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