Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-03; City Council; 7108; Environmental Assessment: Carlsbad BlvdA "#+ HTG. 8 3 82 3EPT. PL - CI? 3F CARLSBAD - AGEND DEPT.Hd? CITY AlTY TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD . ILL 41 RECOMMENDED ACTION: r; Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager on July 14, 1982 (attached), regarding the environmental impacts of the pro- posed bridge and highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard. ITEM EXPLANATION The overall project, a portion of the 1980-1985 Capital Improvement Program, provides for bridge and highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard. The project involves the replacement of the existing two-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge and the widening of Carlsbad Boulevard from two to four lanes from 300' south of Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. The first planning phase of the Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard was completed in 1979. Tentative plans and application criteria were developed. The initial study indicated the need for additional environmental analysis. In January 1981, the City Council initiated the second phase of project planning by authorizing execution of an agreement between the City and McDaniels Engineering for preparation of plans and specifications for bridge replacement and an environmental assessment of related impacts. (Please see assessment, attached). The Environmental Assessment addresses potential impacts to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, traffic circulation, visual aesthetics, noise, beach parking and biology. The assessment evaluates the degree of these impacts and proposes appropriate mitigation measures . Funding for the proposed project would be from Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds, Federal Aid to Urban Highways and participation by the City through the Capital Improvement Program. Because federal funds are being utilized for design and construction, the project must satisfy NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) guidelines. Pursuant to these guidelines, the City notified adjoining property owners and advertized the availability of the Environmental Assessment and opportunity for a public hearing. Several requests for a formal public hearing were received. (Please see letters, attached). This hearing is intended to solicit public input, satisfy NEPA requirements and to approve the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager. L / AGENDA BILL PAGE TWO The letters received indicate that some citizens were concerned with possible impacts regarding noise, traffic, parking, etc. The mitigation measures provided in the environmental assessment have been incorporated into the project, which in staff's opinion, reduce impacts to an insignificant level. If the City Council agrees with the Negative Declaration, then the project can continue through the NEPA process and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued. If the Council disagrees with the findings in the attached report and with the Negative Declaration, it would be necessary to prepare and process an Environmental Impact Report. FISCAL IMPACT No direct costs will be incurred by the city from holding of the public hearing, although some staff time has been utilized. Funding has been committed for design, construction and environmental review in the Capital Improvement Program, Acct. No. 14-18-40-3098. The total estimated cost of bridge and road work construction is $1,972,250 of which an estimated $1,848,80 will be covered by federal monies under Fedeal Aid Urban Grants (FAU) and Highway Bridge Replacement Funding (HBRF). The remaining portion; $228,444, can be covered by a $231,000 deposit held by San Diego Gas and Electric as their portion of the roadway improvements. EXHIBITS 1) Negative Declaration dated July 14, 1982 2) Public Letters -,t~ ~i~y tLeck IO~Q L~~RA~Y, 3 j Location Map 4) Environmental Assessment or;, c; lc c ni . .. . . .. . .,.. ...- ,. . . . . . 4.- .. DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES u Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5596 . 0 Building Department (714) 438-5525 D EnQlneering Department (714) 438-5541 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 0 Housing b Redevelopment Department 3098 Hardlng St. (714) 438-5611 Jif Planning Department (714) 438-5591 NEGATIVE DECLAEIATION P€WEcrr ADDRESS/XKXTION: Tamarack Avenue. Carlsbad Boulevard between Cannon Road and PFWEC!T DESCRIPTION: Boulevard between Tamarack .Avenue and Cannon Road. involves the replacement of the existing two-lane bridge with a four- lane bpidge and the widening of Carlsbad Boulevard from two to four lanes from-300 feet south of Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. Bridge and highway improvements for Carlsbad ?he project The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines €or Implementat ion of the California Environmental Quality Act and .the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Planning Department. As a result of said Justification for this action is on file in the A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Cmments fran the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. L WED: July 14, 1982 CASE NO: EIA-845 Land Use Planning Manager APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSRAD PUBLISH DME: July 21, 1982 ND-4 5/8 1 3 e .. k L (To be Completcd by WPLTCWT) CASE NO: arq BQS DATE: June 1, 1982 Applicant : Address of Applicant: City of Carl sbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone Nuqher: 01 4 ) 438-5540 Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): GEXER22L IhTOXWITIOX : Description of Project: Construct bridge over Agua Hedionda Inlet and widen approaches .I -- I. -- .. ---I I Project Location/Adclress: N/A; Carlsbad Tamarack to Cannon e Proposed Usc of Site: List all otlicr applicable applications. rc~ntcd to this projcct: FONSI . prepared by New Horizons . ---A - - :. .) . 1 r\cscrj.bc the ;.,ctS vity axcat inciuding distinguishing natural aid man:.r;sc??c characteristics.; .also provide precise sf.ape anklyris when appropriate. , . .. ., 2. 3. .* 4. Existing roadway and bridge adjacent to cobst. Descrihe energy conservation measures' incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. (For a more specific discussion of- energy conservation requirements seR- of. the City's ZIR Guidelines) . -. .. Since the project does not consume energy itself, 'no measure aye incorporated . If residential, icclude -the number of' units ,. schedule of \init sizes, range of sale prices 01: reats, and type of househald size expected. _. * .. .- I. .' project . .. * This is not residential .. .- Xf cmiunercial indicate. the type, wliekhx neighborhood, -*z city or regionzlly oriented, square footage of sales area, 5. i.13 lotc5ng facll;ities . This is not a c&rcial peject. * . .. . kmployment 6. 5 7. If industrial, indicate type, estirnatcd shift, 'and losding fncilitics. per . .. .' - _If This is not an -industrial' projet. . .*! If institutional, indicate the n&jor function, estimated employmnt pcr shizt, estimated occupancy, lcading be clerivcci fro= the *. facilitics ,- Grid coitununity bcncfits to project . This is not an'institution project. .. . ,/ .. . . .. .. I) -Could the project: significantly chacge present land uses i-2 the vicinity of the activity? ic -. 2) Could the activity affect the use of a rec- reaticinal area, or.arsa of important - aesthetic value? 'X cc-. - x. - X 3) Could! the activity a-ffect the functioning of * 4) an established communitj or neighiuorhood? - I a Could the zctlvity resalt in the displacement . 5) Could the activity increase the number of low 6) Could the act5.vi.t;. tlecrease the mmber of low of cornunity rcsidects? - X -and maderate cost housing units in tfis city? and mcclest cost housing units in the ci?y? 9 . .x I.. 7) Are 2ny of the natural or man-made features in thz ac::';i.-~it:y grza unlc;~?, that isr nct' found in other parts of the County, State, or Nation? 8) Cou3.li the activity significantly affeet a historiczl or archaeological-site or its setting G ? .. Could the activit5- sicjjnif icantly af fcct the potential use, extrnc tioii, or conservation 10)' Does thc activity area serve as a habitht, 9) .of a scarcc: natural resource? food source ncsting p3.clceI source' of water, species? . etc. for rare or endangered wildlife on fish . .. . .. . . 'X x . X x .. X . -. .. -I A 1 L " 14) . 15) f- CY Couid the s.cLivi tjj change cxistinj f caturcs of any of the city's beaches? CCIUI.~. he activity result in the erosion or elililin~tian 02 agricultural lands? c Could the activity scrq.zz to encourage develop- ment of presently undeveloped arcas or intesify devcl opmcnt of already develc?ed ares.s? ill the activity require a variance from established environiiental standards (air, water, noise, c'ic)? r. I . x X 18) Will the activity require certi5ication, authorization 03: issuance of a pernit by any local, state cr federal environmental control ...x .. agency? . le) Will the activity reqaire issuance o€ a variance or condition& use permit by the city? '-, . X .. 20) Will the activity involve the applicztion, use, 21) . Wf.12 the activiry involve. ccnstruction of or disposal of potentially hazardGus materials? -x .I x. facilities in a flood plair,? . - . 22) tJi.11 the activity invclve coiistruction of .. . .~ .Y t .x .. ' . facilities 011 a slope of 25 pcrccXit rx great53:? 23) FJil.1 the acti-iity involve constructLon of facilities in the area of an active fault? . 24)' Cauld th act2vit.y result in the generation Could the activity result in thi generatioil of significant amounts of dust? * . of significant amounts of noise? 25) X - 2G) Will the. activity involve the burning of brush, .. ... .. . .x . -- trees, or ot!icr materials? .. 27) Could thc actfvity result in a significant chanyc ill thc quality of any portion 02 the regiorr ' s air or water rcsouzccs? (Should note, surface, cjrou~d witcr, off-shore) . ..x . .... . - . 28) Will thc projcct substantially j.acrcr\se fuel X consimption (clcctricity, oil. 8 natural gar;, ctc.)? .. e *-i ind.5.cat.c 'es.stin:ateC! - grading t.o be done in cubic yzrc3:i 1,000 N/A - -- pc*rceiit.i?ge of alterat ion to the preselit land forn e- .' rnzxinum height of cut or fill slopes .. --- . . 5 feet rnzxinum height of cut or fill slopes .. - --- . . 5 feet .. the activity resuit in substantial increases in the USG of utilities, scwers.,.drains, or .. X 30) 31) streets? - IS the activity carried out as part of a larger. project or series of projects? . 'X .. .- - . .f ..- . .e - .. .. t. -. .- c 'e: .- e .. .. *. .. . '., .. .. '. .. .. - -. .- 1 -. 19,,you havc ansmred ycs to one or narc -of -thc qucstions in Section'I but you .think the activit). will h3ve. no significant cnviromcntal effccts, indicatg 0. your reasons bclow : . 18. There is a FONSI required'and .. is current being processed. 20; This act'ivity is in-the flood plaikonJy.'in so far a3 the bridge crosses the flood p1ai.n. 0 25. .-Some' dustmay be generated as part of construction. ... .. .. -.. .. '. .. . ... 0 ... '. a** - ... .. .- .. ... ... .. ...... .. '. -. . I. . -0 . .- .. .* . ... .. .. -. . .' ... ... .' . ... , .. .. : . *. . .. ... .. ,. ... .:. .. . *. . -. ,. :; ' .-. .' .... .. .... ..' ... ": .. '.* .... .. a. - .. +- .. -. .. ._ : .. .. .. .- .- .. . 1' e. -. '. .. .. .. I.. . .' _. . .. . 9- .. 'e- .. ' ONS.IN*SEcTION I . :. . , rI&p- OR-ZLABQ~TIOXS 'TO ANY OF "IHE QIIESTI . , .[if additid spii is nieded-ioi aimvering a& questions, . . .. ..' .. : j -:. . ... -* .. .* .... .. at- additional sheets as may bo needed). ... .. '. . ... .I .. *. .. .. .. 0 .. .... 0 '_ . .=.-.* ..-.L - , -. . ..C - .. .. .. .. ... .e 0.: .... .... .. .. .. *.. .C . ... .. .'. = . I* .... -. .' . * . ' :. b. I-' 0' .. " 0. .. ... _. - (Person cbnpieting repbfl) mgname- ' . .. .... .. . 0. .. -. . 0. ._ .. ,'. . L .. .. .. .. .* .. .. .. .. - .. ... .. .. ' 5 ...... .. c. .. - .. : I.. &g&- : .. .. .... ** ... I -. .. .. T Date Signed z 0 . ._ . .-, .. '.I -. - .. * ... .. .. _..' v ,. .. ... .* '. . 0:. ' ' -. 0. -. .' 0 *t * 0 " f. .. .. .. . .* . .. * '. * .. .. .. . 0- .. * . .* . . . 4- . -9 - 9 .* , *\ T .. I .. 'ENVIROhWEN'TIlL IMPACT ASSESSME" FORM - Part I1 (To Be Completed By The * PLANNING DEPARlIEN") I * CASE NO. EIA-845' I. - BACKGROUND 1, APPLICANT: City of car- " ..... 2, ADDRESS AM3 PHONE NUMBER OF Wl'LIW: (714) 438-5541 ... ... .. 1200 Elm A=. . ... . .- ......................................................... wnna ME CHECKLIST SUBMITTED'....'' ........................... 3. XI. ENVIRONMENTAL IbP.4CTS (EX~MTIONS OF ALL AFFIRMATIVE AhrsI\IERs ARE Section I11 - DISCUSSION OF BWIROhWAL EVALUATION) BE WRI" lJ.tdDa 1. ficant results in: 'Earth - Will. the proposal have si&- a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? .... I.. .. .... .... ...x 7-- c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? Pa . ...... ..... -- , . x. - d, The destruction, covering or &if ication of any unique geologic or physical features? .... ..... -- e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or ero- sion of bcach sands, or changes in si.ltation, cleposition or crosion which may modify thc chnnncl of a rivcr or strcam or thc hcd of the ocean or any hay, inlet or lake? . e . '"1""'" -- I. 1 1 Yes Maybe No - - 2. Air: 7 Will the proposal' have signi- results in: # a. Air emissions or deterioration b. The creation of objectionable odors? X of ambient air quality? --- X 7-p c. Alteration of air movement, mositure or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water: Will the proposal have sigi- . ficant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water mve- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? . .I . X 7-- .. 3. .. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ! c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .... . ' 'X 7-- .. * ... - .... * 'X d. Change in the amount of sur- face water in any water body? --- e, Discharge into surface waters, or 3n any alteration of surface water quality, including but not .. .x limited to temperature, dissolved ... oxygen or turbidity? --- '. . f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, eithcr through ' direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifcr by cuts or excavations? --- a *_ ... ..... .... a --IC- * h, Reduction in the amount of .. water othcmise available for pub1 ic mtcr supplies? ..... ...... "X. --- .. . ... i 'Yes Maybe No - I 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal have signi- ficant results-in: 8 a. Change in the diversity of species, or nunbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflma and aquatic plaits) ? --- b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? . .x - .x: --- ..... ..... -- e -x-. d. Rebuction in acreage of any agricultural crop? .- -- 5. *~nLnal Life. lvill the proposal have signi- Zicant results in: a. B.anges in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals @irds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna) ? . .-. .-- . .IC ,- .- b. Reduction of the mbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new speclcs of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ... -. x ..... -- .. 0. ... . * 'X .. -- d. Deterioration to existing 5ish or wildlife habitat? 6. 'Noise. 'will the proposal signi- Xicantly increase existing noise * levels? .. X -- 'Li ht end Glare. Will the pro- bntly produce new 7. ... ..... *x --- -- iight or- glarc? . Lmd Use. Will thc proposal have Signant rcsirl ts in thc a~.tcration of tiic prcscnt or plctnncd laid usc of * an arm? 8. 'X --- , Ir .I. -3- /I ! b 7- .' . 1 1 1 I' ... .. Yes Maybe No - - 9. Natural 'Resources. Will the pro- . posal have significant rcsults in: ' * a. of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Increase in the rate of use .. X --- 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal 3mvolve a significant risk of an explosion or-the release of haz- . ardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? *tly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the Inman population of an area? . - 11. . Po lation. Will the proposal ..... ..... ....x- --- .... 12. 'HOUS~II~. \vi11 the proposal signi- -. c- -y affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?' . . I .... ..... ""X . --- I. .- 13. . 'TraTisportation/Circulation. Will the proposal have significant re- - SUltS G: vehicular movement? 6- ..... ..... ""X * a. Generation of additional --- b. Effects on existing parking 0. . ..... "'X -*.*. facilities, or demand for new c. Impact upon existing 'trans-' .--- e parking? ..... ..... portation systems? -'.L - d, Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- merit of people and/or goods? .... ..... *' ***x --- ............ ""X e. Altcrations to watcrborne, rail or air traffic? f.. Xncreasc in t.rafCjc hazards to motor vchiclcs, bicyclists or pdcs t r ians 1 7-- .... .... ""X - 7. - * -4- 13 .. *' * .-, .... Yes Maybe pl!o - - 14. 15. 16. Public Scrvices. Will the pro- posal have a significant effect upon, or have .significant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of .. following areas: Fire prdtection? Police protection? Schools? the a. b. C. d. X - . X Parks or other recreational t facilities? e. Maintenance of public facili- ties, including mads? f. Other governmental services? &er . .\Jill the proposal have dicant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Wid upon existing sources of energy, or require, the develop- ment of new sources of energy? x .. ...... - - I .x ..... - Utilities. Will the proposal have - significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the . following utilities: .. Power or natural gas? Communications systems? \rater? ..... - ...... ..... '"X' ..-.., ...x. -- -_II ..... .. -ji' - ~- ... :. - .... .- ..... Sewer or septic tanits? ..... -.- x "X - II_ ..... -7 Ston water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? a .... 9.' ...... "X' -- c 17, ' '€hniian Ilcalth. Will the proposal have signigicant results in thc ' crcation of: any hc3lth hnzard or potential hcal.th hazard (excluding mental licnlth)? .. ..... - 'X' - -- ..... - -5- 'Y f- 1. '. I t I -. kes - 'Maybe i No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the pro- posal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to.public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - X --- X --- I -20. ArcheologicaljHistorical. Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant * archeological or historical site, X structure, object or building? --- 21. jWLYZE VTBLF, ALTEILUITNES TO "E PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) PHASED ZIE'lrY,OPJEXf 02: THE PROJECT; b) AL?'ERNATE SITE DESIGNS; c) ALTEFuXA"E SCALE OF DEVELOP"T; (1) ALTERbfi'I'E USES FOR ?hlE SITE; e) "Ilk? NOV!; f) ALTERW'IE SITES FOR TI-iE*PROPOSED USE; g) KO DEVELOPMENT AT S@E FI!TURE TINE RATER .r c- I f PROJECT RLTEMTIVE. .- Project'a&matives, including NO -jet, rebuilding. the bridge on a different alignmnt, rebuilding the bridge as a *lane replacement, closure of Carlsbad Blvd. and the bridge and the proposed action, the four-lane bridge and associated highmy improvements are discussed in. the Ewimnmntal AsWm&t prepred by New Horizons Planning - mul-ts<. (attached) . .. '. .. . . -6- .. . *. .' I - *. ! 1 I a 22. I11 .* Yes - Maybe c No MNWA'IORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. DOES TIE PROJECT HAVE TFE POTEN- TIAL To DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF "FIE ENVIllO"l', OR CURTAIL THE X DIVERSITY IN THE ENVIROWENT? --- DOES "E PROJECT "E THE POTEN- TIAL TO ACIIIEJE SHORT-EIW, TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-ERV, ENVIROi"4TAL GOALS? (A SHORT- 'ERM JJPACT ON THE ENVIR0"T. IS ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RE- LATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE . PERIOD OF TfME WILE LONG-TERM . IMPACTS WILL ENDURE hELL INTO THE FUTURE.) DOES THE PROJECT HAYE DPACTS WI(=tI ARE IPllDrVIDUALLY LIMITED, BUT CUMULATIVELY COXSIDER.ULE? (A PROJECT MAY DPACT ON TWO ORNORE SEPARATE RESOURCES WHERE THE DIPACT ON EACH RE-. SOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL, BUT IWRE THE EFFECT OF "HE l"AL OF THOSE I"ACTS ON THE ENVIW"T IS SIGNIFICANT.) X .. 7-- . .". -- I : . . x ..... . .. --- DOES THE! PROJECT HAVE ENVIRON- MENTAL EFFECTS IWICH WILL - CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY? . ,- - y. I;ISCUSSION OF EMTIROMENT" EVALUTION .. # .. The praposed project provides for bridge and highmy improummts for Carlsbad Blvd. between Tamarack-Am,' and Cannon Rd. The project involves the replac&imt of the existing tw-lane bridge * with a fowlane bridge and the widening of Carlsbad Blvd, frun twb to four lanes fram 300 feet south of Tamrack A=, tp Cannbn %lo AS ~ederdl funds are being utilized fdr desi& and c+imction of the project, an envir0nrenta.l assessment has been prepared by New Horizons pursuant tb (National Envirormwtal Protection Act) guidelines, analyzes those potential enviropbmtal impacts associated with the proposed project. for anticipaM inpacts, corporated in the final project. . The er;rVironmntal assessment identifies and The assessment also proposes mitigation measures These'xni.tigatibn measures will be in- -7- . __ I - _-. -- - -* - I ~ -----*-- . * 1 -1 ? /4 , DISCUSSTOY OF E3lVIROI@L"Tfi EVALUATION (Continued) ErmhmmmM effects, identified by the assessment, were potential irrpacts to @*logy and water quality, .air;-*, biolcgy, parug, noise and erosion and sedimntation. This potential was amsidered to be muurndl .. . traffic circulation. - The assessment identified the potential for construction or post-oonstructbn dueto the characteristics of the exposed soils. It was additionally identified that the existing road border'consis.ted of expsed sbils and that the potential for erosion and sedimmtatian already exists. upon ocanpletion of grading work all newly creaM slopes and dism areas dll be hydrwseeded and irrigated to establish protectx 've growth. It is also anticipated that the city's current grading ordinance will mitigate any amems iegarding gradin in the rainy season, .potentkal inpacis to air aw fran dust during amstrwtim and au-le emissions were identified in the -tal assessmmt. This will significantly decrease W -ti& of 'this short-term inpact. The assessment Hates that autambile emissions are likely to decrease due to the pject facilitating the anticiwted traffic ~ra~th and decreasing the potential fq traffic cangestim. . Nd significant inpacts are anticipated on either mrhe or terfestial biology. Although no field evidence of Rast Tern presence was observed, they have been ham to use the ocean rock jetty in the area. There m~ld be' a possible impact to &ast Tern feeding areas off-site if amstructioq were to cccur during the sumner mths. For this reason construction would be regtricted during. this time. vegetatim that'would be affected by the prapa~ed'pmject are non-native, omamntal species and oould be revegetated quickly. be-. a. mpraposed- *an wcdd result in noise levels being raised 6n a short- term basis during amstructim. an a long-tem basis, the project is anticipated to raise noise levels by 0.5 tb 1.5 decibels . Noiselevelsintheazqa,hotiever, are ecpected tobe raisedby this aanount due *the increase in traffic the project is inplemented or not. The resulting noise levels were found to be amistent with existing an3 proposed land uses. Powal inpacts to traffic and parking can be divided inb short and long term hcpac@. Ch asbrt-tem his, an inmtal increase in traffic oow ges- can be anticipated during the three to five IKMths es&ted for bridge mnstruction and three to four weeks anticipated for road inpkovements. In order to miti-& these anticipated inpacks, oonstruction worn be limited-to off-season mnths, With noamstruction taking place during the July/August peak beach seasan. On a long-term basis, the project will enhance 0veraU traffic circulation and alleviate congestim. &e. current pmjd &sign incorparates'a ten foot wide parking strip to adcaroaate apphxhately 140 vehicles along the western side of the proposed right-of-way. Additicrmal parking will be p ~wided by ciwamcil inplenmtation of one of the alternati- proposed in the ewinkmmtal assessmdJlt, public parking on-site or in the project- vicinity. ~hese potential. inpa& and mitigation peasures 'A discussed in in the referenced ewirmmntal assessment,. nrodified ta jnwmte theenvirarmen tdl assessmenct. .- .. wateri+ dWg g&lhg -ti- will be required a~1kI.l as --out V. * I Disturbed areas WOUM . .* 1 .. whether . - . * incorporaticxi of one of the three . praposed alternatives will reat in the mintenance or enhancemnt of existing detail project, as proposed, will be the apprgpriate mitigatik masurest as discussed in 17. -a- .d *. . .. ... ’ .. N. DE’S”INATI0N. BE COMPLETED BY TIE PLANNING DEbWM”] On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project CdULD ROT ~mre a signifidant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find drat 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 conditional negative declaration will will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EINVI~~U IMPACT REPORT is required. 8 X - .. v. (IF APPLICABLE) MITIGATING MEASURES . .. ._ . : ’. . .. -. .. 8. ;. . # .- .. / , .. - . -. .... ". . ..... ....... ... * .. - .... .. .. --. - .. ....... . ...... ............... *.,.\.,ru..^r.....r ........ ., i'r. Iiickard I:. hllen Irovi s i mal C i t.,; L:;g ;nee r City of Cwlsbad Ca. 2ear Sir: ..... i...'.. .. ' CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I .. : .. cc)(: .A'- * li c NORTH COUNTY MEDICAL CLINIC 517 NORTH HORNE STREET OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92054 - TELEPHONE 722-8296 722-8297 Mr. Richard Allen City Engineer-C arl sb ad 1200 Elm Carlsbad, Calif . "1 I .. RECEIVED 18 1382 Dear Mr. Allen; My name is Gregory Daniels,M.D. I live at 5030 Tierra del Oro, Carlsbad, I hereby request a public hearing concerning the four-laning of Carlsbad Blvd. directly behind my home. As you know, Carlsbad Blvd. is already 3-lanes at the intersection at Cannon Rd...a bus stop. is also located directly behind my home at present. I already must sleep with a fan at night beacause of the heavy flow of traffic. The ridiculous idea of four-laning this narrow stretch of Carlsbad Blvd. will, also result in a loss of parking for those going to the beach...thus, more persons will park on Tierra del Oro and walk on the main highway to go to the beach... exposing themselves to great bodily harm due to the increase in the already heavy f,low of ordinary beach . traffic. REMEMBER: it could be your child or grandchild who could be killed if this invaluable beach parking is lost! aeY*< aniels,M.D. . ...._.......... - ? rc _.r -2 n. .. r”. . i? June 14, 1982 Mr, Richard Ha Allen Provisional Engilneer Carlsbad, Calif . Re; Widening Carlsbad Blvd to four lanes f Dear Sir, I am writing to say that I am very much opposed to the widening of Carlsbad Blvd to four lanes. disaster as it would encourage people to drive faster. As it is now, the speed limit is not enforced and it is very dangerous to cross.the street. I believe that it would be a Seldom does any one slow down for pedestrians even in the cross wzlks. No doubt, you would have to remove(‘ the bleanders which add much to the beauty of Carlnbad. What a Pity! Del Mar solved their problem, by reducipQkhe nuinbmL of - lanes and enforcing a slovr speed limit. Please do not act hastily. plac’e to live under the sun with sandLand-ocean. are like this! and once we start, we cannot go back, Let Carlsbad be a happy unhurried Very few places .. Dont let Carlsbad be a place to get a.vJay from) .. 502s Ti%rra Dcl Oro Carlsbad, Calif 92008 33 ., 1 i'c . 1. 4. f- Mr. Richnrd €1. Allen Provisional City Engineer I wish to request a public hezring on the ylidening of Carlsbad Boulevard, from the presnnt possibly be the purpose"? Frs. Dorothy KervJood 5016 Tierra del Cro Carlsbzd, Ca, 92008 * ! , ./ i (' / i. !$ I t ! i I 8 1 i I I ! i I ! I I ! 'i I ! I i i, I L 8. I . i .. 4 . 24 . , I .. . .. 1 PROPOSED BRIDGE = a = REPLACEMENT PROJECT LIMITS -OF. HlGYWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 1mmm-n OF PROPOSED - - -- _-_ - - - _- __ Figure 2 Sub Regional Location 4 City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF PUBLIC IiEARING To consider the environmental effects o€ the proposed bridge replacelsent and road improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard from 300 . feet south of Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. WHERE: City Council Chambers 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 WHEN: . August 3, 1982 at 6:OO PM Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing to provide a forum for public discussion of the environmental effects of the proposed improvements to Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed construction includes replacing the present two-lane bridge, over the Agua Hedionda Lagoon with a four-lane bridge and widening Carlsbad Boulevard from two to four lanes, within the existing right-of- way, from 300 feet south of Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. The project will be funded under the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation and Federal Aid to Urban Highways programs. I ..-. .- ~ , The Environnental Assessment for the bridge replacement and road improvemmts was approved for circulation by the Federal Highway Administration on Way 10, 1982. The Assessment and Preliminary plans are available to the public in the Engineering Department, City of Carlsbad, Persons having comments concerning this improvement or comments on the determinations in the Environmental Assessment are requested to furnish such comments- in writing to either the City of Carlsbad or the Federal Highway Administration. All comments are to be received no later than .August 138 1982. Comments regarding this project should be addressed to ivlr. Richard H, Allen, Provisional City Engineer, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Further information is available at the same address, Monday through Friday, 8:OO .a.m. to 5:OO p.m. or by telephone (714) 438-5541, '. :it &, -., L NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT II This is to inform all interested persons that the City of Carlsbad proposes to replace the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge over the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and to improve Carlsbad Boulevard from 300 feet south of Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. This project will be funded under the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation and Federal Aid to Urban Highways programs. The proposed construction includes replacing the present two-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge and widening Carlsbad Boulevard from two to four lanes within the existing right-of-way. The Environmental Assessment for the bridge replacement and road improvements was approved for circulation by the Federal Highway Admin- istration on May 10, 1982 and is available to the public in the Engineering Department, City of Carlsbad. Persons having comments concerning this improvement or comments on the determinations in the Environmental Assessment are requested to furnish such comments in writing to either the City of Carlsbad or the Federal Highway Administration. All comments are io be received no later than July 6, 1982. Opportunity for Public Hearing If requested by an interested member of the general public, or an agency, a formal public hearing will be conducted. Requests for a hearing should be submitted in writing to the City of Carlsbad, no later than June 28, 1982. If there are no requests for a hearing, the City of Carlsbad will proceed with the project as planned. Comments regarding this project should be addressed to Mr. Richard H. Allen, Provisional City Engineer, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carls- bad, CA 92008. Further information is available at the same address, Monday through Friday, 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. or by telephone (714) 438-5541. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = This is to inform all interested persons that the City of Carlsbad proposes to replace the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge over the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and to improve Carlsbad Boulevard from 300 feet south of Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. This project will be funded under the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation and Federal Aid to Urban Highways programs. The proposed construction includes replacing the present two-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge and widening Carlsbad Boulevard from two to four lanes within the existing right-of-way. The Environmental Assessment for the bridge replacement and road improvements was approved for circulation by the Federal Highway Admin- istration on May 10, 1982 and is available to the public in the Engineering Department, City of Carlsbad. Persons having comments concerning this improvement or comments on the determinations in the Environmental Assessment are requested to furnish such comments in writing to either the City of Carlsbad or the Federal Highway Administration. All comments are to be received no later than July 6, 1982. Opportunity for Public bearing If requested by an interested member of the general public, or an agency, a formal public hearing will be conducted. Requests for a hearing should be submitted in writing to the City of Carlsbad, no later than June 28, 1982. If there are no requests for a hearing, the City of Carlsbad will proceed with the project as planned. Comments regarding this project should be addressed to Mr. Richard H. Allen, Provisional City Engineer, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carls- bad, CA 92008. Further information is available at the same address, Monday through Friday, 8:OO a.m. to 500 p.m. or by telephone (714) 438-554 1 . L 1. Vista, CA 92083 A .--- --...-.-- CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92- Masuda Kayo 4561 Centinela Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90066 t .I i Carl sbad Anchorage, 3878 Carlsbad Blvd. Carl sbad CA 92008 Inc. 5 i I\ I Weindling Morise & Helen E. Udkoff Marvin R & Elissa P.O. Box 5391 Fullerton, CA 92635 Largen, Susan H. 136 Sequoia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Jerome H. Winter 4176 Terry St. I Oceanside, CA 92054 James T. & Betty E. Harris 144 Sequoia Ave. Unit 2 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Doris Elg 5900 Canterbury Dr., L-225 Culver City, CA 90230 Eleanor J. Harris 144 Sequoia - Unit R4 Carlsbad, CA 92008 .'- Paul M. & Doreen Ryan 152 Sequoia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Amy M. Snyder 3032 Skyline Dr. Oceanside, CA 92054 I -x1". 1- --- ..e--- I- _. .. _. ~ ~ ..-, --_ _I ^^ I -__-," .., " Frank 0 & Jeanette Taylor State of California /-=c 30502 Via La Cresta Attn: Bill Fait Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 92074 IC - 2628 Wilson St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tamarack-Carl sbad Venture 235 Jefferson St. Vista, CA 92083 Robert L. Duey; Rhetta M. C, Duey 418 Vista Roma Newport Beach, CA 92660 He1 en W. NcConnaughy 143 Sequoia St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robt. S. & Bertha A.Gillinghar Jefferson C. & Evelyn Heard 1306 Basswood Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 . Ernest J. Li tchfield 159 Sequoia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Alan P. Ogden 169 Sequoia Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Jack N. & Dorothy D. Hall 2619 Cove St. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Robert J. Truitt P.O. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Irene P. Duro P.O. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 I I I I i I I I I I' I 1 : 1 1 I i I I ! P.O. Box 38-2680 Carlsbad Btvc Carlsbad, CA 92008 Philip H. & Annabell B-Gallan' 165 Chinquapin Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Shirley W. Truitt 155 Chinquapin Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 S.D.G. & E. Attn: Mr. Horne 4600 Carl sbad B1 vd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 James W. & Karen C. Gavin P.O. Box 1337 5001 Tierra Del Oro St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Richard C. & Edith L.Campbel1 5003 Tierra Del Oro St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 I .P Jack M. Roth Vern Magnuson 6987 Los Tilos Los Angeles, CA 90068 Ben V. & Joan C. Constantino 2806 Pinelawn Dr. La Cresenta, CA 91214 Charles R. & Lou A, Weldon 8405 Ives St. Paramount, CA 90723 Don M. & Donna L. Rosenstock 5015 Tierra Del Oro St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Edward L. & Muriel H,Valentii 5019 Tierra Del Oro St. Carl sbad , CA 92008 - - - . .. . . . __ . . . ~ . . . I . ... . .. __ - . .. . - .. .. . . . - . .. -..- - .- - -- .-.. .- '! I I ! ! :I I I ! i I ]I ~ ____ ---_-- - - Idl'liarn W. & J.Karen ClernenG!. 24 10 Arizona Bank B1 dg. A r4 -1 61. e CII 9 .' Fi rs t Ave . +. Phoenix.; SZ 85003 I' 'I Margaret J. Barlow 5035 Tierra Del Oro St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dorothy A. Pedersen 5025 Tierra Del Om St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 \! I I I i I I Arthur W. & Mary 6. Spivey 5029 Tierra Del Or0 St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Lloyd M. & Doris E.Johnson 5031 Tierra Del Oro St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 5039 Tierra De? Oro St. Carlsbad, CA 92038 Dudley G. Kebow, TR. 5061 Shore Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dana H. & Kent A. Whitson 5051 Shore Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Jerry 14. & Lillian R. . Kay. .. 8615 Fennel1 Place Los Angeles, CA 90069 Margret P. Kyes 5021 Shore Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Michael & Marie S. Radogna 3084 St. George St. Los Angeles, CA 90027 j j 1% ! 1 B.Danie1 & Carol Hall 4- 5114 Carlsbad Blvd. \ Cartsbad, CA 92008 i* Gregory L. & Amy E. Daniels John W.11 & Belva McAdams 5030 Tierra Del Oro St. 5051 Los Robles Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ', Carlsbad, CA 92008 // ii George L. & Alyce L. Carsten I \]alter G. & Virginia M.Millei 5026 Teirra Del Oro St. 1 5065 Los Robles Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 . Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 Pauline L. Bugg 5022 Tierra Del Oro St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 , Ben V. & Joan C. Constantino 2806 Pinetown Dr. La Crescenta, CA 91214 Joe A.Jr. & Isabel Coe 12890 Mal ker Ave. Ontario, CA 91761 It 1: Gene H. Law 16446 Royal Hills Dr. Encino, CA 91316 1; Pacific Investment co. Carlsbad, CA 92008 i! ii 1; P.0. BOX 532 I I; ', , It li Fredrick W. & Patricia f I 5080 Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 11 1' 11 ho R. Dow I' ! Ferdinand & Eliz.Bollman 3 5098 Carlsbad Blvd j I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I: I I I Edith P. Sarain I 5079 Los Robles Dr. ,1 Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 1 I John E. & Sharon L. Burgztn I 5103 Los Robles Dr. I Carlsbad, CA 92008. I I I I t i David H. & Marguerite M. - I Moriarty ! 5036 Tidrra Del Oro St. - i Carlsbad, CA 92008 ' t I Fred W. & Betty M. Maerkle 5032 Tierra Del Or0 St. ' Carlsbad, CA 92008 I I i I I Quentin & Dorothy E. Kerwood 5016 Tierra Del Oro St. I I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 1 I I c c t. AGUA HEDIONDA BRIDGE 6 STREET PROJECT (300' radius list of property owners) 6-22-82 t 1) 204-253-08 2) 204 -2 5 3-0 9 3) 204-253-20 4) 206-011-01 5) 206-011-02 6) 206-011-03 7) 206-011-04 8) 206-011-05 9) 206-011-06 Masuda, Kayo 4561 Centinela Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 Carlsbad Anchorage, Inc. 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tamarack - Carlsbad Venture 235 Jefferson Street. Vista, CA 92083 ' II I1 I1 I1 I1 II I1 II II II II 11 II 11 11 11 II tt Weindling, Morise 6 Helen E. Udkoff, Marvin R. & Elissa P. 0. Box 5391 Fullerton, CA 92635 II II It II II 11 II I1 11 Largen, Susan H. 136 Sequoia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 I c 10) 206-011-07 9 t Winter, Jerome H. 4176 Terry Street Oceanside, CA 92054 Harris, James T. & Betty E. 144 Sequoia Avenue, Unit 2 Carlsbad, CA 92008 t Elg, Doris 5900 Canterbury Drive, L-225 Culver City, CA 90230 Harris, Eleanor J. 144 Sequoia, Unit 4 Carlsbad, CA 92008 11) 206-011-08 12) 206-011-09 13) 206-011-18 14) 206-011-19 15) 206-011-20 16) 206-013-01 17) 206-013-02 18) 206-013-03 19) 206-013-04 Ryan, Paul M. & Doreen 152 Sequoia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Snyder, Amy M. 3032 Skyline Drive Oceanside, CA 92054 Taylor, Frank 0. & Jeanette 30502 Via La Crestal Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Gillingham, Robert S. C Bertha A. 2628 Wilson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tamarack - Carlsbad Venture 235 Jefferson Street Vista, CA 92083 Duey, Robert L. Duey, Rhetta M. C. 418 Vista Roma Newport Beach, CA 92660 I1 II I1 11 11 11 I1 11 I1 II I1 I1 11 11 11 11 I1 11 McConnaughy, Helen W. 143 Sequoia Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 k c 20) 206-013-05 + t. Heard, Jefferson C. 61 Evelyn 1306 Basswood Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 21) 206-013-06 Litchfield, Ernest J. 159 Sequoia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 : 22) 206-013-07 Ogden, Alan P. 169 Sequoia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 23) 206-013-11 24) 206-013-12 25) 206-013-13 26) 206-013-14 27) 206-013-15 28) 206-013-16 29) 206-013-17 30) 204-310-01 31) 206-070-02 Hall, Jack N. & Dorothy D. 2619 Cove Street Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Truitt, Robert J. P. 0. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Truitt, Robert J. 156 Chinquapin Avenue P. 0. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Truitt, Robert J. P. 0. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Duro, Irene P. P. 0. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 State of California P. 0. Box 38 2680 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Bill Fait Gallant, Philip H. & Annabell B. 165 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ’ b‘ i c 32) 206-070-03 33) 206-070-04 34) 206-070-06 35 1 210-010-13 36) 37) 38) 39) 40 1 41) 42) 43) 210-010-24 210-010-29 210-020-23 210-020-22 210-020-1 8 210-020-17 210-020-16 21 0-020-15 I. Truitt, Shirley W. 155 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Truitt, Robert J. P. 0. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 S.D .G.&E. 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Mr. Horne State of California P. 0. Box 38 2680 Carlsb’ad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Bill Fait S.D .G .&E. 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Mr. Horne S .D .G .&E. 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Mr. Horne Gavin, James W. & Karen C. 5001 Tierra Del Oro Street P. 0. Box 1337 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Campbell, Richard C. & Edith L. 5003 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Roth, Jack M. Magnuson Vern 6987 Los Tilos Los Angeles, CA 90068 Constantino, Ben V. & Joan C. 2806 Pinelawn Drive La Cresenta, CA 91214 Weldon, Charles R. & Lou A. 8405 Ives Street Paramount, CA 90723 Rosenstock, Don M. 6 Donna L. 5015 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 c T t. Valentine, Edward L. & Muriel H. 5019 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 44) 210-020-14 Clements, William W. & J. Karen 2400 Arizona Bank Bldg. 101 N. First Avenue Phoenix, A2 85003 45) 210-020-13 t Pedersen, Dorothy A. 5025 Tietra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 46) 210-020-12 Spivey, Arthur W. & Mary B. 5029 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 47) 210-020-11 48) Johnson, Lloyd M. & Doris E. 5031 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 210-020-10 Barlow, Margaret J. 5035 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 49) 210-020-09 k Barlow, Willian P. & Agnes E. 5039 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 50) 210-020-08 51) Kebow, Dudley G. Tr. 5061 Shore Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 210-031-15 Whitson, Dana H. Whitson, Kent A, 5051 Shore Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 52) 210-031-03 Kay, Jerry W. d Lillian R. 8615 Fennel1 Place Los Angeles, CA 90069 53) 210-031-02 Ryes, Margret P. 5021 Shore Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 54 1 210-031-01 Radogna, Michael & Marie S. 3084 St. George Street Los Angeles, CA 90027 55) 210-020-07 Moriarty, David A. & Marguerite M. 5036 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 56) 210-020-06 /4, c. .I *. Maerkle, Fred W. & Betty M. 5032 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 57) 210-020-05 Daniels, Gregory L. & Amy E. 5030 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 58) 210-020-04 59) 210-020-03 Carsten, George L. & Alyce L. 5026 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Bugg, Pauline L. 5022 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 60) 210-020-02 Constantino, Ben V. & Joan C. 2806 Pinetown Drive La Crescenta, CA 91214 61) 210-020-01 Kerwood, Quentin & Dorothy E. 5016 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 62) 210-020-21 Coelho, Joe k. Jr., & Isabel 12890 Walker Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 63) 210-032-01 Law, Gene H. 16446 Royal Hills Drive Encino, CA 91316 64) 210-032-07 Pacific Investment Co. (Corp.) P. 0. Box 532 Carlsbad, CA 92008 65) 210-032-08 DOW, Fredrick W. & Patricia R. 5080 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 66) 210-033-02 Bollman, Ferdinand L. & Elizabeth 0. 5098 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 67 1 210-033-03 Hall, B. Daniel & Carol 5114 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 68) 210-033-04 69 1 McAdams, John W. I1 6 Belva L. 5051 Los Robles Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 210-033-08 11 :I 11 I1 If II 11 I1 II 70) 210-033-17 i. . ' L. 71) 210-033-16 72) 210-033-15 t 73) 210-033-14 Miller, Walter G. & Virginia M. 5065 Los Robles Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sarain, Edith P. 5079 Los Robles Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Burgan, John E. & Sharon L. 5103 Los Robles Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SCH No. 81040818 Carlsbad Boulevard BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROV€MENTS FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEEJ TAMAUCK AVENUE AND CAHRON-ROAD ENVIROBMEBTAL ASSESSMENT City of Carlsbad and State of California . Department of Transportation and U.S. De artment of Transportation Federa E Highway Administration Pursuant to: 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C) 4L City of Catlsbad, City Engineer A .- (District 11) G Local Assistance re& Bruce E. cannon ~____ - Di v i s ion Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTNATION REGION NINE CALIFORNIA DIVISION P. 0. Box 1915 ' Sacramento, California 95809 Ms. Adriana Gianturco, Director CALTRANS, 1120 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 Attention: Federal-aid Branch, Room 3309 for Lewis K. Wood Wy 10, 1982 HC-CA File: M-SlOl(4) - Carlsbad Blvd. B Dear Ms. Gianturco: Enclosed is a signed copy of the Environmental Assessment for the above project. This document is now approved for public availability. Sincerely yours, For Bruce E. Cannon Division Administrator Enclosure _I . ,.- .... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NEPA/INITIAL STUDY/CEQA) I. TABLE OF CONTENTS .TITLE .......................................... 1 2 11. - NEED .......................................... 111. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................. 3 IV. V. VI. A. B. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................... 3 ALTERNATIVES ........................... 9 1. 2. 3. 5. No Project ...................... 9 Rebuild Bridge on Different Alignment ................... 9 Rebuild Bridge as a Two-Lane Closure of Carlsbad Boulevard Rep1 acemen t ................. 9 and Bridge ................. 10 PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 10 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................... 15 A. PHYSICAL SETTING ....................... 15 B. LAND USE .............................. 16 C. HYDROLOGY ............................... 24 D. VISUAL QUALITY ......................... 25 E. MARINE BIOLOGY ......................... 26 F. TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY ..................... 29 G. TRAFFIC AND PARKING .................... 30 H. NOISE .................................. 31 I. METEOROLOGY/CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY ........ 33 J. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................... 36 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST .......... 38 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION/MITIGATION MEASURES .. 44 .A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. PHYSICAL SETTING ....................... 44 HYDROLOGY .............................. 46 VISUAL QUALITY ......................... 49 LAND USE ............................... 45 MARINE BIOLOGY ......................... 50 -_.. ~ TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY ..................... 52 .. TRAFFIC AND PARKING ..................... 53 NOISE ................................... 58 i . i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) %!at I. METEOROLOGY/CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY ......... 59 J. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................... 62 VII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................ 63 VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PERSONNEL ........... 65 IX REFERENCES ................................... 66 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) IX TECHNICAL APPENDIX A. AN ANALYSIS OF HYDROLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY AS RELATED TO THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT B. RESULTS OF A BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF OUTER AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON IN RELATION TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION UPON THE RESIDENT MARINE * BIOTA C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. . MEMORANDUM, TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS AN ANALYSIS OF THE NOISE IMPACTS RELATIVE TO THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AN ANALYSIS OF THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EARLY CONSULTATION MEETING MATERIALS CORRESPONDENCE HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND ROAD WIDENING FROM TAMARACK AVENUE TO CANNON ROAD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Tit le Page Table 1 2 3 Regional Location .................. 4 Boulevard/Bridge Location) ....... 5 Project Location (Carlsbad Aerial View of Proposed Project . Site ............................. 6 Land Ownership Adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Project .......................... 7 Proposed Bridge and Street Land Use Designations in the Improvements ..................... 11 Project Vicinity ................. 17 Recreational Uses of Agua Hedionda Middle and Inner Lagoons ......... 20 Outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Biologic a1 Reconnaissance Sites ............................ 28 LIST OF TABLES Title Page Ground Transportation Noise Impacts. 32 Oceanside/Carlsbad Air Quality Monitoring Summary ................ 35 Existing and Post-Project Parking .. 56 iv I. TITLE BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD 1 11. NEED - The existing Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon was originally completed in 1934, replacing an earlier concrete bridge built in 1915. The present reinforced concrete bridge is classified as structurally deficient since the concrete has greatly deteriorated. The bridge is currently posted for restricted truck weights, and evaluations by bridge engineers during the field review process indicated that the structure may have to be closed for safety reasons within two years. In addition, Carlsbad Boulevard is currently carrying traffic volumes of 15,700 ADT, an amount that exceeds the City of Carlsbad recommended ADT for a two-lane roadway, which also serves large numbers of bicyclists and joggers, and is used for roadside beach parking. The road is especially congested in the summer months and projections are for an increase of 6,300 ADT to 22,000 ADT by 1995. improvement to four-lanes would ease this congestion and increase public safety. The proposed This Environmental Assessment (EA) is an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and an evaluation of whether or not the proposed project will significantly affect the environment. been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Initial Study- CEQA), as amended, to present the relevant and comprehensive information available on the proposed bridge and highway This report has - improvement project. 2 111. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San,Diego, California (Figure 1). The project site extends along Carlsbad Boulevard from 300 feet south of Tamarack Avenue for a distance of approximately one and one quarter miles to Cannon Road (Figures 2 and 3). Carlsbad Boulevard is a four-lane roadway north of Tamarack Avenue and narrows to two-lanes at Chinquapin Avenue, just north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bridge crossing. The existing roadway pavement is 40+ - feet within an approximately 100-foct right-of-way. The existing bridge is a two-lane structure, approximately 40 feet wide, which spans the approximately 160 foot long channel of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet. The inlet provides a passage from the outer lagoon to the Pacific Ocean and is lined with rip-rap. Tur- bulent tidal action and strong currents exist at this inlet location. Proximity to the ocean and high salt-laden moisture have contributed to the deteriorated condition of the present bridge. The elevation of the existing bridge is 15.1 feet mean sea level (MSL) and 13.3 feet MSL on the south end. The roadway alignment is straight until just south of the bridge, at which point the road goes into a 5,000-foot radius curve for a thousand feet, and then through a tangent section on to two short, large radius curves, then tangent to the Cannon Road intersection. There is an unpaved parking and fishing area south of the bridge and east of the highway on San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDGGrE) property -(Figure 4). 3 , . NEW HOKIZONS Planr,-ng Consultants, Inc. . Figure 1 Regional Loc at ion , I Figure 2 1 Carlsbad Boulevard/Bridge Location (Bridge No. 574-133) (Portion of U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey 7.5' ,Quadrangle) 5 Figure 3 Aerial View of Proposed Project Site 6 E c 0 C 9r F 3 2 2 7 In addition, two paved parking areas are located on the west side of the highway south of the bridge. parking area is located north of the bridge and partially within the right-of-way of Carlsbad Boulevard. lot presently encroaches upon the State beach, to the west of the right-of-way. Another The entrance to the 8 B. ALTERNATIVES .. 1. NO PROJECT The no project alternative would result in continued deterioration of the existing bridge and the eventual closure of Carlsbad Boulevard to through traffic. It has been deter- mined by bridge engineers during the field review process that closure might be required in two years. The loss-of Carlsbad Boulevard as a major north-south street would result in vastly increased traffic congestion on local east-west streets, such as Tamarack Avenue and Carinon Road, and would divide the City of Carlsbad between its northern and southern sections, west of the Interstate 5 freeway. 2. REBUILD BRIDGE ON DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT An alternative to rebuilding the bridge at the existing alignment would be to construct the bridge on a new alignment to the west. Changing alignment, however, would require additional right-of-way on San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) property. to the City of Carlsbad and is used as a public beach recrea- tion area. unless it could be shown that there was no other feasible and prudent means of achieving the project objective. Land to the west of the existing bridge is leased Encroachment upon this area would not be allowed 3. REBUILD THE BRIDGE AS A TWO-LANE REPLACEMENT Carlsbad Boulevard, one-quarter mile north of the pro- posed project, is presently a four-lane road. The road narrows to two lanes, creating congestion at the bridge, especially capacity for a 35 mile per-hour roadway with heavy parking and bicycling use. - during the summer months. The present two-lane road is above Rebuilding the bridge to its present 9 capacity would not alleviate any of the existing traffic or circulation problems, but would only correct the structural deficiency of the existing bridge. 4. CLOSURE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND BRIDGE Another alternative is to close Carlsbad Boulevard at the north and south entrance to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The bridge would be removed or at least removed from use. The closed ends of Carlsbad Boulevard would,in effect, become cul-de-sacs and .additional off-street parking lots at each end could be created. This alternative would increase parking facilities, but would severely decrease circulation and access to the beach and sever an important link between the north and south portions of the City of Carlsbad west of 1-5. no other north-south link west of 1-5, all local traffic would need to use the 1-5 freeway. This would create additional traffic demands on the east-west collector streets. As there is C. PROPOSED ACTION The first planning phase of the Bridge and Highway improvement for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road was completed in 1979, when tentative plans and application criteria were developed. The proposed bridge is planned to be 180 feet in length, with the improved super- structure planned to be of pre-stressed concrete (Figure 5). The completed bridge is envisioned to be 82 feet in width with four 12-foot paved lanes, a &foot median strip, a 6-foot bike lane, and 5-foot sidewalk in each direction. Plans are to construct the bridge in two phases; first 10 *. h 0 V M .A U PI d) C M G W 4 a .r( c P .r( m 2 . .- a 0 &I J 0 rn v 4 U u B L v) I c d a h V m 0 e: x U m c 2 .., .r( 4 a8 u a U U d) '7 0 u fi V d) m 0 a 0 &I a y1 u U J M h .4 ii 1. .-.-.. , I , -1;- - 0 V M CI 01 m c M w rl 9) c .r( .r( .r( :: z W u CI 3 0 m v N U 0 P) r: v) I c m 4 a x 3 W m 0 n: x U m C .r( .r( 4 P) U a U U al .T.l 0 U a -u al u1 0 a 0 U a 6 In 0 U 3 ffi L .r( h I I I 5 / / h 0 0 bo c Y 0, 01 c tc C w i 01 C m .3 .A .3 2 u u Y 3 0 rl v m U G al c v) I c 10 rl a $-. m s -0 m 0 e: x Y m c E .- .3 rl 01 !.A a U al -l 0 Y a V PI v1 0 a 0 Y a u ul al u 3 ac a .A m 3 constructing a half-width section of new bridge with two 11- foot paved lanes and temporary side barricades west of the existing bridge. Traffic would be routed over this section on a temporary basis during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the final half-width section. Highway improvements 'include widening the present two- lane road from Tamarack Avenue on the north to Cannon Road on the south. of a four-foot median strip, four 12-foot paved lanes, and an 8-foot paved bike lane in each direction. will vary from 68 feet to 74 feet in width at three points, in order to accommodate a turning lane. The 74-foot widths will be located across from the isouthern entrance to the SDG&E fishing area, east of the highway, and at the two entrances to the SDG&E plant. Beginning approximately 190 feet south The new roadway is to be 68 feet wide-consisting The new pavement of the bridge, a new 10-foot wide paved parking lane on the west side of the pavement, extending for 2900 feet south to a point 250 feet south of the SDG&E outfall culvert, would be constructed. Approximately 550 feet north of Cannon Road the four lanes would begin a transition and gradually decrease from the 68-foot width to the present two-lane width south of Cannon Road. All highway improvements will be made within the existing right-of-way, with the exception of a small anount of slope grading on a 200-foot length of SDG&E property adjacent to the entrance to the Encina Power Plant and a small anount of slope grading on the south side of the channel extending east from the wingwall. Final design may not necessitate these encroach- ments, but if it does, the required encroachment permits will be obtained from SDG&E. A strip of one to seven feet in width would be graded east of the right-of-way, in order to create a 1% to 1 slope adjacent to the road, as required for a left-turn be constructed within the right-of-way at the base of the west slope adjoining the north parking lot. . lane requested by SDGGrE. A new 5-foot retaining wall will 14 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. PHYSICAL SETTING The project site is located along Carlsbad Boulevard (old State Highway 1011, within the City of Carlsbad. Regionally, the site is approximately 30 miles north of downtown San Diego and 4.5 miles south of the City of Oceanside. The AT & SF railroad runs parallel to the roadway to the east of the roadway segment under study. Carlsbad Boulevard (S-21) provides the major north/south local link to the coastal community of The City of Carlsbad, west of Interstate 5. The roadway segment under study consists of a section bordered by Tamarack Avenue to the north and Cannon Road to the south. This 1.2 mile long segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is bounded on the western side by parking facilities for the beach and by the Pacific Ocean. At the northern end of the project Carlsbad Boulevard bridges the outer lagoon of Agua Hedionda Lagoon across a two-lane reinforced concrete bridge built in 1.934. This bridge is classified as structurally deficient since the reinforced concrete has deteriorated to an unsafe condition and traffic is limited to restricted truck weights as posted. East of this section of Carlsbad Boulevard lies the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, a designated wildlife resource conservation area, and further south the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's Encina Power Plant. Limited off-street parking is available along the eastern side of the roadway, mainly serving the Encina fishing area that is provided and maintained by SDG&E for use by the public. The San Diego Gas and Electric Company owns all the land east of the proposed project right-of-way (Figure 4). 15 : ..,: ,; . . c. On the west, or beach side, SDG&E owns the approximately 500- foot strip of land south of the existing bridge, but leases this land to the City of Carlsbad. The next approximately 900 feet of shoreline is owned by the State of California and operated by the State Parks and Recreation Department. The next approximate 700 feet of beach is also owned by SDG&E and leased to the City of Carlsbad. south is owned by SDG&E and currently leased to the State of California. The remaining 1600 feet The Encina Power Plant utilizes the water of the Agua Hedionda as a cooling medium for the plant. have been circulated through their system are ejected back into the ocean via an out-take channel located just west of the plant which runs under Carlsbad Boulevard and dumps into the ocean. The ejection of circulated water and occasional dredging activities (two-year intervals) have increased siltation effects in the vicinity of the project site. Waters that Adjacent to the proposed project, on the southwest, is a residential neighborhood with nine homes whose rear yards are separated from the right-of-way by a 6-foot high block wall. B. LAND USE Land uses within, and immediately surrounding the pro- ject site, vary from medium-high residential to recreational land uses. The General Plan of the City of Carlsbad indicates four land use designations along the project corridor (Figure 6). At the northern end of the project, along the eastern side of Carlsbad Boulevard, there is a residential area desig- nated RH (High Density). This designation allows for up to Figure 6 Land Use Designations in the Project Vicinity I' J 17 30 dwelling units per acre. Just south of this area, to the outlet jetty, the land area is designated for recreational land uses. To the west are several beach areas, and to the east, the Agua Hedionda Outer Lagoon, a popular local fishing area, currently designated as OS-Open Space. San Diego Gas and Electric’s Encina Power Plant (U-Utility designation) lies to the east of the highway, south of the lagoon. the plant, to the west, the beach continues until -approximately 1000 feet north of Cannon Road. to low-medium density residential (4-6 dwelling units per acre). All of the above land uses are designated within the “Special Treatment Area’’ of the General Plan. Across from The land use thereupon shifts The entire Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Outer, Middle and Inner portions are owned by SDG6E. Use of the Outer Lagoons is completely controlled by SDG&E which provides public fishing facilities only and allows no other recreational water use. Three scientific research and development studies attempting tu raise striped bass, lobster, and clams, oysters and scallops are the only permitted uses- The Outer Lagoon provides the cooling water for the Encina Power Plant, a major source of electrical power for the entire San Diego region. SDG&E maintains strict security around the plant and feels the public cannot be allowed in the Outer Lagoon in order to maintain a security buffer around the plant. Additionally, the water in the channel is very turbulent and SDG&E will not permit use of the water, as that would create a liability on their part should accidents occur. The AT & SF railroad bridge divides the Outer from the Middle Lagoon. This bridge is Ballast Deck Timber Trestle on timber piles consisting of fourteen spans approxi- mately 14 feet in length for a total bridge length of 189 feet. The bridge is approximately 34 feet above water level, but the vertical openings between bridge piers are restricted to about 7 or 8 feet above the water due to sway bracing between the piers. It should be noted that immediately to the east of the railroad trestle is an aerial sanitary sewer pipeline crossing consisting of seven spans, each about 25 feet in length. The pipeline is a 48-inch concrete pipe on steel beams. The height of the bottom of the beans above the water-level is about 24 feet. The bracing on the timber railroad trestle effectively precludes navigation between the Middle and Outer Lagoons. A floating steel boom separates the Outer from the Middle Lagoon at water level, physically prohibiting boabs from entering the Outer Lagoon. The water area of the Middle Lagoon is owned by SDG&E and leased to the City of Carlsbad for one dollar per year. The YMCA operates a camping and aquatic facility on land leased from the AT & SF railroad, (Figure 7). They also lease a floating dock from SDG&E and small non-power boats, such as kayaks and rowboats are used for youths' aquatic acti- vities. The "Y" allows other organized groups such as Boy Scouts, Church groups or businesses to use the facilities, provided the group has adequate insurance and provides their own lifeguards. The Middle Lagoon is separated from the Inner Lagoon by the Interstate 5 Highway Bridge. This bridge is a seven span concrete slab bridge with spans ranging between 26 feet and 32 feet in length. The clear'opening to the water level is approximately 26 feet at midbridge. There are actually two bridges, one for northbound traffic and one southbound. The Inner Lagoon water surface is leased by the City of Carlsbad from SDG&E for one dollar per year. The General Plan and Agua Hedionda Specific Plan show a recreation commercial 19 .. .. . .', .,.'. 20 designation on the north shore surrounded by medium and medium high density residential uses. are available with access via public streets at Snug Harbor. Whitey's Landing formerly provided boat launching, rentals, and a picnic area but it is not currently in operation. Bristol Cove is a private residential dock which provides facili- ties for sailboating, hobie cats, and power boats. The Home- owners Association maintains a common boat launch .area. No more than eighty five boats are allowed on the Inner Lagoon at one time and the summer average is 35-40. The eastern end of the Inner Lagoon is cordoned off and no boats are allowed in this area in order to protect sensitive habitat areas. Private boat launching facilities The City of Carlsbad Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that powerboat usage be banned under the General Plan from this area. Three serious accidents have occurred in the Lagoon which resulted in lawsuits against the City of Carlsbad. Also studies by a consultant have shown that wave action produced by the power boats is causing severe erosion along the environmentally sensitive shore. No action on this recommendation has been taken. The majority of the property surrounding the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way belongs to San Diego Gas and Electric Company. existing bridge, and extending from the inlet north to the State owned beach, is under SDG&E ownership and is not leased. . South of the bridge, an approximately 500-foot section belongs to the State of California; the residential areas at the northern and southern ends of the project are privately owned. The residential areas at the northern and southern ends of the project site are privately owned. of its beach front property to the City of Carlsbad. A small area of beach-front land extending under the SDG&E leases the remainder These 21 . - leases are due to expire in August I981 and there are unconfirmed plans for the acquisition of the properties by the State of California (Surfcomber, 1980). A 1. 7 acre site at the corner of Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard is designated Open Space. The land is owned by SDG&E and leased to the City of Carlsbad which maintains it as a park. No portion of this land is included in. the proposed project. The project site is located within the City of Carlsbad corporate boundaries. It is also within the jurisdic- tion of the State of California Coastal Commission. The Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, which is the Local Coastal Program for Carlsbad, was certified by the State Coastal Commission in 1978, and although the City of Carlsbad disagrees with many of the conditions, these do not involve issues related to this proposed project. The following are relevant sections of the Coastal Act which will be used by the California Coastal Commission in their review of the project: Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right to access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, . where feasible. 22 Section 30233. (c) In addition to the other pro- visions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidential public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. The Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, certified as the Local Coastal Plan states under, CIRCULATION, B. Policies. 1. Traffic Conditions: , "K. the program for the completion of improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard, in- cluding the replacement of the bridge over the lagoon inlet, is recognized as consistent with this Specific Plan. It 23 C. HYDROLOGY The existing right-of-way drains into both the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. Runoff is composed of minor sediment from the natural and landscaped sandy areas adjacent to the road surface and from urban solids which are deposited upon the roadway. Solids which drain into Agua Hedionda Lagoon from the right-of-way comprise only a small fraction of the solids loading which occurs within the 28 square miles of that particular drainage basin. In the outer lagoon, adjacent to the proposed project, solids are removed every two years in order to maintain cooling water flow to the Encina Power Plant situated on the southwestern edge of the lagoon. In spite of these sediment intrusions, the lagoon supports extensive fish and shellfish populations (Appendix A). 24 D. VISUAL QUALITY The project site covers a corridor along Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 1.2 miles long. The majority of the surrounding land area is vacant or used for parking facilities serving either the beach to the west or the Encina fishing area to the east. This segment of Carlsbad Boulevard varies in elevation from approximately 35 feet MSL,at the northern end near Tamarack Avenue, down to an approximate elevation of 11 feet MSL near the Encina Power Plant. Further south, the roadway ascends to roughly 42 feet MSL in elevation. There is a residential area located at the north- eastern corner of the project site, above the north end of the lagoon. Several of these properties have a view of the roadway, bridge, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, however, few of the residences can see the bridge itself. The bridge is barely visible from the AT & SF railroad tracks and from locations directly adjacent to the structure. The bridge is not a dominant visual landmark in the project vicinity, but appears as a continuation of the roadway. the surrounding properties include the aforementioned beach parking, parking for the Encina fishing area, and the Encina Power Plant itself. Other uses of Vegetation along this segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is Light growth of ice plant occurs around the bridge sparse. abutments and intermittently along the eastern road bank. Further south, at the entrance to the Encina Power Plant, the San Diego Gas and Electric Company has landscaped the frontage on the east side of the road with ice plant and large non-native shrubs, including some evergreen varieties. 25 E. MARINE BIOLOGY A marine biological reconnaissance survey was conducted in May 1981 in order to determine potential impacts of the pro- posed project on the marine habitat (Appendix B). The results of this survey are summarized’below. The proposed project crosses the inlet to the outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon, an essentially man-made lagoon having been dredged t0.a depth of eight feet in 1954, when it was permanently opened to the sea. The Outer Lagoon provides 540 million gallons/day (MGD) ot water for cooling the adjacent Encina Power Plant. The lagoon is kept open by dredging every two years. The outer lagoon is fed by a l6O-foot wide channel, bordered by rock jetties on either side extending into the ocean. The outer lagoon differs from the natural marshlands of the inner lagoon by having introduced rock rip rap border and is not bordered by marshland vegetation. The depth of the channel at the bridge is six feet below mean lower low water (MLLW). The shoreline on the west side of the lagoon is devoid of emergent vegetation and is lined with a rip-rap of granite boulders extending one to two feet below and three to five feet above mean tidal level. The lagoon is essentially a marine habitat. Sediment particle size varies from nearly 100 percent sand and at the western and northern end of the lagoon, near the proposed construction, where the water circulation is good, to higher silt content at the southern end away from the construction site. 26 According to the field survey, Arearr 3,4,5, and 6, near the proposed construction site (Figure 7), were found to have well-developed mollusks and barnacle populations, including the California mussel (Mytilus californicus), turbon snails (Tegula gallina and T. Funebralis) -and several species of limpets (Collisella Lottia). Barnacles included the goose- neck (Pollicipes polymerus) and balanoid forms Chtamalus Fissus, Tetraclita squamosa and Balanus sp. These species were observed on the concrete support pilings, the rock jetty areas and on the rip-rap on the banks. also included populations of the snail (Littorina scutulata), the limpet (Collisella digitalis). Unlike the inner lagoon habitats, there was a small algae population consisting of three red algae species. The rock jetty, west of the bridge, No beds of eelgrass (Zostera marina) were found in the vicinity of the proposed construction. However, large continuous beds of eelgrass were observed in the shallower, calmer waters near Site 9 at the opposite end of the outer lagoon. The ranking of fishes and invertebrates entrained by the Encina Power Plant is used to indicate the varieties of fish fauna in the lagoon. The most frequently seen species are queenfish, deep-body anchovy, topsmelt, grunion, and northern anchovy. sand bottom fish in Southern California. Queenfish are the most common nearshore 27 NEW HORIZONS P1ar ng Consultants, Inc. Figure 7 Outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Biological Reconnaissance. Sites 28 F. TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY The roadway, south of the bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard, is bordered on the east side by a narrow strip of interrupted fringe vegetation. The area consits of common native species and there is no evidence of other wildlife populations along the roadway, other than occasional transient scavenging birds (Red-winged Blackbird, Horse Finch, Starling). No rare or endangered species have been identified that would be impacted by the proposed project. The underside of the bridge is used as a nesting site by Rock Doves (Common Pigeon). The Agua Hedionda Lagoon, east of the inlet, experi- ences a high rate of sedimentation, requiring bi-annual dredging. The channel of the lagoon takes a sharp bend immediately to the east of the bridge and the current is abated ip that area. Accordingly, most of any sediment load will be deposited (during an incoming tide) a short distance east of the bridge. The western portion of the lagoon is visited by many bird species annually, although there is no evidence that either Least Terns or Brown Pelicans use the western lagoon area for feeding. Pelicans may land there occasionally to rest or bathe, but the most-used roost site is the jetty on the ocean beach (Appendix C). 29 G. TRAFFIC AND PARKING Carlsbad Boulevard, south of Tamarack Avenue, is a two-lane roadway with approximately 40 feet of pavement, carrying a current traffic volume of 15,700 vehicles per day,. (Tisdale, 1981). Bordering the roadway on either side are parking spaces providing access to either the beach, or Agua Hedionda fishing sites. The road is frequented by bicyclists and joggers (Appendix 0). Approximately one-quarter mile north of Tamarack Avenue, the pavement widens to four lanes. The existing bridge accommodates two lanes. The roadway experiences heavy con- gestion, especially during the summer months when speeds may be as low as 15 mph (Shipley 1981). The current posted speed is 35 mp.h. A field reconnaissance made along Carlsbad Boulevard indicated the presence of approximately 396 parking spaces in the project right-of-way, including use of paved spaces and unpaved shoulder areas. Of these, approxiamtely 40 spaces are available at the Encina fishing area, east of the road on SDG&E property. In January 1981, the City of Carlsbad altered the existing paved parking area along the western side of Carls- bad .. Boulevard fronting the beach. A new consolidated parking lot was constructed by paving the beach areas between the three former paved lots, increasing the available parking spaces by 48. The temporary nature of this improvement was recognized at that time and was made public in a local newspaper article (Blade Tribune, 1981). The present plans for widening this - portion of Carlsbad Boulevard to four lanes and replacing the present diagonal parking with a parallel arrangement was already underway and were undergoing the planning approval process. 30 ..I .. .. <,..:. H. NOISE The noise environment prevalent along the proposed project right-of-way is composed of a variety of sources, including: 1) traffic along Carlsbad Boulevard, 2) ocean surf, 3) San Diego Gas and Electric' Encina Power Plant, and 4) normal activities on the beach and around the periphery of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. About four homes overlook the bridge on the north end of the project and nine homes are adjacent to the road along the southern end of the project (the complete acoustical analysis report is included as Appendix E to this report). The existing noise environment at the various residen- tial receptors, at the beach, and the park adjacent to Cannon Road, are summarized in Table 1. Data indicate that existing noise levels exceed those prescribed for the land use indicated. 31 c m Y P - 2. 2 tQ I In W m CD In m aD In CI m Y P 2 a P I N W In In m In Ln In In A - A Y v Y m 'm m P P P cc m Y P A cy N W Y W CD FI LA In QI bo I- I- W W I- UI r-i d Q, 00 I I 0 N Q, CD rc, FI I R 2 0.q L1 0-13 14 In In Ln m Ln r: 6 k W Ln d W d In In i cp rc. al W FI In d In aJ 4 a, 4 -4 w U 0 a ;;i 4 JJ c aJ P V 3 U 4J c 0, .. u 0 U U 1 V cu 0 .d U S 'D a1 L, r: aJ V 4J C aJ P .r( v) aJ 4 .-I v) aJ .3 (r, a, Ll 6 E Ll 0 moo E- "P TI4 c 53 TI4 C o)aJ v) T4 c 0, C' a TJd C 5 4 t, 58 ux 01 zm Yrl Ub4 44 La 01 24 32 I. METEOROLOGY/CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY The general climate of the project site is largely controlled by the position and strength of the high pressure center near Hawaii and the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. Temperatures are cool in summer and mild in winter. Precipitation averages slightly under 10 inches per year and occurs almost exclusively from late November to early April, except for occassional light drizzles from heavy early morning stratus clouds .during the warmer months (Appendix F). Winds are almost always onshore, averaging 7-10 mph and carrying any locally generated air pollutants well away from Carlsbad to inland North County. Offshore winds are weaker (2-4 mph), usually nocturnal, and do allow for stagnation of local emissions. winds usually gives Carlsbad excellent air quality most of the year, the problem of interbasin recirculation can give the Carlsbad area the worst air quality in the San Diego Air Basin. While the normal pattern of Temperature inversions that inhibit any vertical mixing of low-level polluted air and cleaner air aloft also need to be considered. During the warmer months, sinking air in the ocean high pressure cell is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air, approximately 1000 feet deep. Mixing within the marine layer is good, but the marine/subsidence inversion interface traps all polluted air exclusively within the shallow marine layer. As this layer moves inland, receiving additional pollutants which react photochemically under abundant sunshine, it creates smog (mainly ozone). Ozone levels are generally low along the ocean, increasing inland, particularly - in the foothills. 33 Radiation inversions are another important consideration particularly in light of roadway projects: These form at night when the air near the ground cools, while air aloft remains warm. This shallow inversion may be sever.al hundred feet deep. Coupled with light winds, these inversions trap pollutants near surface sources, e.g. freeways or large parking lots, and form highly localized pollution "hot spots." These two inversion types are the strongest and most persistent in the two characteristic air pollution "seasons". Summer is usually a period of elevated levels of photochemical air pollution and winter is a period of localized hot spots, especially in coastal environments. In order to assess the significance of the air quality impact of the proposed bridge and roadway project, that impact, together with ambient baseline levels, must be compared to am- bient air quality standards (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect sensitive receptors such as asthmatics, the elderly, young children, people weak with other illnesses,and those engaged in heavy work or exercise requiring deep breathing. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 specify standards for severe pollution species with an attainment deadline of 1982. its own standards, quite diverse from the National AAQS. California has The closest monitoring station to the project site is located in Oceanside at 100 South Cleveland. Data from this station suggest that levels of ozone and particulates generally associated with regional pollution and long distance, exceed AAQS with' considerable regularity (Table 2). . local pollution, especially carbon monoxide as a sign of heavy nearby vehicular activity, are absent. Indicators of 34 . TABLE 2 OCEANSIDE/CARLSBAD AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY (days standards exceeded) 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 OZONE (03) -- 1 HR70.08 ppm 43 69 87 71 1 HR20.10 ppm 1 HR70.12 ppm 1 HRt 0.20 ppm 1 HRt0.35 ppm Max 1-HR Conc. (ppm) CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) 1 HR735 ppm , 8 HR7 9 ppm Max 1-HR Conc. (ppm) Max 8-HR Conc. (ppm) NITROGEN DIOXIDE 1 ~~>0.25 ppm Max 1-HR Conc.(ppm) SULFUR DIOXIDE 1 HR20.50 ppm 24 HReO.05 ppm Max 1-HR Conc. (pprn) Max24-HR Conc.(ppm) PAR1’XCULATES 24 HRr100 Ug/m3 Annua1=60ug/m Max 24-HR Conc.ug/m Annual Avg. ug/m 3 3 3 19 50 61 22 0 7 2 0 0 ‘0 0.19 0.29 0.25 * -_ -- 0 0 0 0’ 0 0 10 10 8 3.8 -- -- 1 0.31 0 0 0.03 -- 25% Yes 172 83 4 0.33 0 0 0.06 -- 209 yes 146 82 51 20 5 1 0.35 0 0 9 3.5 2 2 0.36 0.32 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.03 -- 0.011 21% 40% YCS yes 173 219 82 88 .45 22 7 3 0.36 0 0 10 4 .O .O 0.21 0.21 0 0 0.04 0.018 3 3 2, yes 180 85 35 J. CULTURAL RESOURCES A field archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted on May 14, 1981 on the proposed project site. Prior to the field survey, a records and literature search was conducted. The National Register of Historic places (U. S. Government 1976)', the California Inventory of Historic Resources, (State of California 1976) and the California Historical Landmarks Directory (State of California, 1979) were consulted with negative results. The archaeological record searches indicated that one site (SDX-210/SDM-W-l27A) is located near the southerly end of the study area. The exact placement is difficult to determine, as San Diego State's records show the site to be under the Encina Power Plant, and the Museum of Man's records do not show any areal boundaries, thus making the exact location uncertain. According to the field notes at time of discovery, the site consists of buried evidence of camping over a large area with a shell concentration of one-half acre. Two cultural components are represented at this site: Paleo-Indian (San Dieguito) and Early Archaic (La Jollan). These cultural deposits may have a depth of approximately one meter. study area has sustained substantial amounts of disturbance from road construction, recreational use, rain gutters, land- scaping of shoulders, paved and unpaved parking areas, and transmission power lines. Virtually all of the The project area was intensively examined by means of a series of linear transects, spaced approximately ten meters apart. of-way, plus all of the easterly one-half of the sandbar across Agua Hedionda, except a small fenced portion, immediately north of the power plant. No surface evidence of the previously The field survey included the complete right- 34 recorded site was discovered. Because the site ar'ea in question had been described in the record searches as being subsurface, additional test trenching was performed to look for possible artif actural material. Three backhoe trenches were excavated in the southern portion of the study area measuring approximately one meter in depth and with a length equal to approximately three meters and a width of 50 centimeters. The soil removed was visually exanined for artif actual material and following excavation, the side walls were scraped. The test trenching failed to identify any new archaeological sites or evidence of previously recorded site. The results of the trenching were essentially negative and no prehistoric remains were encountered. Since no evidence of site SDi-210/SDM-W-12 7A could be located during the survey or test trenching, it can be concluded that the subject cultural resource is not located in the study area. Additionally, the extensive previous disturbance in the area would probably have destroyed any cultural resources present. A bridge evaluation was completed and was found satis- factory by the State of California Business and Transportation Agency, Division of Transportation Planning on June 5, 1981. No evidence of federal or state historic resources were found for the proposed site. no significance from a historical, architectural or engineering prospective. The bridge has been determined to have 37 Y. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST The following checklist, adapted from State EIR Guidelines, was completed on the basis of the information contained in this Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. This master checklist indicates whether or not a project- related environmental effect is or could be significant (yes or no). An asterisk (*I indicates that the item is discussed further in the section following the checklist. If yes, is it Yes Significant? or No No, Yes, or * PHYSICAL - Will the proposal either directly or indirectly: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Change the topography or ground surface relief feature? Destroy, cover, or modify any unique geologic or physical features? Result in unstable earth surfaces or: exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? Ftesult in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? 6. 7. 8. 9. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? ' Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to solid waste or litter control ? Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? No No - No No - No No No Yes No* No* * See following section: Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation Measures 38 If yes, is it Yes Significant? or No No, Yes, or * PHYSICAL - Will the proposal either directly or indirectly! (continued) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters or tidal waves? Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water supply? Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, or local water quality standards? Result in changes in air movement, moisture, br temperature, or any climatic conditions? Result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration of ambient air quality? Result in the creation of objectionable odors? Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, or local air standards or control plans? Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? Violate or be inconsistent with Federal design noise levels or State or local noise standards? Produce new light, glare, or shadows? BIOLOGICAL - Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly): 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)? Yes No -- No No No No No No No Yes Yes No - No - No* - * - No * - No* * * See following section: Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation Measures 39 If yes, is it or Ho m, Yes, or * Yes Significant? , , BIOLOGICAL - Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly): (continued) 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, rare or endangered species or plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand? .. Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell.fish, benthic organisms insects or microfauna) ? .. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC - Will the proposal directly or indirectly: No No No No No No 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? No * * 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies, or goals, the Governor's Urban Strategy or the President's No National Urban Policy (if NEPA project)? - 32. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? No -- * See following section: Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation Measures 40 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC - Will the proposal directly or indirectly: (continued) 33. Affect life-styles, or neighborhood character or stability? 34. Affect minority or other specific interest groups? 35. Divide or disrupt an established coraraunity? 36. Affect existing housing, require the displace- ment of people or create a demand for additional housing? 37. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms? 38. Affect property values or the local tax base? 39. Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? 40. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? 41. Have substantial impact on existing trans- portation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 42. Affect vehicular movements or generate additional traffic? +es or No - No - No No No - No No No No No No 43. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new par king? Yes 44. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions? No if yes, is it significant? No, Yes, or * No* 45. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? - No * See following section: Environmental Evaluatiqnflitigation Measures 41 lif yes, is it Yes significant? 'or No No, Yes, or * SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC - Will the proposal directly or indirectly : (continued 1 46. Affect public health, expose people to potential health hazards, or create a real or potential health hazard? 47. Affect any significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object or building? 48. Affect natural landmarks or man-made resources? 49. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 50. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc. ) ? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICAN.(E 51. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No - No No - No * No 52. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of 'long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, def'initive period of time while long-term impacts will endure'well into the future.) _610 - * See following sect ion : Environmental Evaluation/Mi tigat ion Measures 42 ' If yes, is it No, Yes, or * *A- (%& Yes significant? - or No MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (continued) 53. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects., It includes the effects of other projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable. No 54. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No * See following section: Environmental Evaluationfiitigation Measures 43 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION/MITIGATION MEASURES A. PHYSICAL SETTING Project Impact The impact of the proposed project will be to increase the width of pavement on Carlsbad Boulevard from an average of 40+ - feet to 68 feet in width and to replace the two lane bridge, which has three piers in the lagoon, with a four- lane clear span bridge. at the channel area by replacement of an unsightly, deteriorated The physical setting will be improved bridge with a modern, attractive struct.ure. Mitigation Measures There will be no significant impacts from the altera- tion of the physical setting and no mitigation measures are required. 44 B. LAND USE Project Impact The proposed construction of the bridge and improve- ment of Carlsbad Boulevard to four lanes is not expected to impact the existing land uses in the project vicinity. The recreational areas will still be accessible for use by the general public and the utility areas (SDG6rE) and residences would not be affected. Mitigation Measures Since no land use impacts are expected, no mitigation measures are required. 45 C. HYDROLOGY Project Impact The impact of the project upon the lagoon and the ocean will be limited to the land within the road right-of- way between Tamarack on the north to Cannon Road on the south. Drainage from the present road and bridge is directed from the north and south towards the lagoon area. However, runoff on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard is directed towards the beach and the ocean, whereas runoff on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard is directed toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Types of pollutants normally associated with runoff in the San Diego region include sediment, minerals (salinity), heavy metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous compounds), pesticides, biodegradeable substances (biochemical oxygen demand - BOD), micro-organism (bacteria and other pathogens), and floatable material (oil and trash). Of these, sediments are the only group requiring con- sideration for potential impact from the proposed bridge and road improvements. Current plans call for widening the surfaced road width for a distance of approximately 700 feet north of and 5,400 feet south of the proposed bridge improvements. Road widening and improvements will consist of paving over existing asphaltic concrete (A.C.) paving, where acceptable, and placement of new A.C. where the road will be widened. Grading operations are expected to consist of preparing the narrow strip of sub- placement of base materials prior to paving. ~ base soil materials adjacent to the existing road and 46 At the time of ground preparation, the newly prepared strip will be exposed and could be subject to erosion. was noted during site inspections, however, that the existing road border consists of soils which are exposed and un- protected from erosion. Proposed roadway construction should not increase the potential for erosion damage above that which already exists and the completed improvements will reduce It the potential. Site inspections revealed the potential for con- struction or post-construction erosion and sedimentation damage to be low due to the characteristics of the existing exposed soils and the configuration of ground surface bordering the road. Soil materials on both sides of the road consist primarily of clean,fine to medium grained sands. These materials require high velocity and/or turbulent The sediment conditions in order to remain in suspension. Such conditions already exist in the channel beneath the bridge. plume generated by the channel ends abruptly as the water calms on entering the outer lagoon, thus demonstrating the inability of local sediments to stay in suspension for significant distances within the lagoon environment. The existing road is separated from the lagoon to the east by a broad'bench and from the ocean to the west by a relatively wide beach. primarily of highly-permeable, fine to medium grained sands. These materials act as a filter for runoff water from existing roadway areas by allowing most of the water to percolate through them prior to reaching the ocean or lagoon. The bench and beach both consist 47 ! .- It should be noted that road construction involving preparation of exposed soils is anticipated to require only approximately two weeks. period will depend on rainfall occuring only during that period. The potential for impact is therefore of a temporary nature. Occurrence of runoff during that Due to the clean, granular nature of the on-site soil materials and the physical characteristics of areas bordering the road and bridge improvements, the potential impact of sediment bn the lagoon is minimal. Proposed construction work should not increase the potential signifi- cantly and the completed work will' serve to reduce the potential. Mitigation In order to decrease the potential for lagoon sedimen- tation, construction of road improvements, grading operations and paving work should be completed during a specified period of time of not greater than four weeks.and should not be under- taken during the heavy wintet storm period. Upon completion of grading operations for road improve- ments and bridge abutments all newly created cut and fill slopes and disturbed areas will be hydro-seeded and irrigated to establish protective growth. D. VISUAL QUALITY Project Impact The proposed construction of a new bridge and widening of Carlsbad Boulevard is not expected to adversely affect the visual quality of the vicinity, but will enhance the visual appearance of the entrance to the lagoon. design will place special emphasis upon aesthetics , surface treatment, finishes, and materials. Existing debris and construction remnants from earlier works will be removed. The existing bridge is supported by three rows of rein- forced concrete pilings. span the channel, eliminating these visual obstructions from the channel. expected to, significantly alter the existing visual quality, either from the roadway or other surrounding locations. The proposed The proposed new bridge will clear- The proposed new parking facilities are not An additional benefit to be derived from the proposed project will be the provision of four lanes of traffic along this corridor. Although Carlsbad Boulevard has yet to be designated as a Scenic Highway, it has been proposed as such. The views available along its length are attractive. With the separation of traffic lanes, on-lookers will be provided the option of traveling at a slower speed without disrupting traffic. limit will be maintained, helping preserve the opportunity to enjoy the existing vistas. The existing 35 miles per hour speed Mitigation Measures The proposed design of.the new bridge and associated road improvements will be compatible with the existing visual quality of the project vicinity. Landscaping of manufactured slopes (associated with the new bridge) will mitigate potential erosion and visual impacts. are necessary at this time. No additional mitigation measures 49 E. MARINE BIOLOGY Pro j ec t Impact s The two most important existing biological impacts upon the lagoon are the existing entrainment of sea water by the Encina Power Plant and the current dredging of the lagoon every two years. to,have only a minor to insignificant impact on any biolo- gical resources in the area. circulation past the site prevents sedimentation and turbidity in this portion of the lagoon. The preadaption of the indigenous flora and fauna to existing high-suspended par- ticulate loads in the lagoon is evident in the project vicinity. A minor disturbance of indigenous bird and fish faunas, no more than 200 yards from the construction site, is to be expected during construction. The proposed construction is expected The existing high rate of water There are no plans to place any fill material into the channel and the channel itself will not be modified. The bridge abutments on either side of the inlet channel will be set back 20-feet and the area underneath the span will be filled in with rock rip rap similar to that which presently surrounds the lagoon. The channel is not bordered by emergent or mardh vegetation and thus there would be no impact to a wetland area as defind in Executive Order 119900. There will be some slight modification of the existing channel flow hydrodynamics as a result of the removal of the existing pilings. These pilings exert a slight wave danpening effect in the channel. When removed, there will be a slightly greater exposure to coastal wave and surge action. This may slightly affect the biotic composition for no more than 100 yards and is not deemed harmful to any highly valued resource species . 50 During the period of bridge construction temporary support pilings may be placed in the channel. create a minor alteration of the sand bottom community within + - 30 yards of the bridge and the construction equipment could potentially create a temporary minor'alteration of the local flow pattern. to any biologically significant species. for bridge construction will probably be necessary, a State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game Section, 1601 permit Notification of Removal of Materials and/or Alteration of Lake, River, or Streambed Bottom or Margin will be required. with the Department of Fish and Game to obtain the necessary permit and provide the necessary information. These would This slight alteration would not be harmful As temporary pilings The City of Carlsbad will coordinate The proposed project is within the Base Flood Plain as defined by Federal Highway standards, that is the flood or tide having a 1-percent chance of being exceeded in any given year. Carlsbad Boulevard, from the northern edge of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon channel to the southern terminus of the Outer Lagoon was identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area on the Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Boundary Map No. H-03 of May 31, 1974. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency in August of 1981 rescinded this map and the entire project area is now reclassified as Zone C, or in the 500 year flood, based on evidence that there is not signifi- cant risk of flooding associated with the proposed project site. Although there is no field evidence of Least Tern presence, they have been known to use the ocean rock jetty in the area. There could be a possible impact to Least Tern feeding areas off-site if construction were to occur during the summer months. 51 Mitigation Measures No significant marine biological resources will be impacted. The only related impact is the possible effect on Least Tern feeding areas off-site. limiting the construction to the months of October to March to avoid any possible interference. This will be mitigated by F. TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY Project Impact The vegetation that would be distrubed as a result of the proposed improvements are non-native, ornamental species and could be revegetated quickly. It is anticipated that the proposed road work will have no effect on either the native beach or lagoon communities that border the road, as the existing roadway is sufficiently broad to accommo- date construction activities, without introducing any spoil or debris into the lagoon. While there was no field evidence of Least Tern feeding on-site? concern has been -expressed over possible construction impacts on feeding areas in the adjacent areas. Mitigation Measures In light of the minimal amount of introduced vege- tation that will be lost as a result of the proposed project, no mitigation measures are considered necessary for vegetation. Because of the possibility of impact upon Least Tern feeding areas, construction should be limited to the months from October to March. This will mitigate any possible impact to the Least Tern. 52 G. TRAFFIC AND PARKING Project Impacts The potential impacts of the proposed construction of the bridge and street improvement of Carlsbad Boulevard can be divided into both short- and long-term impacts. Construction of the bridge will be two-staged, with a half-width section of the new bridge constructed parallel to, and west of, the existing bridge with two 11-foot travel lanes. of the other half-width section. A temporary, incremental increase in congestion is expected along this corridor during bridge construction, especially if construction were to occur in the peak range period of July and August. This will service the traffic during construction Implementation of the proposed project (widening of Carlsbad Boulevard) in the absence of planned or feasible 'mitigation measures would also result in diminished beach- related parking availabildty (public parking in the existing street right-of-way). mitigated via the measures described below. These potential impacts will be Mi'tigation Measures A certain incremental increase in congestion and inconvenience is to be expected during the three or five months estimated for bridge construction, however the road improvements will be much quicker. of the road improvements is anticipated to be completed in three to four weeks. Actual construction 53 54 In order to lessen impacts to the environment, construction ,should be limited to the off-season months, with no construction during the July/August peak beach season. The project design incorporates the provision of a ten-foot wide parking strip, accommodating approximately 140 vehicles, along the western side of the proposed right- of-way road expansion. Additional parking will be provided via the implementation of either one or both of the following alternative measures. Alternative One This alternative would improve and expand the presently unpaved, partially utilized parking area at the Encina fishing area. This area is currently owned and pri- vately maintained by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company as a beach-related community service to the general public. The improved utilization of the property for parking pur- poses will provide additional beach-related parking spaces, and still retain enough area to be used for recreational fishing. The creation of a 116-space lot would increase existing available parking by approximately 76 spaces (Table 3). Implementation of this measure will necessitate a contractual arrangement with SDG&E for increased parking, although SDG&E currently allows public parking in this area. lot will increase pedestrian crossing of four lanes of traffic to obtain access to the beach. viding this access will be necessary. along a pedestrian walkway under the bridge or a pedestrian overcrossing above the roadway. designed within the right-of way, with no encroachment upon the beach area. The development of this area as an improved parking A safe method of pro- Access is recommended Any walkway would need to be Alternative Two This alternative would provide additional beach parking on the west side of the roadway just south of the warm water jetty on land which is presently owned by SDG&E, leased to the State of California and operated by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The lease is duebto expire in August 1981 and the State of California is reportedly negotiating for acquisition of this property. The City of Carlsbad should consider entering into a co-operative agreement with the State oFCalifornia to provide parking improvements on this property. No extension of right- of-way would be necessary for such an agreement. Development of this alternative, coupled with the 10- foot parking strip as shown on the proposed project map, would completely mitigate all loss of parking from the proposed street-widening. Actual engineering and design for parking on this SDG&E or State of California owned property is not included in this proposed bridge replacement and street widening project. Rather, it is proposed as an additional project. Alternative Three - In the absence of a cooperative arrangement with the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, ~ a third alternative is available which mitigates any loss of parking and is completely within the right-of-way. parking spaces will be made available by restriping the existing Carlsbad State Beach parking lot, north of the proposed bridge replacement. parking space, it will be possible to increase the capacity of this existing lot from its current 121 spaces to 165. would also include four 19-foot by 11-foot handicapped spaces. These measures can be implemented with the approval of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The 10-foot parking lane proposed on the west side of the roadway can be extended, beginning approximately 725 feet south of the planned strip shown on the proposed widening plans, and continuing for roughly 800 feet south to just north of the existing homes. This would add an additional 38 parking spaces, resulting in a net increase of 7 parking spaces over the existing parking presently available. Additional Using 19 feet by 9 feet per This .TABLE 3 EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING EXISTING PARKING Spaces Location 152 West Parking Lot North Parking Lot Western Roadside 121 63 40 Encina Fishing Area 20 Eastern Roadside 396 56 .. EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING POST-PROJECT PARKING - Alternative One Spaces Location 140 lU foot Parking Strip . 121 North Parking Lot 116 Encina Fishing Lot 20 Eastern Roadside 397 POST-PROJECT PARKING - Alternative Three Spaces 140 165 Location 10 foot Parking Strip North Parking Lot (restriping) 40 Encina Fishing Lot 20 Eastern Roadside 38 Addition of 10 foot parking lane 403 The incorporation of Alternative One, Alternative Two, or Alternative Three into the project will result in the maintenance or enhancement of existing public parking on-site or in the project vicinity. aid and contribute to increased public beach access and no additional mitigation measures are deemed appropriate at this time. The overall project will 57 H. NO1 SE Project Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will raise . the existing noise levels on a short-term basis, due to construction activities. Over the long-term the project will increase noise by 0.5 to 1.5 decibels, however, this increase will be caused by the increases in traffic that would occur within the area over time, whether or not the project is implemented. Since the anticipated growth in traffic activity will raise noise levels, whether or not the project is implemented, the 'only short-term noise impacts will be due to construction activities. Mitigation Measures Temporary increased noise levels from construction activities are sufficient to warrant the use of several mitigation measures in an effort to reduce this disturbance. The detailed analysis provided in Appendix E represents the worst case, therefore, a combination of mitigation measures will aid in reducing the impact to acceptable levels. Major construction operations will be conducted during the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (weekdays). Where feasible, the contractor will utilize noise-attenuating equipment. Implementation of these restrictions, through provisions in the construction contract, will sufficiently reduce con- struction noise to an insignificant level. 58 -- . I. METEOROLOGY /CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY Project Impacts, Roadway projects may actually generate an air quality The improved roadway tends to better accommodate benefit. traffic demand, moving it more directly with an efficient driving speed. Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge and Highway improvements tend to be of a very local nature. During construction, fugi- tive dust from preparing the roadbed will be carried to nearby receptors, especially the residential development east of the roadway, between Taplarack Avenue and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. These same receptors will also be exposed to the vehicular emissions resulting from the possible traffic growth along,Carlsbad Boulevard. are temporary, the gaseous pollutant impacts of the traffic growth will exist throughout the life of the project. Any negative impacts associated with the While the dust emissions The EPA predicts an emission rate of 80 pounds of fugitive dust, per day, per acre, of disturbed land during construction activities. This rate can be reduced by about one-half through regular watering, as required by SDAPCD Rule 50. At 40 pounds , per acre, per day, the 10 acres or so of roadbed surface disturbed during construction activities may create approximately 400 pounds (0.2 tons). .This compares to 200-300 tons/day emitted throughout the basin. On a regional scale, the effect of this dust is minimal. Locally, it will drift eastward away from the heavily used beach area, causing more of a soiling nuisance (increasing the need to wash cars or dust furniture), than a health hazard. 59 Other construction emissions will result from combus- tion emissions from earthmoving equipment, etc. These are expected to be minimal, and not expected to modify the generally low-ambient pollution levels. A positive impact of. the proposed project is the likely reduction of possible emissions emanating from projected traffic increases. The improvements are designed to accommo- date the anticipated traffic growth at a design speed of 35 mph. Without such improvements, it is likely that congestion will continue along this corridor, reducing the average speeds on the roadway. an increase in emissions. By maintaining the 35 mph speed, the project is an important positive aspect of air quality planning. ' This decrease can be associated with Studies testing this possible increase of localized pollution levels were conducted using the CALINE 3 Caltrans Roadway Dispersion Model (Appendix F). Results indicate possible decreases in CO levels in the project site vicinity. Mitigation Measures The project-related contribution of emissions to regional air quality degradation is negligible, representing only a minor incremental addition. Interim construction activity on-site will increase particulate levels and heavy equipment emissions over the short-term only. The following . measures will serve to reduce the extent of air quality degradation due to implementation of the proposed project. 60 Countywide Measures Air quality management in San Diego County is the responsibility of the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CEO). These organizations have combined their efforts in a task force called the Air Quality Planning Team. In 1976, the San Diego Air Quality Planning Team published revised Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) for the San Diego Air Basin. The adopted (revised) RAQS are integral to the air quality management plan for San Diego County. Project-Level Measures The construction activities will cause temporary short-term impacts which would include: (1) exhaust emissions from vehicles and machinery used in the construction work and in transportation of personnel and materials, and (2) dust raised by vehicles and by wind blowing on loosened soils. The most significant of these temporary impacts is the potential for dust pollution. However, dust generation can be mitigated by good construction operating practices which should be required of the construction contractor, including watering during earth-moving operations, repeated watering of exposed soils, and paving of roadways. 61 J. CULTURAL RESOURCES Project Impacts Although the exact location of site SDI-210/W-l27A has not been ascertained, the results of the field reconnais- sance and test trenching suggest one, or both, of two alter- natives: (1) this cultural resource is not located within the study area; or (2) previous grading for Carlsbad Boulevard in 1915 has destroyed this. In any case, there is no evidence of cultural resources within the study area. Because of this, no project related impacts are expected. Mitigation Measures No,rnitigation measures are considered necessary. 62 VII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The following agencies and organizations were in- vited to attend an "Early Consultation Meeting" held in the City of Carlsbad, April 1, 1981. CALTRANS California Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 California Department of Parks and Recreation Eleventh Coast Guard District Office Federal Highway Administration San Diego Coast Regional Conmission San Diego Gas and Electric Company State Clearinghouse U,.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A Preliminary Early Consultation Report was mailed to each invitee. This report, the agenda, attendance record, and summary of concerns found in Appendix H. Additional consultation was undertaken with the California Coastal Commission, San Diego District and the United States Coast Guard Land Corps of Engineers. of these agencies have reviewed a draft copy of the Environmental Assessment. A description of the project proposed mitigation measures and preliminary engineering drawings were sent to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Each ~ 63 L. : - .- Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Services. Written replies from both agencies state that the project as proposed in the Environmental Assessment would pose no significant impacts relative to their respective agencies (Appendix H). 1 64 VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PERSONNEL This report was prepared by NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc., 1850 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, California 92101. The following individuals were principally respon- sible for preparing the environmental significance analysis or significant background material. Margaret L. Coates . B.A. Urban Studies Two years experience in environmental studies Edward W. Dilginis M.A. Geography Eight years experience in transportation planning. Six years experience in preparing environmental impact assessments Hans D. Giroux Ph.D. Candidate, Meteorology Nine years experience in meteorology and air quality analysis Joseph R. Jehl, Jr. Ph.D, Zoology Ten years, Curator of Birds and Mammals, Natural Four years, Assistant Director, Hubbs/Sea World History Museum Research Center Craig R. Lorenz M.C.P. City Planning Seven years experience in preparing planning studies and environmental impact statements/reports Terence D. Parr Ph.D, Candidate, University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institute of Oceanography Eleven years experience in marine biological studies H. Keith Polan B.A. Anthropology Four years experience in archaeological studies Carole S. Tanner, P.E. B.S. Mechanical Engineering Graduate Studies, Acoustics Sixteen years experience in acoustical studies Betsy A. Weisman M.A. Political Science Three years experience in urban planning Two years experience in preparing environmental studies 65 IX. REFERENCES Barry, T.M. and Reagan, J.A., 1978, E'HUA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Models, Federal Highway Administration. Blade-Tribune, 1981, "More Beach Parking Due," January 13. City of Carlsbad, 1975, General Plan, Circulation Element. Elliott, Mike, 1981, Associate Transportation Planner, San Diego Association of Government, telephone-conversation, March. Department of Parks and Recreation, telephone conversation, June. Fait, William V., 1981, Area Manager, State of California, Horna, Marion, 1981, General Plant Manager, San Eiego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant, telephone conversation, May 18. McDaniel, Art, 1981, Principal, McDaniel Engineering Company. Richmonds, Ted, 1981, Senior Property Management Representative, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, telepone conver- sation, June. Shipley, Michael, 1981, Officer, Carlsbad Police Department, telephone conversation, May 12. Thompson, Dennis, 1981, Transportation Planner, San Diego Association of Governments, telephone conversation, May. Carlsbad, telephone conversation, May 12. Tisdale, Steve, 1981, Engineering Technician 11, City of U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis- tration, 1976, Federal-Aid Highway Programs Manual, (I "Analysis of Traffic Noise Impacts and Ab aternent Neasures, May 14. 66 APPENDICES APPENDIX A AN ANALYSIS OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY AS RELATED TO THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue C ar 1 sb ad , C a1 i for n i a Performed by: NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 82101 HYDROLOGY The eastern half of the proposed project discharges to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.. The western half of the right of way discharges into the Pacific Ocean. Agua Hedionda Lagoon consists of 250 acres of open water, inland of which lies approximately 200 acres of salt marsh, mudflats and saltflats. seaward end of the Agua Hedionda drainage basin, which covers about 28 square miles. Extensive manmade modifications have been made to the lagoon, notably the dredging to a depth of 8 to 12 feet and permanent opening to the Ocean in 1954 to provide cooling water to the Encina Power Plant located on the southwest shore. In order to maintain the cooling water flow, the outer lagoon is dredged every two years to remove silts and beach sand (SDG&E 1981). As a consequence of this dredging activity, the ecological conditions of the lagoon are now essentially bay-like. Despite these man made modi- fications the lagoon has reverted to a semi-natural condition and supports extensive fish and shellfish populations. The lagoon occupies the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is kept permanently open to The dredging of the channel is part of the two the ocean by means of the two rock jetties bounding the entrance channel. year maintenance program. Use of the lagoon as a source of cooling water for the power plant as well as tidal variations results in considerable tidal flushing of the lagoon. As a consequence, the chemical quality of the lagoon is similar in nature to that of sea water. Sane irrigation effluent and drainage A-l water flows into the lagoon frah adjacent uplands. The significant tidal flushing keeps eutrophication problems to a minimum. conditions, the existing roadway has been inundated with salt water. During especially high tides and under windy Significant siltation has occurred in the eastern- most end of the lagoon since the dredging in 1954.. However, the proposed project is not expected to impact this area due to the distances involved. In that regard,the proposed project will impact only the outer lagoon adjacent to the bridge and Carlsbad Boulevard. PROJECT IMPACT For the purposes of this analysis the impact of the project upon the lagoon and the ocean is limited to the land within the road right-of-way fran Tamarack on the north to Cannon Road on the south. Drainage from the road and bridge is directed from the north and south towards the lagoon area. However, runoff on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard is directed towards the beach and the ocean, whereas runoff on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard is directed toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Types of pollutants normally associated with runoff in the San Diego region include sediment, minerals (salinity), heavy metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous canpounds) , pesticides, biodegradeable substances (biochemical oxygen demand - BOD), micro-organism (bacteria and other pathogens), and floatable material (cil and trash). A-2 Of these, sediments are the only group requiring consideration for potential impact from the proposed bridge and road improvements. Current plans call for widening the surfaced road width for a distance of approximately 700 feet north of and 5,400 feet south of the proposed bridge improvements. Road widening and improvements will consist of paving over existing A.C. where acceptable and placement of new A.C. where the road will be widened. Grading operations will consist of preparing the narrow strip of sub-base soil materials adjacent to the existing road and, placement of base materials prior to paving if so required by the City of Carlsbad. At the time of ground preparation, the newly prepared strip will be exposed and could be subject to erosion. was noted during site inspections however, that the existing road border consists of soils which are exposed and unprotected from erosion. Proposed roadway construction should not increase the potential for erosion damage above that which already exists and the completed improvements will reduce the potential. It Site inspections revealed the potential for construction or post-construction erosion and sedimentation damage to be low due to the characteristics of the existing exposed soils and the configuration of ground surface bordering the road. Soil materials on both sides of the road consist primarily of clean fine to medium grained sands. These materials require high velocity and/or turbulent conditions in order to remain in suspension. Such conditions exist in the channel beneath the bridge. generated by the channel ends abruptly as the water calms on entering the outer lagoon, thus demonstrating the inability of local sediments to stay in suspension for significant distances within the lagoonal environment. The sediment plume A-3 The existing road is separated from the lagoon to the east by a broad bench and from the ocean to the west by a relatively wide beach. primarily of highly permeable fine to .medium sands. These materials act as a filter for runoff water from existing road- way areas by allowing most of the water to percolate through them prior to reaching the ocean or lagoon. The bench and beach both consist It should be noted that road construction involving preparation of. exposed soils is anticipated to require approx- imately two weeks. will depend on rainfall occuring only during that period. The potential for impact is therefore of a temporary nature. Occurence of runoff during that period Due to the clean, granular nature of the on-site soil materials and the physical characteristics of areas bordering the road and bridge improvements, the potential impact of sediment on the lagoon is minimal. struction work should not increase the potential significantly and the completed work will serve to reduce the potential. Proposed con- Hydrology Due to the existing roadway border conditions consisting of exposed sandy soils and a minimum of protective plant growth, planned construction should not increase surface runoff and sedimentation potential above that which currently exists. The soil types exposed along the length of the pro- posed improvements are primarily clean sands. types and the permeable nature of the soils and beaches separating the lagoon and ocean from direct runoff, the current potential for sedimentation is low. Due to the soil . A- 4 In order to insure minimal impact, grading operations will not be performed during the winter storm season. In order to limit the time of exposure, grading for road widening should be completed and pavement placed within a four week period. Upon completion of grading work, all disturbed areas and newly created cut and fill slopes should be hydro-seeded and sprinkled to initiate protective plant growth. Mitigation Measures Upon beginning construction of road improvements, grading operations and paving work should be completed during a specified period of time or not greater than four weeks. In addition, in order to decrease the potential for lagoonal sedimentation,. construction or roadway improvements should not take place during the winter storm period. Though bridge construction may extend for a longer period of time, grading work to form bridge abutments should also not be constructed during the winter storms. Upon completion of grading operations for road improve- ments and bridge abutments all newly created cut and fill slopes and disturbed areas should be hydro-seeded and irrigated to establish protective growth. A- 5 APPENDIX B w Terence D. Parr Benthos, Inc. 2583 Via Merano Del Mar, CA May 26, 1981 At the request of Mr. Ed Dilginis and through the coordinative efforts of Ms. Betsy Weisman of New Horizons Planning Consultants, biological reconnaissances of the outer portion of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Carlsbad, San Diego County, California) were conducted on w 15 and 22, 1981, in the elLIvirons of a proposed bridge averpass con- structim site on Highway 101 pigwe 2). A general description of the marine biota, supplemented with in- formation from other studies from this area is provided with an assess- ment of potential biological impacts resulting fran the overpass con- 5 t ruct ion. 1. DESCRIPTION OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON General oceanographic features of Agua Hedionda Lagoon have been described by USD (1972). tion with studies funded by the San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG & E) Company which utilizes 540 million gallons/day (mgd) of water from the outer lagoon for the cooling of its generators, Hedionda Lagoon is situated within the ciw limit of Carlsbad, as Shawn in Figure 1. The lagoon, which is awned by SDG & E, is essentially man- Several Lmpublished reports exist in camec- made, having been extensively dredged throughout 1954, to a depth of approximately eight feet. road trestle and Interstate 5 into three major sections. The lagoan was permanently opened to the sea in August, 1954, by SDG G E to pro- vide cooling water for the large Encina Power Plant. It is divided from west to east by a rail- It has been kept B-1 I... \ c PACIFIC OCEA!! Construction Site Figure 2. Outer Apa Hedionda Lagoon and biological reconnaissance sites. B-3 continuously open since that time by dredging just inside the entrance at approximately two-year intervals. Outer Lagoon (Figures 2 end 3) (Xlter Agua Hedionda Lagom is the subject of this report. It is approximately 900 yards long north to smth and has a maximum width of approximately 340 yards. At the northwestern corner, two rock jetties border a 45-yard wide channel connecting the lagoon with the sea with depths of approximately 6 feet at mean lower low water (MLLW). It is over this channel that the new bridge construction has been proposed. The generalized bathymetry of the outer lagoon is shown in Figure 3. The Fhcina Power Plant cooling water intake facility is located at the southwestern edge with maximum depths of 11 feet at MLUY. The Power Plant thermal outfall crosses the beach between two rock jetties at the southern end of the lagoan. Floating steel booms have been in- stalled by SDG 6 E at the entrance of the channel between the outer and middle lagoon sections and across the lower third of the outer lagoon to prevent public access for safety reasons. Although the boating public is exrluded fram the lagom, SDG 6 E has installed parking areas and has made part of the western shore available for fishing from shore. east and southerly portion, is devoid of emergent, or shoreline, vege- 'Ihe shoreline, with the exception of the south- tation and is lined with a riprap of large granite boulders, typically extending one to two feet below and three to five feet above mean tidal level. Water temperatures range fran about 14-25' C during the year, while B-4 .- I. salinities typically vary bemeen 30-34 parts per thousand as a hc- tim of evaporation and runoff. Thus, the lagoon is essentially a marine habitat with little fresh water incursion. Sediments are varied in their capsition, primarily asa function of circulation features within the lagoon. Near the lagoon entrance (constructicm site), sedi- ments are well sorted and skewed toward a coarser distribution of par- ticle sizes. These sediments are nearly 100% sand (particles greater than 63 microns) due to the good water circulation through this area. Other areas in the lagoon, e.g., at the south end, are typified by a higher silt-clay content (particles less than 63 microns).' Sediment particle size is an important environmental feature in relation to questions of sediment suspension and turbidity. An important feature of this lagoon is its continuous ly maintain- ed connection with the ocean which guarantees circulation and flushing and a continuous provision of larval foms of marine life. The biota of the lagoon have not been mutely described in published reports. Generally speaking, as with all tidally flushed coastal lagoons, it is a productive habitat as a result of regular mix- ing and flushing of organic material and nutrients fran the inner reaches of the bay. There is relatively little primary macrophytic production in the cuter lagoon itself, since it is bordered by rock riprap and is not bordered by marsh vegetation. versity of bird habitats does not exist in the cuter lagoon as it does in the marshy inner lagoon areas. Naters in the lagoon are rich, as attested to by the high levels of visible suspended organic material. Consequently, a di- B-6 Within the lagoon, visibility in the water column on our site visits was only 1.5 to 2.5 feet, indicating high suspended loads of partidate matter. Beds of eelgrass (Zoster& marina) are well-developed near site . 9 and sparsely developed near sites 1 and 8 (Figure 2). A precise survey of Zostera beds was conducted by the Army Corps of Fmgineers; infomation fran this report was not available. However, the large continuous beds of Zostera are visible in shallow water at low tide, and these were confined to the vicinity of the shoreline near site 9 (Figure Z), during our reconnaissance surveys. The shallowness of these beds is probably an important factor, allowing adequate light penetration in the turbid conditions existing in the lagoon. The two single most important existing biological impacts upon this lagoon are judged to be: (1) entrainment of seawater by the En- cina Power Plant, and (2) dredging of the lagoon every two years. c The ranking of fishes and invertebrates entrained by the Encina Power Plant (unpublished data) indicate the diverse nature of the fish fauna in the lagoon. fish, deep-body anchovy, topsmelt, grunion, and northern anchovy. Queenfish are the most comon nearshore sand bottom fish in southern California. ?he most frequently entrained species are queen- 11. PROPOSED GONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Information on proposed construction activities was derived fran New Horizons Planning Consultants and from discussions with Mr. Jim Hall of McDaniels Ehgineering (San Diego). ” B-7 Briefly, the City of Carlsbad pmposes to construct a four-lane bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard aver &pa Hedionda Lagoon to replace the structurally deficient current two-lane bridge. The proposed bridge would be 180 -feet in length and 78 feet in width, comprised of four, 12-foot traffic lanes, plus five-foot sidewalks and five-foot bicycle paths in each direction. According to Mr. Hall of McDaniels Engineering, the existing road (Hiaway 101) will be raised four feet and the abutments on either si& of the present inlet channel will be set back 20 feet. filled in with large rock riprap similar to that which presently sur- rounds the lagoon. There is no plan to place any material in the chan- nel. winter of 1981-82, ccwrstructian support pilings may temporarily be placed in the channel; these wad create only minor sedimnt displace- ment. ting bridge will be removed. This area underneath the new span bridge will be During the period of bridge canstruction, planned for fall and . The present four cement-piling supports which support the exis- 111. BI0LXX;ICAL RECQNNAISANCE Methodology On May 15, 1981, Terence Parr and Dr. Dwglas Diener surveyed the shoreline of the outer @a Hedionda Lagoon between sites 1 and 9 (Figure 2). These areas bracket the proposed construction site. This survey procedure was repeated on May 22, 1981 by Terence Parr and Jay shrake. fishermen were interviewed, water clarity was recorded and shallow subtidal sediments were examined. Descriptive notes of the biota on the riprap were taken, Tide levels ranged between 0.7 and B-8 3.5 feet above MLLW during the course of the surveys. A list of the rock substrate biota is presented in Table 1. Results of the recan- naissance surveys follow. Site 1 This area is adjacent to a dirt parking lot. From this area north to the bridge, several fishermen were present. Two fishermen intewiewed mentioned corbina and halibut as being the most sought- after sport fish from this site. The rock riprap was characterized by a high percentage cover of the acorn barnacle, Chthamalus fissus . The upper rock levels were inhabited by the snail, Littorina scutuIata. Grapsid crabs were common (Pachygrapsus crassipes). Other less fre- quently observed species were serpulid polychaete worms, the barnacles, Tetraclita squamosa and Balarms sp., the rock ayster (etrea luridii. and the gastropods, Serpulorbis squamigerus and Acanthina spirata. The site was characterized as a calm water, protected area. No wave swash activity was evident in this habitat. Water visibility ranged fran 1.5 - 2.5 feet. Sediment consistency was that of well-sorted Sand. Site 2 This area was similar to Site 1 in most respects. However, there was the inclusion of a few species which more typify the well-circula- ted waters of sites 3-6 near the proposed bridge. These were the brown alga, Sargassum muticum (a species introduced from Japan}, hermit crabs (Pagurus sp.), green anemones (Anthopleura elegantissima) and the file limpet, Collisella limatula. B-9 Table 1. Marine biota associated.with rock riprap habitat at eight sites in Outer Agua Hedimda Lagoon. 1 '. 2 3 Sites - 4 5 6 8 7 ALGAE X X X X X X X X X Sargas:um muticum Coralllna vancoweriensis Lamencia sp. Gigartina sp. ANIMALS X X Anthopleura elegantissima MOWISCS - GASTROmDS X X X X X Acanthina spirata Collisella conus tollisella EiYGitalis Collisella ZEiEZZ- Collisella ochracea Littorina scutulata Collisella ?-- lmatula X x. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X pttia gigytea e EkZiis X X X X X Chama arcana Protothaca staminea X X X X X X X X X MOLLLJSCS - CHITONS X X bb alia mucosa hmma x X POLYCHAETES X X X X X X x X X X X Serpulidae X Phragmatopoma California B-10 . ANIMALS mPms Watersipora cucullata cI(usTAcEAN - BllRNAcLEs Chthamalus fissus Pa& ra sus crassi s +& Pagurus sp. FISHES Girella nigricans Table 1 (Cat&) 1 X X X X X X 2 3 X X X X X X X X X X X Sites - 4- 5 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 7 X a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X B-11 Site 3 This area, adjacent to the inlet channel, receives goad wave swash circulation. Wave surge on the rocks was observed to dissipate within 150 yards of the bridge overpass. Mollusc and barnacle populations are well-developed in this area. Molluscs included the California mussel (plvtilus californiensus), the turban snails (Tegula gallina and - T. funebralis) and several species of limpets (Collisella, Lottia, Table 1). by these species. Barnales included the gooseneck, PolIicipes polymerus,. and balanoid fonns, (hthamalus fisk, Tetraclita squamosa and Balanus sp. Most of the above biota and those listed in Table I were also ob- served living on the concrete support pilings of the existing bridge. Bottom sediments below the riprap were coarse and well-sorted. The It is an area with excellent water circulation, as typified brown alga, Sargassum muticum, was observed in the tidal channel. Sites 4 and 5 These rock jetw areas, located seaward of the existing bridge, had similar faunal compositions, typified by species tolerant of open coast wave surge conditions. Wave swash of six feet was typical dur- ing our reconnaissance surveys. There is a well-developed spray zone fauna characterized by the snail, Littorina scutulata, the limpet, Collisella digitalis, and the small acorn barnacle, Qlthamalus fissus. Unlike the inner lagoon stations where algae were absent fran the rip- rap, there was a small algal population on the jetty rocks consisting of the three red algal species, Corallina vancoweriensis, Gigartina sp., and Laurencia sp. At the tidal level, below the spray zone, the B-12 . .. major fauna were mussels Ofytilus californiensus) and the gooseneck barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus) The crab, hchygrap sus crassipes, was prevalent, scurrying among the rocks. Site 6 The fauna of this area, ai the north side of the inlet channel inside the bridge, were similar to site 3 across the channel. Haw- ever, the mussel and gooseneck barnacle populations were not as well-developed. Visibility was five feet on Nay 15 and two feet on May 22. Site 7 This area, well removed from the inlet channel, had a more typi- cal, calm water bay fauna. 'Ihe riprap was characterized by dense populations of the acorn barnacle, Chthamalus €ism and fewer flllpbers of barnacles, Tetraclita squamosa and Balanus sp. Hedt crabs sp.) and the grapsid crab (Pachygr apsus crassipes), were present in low hers and with a high proportion of juvenile recruits. The daninant crustacean in this area was the porcelain crab, Petrolisthes cabrilloi, which resided underneath small rocks. Water visibility in this area was about two feet. Sediments were siltier than those encountered at sites 1 through 6. There was virtu- ally no wave swash in this area. Site 8 This area, on the eastern shore, was characterized by cab, tur- bid water and an extensive vertical extension of rock riprap. The fauna was similar to the other bay stations, particularly site 7. However, a well-developed littleneck clam population was found living B-13 at law ti& level in the gravel-filled interstices between the large blocks of riprap. The biota of this site are listed in Table 3. Site 9 This'area was -not extensively examined. We noted this area for its well-developed eelgrass beds located approximately SO m offshore. The rock biota was similar to site 1 (Chthamalus cover). IV. GENERALSUMARY (Xlter Agua Hedionda Lagoon is an artificially created andmain- tained shallow coastal lagoon with a typid fauna for its geographic location and prevailing physical/chemical conditions. natural marshlands of inner lagoon areas by having an introduced rock riprap border and an absence of sloping marshland vegetation. Conse- quently, marsh bird populations are not well-developed. Undoubtedly, It differs from the Encina Power Plant, with its intake volume of 540 mgd .and periodic dredging activity, imposes the major man-induced perturbation upon the system. High suspended loads of particulate matter characterize the lagoon due to the close proximity of the bottom to the surface and from flushing of material from productive inner lagoon areas. Very few bird species (California gull, pigeons) were observed in this area, 'though this may vary between seasons as a function of coastal bird migration patterns. V. IMPACT ASSBSfElR FRCM PROFOSED BRIDGE (XINSrwCTION If die proposed construction is perfomed as planned, biological impacts will be either temporary or minor in scope. "his is primarily B-14 due to the high rate of water circulatim past the site, and the pre- adaption of the fauna to fairly high suspended particulate loads. Potential impacts fm the develapnent are listed belaw, 1. Temporary (a) Disturbance of indigenous bird and fish faunas at the inmediate construction site, probably within no more than 200 yards. (b) . Potential alteration of the sand bottom camunity within + 30 yards of the bridge if pilings are insert- - ed and construction equipmmt alters the local flaw pattern. 2. Permanent (a) Loss of the hard substrate biota on the present sup- port pilings which are to be removed. (b) Loss of habitat for any fish species which may reside near the above support pilings. (c) Alteration of channel flaw hydrodynamics as a result of piling removal. These flat pilings induce a slight wave dampening effect in the channel, When removed, a slightly greater exposure to coastal wave and surge action will be experienced by the rock biotas just in- side the bridge, This effect may slightly alter the biotic composition of the rock and sand biota for pro- bably no more than 100 yards. This effect would not be deleterious in terms of any valued resource species. B-15 hl No permanent effects uponbird, fish or eelgrass populations within Agua Hedionda Lagoon are deemed likely as a result of proposed bridge construction. VI. .REFERpJcEs CITED USD. 1972. An Ecological Study of the Subtidal Marine Life of Agua Hedionda Lagom for the San Diego Gas and Electric Camapny. Part I. A Physical Description of Agua Hedimda Lagoon. Univ. San Diego, Ehvironmental Studies Lab. B-16 APPENDIX C TO: New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc 1859 Fifth Ave. San Dicgo, Ca. 92101 PROM: Joseph R. Jehl, Jr. SUBJECT: Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard This memorandm summarizes my findings regarding possible environmental impacts of the proposed bridge and highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard, as outlined in your Preliminary Early Consultation Report .' I visited the area specificllly with reference to-this project on 16 May 1981, and have visited the site frequently for many many years. The major concern expressed in a letter (24 April 1981) from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the City of Carlsbad deals with wildlife values in the western part of Agua Hedionda Lagoon that might be adversely affccted by increased siltation or turbidity during the proposed construction. There is also specific concern for the California Least Tern and California Brown Pelican, which receive special protection under the Endangered Species Act. My comments on the road and bridge improvements follow. Comments on Endangered Species are appended. - The roadway.Improvcments to the roadway will probably necessitate the removal of a narrow and interrupted fringe of vegetation, mostly consisting of common native species. They will revegetate the site quickly, if desired. of other widlife populations along the roadway except for occasional transient scavenging birds (Red-winged Blackbird, House Finch, Starling). on either the beach of lagoon communities that border the road, as the existing roadway is sufficiently broad to accomodate con- struction activities without introducing any spoil or debris into the lagoon. I found no evidence In my opinion the proposed road work will have no effect c-1 - The bridge. Replacement of the existing bridge seems the major subject of concern. species of invertebrates (mostly starfish and mussels) and the underside of the bridge provides nesting sites for a group of Rock Doves (Common Pigeon]. Removal of the existing bridge will cause temporary dislocation of these species, but repopulation will take place (even by the pigeon, unfortunately] as soon as the new bridge is completed. There is currently a high rate of natural sedimentation in The pilings are used by many the lagoon, which must be dredged annually. It seems unlikely that thekunt of. material disturbed by construction activities will add significantly to that total, or that the volume of sediment transported will much exceed thatdeposited or transported by normal tidal action or winter storms. The channel of the lagoon takes a sharp bend immediately to the east of the bridge and the current is abated in that area. Accordingly, most of the sediment load will be deposited (during an incoming tide) a very short distance from the bridge. Should this cause ;L problem the contractor can deal with it easily. Half of the increased sediment load will be transported seaward, during the outgoing tides, and will be deposited on local beaches, replenishing the sand that is eroded annually. Wildlife. Although the western portion of the lagoon is visited by many bird species annually, I know of no evidence that either Least Tern or Brown Pelicans use the area for feeding. Pelicans may land there occasionally to rest or bathe, but the most-used roost site is the jetty on thexean beachfie jetty is fenced and the birds that use it are fully accustomed to human activity. In summary, - I find no evidence that the proposed project will have any deleterious effects, direct or indirect, on local wildlife populations at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. no substantive reason to restrict the construction activities to any particular time of year. And I can envision c-2 APPENDIX I Comments on Endangered Species of Birds h: California Least Tern. of the lagoon in an ares remote from the proposed construction. Populations there in the last five years have varied from no nesting pairs (1976) to a maximum of 23 (1979),with an average of 12-15 pairs (Reports of Least Tern Recovery Team). The Fish and Wildlife Service asserts that the tern uses "the western protion of the lagoon for feeding on small fishes." There is no evidence in the reports of the Recovery Team regarding feeding areas, and in my experience the western portion of the lagoon is used only infrequently and is not a major feeding site. This species nests in the eastern portion The FWS has conditioned a dredging permit to prohibit dredging from April-September %o that excessive turbidity is not produced during the months ... when terns are present." The tacit assumption is that turbidity adversely affects tern nesting success, though it is not stated in what way (e.g., by interfering with visibility, by affecting fish species and the survival of their eggs or larvae?). In any event, the terns have not done well in the lagoon in recent years despit prohibitions and protection, and it is clear that the major factor affecting their poor reproductive success is human intrusion into the colony, most frequently in the form of ORV activity. California . - -- . __ Brown -- Pelican.Although - - the Fish and Wildlife Service contends that the pelican feeds in the western portion of the lagoon, I know of no evidence for that. the species is now common to abucdant in California. In a recent study (Condor 53: 1-15, 19811, Briggs et al. showed that pelicans concentrate near nesting colonies during the breeding season (usually late December-Jtine) but disperse widely ir, autumn. Mainland beaches are seldom used by adults in this region; immatures occur there with greater frequency. that the FWS has authorized dredging during some months when young pelicans are mostly likely to be present in the lagoon, the action is justified because there is no evidence that pelicans use the lagoon to any significant extent at any season. Despite its status as Endangered, While it may seem paradoxical c-3 APPENDIX D .. ... AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California Performed by: NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 82101 i i k- . INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the potential environmental effects of traffic fran the proposed construction of the bridge and Highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. The proposed project is located within'the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego (Figure 1 and 2). the site extends along Carlsbad Boulevard fran 300 feet south of Tamarack Avenue for a distance of approximately 1.2 miles south to Cannon Road. In general EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Carlsbad Boulevard, according to the City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element within the General Plan, is designated as a major arterial. As such, its design width would be 82 feet curb to curb within an 102 foot right-of-way. Major arterials are generally designed for minimal access and limited on-street parking. Traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day generally necessitate construction of a major arterial with four lanes, with or without parking (Carlsbad Circulation Element, 1975). Currently, Carlsbad Boulevard is a two-lane .roadway with approximately 40 feet of pavement. Approximately one- quarter mile north of Tamarack Avenue, the pavement widens to four lanes. The existing bridge, which was built in 1934 is 41 feet 10 inches fran outside edge to outside edge. It has been classified as structurally deficient and in need of replacement. ~ D-1 SEK HORIZONS Plan 3.r~; Consult.ints. Inc. 1 Figure 1 Regional Location ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Figure 2 Carlsbad Boulevard/Bridge Location (Bridge No. 57-C-133) (Portion of U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey 7.5' Quadrangle) I I D-3 Along either side of Carlsbad Boulevard there are various areas available for parking. A survey of this section revealed that approximately 396 spaces are currently available including parking on unpaved shoulder areas. The posted speed limit along this segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is 35 mph. 15 mph and during the evenings as high as 45 mph (Shipley, 1981). Traffic volumes for this roadway are available from the City of Carlsbad, SANDAG, and Caltrans. Table 1 below illustrates both the variation between sources and the varia- tions in seasanal use. the Caltrans figures is due to restrictions incorporated into the forecasting model, that suggests that the typical driver chooses the route that costs the least time, while logical human behavior is often less consistent. This res- triction tends to improperly load the northlsouth freeway During peak summer hours travel may be as slow as It is likely that the discrepency in traffic in this area and underestimate other north/south such as Carlsbad Boulevard. . TABLE 1 Source 1 City of Carlsbad SANDAG' 3 Cal t r ans Date 8/23/79 8/11/80 12/15/80 3/10/81 1980 1981 - --- Current ADT 15,321 15,724 9,626 12,065 15,300 15,700 1995 ADT NA NA NA NA 22,000 , --- 12,000 routes 2000 ADT NA NA NA NA 25,000 ---- 13,700 1) Tisdale, 1981 . 2) Thompson, 1981 3) Sage, 1981 D-4 Based on analysis of available City of Carlsbad traffic count printouts and on-site observation, it was determined that the primary peak periods along this corridor are between 10:30 - 11:30 a.m. and 2:OO - 3:OO p.m. While volumes do, in fact, vary according to the season, peak hour apparently remains constant throughout the year. However, another slight peak occurs around 4 p.m. when the SDG&E employees leave work. The Encina Power Plant employs approximately 140 people. Therefore, on any given day, at least 280 vehicles trips along Carlsbad Boulevard can be attri- buted to these employees. As is common to most beach area circulation systems, congestion appears to be the worst condition prevalent on Carlsbad Boulevard. Parking, since the roadway was restriped, delineating the parking areas, has been less of a problem than before. Previously, rear-end accidents were common, involving cars attempting to back into spaces along the two-lane road (Shipley 1981). A field survey made along Carlsbad Boulevard from the bridge south to Cannon Road revealed approximately 396 available parking spaces. Many of these spaces include off-street parking on the west side of the roadway. Along the eastern side of Carlsbad Boulevard there is little in the way of formal parking spaces, however, vehicles do parallel park along the shoulder in a few places. tion, some parking is available (approximately 40 to 48 spaces) at the Encina fishing area fronting the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. proposed new parking lot with a capacity of 116 vehicles in 9-foot wide spaces. In addi- This site represents the possible location of a An agreement would need to be reached D-5 between San Diego Gas and Electric Caupany, which Owns the site, and the City of Carlsbad. IMPACTS The potential impacts of the proposed construction of the bridge and improvement of Carlsbad Boulevard should be considered in terms of both short and long-term effects. The short-term impacts to traffic will vary according to the construction method selected. It is anticipated that the long-term effect of the proposed project is to improve traffic circulation in the project area, and to provide safer circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and joggers. During construction of the bridge, it is expected that a temporary bridge would be constructed parallel to and west of the existing bridge. This would be enclosed by temporary barricades on either side and allow for two 11-foot traffic lanes plus a pedestrian walkway (Figure 3). This diversion of traffic would allow for construction of the new bridge to proceed with little impact. width while the bridge is under construction can be expected to result in an incremental increase in congestion along this corridor, especially at peak traffic hours and during the summer months, if construction took place in the summer. The reduction of travel The proposed widening of Carlsbad Boulevard to four lanes will eliminate the existing west-side parking lot and will also eliminate much of the shoulder currently used for parking. strip for approximately 3245 feet with an approximate capacity . for 162 cars. The potential impact is a reduction of beach parking spaces by approximately 34 percent or roughly 71 spaces. These will be replaced with an eight-foot parking E IC -: a : 9 i t. : I r I D-7 .. d u aJ Q) c cn C a l-l PI h a 3 '0 a 0 d h I, a c .d 6 'A r( aJ u pc u 0 Q) 'r) 0 I, pc '0 8. m 0 a 0 u & rcl aJ I, 3 M Lr .A u c c.l L CI) u c a u d 1 rn c 0 V _c .-- I. .. .. I D-8 D- 9 .~ - MITIGATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS A certain incremental increase in congestion and inconvenience is to be expected during the three or five months estimated for bridge construction, however the road improvements will be much quicker. of the road improvements is anticipated to be completed in three to four weeks. Actual construction In order to lessen impacts to the environment, construction can be limited to the off-season months, with no construction during the July/August peak beach season. The project design incorpora.tes the provision' of a ten-foot wide parking strip, accommodating approximately 140 vehicles, along the western side of the proposed right- of-way road expansion. Additional parking will be provided via the implementation of either one or both of the following alternative measures. Alternative One This alternative would improve and expand the presently unpaved, partially utilized parking area at the Encina fishing area. This area is currently owned and privately maintained by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company as a beach-related community service to the general public. purposes will provide additional beach-related parking spaces, and still retain enough area to be used for recrea- tional fishing. The creation of a 116-space lot would increase existing available parking by approximately 76 spaces (Table 2). Implementation of this measure will necessitate a contractual arrangement with SDG&E for increased parking, The improved utilization of the property for parking D- 10 although SDG&E currently allows public parking in this area. The development of this area as an improved parking lot will increase pedestrian crossing of four lanes of traffic to obtain access to the beach. access will be necessary. pedestrian walkway under the bridge or a pedestrian overcrossing above the roadway. A safe method of providing thls Access is recommended along a Alternative Two This alternative would provide additional beach parking on the west side of the roadway just south of the warm water jetty on land which is presently owned by SDG&E, leased to the State of California and operated by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The lease is due to expire in August 1981 and the State of California is reportedly negotiating for acquisition of this property. The City of Carlsbad should consider entering into a No extension of right co-operative agreement with the State of California to provide parking improvements on this property. of-way would be necessary for such an agreement. Development of this alternative, coupled with the 10- foot parking strip as shown on the proposed project map, would completely mitigate all loss of parking from the proposed street-widening. Actual engineering and design for parking on this SDG&E or State of California owned property is not in*:luded in this proposed bridge replacement and street widening project. Rather, it is proposed as an additional project. Alternative Three In the absence of a cooperative arrangement on Alternative One or Alternative TWO, a third mitigation is possible completely within the right-of way. spaces will be made available by restriping the existing Carlsbad State Beach parking lot, north of the proposed bridge replacement. Using 19 feet by 9 feet per parking space, it will be possible to increase the capacity of this existing lot from its current 121 spaces to 165. four 19-foot by 11-foot handicapped spaces. These measures can be implemented with the approval of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The 10-foot parking lane proposed on the west side of the roadway can be extended, beginning approximately 725 feet south of the planned strip shown on the proposed widening plans, and continuing for roughly 800 feet south to just north of the existing homes. This would add an additional 38 parking places, resulting in a net increase of 7 parking spaces over the existing parking presently available. Additional parking This would also include TABLE 2 EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING EXISTING PARKING SDaces 152 121 63 40 20 Location West Parking Lot North Parking Lot Western Roadside Encina Fishing Area Eastern Roadside 396 D-12 EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING POST-PROJECT PARKING - Alternative One Spaces Location 140 10 foot Parking Strip 121 North Parking Lot 116 Encina Fishing Lot 20 Eastern Roadside 397 POST-PROJECT PARKING - Alternative Three Spaces Location 140 10 foot Parking Strip 165 North Parking Lot (Restriped) 40 Encina Fishing Lot 20 Eastern Roadside 38 Addition of 10 foot parking lane 403 The incorporation of Alternative One, Alternative Two, or Alternative Three into the project will result in the maintenance or enhancement of existing public parking on-site or in the project vicinity. The overall project will aid and contribute to increased public beach access and no additional mitigation measures are deemed appropriate at this time. D-13 APPENDIX E AN ANALYSIS OF THE NOISE IMPACTS RELATIVE TO THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for: City' of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California Prepared by: NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 82101 April 1981 .. .. . EXISTING NOISE Noise from the proposed project will consist of that emanating from the traffic on the section of roadway described in Section 111. In addition, construction noise associated with the present bridge demolition and construction of the replacement bridge will be experienced. The proposed widening of the present two lane roadway with a four lane roadway will also result in additional construction noise as weil as move the noise source somewhat closer to the receptors due to the road widening. Land use adjacent to the noise generators has been discussed in Section V.B. of the EA text. For the most part, adjacent activities are recreational in nature and are asso- ciated with fishing activities on water east of Carlsbad Boulevard or surfing, swimming or beach related activities on the west. side of Carlsbad Boulevard. There are five re- sidences overlooking the northern end of the project and residences adjacent to the project site on the southern end. These receptors, as well as all other receptors are currently subjected to noise levels which represent the combination of traffic noise from Carlsbad Boulevard, surf noise from the ocean front, noise emanating from operations associated with the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant and normal beach and lagoon activity noise. Existing noise levels were measured on February 13, 1981 at the locations along Carlsbad Boulevard as shown in Figure 1. During the measurement period, a count of trucks and automobiles was made to be incorporated into the analysis. E- 1 . NEW HORIZONS Planning Cars :ants, Inc. Figure 1 Noise Measurement Locations (Portion of U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey 7.5' Quadrangle) I lARLSBAD 0 4 I. e \ \ '" E-Z Measurements were made using a General Radio 1945 Community Noise Analyzer equipped with a one-inch microphone. The instrument was calibrated before and after the measure- ment session and found to be within tolerance. Traffic volumes on Carlsbad Boulevard are under the direct influence of seasonal variations resulting from beach activity. Discussions with the City of Carlsbad (Tisdale, 1981) indicated that summertime Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is on the order of 15700 whereas wintertime ADT is around 9500. Since the’ measurements were made during the winter period, the values were adjusted to reflect noise from the expected summertime peak hour traffic volume of 1490 vehicles per hours, including five percent trucks. The results indicate that at a distance of 50 feet the hourly equivalent sound level (Leq) is 75 and the L1o is 77 dB(A). The extrapolation of these levels to residences, in particular, must account for the topgraphical features as well as existing block walls. Computation of these corrections used the methodology contained in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108). The results are given on Table 1 which shows the existing hourly Leq at the face of each of each impacted dwelling. IMPACT The present day noise levels are compared with the, exterior noise design levels contained in FHPM 7-7-3 for the activity categories E and B. Note that in order to compare the residential noise levels, the interior Leq of 52 was increased by 10 decibels to account for the noise reduction attributable to an open window. Existing noise -levels range higher and lower than the exterior design levels as shown in Table 2. E- 3 n A m m v - P P rr - Y m r- IC z m P P P. W W r- W n (v Y IC W cv W P P 3 W I cv I W II I P In m In W t-: a5 m m In 3 X w v IC m In W 2 3 P z W IC W E-4 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF EXISTING NOISE LEVELS and EXTERIOR DESIGN - .Activity Category E Hou se A- 1 A- 2 A- 3 B- 1 c- 1 D- 1 E- 1 Beach Park (60ft) P ar k ( 2 10 f t Kisting Leq 68 59 57 54 67 ' 69 64 E- 5 -~ ~ n 74 66 Open Window Leq 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 67 67 67 SdB +6 -3 -5 -8 +5 +7 +2 ~ +5 +7 -1 n There ise impact are three alternative actions which require nalysis. The first of these, the no project alternative will, from a noise point of view essentially maintain the status quo. Future year (1995) traffic volume is expected to be 22000 ADT (Agency Meeting 1979). This translates to an increase of 1.5 decibels in the hourly equivalent sound level. Such a small increase is essentially undetectable. Therefore, it is concluded that the-no project alternative will result in a small but non-significant change in the noise levels affecting House A-1, C-1, D-1, E-1 on the Beach and Park area (60 feet). The proposed action will result in a widening of the existing roadway, particularly on the west side of the right-of-way.. This has the effect of moving the noise closer to the residences located along the southern end of the pro- ject. The expansion of the road from 2 lane to 4 lanes will place the nearest traffic lane 12 feet closer to the residences. Although the noise will be slightly higher, the presence of the barrier wall offsets this increase since the barrier becomes slightly more effective about 1 decibel as the source moves cloer to the barrier. The effect is to lower the noise levels for residences C-1. D-1, and E-1. (Table 1). Another alternative is a different alignment, however, the right-of-way has been previously established. This coupled with the adjacent land uses essentially negate the viability of any other alternative alignment. For the most part, any alignment within the present right-of-way will have the same noise impact. Replacement of the existing 2 lane bridge with a new 4-lane bridge will result in no significant change in noise level except that due to the construction process. The existing noise levels, the post-project noise levels, the no project and the design noise levels from FHPM 7-7-3 are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. It is clear that at certain residences and the beach and park area, the existing noise levels are above the exteriQr design noise levels in FHWA 7-7-3. The added noise due to the project will raise these levels an additional 1.5 decibels. However, widening the road along the southern end of the project will result in a net increase in noise of 0.5 decibels. Such an increase is not a major impact, since an increase of at least 3 decibels is generally accepted as the threshold of perceptability. Construction noise during the project will consist of that from bridge demolition, construction and roadway surfacing. is presently unclear, however, the range of possible equipment goes from a pile driver (101 dB(A) at 50 feet) to a roller (74 dB(A) at 50 feet). Data given in reference USEPA NTID 300.1, 1971) indicates the possible list of equipment, The exact compostiion of construction equipment TABLE 2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE Construct ion Ph ase Hourly Leq at 50 ft. Clearing 84 Ex c av at i on 84 Found at ion 85 (93)'l) Erection 83 Finishing 85 (1) Assumes use of pile driver 50% of the time .. .... the noise levels at 50 feet and the usage factors for public works construction. Utilizing these values and the associated times of operation it is estimated that the construction noise will be that shown in Table 2. The impact of construction noise at the various receptors varies. For exanple, for those residences near the bridge, construction noise will range from 76 dB(A) for the closest home to 65 dB(A) for the farthest home. If a pile driver is used for foundation construction, the noise levels will be between 86 and 75 dB(A). Noise further to the south will be limited to road surfacing activities which will be about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet. Expected noise levels at the residences on the southern end of the project will range from 722 dB(A) to 79 dB(A). Although these levels are in excess of the design values as shown in Table 1, they represent a temporary, significant impact. MITIGATION For the most part, the noise impact of the proposed project is only marginally greater (0.5 decibels) than the noise impact from the no project alternative. This is such a small increase that the project noise impact is non- significant. The construction noise impact may be substantial, I however, on the order of 8 to 18 decibels depending upon the receptor and its location from the particular work site. Since the construction noise impact results from the use of a range of equipment, the noise levels of any particular piece of equipment selected by the contractor will be the final determinant. The data used to estimate the construction E- 8 noise impact was published ten years ago as part of an effort to implement a regulatory program for quieting equipment. In addition in the same time frame the Occupational Safety and Health Act set forth construction worker noise exposure levels. As a consequence these two efforts have combined to reduce somewhat the noise from construction activities by virtue of equipment improvements. The pile driving operation is the noisiest event and may be mitigated by using a vibrating driver rather than the impact type. This will reduce the level by about 10 decibels. Further reduction of the impact upon the effected residences may be achieved through the restriction of noisy activities to the normal waking hours and a prohibition of noisy operations prior to 7 a.m. in the morning and after 7 p.m. in the evening. Although such scheduling restrictions will not reduce the noise level, the action will prevent the occurrence of an impact during a time of day when the greatest annoyance would occur. It is expected that bridge construction will require 4 to 6 months for completion and the subsequent road widening will occur over a several month time period with exposure to residences on the order of 2-3 weeks. The temporary nature of the construction activity, the use of a quiet pile dri ver and the proper scheduling of noisy events all combine to yield a temporary noise impact on the order of 8 decibels. Although this level will be perceptible, the intermittent nature of construction noise coupled with the mitigation measures outlined are felt to result in an unavoid- able but non-significant impact. APPENDIX F AN ANALYSIS OF THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Car 1 sb ad, C a1 i f orni a Prepared by: NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue -San Diego, California 92101 April 1981 METEOROLOGY /CLIMATE The general climate of the project site, as with all of Southern California, is largely controlled by the position and strength of the high pressure center near Hawaii and the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. Temperatures are cool in summer and mild in winter with very small daily and seasonal oscillations. Hot (above 90°F) or cold (below freezing) extremes are rare and do not occur at ail in many years. Precipitation averages slightly under 10 inches per year and occurs almost exclusively from late November to early April except for occasional light drizzles from heavy early morning stratus clouds during the warmer months. Winds are almost always onshore, especially during the summer. In winter, as the land becanes cooler than the ocean, the sea breeze reverses, but during the daytime, winds are still onshore, on most days even during the cooler months. The wind rose in Figure 1 from the nearby Palomar Airport shows the dominance of onshore flow and a secondary land breeze maximum quite well. The onshore winds are brisk (averaging 7-l0mph) and carry any locally generated air pollutants well away fran Carlsbad to inland North County. The offshore winds, on the other hand, are weaker (2-4 mph) and often became completely calm. These light, usually nocturnal, winds do allow for stagnation of local emissions. The onshore winds are generally unpolluted except when they are part of an air trajectory offshore from the Los Angeles Basin and then onshore across North County. recirculation on a few days a year can give the Carlsbad area the worst air quality in the San Diego Air Basin. While the normal pattern of winds usually gives ~ Carlsbad excellent air quality, the problem of interbasin F- 1 -~ NEW HORIZONS Planni Consultants, Inc. Figure 1 Wind Direction Frequency Distribution (Wind Rose) for Palomar Airport (1972-73) - F-2 A discussion of the relationship between meteorology and air quality also needs to consider the question of temper- ature inversions that inhibit any vertical mixing of low level polluted air and cleaner air aloft. onshore wind months, warm, sinking air in the ocean high pressure cell is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air perhaps 1000 feet deep. Mixing within the marine layer is good, but the marine/subsidence inversion interface traps all polluted air exclusively within the shallow marine layer. As the layer moves inland and each surface source adds more pollution from below without any dilution from above and the pollutants react photochemically' under abundant sunshine, it creates the well-known photochemical smog (mainly ozone). Ozone levels along the ocean, except during the occasional recirculation phenomenon, are low and increase in moving inland, especially in the foothills where the semi-horizontal inversion intercepts the upward sloping terrain. During the warmer, A second inversion type, important in considering roadway projects, forms at night when winds are calm. Air near the ground cools by contact while the air aloft remains warm. This forms shallow radiation inversions that are several hundred feet deep. Coupled with light winds, these inversions trap pollutants near surface sources such as freeways or large parking lots and form highly localized pollution "hot spots." While all seasons experience both characteristic inversion types, they are strongest and most persistent in two charac- teristic air pollution "seasons."' Summer is usually a period of elevated regional levels of photochemical air pollution, ' especially at inland sites, and winter is a period of localized hot spots, especially in county coastal environments. F-3 AIR QUALITY In order to assess the significance of the air quality impact of the proposed bridge and roadway project, that impact, together with ambient baseline levels, must be canpared to ambient air quality standards (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect that segment of the population most sensitive to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, young children, people al- ready weak with other illness, and those engaged in heavy work or exercise requiring deep breathing. Healthy adults can tolerate periodic exposures to sanewhat higher concentra- tions before adverse effects are noted. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pranulgated standards for seven pollution species. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 specify an attainment dead- line of 1982 with a possible extension to 1987 if reasonable further progress toward attainment is demonstrated by 1982. In developing national AAQS, states retained the option to set their own standards for other species or exposure times. Because California has unique air quality problems and had state standards in existence before national AAQS were developed there is considerable diversity between state and national AAQS. Those standards currently in effect are shown in Table (1). The monitoring location nearest the project site by which to determine canpliance with these standards is in Oceanside at 100 South Cleveland. Measurements at this station are made by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and are generally assumed representative of North County Coastal environs, including the project site. F- 4 TABLE 1 Oxid8nt AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS I -- Pollutant Avomainn limo California Standard8 Nathrl St8ndud8 -- Concentration (200 ua/mJ) 1 hour 0 10 ppm Otm Carbon Monoxik ’ 1 hour - 12 hour 10 wm 8 hour - 1 hour 40 pvm (11 mg/mJ) - (46 ma/mt Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 0.25 vvm (470 ug/mJ) Annual Average - Suspended P8niculate M.tter suH8tcs Led Hvdmen Sulfide Hydrocarbons (Corrected for Methane) Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) Ethylene 3 hour - 1 hour 0 5 ppm (1310 ug/ma) Annuel Geometric 60 ug/ma Mean 24 hour 100 ug/mJ 24 hour 25 ug/mJ , 30 day 1.5 ug/ma Average Calendar - Ouaner 1 hour 0.03 ovm (42 ug/mJ) 3 hour (6-9 a.m.) 24 hour 0.010 ppm (26 ug/mJ) 8 hour 1 0.1 wm 1 hour 0.5 DDm HighVdumo Sampling AWL Method 75 ug/mJ 60 ug/mJ 260 ug/mJ 150 ug/mJ SamolinO . Hiph Volumo - - - Viribil it y 1 observation In sufftctent amount to Reducing rcduce t4.e prevailmg visibility Particles to less than 10 milcs wnen the relative humidity is less than 70% - - - -- NOlR Carbbn Monoride 8 hour 6 pvm (7 mg/mJ) -- Visiblity 1 observation In sutficicnt Jmount to Particles Reductng reduce the pravailing visibiltty to less than 30 niiles when the relative humidity is less than 70% - - - - ----- - - - Socondaw Method Method Photometrv s8W as Primary Standard Chemiluminescent I Method 7- 240 ug/mJ 10.1 2 wm) Nan-Ditpersivo infrared Spectroscopy Same 8s Primay Standardr Non . Dirveruua lnfrawd Speclrcscopy . . .. GI8 PbSO 100 ug/mJ (0.05 pvm) ialuman Mothod s8mO as Prirrun Chemilurninasconct~ ~~ Nitrogen Dioxide I Annual Average 1 - Standard8 80 ug/mJ (0.03 wm) 365 ug/mJ Method ?araoranillno . Method I No. 61 AlHL Method No. 54 1 .S ug/mJ Atomic AbrorDlion Cadmium - ydroride Strana Metnod 160 ug/mJ Same as (0.24 ppm) Primary Standards - Gas Chronratog- raphy (ARB staff revort 78 8-3) TABLE 2 OCEANSIDE/CARLSBAD AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY (days standards exceeded) - 1975 1976 1977 19 78 1979 OZONE (03) -- 1 HR70.08 ppm 43 69 87 71 1 HRE0.10 ppm 19 50 61 51 45 1 HR70.12 ppm -- -- 22 20 22 1 HRt 0.20 ppm 0 7 2 5 7 1 HRZ0.35 ppm 0 0 0 1 3 - Max 1-HR Conc. (pprn) 0.19 0.29 0.25 0.35 0.36 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) 1 HR735 ppm 8 HR 7 9 ppm Max 1-HR Conc. (pprn) Max 8-HR Conc. (pprn) NITROGEN DIOXIDE 1 HR20.25 ppm Max 1-HR Conc. (pprn) SULFUR DIOXIDE 1 HR 7 0.50 ppm 24 HRSIO.05 ppm - Max 1-HR Conc. (pprn) Max24-HR Conc.(ppm) 0 0 10 -- 0 0 10 -_ 1 4 0.31 0.33 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.06 -- _- 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 10 3.8 3.5 4.0 2 2 0 0.36 0.32 0.21 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.03 0.04 -- 0.011 0.018 PARTICULATES 25% 20% 21% 40% 3 24 HRZ 100. mg/m Annual260 mg/m . Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 172 146 173 219 83 82 82 88 3 Max 24-HR Conc. (mg/m 1 Annual Avg. (mg/m ) 3 33% Yes 180 85 F-6 Monitoring data frm the last 5 years of published data are summarized in Table 2. These suggest that levels of ozone and particulates , generally associated with regional pollution and long distances from a source to a receptor, exceed AAQS with considerable regularity. especially carbon monoxide as a sign of heavy nearby vehicular activity, are absent. These low CO levels will form the baseline upon which project-related traffic impacts will be superimposed such that there is little probable potential for the formation of any local CO "hot spots." Indicators' of local pollution , While the relatively low levels of primary vehicular pollutants is encouraging, the very high ozone levels associated with the intrusion of air into the San Diego Air Basin from the South Coast Air Basin are equally discouraging. 1978 and 1979 experienced the first second stage smog alerts in the entire basin in a decade with the high levels confined to the Coastal strip from Oceanside to Solana Beach, with the pollution sources in the basin emitting more than enough pollutants to cause the standards to be violated by themselves. It is doubly discouraging when the air entering the basin is already 100 percent or more in excess of the standard before any local contribution is added to the polluted air mass. Based on the trend in the data in Table 2, there is little likelihood that the ozone standard will be reached by 1987 unless there are drastic measures taken to reduce both the levels of air pollution entering the basin and the levels emitted within the basin. Association of Governments (SANDAG, formerly CPO) prepared an air quality management plan (AQMP) under the acronym RAQS (Regional Air Quality Strategies) that contained a timetable and list of emission reduction tactics to achieve the standards The APCD and the San Diego F- 7 and list of emission reduction tactics to achieve the standards as required. The basic RAQS concept was that the basin could have a planned level of growth and still meet all standards as long as certain input assumptions were realized. Included in the RAQS tactics and their underlying analyses were assump- tions that .the legislature would enact a mandatory vehicle inspection program, that new emission standards would be pro- mulgated for both stationary and non-roadway mobile sources, that new technology would be developed for certain sources, that current emissions were well defined, that air quality models accurately predict the necessary level of emissions, reductions to achieve standards and that the level of growth used to develop RAQS (the Series IVb Projections) are an accurate forecast of true basin growth levels. Unfortunately, there are problems with almost every one of these assumptions. Only three years after the adoption of the AQMP, a serious shortfall in needed reductions is apparent. had in finding good emission reductions that had a tolerable economic and social impact, it is highly doubtful that the basin can reach standards by the 1987 deadline. Unless Congress revises the deadline in attainment through the current revisions to the Clean Air Act under debate or there are major changes in technology and the political climate in the country, San Diego will continue to experience unhealthful levels of air quality. Considering how much trouble SANDAG and the APCD On a positive side, the proposed project is well consistent with the 1978 RAQS, 'especially Tactic T-14 (Traffic Flow Improvement). The discussion of Tactic T-14, called a "maintenance" tactic that will at least let emission levels - not become worse because of increasing congestion and decreasing traffic speeds, predicts a decrease of 1 mph in average F-8 traffic speed by 1985 and 2 mph by 1995 unless traffic flow improvements such as the proposed project are indeed implemented. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Roadway projects, contrary to mbst other developments that involve large increases in regional driving patterns with associated air pollution increases, may actually generate an air quality benefit. By accommodating traffic demand and moving it in the most direct distance with an efficient driving speed, roadway improvements are an effective means of miti- gating the impact of the traffic growth of a region. Any negative impacts associated with the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge and Highway Improvements tend to be of a very local nature. During construction, fugitive dust frun preparing the roadbed will be carried to nearby receptors, especially the residential development east of the roadway between Tamarack Avenue and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. These same receptors will also be ex- posed to the vehicular emissions from the possible traffic growth along Carlsbad Boulevard. While the dust emissions are temporary, gaseous pollutant impacts of the traffic growth will exist throughout the life of the project. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The EPA predicts an emission rate of 80 pounds of fugitive dust per day per acre disturbed during construction activities. This rate can be reduced by about one-half through regular watering as required by SDAPCD Rule 50. per acre per day, the 10 acres or so of roadbed surface dis- turbed during construction activities may reach 400 pounds (0.2 tons). This compares to 200-300 tons/day emitted throughout the basin. At 40 pounds On a regional scale, the effects of this dust emission are small. Locally, this dust will drift eastward with the prevailing winds. Because such dust is of a large dianeter particle and composed of mainly.inert silicates, such particles are easily filtered by the human breathing pas- sage. Since these large particles have an appreciable settling velocity, they settle out rapidly on horizontal surfaces such as cars, foliage, furniture, etc. Rather than causing an adverse health impact, these dusts will cause more of a soiling nuisance that will increase the need to wash cars or dust furniture. Other construction emissions will result from combustion emissions from earthmoving equipment, cement trucks or construction employee travel. These emissions are much less than those fran existing travel on Carlsbad Boulevard and are not expected to modify the generally low ambient pollution levels. There may be a few instances of diesel exhaust odor at downwind receptor sites, but as with the fugitive dust emissions, this will cause more of a nuisance than any unhealthful air quality. VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IMPACTS The basic aim of the project is to accommodate the increased traffic demand along the coast frm a current summer peak of 15,700 to a projected 22,000 vehicles per day at a design speed of 35 miles per hour. Without the project, the average speed may drop considerably as congestion increases further. To illustrate the effect of vehicle speed on emissions, Table 3 summarizes the speed/emissions relationship between 25 mph and 35 mph. A decrease in mean speed of 5 mph increases CO and hydrocarbons by 10 percent. average speed by 10 mph because of congestion may increase CO and hydrocarbons by 25 percent over the 35 mph design speed. A further decrease of - F-10 While NOx decreases slightly with decreasing speed, tant pollutant to control to alleviate the regional problem is hydrocarbons. By maintaining the 35 mph the impor- ozone speed, the project, in its consistency with the AQMP/RAQS plan, is an important positive aspect of air quality planning in the face of some otherwise discouraging signs. While the project may generate a very small regional benefit, there is a potential that the increased traffic will cause increased localized pollution levels. To test this possibility, current and future traffic levels and minimum atmospheric dispersion conditions were used to initialize the CALINE 3 Caltrans Roadway Dispersion Model. Emissions data were derived fran EMFAC6C, an ARB and Caltrans vehicle emissions Model. Calculations were carried out for winds parallel to Carlsbad Boulevard that maximize concentrations near the roadway and for diagonal winds that carry emissions further into the nearby residential tract. Results from this "hot spot'' analyses shown in Table 4 indicatedno potential for any violations of the hourly CO standard near the roadway under increased traffic loads. In fact, continued vehicle emissions reductions between naw and 1995 actually cause CO levels to drop from an hourly maximum of 3.6 ppm to 2. 7 ppm. hourly CO background concentrations in Oceanside of 10 ppm and 8 hour levels of 4 ppm, the project contribution plus the worst possible background level still do not threaten the CO standard on the sidewalk on the bridge, much less within residences several hundred feet from the roadway. With the highest measured F-11 TABLE 3 VEHICLE EMISSIONS/SPEED RELATIONSHIP (1995) (Pollution penalty (benefit) in percent resulting fran any decrease in mean 1995 Carlsbad Boulevard traffic speed canpared to 35 mph design speed) 35 mph 34 mph 33 mph 32 mph 31 mph 30 mph 29 mph 28 mph 27 mph 26 mph 25 rnph Carbon Monoxide 0.0 +l. 2 +2.7 +4.5 +6.5 +8.8 +11.4 +14.4 +17.6 +21.1 +24.8 Total Hyd rocar.bons 0.0 +l. 6 +3.1 +5.5 +7.9 +lo. 2 +13.2 +16.5 +20.5 +24.4 +28.3 Reactive Hy d r oc a r b on s 0.0 +0.9 +2.8 +4.6 +7.3 +lo. 1 +12.8 +16.5 +20.2 +23.9 +27.5 TABLE 4 HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) ADJACENT TO CARLSBAD BLVD. Distance from Roadway 0' 5' 10 * 20' 40 ' 80 * 160 ' 320' 640 ' 1980 Parallel Wind 3.56 3.55 3.53 3.44 2.88 0.61 0.06 neg . neg . Diagonal Wind 0.90 1.09 1.17 1.15 1.09 1.0 7 0.69 0.48 0.33 1995 Parallel Wind 2.56 2.55 2.54 2.46 2.07 0.44 0.04 neg . neg . Diagonal Wind 0.65 0.79 0.84 0.83 0.78 0.77 0.50 0.35 0.24 Oxides of Ni t r ogen 0.0 -1.1 -1.6 -2.2 -3.3 -3.8 -4.9 -5.4 -6.5 -7.6 -8.7 Hourly Std = 35 ppm 8-Hour Std = 9 ppm F-12 ?- i'. MITIGATION With no predicted long-term local or regional air quality degradation, there is little need or potential for mitigation. for emissions from. stagnating traffic streams. nuisance emissions of dust and odor may occur during construc- tion, but their effect can be readily controlled. By applying extra water near the residential area and by beginning construc- tion in early spring when the ground is damp, much of the dust problem can be minimized. activities do not start before 8 a.m. near the residential receptors, this allows the winds to pick up to better disperse any emissions and allows many receptors to be in school or at work during maximum construction activity emissions. The project itself constitutes a mitigation measure Temporary It is also helpful if earthmoving F-13 APPENDIX G EARLY CONSULTATION MEETING MATERIALS DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 9#K16 Citp of Car(Sbab arch 25, lSS? MEN HORIZOMS P1 anni ng Consul tants , Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Notice of Esrly COOSL‘: cation Meeting preliminary to an envjrormental assessment/envi rurmnti).l imrjact report (Bridgp and Yighwby Iap-ovcmnt for Carlstac! 3oulciiard between Tamarack snd Cannon Streets, Cslsbad, California) The City of Carlcbad ,;:I1 kz the local broject dfrectw sad local ascxy responsible for prepitrh Lion cf envirormentzi documents for the project iderotfficd a hove. garding potential environmental issues relatfve to the proposed project which we perticent to your statutory responsibi; i ties or to yaur organization’s interests. This letter is a request for the views of your agency or organization re- This wtice is being sent to all copperatiny agencies and organizations, knowii or thought to be interzsted in the proposed project. Represea?+.atives of yow agency or orgznization are invited to attend and ta present their views at an “Early Consultation Meeting” to be held: Gledrmday, April 1, 1981 The meetinq wili be heid at 1:30 p.m., Carlsbad City Hall, Couricii Chmber, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, Cal ifornia. G -1 EARLY CONSULTATION MEETING BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD April 1, 1981 1:30 p.m. Carlsbad City Hall Council Chamber 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California AGENDA A. WELCOME Betsy Weisman - NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. B. TECHNICAL PRESENTATION 1. Project Description Art McDaniel, McDaniel Engineering Company 2. Possible Environmental Issues Ed Dilginis, NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. C DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Betsy Weisman, NEW HORIZONS, Planning Consultants, inc. D. SUMMARY E. CLOSING G -3 PRELIMINARY EARLY CONSULTATION REPORT for PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT For the Proposed Construction of the Bridge and Highway Improvements For Carlsbad Boulevard Between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road City of Carlsbad Engineering Department 1206 Elm Street Carlsbad, California Prepared by: NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92101 G -4 . 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad plans to conduct an early consultation meeting and data gathering period to determine the extent of environmental analysis necessary to satisfy the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) relative to the proposed construction of a four-lane replacement bridge at Agua Hedionda Lagoon and accaupanying road improvements from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. In order to develop a structurally safe, functional and environmentally sensitive project, the City of Carlsbad would like to receive cauments from the cooperating agencies at this early point in the planning process, so that the concerns of the agencies and organizations involved can be incorporated into the project design. The first planning phase of the Bridge and High- way Improvement for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California was completed in 1979. Tentative plans and application criteria were developed. The initial study indicated the need for addi- tional environmental analysis. In February 1981, the City of Carlsbad initiated the second phase of project planning for preliminary design work and preparation of an Environmental Assessment/ Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego (Figure 1). the site extends along Carlsbad Boulevard fran 300 feet In general, NE14 HORIZONS Planning Consultants. hc. Figwe 1 Regional Location G - 6 Y. .I , -. south of Tamarack Avenue for a distance of approximately one and one quarter miles to Cannon Road (Figures 2 and 3). 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Purpose .. The 'City of 'Carlsbad proposes to construct a four-lane bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard over Agua Hedionda Lagoon to replace the structurally deficient current two- lane bridge. The proposed project includes widening' of the two lane roadway to four lanes from just south of the Tama- rack Avenue intersection to extend to the Cannon Road inter- section. will be consistent with the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, May 1975. Roadway widening coupled with the bridge replacement The proposed bridge would be 180 feet in length and 78 feet in width comprised of four 12-foot traffic lanes, plus five foot sidewalks and five foot bicycle paths in each direction. The additional ten feet width is for railings. concrete. Several alternative bridge designs, one or two piers or clear-span are being studied. alternative designs will be addressed in the preliminary design stage. The superstructure is planned to be of pre-stressed The impacts of these Funding for the proposed project would be from Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds (HBRR) with eighty percent federal funding for the bridge. Road improvements would be funded'through Federal Aid to Urban Highways (FAU) program with ninety percent federal contribution.' ficiency ratings priority order from lowest to highest. Priority for HBRR funding is based on suf- .. .. G-7 PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT LIMITS OF HIGHWAY I.-.m.I IMPROVEMENTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT I r Figure 2 Sub Regional Location Aerial View of Proposed Project Site L I G-9 NEED The present bridge was completed in 1934. - 3.0 The bridge is classified as structurally deficient since the reinforced concrete has deteriorated to an unsafe condition and traffic is limited to restricted truck weights as posted. Carlsbad Boulevard (S-21) provides the major north/ south local link to the coastal community of Carlsbad west of Interstate 55. It also provides access to the beaches and state park adjacent to the proposed project. 4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The objective of the "early consultation" meeting is to help to identify environmental issues and to assess the level of environmental concern relative to the proposed project. The following preliminary list includes environ- mental issues which have been raised in the initial study and which are presented here for background and discussion purposes only: e Possible effect on plants or animals, including both marine and terrestrial species associated with the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Outer Lagoon is dredged bi-annually and is currently in the process of being dredged, so the incidence of undisturbed species is not expected. 0 Possible effects of the proposed project on water quality in the Lagoon. G -10 , 0 The design of the replacement bridge will alter the present aesthetics, adding an improvement which is expected to be visually pleasing and enhance the appearance of the area.. quality, both short and long term. Effect of the proposed project on any parks or historic sites. 0 Effect of the proposed project on air 0 0 Effect of the proposed project on the wet- lands and coastal zone, including public access to the beach. 0 The long-term effect of the proposed project is expected to improve traffic circulation in the project area, and to provide safer circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and joggers. Short-term impacts to traffic circulation can be expected to vary according to the construction method selected. 0 Effect of the proposed project on noise levels in the surrounding area. G-11 I BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARLSBAD ROlJ1,EVARD RETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD Summary of Input at Early Consu.ltation Meeting held 1:30 p.m. Carlsbad City Hall, Council Chamber 1200 Elrii Avenue Carlsbad, California LIST OF PARTICIPANTS -- ParticipanLs included Les Evans, City Engineer, City of Carlsbad, Jim Murray, and Larry Dossey, City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department, Charles Crimm, City of Carlsbad Planning DeparLiiienL i~nd Ed Uilginis and 15cLsy Weisman, NElJ 1101<IZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. Others present included Art blc Daniel, McDaniel Engineering Col:ll>ilny, Dave Siino, SDCGcE, Bill Fait, State Dcparlrnclnt of‘ I’;irks and Recreation, and Helen Denny, United Stritcs Coast (;uard. 1’ R.1: S EN TAT I 0 N S The meet i ng was 111oderil I. I)y Bet sy IJei man, NEIJ HORIZONS Planning Consult-ants, Inc. Aftor l)i-ief introductory remarks, the meeting was turned over to Art FlcDaniel, of McDanicl Engineering who gave LI descript ion of the project, referring to several aerial maps and photos of the proposed project, which ~ were displayed throughout the mcet ing. An accompanying hand- out describing the projecc was provided to all in attendance. Following the project dcbscription, Ed Dilginis of NEIJ HORIZONS Planning Consultant s [iddressed potential environ- mental issues which may need to be studied in the Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report which his firm is to prepare. It was evplained that thr: purljose of the meeting is to idenLify potcnlial issues eLrrly in the project planning, G -12 at a point where mitigation measures can be incorporated into project design. Betsy Weisman of NEW HORIZONS then led a group discussion of the potential environmental issues and asked for ideas to mitigate possible impacts. The environmental issues discussed included possible impacts on marine life. It was felt that most of the plant and animal life, including birds, was found in the two inner inlets of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and that the biannual dredging done by SDG&E, plus the speed of f1.0~ in this channel, probably was not compatible with extensive marine life. It was agreed by participants that the potentially most significant issue was beach parking and associated uses. Issues which were raised included current winter beach erosion which is cutt'ing into the width of the sand beach. It was noted that storm surr has covered the prcsent road during winter rains nt several times in the past two years. A suggc-st- ion L o C;ISC L'hct ciirrcnt i)rohl.etn was poss i blc installation of a Longard Tube by the State Parks Department. Revising the grade of the road was also mentioned. The issue of title to the portions of land included in the right of way and the exact climensions of the right-of-way were raised. Several issues were brought up relative to parking. These included the possibility of adding additional parking north of 'I'im~~rack Avenue on the bexh side or parking improvements to the fishing are3 on the SDC&L properly east of Carlsbad Boulevard. G-13 Related circulation issues raised included concern over the possibility of speed increases on a four-lane road bringing the proximity 01 fast moving traffic to heavy pedestrian traffic and creating a possible need for a fence or guard rail. Concern was voiced over providing safe turn-outs for persons entering and exiting parking areas. It was stated that parallel parking directly on the side of a four-lane road would be dangerous. It was also suggested that the proposed project would probably create a need for a traffic signal at the corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon Roads. Additional ideas suggested were the construction of the bridge replacement with no highway widening, but it was pointed out that Carlsbad Boulevard presently exceeds recommended tralfic volumes for a two-lane road and that federal funding would require a four-lane road. Another possibility discussed was to close Carlsbad Boulevard, ending the road in two cul-de- sacs and using the closed roadway for additional parking. It was pointed out chat this altern~i. ive would alleviate the parking problerii but would attenuiil e traffic and circulation problems along 'I'aiiarack, Cannon and other roadways in the surrounding ar-ca. It W;IS :ilso mentioned 1h;it temporary closure of the road mighc be feasible during demolition of the old bridge, creating a short-lerm tr;tffic and circulation irn!,act. Some :idd i t ion.11 concerns expressed included SDG&E's concern to maintain tidal flow in [he inlet during construction demolition and construction. Ir w.1~ pointed out that this was an operational, more thnn a environmentnl concern. It was stated by the Co,ist Guard representative that navigation through this inlet did not sound advisah1.e and therefore navigation standards for height of the bridge a-bove mean high tide would not apply. G-14 Several additional ideas included possible provision of a fishing area on the bridge, or improvements to the existing fishing area on SDGftE property. .. The possible impact of traffic noise on the few homes near Cannon Road was noted. ’ Also the issue of seismic safety and’ proximity to the Rose Canyon fault was raised. Additional responses or comments which your agency would wish to conimunicilte will be accepted by correspondence addressed to Mr. Les Evans and w’i11 be included in the preparation ol lie Envi roniiicnlal AssessiiicnC/Lnvi roniiienlal Impact lieporL. G -15 ATTENDANCE REGISTER Early Consultation Meeting Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge April 1, 1981 Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California NAME AGENCY G -16 1:30 p.m. ADDRESS t c- .. .. .. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE EC0u)cICAL SERVICES 24000 Avila Road UgUM N&gUal, a 92677 .- RECEIVED April 24, 1981 Re: Dear Sir: Bridge and Highway Improvemants, Carlabad, California This responds to your letter requesting information on possible impacts of the proposed bridge and highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road and includes comments made by Staff Biologist Gary Wheeler to Mr. Larry Dossey of your staff in their telephone conversation of 17 April 1981. It la unfortunate that the discussion at your early consultation meeting seemed to minimize the fish and wildlife habitat values present in the western portfon of Agua Hedionda Lagooa. portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is of extreme importance to a rather diverse assemblage of fish and wildlife resources, particularly fishes and water-associated birds. Characteristics of the area which make it so attractive to wildlife include good water quality and clarity, adequate tidal flushing, and dense eelgrass beds. We are couvinced that the western The presence of large healthy eelgrass beds is a direct result of good water quality and clarity which, in turn, is dependent upon adequate tidal flushing. Eelgrass forms the basis of an important food web which culminates in the production of large piscivorous fishes such as basses which, in turn, are harvested by man. Eelgrass also functions in stabilizing sediments and recycling nutrients. Consequently, in order to protect the important wildlife and fishery reeources of the area it is necessary to protect the eelgrass beds by maintaining good water quality and clarity throughout project construct ion. The California least tern and California brown pelican, two state and federally listed endangered species, utilize the western portion of the lagoon for feeding on small fishes. Again, the maintenance of good water quality and clarity is important in preventing a degradation of their feeding habitat in the lagoon. issued to the Sen Diego Gas and Electric Company by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was conditioned to allow dredging only during the months of October through March, so that .. excessive turbidity is not produced during The maintenance dredging permit recently - .. the months of April-September when terns are present. We would encourage you to assum a rimilar construction schedule for any work on the bridge that Vi11 result in bwem water quality or clarity 80 as not to adversely impact tern feeding. You should be aware that Sf your project ell require any Federal permit8 or receive any Federal funding, the Federal agency involved must comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. What this meam is that the Federal agency permitting or funding the project must determlne whether or not the project my affect any federally listed threatened or endangered species. listed species, the Federal agency nurt request formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Sarvfce. Our agency's other concerns would be the placing of fill material into productive wetland habitat u a result of roadway improvements and the protection of the fishing accaru point on the lagoon. not know enough about the project to determine if these resources would be affected. We would appreciate receiving =re intormation on this 6ubject. If it is concluded that the project may affect a Currently, we do We appreciate your contacting us early in the planning process when problems can most effectively be resolved and would appreciate receiving any other project inforuution you feel wuld help us to assera the biological impacts of this project., Any questions you have regarding these comments may be directed to Nr. Gary Wheeler or myself at (714) 831-4270. Sincerely yours, Fieid Supervisor cc: NMFS, Terminal Island, CA CDFG, Reg. 5, Long Beach, CA (Attn: Susan Ellis) CDFG, Mar. Res. Reg., Long Beach, CA i 2 Mr. Les Evans City Engineer City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA Dear Mr. Evans:. UNITED STATES DEPPRTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 300 South Ferry Street Terminal Island, California 90731 Hay 8, 1981 F/SWR33:RSH We have reviewed the Prcl iininary Early Consul tation Report and :i sumnary of input from an early consultation meeting regarding the proposed constructicn of the bridge and highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between l'amarsck Avenue and Cannon Road. We have the following comments. We are concerned that thc value of the outer section of Agwi Ilc-dionda Lagoon, particularly to fishery resources, has not been adequately addressed. Extensive eelgrass (Zoster5 marina) beds presently exist: both along the western and eastern sides of the outer lagoon. l'hese ,beds serve as an important habi.tot for fishery resources of comicrcial and recreational importance. The . J arge number oi ilngl.ers which fish the western side fiirther indicate the value of the outcr liigoou. The document:; we have received do not indicate how the road widening a~:d bridge construction will occur. However, if encroachment into t!ic 3 a~;oon i:; bein;: considered, we strongly r.ccoiiuiiciid that attempts he inntic to minimize any iidvctrscl impacts to the lagoon. In order to assist you during the planning and dc:siy,n phase of the project, we 1ia.i~~ enclosed n copy of' our Ref:ionnl Ilal~itnt i'rcitectjou Policy for your infornintian. Enc 1 .. : . ... 2:s' . ... . . .. .. .. June 8, 1978’ .. ,t NATIONAL MARINE FXSUERIES SERVICE SOUTHWEST REGION HABITAT PROTECTION POLICY The National Elarine Fisheries Service (NE4Fs) reviews Federally initiated or Federally licensed or permitted projects which have the potential of altering aquatic environments and thereby impacting the biological resources which depend upon those habitats. or authorization of any project or activity that will damage any existing or potentially restorable habitat of living marine, estuarine, or anadromous resources. Habitat may include spawning areas, rearing areas, food-producing areas, or other areas neccssary for the survival of those organisms. The water-dependence of the proposed activities will be a positive consideration in determining project approval. , The Southwest Region of NMFS will not recommend approval .Under circumstances in which habitat/rcsource damages can be compensated, , ’exceptions to the policy may be allowed. The following conditions are required for such exception: . 1. The project will incorporate all feasible modifications and construe- ’ .tion techniques to eliminate or minimize adverse environmental impacts; - 2. .&n acceptable combination Df habitat restoration, enhancement or off- Gite acquisition will be adopted to compensate for adverse environmental impacts that cannot reasonably be eliminated by project modification; and 3. Post-project habitat value shall be equal to or greater than pre-project habitat value. Determination of post-project value will be based on the conttib- ution of that habitat to the support of commercial and recreational fisheries, fishery resources, certain marine mammals, and/or endangered species, Some of the types of projects and activities which may cause damage to marine, estuarine, or anadromous resources include: dredging, filling, river alterations, drainage of wetlands, discharge of effluents, as well as certain construction or operational activities. but are rcprcsentative of activities which are of concern to “FS. It is in the best intcrest of project sponsors to contact the appropriate NMFS office as early as possible to determine the impacts, if any, of each particular project. ’ The activities listed arc not intended to be all-inclusive For furthcr information contact one of the fol lowjny, offices: National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service Environmental Assessment Branch Environmental Assessment Branch 300 South Ferry Street, Room 2016 3150 Paradise Drivc Terminal Island, CA 90731 Tiburon, CA 94320 Tclcphone: ‘ 213-548-2518 Tclcphone: 415-556-0565 .. Notiona.l. Narine Fislierics Scrvice Environmental Assessment 1Ir;lncli Western Pacific Program Office 2570 Dole Strcnt llonoltrlu, It1 96812 Tclcphone: 808-946-2181 -20 .. APPENDIX H CORRESPONDENCE October 20, 1981 Mr. Gary Wheeler United States Department of LhC Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Dear Mr. Wheeler, In response to your letlibr or April 24, 1981 and our sub- sequent phone conversation of C)c.tohcr 15, 1981, we wish to inform you of the completion of the Draft Ihvironmental Assessment for the Bridge and Highway Improvements lor Carlshad Boulevard. In order to address the r'onccrns of your agency and to comply with the provisions ol thp Ihdangcred Species Act of 1973, as amended, construction of th(% project will be Limited to the months from October tr) )larch to i~vc~id any impacts to Least Tern r ced i ng . Additionally, the projcct will not involve dredging or the placing of any fill into thr WI 1 inci Ii'ihitat, nor will it decrease OT interfere with access to thc, SDG6E fishing area on the lagoon. The proposed design is a clcitr-span bridge engineered to minimize possible impacts to the lagoon. your agency have been addressed. I hope this inform:itinn 'tssures you that t.he concerns of IJe would nppreci;itc ;t 1c~t.tc~r LO this eFfccL nt your earliest convenience. Si nccrel y yours, 1let.sv Weisman NE.\IV HORIZONS Planning Corwltants ~nc 1850 I 14 I), P.wiiitt Sijn Diego. California 92101 (714) 233-9707 H-1' United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 October 23, 1981 MS. Betsy Weisman New Horizons Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard Dear Ms. Weisman: Based upon the information provided in your letter to Gary Wheeler of October 20, 1981, namely that construction will be limited to the months of October to March and that the project will not involve dredging or the placing of fill material in wetland habitat or elimination of the SDG&E-CDFG fishing access area, we do not believe the project will have any significant adverse impact upon fish and wildlife resources or their habitats. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service has, at this time, no objection to the construction of this project. However, we reserve the right to make further comments should some unforeseen detrimental environmental effects be brought to light. . Ralphy. Pisapia Field Supervisor I ,.. ,'. . cc: .NME'S, Terminal Island, CA CDFG, MRR, Long Beach, CA H-2 October 20, 1981 United States Department of Cominerce National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region 300 South Ferry Street Terminal Island, California 90731 Attention: Robert Hoffman Dear Mr. Hoffman: In response to your letter of May 8, 1981 and our sub- se uent phone conversation of October 19, 1981, we wish to for the Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carl.sbad Boulevard. Preliminary design has indicated that there will be no encroachment into the lagoon. The project is not planned to include any dredging of the lagoon, nor the placing of any fill into a wetland habitat area. Also, the project ~1111 not interfere with access to the Encina fishing area. The lweferrcd design proposed is for a clear-span structure engineer4 Lo minimize impacts to the lagoon. existing bridge piers and setting of temporary falsework during construction. October to March, eliminating pmsihlc interference with least tern feeding times. T hope this inlorniiitjon wili assist in your informal review. We would appreciate R lctter from your agency at your earliest convenience. in 8 orm you of the completion of n Draft Environmental Assessment Actual work in the ~~J~OOII will be limited to removal of the Construction wi7 1 be permitted during the months of Sincerely yours, Ik t sy IJci sman BW/c jj .. NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants Inc 1850 I 11 tt~"Awtiiw San Diego. California 92101 (714) 233-9707 H-3 h I UNITED STATES uEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Iy.riond Ownh and Atmoaphorb Adminhtntion NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE I Southwest Region - 300 south F&V Street Terminal Island, California 90731 October 26, 1981 F/SWR33 : RSH 1503-01 Ms. Betsy Weisman New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Dear Ms. Weisman: Our letter of May 8, 1981, stated the concerns our Agency would have if the proposed bridge and highway improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard resulted in sig- nificant impacts to Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. .Your letter of October 20, 1981 and attached project plans indicate that the work in the Lagoon will be limited to the removal of the existing bridge piers and setting of temporary falsework during construction. Our Agency will have no objection to the proposed proj.ect provided impacts to the lagoon are restricted to those stated in your letter. further questions please contact Mr. Robert Hoffman of my staff. If you have any Regional Director cc: USFWS, Laguna Niguel CDFCG, Long Beach H-4 October 20, 1981 Commander (OAN) 11th Coast Guard District 400 Ocean ate Long Beac c , California 90822 Attention: 'Helen Denny Dear Mrs. Denny: As discussed in our phone conversation of last week, I am enclosing a draft: copy of the Environmental Assessment for the Bridge and Highway Imprqvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. 1 would appreciate your informal review at this stage and some written indication as to whether the project will require a Coast Guard permit and wlwt-her the Environmental Assessment will be adequate for permit purposes. We would appreciate recc-ivin}: this informat ion at your car 1 ics t coiivcn i CIICC . 'iours truly , B\J/cj j Enclosure - Environmental Assessment H-5 MAlLlNO ADDRESS: XLBVBNTB COAh&D DIltUICt UIION BANK BLDC. 400 OCXWGAtK LONG BXACY, CA. 90822 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ConwtDmR (213) 590-2222 1 6 5901 PF Ser: oan 284-81 27 October 1981 Ms. Betsy Weisman New Horizons Planning Consultants Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, Ca 92101 Dear Ms. Weisman: I have reviewed the draft copy of the environmental assessment for the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge and Highway Improvements between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road' in' Carlsbad, California. My comments will be limited to the components within Coast Guard jurisdiction concerning Bridge Administration. A Coast Guard Bridge Permit will be required for the proposed Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge. The Coast Guard's function in approving plans for bridges across navigable waters, is to insure that structures meet the reasonable requirements of navigation; applications for a bridge permit will be considered on that basis . Navigation is not mentioned in the environmental assessment except that the boating public is excluded from the outer lagoon for safety reasons (page B-4). This statement should be explained, additionally the canoeing, water skiing, ski boating, launch ramps and condo/marina facilities in the inner la- goons should be described. The Interstate 5 Bridge and the railroad bridge spanning the lagoon should also be described. The navigational clearances (horizontal and vertical) of the proposed bridge should be included when the bridge design is complete. Even though navigation may not be advisable/or is excluded for safety reasons, any comments received during the public review process, concerning navigation, should be addressed in the environmental document. The proposed project will be funded from Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds. The Coast Guard will cooperate with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in accordance with the procedures of the USCG/FHWA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the preparation and processing of Environ- mental Documents. In accordance with this MOU, the Coast Guard will ordinarily accept FHWA's environmental documentation as satisfactory compliance with NEPA for the purpose of processing the bridge permit application. - Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this important project. Sincerely, Chief', Aids to Navigation Branch 8y direction of the District Commander Copy: COMDT [G-WS-11 H-6 __ October 19, 1981 Mr Chuck Damm San Diego District 6154 Mission Gorge Road San Diego, California 921.20 Dear Chuck : 1 California Coastal Commission Enclosed please find a draft copy for your informal review of the Environmental Assessment (NEPA)/Initial Study/(CEQA for Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tmniirack Avenue and Cannon Road. Several minor changes h;we been made since this draft, however I do not think these will affect your review at this time. One item which is explained in more detail is the OS designation at the corner of Cannon Road and Cstlsbad Boulevard. This is SDGE;E land which is currently leased on a year to year hsis to Lhe City of Carlshad which maintains it as 3 city park. No portjon of this land is included in the proposed project. I appreciate your informal review of the document at this time. I. Sincerely, NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants Inc 18!)0 rll it1 .I-.. .- -68 San Diego, California 92107 (714) 333-9707 H-7 ’ State of California, Edmund G. F vn Jr., Governor California Coastal Commission San Diego District 6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220 San Diego, California 92120 (714) 280-6992 ATSS 636-5868 October 28, 1981 Betsy Weisman New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Subject: Preliminary Response to the Environmental Assessment for Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard Between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. Dear Ms. Weisman: The staff of the Coastal Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the environmental assessment for the above referenced project. ment, staff has concluded that it is thorough and addresses all the relevant environmental issues. However, staff does want to express, at this time, our concerns about the project in relation to the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 since this project will require a coastal development permit from the Commission. In reviewing the assess- Essentially, there are two main concerns the staff has identified, both of which are addressed in the environmental assessment but not in the context of their relation to' the policies of the Coastal Act. of the project on the wetland habitat values of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the impacts on beach access (primarily as relates to beach parking). Sections 30211, 30223 and 30233(c) of the Coastal Act are particularly relevant. These Sections state: These concerns pertain to the effects Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legisla- tive authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. Section 30233. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, H-8 I. Betsy Weisman October 28, 1981 Page 2 the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing faci- , lities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is one of the 19 coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game and the Codssion has found that widening of roads is not consi- dered minor incidental public facilities. Based on review of' the environmental assessment and site inspection by staff, it would appear that the road and bridge improvements can be accomplished without encroaching onto the wetlands. impact the wetland and staff is available to discuss possible mitigation. mitigation might involve the season or time of year during which work woud occur. If staff is incorrect in our preliminary analysis and some alteration of the wetland (i.e., lagoon) would be required to accommodate the project, this would be considered a substantial adverse environmental impact. Temporaq- construction impacts could adversely . Such With regards to beach access and access to the recreational fishing area, as noted in the environmental assessment, the road widening would eliminate a consi- derable amount of public beach parking. Without mitigation, this would result in apparent inconsistency with Sections 30211 and 30223 of the Coastal Act. Several alternatives are mentioned in the environmental assessment as mitigation, which if implemented, would result in no net loss of public parking spaces. would be a necessity to ensure compliance with Coastal Act policies. Such mitigation Hopefully these comments are of assistance to you; if you have any garding this letter or desire a meeting, please contact Chuck Dm District Office. L Very trul yours, dm questions re- at the Tom Crandali I District Di rector TAC : CD: am November 3, 1981 Mr. Earl Laupe California Department of Fish and Gme 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802 Dear Mr. Laupe: We have prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for the Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. In order to expedite processing, we would appreciate an informal review and written response from your agency at this time. Preliminary design for the project has indicated that there will be no dredging' of the lagoon and no placement of fill within a wetland habitat area. The preferred design concept is for a clear-span structure. Also, the project will not interfere with access to the Encina fishing area. Actual work in the lagoon will bc limited to removal of the existing bridge piers and setting of temporary falsework during construction. Construction will be limited to the months of October to March, eliminating possible inter- ference with Least Tern feeding times. Enclosed are pre- liminary project pl ans. earliest convenience. We would appreciate a reply from your agency at your Very truly yours, Betsy A. Weisman BAW/c j j Enclosure NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants Inc 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego. California 32101 (714i 233-9707 H- 10 , APPENDIX I PISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND ROAD WIDENING FROM TAMARACK AVENUE TO CANNON ROAD CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Car lsb ad, Cali f orni a Performed by: NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92101 .... 1. HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project will result in: 1) replacement of the present Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge #57-C- 133 with a new bridge to be constructed at the existing alignment and widened to four-lane width to the west of the existing bridge and 2) widening of .the existing two-lane pavement to four-lane width from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. AI1 construction activities will be contained within the Area of Potential Environmental Impact (Attach- ment 3). Bridge construction is planned in two phases with a temporary 2 lane bridge to be constructed west of the existing bridge while the old bridge is removed. The second phase consists of construction of the eastern section of the replace- ment bridge on the alignment of the existing bridge. Following the replacement of the bridge, the roadway will be widened from its present 2-lane width to 4-lanes, extending fran Tamarack Avenue south to Cannon Road. Bike paths on either side of. the roadway and a parking strip along the west side are included. All project waste, i.e. old asphalt, concrete, fill, etc. will be disposed of off the job site, outside the APEX. The total project length is 1.19 miles. 1 PROJECT LOCATION The project is located within the Carlsbad 2 rea Corporate Boundaries, Township 12 South, Range 4 P a1 North, San 1 and 2). Boulevard, Avenue and pr oj ect is wide strip La& Luis Rey Quadrangle (USGS) (Attachments The project is located along Carlsbad between the center line of Tamarack the centerline of Cannon Road. The contained within an approximately 100' centered down Carlsbad Boulevard, formerly )II =he surface ind i ca t ed tion staff, st tation nl e if any State Highway 101 xl-SD-2-B, relinquished to the City of Carlsbad as shown on County of San Diego's Assessor's Maps 204-31; 206-07; 210-01. AREA OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The APE1 designated for this project was ,approved by FHWA Engineer Monte Darden on May 22, 1981 in the Caltrans District I1 Environmental Branch Office (Attachment 3). 31 and 50 htly more 1s of each ui ly exam- u? 1 materials. i: any new -I iously- RESUME OF SURVEY The State Hi st oric Preservation Officer , -127A Dr. Knox Mellon was contacted in writing on June 2,1981 t rench ing, regarding the presence of federal or state regis- source tered properties within the study area. Since e: actions he did not respond to the request for information, as outlined in our letter, we can assume no regis- tered properties occur within the study area. A copy of the correspondence is enclosed for refer- ence (Attachment 5). The 1980 National Register of Historic Places and Federal Register supplements thereto, the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976) . 2 and a listing of California Historical Landmarks (1979) were reviewed for historical and archi- tectural resources within the APEI. No registered resources are located within the proposed project APEI. The archaeological survey report for the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Replacement and road improvement was canpleted by Keith Polan, NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. in May 1981 (Attachment 4). One archaeological resource was located within the APEI. In addition to the APEI the survey included the fishing area east of the roadway on SDG&E property and all parking areas fran Tanarack Avenue on the north to Cannon Road on the south. Site SDM-W- 127A recorded in the 1920's refers to a broad one- half acre site at the junction of the slough and ocean, consisting of varied scattered evidence of camping with one shell concentration. The site is estimated to be buried to a depth of three feet. No field evidence of the site was discovered. A bridge evaluation form for the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge was prepared by Betsy Weisman of NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants (Attachment 6). This evaluation was reviewed and approved by Robert A. Clark for John Snyder, CALTRANS Architectural Historian, on June 5, 1981 (Attachment 6). He determined that the bridge is not significant from a historical architectural, or engineering perspective. No further evaluation of this structure is necessary. 3' 5. - RESOURCES IDENTIFIED I One recorded site SDM-W-127A is in the Area of Potential Environmental Impact. No cultural material from this site was discovered from the, surface field reconnaissance. As the record search indicated that this was a buried site and after consultation with the California Department of Transportation staff, an extended survey was performed to determine if any subsurface cultural material was present. Three backhoe trenches three meters long and 50 centimeters wide were dug to a depth of slightly more than one meter. ined for artifactual material. The side walls of each t.rench were scraped and examined for cultural materials. The soil removed was visually exam- The above techniques failed to identify any new archaeological sites or evidence of any previously- recorded site. 6. ACTIONS PROPOSED TO PREVENT SITE DAMAGE Since no evidence of Site SDI-210/SDM-W-l27A could be located during the survey or test trenching, it is concluded that the subject cultural resource is not within the study area and no further actions are required. 4 1. Historic Property Survey Report Prepared by: Betsy A. Weisman, NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 2. Personnel Involved in the Archaeological Survey Report 1981: Keith Polan, NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 5 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. U.S.G.S. Project Location 3. Area of Potential Environmental Impact- (APEI) 4. Carlsbad Boulevard: An Archaeological Survey Report of the Right-of-way for Proposed Bridge and Street Improvements between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California. Correspondence with State Historic Preservation Officer 5. 6. Bridge Evaluation Form 6 NEW HORIZONS P1 ;ling Consultants, Inc. Figure 1 Regional Location ~ I 1 Carlsbad Boulevard/Bridge Location (Bridge No. 57-C-133) (Portion of U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey 7.5' Quadrangle) I 8 XI<<. :.. -. ?? m 0 m a 0 n e 1 n v. nl I- m < C. rl 0 B s ff nl I- V n n 1 v) f e e n c :/' \ z m 0 m .d 0 n m 3 rt nl c-' I-. m < I-.' rl 0 3 : Li n m r V D n I rA 3- m R N m '; I I i i i i I I I i I i I ! I I i I i .. . ?- P :> L, B '. z m G X 0 N 0 2 v) V c-' m 3 1 1 39 0 0 5 rn- C k n m 5 rt rn TI P. r( 3 . c - z m 0 m rn 0 n (0 3 n C. F m m 5. 2 F 0 3 n m w V n rt I VI 9 m 0 W / I 5. D I In rn d SEE APPENDIX A AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT PROPOSED BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CAfiLSBAD BOU LEVARD OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 12 Memorandum TO : Heauquarters Duane Frink Cultural Studies Division of Transportation Planning ATTN : John Snyder From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - District l1 hbiecf Tarlsbad Boulevard Bridge Evaluation bustnosb und 1 ranspartotton &gent, Dot.: May 26, 1981 Rk I 11171-929051 Enclosed, you will find a bridge evaluation form for the Carlsbad Houlevard Bridge, located over the kgua Hedionda Lagoon in San ’ 3iec;o County. The evaluation was prepared by Betsy Weisman of :;et\ Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. Please review the evalu- ation for the bridge’s potential for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 13 stam of Callhrnia Memorandum to : Tin1 Vasquez - 11 Chief, Environmental Branch Dah * June 5, 1981 F'.Nat 11-SD-Gen 11171 - 929051 Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Evaluation As requested by your memo of May 26, 198,, the attac.,ed evdluation of the subject bridge has been reviewed and found satisfactory. It is returned herewith for inclusion *in the HPSR for this project. At tachmen t JWS :dah CWhite - 11 JCheshire c 11 VAbc rso Id Mi3,iltich D1, I' L- i n k JNS 11 y de r AMoo re DOTP File Environmental File cc : .. NAiC (bridqe ncimc-! or feature crcssed.) : Aqua Hedionda I ormer 1 y DSSCRIPTION: (Attac!i at least. cne side photo and one view of the deck along the cciiterliric:. ) TYPE (circle @ne) : TEMPORAR'I' - - STANDARD CULvErn TYPE OF SUE)EI?STRUCTUI4E: Cast irlylnct. - _-- .. - reinforced concrete - tee beam TYPE OF SUESTilUCX'URE: -- (zoncretc piers and abutments - on surcxl footings-- -- A t t i3c hmen t '6 .. APPENDIX A - BOllLgClARD: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVE?? REPORT OF TEE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PROPOSED BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD? CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA Performed for: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Performed by: New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92101 Staff Archaeologist August 7p 1981 One archaeological site, SDM-W-127A/SDi-2101 was iden- tified prior to the field reconnaissance. Apparently, two cultural components are represented at this site: Paleo- Indian (San Dieguito) and Early Archaic (La Jollan). These cultural deposits reportedly have a depth of approximtely one meter. However, careful examination of the surface, as well as subsequent test trenching in the area, failed to identify any evidence of this site in the field. Due to the negative results of the surface and subsurface exami- nations, it would appear that the proposed project will not result in impacts to the subject cultural resource. A- i Table of Contents ~WCTICJIII. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. PEOJBCT IxIcATIOlo A.D DmPTIm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 sauRcBsco~~Tm0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'4 BJKKGBQIROD Environment.oooooooooo..o~..~oo 5 Archaeology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Ethnography . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 19 History.. . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 .24 PIELDIIFIIIQDSo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 STWDYPQlDIBGso 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 -USIOHSo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 031 A -ii Table of Contents (Continued) Figure 1 Figure 2 USGS Location of.project Regional Location of Project MAPS: Map 1 Project Map APPENDICES: Ewe # 1 3 Appendix A: Project Map for Proposed Bridge and Street Im- provements Appendix B: Original site forms, SDM-W-127, SDM-W-l27A, and SDi-210, plus USGS Location Map . ,I. " y. On Hay 14, 1981, an archaeological survey was conduc- ted for a proposed bridge replacement and road improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard in San' Diego County. Following con- sultation with California Transportation Department staff, a series of backhoe trenches were excavated on August 6, 1981. The field reconnaissance and test trenching was performed by: H. Keith Polan, Project Archaeologist. BOA. An- thropology; archaeological experience in Cali- fornia. - LOCATIOIO AH) DESCRIPTION The study area for the following report is a linear transect ranging in width from approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to 90 meters (300 feet), and 2.01 kilometers (1.25 miles) in length located in. northern San Diego County (Figure 1). This area straddles Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road in the City of Carlsbad, California, as depicted on the San Luis Rey 7.5' quadrangle LOCAT ION L N I CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS -A- 2 Fig. 1 ': i r ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ CXRLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREAET IMPROVEMENTS -3 Fig. 2 (USGS 1968; photorevised 1975) in Township I1 South, Range 4 West (Figure 2 and Map I). sou- CONSULTED Prior to the field survey, a records and-literature search was conducted to identify any previously recorded sites within a 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) radius of the project area. The National Register of Historic Places (U.S. Gov- ernment 19761, the California Inventory of Historic Re- sources (State of California 19761, and the California Historical Landmarks directory (State of California 1979) were researched, all with negative results. Archaeological record searches were requested at the San Diego Museum of Man and the Cultural Resource Management Center at San Diego State University. Both institutions indicated the presence of recorded archaeological sites within and adja- cent to the project boundaries (Figure 3). The record searches indicate that one site (SDi-21O/SDM-W-l27A) is located in and adjacent to the southerly end of the study area. The exact placement of this site is difficult to discern, since San Diego State's - records show this site beneath the Encina power plant and the Museum of Man's records do not show any areal boun- A-4 darfes. Based upon the recdrds of San Diego State and the field notes from the Museum of Man's records, the probable location of this site is shown on Map 1, sheets 2 and 3. As can be seen from the map, the locations do not coincide. While the reasons for this are unclear, the locations shown reflect the incomplete nature of the records per- taining to this site. According to Malcolm Rogers' field notes, site W-127 consists of buried evidence of camping over a large area, with one shell concentration encompassing one-half acre. For site W-l27A, Rogers identified two cultural components consisting of San Dieguito I1 with a...a few scattered [La Jollan 111 cobble hearths" located at the junction of the slough with the ocean. The San Dieguito material is found at a depth of approximately one meter, while the La Jollan component occurs in the upper 30 centimeters. Environment The project area is situated largely on a sand bar at the western end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This lagoon presently extends inland approximately 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) in a southeasterly direction and ranges in width from 190 to 850 meters. Dredging operations by San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDGtE) have resulted in an average depth of 2.4 meters below mean sea level, although the areas beneath the bridges are deeper. The major drainage into this basin is' from Agua Hedionda Creek. At either end of the sand bar are precipitous sandstone cliffs (Miller 1966). Topographically, the study area exhibits relatively little relief, ranging in elevation from a maximum of approximately 15 meters (50 feet) above mean sea level (AMSL) at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue to a low of roughly 1.5 meters (S feet) AMSL along the strand across Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The majority of the study area is lined with large granite boulders used as riprap to retard erosion. These rocks provide shelter for numerous species of fauna such as Squirrels (- sp.), Pinnipeds, and lizards. Additionally, the area appears to support various avifauna such as Pelicans (Pelecanus sp.) , Gulls (w spp.) , and Pigeons (Calumba fasciata) . Virtually all of the study area has sustained sub- stantial amounts of disturbance from road construction and recreational use. This disturbance consists of rain gutters, landscaping of shoulders and adjacent areas, fences, paved and unpaved parking areas, and fire rings, as well as transmission lines from the power plant. Radiocarbon dating, supported by archaeological evi- dence, has shown that San Diego County has been inhabited for at least 11,000 years, and perhaps much longer. The date of 11,000 years is an extrapolation based upon the 9,000 year-old dates taken from three separate sites within the county (Moriarty and Broms 1967; Bada, Carter, & Schroeder 1974). Three separate cultural horizons for San Diego County are represented in the vicinity of the project area. These are often called by a variety of different terms, but will be identified here as the Paleo-Indian Horizon, the Early Archaic Horizon, and the Late Archaic Horizon. The concept of cultural "horizons" entails the assumption or belief in a common cultural adaptation to the ecology of a given geographical area which is independent of social or lin- guistic boundaries. The three horizons are represented by distinct differences in tool kits, land use patterns, and ~ method of environmental exploitation. Since the sites on A-7 i, , I, Q, and around the subject property appear to represent all three cultural horizons, this overview will summarize the entire cultural sequence for San Diego County in order to put the subject sites in their proper perspective. The sites represent what might be thought of as the culmination of millenia of human adaptation to the environment and re- sources of Southern California. 1. Paleo-Indian Horizon The oldest documented cultural horizon for San Diego County is the Paleo-Indian Horizon. It is characterized by the San Dieguito Desert facies, considered to have been an offshoot of the Clovis and Basic Ovate Traditions (Davis 1969). Malcolm Rogers first described this tradition as the "Scraper-Maker Culture" in 1929. Although he was in- itially of the opinion that this culture was preceded tem- porally by the "Shell Midden People" (1929:466), he subse- quently (1939,1945) reversed the sequence and changed the terminology, with San Dieguito replacing Scraper-Maker and La Jolla for Shell Midden People. Rogers later defined three temporal phases distributed over three geographical zones (1966t25-261, ranging in age from circa 10,000 years Before Ptesent (BPI to the advent of the Early Archaic sometime between 5,000-6,000 BP. Artifacts include scraper * A-a types, leaf-shaped knives, crescents, hammerstones, and crude chopping tools. Materials are usually locally available felsites or some other fine-grained volcanic material. Many theories have been postulated to describe the origins of the San Dieguito. Warren, True, and EudeY (1961) felt that they ,represented a distinct desert cul- ture, utilizing a generalized hunting tradition which had originated in the Great Basin area. He described the San Dieguito Complex tool assemblage as containing leaf-shaped points, stem and shoulder points; ovoid, domed, and rec- tangular end scrapers; engraving tools; and crescents. Moriarty, Shunway, and Warren (1959t2) interpreted this horizon as a Pre-Desert Complex, dating from approxi- mately 8,000 to 11,000 years BP, with a flake industry, well made knives, leaf-shaped points, convex scrapers, scraper planes, and crescents. Little evidence of grinding has to date been associated with these people. Davis (1969) saw the San Dieguito as a part of the Western Lithic Co-Tradition. The San Dieguito Complex is considered to consist of a pattern of related lithic in- dustries that existed in the Great Basin, throughout the desert, and in southern coastal and peninsular California as early as 10,000 years BP. These industries persisted A -9 for several thousand years with little or no change. Only a central core of tool types remained the same, while the other tool types reflect highly stylized forms. Althougb the San Dieguito were probably hunters, their generalized tool assemblage suggests that they may have also exploited plant resources in the coastal area (Moriarty, et al. 1959). Data recovered from the Harris Site seem 'to indicate that the San Dieguito also utilized shellfish. According to Warren, True, and Eudey (1961:12), "...the site is a very late San Dieguito 111, coincident with an extremely arid period. It is suggested that during this period, game became scarce and that the San Dieguito peoples were compelled to overcome their traditional avoidance of shellfish." The Gnvironment during the San Dieguito XI1 Period was very warm and dry. The Anathermal, or San Dieguito 11, is believed to have occurred around 10,000 years BP, and the Altithermal circa 8,QOO years BP (Miller 1966). Analysis of pollen from the Anathermal indicates that pinon and juniper were the dominant forest species of the S& Die- guito period (Moriarty, et al. 1959t8). The fauna associated with this type of semi-arid en- - vironment, such as deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, were probably not very numerous. This hypothesized scarcity of large game animals would have limited the San Dieguito's dependence upon this type of food resource, suggesting that their subsistence strategy would have been relatively de- pendent upon plant and/or marine resources, although the scarcity of grinding implements seems 'to belie this con- clusion. Moriarty stated that the primary food sources would have been the pinon pine nut, various water fowl, fresh-water mussels, and local vegetation (Moriarty, et al. 1959) e Several researchers have interpolated San Dieguito settlement patterns from what has been assumed to be the subsistence pattern of these people, Warren, et al. (1961) suggested that since San Dieguito sites contain little or no bone, the animals must have been hunted from various outlying camps, and only the desired portions brought back to the main campsite, Warren and True (1961) state that though the Harris Site is located in a river valley, most San Dieguito sites are located on the tops of mesas and ridges, lack midden, and are usually heavily eroded. They further suggest that the small number of artifacts found per site is indicative of the small populations of these Camps, San Dieguito occupations are found from the coastal areas to the Sonoran Desert, except for San Dieguito 1, A-11 which is not found west of the Peninsular Range of Southern and Baja California (Rogers 1966:79), However, San Die- guito I1 and I11 are found throughout this range, The basic tool types and technology are considered to have changed with each phase, with the last phase - San Dieguito 111 - having what is considered the most refined and com- plex tool assemblage of the three, 2. Early Archaic Horizon The La Jolla Complex, which constitutes the coastal manifestation of the Early Archaic, is distinguished from the San Dieguito Complex by a difference in subsistence pattern, consisting of a change in primary emphasis away from hunting to a gathering economy, The presence of num- erous manos and metates (grinding implements), in addition to quite extensive shell middens, is characteristic of La Jolla-type sites. The La Jolla Complex is believed to represent actual migrations of peoples to the coast, bringing with them a gathering-based economy which was better adapted to the more arid inland environment than that found along the coast, This pattern was soon adapted to the gathering of shellfish along the beaches and la- goons, but was never very well adapted to exploiting the resources of the ocean beyond the low tide mark, The A -12 abundant supply of shellfish available in the lagoons and on the coast at this time made an increase in population possible, as well as greater aggregation of the population into large permanent villages located near the larger lagoons (Warren 1964). The transition from the Paleo-Indian to the Early Ar- chaic is not as well understood along the coast' as it is further inland, There are presently two defined complexes for the San Diego area during this cultural horizon: a coastal manifestation, known as the La Jolla Complex; and an inland complex known as the Pauma. Both groups used different resources; the La Jolla peoples used the local shellfish resources (Rogers 1966; Warren 19641, and the Pauma peoples exploited a large pinon resource (True 1958). It is, in fact, quite possible that these two complexes are in actually one, with the differences in their respective tool assemblages being attributable to seasonal exploita- tion of different microenvironments. Malcolm Rogers first suggested that the La Jolla Com- plex should be broken into two phases: La Jolla I and La Jolla 11, This partition is based upon differences in burial practices and artifact assemblages (Rogers 1945) 1 . It has subsequently been suggested that these differences . were not really phases, but rather, "..,seasonal and eco- nomic differences or differences (Moriarty, et al. 1959t162). in' the artifact sample..." Warren interprets the development of the La Jolla Complex as being more ecologically conditioned. His scheme for this development would be as follows (Warren 1964) : Period I: San Dieguito Period 11: B.C. 6,000 to ca. B.C. 3,000, the initial date of the La Jolla Complex on the San Diego coast. The terminal date is defined by an ecological change that resulted in a reduction in the size and depth of the coastal lagoons caused by heavy silting, resulting in a drastic reduc- tion in the supply of shellfish. Period 1118 B.C. 3,000 to A.D. 1,300.. This is the most poorly documented of the three periods; the terminal date is tentatively set at the be- ginning of marked cultural influences from the east, represented by the introduction of ceramic technology into this area. Furthermore, each period is divided into cultural stages. Period I1 is divided into the Adaptive Collection Stage and the Incipient Maritime Stage. During the Adap- tive Collection Stage, a small population is posited to have entered the area from the interior regions. This stage is considered to be one of transition, entailing an adaptation of subsistence strategies to the resources of the coastal areas. Representative sites would include Batiquitos Lagoon (Warren 1964; Warren and True 1961) and the Scripps Estates Site (Moriarty, et al. 1959). Typical A- 14 period, Period 111 represents a time of readjustment to the new environmental conditions which were actually still in a state of flux until perhaps 1,000 B.C. in some areas. There was also another movement of peoples from the east toward the Peninsular Range Province of Southern Califor- nia, During this period, there was a continuing shift from lagoon-oriented exploitation to a greater dependence upon river valley resources as the lagoons continued to silt in. In summary, the uniting factor for the above-mentioned complexes is not limited to the advent of milling technol- ogy, but is rather an aura of a gathering economy reflected by the entire artifact assemblage and the faunal remains present in the sites. While shellfish remains and/or milling stones are common, there is an extreme paucity of hunting equipment, as well as an absence of the remains of game animals. This gathering economy apparently was not originally adapted to the ecology of the coast, and it has been hypothesized that the coastal cultures originated in the interior desert areas and followed the river drainages to the coast (Meighan 1959;' Osborne 1958). The current lacunae in the data from the interior, as well as from the coast, makes it virtually impossible to confirm or refute this hypothesis, however. The obvious similarities between A-16 such complexes as Pinto, Gypsum, Cochise, and the early gathering complexes of the Southern California coast cer- tainly suggest some sort of relationship, but until these complexes are better defined and have been adequately dated, these relationships will remain nothing more than tantalizing possibilities. 3. Late Archaic Cultural Horizon The Late Archaic Horizon is manifested in Northern San Diego County by various phases of the San Luis Rey Complex (Meighan 1954; True, et al. 1973). As with many complexes, it is divided into two phases: the San Luis Rey I and San Luis Rey 11.. The people of this complex were probably the direct ancestors of the present-day Luiseno Indians. The first phase, San Luis Rey I, is contemporaneous with Rogers' Yuman I1 typology for Southern San Diego County (Rogers 1945) This phase is exemplified by the following assemblage of tools and artifacts: bedrock and portable metates and mortars, unifacial and bifacial oval manos, pestles, doughnut-shaped stones, finely-made tri- angular projectile points, stone pendants, Olivella discs, quartz crystals, deer bone awls, cannon bones, and bone and antler flakers (Warren 1964:207) . Unfortunately, the exact settlement pattern and subsistence scheduling for this A-17 f-. .. 1 ,.." phase have yet to be worked out. Meighan (1954t222) date8 this phase as starting about A.D. 1400 and ending ca. A,D. 1750, However, these dates have since been moved back so that now the San Luis Rey I is believed to have been from approximately A,D. 500 to A.D. 1500 (True, et al. 19731, In any case, it has been reported that no San Luis Rey I sites have been recorded in the Coastal Province of San Diego County, although sites containing pottery havebeen found in association with tools typical of the La Jollan culture (Warren 1964t208) . The San Luis Rey If Phase is placed by True, et al. (1973) at between A.D. 1500 and A,D, 1800. The area cov- ered same as that known for by this group was probably the the historic Luiseno, The artifact assemblage included bedrock grinding features, manos, triangular projectile points, bifacial knives, scrapers, scraper planes, arrow- shaft straighteners, bone awls, QlUelb beads, - discs, clay pipes, clay figurines, and pottery vessels. There is some question BS to when pottery first arrived in this area; Meighan postulates a date of about A.D. lS00, True indicates that the people of this phase probably exhibited a cultural pattern similar to that of the his- toric Luiseno (True, et al. 19731, which included a pattern of seasonal exploitation of local environments a8 they moved through the area that was defined as their own, Villages were located at either lower-elevation foothills in the winter or higher-elevation mountains in the summer, All of this was contained within a relatively very small and clearly defined territory. Each of the seasonal camps had associated processing stations .and camp sites, Most of the village sites supported a population of from 100 to 200 individuals (White 1963) , Such a population density would seem to suggest that a village of this size would have been forced to maximize its exploitation of the local environ- ment in order to support its population. The cultural recipients of the San Luis Rey Complex are the Luiseno, a term given by the Spanish to the people living near the Mission Sm.Luis Rey de Francia, Linguis- tically, the Luiseno belong to the Shoshonean language family, which relates them to the Cahuilla, Cupeno, Gab- rieleno, and the Capistrano, although they are believed to have recieved some asFects of their material culture from the Diegueno to the south, i,e., pottery (Rogers 19661. A-19 (,>. , .. . I. ‘r J Kroeber (1908) indicates that the name for their speech was Ne-tela or Cham-tela, A great deal of data have been gathered by various anthropologists to describe the Luiseno and their culture, As stated above, they are probably the cultural recipients of the San Luis Rey 11; therefore much of the culturual information for the Luiseno can be con- sidered analogous for the San Luis Rey Complex, .. To the Luiseno, the lineage was considered the basic political unit (Phillips 19351, Kinship, marriage, rights of succession and residency rules were all determined by lineage, Membership in the lineage was based on patrilineal descent, The vacious lineages were grouped into exogamous clans, which Kroeber estimated to number at least 80 indi- viduals among the Luiseno (Kroeber 1925)- Lineages from the various clans in turn formed endogamous territorial units that had political functions. White (1963:159) called these political units "Rancherias", which he esti- mated to consist of about 50 individuals, Commenting upon the political structure of the Luiseno, Kroeber (1925:688) stated that: R...it is clear that the chief was the fulcrum of the Luiseno society. The religious group was called a 'chief', the social groups were the 'children'. A chiefless family was nothing but a body of individuals. Chiefs headed up family groupsl although the one thing that is obscure is the relation of the chief to the territorial or political groups. Since there can scarcely have been several family chiefs of equal standing of the head of such groups8 and since the families were so small, they could not have been the sole political units. Possibly there were always chief-families, and in a large community, the chief of a certain family may have been accorded primacy over his colleagues.m While the principle of primogeniture was strong among the Luiseno, in that sons always succeeded their fathers as chiefs, when no men were available to replace dead leaders it was sometimes allowable for a woman to succeed to leadership. The Luiseno practiced the Chinigchinich (cf. Kroeber 1925, Boscana 1933) form of religion, with all of its cer- emonial and ritual behavior. It was considered a new faith, having come into the area at about the same time as Christianity (DuBois 1908). The efforts of the early Spanish missionaries to convert the inland Luiseno to Christianity only served to strengthen the belief in Chin- igchinich. The Chinigchinich cult came to the Luiseno from the islands of Santa Catalina and San Clementer first to San Juan Capistrano and then to San Luis Rey, "... and from there they brought the ceremonies and 'gave tolache' in all the upland Luiseno places such as Rincon, Potrero, Yapiche, and La Jolla, and carried the ritual to the Dieguenos of - Mesa Grande and Santa Ysabel. (DuBois 1908:75), This A-21 __ - transmission of the faith wsts brought about in large part through the proselytizing zeal among its adherents. The Chinigchinich was a secret religion based upon ritual and vision questing. "Acquaintance with Luiseno mythology re- veals altogether a loftiness of conception, a power of definition and of abstract thought, which must find these people claiming a place among the dominant. minds..." (DuBois 1908:74). The Chinigchinich ceremony also incor- porated the use of simple geometric sandpainting (DuBois 1908t71)r utilizing seeds or meal sprinkled over sand to form the designs (Kroeber 19251. Rroeber (1908) has indicated that the Luiseno had a wide-ranging system of rituals and ceremonies, besides that associated with Chinigchinich. One of these was the Moknic Ashwiti, or eagle ceremony. The entire ritual took about one year, during which the village chief raised the bird to maturity. It ended with dancing and rites in which the eagle was killed and skinned. The feathers were then made into a skirt which became an object of veneration. This ceremony often was associated with the death of a chief, and was usually given by his successor (Iovin 1963; DuBois 1908). It has been noted that the condor was employed in the same way by eastern Luiseno groups, while bald eagles ~ and chicken hawks were utilized by peoples on the coast A-22 - (DuBois 1908t182). There are other ceremonies which were performed in Luiseno society, dealing with such events as death, funer- als, mourning, longevity, and the initiation of boys and girls into adult life (Iovin 1963). The Luiseno also had an involved and intricate form of rock art, which may have been associated with one of the initiation ceremonies. The form taken by this art form is chains of diamonds, cross- hatching, circles, crosses, linear patterns of dots or straight lines, or any combinations of these (True 1958; True, et al. 1973; Iovin 1963). They are generally located on a single boulder and are in association with a specific v ill age. The Luiseno had a wide variety in their material cul- ture. Many of the items found in the San Luis Rey Complex can be found as well among the ethos of the Luiseno, some of which include: fishhooks, nets, fire drills, mortars, metates, manos, pestles, brushes, tweezers, digging sticks, food paddles, spoons, stone and pottery bowls, baskets, awls, saws, cordage, war clubs, throwing sticks, bows, arrows, slings, projectile points, knives, scrapers, and choppers, as well as musical and gaming toys (Iovin 1963). The above listing is of course only a small portion of the Luiseno material culture; some types of artifacts, such as A-23 i, ... baskets, can be broken down into at least twelve different forms a Economically, the Luiseno were similar to the people of the San Luis Rey 11 Phase in that they lived in semi- permanent villages and practiced a "seasonal round' form of subsistence strategy, Each of the villages were semi- autonomous units and claimed strictly defined territorial areas which were defended from all intruders. This settlement pattern changed as Anglo-Americans began moving into the area, forcing the Luiseno onto small reservations which represented only a small fraction of their former territory, Agua Hedionda Lagoon was first seen by the members of Portola's overland expedition in 1769, at which time the valley was described by Pr. Crespi as 'not very far from the shore, and at the end of it we saw an estuary although the sea was not visible," Apparently, the lagoon was closed at this time, since Portola's men referred to the smell, implying a closed system. The subject property was formerly a part of the Agua Hedionda Rancho, an early Mexican land grant of some 13,311 acres covering the hills and valleys between Vista and Carlsbad (Gunn 1945:12). The estuary is believed to have originally been named Santa Sinforosa, but this name faded from popular usage and the area became known as San Pran- cisco. When Rancho Agua Hedionda was granted to- Don Juan Maria Marron in 1842, both names were used (Davidson nod.). Against Marron's wishes, the land became popularly known as "Rancho Agua Hedionda', or literally the Stinking Waters Ranch . Captain Marron, his brother Sylvestre Marron, Sr., and other members of the family built several adobe houses on Agua Hedionda Rancho. When Don Juan Maria Marron died in 1853, his widow and four children inherited the rancho, with the exception of 360 acres bequeathed to Silvestre. The latter was also given grazing rights on all the rancho. The Marrons leased Agua Hedionda Rancho to Francis Hinton in 1860 for a loan of $6,000.00. In 1865, Hinton assumed ownership (Moyer 1968). Hinton, whose real name was Abraham Ten Eyck De Witt Hornbeck, died at the rancho in 1870. He had never married and he willed Agua Hedionda to his majordomo, Robert Kelly. In 1868 Robert's brother Matthew Kelly, Sr. moved his A -25 family to San Diego County. He settled a ranch adjoining that of Robert Kelly. According to John Kelly, one of Matthew's sons, the small valley where they settled was known as "Lo8 Quiotes", meaning the yuccas or the daggers -- referring to the shape of the yuccas)(J. Kelly n.d.). Upon Robert's death in 1891, Agua Hedionda Rancho was inherited by his nephew8 and nieces -0 sons and daughters of Matthew Kelly, Sr. "At the time the place were [sic] divided there were quite a few owners that were still single. There were sister Emma, myself, sister Jane and Robert J. Kelly and John Lo Kelly. They soon found a pardner and started in ranching."(William So Kelly n.d.1. From a copy of a map made when the rancho was being Civid- ed, one can obtain the names of the heirs: John L. Kelly Minnie L. Borden Matthew E. Kelly Francis J. Kelly Robert Kelly Lizzy A. Gunn Charles Kelly Meary Emma Kelly (Squires) William S. Kelly An agreement was reached on the system of division among the heirs. The parcels were designated on slips of paper and drawn from a hat by the heirs. There were three exceptions to the original agreement. First, Minnie L. (Mrs. W.W. Borden) and her husband asked A-26 for the parcel designated as Lot J. The home the Bordens built on their portion was later the residence of RON. Sheffler. There were also two parcels that remained as common holdings. One, Lot H, which includes the study area, was a strip of coast a mile or more wide, It in- cluded the lagoon area to the southern boundary of the grant. Some twenty years later it was sold to the same - interests who planned to build the Henshaw dam. The other common holding was a small rectangle, including the basal- tic cliff, and known as Calavera, It was sold many years later to W.S. Kelly, who owned the surrounding land (Friends of the Library nod.). , Except for Elizabeth Kelly Gun, who had married and was living in Julian, all nine heirs settled on the divided lands. Lot J, conceded to Minnie L. (Mrs. WOW. Borden) and her husband, was the first to be divided among the next generation. The inheritances were given out through the years between 1910 and 1920. Lots A and I were sold as entities by the original owners. In later years, a large portion of Lot I was purchased by W.S. Kelly and sons Allan and Horace. Lot B, later divided among second-generation holders, retained only one of the family as title holder in later years. When a f.irst generation daughter married, the name A-27 changed, which accounts for as Borden on Lot J, Gunn later holders names appearing on Lot D, Squires on Lot C, and Pritchard on Lot I. Second and subsequent generations added many more names. The Kelly name, however, was re- corded of the rancho, in- cluding Lots E, F, G, and L and smaller portions of B. Not so long ago among the Rellys still in the area-were found the names Allan, Carroll, James, and Irwin Kelly, whose homes were located in the central portion of the rancho (Friends of the Library n.d.). on' titles .of the central portion The lagoon itself has evidently undergone substantial changes since its discovery by Portola in 1763. An early railroad survey map shows the lagoon with the entrance at the south end. The present entrance at the north end is probably the result of highway construction (Miller 1966:37). The 1916 edition of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 5102 shows no connection between the lagoon and the sea. The first road in the study area was apparently a dirt road. In 1915, this road was paved and a concrete bridge built over the lagoon entrance. Several large storms in 1922 and 1927 cut the entrance channel to the lagoon very deep, and this allowed the lagoon to remain open tb the sea for several years, during which time the . sand bars and beaches at the mouth of the lagoon became A -28 popular picnic areas. An Air Photo Compilation Map dated January 1934 shows a channel and open entrance to the sea at the location of the present channel. However, the 1946 USGS map for the area shows a closed lagoon. Evidently, the lagoon was not open to the sea between 1946 and 1955, except for occa- sional openings by the. citizens of Carlsbad. The lagoon was permanently opened to the ocean in 1955 by SDG&E to furnish water for cooling the generators of the Encina Power Plant. Except for periodic dredging, the la- goon has remained essentially the same since then. The project area, as shown in Map 1, was intensively examined by means of a series of linear transects spaced approximately ten meters apart. Large portions of the survey area were obscured by heavy growth of succulent ground cover, paved parking areas, and the existing roadbed. These areas were examined as well as possible, although those areas lacking dense ground cover were accorded the most attention. Virtually all of the easterly A-29 one-half of the sand bar across Agua Hedionda Lagoon was examined. The exception to this was a fenced area immediately north of the power plant. Aft.er consultation with California Transportation Department staff, test trenching was performed in the southerly portion of the study area. This extended survey consisted of the excavation of a series of three backhoe trenches. The location of each trench was chosen so that it was accessible to the equipment and in or near the areas shown by the record searches as site area (see Map I, Sheet 2 and 3). The backhoe trenches were excavated to a depth of sliqhtly more than one meter, with length equal to approximately three meters and a width of 50 centimeters. The exception was trench number three, which was somewhat less than three meters in length, with a width of 1.2 meters to minus 80 centimeters, and 50 centimeters to a depth of 1.3 meters. During excavation, the soil being removed was visually examined for artifactual material. Following excavation, the side walls of each trench were scraped and intensively examined for the presence of cultural materials. A-30 ' SmDY PIIIIDII0I;s The above techniques failed to identify any new archaeological sites or evidence of the :previously-recorded site during the field reconnaissance, Additionally, the results of the trenching were essentially negative; no prehistoric remains were encountered, although what may be the 1915 road surface was located at a depth of 80 centimeters in trench number three, Since no evidence of site SDi-21O/SDM-W-l27A could be located during the survey or test trenching, it can be concluded that the subject cultural resource is not located within the study area, Additionally, the extensive disturbance of the area in question (i,e., the road surface encountered in trench number three) would probably have destroyed any cultural resources present, A-31 mS Bada, Jeffrey L., Roy A. Schroeder, and George F. Carter 1974 New Evidence for the Antiquity of Man in North Amer- ica Deduced from Aspartic Acid Racemization. Sm, 188~7910793 Bickel, Polly 1978 Changing Sea Levels Along the California Coast: An- thropological Implications. 3aurnalpfCalifarnia -, Vole S(1) :7-20. Boscana, Geronimo 1978 -. Malki Museum Press. Banning. Davidson, John nod. Names Used for Ranchos in Early Days. Newspaper clipping on file at the Serra Museum. . San Diego Museum 1969 W -+-em Lithic Co-Tradition Davis, Ema Lou Paper number 6. DUbOiS,. Co 19.08 The Religion of the Luiseno Indian. Universitvpf PublicationsinAmerican Archaealoavand m, 8:69-173. Eberhart, 8. 1952 ReDortpn Archaealaaical SurvevNearRinconU- dian BeServation. sanDieaoQ2unLYkcalifornia . MS on file, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California at Los Angeles. Friends of the Library nod. mstu nf m. Friends of the Library of Carlsbad. Gunn, Guard 1945 Rancho Agua Hedionda: Eome of the Marrons and the Kellys. Southern California ' Rancher, March 1945:12. Iovin, J. 1963 A Summary of Luiseno Material Culture. Annual RePart Archaeoloaical Pur-. University of California at Los Angeles. Kelly, John nod. Life on a San Diego County Ranch. Manuscript on file at the Serra Museum. Kelly, William nod. Agua Hedionda Ranch. Manuscript on file at the Serra Museum. Kroeber, A. 1908 A Mission Record of the California Indians. Univer- sitvpf-Publications In AmericanArchao- m, 8(1):1-27. 1925 The Handbook of Indians of California. Bureaupf m, Bulletin No. 78. Washington, DC. Meighan, C. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California prehistory. Southwestgrn Journal pf mology, lO(2) :252-254. 1959 .California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. mu, 24(3) :289-305. - Miller, J.N. 1966 -Eresent and PastMolluscanFaunas rind- ments pfFourSouthernCalifornra ' UaBkalLaaoons. MS on file at University of California at San Diego. Moriarty, J.R. and. R. Brorns 1967 The Antiquity and Inferred Use of Stone Spheres on the San Diego Coast. QGU ArchaeolaaicalSurvev Annual ReDort. Moriarty, J.R., G. Shumway, and CON. Warren . 1959 Scripps Estate Site 1 (SDi-524): a preliminary re- port on an early site on the San Diego coast. Annual ReDOrtf AtchaPoloaical UV~V: 189-216 . Moyer, Cecil C. 1968 Agua Hedionda Rancho Yield8 to Power Plants, Air- port, Homes. - U. Osborne, D. 1958 Western American Prehistory -- An Hypothesis. ican -, 24(1) 847-52. Phillips, George H. t IndianResistanceaw- UC Press, Los An- 1975 Chiefs rind -era 4xauZxAinsauthernCalifarnia. geles . An- 1929 Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. Al~rkUl Rogers, Malcolm J. -. Vole 31:3:454-467. 1939 EarlvLithic Industries& -Lower- pfm GQ.lQm&Rivernnd Adiacent m. .. San Diego Mu- seum of Man Papers, No. 3. San Diego. 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Sauthwestgrn iUiuMl pf -, lt2. 1966 Ancient Hunters Q€ fhe Ear West. Copley Press, San Diego. Universitvpf Sparkman, Philip S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. -, Vole 8(4) :187-234. PublicationsinAmericanArchaealoaY State of California 1976 California ' Uventorv pf Historic Resources. Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1979 California Historical Landmarks. Department of parks and Recreation, Sacramento . American Bn- True, D.L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County. m, 23(3) ~255-261. A-34 True, DOL., C.W. Meighan, and E. Crew 1973 Archaeological Investigation at Molpa, San Diego catians -, Vol. 11. U.C. Press, Berk- eley and London. County, California. IJniver-, Q€ Califarnla P_ubli- United States Government 1976 National Register of Eiistoric Places. Office of Ar- cheology and Historic Preservation. Warren, Claude N. '1964 Cultural Chanae bpd Cantinuitv M ma nieao Coast. unpublished PhD. dissertation, UCLA. Warren, C.N., and D.L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in California Prehistory, Archaealaaical Survgy Annual -, University of California at Los Angeles. Warren, CON.? D.L. True, and A. Eudey 1961 The San Dieguito Type Site: M,J. Rogers' 1938 exca- vation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Paper No. 5. White, R. 1963 Luiseno Social Organization. Ue+s UQ€ mubfQx- nFn cations inAmerican Archaealoavand Ethno!- wr 48(2) :91-194. A35 APPBXDIX A: Project Map for Proposed Bridge and Street Improvements A-36 . i 4 APPEHDIX B: Original Site Forms, SDM-W-127, SDM-W-l27A, and SDi-210, plus USGS Location Map A- 40 ...... NOTICE ...... Figure 1 contains sensitive information and has been removed from those copies of this report intended for public review. This illustra- tion is available from the City of Carlsbad. A-41 - - 1-127 TT: I$ LOCATIOH: loz-.thrart exid o? Xdlonda Block on the rip of the HedioPb. Slough (south {SD, - 210) L,, - 5 8IdO). B1eVo 50'. mmmt SD-I1 8md Lit. I1 HUB: Bone. < ' WATER C0mITIO~s: nonw. AREW There is buried 8c8ttercbd evidence of cmping over 8 great area hare with one shell concentration or 1/2 acre. an Intermittent nature. UCHITICCTUREt Lit0 I1 Cobble hOWth8 very acaree. BURIASS: None. TYPES Slough terrace camping of PSISOS: Bone. IllTRUSIyEs : 1oone. HISTORY: SD-XI people rirst ce~ped on this mndy flat along the slough terrace but ured practically no shell. gradually built R concentration of &ell not to exceed 14". mecUum rhell and charcoal content. Over thir the Lit, I1 people It 1s of R-S: evidence is strong in thir sits. TU- reurage began in Lit. I1 and became strongest during P-111. used without resharpea and this would account for the finding of with ones which show fresh marginal flaking. Max. depth 24? of which the lower 10" Is SD-II in age. Yetates and Yanos scarce. TU8 whole region produces reworked SD artifacts end the It would be atnral that some SD tools would be pithated felaite I% ccasionally wlthla a Lit. I1 midden along W-127-A SD-I1 with a few scattered Lit. 21 cobble hearths. This is on the 50' to 75' levels on the point of the Junction of the slough with the ocean. A11 SD-I1 is buried to a depth of 3' and Lit. I1 hearths occur in the upper 12" which has a shallow deposit of aeolian sand over it 0 A -42 SDi-210 Site form missing. A-43 HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY APPROVAL .. .. . .. . . . ;.: . .. ... . . . .. . .. .: .:,:-..,.:. . .. .:_.. , I ... . .. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION NINE! CALIFORNIA DIVISION P. 0. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 95809 MS. Adriana Gianturco, Director CALTRANS, 1120 N Street SRcranento, California 9583.4 Attention: Federal-aid Branch, Room 3309 for Lewis K. Wood Dear MS. Ginnturco: February 19, 1982 File : M-SlOl(4) Carlsbnd Ibulevard We have reviewd the Historic Property Survey Report: transmitted with your: letter of January 20, 1982 oti the subject: project. It is determined there are no properties on or eligible to be in- cluded on tlie National Register of Ilistoric Places within tile area of potential etlvironme:ital impact of this project. This completes 36 CFR 800 reqtiircments for this project. Sincercly yours, / --- G-d L -. Fn?r Bruce E. Cannon Division .\dminis t rn tor .. . .. ., .. .. ;-.. ..j ., . . .. . i '.. ..:i. ..* .,. . _. G Dc . Business and transportallon Agency From : DEPARSMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Local Assistance Subjea: Environmental Document Action The following action has been taken on the enviromiental docunent for Cad- i 5- 5 q. ?-.i i%s~svw-zJ I '- ;:.,. 7 Historic Property Survey ap?rovecl. -- (FIIIQA concurrence letter attached. ) Environmental Assessment approved for circulatioz by FHWA. Please return signed title page (attached) to Local Avency. FONSI approved by FHWA. Please return signed title page (attached) to Local Agency. Lewis K. Wood, Chief Program Branch C Attachment (s) DLA-300 (11/80) FEB 241382 .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX J .. .. .. .. RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ASSESSMENT FOR BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared for : City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Study Performed by: Betsy Weisman, Project Manager NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 March 1982 RISK STATEMENT I. Area of Consideration A. Setting The proposed replacement bridge is designed to cross the 160-foot wide man-made tidal channel of the Aqua Hedionda Outer Lagoon just east of the channel's connection to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). The permanent channel opening to the ocean was created in 1954 when San Diego Gas and Electric dredged the iagoon to provide a source of cooling water to the Encina Power Plant located to the southeast of the proposed project. The lagoon is dredged biannually by SDG&E to keep it open to the ocean. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is divided into three sections, an inner, middle and outer lagoon, all of which provide considerable flood storage. location is at the channel entrance just west of the approximately 900-yard long and 340-wide outer lagoon. At the outlet of Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the ocean SDG&E has constructed two rock groins. The sides of the channel, where the bridge spans, are lined with rip- . rap. The present bridge structure was completed in 1934 and is a two-lane structure of reinforced concrete construction with three concrete piling supports in the channel and a 160-foot span between abutments (Figure 2). The proposed replacement bridge is planned as a four-lane clear-span structure of 200-foot span, and will be approximately four feet above the existing roadway height. The new abutments will be 20 feet back from the The bridge 1 I Figure 1 Aerial View of Proposed Project Site I * 2 - Pacific Coast Highway bridge (looking uonream). This point marks the mouth of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. - Figure 2 Photograph of Existing Bridge Looking East 4 I) Source : July 1973, Floodplain Information Agua Hedionda Creek Pacific Ocean to Buena, San Diego County, California. Prepared for San Diego County by the Department of the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers. 3 existing channel on either side and this area adjacent to the water will be rip-rapped. The outer lagoon property is owned by San Diego Gas and Electric and is maintained as open space. , No public use of the outer lagoon water surface is allowed, except for a fishing area maintained by SDG&E. There are no residences or structures in the floodplain of the outer lagoon. The limits of the 100-year floodplain at the channel were determined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973 Floodplain Information Aqua Hedionda Creek Pacific Ocean to Buena, San Diego County, California) and the Inter- mediate Regional Flood extends approximately 3-4 feet beyond the water line (Figure 3). - The Federal Emergency Management Agency maintains a Region IX Flood Prone List for California, and the Aqua Bedionda Lagoon map, which includes the proposed project site, was dropped from the list in September 1981 as not being within an area of possible 100-year flood damage, and has a Zone C designation as a 500-year flood area only (Attachment 1). 11. Location Hydraulic Studies A. Potential for Flooding, Overtopping The present bridge elevation is 13.4 feet at low chord (elevation at bridge bottom) and 18 feet to the roadbed. The height of the water flowing under the bridge during an Intermediate Regional Flood (100-year flood) is estimated to be 5.8 feet and 6.0 feet for a 4 a a 1. Standard Project Flood (the most severe combination of meteorologic conditions reasonably characteristic of the geographic region, excluding extremely rare combinations). The proposed replacement bridge is designed to be four feet higher than the existing bridge (Figure 4) at roadbed level and the same as the existing bridge of low chord. Thus, the new bridge is in no danger of flooding. or over- topping. B. Encroachment on Base Floodplain The limits of the floodplain as mapped by the Army Corps of Engineers, 1973, extend approximately 3-4 feet beyond the water line. The existing bridge abutments are 160 feet apart and are at the water's edge. The proposed new bridge would be 200 feet between abutments, twenty feet beyond the water line, and at least 15 feet beyond the 100-year floodplain. Thus, the proposed bridge will not encroach into the floodplain. C. Risk Associated with Implementation As was shown in Section A, there is no risk of overtopping. Other risks include the possible obstruction to floodflows or possibility of erosion. Flood damage reduction measures which are currently used and would not be altered include chained logs installed by SDG&E at the entrance between the outer and middle lagoons and at the entrance to the outer lagoon which serve to aid deposition of heavy debris for subsequent clearing or removal. In this way possible damage to the bridge or 6 - Rt r. a C nl P OX pl wa Pl m ffx ww aft m WM ca FM mo MP am wo nlm r. am QX m r, m 0I-t < r. m3 WQ PW a95 ca -J Xl mo am r. o om 3m am t- ro 0 <m o, r. ELEVATION IN FEET (M.S.L. DATUM) i! iI 0 Iu w c VI 0 0 0 0 lagoon bank by high velocity debris is averted. Also SDG&E has constructed two rock jetties extending from the mouth of the channel into the Pacific Ocean and has lined the channel banks with rip-rap. The rock groins at the outlet of the lagoon serve to protect the shoreline and the banks of the lagoon from scour damage from possible floodflows. The flood damage reduction measures would remain unchanged by the proposed project. Where any additional area of embankment might be exposed, it will be rip-rapped in the same manner as the existing banks. The existing bridge has three concrete piers in the channel which create some impediment to water flows. These will be removed as the new bridge design is a clear-span structure which will improve the water flow through the channel and reduce impediments to floodflows. D. Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values The proposed bridge project will not change any of the land use in the project area, but will maintain the entire area in its present state. As the channel is man-made and lined with rip-rap, no natural vegetation will be disturbed. E. Probable Incompatible Floodplain Development The proposed bridge and roadway improvement will not result in any new areas for development and will not 8 increase any development in the floodplain as most of the floodplain is permanently under water, with only a narrow rim of 3-4 feet of floodplain beyond the water line, there is no area for development. F. Measures to Minimize Floodplain Impacts The project has been designed to minimize any pdtential impacts to the. floodplain by moving the abutments further back from the water’s edge, and eliminating the piers in the channel. G. Measures to Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values As there are no negative impacts to the floodplain created by this project, no such measures are necessary. 111. Summary The proposed project is a Low Risk project which will have less impact on the floodplain than the existing bridge which has spanned the same area since 1934 and has withstood reported damaging floods of 1938, 1942, and 1980. The proposed project creates no significant impact to the floodplain, no change to upstream or downstream flows, does not create scour damage, is in no danger of being overtopped, or washed out, and no possible cost ~ losses due to flooding would be anticipated based on the data provided by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers study. 9 ATTACHMENT 1 k .I FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Region IX 211 Main Street, Room 220 San Francisco, CA 94105 ON XX FLOOO PRONE LIS1 EALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA COmTY. NME . LAST REV. ComTY. NAME LAST REV. TYPE Corn.# C NUMBER OF RAP TYPE C0HR.l L CWY OF HAP , R 0606398 R 060001A R 060002A R 060003A R 0600958 0601 93A 06001 SA R 0602138 R 0603598 060021 8 R 0600268 06501 4A 060061 C 0603058 R 060097 060700A R 0603128 R 0601898 R 0602408 R 060098A 06501 5A 060077A R 060100A R 0602468 R 06027lA R 0602478 R 060102 R 060101 06501 6A R 06042% ADELANTO(San Bern.) 4-15-80 ALAMEDA COUNTY 4-1 5-81 ALAMEDA(A1amrda Co) 8-1-78 ALBANY~Alammcda Co) 2-1-80 ALHAmRACLos Angclcs) Hap Rcsc. ALTURAS(Hodoc Co) 1-2-76 ANAHEIM(0rangc Co) 6-6-80 ANDtRSONcShasta Co) P1-n ANGELS CAMP(Cal.Co) 10-31-78 ANTIOCh(C0ntra Costa) 12-2-80 ARCADIACLos Angtlcs) Map Rcsc. AR CATA.CHUmbo L dt Co) 7-1 -80 ARROYO GRANDE (S.L.O.) 2-6-79 ARTESIA(Los Angclrs) Hrv Rcsc. ATASCADERO(S.L.0.) 9-16-80 AlHERTONCSan Mrtco Co)Map Rcsc. ATUATER(Mcrccd Co) Map Rcsc. AUBURNWlaccr Co) 6-30-76 AVALONllos Angclcs) 9-29-78 AZUSACLos Angclcs Co) Map Rcsc. BAKERSFIELD(Kcrn Cc) 8-6-76 BALDUIN PARKCL.A. Co) Map Resc. BANNING(Rivcrsidc to) 10-17-78 BARSTOU(San Bern. Co) 2-1-80 BEAUMONT(Rivcrsidt Co)10-17-78 8ELLFLOUERCL.A. Col Map Rest. BELLCLos Angclcs Co) Map Rcsc. BELMONT(San Mate0 to) 8-20-76 AMADOR COUNTY 6-7-77 BELVEDERE(Marin Co) 5-2-77 R 0603688 BENECIAtSolanO Co) 5-31-77 R 060004A BERKELEY(A1amcda Co) 9-1-78 060074 BISHOP(1nyo to) 6-7-74 060438 BLUE LAKE(Humbo1dt Co)l-17-75 R 0602LBA BLYTHE(Rivcrsidt to) Rap Rcsc. 065017k BRAD8URYtL.A. CO) RaF: Rest. R 060066 BRAULEY(1mpcrial Co) MaD Rcsc. R 0602?48 BREA(0range Co) 12-2-80 R 060439 BRENTUOOD(Contra C0Sta)fibp Rcsc. 0603144 BRISBANEcSan Matco Co)5-24-74 R 0602158 BUENA PARKtOrangc CO) 2-1-79 R 06501 h BURBANK (Los Angc 1 cs) 1-23-81 R 065019C BURLINGAME(San Matco) 9-16-81 060017A BUTTE COUNTY 12-27-77 060633A CALAVERAS COUNTY 11-29-77 R 0606558 BEVERLY H1LLSCL.A. C0)RaG Resc. 060067A CALEXftOCImDcrial to) 10-8-76 060440A CALIFORNIACKcrn Co) 4-15-77 06w68A CALIPATRIA (Inper i a 1) 11 -1 4-75 R 060206e CALISTOGACNapa to) 9-28-79 06502OA CAMARILLO(Ventura Co) 10-24-75 R 0603388 CAMPBELLCSanta Clara) Map Rcsc. R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 060272A CHINOCSan Bern. Eo) Wag Rcsc. 0650218 CWA VISTAhn Oiegol5-14-76 060109A CLAREN0K)NICLos Ange1er)Hao Rcsc. OdOO27B CLAYTON(Contra Costa) 12-6-79 060376A CLOVERDALE(Soma Co) 2-6-76 o60041C CLOVIS(Frcsno to). 9-5-78 060249A COACHELLA(RSvcrsidc) 9-30-80 WOW58 COALINGA(Frrsno Co) 9-26-78 0603168 COLNA(San Hatco to) 06027% COLTON(San Bemidino) 9-17-80 O60022A COLUSA COUNTY 9-b77 060023A COLUSA(Co1usa Co) Hap Res. 06011OA COHMERCE(Los Angclcs) Hap Res. 060111A COHPTONCLos Angclcs) Hap Res. 065022A CONCORD(C0ntra Costa) 4-9-76 060025A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 94-77 060398A CORNING(Tchama Co) 9-26-75 060287A CORONADO(San Dicgo) 9-10-76 060250C CORONACRiversidc Co) 1-19-79 0650238 CORTE MADERA(Harin) 12-15-77 0602168 COSTA MESACOrangc Co) 6-27-78 060377C COTATI (Sonoma Co) 4-1 5-80 0650248 COVINA<Los Angclcs cO)Map Rcsc. 0600398 CRESCENT CITYCDcl Nor)9-26-78 060114C CULVER C1TYCL.A. CO) 2-1-80 060339C CUPERTINO(Santa Clara)5-1-80 060217C CYPRESS(0rangc Co) Map Rcsc. 060317 DALY CITY(San Matco) Uap Rcsc. 0604248 DAVIS(Yolo to) 11-15-79 0602881, DEL t4ARCS.n Oirgo) 10-17-75 065025A DEL NORTE COUNTY 4-4-70 060197 DEL REY OAKStMontcrcy)S-14-76 060078A DELANO(Kcrn CO) 10-17-75 0602518 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 06040% DINUBA(Tu1arc Co) 2-6-76 06036% DIXON(So1ano Co) 5-19-81 060443 DOS PALOS(Mercrd to) Map Rex. 065026 DUARTE(Los Angclcs CoIMap Rcsc. 0603638 DUNSMUIR(Siskiyou Co) 12-4-79 0602898 EL CAJON(San btcgo Co)9-15-77 060670 EL CENTRO(Impcria1 C0)Map Resc. 0650278 EL CERRITO(Contra 060040A EL DORADO COUNTY 1 1 -1 -77 060- EL PAS0 DE ROBLES(SLO)9-16-81 060118A EL SEGIJNOO(L. A. Co) RaD Rcsc. 0600058 EMERYVILLE(A1amcda Co)Map Rcsc. 0602901 ESCONDIDO(San Diego) 4-25-78 0603648 ETNA<Siskiyou Co) 3-4-80 0600621 EUREKA(thMbo1dt to) 11-14-75 0601048 EXETER(Tu1rrc Co) MaD Rtsr. 0601751 FAIRFAX(Marin to) 1-5-78 060370A FAIRFIELD(So1ano Co) 11-28-75 0604058 FARMERSVILLE(Tu1arc) 5-31-77 060445A FEWDALE (Humboldt Co) 3-26-76 Nap Rcsc. (Riverside to) 4-2-79 Costa Co) 6-1-77 08 CERRITOS(Los Angclcs MlD Rcsc. OF FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAW - COMM'UNITY NOT PARTICIPATING ALL OTHER COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE EREPCENCY PHASE OF FLOOD INSURANCE PRCGRAF 0 w APfROXIMATE SCALE 2000 3000 FEET . I MAY 31. 1974 OtPAR1MfWl OF HOvSlN6 AN0 URBAN OfVfLOrYfWT '000 - -'T-L-== -81 IWuIMCI IdnrEa~ 500 0 r FIA ROO0 HUM0 WUNOUY MU trntm om CITY OF CARLSBAD. CA (SAN OlEGO CO.) 03 I ~- CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS/ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES