is being proposed to enhance the visual impact. Thank you again for your comments. Sincerely, RAM DREW Associate Planner c: John Cahill, Municipal Project Manager File Copy STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 July 23, 2009 Pam Drew ~ --/-if;.^ City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Re: Draft Mitigate Negative Declaration (DMND) for Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Dear Ms. Drew: Staff has reviewed the above referenced DMND for the replacement of the existing Encinas Creek Bridge, located along southbound Carlsbad Blvd. The City of Carlsbad is proposing its replacement as the bridge is severely deteriorated, and has been recommended for replacement by the California Department of Transportation. The City is proposing to replace the bridge with a prefabricated arch concrete culvert style bridge structure. The proposed new structure would have the length of approximately 38' and the width of approximately 43'. The project also includes the reconfiguration of the existing riprap revetment located along 118 feet north of the bridge to 149 feet south of the bridge. The revetment will be supplemented with approximately 2,000 cubic yards of rock, ranging from 1/4- to 2-ton each. The EIR implies that the proposed development is located within the City of Carlsbad's permit jurisdiction; however, the question of jurisdiction was not specifically addressed and is a concern associated with the proposed development. As such, while the City's certified LCP will be used for guidance, the Commission's standard of review for this project at this time will be the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Based on review of this document, Commission staff provides the following comments. 1. Jurisdiction , The DMND did not include how jurisdiction for the project was determined. The project site is located within the City's primary jurisdiction and the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction based on the certified map; however, such boundaries are considered ambulatory and are not fixed in time or space. When the boundaries of jurisdiction are brought to question associated with a specific development, accurate jurisdiction is based on a number of environmental factors, and in this case should be determined by the location of the Mean High Tide Line (MHTL). The DMND indicates that Encinas Creek is inland of the MHTL; however, several sections of the DMND contest that statement. These statements are quoted below: Page 4 - "Encinas Creek Bridge is a culvert-style concrete bridge spanning the outlet for Encinas Creek The creek is primarily freshwater but is subject to tidal influence during extreme high tides. The sandy beach immediately west of the bridge is subject to surf and tides." [emphasis added] July 23, 2009 Page 2 Page 8 - "During construction, sheet piling would be used on both sides of the bridge in order to control wave action." The Coastal Commission retains jurisdiction to lands below the elevation of MHTL, or the "Sea" as defined by the Coastal Act: Section 30115 Sea "Sea" means the Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the Pacific Ocean...[emphasis added] Staff has visited the location and documented wave action below and inland of the existing bridge. If wave action/tidal influence are present, it is traditionally determined to be within the MHTL, and, therefore, within the Coastal Commission's original jurisdiction. Please provide evidence that the bridge footings, creek mouth, etc. are within the City's permit jurisdiction. .2. Impacts to public access associated with the reconfiguration and supplementing of the existing riprap revetment. The DMND indicates that the project will include the reconfiguration of the existing riprap revetment located along 118' north of the bridge to 149' south of the bridge and that the revetment will be supplemented with approximately 2,000 cubic yards of rock, ranging from 1/4- to 2-ton each. While the DMND does include a number of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to public access associated with construction of the bridge and revetment, it fails to address potential impacts associated with increasing the footprint of the existing revetment. Further, while the DMND includes that this reconfiguration will serve to protect Carlsbad Boulevard, it does not include why the additional armoring is necessary to protect the street. Please provide evidence that additional rock is justified, and that it will be configured to minimize impacts to public access and sand supply to the maximum extent practicable. These comments are based on the information available at this time. Other information which may be received during the public comment period will be reviewed by staff during the coastal development permit process. A final determination as to the project's consistency with the Coastal Act will be made by the Coastal Commission itself. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. hicerely, LOm J&QS; Coastal Planner FILE COPY•s-s-o<?arlsbad iP ten n I n g iQie pa rt nri \e n t August 5, 2009 Toni Ross Coastal Planner California Coastal Commission 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92108-4421 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - CDP 09-08/CUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Dear Ms. Ross: Thank you for submitting comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) for the City of Carlsbad's Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement project (SCH No. 2009061110). This response letter was written to address the comments in your letter to the City dated July 23, 2009. Your letter raises two primary issues: the first relates to Coastal Permit jurisdiction rather than a comment on the environmental analysis itself, while the second issue raises concerns with impacts to public access associated with the reconfiguration of the existing riprap revetment. The City appreciates the time you and Mr. McEachern took to meet with us on July 30 to discuss questions of jurisdiction and the need for and configuration of the riprap revetment. In your letter, you requested evidence that the bridge and associated features are within the City's jurisdiction. The City determined jurisdiction of the bridge based on the Mean High Tide Line (MHTL), also known as the Mean High Water Line (MHWL). The High Tide Line (HTL) and MHTL were generated for the project engineering plans and jurisdictional delineation using guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Los Angeles District, San Diego Field Office (personal communications between Michelle Fehrensen of EDAW, Jack Abcarius of Nolte Associates and Robert Smith of the USAGE on 7/23/2009). USAGE jurisdictional limits along the beach are defined by the HTL for Section 404 and by the MHTL for Section 10. The MHTL is also used to define the California Coastal Commission's (CCC) retained jurisdictional limits. As defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), the MHTL is the average of the higher high water height of each tidal day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. The National Tidal Datum Epoch is a 19-year cycle over which tidal height observations are meant to establish the various tidal datums (e.g. Mean High High Water and Mean Low Low Water). For projects occurring along the coast within San Diego County, the USAGE San Diego Field Office references the elevation data collected from the NOAA La Jolla Station (No. 9410230) for all projects within 60 miles of the station (http:\\tidesandcurrents.noaa\data). The station uses the tidal datum of Mean Low Low Water (MLLW), and, to graphically represent these lines on the project plans and figures, the conversion factor provided in Drawing M-12 of the City of San Diego Regional Standards was used. The HTL was interpolated from select 2008/2009 survey data and the MHTL was extrapolated from the HTL (Nolte Associates data 2009 and Melchoir 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 e (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 « www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 - ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT August 5, 2009 Page 2 data 2008). Based on data retrieved from the La Jolla Station on July 21, 2009 the MHTL for the project site isf located at 4.65 feet MLLW or approximately 1.72 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). Using the USAGE guidance for determining MHTL, the CCC retained jurisdictional boundary is westerly (i.e., seaward) of both the bridge and the project's temporary impact area. As stated in the DMND "the Creek is primarily fresh water but is subject to tidal influence during extreme high tides" (page 4). However, the water encroaching under the bridge is a result of wave action during a high tide; hence it is influenced by tides and not subject to tidal action. The City does not believe that this statement contradicts the location of the MHTL as this line is a mean of the higher high water height values recorded over a 19 year period and includes values both above and below this point. During spring high tides, it is not unexpected that an observer could witness a tide that encroaches significantly higher up the beach and under the bridge when compared to the MHTL.As noted in the CCC comment letter - Page 2: "The Coastal Commission retains jurisdiction to lands below the elevation of MHTL, or the "Sea" as defined by the Coastal Act." The letter then references Section 30115 off Coastal Act which defines "Sea"; however, only the first portion of the definition was included in the comment letter. The complete definition is as follows (the missing text has been emphasized): Section 30115 - "Sea" means the Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the Pacific Ocean, excluding nonestuarine rivers, streams, tributaries, creeks, and flood control and drainage channels. "Sea" does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing directly or indirectly into such area. Based on this definition, the creek is excluded from the term "Sea" as it is nonestuarine and is not subject to tidal action. Unfortunately, the Coastal Act does not define tidal action and as such the term is open to some measure of interpretation. Tide cycle refers to the daily vertical rise and fall of the ocean as seen along the shore and is caused by gravitational attraction of the moon and sun. We would suggest that a water body is subject to "tidal action" when it is regularly influenced by the tidal cycle best measured by the mean high tide line and the mean low tide line. As previously discussed, the MHWL is well below the creek's terminus and the project's temporary impact boundary. In addition, the high tide line also falls below the creek's mouth suggesting that the creek is not subject to the influence of the high tide much less the low tide and therefore is not influenced by "tidal action." There is no question that sea water enters the creek throughout the year but this is a result of wave action (horizontal movement of water) and not tidal action. Unlike tides, waves are generated by wind (locally and from across the ocean) and can be increased by other environmental factors such as extreme high tides and storm surge events. Following the USAGE guidance to determine MHTL, in addition to the definition of "Sea" which excludes the creek, the project impacts appear to be outside the Coastal Commissions retained jurisdiction. Enclosed is Figure 8 from the biological resources report for the Project (EDAW 2009) that shows the location the HTL and MHTL (i.e., Section 404 and 10 jurisdictional boundaries) relative to the bridge and Project impact boundary. This figure, along with a set of the project engineering plans and technical reports were provided to you at last week's meeting. We understand that you will be forwarding this material to the Coastal Commission offices in San Francisco for a determination of permit jurisdiction. In the meantime, the City will proceed under its local permitting procedures with the understanding that some, or all, of the Encinas Creek CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 - ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT August 5, 2009 Page 2 Bridge Replacement project is within the City's local Coastal Development Permit.authority, based on the evidence presented herein. The second issue raised in your letter concerns the riprap revetment and its impact on coastal access and sand supply. The existing riprap has been scattered over the years and no longer sufficiently protects the bridge and road from extreme wave action. Existing riprap would be configured and supplemented as necessary with up to an additional 1,307 cubic yards of 2-ton riprap and 697 cubic yards of one-quarter-ton riprap on the west side of the bridge and roadway. The new riprap would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing riprap, and would be similar in color and shape to the existing riprap. Since the re-placed riprap will occupy the same area of beach as exists today, there will be no alteration to existing public access or impacts on sand supply. The project is designed to minimize impacts to public access and sand supply to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed bridge would reduce the overall width of the existing bridge by approximately 26 feet and 2 inches (6 feet 11 inches to the west and 19 feet 3 inches to the east). This proposed reduction in width, as compared to the existing structure, is possible because the existing bridge is oversized. Maintaining the existing bridge deck width is not necessary to provide adequate travel lanes for forecasted traffic volumes. To minimize impacts on the beach side of the bridge, the wingwalls would be placed parallel to the roadway resulting in more beach area for public use. In addition, to be consistent with the Coastal Act, the proposed concrete barrier and hand rail on the bridge is proposed to be an open design to allow the public view of the coastline. A bike lane and sidewalk are also proposed to allow access to the shoreline. Again, the City appreciated the opportunity to meet with Coastal Commission staff last week to further discuss your concerns, particularly the question of Coastal Development permit jurisdiction for the bridge. We look forward to a prompt resolution to this issue. As we indicated in our meeting, the City will proceed with local permitting, and we have tentatively scheduled a hearing with the Carlsbad Planning Commission on August 19, 2009. Sincerely, PAM DREW Associate Planner Attachment c: John Cahill, Municipal Project Manager File Copy DH DH Temporary Construction•\ Impact Area Vegetation Communities ~\ CVFM- — Coastal & Valley Freshwater Marsh DCSS - Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub SCSM - Southern Coastal Salt Marsh DH - Disturbed Habitat OW - Open Water DEV-Developed Beach - Beach DCSS OW -- Ocean LEGEND Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands | ^ USAGE Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. and Navigable Waters li HI USAGE Non-Wetland Waters —"—* of the U.S. I, -j USAGE Non-wetland Waters; CCC L=J Wetlands; and DFG 1600 Jurisdiction | 1 USAGE Jurisdictional Wetlands; ' I CCC Wetlands; and DFG 1600 Jurisdiction Other = ca Sections 404 &10 Jurisdictional Boundaries * 11 ]] Study Area DH *New Bridge Fovtprini SCSM SCSM Elevations for the High Tide Line and the Mean High Water Line were obtained from The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) website (http:\\tidesandcurrents.noaa \data.) and are based on the La Jolla Station ID: 9410230, Publication Date 4/21/2003. These elevations were then converted to the NGVD29 Datum using the City of San Diego's Regional Standards Drawing No. M-12 (Nolle 2009). The High Tide Line was interpolated from select 2008/2009 survey data and the Mean High Water Line was extrapolated from the High Tide Line fNQlte2Q09. Melchoir2008). Source: Aerial - San Diego Co. 2008 / Wetlands - EDAW 2009 e 80 40 80 Feet Scale: 1:960; 1 inch = 80 feet Figure 8 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and Vegetation Communities Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Biological Resources and JD Report Pah: P:\2007\07080213.01\GlS\Layout\jlg_wetland_8xlLmxd, 07/28/09, PJonas City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Carlsbad Boulevard at Encinas Creek Bridge in Carlsbad. CA 92011, within the County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Carlsbad proposes to replace the existing Encinas Creek Bridge located along southbound Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile south of Palomar Airport Road and 1 mile north of Poinsettia Lane. The City has identified the need to remove and replace the bridge due to severe deterioration and recommendations by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project is located at Encinas Creek along the southern edge of the historical Agua Hedionda Spanish land grant. Carlsbad Boulevard (southbound) is bounded on the west by the State Beach and Pacific Ocean and on the east by Encinas Creek and the northbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. The bridge is located just north of the Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. An additional public notice will be issued when the public hearing is scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Pam Drew in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4644. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE June 26. 2009 - July 26, 2009 June 26. 2009 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement CASE NO: CDP 09-08/ SUP 09-03/ HMP 09-06 PROJECT LOCATION: Carlsbad Boulevard at Encinas Creek Bridge. City of Carlsbad. CA 92008. within the County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Carlsbad proposes to replace the existing Encinas Creek Bridge located along southbound Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile south of Palomar Airport Road and 1 mile north of Poinsettia Lane. The City has identified the need to remove and replace the bridge due to severe deterioration and recommendations by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project is located at Encinas Creek along the southern edge of the historical Agua Hedionda Spanish land grant. Carlsbad Boulevard (southbound) is bounded on the west by the State Beach and Pacific Ocean and on the east by Encinas Creek and the northbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. The bridge is located just north of the Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. I | The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I | Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: August 19. 2009. pursuant to PC Resolution No. 6624 ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 09-087 SUP Q9-03/HMP 09-06 DATE: 8/5/09 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Ms. Pam Drew. 760-602-4644 PROJECT LOCATION: Encinas Creek Bridge, City of Carlsbad PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Ave.. Carlsbad. CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space & Major Arterial ZONING: Open Space & Major Arterial OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements) Agency Permit/Approval Required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Fish and Game State Department of Parks and Recreation 404 Nationwide Permit 14 Coastal Development Permit Special Use Permit - Floodplain Habitat Management Plan Permit Water Quality Certification (401 Certification) Streambed Alteration Agreement Right-of-Entry Permit 9.PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Project Description The City of Carlsbad (City) proposes to replace the existing Encinas Creek Bridge located along southbound Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile south of Palomar Airport Road and 1 mile north of Poinsettia Lane (Figures 1 and 2). The City has identified the need to remove and replace the bridge due to severe deterioration and recommendations by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project is located at Encinas Creek along the southern edge of the historic Agua Hedionda Spanish land grant. Carlsbad Boulevard (southbound) is bounded on the west by the State Beach and Pacific Ocean and on the east by Encinas Creek and the northbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. The bridge is located just north of the Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds. Rev. 11/17/08 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DIEGO COUNTY Lake ^ Wohlfordsan \Marcos Escondido•" ^^ ,'X .- '• Sutherland Reservoir I Batiquitos LagoonPROJECT LOCATION San EIIJoLagoon San Dieguito.Lagoon San Vicente /f 'Reservoir / El Capitan Reservoir 3.75 7.5 "1" = 7.5 Miles Figure 1 Regional Map Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration P:\2n07\moa)2l3.tll Kncimx Creek KriJge Replactmenl\}.0 Gmphius (Ntm-CAl>)'>5.4 I'rojjlraphicsfigwcsfig I rmap.ai (Jbmily) S'13,'09 Source: ESRI StreelMap 2007 ©2,000 1,000 2,000 Feet Scale: 1 : 24,000; 1 inch = 2000 feet Figure 2 Project Vicinity Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Path: P:\2007\07080213.01\G/S\Layout\ctill-jig_slte_vicmity_8xll.mxd 03/25/09. PJonas CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Structural concrete members of the bridge have exhibited severe deterioration, exposing reinforcing bars that have become heavily corroded (Figures 3 and 4). For several years now, the bridge has been classified as structurally deficient and is in need of replacement. Project History The original bridge structure was built in 1913, widened in 1924, and then widened again in 1928. At that time, the structure was designed to carry both northbound and southbound traffic. In 1951, northbound traffic was separated from the southbound traffic and the function of the bridge was reduced to carry only the southbound traffic lanes, as is still the case today. The bridge structure is currently oversized for the provision of only two lanes of southbound traffic. The overall existing bridge width from edge of deck to edge of deck is approximately 69 feet and 4 inches, although the structure extends to approximately 90 feet and 3 inches when including the wingwalls. The existing bridge length measured from paving notch to paving notch along the roadway centerline is approximately 23 feet. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include open space, residential, and recreational uses. The nearest residence is approximately 325 feet northeast of the Encinas Creek Bridge. Habitat types within the area include beach, open water, disturbed salt marsh, disturbed coastal and valley freshwater marsh, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed habitat. The beach and open water are devoid of any vegetation due to public use and permanent inundation. Disturbed habitat is the most prevalent vegetation community within the surrounding area. There are limited wildlife species within the area due to general lack of habitat and the disturbed nature of the habitat that does exist in the area. Various bird species have been observed both on the eastern and western sides of the bridge and ground squirrel burrows were observed east of the bridge. The Encinas Creek Bridge is a culvert-style concrete bridge spanning the outlet for Encinas Creek. The rest of the creek has a natural channel bottom and banks, and is approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. The creek is primarily freshwater but is subject to tidal influence during extreme high tides. However, the water encroaching under the bridge is a result of wave action during a high tide; hence it is influenced by tides and not subject to tidal action. The sandy beach immediately west of the bridge is subject to surf and tides. The project area is subject to the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Carlsbad 2004), but the area is not designated as a core habitat area linkage, or special resource area. The project area is relatively flat with the northbound and southbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard elevated on top of manufactured fill. The fill to the west of the bridge is reinforced with large rock (riprap) for protection against the heavy surf. Proposed Project The City proposes to install a prefabricated arch concrete bridge structure in place of the existing concrete bridge. Similar to the existing bridge, the new bridge would be a culvert style bridge with a concrete base that would be covered with sand and cobble over time. The proposed new structure would have a length of 38 feet and 4 inches to accommodate the 100-year storm event. The proposed new structure would have a width of 43 feet and 2 inches from edge of deck to edge of deck, thereby reducing the overall width of the bridge by approximately 26 feet and 2 inches (6 feet 11 inches to the west and 19 feet 3 inches to the east). This proposed reduction in width, as compared to the existing structure, is because the bridge is currently oversized. Maintaining the existing bridge deck width is not necessary to provide adequate travel lanes for forecasted traffic volumes. In addition, to minimize the construction impacts on the west side, the wingwalls would be placed parallel to the roadway. The current centerline of the roadway would be maintained and the new bridge footprint would fit primarily within the boundaries of the existing structure. The new roadway profile at the crest of the arch would be approximately 0.5 feet higher than the existing roadway profile. The new bridge has been designed to include architectural bridge railing elements similar to those on the existing structure (Figure 5). The new bridge would have pedestrian sidewalks with anodized aluminum railings. In addition, Rev. 11/17/08 Photograph 1. Looking East at Existing Encinas Creek Bridge Photograph 2. Looking West at Encinas Creek and Existing Bridge Figure 3 Representative Photographs 1 and 2 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration P:\20mW080213.0l Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement^.0 Graphics (Non-CAD)\5.4 Proj_CraphicsWigures\Fig 3 rep photos JS.ai (dbrady) 3/23/09 Photograph 3. Looking North along the Beach at the Encinas Creek Bridge Location Photograph 4. Looking Northwest at Encinas Creek Bridge in Distance Figure 4 Representative Photographs 3 and 4 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration P:\2007\070802I3.01 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement^.!) Graphics <Non-CAD)\S.4 Proj_Graphics\Figiires\Fig 4 rep photos IS.ai (dbrady) 3/23/09 .jftti o U IX •o<uwoa.2o, LU Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration P:\2007\07080213.01 Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement5.0 Graphics (Non-CAD)\5.4 Proj_Craphics\Fistires\Fis S.ai (tlbrady) 3/23/09 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Riprap would be used to protect the road and bridge from wave action. Existing riprap would be reconfigured and supplemented with an additional 1,307 cubic yards of 2-ton riprap and 697 cubic yards of one-quarter-ton rock on the west side of the bridge and roadway. Riprap would be added for approximately 118 feet to the north of the bridge and approximately 149 feet south of the bridge to stabilize the currently eroding roadway embankment. New riprap would not extend beyond the limits of the existing riprap. New riprap would be similar in color and shape to the existing riprap. The proposed bridge would be made of precast concrete to reduce construction duration and minimize traffic interruptions. Precast concrete units are constructed off-site and assembled on-site, thereby significantly reducing the amount of time the roadway must remain closed. The construction of the bridge is expected to take up to 4 months and would be completed prior to the Memorial Day holiday. A Detour Plan would be implemented and would detour all southbound traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard at Palomar Airport Road to Avenida Encinas, Poinsettia Lane, and then back to Carlsbad Boulevard. South of Palomar Airport Road, access would be limited to local residents requiring residential access off of Solamar Drive and to the contractor. The North Ponto day parking lot just south of the bridge would remain open via two-way traffic on Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard to just north of Island Way. Changeable message signs would be used to alert traffic of the detour at all major decision points. During construction, sheet piling would be used on both sides of the bridge in order to control wave action and specify construction zones. In addition, safety fencing and/or barricading would be used to help protect the public while the bridge is being constructed. Temporary fences would also be placed around environmentally sensitive areas and no equipment or storage will be allowed on the beach. Construction would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. and sunset and on Saturday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and sunset. Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality /\ Biological Resources X Cultural Resources /\ Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials /\ Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources /\ Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation /\ Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [/^| 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I I 1 find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (El A) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The E1A appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological, and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, .but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; 11 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement j (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the ElA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts that would otherwise be determined significant. 12 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a. Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as the view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing. The proposed project occurs on a roadway along the coast with clear and direct views of the ocean. The general public would be prevented temporarily from utilizing the scenic portion of Carlsbad Boulevard from Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane. Construction would last up to 4 months. Upon project completion, no change in viewshed would occur with the bridge replacement. The bridge railing has been designed to allow continued views of the coast from vehicle traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed project would create a temporary, but not substantial, adverse effect to the scenic vista, due to restricted use of the viewing area. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas are considered less than significant. b. No Impact. The portion of Carlsbad Boulevard impacted by construction is not officially designated a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2007). Therefore, no scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would be damaged with the replacement of the bridge. As a result, no impacts would occur. c. No Impact. The existing visual character of the area and the quality of the site would be maintained. The aesthetic quality of the bridge structure would be improved with project implementation. As a result, no impacts would occur. d. No Impact. The project would not involve any nighttime construction and would not introduce any additional operational light sources or highly reflective surfaces. Therefore, no new source of light or glare would be created by the replacement of the bridge, and, as a result, no impacts would occur. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 13 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) c) Analysis Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? a-c. No Impact. The project is a bridge replacement project and is located on land that is designated Urban and Built Up land (CDC 2006); therefore, the project would not convert any farmland to a non-agricultural use and would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. There is no farmland located adjacent to the project site and the replacement of the existing bridge would not cause farmland to be converted to non-agricultural use. As a result, no impacts would occur. III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 14 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Analysis The proposed project is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The boundaries of the SDAB coincide with those of San Diego County. The SDAB is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). Concentrations of the following air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM|0), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead are used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. These air pollutants are commonly referred to as "criteria air pollutants" because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. These air pollutants are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be deleterious to human health, and there is extensive documentation available on health effects of these pollutants. Criteria air pollutant concentrations are measured at 10 sites in the SDAB. Both the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and EPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. The SDAB currently meets the national standards for all criteria pollutants except for ozone and meets state standards for all criteria pollutants except ozone, PM|0, and PM25. On April 15, 2004, EPA issued the initial designations for the 8-hour ozone standard, and the SDAB is classified as "basic" nonattainment. Basic is the least severe of the six degrees of ozone nonattainment. SDAPCD submitted an air quality plan to EPA in 2007; the plan demonstrated how the 8-hour ozone standard will be attained by 2009. A decision from EPA is not anticipated until the summer or fall of 2009 (SDAPCD 2008). The SDAB is currently classified as a "serious" ozone nonattainment area under state standards. For PM2 5, the SDAB is currently classified as a national attainment area and state nonattainment area. The SDAB is classified a state nonattainment area for PM,o. The SDAB currently falls under a national "maintenance plan" for CO, following a 1998 redesignation as a CO attainment area. For each nonattainment area within California, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) has specified air quality management strategies that must be adopted by the agency responsible for the nonattainment area. Each area must prepare and adopt an air quality management plan or regional air quality strategy (RAQS), which lays out programs for attaining the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards for all criteria pollutants. At present, no attainment plan for PM25 or PM,0 is required by the state regulations. Accordingly, the San Diego RAQS was developed by SDAPCD, pursuant to CCAA requirements and identifies feasible emission control measures to provide expeditious progress in San Diego County toward attaining the state ozone standard. The pollutants addressed are reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), precursors to the photochemical formation of ozone. The RAQS control measures focus on emission sources under SDAPCD authority, specifically stationary emission sources and some areawide sources. However, the emission inventories and emission projections in the RAQS reflect the impact of all emission sources and all control measures, including those under the jurisdiction of ARB (e.g., on-road motor vehicles, off-road vehicles and equipment, and consumer products) and EPA (e.g., aircraft, ships, trains, and preempted off-road equipment). Thus, while legal authority to control different pollution sources is separated, SDAPCD is responsible for reflecting national, state, and local measures in a single plan to achieve ambient air quality standards in San Diego County. Achieving ambient air 15 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement quality standards requires a cooperative partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. The San Diego County RAQS for the SDAB was initially adopted in 1991 and subsequently revised in 1995, then in 1998, again in 2001, and most recently in 2004. The City's General Plan contains an Open Space and Conservation Element and one of the goals of the Element is Air Quality Preservation. The objective of the section is to establish the policy direction for the City ensuring the City's continued support and coordination with local, state, and federal agencies to improve the air quality within the region. Construction-related emissions are described as "short-term" or temporary in duration and have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Construction-related activities associated with the proposed project would primarily result in project-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants (PM|0 and PM25) and ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds [VOCs] and NOX) from site preparation (e.g., soil excavation and clearing); off-road equipment, material transport, and worker commute exhaust emissions; vehicle travel on unpaved roads; paving; and other activities. Emissions of fugitive particulate matter dust (e.g., PM,0 and PM2.5) are associated primarily with ground disturbance activities during site preparation (e.g., grading and excavation) and vary as a function of such parameters as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on- and off-site. Exhaust emissions from diesel equipment and worker commute trips also contribute to short-term increases in total particulate matter emissions, but to a much lesser extent. Emissions of ozone precursors are primarily associated with off-road (e.g., gas and diesel) construction equipment exhaust. Worker commute trips and other construction- related activities (e.g., paving) also contribute to short-term increases in such emissions. The project involves the installation of a prefabricated arch concrete bridge structure in place of the existing concrete culvert bridge. The bridge would be installed over a period of approximately 4 months and would be completed prior to the 2010 Memorial Day holiday. Neither the City nor SDAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant emissions. On federal projects in a basic ozone (8-hour) nonattainment area, thresholds for the presumption that a project would conform to the state implementation plan (SIP) are 100 tons per year for both NOX and VOCs. In recognition of state designation of serious nonattainment for ozone and to be conservative, thresholds of 50 tons per year for NOX and VOCs are used for this project. The federal SIP conformity threshold for PM|0 and PM2 5 in a federal nonattainment area is 100 tons per year. Although the SDAB is not a federal nonattainment area for PM10, it is a state nonattainment area. Therefore, the conservative threshold of 70 tons per year is used for both pollutants for this project (Federal Register 2006). For CO, as the SDAB is compliant with both state and federal standards, the conformity threshold of 100 tons per year would be used to determine significance. These thresholds are used to determine the significance of construction-related emissions generated by the proposed project. Project-generated emissions during construction were modeled using the URBEM1S 2007 Version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS) computer program (Rimpo and Associates 2008). URBEMIS incorporates ARB's EMFAC2007 model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model for off-road vehicle emissions. Project-generated emissions were modeled based on information provided in the project description and default URBEMIS settings to estimate reasonable worst-case conditions. Project-generated construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 1. 16 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Table 1 Estimated Annual Construction Emissions (Tons/Year) 2010 Threshold Exceeds threshold? voc 0.10 50 No NOX 0.82 50 No CO 0.40 100 No PM10 0.13 70 No PM,S 0.06 70 No Note: Construction assumptions, including estimated number and type of construction equipment, construction-related trips, area of disturbance, etc., are present in the URBEMIS data sheets in Appendix A. Source: Data modeled by EDAW 2009 a. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions Based on the results of modeling conducted, construction-related activities would not result in criteria pollutant emissions that exceed the applicable significance thresholds. Compliance with the federal emissions thresholds for nonattainment areas implies that the project conforms to the SIP. The SIP is based on the air quality plans for the different air basins in the state. Thus, project-generated, construction-related emissions would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. Operation-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a net increase of long-term operation-related emissions (e.g., regional VOCs, NOX, or PM|0, PM2.5 or local CO) from mobile, stationary, or area sources. Specifically, the long-term operation of the proposed project would not generate any new vehicular trips and would not result in any associated emissions of criteria air pollutants or ozone precursor emissions from VMT. The new bridge would function in the same manner as the replaced one and is not expected to affect the traffic patterns after construction. Furthermore, project implementation would not result in any area source emissions or the operation of any new stationary emission sources. Thus, project-generated operation-related emissions would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. b. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in a. above, project implementation would not result in construction- or operation-related criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions that exceed applicable significance thresholds. Thus, project-generated emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. c. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in a. above, project-generated construction-related criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a net increase of long-term operation-related emissions (e.g., regional VOCs, NOX, or PM](), PM2 5 or local CO) from mobile, stationary, or area sources. Thus, project-generated emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global climate change is defined as a change in the climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere, and is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) exceeding natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of Earth's climate. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively 17 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Similarly, impacts of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. Human-related emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. If viewed apart from the GHG emissions produced by activities elsewhere in the world, the mass of GHG emissions generated by an individual project such as the proposed project would be so minute that the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere would essentially remain the same. No air district or regulatory agency in California has an adopted threshold or methodology for use in analyzing climate change impacts from projects that are not industrial or stationary in nature. Since it is not possible to determine the individual impact of a project on climate change, the project-level effects of the proposed project on climate change are considered too speculative for further evaluation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). However, the increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is caused by the aggregate GHG emissions from a variety of human activities throughout the world, including development projects. Therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate a project's contribution to global climate change in this cumulative, worldwide context. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (CO2, CH4, and N2O, respectively) primarily associated with the use of off-road (e.g., gasoline and diesel) construction equipment at the site, material transport using diesel trucks, and worker commute exhaust emissions. Project-generated emissions from the use of off-road equipment and diesel trucks during construction were modeled using the URBEMIS computer program (Rimpo and Associates 2008). URBEMIS incorporates ARB's EMFAC2007 model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model for off-road vehicle emissions. Project-generated emissions were modeled based on information provided in the project description and default URBEMIS settings to estimate reasonable worst-case conditions. Based on the modeling conducted, construction of the proposed project would generate a finite quantity of approximately 81 metric tons of CO2 (MTCO2) over the 4-month construction period. Construction activities contribute GHG emissions to a much lesser extent than the long-term operation of a project for which emissions occur annually over the lifetime of the project. Since construction would result in a one-time, finite quantity of 81 MTCO2, construction emissions are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The long-term operation of the proposed project would not generate any new vehicular trips and would not result in any associated GHG emissions from VMT. The new bridge will function in the same manner as the replaced one and is not expected to affect the traffic patterns after construction. Furthermore, project implementation would not result in any area source emissions or the operation of any new stationary emission sources, and would not increase energy consumption in the region. Thus, the project would result in a less than significant impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in operational GHG emissions. d. Less Than Significant Impact. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions Construction activities would result in short-term generation of diesel exhaust emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for demolition, excavation, and other construction activities, in addition to diesel-fueled on-road haul trucks used for hauling demolition debris and the prefabricated bridge structures. Paniculate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) were identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAG) by ARB in 1998. The dose to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAG emission levels that exceed applicable standards). According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAG emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; 18 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (Salinas, pers. comm., 2004). The duration of mobilized equipment used near sensitive receptors located along the construction site would be short (approximately 4 months). The proposed project would represent less than 0.5% of the 70-year exposure period for any nearby sensitive receptor in the area. The air district does not have any current guidance on TAG emissions from mobile equipment, or a threshold of significance for exposure to emissions from this equipment. In addition, diesel PM is highly dispersive and studies have shown measured concentrations of vehicle-related pollutants, including ultra-fine particles, decrease dramatically within approximately 300 feet of the source (Zhu et al. 2002; ARB 2005). Thus, because the use of mobilized equipment would be temporary in combination with the dispersive properties of diesel PM and the distance to the closest sensitive receptor for each site, construction-related TAG emissions would not be anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. Long-Term Operation-Related Emissions With respect to mobile source TAG emissions, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a net increase of long-term operation-related emissions. Specifically, the long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in any commute trip TAG emissions from VMT. Furthermore, project implementation would not result in the operation of any new major stationary emission sources. Thus, project-generated, operation-related TAG emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. CO "hotspots" Sensitive receptors along the proposed site include residences located to the east of the project site and recreational uses to west of the site. As discussed in a. above, project implementation would not result in construction- or operation-related criteria air pollutants or precursor emissions that exceed applicable significance thresholds. In addition, emissions control measures recommended in the City's General Plan would be implemented during construction. The project traffic impact analysis indicates that all intersections and street segments would operate at acceptable LOS during project construction. Thus the project would not contribute to a localized CO impact and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. e. Less Than Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors. Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. The proposed project would result in diesel exhaust emissions from on-site construction equipment during demolition, bridge installation, and other construction activities. The diesel exhaust emissions would be intermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. People potentially affected by odors include the surrounding residential and recreational uses. In addition, the project would not include the long-term operation of any new sources of odor. Thus, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. 19 Rev. 11/17/08 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) b) c) d) e) f) Analysis Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact The City of Carlsbad HMP (City of Carlsbad 2004) designates approximately 6,500 acres of the open space lands in Carlsbad for preservation based on its value as habitats for endangered animals and rare, unique, or sensitive plant species. The plan identifies how the City can protect and maintain these lands while still allowing additional public and private development consistent with the General Plan. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) identifies special resource protections, including the statements that the City will protect wildlife habitat through preservation and enhancement, preserve biodiversity, protect environmentally sensitive lands and buffer areas, preserve sensitive flora and fauna, and preserve conservation areas. a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves replacement of a bridge in-place. Impacts to biological resources are primarily limited to direct and indirect temporary construction impacts. A biological 20 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement resources report was prepared to assess impacts to biological resources with implementation of the proposed project (EDAW 2009a). Seven vegetation communities occur within the vicinity of the proposed project, including beach, open water (Encinas Creek and Pacific Ocean), southern coastal salt marsh, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, disturbed diegan coastal sage scrub, disturbed habitat, and developed habitat (Figure 4). Of these vegetation communities three occur within the construction area including disturbed habitat (Carpobrotus edulis [hottentot fig] and riprap), developed area, and coastal and valley freshwater marsh. These vegetation communities were evaluated for their potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species. Special-status species are those species that are: listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); • listed as endangered, threatened, or rare by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG; 2009a); • considered special vascular plants, bryopytes, or lichens (DFG 2009b); • on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2001,2009); • considered "special animals" (DFG 2009c); or • HMP "covered species" or "narrow endemics" known from the City (City of Carlsbad 2004). A total of 23 special-status plant species were evaluated for their potential to occur on-site. None of the 23 evaluated special-status plants are expected to occur on-site; as such, no impacts to special-status plant species are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project (EDAW 2009a). A total of 19 special-status wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur on-site. Of the special-status wildlife species evaluated, four were identified as having a low potential to occur on-site (light-footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, California least tern, least Bell's vireo) and one with moderate potential (grunion) (EDAW 2009a). See Table 2 below for a description of each of the five species' habitat requirements and their probability of occurring on-site. The light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostis levipes) is a year-round resident (nonmigratory). It inhabits coastal salt and freshwater marshes containing cordgrass, cattails or tules, and rushes. Due to the small size, fragmented nature, and marginal quality of the habitat found within the study area in addition to the intense recreation uses, the light-footed clapper rail is not expected to occur at the study area. 21 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Table 2 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur On-site Common Name Scientific Name Sensitive Species1 Habitat Requirements Probability of Occurrence Birds light-footed clapper rail Rallus longirostris levipes western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus California least tern Sternu/a antillarum browni least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FP SE FE HMP Covered SSC FT HMP Covered FP SE FE HMP Covered SE FE HMP Covered The light-footed clapper rail is a year-round resident (nonmigratory) in southern California. It inhabits coastal salt and freshwater marshes containing cordgrass, cattails or tules, and rushes. Nests on beaches, dunes, and salt flats in San Diego County, with the highest concentrations in two areas: Camp Pendleton and Silver Strand. Outside the breeding season this species is more widespread but not common along the county's coast. A ground-nesting bird that requires undisturbed stretches of beach and coastline. Adults are highly philopatric to natal colonies and forage in bays and estuaries near their colonies. Riparian woodland with understory of dense young willows or mulefat and willow canopy. Nests often placed along internal or external edges of riparian thickets. Due to the disturbed nature of the study area, the low quality of the potential suitable habitat, and the intense recreation uses, the light-footed clapper rail has a low potential to occur at the study area. This species is not expected to nest within the study area due to lack of suitable habitat and the disturbed nature of the study area, including the intensive recreational uses occurring within the narrow beach and the potential for high tide and storm surges to cover the beach. However, there is a low potential for this species to forage during migration through the study area. This species is not expected to nest within the study area due to lack of suitable habitat and the disturbed nature of the study area, including the intensive recreational uses occurring within the narrow beach and the potential for high tide and storm surges to cover the beach. However, there is a low potential for this species to forage during migration through the study area. This species was documented in 2002 approximately 600 feet upstream of the study area (east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard) within a patch of southern willow scrub. As no suitable nesting habitat occurs within or immediately adjacent to the study area, there is a low potential that this species will occur. Fish Grunion Leuresthes tenuis GAME Use sandy beaches subject to ocean surf and tides for evening spawning events. Spawning occurs between March and September depending upon the lunar and tidal cycles, with peak spawning runs between late March and early June. There is a moderate potential for grunion to use the sandy beach west of the bridge during spawning events. 1 Sensitive Status Key The following codes indicate whether a species has been included on a federal or state (California) list, and/or is covered by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as endangered, threatened, rare, candidate, etc. If a species does not appear on any of the lists, the Sensitive Species field is left blank. DFG: (SSC) listed as California Department of Game Species of Special Concern; (FP) listed as Fully Protected; (GAME) Game Species State listed wildlife: (SE) state listed, endangered; (SR) state listed, rare; (ST) state listed, threatened. Federal candidate and listed wildlife: (FE) federally listed, endangered; (FT) federally listed, threatened; (FC) federally listed, candidate; (FPE) federally proposed, endangered; (FPT) federally proposed, threatened. HMP: Covered = species that are covered under the Take Authorization of the HMP; Narrow Endemic = species that have a very narrow distribution 22 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement The Pacific coast population of western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) breeds primarily above the high tide line on coastal beaches similar to those found within the study area. This species was not observed during the survey and is not expected to nest or breed in the study area because the beach is narrow along this stretch of coast. Additionally, due to high recreational use, there is no area of the beach left undisturbed for any significant amount of time. Given the lack of suitable habitat for nesting, this species is not expected to nest here. However, there is a very low potential for this species to migrate through the study area to more optimal nesting sites. This species has historically been reported to occur both to the north and to the south of the study area. California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) is one of three least tern subspecies named in North America. The California least tern breeds on sandy beaches along the coast of California south to Mexico and winters in Mexico, Central America, and South America. The majority of current California least tern nesting colonies and the majority of the population are found in southern California, with smaller populations in the San Francisco Bay and in Baja California. This species nests in sandy areas typically along beaches but is not expected to nest or breed in the study area due to the high recreational use of the beach. However, there is a low potential for this species to occur on-site if migrating through the area. This species has historically been reported to occur south of the study area. The least Bell's vireo (Vireo belliipusillus) is a small songbird inhabiting riparian vegetation along meandering rivers of southern California. During breeding season, vireo require fairly dense riparian shrubbery, preferably where flowing water is present, but they also favor dry watercourses in the desert, bordered by mesquite and arrowweed. Willow, wild rose, and other dense vegetation are used for nesting. Although this species has been known to occur in the vicinity of the study area (>600 feet upstream, east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard), the study area does not support riparian vegetation or offer suitable habitat for this species. These four special-status bird species have a low potential to occur within the vicinity of the project. However, these species are not anticipated to nest on-site, due to lack of suitable habitat, and have a low potential for foraging within the project area. In addition, the proposed project would not result in any permanent impacts to suitable habitat for any of these species. Temporary impacts would be limited to a very small amount (0.004 acre) of coastal valley freshwater marsh. This fragmented habitat is not considered suitable for the above-mentioned species. Therefore, no impacts to special-status wildlife species are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. In addition to the four special-status birds, grunion (Leuresthes temtis) have the potential to occur on-site during the spawning season. Although grunion is not listed as threatened or endangered, it is a game species regulated by DFG. The sandy beach immediately west of the bridge is subject to ocean surf and tides. This area may provide habitat for grunion, which generally spawn between March and September depending upon the lunar and tidal cycles, with peak spawning runs between late March and early June. As described in the project description, no construction equipment or debris would be stored on the beach over night and no work would occur after sunset. Therefore, impacts to grunion are anticipated to be avoided. Other species receive federal protection under the Bald Eagle Protection Act (e.g., bald eagle, golden eagle) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). All birds, except European starlings; English house sparrows; rock doves (pigeons); and nonmigratory game birds such as quail, pheasant, and grouse, are protected under the MBTA. However, these nonmigratory game birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) §3503. Larger raptors such as red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus) nest in mature, large coniferous or deciduous trees and use twigs or branches as nesting material while smaller raptors such as American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and western screech-owl (Otus kennicottii) may nest in cavities in anthropogenic structures and trees. Due to the lack of suitable nesting sites, raptors are not expected to nest on-site although there is some potential that they could forage in the study area. The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) was given further consideration due to the 2005 field observation; however, no suitable nesting habitat for any raptor occurs within the study area and impacts to raptors are not expected. In addition to raptors, there are many special-status passerine and nonpasserine landbirds that are known to occur in the vicinity of the study area. Habitat, nesting, and foraging requirements for these species are wide ranging; therefore, outlining generic habitat requirements for this grouping is difficult. These species typically use most habitat types and are known to nest on the ground; in shrubs and trees; on buildings; under bridges; and within 23 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement cavities, crevices, and man-made structures. Many of these species migrate long distances, and all species, except starlings, English house sparrows, and rock doves (pigeons), are protected under the federal MBTA and CFGC. The nesting period for passerines and nonpasserine land birds occurs between February 1 and August 31. Nesting birds are not expected to occur within the Encinas Creek Bridge direct impact limits, because the bridge structure has a low elevation and is located on an active recreational beach. Due to the limited suitability of nesting habitat on-site and directly adjacent to the site, nesting migratory species are not expected to occur within the project impact footprint. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., Clean Water Act [CWA] §404 and/or CFGC §§1600 et seq.) regulated by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) pursuant to the California Coastal Act and federal Coastal Zone Management Act; or considered sensitive under the City's HMP (1999). In addition, the CNDDB has designated a number of communities as rare; these communities are given the highest inventory priority (Holland 1986; DFG 2003). The project is subject to the City's HMP (1999). The project site is not designated by the HMP as a Core, Linkage, or Special Resource Area. The project site falls within Local Facility Management Zone 22 and the HMP vegetation map designates the study area as "disturbed" vegetation. In addition, the project site is not considered an Existing or Proposed Hardline Conservation Area or Proposed Standards Area as defined by the HMP. Three vegetation communities would be impacted as a result of the proposed construction grading activities. Temporary impacts include: 0.255 acre of disturbed habitat (0.074 acre of Carpobrotus edulis [hottentot fig] and 0.181 acre of riprap/disturbed), 0.161 acre of developed area, and 0.004 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh. In addition, 0.016 acre of disturbed habitat would be permanently impacted by construction. Of the land cover types above, coastal and valley freshwater marsh is considered a sensitive natural vegetation community by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DFG, CCC, and the City. Unavoidable, temporary impacts to coastal and valley freshwater marsh are considered a significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 below, requiring preparation of a revegetation/planting plan, revegetation of all temporary disturbance areas with native seed mix, and monitoring for 24 months, would reduce impacts to 0.004 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh to less than significant. Disturbed habitat is considered a sensitive habitat within the City of Carlsbad HMP (2004). Impacts to disturbed habitat consisting of hottentot fig and riprap would be primarily temporary in nature. Riprap placement would occur in-place and would not result in a change in habitat type. Therefore impacts to disturbed habitat in the form of riprap are considered less than significant. In addition, 0.016 acre of disturbed habitat would be permanently impacted by construction. However, the proposed project would result in an overall permanent decrease in impervious area through reduction of the bridge width by 26 feet. This represents an increase in earthen area of 0.032 acre. Approximately 0.02 acre of this area has been identified as being able to sustain vegetation (riparian or upland) based on grade. The remaining area would consist of beach and open water. Therefore, there is a marginal increase in vegetated area with project implementation. Disturbed habitat in the form of hottentot fig would require mitigation, per the City's HMP, unless mitigated on-site. Impacts to disturbed habitat would be mitigated per mitigation measure BIO-1 requiring revegetation of all temporary disturbance areas with native seed. With implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, temporary and permanent impacts to disturbed habitat in the form of hottentot fig are considered less than significant. The project would result in no long-term impacts to sensitive vegetation communities or riparian habitats, as the proposed bridge can be replaced in-place, resulting in an overall reduction of impervious surface area. Riprap is proposed to be supplemented in place and would not extend farther down the beach or to the north and south than the existing riprap sections. This includes repositioning the riprap to better protect the roadway from erosion and replacing the existing concrete debris that is currently acting as riprap with clean rock. Therefore, no impacts associated with riprap installation are anticipated. However, placement of the riprap would require close monitoring to ensure that no beach is lost with riprap placement, as this is considered a sensitive vegetation community under the City's HMP. Loss of beach from placement of riprap would be considered a significant impact. With implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 below, requiring monitoring of riprap placement and that riprap not be 24 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement extended beyond the existing footprint, impacts associated with potential loss of beach are considered less than significant. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, through restrictive temporary work areas. Impacts to sensitive natural resources, exceeding those detailed above, have the potential to occur without proper contractor education. Impacts to adjacent resources are considered potentially significant. However, with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 below, requiring contractor education and identification of "no construction zones" on plans, potential impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures BIO-1. All temporary impact areas shall be replanted with native species prior to completion of the construction. Prior to construction, a revegetation/planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department to identify appropriate native species and success criteria. Newly seeded areas shall be monitored by a qualified biologist for erosion monthly (or more frequently as needed) for a period of 24 months post-construction or until vegetation has become established. In addition, all revegetated areas shall be weeded quarterly for the period of 24 months to prevent invasive plant species from dominating the revegetated areas. Mitigation for impacts to habitats shall occur on-site within or adjacent to the temporary work area and shall be completed at the ratios described in Table 3. Table 3 Mitigation Ratios Vegetation Community (Holland Classification as modified by Oberbauer) Beach (64400) Open Water (64 100) Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) Disturbed Habitat (1 1300) Project Impacts Permanent Impacts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.016 Temporary Impacts 0.067 0.016 0.004 0.255 Mitigation Ratios1 1:1 1:1 1:1 (no net loss) 0.1:1 Mitigation Acreage Required 0.67 0.016 0.004 0.271 ' Mitigation ratios are only for temporary impacts to beach, open water, and coastal and valley freshwater marsh. The mitigation ratio for disturbed habitat is for both temporary and permanent impacts. BIO-2. Riprap placement shall be limited to areas where riprap already exists. New riprap shall not be placed onto the beach and shall not extend westerly beyond the existing riprap area. BIO-3. The contractor(s) shall be informed, prior to the bridge replacement, about the biological constraints of the project. The construction limits shall be clearly marked on project maps provided to the contractor(s) and all wetland areas within or adjacent to construction areas should be encompassed by orange environmental fencing to protect them from construction, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist and the Land Manager. A qualified biologist shall inspect all construction fencing prior to construction and shall monitor construction grading activities to prevent unauthorized impacts. c. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted in the project area to determine the jurisdiction of Encinas Creek (EDAW 2009a). The results of this delineation indicate that Encinas Creek is considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters of the state (EDAW 2009a). Encinas Creek is perennial and supports jurisdictional wetlands that are confined to the width of the Ordinary High Water Mark and the southern terrace. No permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters are anticipated with project implementation. Up to 0.038 acre of temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters (in the form of wetlands [0.004 acre] and nonwetland waters [0.034 acre]) would potentially occur as a result of the proposed project. Temporary impacts to 0.038 acre of jurisdictional waters is considered significant. Because impacts are temporary in nature and affect such a small area, impacts should be mitigable on-site through revegetation of the temporarily impacted vegetated 25 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement communities. The proposed project would result in an overall permanent decrease in impervious area through reduction of the bridge width by 26 feet. This represents an increase in earthen area of 0.032 acre. Approximately 0.02 acre of this area has been identified as being able to sustain vegetation (riparian or upland) based on grade. The remaining area would consist of beach and open water. With incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-4 below, requiring recontouring and revegetation of jurisdictional areas, resulting in no net loss of wetlands, impacts to jurisdictional waters are considered less than significant. In addition, impacts to jurisdietional waters from erosion and sedimentation from construction activities are considered potentially significant. Impacts to jurisdictional waters and receiving waters from erosion are further discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this report. With implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, requiring development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), water quality impacts to jurisdictional features on-site are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Mitigation for temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters (including wetlands) shall be detailed in the revegetation/planting plan as described in mitigation measure BIO-1 and shall include at a minimum 1:1 in-place restoration after construction to reestablish jurisdictional areas to conditions and functions at least equal to the existing quality of the jurisdictional areas impacted. Any temporary work areas shall be decompacted and recontoured to original grade and preactivity condition. d. Less Than Significant Impact. As is the case in many areas throughout southern California, habitat fragmentation within the Encinas Creek watershed is a serious issue, as most of the western and eastern portions of the watershed are urbanized. However, there is a relatively intact mosaic of natural and disturbed habitats within the central part of the watershed. The study area has limited connectivity to undeveloped inland areas due to the extensive surrounding residential and industrial development. Additionally, two major roads limit connectivity to and within the study area. Carlsbad Boulevard northbound extends along the entire east side of the study area, and to the west Carlsbad Boulevard southbound bisects the study area (both roads are two-lane major thoroughfares). The shoreline provides far-reaching uninterrupted connectivity for several miles to the north and south. The proposed project footprint is smaller than the existing bridge and would replace the current bridge footprint resulting in no loss to movement corridors and no additional habitat fragmentation in the study area. In addition, the smaller footprint coupled with the wider channel may actually facilitate a more functional interaction between the Pacific Ocean and Encinas Creek thereby increasing the potential for use by aquatic wildlife. Impacts to the beach would be limited to the area immediately adjacent to the bridge and would not create any breaks in beach connectivity. Temporary impacts to the connectivity between Encinas Creek and the Pacific Ocean would occur as a result of construction as creek diversion would be necessary. If possible, the creek would be dammed for the duration of construction and the water allowed to accumulate and subsequently flood the adjacent southern terrace. Creek water would be diverted around the bridge with a pump system during and following significant rain events. Following construction, the dam would be removed and flow between the water bodies would be restored. No sensitive species are expected to utilize the channel as a movement corridor; as such, impacts would be less than significant. e-f. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is subject to City permitting requirements, including a Coastal Development Permit, HMP permit, and Land Use permit. These permits would contain conditions that ensure the project's consistency with applicable local ordinances and policies. Furthermore, the proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize biological resource and coastal impacts where feasible. Mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts are consistent with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad HMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any policies or ordinances affecting biological resources and would not conflict with the City's HMP. 26 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Analysis The City of Carlsbad General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element identifies Historic and Cultural Preservation goals, including protecting, preserving, recognizing, and enhancing the City's existing and continuing heritage. Objectives include promoting the use of historic resources for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of Carlsbad. The General Plan prohibits the alteration of properties of state or national significance unless reviewed under the requirements of CEQA. A Cultural Resource Letter Report has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts to cultural resources (EDAW 2009b). a. Less Than Significant Impact. The Caltrans Local Bridge Inventory includes a list of local bridges that have been evaluated by Caltrans for historical significance, including eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under CEQA. The existing bridge at Encinas Creek is included on the Caltrans Local Bridge Inventory and is listed as Category 5, which means that while the construction date of the bridge suggests that it is has potential for historical significance, the poor condition and lack of integrity of the bridge indicate that it is not eligible for listing in the CRHR. The bridge is not eligible for listing; therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts are considered less than significant. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A records search was conducted at the South Coastal Information Center, located at San Diego State University on August 20, 2007, and the San Diego Museum of Man on February 26, 2009. The records and literature search results indicated that 23 cultural resources have been previously recorded within a 1-mile radius of the project area. All of the previously identified resources are prehistoric sites consisting of campsites and shell scatters. There are also three isolated prehistoric tools. One site CA-SDI-17,408 (SDI-W-111) is located just north of the Encinas Creek Bridge. On March 3, 2009, an archaeological site visit for the Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement project was conducted (EDAW 2009b). The site was not detected or relocated during the site check and the area is heavily disturbed by previous construction of the Encinas Creek Bridge and Carlsbad Boulevard. The project involves replacement of a bridge in-place and limited excavation into native soils. Given the results of the records search, there is a potential for archeological resources to be present within any undisturbed areas adjacent to the existing bridge structure. With implementation of mitigation measure CULT-1 below, requiring monitoring during construction grading activities and appropriate data recovery if required, impacts to archeological resources would be less than significant. 27 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. The City of Carlsbad shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to perform construction monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, work shall be halted in that area and redirected until the resources are evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate data recovery actions are implemented. c. Less Than Significant Impact. The replacement of the Encinas Creek Bridge would involve limited excavation of native soils. The bridge is proposed to be replaced in-place. Limited shallow grading would occur around the bridge replacement area. Therefore, the likelihood of encountering any paleontological resources is low and impacts are considered less than significant. d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project involves replacement of an existing bridge and would not involve significant excavation into undisturbed soils. Potential to encounter human remains is low. However, because there are known prehistoric sites located in the proximity of the bridge, there is the potential to encounter previously undiscovered human remains. Mitigation measure CLJLT-2 below would reduce any potential impacts to human remains to less than significant. Mitigation Measure CULT-2. In the event of discovery of any human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site and the County Medical Examiner shall be contacted. If the Coroner determines that the remains may be those of a Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted and Native American consultation shall be undertaken to determine appropriate steps to be taken. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 28 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Analysis a. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map (Division of Mines and Geological Special Publication 42, 2007) and the City of Carlsbad General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994), there are no known active or potentially active faults located within city limits. According to the Draft Foundation Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009), the closest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone located 4.1 miles offshore. The current bridge is exhibiting severe deterioration, exposing reinforcing bars that have become corroded. The bridge is classified as structurally deficient and is currently being inspected quarterly. Therefore, the replacement of the bridge would reduce hazardous risks to people. The Draft Foundations Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009) recommends adhering to the Caltrans Design Guidelines and design parameters of the Structural Engineering Association of California. The City's General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) notes that no Special Study zones, as required by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Act (as of the latest update of the Act in 1990), have been delineated within the City by the State Geologist. According to the Draft Foundation Report dated February 2009, the project is in a gently sloping area with slight topographic relief, and the potential for landslides or instability is low. Therefore, with proper bridge design the proposed project would not expose people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death from earthquake, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project would involve grading around the existing bridge structure and would cause soils to be exposed. Vegetation removal in the construction area would also result in soil exposure. For these reasons, the project could result in increased soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil. With the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 and mitigation measure HYDRO-1, erosion potential would be reduced to less than significant. c-d. Less Than Significant Impact. The replacement of the bridge would not be located on an unstable geologic unit or expansive soils. The Draft Foundation Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009) indicates that the general site vicinity is underlain by Tertiary Marine sediments capped by Quaternary Marine and Non-Marine sediments deposited on wave-cut terraces. In the immediate vicinity of the site, the creek has scoured the terrace materials away and deposited alluvium, which presently underlies the site. The site is underlain by artificial fill, alluvium, and the Mid-Eocene Santiago formation, and the site can be characterized as competent soil. Fill soils have-a very low 29 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement potential for expansion. Alluvial soils are more fine-grained with expansion potential from very low to moderate. These site soils are considered corrosive, and the reinforced concrete would require corrosion control in accordance with Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications. The existing alluvial soils would support the anticipated bridge loads. The Draft Foundations Report states that the alluvial soils at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to their high density or fine-grained nature. The potential for large-scale liquefaction at this site during the life of the project is very low (GeoLogic Associates 2009). Lateral spreading was evaluated by the use of SHAKE2000, and the results of these calculations indicate that dynamic lateral spreading would likely be in the '/4-inch to '/2-inch range, and this magnitude is within the range of normal static settlement and is not considered significant (GeoLogic Associates 2009). Since no active faults are known to transect the site, ground surface rupture as a result of movement along known faults is considered unlikely. Current seismic standards for design and construction are intended to reduce the potential for major structural damage during a seismic event. Therefore, geologic impacts are considered less than significant. e. No Impact. The project is not located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed with the bridge replacement project. Therefore, no impact would result. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 30 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Analysis a.-b. No Impact. The proposed project involves replacement of an existing bridge. Standard construction materials would be used for bridge replacement. Any hazardous materials stored on-site would be properly contained per appropriate stormwater BMPs. Disposal of bridge materials would occur off-site in a proper disposal facility. In February 2009, the existing bridge was tested for asbestos (JMR Environmental Services 2009). The bulk samples were collected from the Encinas Creek Bridge and were in accordance with the EPA/600/R-93/116 Test Method for the determination of asbestos in bulk building materials. No asbestos were detected in the samples. The project would not, therefore, create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not release hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no impact would result. c. No Impact. The proposed project is not located within within one-quarter mile of an existing or a proposed school. Therefore, there would be no impact to schools due to hazardous materials. d. No Impact. According to the EPA List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Site from the Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor database (EPA 2009), the proposed project is not located on or near a hazardous waste site. During database searches, one leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site was identified (ENCFNA WPCF T0607300568) at 6200 Avenida Encinas. This site is listed as a LUST cleanup site. The cleanup status of the site is listed as complete, meaning it is not likely that hazardous waste would be encountered from the site, and the case is closed. Therefore, no impact would result. e-f. No Impact. According to geographic information system (G1S) mapping, the project is approximately 3 miles from the McClellan Palomar Airport. The bridge replacement project involves no tall structures that would interfere with air travel or airport operations and would not cause a safety hazard. Therefore, no impact would result. g. No Impact. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element's goals and objectives include the maintenance of close coordination between planned improvements to the circulation system within Carlsbad and the location of fire stations to ensure adequate levels of service and response times to all areas of the community, and to maintain an initial emergency travel response time of five (5) minutes. The City of Carlsbad Emergency Plan applies to extraordinary emergencies that pose a threat to life and property and the overall well-being of the community. Traffic would be rerouted as described in the Project Description of this Initial Study. The City of Carlsbad has coordinated with the Carlsbad police and fire departments on the traffic detour plans and would coordinate further with the departments in advance of road closure to ensure adequate emergency response times are maintained and the emergency service providers are aware of all traffic detours. It can be assumed that response times may be altered by the traffic detour plan. However, with proper coordination, impacts would be less than significant. 31 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement h. No Impact. The proposed project is on the coast and the risk of wildland fires is low; therefore, no impact would result. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 32 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or darn? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. I) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or ground water receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is directly adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and spans Encinas Creek. The bridge replacement project has the potential to significantly impact water quality or violate a water quality standard through bridge demolition and construction activities. Potential pollutants may include concrete, sediment, fuel, and other construction debris. With implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1 below, requiring preparation of a SWPPP for construction activities, impacts to water quality from construction would be less than significant. It is anticipated that groundwater would be encountered at a depth of 9 feet below the existing ground surface of the bridge deck, which is an approximate groundwater elevation of+6 feet mean sea level (GeoLogic Associates 2009). Groundwater is anticipated to be encountered during excavation, especially during high tides or after periods of precipitation. The depths to groundwater observed represent temporary groundwater levels prior to backfilling and are not considered the static groundwater table (GeoLogic Associates 2009). The groundwater levels are expected to vary daily and seasonally (GeoLogic Associates 2009). It is likely that groundwater dewatering practices would be required during construction. Any dewatering of groundwater to Encinas Creek or the Pacific Ocean would require obtaining Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Order No. R9-2008-0002). RWQCB WDRs are designed to ensure that extracted groundwater meets discharge 33 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement specifications for pollutant concentrations. Furthermore, BMPs would be implemented as a part of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, which would reduce any potential water quality impacts from groundwater dewatering to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1. The City shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (99-08 DWQ) or most current permit at the time of construction commencement. The SWPPP shall contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the contractor will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, and a chemical monitoring program for "nonvisible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs. BMPs shall include, but are not limited to: • Spoils, trash, or any debris remaining at the site after project completion shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. • No equipment refueling areas shall be located at the construction site outside of designated areas. Fueling of construction equipment shall take place on existing paved roads and not within or adjacent to any drainages, wetlands, or native habitats. • "Fueling zones" shall be designated on construction maps and qualified biologists shall flag the limits of the "fueling zones." These "fueling zones" shall be located at least 50 feet from all drainage features and wetlands. • All stockpiled soil should be stored in 55-gallon drums within the roadway (nonwetland areas). • Stockpiles shall not remain on-site for more than 1 week. b. No Impact. The replacement of the bridge would not utilize groundwater resources and would therefore not deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, no impact would result. c-d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would require the temporary diversion of Encinas Creek by the means of a bypass pump and transfer pipe system. BMPs, as identified in mitigation measure HYDRO-1, would be installed at the pipe outlet on the sand to prevent erosion. Once construction commences, stream flows would return to pre-construction conditions. The project would not permanently alter the course of Encinas Creek, or increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff. Furthermore, the ultimate footprint of the bridge would be reduced with construction, thereby reducing the amount of impervious surface on the project site. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, impacts to water quality from alteration of stream courses or velocities are considered less than significant. e. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project proposes replacement of a bridge in- place. The new bridge would be reduced in size by 26 feet and is not being replaced to increase capacity of the roadway. Therefore, runoff volume post-construction is not anticipated to increase but rather decrease through reduction of overall impervious surfaces. In addition, the bridge replacement project would not introduce any new operational pollutants that could contaminate stormwater runoff. Project construction would comply with mitigation measure HYDRO-1, as discussed above. Therefore, no impacts from increased runoff or a new source of polluted runoff is anticipated at project completion and, with implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, potential impacts during construction are reduced to less than significant. f. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is a bridge replacement project; therefore, with implementation of the BMPs as outlined in mitigation measure HYDRO-1, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts to water quality are considered less than significant. 34 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement g-h. No Impact. The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing bridge and does not involve the construction of any housing; therefore, it does not place housing within the 100-year flood hazard area. According to the Encinas Creek Bridge Hydraulic Evaluation (Nolle Associates 2009), the 100-year peak discharge at the Encinas Creek crossing is 2,000 cubic feet per second. Hydraulic analysis has been completed to ensure the bridge design would accommodate the 100-year storm. The bridge has been sufficiently designed so that it would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no impact would result. i. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project proposes to temporarily dam Encinas Creek during bridge construction and divert water as necessary, via a pumping mechanism, around the bridge to the beach. The creek would be temporarily dammed via sheet pilings and would only be pumped during rain events or other increased creek flows. Encinas Creek is primarily fed via urban runoff, and volume of water fluctuates heavily with rain events. No structures occur in the area; however, there is the potential for impacts to recreational beach users and construction workers if the temporary dam fails during, or immediately following, a high rain event. With implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-2 below, requiring frequent monitoring of water diversion mechanisms to ensure proper function and efficiency, the potential impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2. The contractor shall monitor the construction site during all storm events to ensure that water damming does not reach volumes that could cause a risk to construction workers or recreational beach users from dam failure and subsequent flooding. Diversion mechanisms shall be of adequate capacity to pump water during storm events, and back-up diversion pumping shall be readily available in the event of equipment malfunction. j. No Impact. The City of Carlsbad General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) Safety Element notes that the beach areas are susceptible to the seismic hazard of tsunami (tidal waves), and the lagoon areas are susceptible to the seismic hazard of seiche (raising and lowering of water surface). The Draft Foundation Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009), states that southern California is oriented obliquely with the major originating tsunami zones, and it has a relatively wide and rugged Continental Shelf that acts as a diffuser and reflector of tsunami wave energy. This, along with the geologic and seismic conditions, minimizes the likelihood of a large tsunami at the site. Therefore, no impact would result. k-m. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As described in a. above, construction of the bridge replacement project has the potential to impact surface water quality. In addition, grading activities would result in exposed soils and increase erosion potential in areas cleared of vegetation. With implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, and mitigation measure B1O-1, which requires revegetation of all bare ground areas (post-construction), impacts to water quality or increased erosion are considered less than significant. n. No Impact. The project area is in the Carlsbad Watershed and Encinas Hydrologic Area 904.4. The beach area in the vicinity of the project and Encinas Creek are not listed on the 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List (SWRCB 2006) as impaired water bodies. The project would not increase any pollutant to an impaired water body. Therefore, no impact would result. o. No Impact. The new bridge would be approximately 26 feet narrower than the existing bridge. The project would reduce impervious surfaces and associated runoff. Therefore, no impact would result. p. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Per Section IV. Biological Resources, temporary impacts to 0.038 acre of jurisdictional waters (0.004 acre of wetlands and 0.034 acre of nonwetland waters) would occur as a result of the proposed project, including diversion of Encinas Creek. Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters would be considered significant. However, with implementation of mitigation measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 as described above and BIO-4, requiring restoration/revegetation of jurisdictional areas, impacts would be considered less than significant. 35 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement q. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Existing beneficial uses of inland surface waters of the Canyon de las Encinas are noncontact recreational water use, freshwater habitats, and wildlife habitats supporting terrestrial ecosystems. Existing beneficial uses of groundwater for Encinas Creek include municipal and domestic supply uses. Existing beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean include both contact and noncontact recreational use; estuarine habitat; wildlife habitat; marine habitat; habitat necessary for the survival and maintenance for a species established by law as rare, threatened, or endangered; and navigation (RWQCB 1994). With implementation of BMPs as required under mitigation measure HYDRO-1, the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses, and any potential impacts, as described above, would be less than significant. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a. No Impact. The replacement of the existing bridge would not physically divide a community. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Map (City of Carlsbad 2009) designates the area as Open Space, and the bridge is a part of Carlsbad Boulevard, which has a General Plan designation of Major Arterial Street. The portion of the street containing the project area (between Island Way and Solamar Drive) does not cross into any residential or commercial areas. Therefore, no impacts would result. b. No Impact. As the project consists of replacing an already existing bridge, it does not conflict with any land use plans, policies, or regulations, or conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The project area is on land designated by the City of Carlsbad General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) as Open Space and Major Arterial Street. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Plan divides Open Space into five categories. The proposed project area falls into Category 1: Open Space for the Preservation of Natural Resources. This category discusses the protection of beaches, bluffs, and banks, including coastal beaches, coastal bluffs and cliffs, lagoon beaches, lakeshores, the banks of rivers and streams, and watershed lands. The General Plan also discusses the Local Coastal Plan, and recognizes that one-third of the City is located in the coastal zone. All development within the coastal zone, including the proposed project, requires a Coastal Development Permit. The project is consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, no impact would result. c. No Impact. The project is subject to the City's HMP for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (Carlsbad 2004). The study area is not designated by the HMP as a Core, Linkage, or Special Resource Area. The study area falls within Local Facility Management Zone 22 and the HMP vegetation map designates the study area as "disturbed" vegetation. In addition, the study area is not considered an Existing or Proposed Hardline Conservation Area or Proposed Standards Area as defined by the HMP. The HMP designates 6,500 acres of Open Space land for preservation. The HMP also includes mitigation ratios for impacts to habitats, species proposed for 36 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement coverage, and habitat types within Carlsbad. As discussed in the biological resources section of this document, impacts to biological resources would be mitigated consistent with the HMP. The proposed project would not conflict with the HMP. Therefore, no impacts would result. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact b) Analysis Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a. No Impact. The proposed project would temporarily affect beach quality sand, a valuable natural resource; however, the proposed project would not result in the loss of beach sand or another known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result. b. No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad does not have any economically significant mineral resources. Mineral resources are considered a Category 5 citywide priority for future open space planning. This is the lowest priority given to open space planning actions. The proposed project is a bridge replacement project; therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 37 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace an existing structurally deficient bridge with a new bridge providing the same capacity (two lanes for southbound traffic). Operation of the bridge would not change traffic circulation or the traffic noise generated. The goal of the City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element (City of Carlsbad 1994) is to achieve and maintain an environment that is free from objectionable, excessive, or harmful noise. The Noise Element establishes an exterior noise guideline of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for residential uses. The Noise Element's goal for circulation is to design and manage all roadways to maintain acceptable noise levels. Carlsbad's Municipal Code for Noise (Noise Ordinance) limits the hours of construction to Monday - Friday from 7 a.m. to sunset and Saturday from 8 a.m. to sunset; no construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays, unless granted by permit from the City. Hauling of materials is prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. The construction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with these limits. The Noise Ordinance does not establish quantified construction noise limits; however, the County of San Diego sets a construction noise limit of 75 dBA averaged over 1 hour. This threshold is assumed as the construction noise limit for the purpose of this analysis. Project construction would involve typical construction equipment and vehicles to demolish and remove the existing bridge, excavate soil, and establish a foundation for the installation of the prefabricated bridge. Pavement breaking and metal pile driving for foundation would generate short-term, maximum noise levels. An average hourly noise level of 85-90 dBA at 50 feet can be assumed from the construction activity, based on industry standards. Noise attenuates with distance at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. The nearest noise sensitive receptor (residence) is approximately 325 feet northeast of the project site. The construction noise would attenuate by approximately 22 dBA over this distance, assuming no barriers (e.g., topography or structures). Therefore, the construction noise would be below the construction noise limit of 75 dBA, assumed for this project. In addition, the project site is shielded from the residences by the higher elevation of the northbound segment of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, which would further reduce the project construction noise levels observed at the residences. Construction haul routes for construction materials, equipment, and vehicles are anticipated during the hours allowed by the Noise Ordinance along Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road to access Interstate 5 (1-5). Construction staging areas are anticipated along the closed segment of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard. The resulting construction noise may be audible to the residential receptors but would be temporary and would not create a significant noise impact. The closure of this segment of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard during project construction (up to 4 months) would require southbound traffic to be diverted onto a nearby southbound route to the nearest access interchange south of the construction site. The project traffic report identified a detour route for southbound traffic off Carlsbad Boulevard, east onto Palomar Airport Road, south to Avenida Encinas, and west on Poinsettia Lane, more than doubling the existing average daily vehicle trips on these roadways, some of which are two-lane and/or secondary 38 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement roadways (See Section XV. Transportation/Traffic). Therefore, there would be a temporary, moderate- term (4-month) increase in ambient noise levels at residences along the detour route during the construction period. Based on acoustical science, the doubling of a noise source, such as doubling traffic volumes, does not double noise levels, but increases net traffic noise levels by 3 dBA, which can barely be perceived by a healthy human ear. An increase of 5 dBA is readily perceptible. The detour traffic would increase average daily vehicle trips on Avenida Encinas from 3,550 to 7,950 daily vehicles and 2,700 to 8,840 vehicles on Poinsettia Lane. However, the majority of these daily trips occur during peak AM and PM traffic periods, which occur within the City Noise Ordinance's period of allowable construction noise, which includes detoured traffic noise. Therefore, the noise concern is the construction-related detoured traffic after this period during the evening and night hours when ambient noise levels are typically lower. However, the proposed detour route is bounded by a major railroad line (carrying substantial regional and local passenger, and freight traffic) and 1-5 (within 300 to 1,000 feet). Therefore, daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels are anticipated to be somewhat elevated from these sources, which is documented by the houses facing away from Avenida Encinas with an existing noise wall. This would reduce the effects of the diverted traffic noise increases on the residences. In addition, 1-5 provides an adjacent alternative detour route of greater speed and capacity, which includes an interchange at Poinsettia Lane to access Carlsbad Boulevard and resumes southbound travel on it. Therefore, traffic along the detour route would potentially be less than doubled, and the resulting increased noise level at the adjacent residences not perceivable, and thus not result in a significant noise impact. In addition to human noise sensitive receptors (i.e., residences), other animal species can be considered sensitive to noise, particularly some bird species, especially during breeding season. Bird species listed as threatened or endangered are particularly afforded analysis and protection when located in proximity to noise sources. USFWS provides a noise limit as a guideline for noise impact assessment. Please refer to Section IV. Biological Resources, for a discussion of potential impacts to nesting birds. Operational noise levels of traffic on the replacement bridge would be the same as currently generated, since the roadway capacity of the bridge has not been changed, and the project would not generate or attract new or additional vehicle trips. The proposed project would not expose people to or generate noise levels in exceedance of a standard established by the City's General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or an applicable agency. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. b. No Impact. The proposed project is approximately 325 feet from the nearest structure (a residence); therefore, temporary vibrations from bridge demolition and installation would be too far away to expose people to excessive groundborne vibration or noise. Therefore, no impact would result. c. No Impact. The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing bridge, without increasing roadway capacity or generating or attracting new or additional vehicle trips. The proposed project would not create a substantially permanent increase in ambient noise, as operational noise levels are expected to remain the same. Therefore, no impact would result. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project construction and along the traffic detour route. However, due to sufficient distance of receptors from the construction area, and the elevated ambient noise environment of the traffic detour route, the temporary noise increase would not be considered substantial. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. e-f. No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 3 miles from McClellan Palomar Airport and therefore would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would result. 39 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) b) c) Analysis Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a. No Impact. The project involves the replacement of an existing bridge, and design does not involve increased traffic capacity. The project would not directly or indirectly induce growth. Therefore, no impact would result. b-c. No Impact. The project would not cause the displacement of any people or homes or require replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would result. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 40 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement a. i-ii. Less Than Significant Impact. The Carlsbad City Engineer has authorized the closing of the southbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard beginning after Labor Day for a period of time necessary to complete construction. The City's Traffic Engineer has approved a detour plan, which would allow two-way traffic on the northbound section of Carlsbad Boulevard between Solamar Drive on the north and Island Way on the south. Two- way traffic would also be allowed on southbound Carlsbad Boulevard just south of the bridge to allow for access to the North Ponto beach access parking lot. The Fire Department and the Police Department would be notified of and approve all detour routes prior to the start of construction. This detour plan would allow for acceptable service ratios for emergency and public services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii. No Impact. The proposed project is a bridge replacement project and would not result in population growth. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to, or require the altering of any schools to accommodate additional students. Construction of the proposed project would not impact emergency response times to schools, as there are no schools located within the project area. Therefore, no impact would result. iv. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The public beach area serves as a recreational park area, and the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to the beach area. The North Ponto parking lot located north of Poinsettia Lane, and the public beach areas, would remain open during construction of the proposed project. The public would have continued access to these areas for recreation purposes. In addition, no construction would occur during the peak recreational season (summer) between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The roadside parking area directly south of Palomar Airport road (approximately 34 parking spaces) would be closed to the public during construction. However, with implementation of mitigation measure Traffic-2, requiring temporary parking be provided, impacts are considered less than significant. v. No Impact. Beach access would be maintained during construction and the beach would remain open to the public for recreational use. The North Ponto parking lot located north of Poinsettia Lane would remain open for use during construction. The proposed project would not cause an adverse impact to any additional public services or public facilities. Therefore, no impact would result. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Analysis a-b. No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has included, in the proposed construction detour plan, access to the North Ponto parking lot via two-way traffic on southbound Carlsbad Boulevard for the purpose of maintaining beach access during construction. In addition, construction would occur outside of the peak recreational season, as described in the project description. Therefore, while construction activities may deter some recreational use of the beach at the bridge location, and increase beach use at other adjacent areas, it would not result in substantial 41 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement deterioration of other beach facilities. As the project involves the replacement of an existing bridge, it would not increase the use of any park or recreational facility (i.e., public beach) in the long term and would not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? Analysis a-b. Less Than Significant Impact. As a part of the proposed project, the City of Carlsbad has identified a Detour Plan, which would be implemented during construction and would detour southbound traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard at Palomar Airport Road to Avenida Encinas, Poinsettia Lane, and then back to Carlsbad Boulevard. South of Palomar Airport Road, access would be limited to local residents requiring residential access off of Solamar Drive and to the contractor. As a part of the Detour Plan, directional signs would be used along Palomar Airport Road to direct hotel guests to use that route to access the Hilton Hotel. The City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan notes that a traffic impact is considered significant if the addition of the project traffic causes the intersection or street segment service to decrease to worse than LOS D during the peak hour (LLG 2009). A Traffic Impact Analysis was performed by LLG in June 2009 to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed project. Traffic on all major roadways within the project area and detour route was evaluated. Table 4 shows existing traffic volumes and anticipated traffic volumes with the closure of Carlsbad Boulevard. 42 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Table 4 Traffic Volumes Major Roadway Palomar Airport Road Avenida Encinas Carlsbad Boulevard (between Solamar Drive and Island Way) Carlsbad Boulevard (between Island Way and Poinsettia Lane) Poinsettia Lane Existing Traffic Volumes (ADT) 3,870 WB 3,750 NB 5,130 NB 5,130 NB 2,700 WB 4,320 EB 3,550 SB 6,500 SB 6, 120 SB 2,700 EB Existing Traffic Volumes with SB Carlsbad Blvd. closure (ADT) 1,870 WB (northwestbound) 3,750 NB 5J30NB 5,730 NB 8,840 WB 8,030 EB (southeastbound) 7,950 SB OSB 500 SB i 2,700 EB ADT=Average Daily Trips NB=northbound, SB=southbound, WB=westbound, EB=eastbound The report states that the closure of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, with implementation of the detour plan, is expected to result in increased traffic volumes on Palomar Airport Road, on Avenida Encinas between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane, and on Poinsettia Lane between Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas. The forecast volumes would remain within the capacities of these roadways. With the closure of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, all street segments are calculated to operate at LOS A. Intersections were also analyzed, and traffic volumes would increase at the Carlsbad Blvd./Cannon Road, Palomar Airport Road/Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad Boulevard/Poinsettia Lane, and Poinsettia Lane/Avenida Encinas intersections. Even with traffic increases at these intersections, with implementation of the detour plan while southbound Carlsbad Boulevard is closed, all intersections are calculated to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better. All street segments and intersections would operate at LOS C or above. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. c. No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. Therefore, no impact would result. d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. All project circulation improvements would be designed and constructed to City and Caltrans standards and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, bike traffic would be rerouted from Carlsbad Blvd to Cannon Road and directed to use southbound Avenida Encinas to Pointsettia Lane before reconnecting with Carlsbad Blvd. Bicyclists traveling south on Carlsbad Blvd. would be encouraged to exit at Cannon Road via directional signage, but would not be prohibited from traveling with vehicle traffic on Carlsbad Blvd. between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. Minimal bike traffic can be anticipated to continue on Southbound Carlsbad Blvd., where cyclists will travel with detoured vehicle traffic to Avenida Encinas via Palomar Airport Road. Palomar Airport Road is narrow at the approach to Avenida Encinas, and along Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas there are no designated bike lanes. Along portions of the bike detour, bicyclists must share the southbound travel lanes with vehicles. Therefore, there is a potential for a temporary significant impact to bike traffic with project implementation. With the rerouting of the majority of bike traffic to Cannon Road and implementation of mitigation measure TRAFFIC-1, requiring "share the road" signage, the awareness of motorists would be enhanced and bicycle safety during construction would be increased. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1. To enhance the awareness of bicyclists to motorists, "Share the Road" signs would be posted on Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas. 43 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire Department and Police Department. During construction, all emergency providers would be given notice of the traffic detours. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element objectives include maintaining an initial emergency travel response time of 5 minutes, and maintaining close coordination between planned improvements to the circulation system with the City of Carlsbad and the location of fire stations to ensure adequate levels of service and response times to all areas of the community. The traffic detour plan has been reviewed by both the Fire and Police Departments. Emergency response times have the potential to differ from existing with the implementation of the traffic detour plan. However, with advance coordination with the Fire and Police Departments, adequate emergency access would be maintained. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. f. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Parking is not allowed on the bridge deck and replacement of the bridge would not eliminate availability of parking post-construction. Temporary closure of the roadside parking area directly south of Palomar Airport Road and north of Solomar Drive would occur during construction, as there will be no access to Carlsbad Boulevard. However, the North Ponto Day parking lot, located between the Encinas Creek bridge and Island Way, would remain open during construction, via a special access plan. The two southbound lanes of Carlsbad Blvd. would be restriped to permit two- way traffic between Island Way and the North Ponto Day parking lot. Traffic on northbound Carlsbad Blvd. would be directed northbound on the center lane of southbound Carlsbad Blvd. to the parking lot. Traffic exiting the parking lot would be able to continue south all the way to Pointsettia Lane on southbound Carlsbad Blvd. Work would be conducted during the non-peak recreational season. However, the loss of 34 parking spaces along the coast for a period of 4 months is considered potentially significant. Additional parking capacity is available during the non-peak season within the dirt parking area at the turn-around circle at Palomar Airport Road. With the implementation of mitigation measure TRAFFIC-2, signage would be added to direct drivers to this temporary parking area. With implementation of mitigation measure TRAFFIC-2, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-2. The loss of approximately 34 parking spaces at the roadside parking area north of Solomar Drive would be mitigated by installing temporary recreational parking signs at the dirt lot near the turn- around circle at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road to allow for temporary parking during construction. This lot currently operates as an undesignated parking area for recreational beach users and can accommodate the additional temporary parking during the nonpeak season. g. No Impact. The project involves the replacement of a bridge in-place and alternative means of transportation would continue to have access across the new bridge. The new bridge has been designed to continue to accommodate bicycle traffic. Therefore, no impact would result. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 44 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement b) c) d) e) g) Analysis Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a. No Impact. The project does not propose any new development requiring wastewater treatment and would not impact utilities and service systems or exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, no impact would result. b. No Impact. The project does not propose any new development and therefore would not impact utilities and service systems. The proposed project would not create demands for new local or regional water or wastewater treatment. The_project would not involve the need for additional treatment or distribution systems. Therefore, no impact would result. c. No Impact. The proposed project would not necessitate new storm water drainage improvements and would not involve the need for additional storm drainage. Therefore, no impact would result. d. No Impact. No new demands on local or regional water supplies would be created with the proposed project. The project would not require the need for new local or regional water supplies. Small quantities of water may be required during construction to aid in dust suppression. Therefore, no impact would result. e. No Impact. No new or increased demands for wastewater treatment would be created with the proposed project. The project would not involve the need for increasing the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, no impact would result. 45 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement f. No Impact. The project would likely be served by the Miramar landfill and the project contractor would arrange for all disposal of solid waste in appropriate facilities. Therefore, no impact would result. g. No Impact. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would properly dispose of solid waste materials. Therefore, no impact would result. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) b) c) d) Analysis Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened, species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? IEI [X] a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As evaluated in Sections IV and V of this Initial Study, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures described, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Public Services, and Transportation/Traffic. Mitigation measures designed to minimize adverse temporary, construction-related impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Public Services, and Transportation/Traffic are listed herein. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance. 46 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement b. No Impact. The proposed project involves replacement of a bridge in-place. Mitigation measures designed to reduce air quality impacts during the construction phase would not jeopardize or conflict with long-term goals for the SDAB, which is nonattainment for ozone and PM,0. The project was designed to minimize biological resources impacts. Unavoidable impacts are mitigated consistent the City of Carlsbad HMP. Any potentially significant cultural resource impacts are mitigated through monitoring and cataloging of resources. Water quality impacts from construction would be reduced to less than significant via implementation of a SWPPP. Temporary traffic impacts would be mitigated by providing temporary parking and enhanced signage for the duration of construction. The project would not result in any long-term environmental impacts. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance. c. No Impact. No reasonable foreseeable future projects are known that would combine with the project to result in a cumulatively significant impact. In addition, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to cumulatively contribute to impacts from potential projects that have not been identified during this analysis. Per the instructions for evaluating environmental impacts in this study, the potential for adverse cumulative effects was considered in the response to each question of this form. Specifically, the cumulative effects of GHG emissions were evaluated in Section III. Air Quality. In addition to project-specific impacts, this evaluation considered the project's potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As a result of this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with the project. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance. d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. In the evaluation of environmental impacts in this Initial Study, the potential for adverse impacts to humans, either directly or indirectly, was considered in responses to questions in Sections I. Aesthetics, III. Air Quality, VI. Geology and Soils, VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality, IX. Land Use and Planning, XI. Noise, XII. Population and Housing, XIII. Public Services, XIV. Recreation, XV. Transportation/ Traffic, and XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. As a result of this evaluation, there is no evidence that the construction or operations of the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse effect on humans, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would replace an existing, deteriorating bridge, which has been deemed structurally deficient. The project footprint would be smaller than the existing footprint. The new bridge would make conditions for humans safer. Mitigation measures designed to reduce construction related impacts to Transportation/Traffic (both vehicular and bicycle traffic) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 47 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, final approval dated November 2004. Additional Resources Used in the Analysis of This Project: California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. April. California Department of Conservation (CDC) 2006 San Diego County Important Farmland Map. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2007 Division of Mines and Geological Special Publication 42 (California Geological Survey). Available at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/lndex.aspx. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 1998 California Historic Bridge Inventory. Available at www.dot.ca.gov. 2007 California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at www.dot.ca.gov. California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) 2009a State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Diversity Data Base. January. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/pdfs/TEPlants.pdf. 2009b Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Natural Diversity Data Base. January. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf. 2009c Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base. January. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals. pdf. California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2009 Cortese List Data Resources. Available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2001 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, California. 388 pp. 2009 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v6-05c). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on January 20, 2009. Available at http://www.cnps.org/inventory. 48 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement City of Carlsbad 2009 City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Map. Available at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/planning/gplumpdf/gplu_l Ixl7.pdf. EDAW, Inc. (EDAW) 2009a Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project - Biological Report. March. 2009b Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project - Archaeological Site Check and Literature Review Update. March. Federal Register 2006 PM2is De Minimis Emission Levels for General Conformity Applicability. July. Available at http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AlR/2006/July/Day-17/al 1241 .htm. GeoLogic Associates 2009 Draft Foundations Report. February. JMR Environmental Services 2009 Report of Test. February. Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG) 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis Encinas Creek Bridge. June. Nolte Associates, Inc. 2009 Las Encinas Creek Bridge Hydraulic Evaluation. February. Rimpo and Associates 2008 URBEMIS 2007 for Windows. Available at http://www.urbemis.com/. Salinas, Julio. Staff Toxicologist. Office of Health Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, CA 2004 Telephone conversation with Kurt Legleiter of EDAW regarding exposure period for determining health risk. August 3. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) 2008 Personal communication by telephone between Carl Selnick, SDAPCD, and James Kurtz, EDAW, relative to the status of the APCD 2007 Ozone SIP. May 30. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 1994 The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin 9. Available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/wateMssues/programs/basinj3lan/index.shtml. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2006 Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. Available at www.swrcb.ca.gov. U.C. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (UCD ITS) 1997 Transportation Project-level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. December. Davis, California. Zhu, Yifang, W. C. Hinds, S. Kim, and S. Shen 2002 Study of Ultrafine Particles Near a Major Highway with Heavy-duty Diesel Traffic Atmospheric. 49 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES BIO-1. All temporary impact areas shall be replanted with native species prior to completion of the construction. Prior to construction, a revegetation/planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department to identify appropriate native species and success criteria. Newly seeded areas shall be monitored by a qualified biologist for erosion monthly (or more frequently as needed) for a period of 24 months post-construction or until vegetation has become established. In addition, all revegetated areas shall be weeded quarterly for the period of 24 months to prevent invasive plant species from dominating the revegetated areas. Mitigation for impacts to habitats shall occur on-site within or adjacent to the temporary work area and shall be completed at the ratios described in Table 3. BIO-2. Riprap placement shall be limited to areas where riprap already exists. New riprap shall not be placed onto the beach and shall not extend westerly beyond the existing riprap area. BIO-3. The contractor(s) shall be informed, prior to the bridge replacement, about the biological constraints of the project. The construction limits shall be clearly marked on project maps provided to the contractor(s) and all wetland areas within or adjacent to construction areas should be encompassed by orange environmental fencing to protect them from construction, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist and the Land Manager. A qualified biologist shall inspect all construction fencing prior to construction and shall monitor construction grading activities to prevent unauthorized impacts. BIO-4. Mitigation for temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters (including wetlands) shall be detailed in the revegetation/planting plan as described in mitigation measure BIO-1 and shall include at a minimum 1:1 in-place restoration after construction to reestablish jurisdictional areas to conditions and functions at least equal to the existing quality of the jurisdictional areas impacted. Any temporary work areas shall be decompacted and recontoured to original grade and preactivity condition. CULT-1. The City of Carlsbad shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to perform construction monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, work shall be halted in that area and redirected until the resources are evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate data recovery actions are implemented if required. CULT-2. In the event of discovery of any human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site and the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the Coroner determines that the remains may be those of a Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted and Native American consultation shall be undertaken to determine appropriate steps to be taken. HYDRO-1. The City shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (99-08 DWQ) or most current permit at the time of construction commencement. The SWPPP shall contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the contractor will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, and a chemical monitoring program for "nonvisible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs. BMPs shall include, but are not limited to: • Spoils, trash, or any debris remaining at the site after project completion shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. 50 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement • No equipment refueling areas shall be located at the construction site outside of designated areas. Fueling of construction equipment shall take place on existing paved roads and not within or adjacent to any drainages, wetlands, or native habitats. • "Fueling zones" shall be designated on construction maps and qualified biologists shall flag the limits of the "fueling zones." These "fueling zones" shall be located at least 50 feet from all drainage features and wetlands. • All stockpiled soil should be stored in 55-gallon drums within the roadway (nonwetland areas). • Stockpiles shall not remain on-site for more than 1 week. HYDRO-2. The contractor shall monitor the construction site during all storm events to ensure that water damming does not reach volumes that could cause a risk to construction workers or recreational beach users from dam failure and subsequent flooding. Diversion mechanisms shall be of adequate capacity to pump water during storm events, and back-up diversion pumping shall be readily available in the event of equipment malfunction. TRAFFIC-1. To enhance the awareness of bicyclists to motorists, "Share the Road" signs would be posted on Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas. TRAFFIC-2. The loss of approximately 34 parking spaces at the roadside parking area north of Solomar Drive would be mitigated by installing temporary recreational parking signs at the dirt lot near the turn-around circle at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road to allow for temporary parking during construction. This lot currently operates as an undesignated parking area for recreational beach users and can accommodate the additional temporary parking during the nonpeak season. 51 Rev. 11/17/08 CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Rev. 11/17/08 APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS ool a. •ffi a aj dOl OOro t-D- S tf CN oi coe2 C--0o CN| W)'eco.05 . — . ro CD fcwc ,01— (/)cp U)</) LU "rorjc < £ •co Q. CDa: £<ro E w •tfCN(35-e 3 C CUE<Poroa.0)tt cuen73•dm _*: 0)CD O tf)TOc'oCUJ ^(D0) O U)ro oc.UJ 5o g^ CL. 1 O CP roz J5 LL e:acemeiQ.CD K CUen 1cucu O U)roc'ocLU cuEroZ "Q cu'o ol & oo Q>CDc:ro O c 0 15o ocu'o CL CD00 CN "— > 0Z CO CN r>-0oCNo •£ UJ co'e. 2 'd 0 73CUU)roCO (/)c missioLU 0)o 1 73roo °rco &oCN Q %a:u.U-0 co -Q CD rom coc missioLU CU O 1 73rooa: ifcO COLUt— FCOLU g w LU pOD ttI—00 Qo LU O 5a. "w Q o s CL CNoin Oo XOZ o§ o o ^ m (D *tq; in CD p CD o q q q q q q q q q q q 'd o' d d o' d d o d d d d d d d Q_ - •*- o T- o oq q o o o o OOOOCOcOOOOOOOO~ oooqoooqooooooddddodoooOoooOoooo CMOOOOOCMCM d d d d d d ooOoooOooooq q q q q q q q q q qd d d d d d d o d d o d q q q q q q q q q q q q q,doddddoodddodddodddo' 0) ro0_Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4/2009 04:49:35 PMCO CO roCD COco COcg tn Detail Report for Annual Construction Unmitigated Emi:\Encinas Creek\Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement.urb924TJ Name: C:\Work\Projei-i=il k Bridge ReplacementQ)0)ect Name: Encinas CrO CL C oO ect Location: Orange io Ql Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006COc Road Vehicle Emissioc0 Based on: OFFROAD2007COc:Road Vehicle Emissiotf— 0 I 1LU O t>—t ;STIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated)ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 DiUJ ^JSTRUCTION EMISSIOI£-oo o o o o CO Oo o d d 0 0o o d d o o d d CM T-00 CMd d O CMT- O d d o imolition 01/03/2010-01/16/:o u>*- QoCM OO O Oqd ood oqo ooo" 0o d Fugitive Dustoo ood 0od Olqo CMd CMO d Demo Off Road Diesel0oo ooo 0od oqd 0o d oo d Demo On Road Diesel0oo o0o 0od od 0o d oo d Demo Worker Tripsoo o COo o 8 d s d o d o d o oCM ie Grading 01/17/2010-01/2u_ oo 0 CO0o 0od ood 8 d 8 d Fine Grading Dust8 O 0oo 0od COod qd o d 13V)Fine Grading Off Road Dieg 0 o0o 0od ood q o o0 d 0 Fine Grading On Road Die8 O OOo oo d 0o d o0 d o0 d Fine Grading Worker TripsCOoo ooo Oqd d LO d s d o ilding 01/24/2010-02/27/20'3CQ COoo 8 O oo d CM d o d r-o d Building Off Road Dieselooo ooo oo d 8 d o0 d oo d Building Vendor Tripsooo 8 O oq d 8 d o0d 0o d Building Worker Trips0oo ooo 0od CMod COod od o phalt 02/28/2010-03/06/201U> OOo ooo oq d oq d ood oo d Paving Off-Gasooo 8 O oq d d COod 0od Paving Off Road Dieselooo ooo oq d oq d ood 0o d Paving On Road Dieselo0 o ooo oq d oq d ood 0od Paving Worker TripsDefault Demolition Descriptioni o o to o 0 jse: Demolition 1vu.CCL 0 OO CO ^Hi •2 0 !Q B "ra Iding Volume Tot•— CD CO CO T I 0 XI 3 Iding Volume Dai•^ CD ID CO P ^Road Truck Travc O •Road EquipmenI;£ O a 0.48 load factor for 8 hours per dayra OJc 0Q. Q "oi.C CDO ir Compressors (<; CM .75 load factor for 8 hours per dayo CO 'm D)c 'ro Q.o -Si 0)ci CO Q "Eom*-ling at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per dayCO 1o "3.co ^r COco oncrete/lndustriao CM d factor for 8 hours per dayCO_o CO ci CO ra 0)c 1?0)Q.o en CO (O0)c O *- 0)encoQ_18/200904:49:35 PMCO >>ro•a CDa. CDo.c CO £ o Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factCM hours per dayfactor for 1Rubber Trrecf Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 loadT-r for 6 hours per day5 load factoTractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.5CN ng/Excavation Descriptior5 Site Gradinase: Fine Grading 1/17/2010- 1/23/2010 - Default Fin<0.Dtal Acres Disturbed: 1.5h-aximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.5^jgitive Dust Level of Detail: DefaultU-0 Ibs per acre-dayn Road Truck Travel (VMT): 66.67CNQ ff-Road Equipment:O >,ra•a CDexe^o Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hT- >*roT3 CDQ. 1O.C factor for 6Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 loadT-r for 7 hours per day5 load factoTractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.5T- %•o 8 hours peWater Trucks (1 89 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor forT- o> CD Co hase: Paving 2/28/2010 - 3/6/201 0 - Type Your DescripD-cres to be Paved: 0.1<ff-Road Equipment:O or 6 hours per dayload factor fCement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 I^-urs per dayPavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hot- >,ro•o SL S Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 houT-r for 7 hours per day5 load factoTractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.5T-g Construction Descriptioifault Buildinhase: Building Construction 1/24/2010 - 2/27/2010 - DeQ. "c0 Q. -3CTUJ T3 8o: sirO £T3 (UQ. (/) ^O_c Aerial Lifts (60 hp) operating at a 0.46 load factor for 8 ICN >.ra•o CDQ. ¥>Dr for 8 houiAir Compressors (106 hp) operating at a 0.48 load factxCM lurs per dayCranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 heCM &-Q CDQ. e^o.coo ,§ o Other Equipment (1 90 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factCN >*ro-o CDQ.y.Pumps (53 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 houi-lours per day:actor for 8 tRough Terrain Forklifts (93 hp) operating at a 0.6 load 1*- >*njTD r 8 hours peSignal Boards (15 hp) operating at a 0.78 load factor foCN r for 8 hours per day5 load factoTractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.5T- CD O O)O CO O d>o CO oo O cf)o CLQ O COirLU CO LU 0)0)ro Q. o 0>'o rx 4^ C CD Eo>o JOa a> CO O <Aroc 'oc LU LU z o LU oa:a.APPROVAL DATE: Auqust 19, 2009-0 0> CD0) != T31 i<3 § £ c/> "O & CD ~ c § 'ro -.C3 o iB5 g) oj P •;=:E o .2 c/> 15 0)^0- ~P "co ^ c t/> rr — Q) ^} "o ^ ~~~ t! >• Q- -Q ^ D 0 *"" CO W i- CP < — c ~5 o t5> -— ^ *— ' O -ti Q) a..2> CO"CL.-ti CD< e^ °of c <" f 0 n "='-*-1 i- CD T3 ^ E O ^ •- „, CD CTCD .c (!) TJ CDo CD .g d C-- *"~o>.2 -o <" 'c jlj "^ O 0 S ^o CP b .c o-o, o> o y) 5 <£ ~ CO . 13 CD CD 3 " -0 8 § 5 E^~ C.S>|o « cU 5.^ m The following environmental mitigenvironmental impacts to a level ohas been complied with and impl<Section 21 081. 6).reEo> ^ o *3•oJS0) C S 2 c^ c« Q> ** a • E co OE (0 ^ .E §i_ C 2 t = So 5-S a>Q O)_n 0 Q. 'E i-o /Mitigation Measure^Jc e* S ' '"" tnS 03 C £X E Q Ou's1 ex b? r-> .^2O »— rv en ""^.— ™ QI) ^H t]\ 1} jil III J! I ||!!i^sif| L f-; >-• d> .^ ^ p| ^ ^J C "O •| ^og^ 2^-^ ^"^ %'oo£x<L>^t£"S<5<!>^''5 S ^* O ,J2 O i QJ C o "^"^ 'i~^ ^3 »rt <2 1> O Qjrj ^ f~) QJ ^, Kj 7j Q^ ^^ f"T" "O rrt V^ OJ C pr" 1-^-1 O ^^t/5 •" Q^ .^H t^ J Q C C/l O ^i U r\4 flj ^ *L) ^5 U QJ o ^ •" ^, fi *n fli "^ ^ ^ ^~^ 4—1 t/o c3 Ifi<H •n, pj |1 Project Impacts IVegetation CommunityTemporaryImpactsPermanentImpacts(Holland Classiflcationas modified byOberbauer)i^ o • • 0o oo Beach (64400)oo ^ ; 0 O oo | Open Water (64 100) |ooo V) • • "Scoc 0 o oo Coastal and ValleyFreshwater Marsh(52410)(N 0 —O •f-t (N O 0o Disturbed Habitat(11300)ist3i^all.Sl — £"KJ "o St 3£ •O J> ^ aS " |-§? -cc *os.^ ° 3 1 Mitigation ratios are only for temporary impacts to beachand valley freshwater marsh. Mitigation measures for dispermanent and temporary impacts.•oo> ro"O •u (Q 0) "0 ^W ^J (D p "i '"™ "° c:.1 "S 'i £ro 'ro c 2D)'-= E i••g .E = | -1113'i££•e c w °§E!U o°- =J -p "- S,8|»,E <n 0) £o £ "5- =J 1 i •- 1E <u (i) E lanation of Headings:5 = Project, ongoing, cumulative,itoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible fori/vn on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on pfied Implementation = When mitigation measure has belarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation•Appendix P.Q a. £ o •;= t 'X >, o .c 0 o> DHI K S W > Ct Cd CM 0) D)roD. J2b.(0 £ OS _o •oSCO C ^ "5.E c0 </>= c5.2oo. V) C o> 11'E ^ c= ®= O roc'C a)o a.ts s*= H-o tion Measureng>*3 5 c<u •- t:£ =3C o. E Q 4__.o 'o1 Cu c/> -^ X "u0) CD ra %<u •*i -ara c ra x 'C o 1 ^> fS) 8 -g" rara j31!'E •£— o D ^"° 0 . 'I -2 ttc °- ra | "5 'C JS §.S° §"! 'ia. ex <u pi 2 -5 IP03 Z xi •g ID .E 1c ra ra S" E Q ^j o>'o1 (X informed, prior to the bridge replacement,the project. The construction limits shall beovided to the contractor(s) and all wetlandtruction areas should be encompassed by•otect them from construction as determinedlist and the Land Manager. A qualifiedtion fencing prior to construction and shallties to prevent unauthorized impacts.BIO-3. The contractor(s) shall beabout the biological constraints ofclearly marked on project maps prareas within or adjacent to consiorange environmental fencing to prappropriate by a qualified biolojbiologist shall inspect all construcimonitor construction grading activic0)OX) g 'E ra5 o-ra gja, D ^_,o •g1 Cu ipacts to jurisdictional waters (includingvegetation/planting plan as described inum 1 : 1 in-place restoration afterional areas to conditions and functions at"the jurisdictional areas impacted. Anympacted and recontoured to original gradeBIO-4. Mitigation for temporary inwetlands) shall be detailed in the reBIO-1 and shall include at a minimconstruction to reestablish jurisdictileast equal to the existing quality oftemporary work areas shall be decoand preactivity condition.c OB C c ra ra §" £ Q ^^oID 'o1 CU 11 retain a qualified archaeologist andn construction monitoring during all groundat cultural resources are discovered duringe halted in that area and redirected until theed archaeologist and appropriate dataf required.CULT-1. The City of Carlsbad shaNative American monitor to perfondisturbing activities. In the event thconstruction activities, work shall bresources are evaluated by a qualifirecovery actions are implemented iic Ofi g c rac a. E Q ^jo 'o1 cu of any human remains, there shall be noPthe site and the County Medical Examinerdetermines that the remains may be those of;rican Heritage Commission shall beisultation shall be undertaken to determineCULT-2. In the event of discoveryfurther excavation or disturbance oishall be contacted. If the Examinera Native American, the Native Amccontacted and Native American conappropriate steps to be taken.T3Cro E «= d o •§ ? .S ra ~m c <5.2>S E § f 'E - I11! ™ O <D oen o £ . .£ CO ^J <U o J= ^- =i+* +-1 p (/)'is 1 1E ra a) E a)"5 ro ro | E i£ CD QJ — —= <u E O) >* 13 C £O (/) O °c ro -j3 "-QJ a) ro oen p o> y)0 < c « .3 = o 2 E B fill" "| | M o>g.S , .E &° 2 |°a§^enc Mo ^ ^: o.o <u0) Q S enQ- S. ro a. r- —- 5:5 J2 S11 2 i a> m •*g/E §^g E '>; o _c Q) a) QH 2 c/j > a: cc (0 L.reE0) •oS_g> c <5 £ > QLE c I i Jo. V) C d) o ^ p (0JfrS Q O)C 0 Q. 'E H"0 Mitigation Measurec/l •£; *->" 60 ^ 1 'S eo C 2 .2;s ca .~ <"•§ & g>:>0. Q W Q tj 'o1 (X HYDRO-1 The City shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, consistent withthe State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Permit forDischarges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (99-08DWQ) or most current permit at the time of construction commencement. TheSWPPP shall contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter,existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection anddischarge points, general topography both before and after construction, anddrainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the contractorwill use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs.Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, and achemical monitoring program for "nonvisible" pollutants to be implemented ifthere is a failure of BMPs.BMPs shall include, but are not limited to:o 10o 1o.!_ Cu><ca 4_» '3! •S IT*. 00g'£'3 o> v> § JSv> '5 'o 13in0 > CL CCO 14-O T3 V) O.</i•o <u <u • No equipment refueling areas shall be located at the construction-siteoutside of designated areas. Fueling of cdnstruction equipment shall takeplace on existing paved roads and not within or adjacent to any drainages,| wetlands, or native habitats.1 • "Fueling zones" shall be designated on construction maps and qualified60 pg 0)c/i H "en1)CS 60 "5 <S _g | .e % '60_o "O >^>C COCO £vi "2rti CO^ o CD .S 60 J3 c •> '2 « «= 1 !CO T3 I 1 1 « 1 |f<D i/^ fa 0 ^ £•«-• 2 "g S f ~ CD 0 ca -0 C_ 2 '3S s 6•s o <3CO r- L« 0 « ^ ~° = ? S<u g S f -O C3 C>3 =3 rS "g -J3 . O. CO g ^ 1 1 II I 1 ^11 "fe s" e5 ^ g '§ •- rt C•§ s-'i3 a, Q W ^o <D 'o1 (X HYDRO-2 The contractor shall monitor the construction site during all stormevents to ensure that water damming does not reach volumes that could causesa risk to construction workers or recreational beach users from dam failure andc •2 '>5 subsequent flooding. Diversion mechanisms shall be of adequate capacity topump water during storm events, and back-up diversion pumping shall bereadily available in the event of equipment malfunction.•ocro al c = c ro "ra c ™ fill -si? g^"2E 0) o S E8CD op S~ |3 5 «•- S vt *— *— <—•ro CD c fill s§a•sg§ OJ ^ **-<D ro o E tu '-i^ > .£ ^tig! O) CO > 1reEo>cn .0*^m•0 *S0) C 1|C >1 E co C Ci s 00. (0 21ii'E re I-S Q O)c 'C 0) ° 5c£0s on Measure<4^re D)5 S en •£ ~ 00o c S^ <D •"-'£ g iu co tt g -2;S cs .5 <n_O P. 0/T> (2 Q tS Q "od>'g1 p- <1> C/1 *j~1 r~ 2 'g ^W ^ BJ - ^in" 'c•«l0 < I «5 ca 2^t/i o.£ (2^ t;>, 0^t<*-. <0 uS3 p S 0c —fp rtS3 CL. cd O CD T3JS <u-4—1 -4—'TRAFFIC-1. To enhanceRoad," signs would be pos- tn •£ *J- 00 1 S'§> E <3 So € g .2^3 <a .S « J2 DH O0'>3 s c vSCL, Q U Q tsCD '2"CL, JJ >"a ICL) J3 -Hrs '"is•3 "So^ M S °2-M ll ^2 |<§ - S | tCO •— 2 Os^ « &111^1/1 <J3 CL) Ctf00 00 C g I'PlS S t: &- ~-° ^ "B^2_g §>> § --s B ? ^ >C3 ^ M D l-c.&l 2? S,"ag-s'ci&• P -^ o TRAFFIC-2. The loss of iparking area north of Soloitemporary recreational parat the intersection of CarlslCD c cdC3 -O en 0CO E c3 Ett °ra oI*° §^ " c"K "O Oi§i3 >2 •"o S ^« tn ca_O 3 co .S3 "S c<=i? •ill0 .5 g 111I2a»^^^for temporary parking duriundesignated parking areathe additional temporary p;11 'i S CM II CD CD Q > £ Lt