HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-28; City Council; 14400; APROVAL OF CEQA COMPLIANCE AND AN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR DESGIN SERVICES FOR CANNON ROAD WEST PLANS WITH O'DAY CONSULTANTS INC. AND AUTHORIZING TRANSNET FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 3184* ,#
4
0 LIE
rii
!i
2
I- s
2
4
0 z 2 0 0
I
AB# I q; 4 Oa
MTG. / 8-28-y?
" -
DEPT. PW I cc: 0 ,-
CI OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA B~LL ., I ("2
I
TITLE:
APPROVAL OF CEQA COMPLIANCE AND AN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
DEPT. HD.(
CITY Any. AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR CANNON ROAD WEST
IMPROVEMENT PLANS, PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND COST
ESTIMATES FOR CANNON ROAD WEST WITH O'DAY
CONSULTANTS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF
TRANSNET FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 3184
CITY MGR. -
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 9 3 -6 $2 approving CEQA compliance and Amendment No. I agreement with O'Day Consultants, Inc., for the design of improvement plans, project specifi
and cost estimates for Cannon Road West and authorizing appropriation of TransNet funds, No. 3184. 1 ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City has entered into an agreement with O'Day Consultants, Inc., for the design of improi
plans, specifications and cost estimates for Cannon Road West. O'Day Consultants, Inc. was st as the best qualified firm to perform the needed work from those firms that responded to the
request for statement of qualifications. As the design, environmental studies and negotiatior
resource agencies have proceeded, the need for an amendment expanding the scope of work pr
under that contract surfaced. An amendment to include preparation of additional information to environmental permits, perform the mitigations required by those permits, provide informat
required by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company to design utility and roadway crossir
include a grading plan only design to accept fill material made available by the Carltas Compar
developers of Carlsbad Ranch and to address items raised in the design process not included
original scope is included in the amendment. Contracts with O'Day Consultants, Inc., and ' contractors were combined with the April 22, 1997 agreement to improve project coordination previously paid to these contractors are reflected in the Fiscal Impact section.
O'Day Consultants, Inc., is currently performing the design work as required for the Cannon
and design changes that have caused the change in scope and delayed completion of the design
The O'Day Consultants, Inc., design services Scope of Work has been revised to include the foll new tasks (Task Vl-X) and the deletion of an original design task (Task 11):
Deletion of Task 11: Design of Borrow site Lot 5 CT 94-09-1 Carlsbad Ranch plans, specificatior estimates.
Addition of the following tasks:
Task VI: Provide information and revise plans as required by the regulatory agencies.
Task VII: Provide information and revise plans as required by San Diego Gas and E
widening project in a timely and professional manner. There have been several unpredictable
Company.
Task VIII: Design of the Vertical Drain System plans, specifications and estimates for
Hedionda Channel Bridge.
Task IX: Design El Camino Real widening transitions and access roads and prepare rl
plats, legals, plans, specifications and estimates.
Task X: Design a grading and erosion control plan for Reach 1 from LEG0 Drive to S
65+00.
.) 7
3 PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL !P 0. ) '1, LI 00 0
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The project is the improvement plans, project specifications, and cost estimates for Cannot reaches I and 11. Although the plans and specifications will not have impacts to the environmc ultimate construction of Cannon Road reaches one and two has the potential of having enviror impacts. Those potential impacts have been reviewed consistent with CEQA. Cannon R identified in the General Plan as a circulation element roadway and as such was included in the EIR (MEIR 93-01) for the General Plan update. Reach one impacts were analyzed in the Cannol Reach I Environmental Impact Report (EIR 87-2) which was certified City Council Resolution 1
(EIR 83-04) which was approved by the City Council on November 15, 1983, and a Mitigated Nc Declaration issued by the Planning Director in September 1996. impacts to the environment id1 as significant within these documents can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The mi. measures are described within mitigation monitoring and reporting programs.
212 Cannon Road Reach II impacts were analyzed in the Kelly Ranch Environmental Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost estimate for the project design tasks is as follows:
The project is funded by CFD No. 1, TransNet and the Cannon Road West Fee Program. 1 Cannon Road project is currently ahead of schedule due to the ability to grade in advance of C project schedules, thus staff is recommending proceeding with portions of the project origin: budgeted in the 1998-99 fiscal year. Staff is, therefore, requesting authorization for the Finar Director to appropriate the 1998-99 Capital Improvement Program TransNet Highway 78 fur allocated for this project in the amount of $1,431,000. Authorization to request these funds early 1 been granted by the San Diego Association of Governments, which administers the disbursemt process.
Total Appropriation to Date
$345,494 ESTIMATED REMAINING BALANCE 6/30/98
$5,072,643 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS TO 6130198
$3,000,000 Additional Estimated Costs to 6/30/98
91,000 O'Day Consultant's Amendment
635,850 Contractual Obligations
$1,345,793 Expenditures to Date
$5,418,137 REVISED TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO DATE
1,431,000 Additional Appropriations Request
$3,987,137
L 7
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL cm, 0. 1 qi yoo 0
In addition to the $1,431,000 being requested in this agenda bill, another $6,244,000 is sched appropriation in future years. This will bring the total cost for the project to approximately $12 r"
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map.
2. Resolution No. 93 *65& approving CEQA compliance and Amendment No. 1 to Agrl for Design Services for Cost Estimates for Cannon Road West Improvement Plans,
Specifications, and Cost Estimates with O'Day Consultants, Inc., and authorizing the F
Director to appropriate $1,431,000 from the TransNet Highway 78 fund to the project.
3. Amendment No. I to Agreement for Design Services for Cost Estimates for Cannon Roa
Improvement Plans, Project Specifications, and Cost Estimates with O'Day Consultants, In'
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, October 1997.
,
Nor ro SCALE
ll 0 6
1 II RESOLUTION NO. 97-652
2
3
4
5
6
7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AhlENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH O’DAY
CONSULTANTS, ING., FOR THE DESIGN OF TH€ IMPROVEMENT
PLANS, PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, AND COST ESTIMATES FOR
CANNON ROAD WEST, AND AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF TRANSNET FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 3184.
WHEREAS, The City Council has found that this project was described in the h
8
10
unmitigable effect, not analyzed therein; AND that therefore this project is within the scope c 9
93-01, EIR 87-02, and EIR 83-04 as within their scopes; AND there will be no signif
prior EIRs; and
11 WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed
12
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the project; anc l4
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring l3
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration EIA 96-02, the environmental impacts thc
15 WHEREAS, based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the City Council finds
le
l7
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment
l9
EIR 87-02, EIR 83-04 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration EIA 96-02 and hereby APPRC la
the implementation of the mitigation measures identified and described in , MEIR 9:
the Mitigated Negative Declaration EIA 96-02; and
20 WHEREAS, The Ci Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Oeclar.
21
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines anc 22
EIA 96-02 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accord;
23 Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
24 WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration EIA E
25 reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad; and
26 WHEREAS, TransNet funds are available for the Cannon Road West project; and
27
28 to provide these necessary services to the City; and
WHEREAS, staff has previously solicited proposals from qualified civil engineering
‘ e 0
1 WHEREAS, through a consultant selection process, O’Day Consultants, Inc., v
2 selected as the most qualified civil engineering firm; and
3
WHEmS, it is in the best interest of the City to approve the amendment to the exisl 4
WHEREAS, a mutually satisfactory fee for the services has been negotiated; and
5 contract; and
6 WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 to the consultant agreement with O’Day Engineering, I
7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsl 8
has been prepared and submitted hereto.
9 California, as follows:
10
2. That the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $1,431,000 of Trans 11
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
12 Highway 78 funds to the project.
13 3. That Amendment No. 1 to the consultant agreement between the City of Carlsbad
14 ODay Consultants, Inc., is hereby approved and the Mayor is authorized and directed to exe(
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
said amendment.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
111
Ill
Ill
Ill
ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
* e e
1 4. That the City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of the executed amendment tc
2 Engineering Department.
3
4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carisbad City Cc
5 held on the 28th day of October , 1997 by the following vote, to wit:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
P
L
- 4. 62-
ALETHA L. RAUTENKMNZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
0 0
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR
CANNON ROAD WEST IMPROVEMENT PLANS, PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES WITH O’DAY CONSULTANTS, INC.
This Amendment is entered into and effective as of the 4th day of
NQV’EMBER , 1997, amending the agreement dated April 22,1997 by and between the
City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as ‘‘City”, and O’Day
Consultants, Inc., hereinafter referred to as, “Contractor” for Design services for preparation of
improvement plans, project specifications and cost estimates for Cannon Road West.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the initial agreement, dated April 22, 1997 identified a scope of work
to perform the following tasks:
Task I: Design Cannon Road West
Task II: Design Lot 5 CT 94-09-1 Borrow Site
Task Ill: Design Borrow Site Village “I” Kelly Ranch
Task IV: 1 :1 Wetland Mitigation Area
Task V: Design Vertical Drains
WHEREAS, the parties to this aforementioned agreement desire to alter the
scope of work as follows:
Delete Task II: Delete task 2 to design lot 5 CT 94-09-1 Borrow site;
Add Task VI: Provide information and revise plans as required by the
regulatory agencies;
Add Task VII: Provide construction staking, field survey information, pot
holing and other ancillary services as required by San Diego Gas and Electric Company in
excess of those defined in the scope of work:
1
9/11 /96
1 e 0
Add Task VIII: Design a Vertical Drain System for Agua Hedionda
Channel Bridge and a Geotechnical Report Summary for Cannon Road West Reaches 1 and 2;
Add Task IX: Design El Camino Real widening transitions and access
road, plats, legals, plans, specifications, and estimates: and
Add Task X: Design a grading and erosion control plan for Reach 1 from its
easterly terminus at LEG0 Drive to the westerly terminus for Macario Canyon Bridge (Station
65+00).
WHEREAS, a supplemental scope of work and fee schedule have been
negotiated and agreed to between the parties hereto, and as shown on Exhibit 'ID" Scope of
Services and Exhibit "B" Fee;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants
contained herein, City and Contractor hereby agree as follows:
1. Contractor shall provide services as outlined on the attached Exhibit "0'.
2. City shall pay Contractor for all work associated with Paragraph 1 above, as
described in Exhibit "B" not-to-exceed $90,521. Contractor shall provide City on a monthly
basis, copies of invoices sufficiently detailed to include hours performed, hourly rates, and
related activities and costs for approval by City for Task VI and VI1 and lump sum based on
percentage completion of task for Task VIII, IX and X.
3. All other provisions of the aforementioned agreement entered into on April
22, 1997, by and between City and Contractor shall remain in full force and effect.
2
911 1 I96
i
*. 0 0
4. All requisite insurance policies to be maintained by the Contractor shall
include coverage for the amended assignment and scope of work,
Acknowledged and Accepted:
CONTRACTOR:
O’DAY CONSULTANTS, INC.
By: G/qm
Patrick N. O’Day/President -
(print namehitle)
November 7, 1997
DATE
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Contractor must be attached.)
(President or vice-president and secretary or assistant secretary must sign for corporations. If
only one officer signs, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or
assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering that officer to bind the corporation.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney n
BY -&pA+42ity Attorney qw?F
3
9/11/96
__ / ~LIFORNIA _,x_ . -,.- 4\,y-.-,%s.,'."y ALL-PUR ~ \ 4 a -,% - E - ACKNOWLEDGMENT - 0 ,~ .-. ,% * ,"* A,. , "Ad 4. \ ." . b .cc .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~ . * -,.*ppfi&-c , , I . ., =<.@&yA*\"6,i
State of California
County of Sa Diego
On September 30, 1997 before me, Cathlynn E. Aguirre, Notary Public
?
i
Date Name and Mle of Officer (e.g.. "Jane Doe. Notary Public?
,
(
personally appeared Patrick N- O'Day
Name(s) of Signer@)
9 personally known to me - OR -#Ei proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(
whose name(* i- subscribed to the within instrume
and acknowledged to me that hehhdhy executed th
same in his- authorized capacitym, and that t
his/kdtbksignatur+) on the instrument the person@
or the entity upon behalf of which the person@) actec
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
\ cott(
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevenr
fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: Bmendment No 1 Bmeement for Cannon Road West
Document Date: Undated Number of Pages: 8
Sigrier(s) Other Than Named Above: N/A
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
\
<
?
>
Signer's Name: Patrick B. O'Dav
3 Individual
B Corporate Officer
7 Partner - 0 Limited Il General
3 Attorney-in-Fact
Title(s): President and Secretan
Signer's Name:
3 individual II Corporate Officer
Title@):
3 Partner - Z Limited 3 General 1 Attorney-in-Fact
3 Trustee-
Ll Other: 7 Other:
,3 Guardian or Conservator LI Guardian or Conservator
3 Trustee
Signer Is Representing:
O'Day Consultants * Inc-
Signer Is Representing:
.-... . - - - " -. . . - .~. , -.. ,. ~.~ ,."""". .- ~ - ..
Q 1995 Natlonal Notary Assoclation 8236 Remrnet Ave.. P.0. BOX 7184 Canoga Park. CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-81
, .:-, - - - -_ .% ~~-" - .... .. " ." . __,_ ,-. -.,c ~C,,".." - .
- m
t m
X I
w
"
-
v)
w w
L
I- v) z
P
0 111 z 0 z
a
2 0
F
0 z
I- z W E n z W E a 111 0
n L
w
v)
w fY
5
0
03 N *" In 0 In * b In * tt) cn (I)
69 s-
o? o? m r 69
0 0 I-
s
In 7 ? ? 4! s s s
0
7 2 z 0 In
m 64 tt) In
In b
04 64
03 a? N- 2 69 s 0 0)
s s s s 0 0 0 d 2 m m
zw m a3 b In 02 2 In
T- b 5: $2
s g g W
cu c9 m- 0 om T- €e 69 d 69 m
ws 69 3 22
W U
>
W z
s
(3 N * In 0 In
vj
In In c9 0
0- 0, b cv 69 69
d 0 0
c3 tt) P
d
N
a r\l 9
v) w s gIn 5 Z 0
s s 8 0 I= s m 3
v)
cd
0 b 0 In *- o? ? 7
7 69 g 63
wc3z 3
m -.I
5 z
2 s 2 s 0
7
a b 0 0 0 0 0
In 0 0 h! u A
N v)
I-
VJ tf,
Yo G 69
9 N- v. *- b- o"? ww LL (I) c3
KG ffl- YO
k!
2:
W s 2
63 Ff) 69
-0 m c- ma, v)K 8 .- ffl
&?g 0 2 .e C m ._ 0 G .e -= - ma FJ 0 2 Y
W- 0 a ffl Lo>" 8r !&g: m I-
v)
"' ge E 82 6 Eg 03 25 a
.I! ; 0
ffl-
+g q Sa
3 22 -?ij a, ffllQ z $3 - a. 'i7j Q~ + = Jg & 2 c .& 5 .E2 f 5 2& .. 22 vi
5 2
< a.E& %ZSa a=so ~
fflr.= 8 =E g)'ZzS
435 gg gg?$ E;@ @ g;&
gsc E cu.=
a a zznz gm za %$E y q 5563
Qa*E no? kG ga*$ Qaam
KV)
e 0
EXHIBIT “D”
SCOPE OF WORK AMENDMENT NO.l
CANNON ROAD WEST
TASK VI: PROVIDE INFORMATION AND REVISE PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
Throughout the permitting process with the regulatory agencies, changes to the plans
and additional information for the agencies is expected to be necessary to meet their
requirements. The City will contact O’Day Consultants when these items are needed.
O’Day will provide a timeline and cost estimate to be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of work. The City will notify O’Day to commence work. These items
will be paid for on a time and materials basis.
TASK VII: PROVIDE INFORMATION AND PERFORM SERVICES AS REQUIRED
FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Throughout the design process with San Diego Gas and Electric Company, it is
expected that design changes and additional information will be required with regard to
the transmission, distribution and gas line locations at their crossings of the Cannon
Road right of way. O’Day will provide a timeline and cost estimate to be approved by
the City prior to the commencement of work. The City will notify O’Day to commence
work. These items will be paid for on a time and materials basis.
TASK VIII: DESIGN A VERTICAL DRAIN SYSTEM FOR AGUA HEDIONDA
CHANNEL BRIDGE AND A GEOTECHNICAL SUMMARY REPORT FOR CANNON
ROAD WEST REACH 1 AND 2
A. Provide design details for a vertical drain system to perform consolidation for the
Agua Hedionda Bridge abutments.
1. Provide soils letter report with the design details of the vertical drain
Agua Hedionda Bridge. Provide the design details for the layout and
depth of the drains, preparation of areas to receive fill, drainage layer
materials and thickness of the drainage layers.
system necessary to consolidate the abutments for the construction of the
2. Prepare technical specifications in Standard Specifications for Public
Work Contracts (“Green Book) format and provide one original typed
document with twelve copes plus one disk in Microsoft Word during the 70
percent and 90 percent plancheck. At thirty percent plancheck submit
eight copies of the index and outline of all categories of the special
provisions. The specifications will reference the regional specifications
and modifications required by the project.
4
911 1/96
9 1)
3. Prepare cost estimate to be submitted with 50, 70, 90 and 100 percent
submittal.
4. Any changes to the Scope of Work items by the City of contradictions to
the assumptions for which the fees are based, will require a signed
change order form from the City.
5. Design of an instrumentation program (layout and detail sheets) for
monitoring settlement and stability of the bridge embankments.
6. Consolidate and summarize all available soils reports for the project (including the
three bridges).
TASK IX: PERFORM ADDITIONAL DESIGN WORK AS REQUIRED BEYOND THE
ORIGINAL SCOPE FOR EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING
1. Design of an access road to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District easement from El
Camino Real.
2. Design a modified traffic signal for the Cannon Road/El Camino Real intersection to
include the Carlsbad Municipal Water District easement access.
3. Design landscape and irrigation as necessary for the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District easement access road.
4. Prepare legal descriptions and plats for the additional right of way and construction
easements required for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District access easement.
5. Design of transition lanes for the widening of El Camino Real and associated
grading, landscape, irrigation, legal descriptions and plats.
TASK X:
DESIGN A GRADING PLAN FOR REACH I FROM ITS EASTERLY TERMINOUS TO
THE WESTERLY BRIDGE ABUTMENT FOR MACARIO CANYON BRIDGE
A PLANS AND ESTIMATES
1. Prepare grading and erosion control plans at 40-scale in AUTOCAD 13 to
be submitted for plancheck at 70 percent, 90 percent and 100 percent
completion to include storm drain, grading for the street, erosion control. 2. Coordination with Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
3. Prepare hydrology studies and hydraulic calculations for the design
4. Prepare erosion control plans for the project, using Best Management
5. Prepare a cost estimate to be submitted with each plancheck.
6. Prepare an earthwork estimate including shrinkage/bulking, alluvial
of the project storm drains.
Practices.
quantities and cross sections. The existing and finish grades will be
provided on a data disk. 7. Soils
am Perform Geotechnical plan review, sign and stamp the plans.
b. Review and make recommendations based on available
geotechnical information available for this reach.
5
9/11/96
0 c
SCHEDULE OF HOURLY BILLING RATES
FEBRUARY 1997
Billing will be based on the actual hours worked on the project, and invoiced bi-monthly
at our following hourly rates:
OFFICE ENGINEERING
I
Project Manager
89.00 Project Engineer
$97.50
40.00 Word Processing
55.00 DraftedEngineering Aide
69.00 AutoCad Technician
77.00 Design Engineer
FINAL ENGINEERING
3 Man Survey Crew
87.00 1 Man Survey Crew
135.00 2 Man Survey Crew
$1 80.00
CONSULTATION
$155.00 - PRINCIPAL
$1 55,OO
6
9/11 /96
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: West of El Camino Real, east of fbture Faraday Avenue and south
of Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Project Description: Construction of a section of Cannon Road, a major arterial, within
an alignment which was previously graded and surcharged.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in
the Planning Department.
A COPY of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty
(30) days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 20,1996
CASE NO: EIA 96-02
CASE NAME: CANNON ROAD REACH I1
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 20,1996 1hY-d-
MICHAEL J. HOEMILLk!R
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894
Evhihif A
0 a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: EIA 96-02
DATE: SeDtember 1, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CANNON ROAD REACH I1
2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: SHERRI HOWARD, Engineering
Department. 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 18,1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Cannon Road from future Faraday Avenue to El Camino Real,
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning 17 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
LJC I CKIVIIJUN 1 IUIV.
(To be completed by the Lead A d ncy)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tht.
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[x1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[7 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effectts) on the environment. but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately anaiyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed b?. mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
~L&t+Jt-iwiy.2 . %&!z.1'ityq' I I l7qQ
Planner Signature Date
41 I@/+ b Planning Direcfds Sigrkure Date
2 Kev. 03/28/96
e a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
, * 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
.’ 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #6)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (Source #4)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source #6)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (Source #6)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source #2 and 6)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #1 and 6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #1 and
6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #1 and 6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #1, 6 and 7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1,6 and 7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source
#1,6 and 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
B B 0 0
No
Impact
la w
w
!XI
!XI
El w
!a
1 El
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #1, 6 and
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #1, 6 and 7)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
7) 0 OB
0 0 Elm 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source ow
#1,6 and 71
g) Subsidence’of the land? (Source #1, 6 and 7)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #1, 6 and 7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #1, 6
0 0 nEl 0 0 OH
and 7) 0 OH
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (Source #7) 0 UN
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source #1 and 7) 0 OIX]
c) Discharge into- surface waters or’ other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #1 and 7)
0 0 OH
5 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (Source #I and 7)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (Source #I and 7)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #1 and 7)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source #1 and 7)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #1 and 7)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source
#I and 7)
0
0
0 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0 0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
OH
OH
UN
om
UIXI om
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #I,
6 and 7)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #I, 6
and 7) 0 OH
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (Source #I, 6 and 7)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #1, 6 and 7)
NU
0 OBI
0 0 OH
VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#I, 3,6 and 7)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #2 and 7)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(Source #2 and 7)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source #2 and 7)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source #2 and 7)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source #2 and 7)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #I, 2
and 7)
0
0
0
0
0
0 OH urn
0 om
0 OH
0 UIXI
OH
0 CIN
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (Source #4, 5 and 7)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #4,5 and 7) 0 0 OH
NU
6 Rev. 03/28196
< e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #4, 5 and 7) 0
(Source #4, 5 and 7)
and 7)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #4, 5
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source #1,6 and 7)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #1, 6 and 7)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (Source #1, 6 and 7)
0
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 0
chemicals or radiation)? (Source #2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #6)
hazards? (Source #6) 0
health hazards? (Source #6)
grass, or trees? (Source #6)
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #6)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #6)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source #S) n
b) Police protection? (Source #X)
c) Schools? (Source #8) i n
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (Source #8)
(Source #X) i 0
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #S)
b) Communications systems? (Source #8)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
0 0
facilities? (Source #S) 0
7
e
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
ow
NO
UKI
UIXI
OB Elm
ow
UIXI
0151
U[XI urn
wn u[xI
0
0
[XI
[XI w
[XI
0151
OB OH nw
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #S)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #S)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #8)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #S)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
0 0
0
Incorporated 0
0 B 0
0 B KI
KI E!
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source #6)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (Source 0 0 OBI
#7) El UH
c) Create light or glare? (Source #7) 0 17 OH
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #7)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #7)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #7)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #7)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source #7)
0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 OKI 0 0 OH
El OH
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #6)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source #6)
0 om
0 0 OH
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 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 or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 OH
!XI nu
0 OH
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
8 Rev. 03128196
e 0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03128196
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01 , by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The project is a road and will have an overall beneficial effect on the road system.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
10 Rev. 03128196
e 0
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
impacts is required.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The project is the construction of a portion of Cannon Road. The road has been included on the
General Plan Land Use Map and designated on the map and in the text as a Major Arterial. The
road is an important link within the City’s overall circulation system.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Major portions of the road have been graded and are currently in use for access to adjacent
properties. However, the full construction of the road will have some impact on adjacent
vegetation.
Those impacts were identified in a report prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in January 1996. Direct
impacts were identified as 0.16 acres of southern willow scrub; 0.14 acres of open water; 0.13
acres of disturbed riparian scrub; 1.47 acres of coastal sage scrub; 0.5 1 acres of disturbed coastal
sage scrub; 0.14 acres of baccharis scrub; and 9.66 acres of disturbed area.
Mitigation measures have been included within the report and are incorporated as required
mitigation for the project.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The City’s Growth Management Plan and the General Plan make projections on housing and
population. The completion of this section of road will only implement those plans which have
determined the maximum capacity for housing and population within the surrounding area. The
road itself will not be a contributor to increases in housing or population above what has already
been accounted for within the General Plan.
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
GEOLOGIC:
There are not active faults identified within the limits of the City. Soils preparation for the
development of the road will be per standard procedure which will reduce the potential for
impacts to the road once completed.
WATER:
11 Rev. 03128196
+ e 0
The road itself will not impact existing bodies of water other than the bridging at the eastern edge
of the project area at El Camino Real. Mitigation is expected to be applied which will reduce the
impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation will include obtaining a 404 permit from the
US Army Corps of Engineers. The road will also be designed to accommodate measures to
implement the National Pollution Discharge Standards which will capture harmful runoff from
the road prior to its discharge into Agua Hedionda.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
No impacts have been identified.
HAZARDS:
No impacts have been identified.
NOISE:
Noise associated with the project will be created by vehicles traveling the road. Construction
noise impacts can be reduced to levels of insignificance by scheduling work outside of the
breeding season.
PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
The project is a road and will not generate the need for services, utilities or service systems.
AESTHETICS:
The road is designated to pass Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the south side. The road can be
designed to take advantage to the greatest extent possible, of the available views.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
The road will not effect any known cultural resources.
RECREATION:
The project is a road and will not have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities.
Alternatives;
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant
adverse impact of the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse
impacts. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant
adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such
impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact.
Mitigation measures required as conditions of project approval will reduce the identified
potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels; therefore, no discussion of alternatives is
necessary.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
12 Rev. 03/28/96
f L 0 e
(NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas
Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Phone: (619) 438-1 161.)
1. “Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update,” prepared by the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department and certified September 6, 1994.
2. “Kelly Ranch Master Plan,” MP 174, approved September 18, 1994.
3. “1995 Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program,” prepared by JHK and
Associates.
4. “City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan,” dated July 1995.
5. “Biotechnical Report for Cannon Road Reach II,” prepared by Tetra Tech dated January
1996.
6. City of Carlsbad General Plan
7. “Kelly Ranch EIR,” dated 1983.
8. Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 8.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
,
I e e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The impact to 1.47 acres of undisturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.14 acres of baccharis
scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2: 1. The impact to .51 acres of disturbed coastal
acres of gnatcatcher occupied coastal sage scrub habitat or its equivalent.
sage scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 1 : 1. This results in a mitigation total of 3.73
2. Removal of coastal sage scrub, or other California gnatcatcher-occupied habitat should
not be carried out during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15- August 15)
3. The impact to 0.16 acres of southern willow scrub and 0.13 acres of disturbed southern
willow scrub, and 0.14 acres of open water shall be mitigated through an Army Corp of
Engineers 404 Permit and a California Department of Fish and Game Section 1601
Streambed Alteration Agreement.
4. To project adjacent habitats during construction, the limits of construction shall be
flagged, staked and fenced prior to the initiation of clearing, brushing or grading to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5. If least Bell’s vireo are present, construction shall occur outside of the least Bell’s vireo
breeding and nesting season (May 15 through July 15)/
6. The effects of stormwater run-off shall be mitigate through best management practices
including but not limited to oil separators and desiltation basins.
7. Construction should be initiated in the late summer, fall, or winter to avoid possible indirect impacts on nesting birds.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
4 /-
/a- /b- 4 7
Date ~~~ Sig&tdre// - -
14 Rev. 03128196
b ENVIRONMENTA Blh ITIGATION MONITORING CHEC at ST: Page I of 1
(v
ta Q,
9
9
clj cf ..
W
W mE
2rj
2
zn
ww dZ LLo W
s2 k 2
- - 6 3 E n a 0 PL
0 z
z 2 0
IiiF za 4n ZJ
o> ~6
wo
cfn
w
5E
a6
lpg
E# $
gE8
.- + E g % E5
.F' E
0 OQ +5 0 % .G z
.- +ma)
Kwu)
3Q
-1 K '5
520
.E m a, SF E
L+ $2 r: '5 -zu Fa,!? 250
Q'S 3
K
Qu- .r
6 .E ,O
000 m$ E 6 0,"
.- 'Z u x D a, .c- c cO 0 .E a, 0 (J-Js e * 5 m=
Q+ L
'cy K - .-
+ 073% KZL .- a, u uaz $E m 0 u- 6 "z e6 5
QajE
a,%E .- cos
& .o .- sk
*.- mrq 2 Er:- *rc 30
U-UN E $g s e3 Q.2
0 €5 .;;moa, m 00 m3
"v) a,u sa,
E"a,O -mag s Q, sEm$ a)" 0 ESg5 !=!=x0 Qa,*m .sE"a,
a, g E.2 m.5 s n .- K S.2 x 9 v&- - 0-0 mo 3.p03
+-E Er;;
X a,= a,.V,=
g? A
3 .- .tl 03
mo -
.-
C CS: a,E
FoSm
I II I I I I I1 * tn
m 5 c1
z 0 us
EQc
'E
Q,c
bg
E -
C
:E 0 W z sa cn 0 0 cn
SE z > Y Z
cn
a?
P m - h =0
II - 2 2 & rm
& c K K K BY F ra,
UI m C 'C E S .- ._ 0) S .- .- m .- K c a, .-
Ot ZT - h
.-
a W
Q, c1
.F.;z p €5: g e gc., gem
0*c a,a,a,o 0u 0s .%a)? 0sc $56 S
G3 +.g?K +-m --mu +-mu b ZK a) 2-z Q an, ana, ._ ._ bgE 2.G .- 5 2: 6: 6
8 0 0 ,O- - .= + .- L Qm 0" * - 0 .=
a c .- La, La) .- L
c1 .-
r" a, ~.~ .% 75 .l x .l
a m.2 n~ ~.Es% nm n O.E IHI I I I I I1
U a,S SL Om K+ Q DL .I- S a, a,
z 2 .E
u-m "a)U* y-un
a0 85 g5ii-o Eg s'c E
a, og
OL -oo~." Pam 00 um r"vj L b .g E uT am m-2 z62m 5$* $$ z.g Qa*E a,&3u
++ YO 73m -a-= C'=ko E (u - $u?8 :$mu, TI? 26 0
3 .sun mo (IJ
*%;E 2%: 522 "l zm ti .2 - s a za,".; a-zn 2
2* 25 cos iZ.€f! $ *Tii m, "'0 a,: x* ~Ls ~OQZY nmTF s
UP 5 .!! .- > cus m2.r a,w3g zg7Q
cnm Tiid - %.Eo r2-00 mo2- **"E .- w
2s no 0I.k - ~~0rnmc -x$! m L 0.e S a,m an2 -a702 -a* g
?E a, m " i-.r v) UT gz $&a
Kc
&$,o 0F gmuuS E .- >.E+ * .- 'c -pmn fg
!E IgmK mu ouuV)aL E$: a)0.= +K az +,*m C'.'"a,.2 +";3 .>a,* xm a) 5 L ea
0- =r ooO .=0a,
Emz* a,b m.E Q.2= E-m? - m+E ea)L v)KK +o zT QTga, ck$% F.25 L.2 *gS Q*a) a,m a=
a.EQ .EG $3 -yEzz + S
a) -
.-
0 -w
-0 a, a L " .- mvj 3 .E
m 2 sz n-0 ;; gg mz6 Q&zu - -s
0
m
J=0
- m
.G 7 m .o ([I CI
=mm a,+mea, a,a,-a,
QG
ma,
UOQa, az E-m !=.Eo &o$zg a,
.-
<yo5 mZ <no -Inn 6ocnOB I' I I I I I1
d
Y a,
c a,
- 5
._ E
c a, a, n In
.E m
F 3 (D m a,
E,
._ c 5;
:; 2:
sl
tic
m, .P 7 CC
3'
II .-
== c mz
EE QE a,= - - Eu ._ Uf
k
._ c a,
>
0
c
-
f
C
0
I: C 2 ._ i s a r -
C
C U e
i
a 6; > -L ._ - mc i: v,
gc g
Z$ .-
'- a n c c Ern"
= 0: %
'B c .e :: s
" c
s II i E ?&
* m
WFL
a, .; - Q 5
+
4 -
..
[R] +$ Vicinity
I TETRATECH INC. 1 No Scale Fic
I