Rio Park-Larson Field Pathway Project Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

C ITYOF C ARMEL BY THE S EA
RIOPARK/LARSONFIELDPATHWAYPROJECT
DRAFTINITIALSTUDY/MITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATION
CITYOFCARMELBYTHESEA
P.O.BOXG
E/SMONTEVERDEBETWEENOCEANAND7TH
CARMEL,CA93921
Preparedby:
60GARDENCOURT,SUITE230
MONTEREY,CA93940
SEPTEMBER2015
RIOPARK/LARSONFIELDPATHWAYPROJECT
DRAFTINITIALSTUDY/
MITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATION
Preparedfor:
P.O.BOXG
E/SMONTEVERDEBETWEENOCEANAND7TH
CARMEL,CA93921
Preparedby:
60GARDENCOURT,SUITE230
MONTEREY,CA93940
SEPTEMBER2015
TableofContents
I.MitigatedNegativeDeclaration
II.InitialStudy
Background&ProjectDescription...........................................................................................21
EnvironmentalChecklist..........................................................................................................23
1. Aesthetics..................................................................................................................24
2. AgricultureResources...............................................................................................26
3. AirQuality.................................................................................................................27
4. BiologicalResources.................................................................................................29
5. CulturalResources..................................................................................................222
6. GeologyandSoils....................................................................................................225
7. GreenhouseGasEmissions.....................................................................................227
8. HazardsandHazardousMaterials..........................................................................228
9. HydrologyandWaterQuality.................................................................................230
10. LandUseandPlanning............................................................................................233
11. MineralResources..................................................................................................235
12. Noise.......................................................................................................................236
13. PopulationandHousing..........................................................................................238
14. PublicServices.........................................................................................................239
15. Recreation...............................................................................................................240
16. Transportation/Traffic............................................................................................241
17. UtilitiesandServiceSystems..................................................................................246
18. MandatoryFindingsofSignificance........................................................................247
III.Determination
IV.References
ListofFigures
Figure1:RegionalVicinity........................................................................................................13
Figure2a:ProposedPathwayAlignment.................................................................................15
Figure2b:ProposedPathwayAlignment.................................................................................17
Figure2c:PhotographsoftheProjectVicinity.........................................................................19
Figure2d:Class1BikewayStandards....................................................................................111
Figure3:Vegetation...............................................................................................................213
Figure4:CNDDBOccurrencesofSpecialStatusSpecieswithin1mileof
ProjectStudyArea..................................................................................................................215
Appendices(SeeVolumeII)
RioPark/LarsenFieldPathway
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ii|C I T Y O F C A R M E L B Y T H E S E A
I.MITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATION
MitigatedNegativeDeclaration
LeadAgencyNameandAddress
CityofCarmelbytheSea
P.O.DrawerG
E/sMonteVerdebetweenOceanand7th
Carmel,CA93921
ContactPersonandPhoneNumber
BrianRoseth
MontereyBayPlanningServices
(530)2737154
broseth@ci.carmel.ca.us
ProjectSponsor
P.O.DrawerG
E/sMonteVerdebetweenOceanand7th
Carmel,CA93921
ProjectLocation
TheprojectsiteislocatedsouthofRioRoadbetweenLaderaDriveandMissionFieldsRoad,in
boththeCityofCarmelbytheSeaandunincorporatedMontereyCounty,California.See
Figure1.
NameofProject
RioPark/LarsonFieldPathwayProject
ProjectDescription
TheproposedpathwayisasharedusepathsuitableforpedestrianandbicycletravellinkingRio
RoadtoLasuenDrive.ThepathintersectsRioRoadnearthenortheastcornerofLarsonField;it
intersectsLasuenDriveattheMissionRanchtenniscourtdriveway(seeFigures2aand2b).The
totallengthofthepathisapproximately1,420feet.Approximately50percentofthepath
alignmentwouldbeonwhatiscurrentlybaredirtordisturbedlandcharacterizedbyruderal
vegetation.Another40percentisturfandusedasanactiveparkwithballfields.Theremaining
portionoftheproposedpathcrossesanareawithwillows,grasses,andothervegetation.
RepresentativephotographsoftheprojectvicinityareshowninFigure2c.
Physicalchangestotheenvironmentinclude:
Removalofsomevegetation(nonnativegroundcovers,turf,vines,willows,andafallen
cypressnearRioRoad)
Constructionofasmall(lessthan2feethigh)retainingwallalongaportionofthepath
inLarsonField
C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G & B U I L D I N G |11
Relocationofthebaseballbattingcageapproximately160feetnorthwest,nearthe
basketballcourts
Minorgradingtoinstallbaserockandtocreatesmoothtransitions
Constructionofthepathsurfaceandshoulders
Paintingofcrosswalks,withappropriatestreetsignage,nearthetwopath
ingress/egresspoints
InstallationofsafetymarkingsandsignageonLasuenDriveandRioRoadtoidentifyand
controluseofthepath
Installationofa6foothighchainlinkfencetoseparatepathusersfromtheJunipero
SerraSchoolplayground
InstallationofavehiclebarrierseparatingpathusersfromtrafficexitingtheMission
Ranchtenniscourtparkingarea
RelocationofafirehydrantattheLasuenDriveterminus
ThepathdesignispresumedtomeetClassIbikewaystandardsestablishedbytheStateof
California(seeFigure2d)overmostofitslength.Thisincludesan8footwidesurface,paved
withasphalt,andborderedoneachsidebya2footstripofturf,earth,ordecomposedgranite
atthesamegradeasthepaving.All12feetofthiswidthmustbeclearofvegetationtoaheight
of10feetabovethegroundforsafetravel.
TheCityhasnotyetestablishedtheultimatewidthandsurfacetreatmentforthepath.The
CitysproposeddesignmaydeviatefromClassIstandardsinlocationswhereexisting,mature
cypressoroaktreeswouldhaveoverhangingbranchesthatdonotmeettherequirementfor10
feetofverticalclearance.TheCityalsohasreservedthepossibilityofconstructingapaththatis
lessintensiveindesignthanaClassIbikeway.Suchapathcouldbenarrowerandmightbe
pavedwithcompacted,decomposedgranite(orasimilarmaterial)insteadofasphalt.
ReviewPeriod
September11,2015,through4:00p.m.onOctober12,2015
Comments
TheCitywelcomespubliccommentontheprojectandontheanalysiscontainedinthis
environmentalInitialStudy.Anyindividual,group,oragencywishingtomakecommentsorask
questionsrelatedtotheproposedprojectortheenvironmentalanalysismaysubmitthemin
writingtotheCityofCarmelbytheSeaattheaddresslistedabove.TheCitywillconsiderall
commentsreceivedby4:00p.m.onOctober12,2015.TheCityalsowillreceiveoralcomments
atapublichearingconductedbythePlanningCommissiononSeptember23,2015.
12|C I T Y O F C A R M E L B Y T H E S E A
T:\_GIS\Monterey_County\MXDs\Carmel\Rio_Park_Trail\IS\Project Vicinity Map.mxd (7/29/2015)
Monterey
County
Map Detail
Ri
o
riv
e
rive
Ro
ra
D
nD
ad
La
de
ue
Las
h
At
on
ert
ive
Dr
APN: 009531003000
Dolores S
treet
N
AP
:0
APN: 009531004000
10
52
09
0
01
00
APN: 009511011000
APN: 009521002000
mo
re
Pla
c
Mission Fields Road
Sy
ca
Legend
Proposed Trail Alignment
Parcel Boundary
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Limits
Source: Monterey County; 2015; Microsoft Aerial Basemap, 2010
150
Feet
300
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity
T:\_CS\Work\Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of\Rio Park-Larson Field IS 15-0030\Figures
C<IRII?fl MISSION
(il.~
wr.RJ,
.5U": IJ)
DOLORES
STREET
LARSON F!LD
MfSS/aY Qf?OiARO LOT
L-a. 7SUfl PC. 15
(Us
l or~
SEC. 1J)
MfSSIQV RANCH
RIO PARK
CITY a" CARMti

PARCEl. I
Ia. 7Sl:R.. PC. 15
(t.a. 9.22-QH. -2M)
(REl. 24116- 0A.-9$)
2.
~~~DCJI~~~~~~~~~~FVY:.E
E"ASfME"NT.
.1.
TR()CI(~ CAAH'riNt:: ~ AJdtJ EQUrPIENT ~ U5E" 1h' 1"/!'AIL

OOI.ARSOI'J/'(.DFr:fl~lll.l~.
~CAT5W71
~ PR:OIAD ~ FOR ffifSE" 17II:JCI('S. 7ISE
.5CUR'IT Ff]l)CE
Nft<_
CARMEl AREA
WAST.FWATD?
DIS!RICT
SHOMII I'.IIH PAI.fll/G.Al'I'"Il S7W'1'5 ~ ~
THE: rJIA'L
4..
~r:~ ~"f ~lllf~rri:~~~r ~~AST
!i.
TI-C CHAJN UMr:' niX: DJ(';UJ5WC 71-IE !Mml 1JIM( ,l,flll)
6.
A PORTION rT THE" soom 8ASBAU. RLD F'E:NCE ANO CA Tr llftt

!J Rf-,lll'JNflJ [A~ !MOM~) TO f'IICWO A'D'l?ONAI. QEARA!o/CE
CORNER
8ASXEmALl CCUU.
='~::z' ~ ~~~~CNE"D
!WOU?<! Y 7RACT
o-
TO PROVIDE
mEr- ml WI" H ICJIJI' ML 7lil'n
-I!IS-~ E'Nrllltr~
~OWAY
N~
TRACT
CAI?Mft AREA
STE"WATER
CARMa Alt'EA .WASlCWAJER' OfS71?fCT
STR'fCT
la.7~f>(;.IS
(litt': '"4-0.!1!-JT)
Source: Neill Engineers Corp.
80
80
FEET
160
Figure 2a
Proposed Pathway Alignment
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
T:\_CS\Work\Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of\Rio Park-Larson Field IS 15-0030\Figures
Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Not to scale
Figure 2b
Proposed Pathway Alignment
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
T:\_CS\Work\Carmel, City of\Rio Park - Larson Field\Figures
Western entrance to project site at Dolores
Looking southeast at the line of Monterey
Street and Lasuen Drive
cypress trees in the western portion of

project area
Looking northwest from south corner of the
Looking northeast from south corner of field
baseball field
along the fence line east of the baseball field
Figure 2c
Photographs of the Project Vicinity
T:\_CS\Work\Carmel, City of\Rio Park - Larson Field\Figures
Two-Way Class I Bikeway (Bike Path)
Source: Caltrans 2015
Not To Scale
Figure 2d
Class I Bikeway Standards
llriiiA11011L
FindingsandReasons
TheInitialStudyidentifiedeightpotentiallysignificanteffectsontheenvironment.However,
withmitigationidentifiedinthisInitialStudy,theproposedprojectwillnothavethepotentialto
significantlydegradetheenvironment,willhavenosignificantimpactonlongterm
environmentalgoals,willhavenosignificantcumulativeeffectupontheenvironment,andwill
notcausesubstantialadverseeffectsonhumanbeings,eitherdirectlyorindirectly.
Thefollowingreasonswillsupportthesefindings:
1.
Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential effects to a less than
significantlevel.
2.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the City of
Carmel General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and the City of Carmel Municipal
Code,aswellastheMontereyCountyLocalCoastalProgram.
3.
City staff independently reviewed the Initial Study, and this Mitigated Negative
DeclarationreflectstheindependentjudgmentoftheCityofCarmelbytheSea.
ProposedMitigationMeasures
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinadverseeffectsoncandidate,sensitive,orspecial
statusspecies.
BIO1
WorkerEnvironmentalAwarenessTraining.TheCityshallretainaqualifiedbiologistto
conductmandatorycontractor/workerawarenesstrainingforconstructionpersonnel.
Theawarenesstrainingshallbeprovidedtoallconstructionpersonneltobriefthemon
theidentifiedlocationofsensitivebiologicalresources,includinghowtoidentifyspecies
(visualandauditory)mostlikelytobepresentandtheneedtoavoidimpactsto
biologicalresources(e.g.,plants,wildlife,andjurisdictionalwaters),andtobriefthem
onthepenaltiesfornotcomplyingwithbiologicalmitigationrequirements.Ifnew
constructionpersonnelareaddedtotheproject,thecontractorshallensurethatthey
receivethemandatorytrainingbeforestartingwork.
Timing/Implementation:
Priortothestartofgrounddisturbance
Monitoring/Enforcement: CityofCarmelbytheSeaPublicWorksDepartment
BIO2
BestManagementPractices.Thefollowingbestmanagementpracticesshallbe
implementedduringallphasesofconstructiontoreduceimpactstospecialstatus
speciesandsensitivehabitats:
a) Thedisturbanceorremovalofvegetationshallnotexceedtheminimumnecessary
tocompleteoperationsandshalloccuronlywithinthedefinedworkareas.
b) Aconstructionbestmanagementpractices(BMP)planshallbesubmittedwith
constructiondrawings.Priortoinitiationofconstructionactivities,construction
BMPsshallbeemployedonsitetopreventdegradationofonandoffsitewatersof
theUnitedStates.Methodsshallincludetheuseofappropriatemeasuresto
interceptandcapturesedimentpriortoenteringnearbywaterways,suchasthe
CarmelRiverandassociateddrainages,aswellaserosioncontrolmeasuresalong
theperimeterofallworkareastopreventthedisplacementoffillmaterial.AllBMPs
shallbeinplacepriortoinitiationofanyconstructionactivitiesandshallremain
untilconstructionactivitiesarecompleted.Allerosioncontrolmethodsshallbe
maintaineduntilallonsitesoilsarestabilized.
c) Inordertoavoidattractingpredators,alltrashshallbedisposedofinclosed
containersandremovedfromtheprojectareaatleastonceaweek.
d) Followingconstruction,disturbedareasshallberestoredtopreconstruction
contourstothemaximumextentpossibleandreseededwithanativespeciesmix.
Priorto,during,andafterconstruction
Monitoring/Enforcement: CityofCarmelbytheSeaDepartmentofCommunity
PlanningandBuilding
BIO3
RiparianVegetationClearingMonitorandProtectiveSiltFencingInstallation.TheCity
shallretainaqualifiedbiologisttomonitorvegetationclearingactivitiesintheriparian
areatoprotectanyspecialstatusspeciesencountered,includingMontereyornate
shrew,westernpondturtle,andCaliforniaredleggedfrog.Inaddition,thebiological
monitorshallsupervisetheinstallationofsiltfencingbetweentheprojectimpactarea
andtheripariancorridorassociatedwiththeCarmelRiverinordertokeepspecialstatus
speciesfromenteringtheworkarea.Thesiltfencingshallbekeptinplaceuntil
constructioninthevicinityoftheriparianareaiscomplete.
Duringriparianvegetationclearingactivitiesand
throughoutconstruction
PlanningandBuilding
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonnestingbirds.
BIO4
NestingBirdPreconstructionSurveys.Ifclearingand/orconstructionactivitieswilloccur
duringtheraptorormigratorybirdnestingseason(February15August15),
preconstructionsurveysfornestingbirds,includingnorthernharrier,peregrinefalcon,
andyellowwarbler,shallbeconductedbyaqualifiedbiologistwithin14dayspriorto
initiationofconstructionactivities.Thequalifiedbiologistshallsurveytheconstruction
zoneanda500footbuffersurroundingtheconstructionzonetodeterminewhetherthe
activitiestakingplacehavethepotentialtodisturborotherwiseharmnestingbirds.
Surveysshallberepeatedifprojectactivitiesaresuspendedordelayedformorethan15
daysduringnestingseason.
Ifactivenest(s)areidentifiedduringthepreconstructionsurvey,a100footnoactivity
setbackformigratorybirdnestsanda250footsetbackforraptornestsshallbe
establishedbyaqualifiedbiologist.Nogrounddisturbanceshalloccurwithintheno
activitysetbackuntilthenestisdeemedinactivebythequalifiedbiologist.
Priortovegetationclearingorgrounddisturbance
PlanningandBuilding
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonspecialstatusmammals.
BIO5
SpecialStatusMammalsPreconstructionSurvey.TheCityshallretainaqualified
biologisttoconductfocusedpreconstructionsurveysinriparianareaswithin3days
priortoclearingand/constructionforwoodratandshrewnestswithintheproject
footprintanda100footbuffer.Ifnowoodratorshrewnestsarefound,nofurther
actionisnecessary.Ifwoodratand/orshrewnestsarefound,theyshallbeflaggedfor
avoidanceduringprojectrelatedactivities.Neststhatcannotbeavoidedshallbe
manuallydeconstructedpriortoclearingactivitiestoallowanimalstoescapeharm.Ifa
litterofyoungisfoundorsuspected,nestmaterialshallbereplaced,andthenestleft
aloneforatleast2weeksbeforerecheckingtoverifythatyoungarecapableof
independentsurvivalbeforeproceedingwithnestdismantling.
PlanningandBuilding
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonripariancommunities.
BIO6
AdditionstoPathDesign.TheCityshallincorporatethefollowingfeaturesinthefinal
projectdesign:
a) Abarriertoprovidevisualseparationbetweenthepathandsensitivehabitat,such
asanopen,splitrailfence,shallbeconstructedbetweentheproposedpathandthe
ripariancorridorsouthoftheprojecttodiscouragetrailusersfromentering
environmentallysensitivehabitatareas.Theapproximatelocationofthebarrieris
shownonFigure3.
b) Trashcansshallbeplacedatregularintervalsalongthepathinordertoreducethe
amountoftrashandrefusethatmayresultfromincreasedhumantraffic.
c) Informativesignsidentifyingnativefloraandfaunashallbeplacedalongthepath
educatingthepublicaboutsensitivebiologicalresourcesinthearea.
Enforcement/Monitoring:
PlanningandBuilding
Incorporatedinprojectdesign
CityofCarmelbytheSeaDepartmentofCommunity
BIO7
NoNetLossofRiparianHabitat.Foreveryacreofriparianhabitatpermanentlyaffected
bytheproposedproject,theCityshallreplacetheaffectedacreageataminimumofa
2:1ratio.Impactsshallbeoffsetthroughrestorationwithinand/oradjacenttothe
projectarea.
Followingconstructionactivities
PlanningandBuilding
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonjurisdictionalwaters.
BIO8
NoNetLossofWaters.Foreveryacreofdrainageditchaffectedbytheproposed
project,theCityshallreplacetheaffectedacreageataminimumofa1:1ratio.Impacts
shallbeoffsetthroughtherestorationand/orrelocationofdrainageswithintheproject
area.
PlanningandBuilding
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonunknownarcheological
remainsduringprojectconstruction.
CULT1
Duringconstructionforallgrounddisturbingactivities,aqualifiedarchaeologistshallbe
presentforanyactivityinvolvingexcavationandsoildisturbanceovertheentirelength
oftheprojectalignmentandanyequipmentstagingareas.Ifatanytimepotentially
significantarchaeologicalresourcesareencounteredorsuspected,themonitorshallbe
authorizedtohaltexcavationuntilthearchaeologistprovidesanevaluationofthefind.
Ifthefindisdeterminedtobesignificant,workshallremainhalteduntilamitigation
planisdeveloped,approvedbytheCity,andimplemented.Workmayproceedonother
partsoftheprojectsitewhilemitigationfortheresourceiscarriedout.
Duringconstruction
Enforcement/Monitoring: CityofCarmelbytheSeaDepartmentofCommunity
PlanningandBuilding
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinadverseeffectsonpaleontologicalresources
duringprojectconstruction.
CULT2
Intheeventpaleontologicalresourcesareencounteredorsuspectedduring
construction,theconstructionmanagershallceaseoperationatthesiteofthediscovery
andimmediatelynotifytheCityofCarmelbytheSeaDepartmentofCommunity
PlanningandBuilding.Aqualifiedpaleontologistshallprovideanevaluationofthefind
andprescribemitigationmeasurestoreduceimpactstoalessthansignificantlevel.In
consideringanysuggestedmitigationproposedbytheconsultingpaleontologist,the
Cityshalldeterminewhetheravoidanceisnecessaryandfeasibleinlightoffactorssuch
asthenatureofthefind,projectdesign,costs,andotherconsiderations.Ifavoidanceis
unnecessaryorinfeasible,otherappropriatemeasures(e.g.,datarecovery)shallbe
instituted.Workmayproceedonotherpartsoftheprojectsitewhilemitigationfor
paleontologicalresourcesiscarriedout.
Duringconstruction
PlanningandBuilding
Impact:Theproposedprojectcouldresultinpotentialsafetyhazardsforcyclistsand
pedestrians.
TRAN1
PedestrianandCyclistSafetyDesignMeasures.TheCityshallincorporatethefollowing
recommendeddesignmodificationscontainedintheRioParkLarsonFieldTrailTraffic
AnalysispreparedbyHatchMottMacDonald,datedSeptember9,2015,andprovidedas
AppendixC.
RioRoadTerminus
1. ConstructtheproposedallweatherpathonthesouthsideofRioRoadto
accommodatetwowaybicycletrafficbetweenthetrailentryandthecrosswalk
atAthertonDrive.
LasuenDriveAccess
1. LocatethecrosswalkacrossLasuenDrivetoprovideadequatestoppingsight
distanceformotoristsapproachingthecrosswalkineachdirectiononLasuen
DriveDoloresStreet.Thecrosswalkinstallationshallincludeadvancecrosswalk
warningsignsoneachapproachaswellascombinedBicycle/Pedestrian
(W1115)signatthecrossinglocation.
2. InstallatwowaybicyclelaneontheeastsideofLasuenDrivebetweenthenew
crosswalkandthenewtrailtodelineatetheareafortwowaycyclingonthe
eastsideofLasuenDrive.
3. InstallsharedroadwaymarkingsontheLasuenDriveDoloresStreetbikeroute
inconsultationwithMontereyCountyRMAPublicWorks.Markingsshallbe
limitedtolocationsalongLasuenDrive,andforapproximatelyoneblockalong
DoloresStreet.
Priortoapprovalofimprovementplans
II.INITIALSTUDY
II.InitialStudy
CityofCarmel
InitialStudy/EnvironmentalChecklist
Background&ProjectDescription
ProjectTitle
RioPark/LarsonFieldPathwayProject
ProjectLocation
TheprojectsiteislocatedsouthofRioRoadbetweenLaderaDriveandMissionFieldsRoad,in
boththeCityofCarmelbytheSeaandunincorporatedMontereyCounty,California.SeeFigure
1.
GeneralPlanDesignation
CountyofMonterey
ResidentialMediumDensity
CityofCarmel
OpenSpace/Recreation/Cultural
Zoning
CountyofMonterey
MDR/2D(CZ),MediumDensityResidential,maximumgrossdensityof2unitsperacre,Design
Controlcombiningdistrict,CoastalZoneOverlay;andMDR/4DSpTr(CZ),MediumDensity
Residential,maximumgrossdensityof4unitsperacre,DesignControlcombiningdistrict,
SpecialTreatmentOverlay,CoastalZoneOverlay
CityofCarmel
P2(ImprovedParklands)istheunderlyingzoningdistrict.TheLarsonAthleticFieldSpecificPlan
establishesallprimaryzoningregulationsandpermitprocedures.LarsonFieldisalsosubjectto
theArchaeologicalSignificanceOverlayDistrictandtheParkOverlayDistrict.
ProjectDescription
TheproposedpathisasharedusepathsuitableforpedestrianandbicycletravellinkingRio
RoadtoLasuenDrive.ThepathintersectsRioRoadnearthenortheastcornerofLarsonField,
whereitwillfeatherintwodirections.ThepathintersectsLasuenDriveattheMissionRanch
tenniscourtdriveway.Thetotallengthofthepathisapproximately1,420feet.Approximately
50percentofthepathalignmentwouldbeonwhatiscurrentlybaredirtordisturbedland
characterizedbyruderalvegetation.Another40percentisturfandusedasanactiveparkwith
ballfields.Theremainingportionoftheproposedpathfollowsanexistingunimproved
maintenanceroadborderedbywillows,grasses,andotherriparianvegetation.
Physicalchangestotheenvironmentinclude:
Removalofsomevegetation(nonnativegroundcovers,turf,vines,willows,andafallen
cypressnearRioRoad)
Constructionofasmall(lessthan2feethigh)retainingwallalongaportionofthepath
inLarsonField
Relocationofthebaseballbattingcageapproximately160feetnorthwest,nearthe
basketballcourts
Minorgradingtoinstallbaserockandtocreatesmoothtransitions
Constructionofthepathsurfaceandshoulders
Paintingofcrosswalks,withappropriatestreetsignage,nearthetwopath
ingress/egresspoints
InstallationofsafetymarkingsandsignageonLasuenDriveandRioRoadtoidentifyand
controluseofthepath
Installationofa6foothighchainlinkfencetoseparatepathusersfromtheJunipero
SerraSchoolplayground
InstallationofavehiclebarrierseparatingpathusersfromtrafficexitingtheMission
Ranchtenniscourtparkingarea
RelocationofafirehydrantattheLasuenDriveterminus
ThepathdesignispresumedtomeetClassIbikewaystandards,establishedbytheStateof
California,overmostofitslength.Thisincludesan8footwidesurface,pavedwithasphalt,and
borderedoneachsidebya2footstripofturf,earth,ordecomposedgraniteatthesamegrade
asthepaving.All12feetofthiswidthmustbeclearofvegetationtoaheightof10feetabove
thegroundforsafetravel.
TheCityhasnotyetestablishedtheultimatewidthandsurfacetreatmentforthepath.TheCity
hasindicatedthatthesedecisionswillbemadebythePlanningCommissionandCityCouncil
basedonenvironmentalanddesignconsiderations.Forexample,theCitysproposeddesign
maydeviatefromClassIstandardsinlocationswhereexisting,attractive,maturecypressoroak
treeswouldhaveoverhangingbranchesthatdonotmeettherequirementfor10feetofvertical
clearance.TheCityalsohasreservedthepossibilityofconstructingapaththatislessintensive
indesignthanaClassIbikeway.Suchapathcouldbenarrowerandmightbepavedwith
compacted,decomposedgranite(orasimilarmaterial)insteadofasphalt.
PlanningandEntitlements
CityofCarmel
ConditionalUsePermitandCoastalDevelopmentPermit
TreeRemovalPermit
OtherPublicAgencies
CountyofMontereyCoastalDevelopmentPermitandencroachmentpermitforthe
trailconnectiontoLaderaDrive
CaliforniaCoastalCommissionConsultationforprojectsinCaliforniaCoastal
Commissionsappealjurisdiction
CarmelAreaWastewaterDistrict
II.InitialStudy
III.
EnvironmentalChecklist
EnvironmentalFactorsPotentiallyAffectedbytheProject
Theenvironmentalfactorscheckedbelowwouldbepotentiallyaffectedbythisproject,
involvingatleastoneimpactthatisaPotentiallySignificantImpactasindicatedbythe
checklistonthefollowingpages.
Aesthetics
GreenhouseGasEmissions
PopulationandHousing
AgricultureandForestry
Resources
HazardsandHazardous
Materials
PublicServices
AirQuality
HydrologyandWaterQuality
Recreation
BiologicalResources
LandUseandPlanning
Transportation/Traffic
CulturalResources
MineralResources
UtilitiesandService
Systems
GeologyandSoils
Noise
MandatoryFindingsof
Significance
EvaluationofEnvironmentalImpacts
Eachoftheresponsesinthefollowingenvironmentalchecklisttakeaccountofthewholeaction
involved,includingprojectlevel,cumulative,onsite,offsite,indirect,construction,and
operationalimpacts.Abriefexplanationisprovidedforallanswersandsupportedbythe
informationsourcescited.
1. ANoImpactanswerisadequatelysupportedifthereferencedinformationsources
showthattheimpactsimplydoesnotapplytoprojectsliketheoneinvolved(e.g.,the
projectfallsoutsideafaultrupturezone).
2. ALessThanSignificantImpactapplieswhentheproposedprojectwouldnotresultin
asubstantialandadversechangeintheenvironment.Thisimpactleveldoesnotrequire
mitigationmeasures.
3. ALessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporatedapplieswhenthe
proposedprojectwouldnotresultinasubstantialandadversechangeinthe
environmentaftermitigationmeasuresareapplied.
4. PotentiallySignificantImpactisappropriateifthereissubstantialevidencethatan
effectissignificant.IfthereareoneormorePotentiallySignificantImpactentries
whenthedeterminationismade,anEIRisrequired.
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS
Issues,AnalysisandDiscussion
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS.Wouldtheproject:
a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenic
vista?
b) Substantiallydamagescenicresources,
includingbutnotlimitedtotrees,rock
outcroppings,andhistoricbuildingswithina
statescenichighway?
c) Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisual
characterorqualityofthesiteandits
surroundings?
d) Createanewsourceofsubstantiallightor
glare,whichwouldadverselyaffectdayor
nighttimeviewsinthearea?
Discussion
(ac)
TheimmediateprojectvicinityiscurrentlydevelopedwiththeMissionRanchresorttennis
courts,singlefamilyhousing,JuniperoSerraSchool,LarsonField,andtheCarmelMission,with
theCarmelRiverlocatedtothesouth.TheCitysRioParkproperty,whichcontainsaportionof
theproposedalignment,isundevelopedandhasrecentlybeenusedasamaterialsstorageyard.
ThispropertyalsoprovidesinformaltruckaccesstoseveralmanholesusedtomaintainCarmel
AreaWastewaterDistrictpipelines.Theproposedprojectrequiresa12footwideeasementto
accommodatean8footwidepavedpathwith2footshoulders.Theprojectwouldalsoinclude
a6foothighchainlinkfencetoseparatepathusersfromtheJuniperoSerraSchoolballfields.
Theproposedpathalignmentisnotviewablefromanycommonviewingareaorscenicvista.
Furthermore,theprojectdoesnotproposeanydevelopmentwhichcouldobscureviewsof
surroundingproperties.Therefore,theprojectwouldresultinnoimpactsrelatedtoascenic
vista.
TheproposedalignmentislocatedinthevicinityofthehistoricCarmelMissionandHighway1,
whichhasbeenofficiallydesignatedasastatescenichighway.However,theproposed
alignmentisnotlocatedadjacenttoHighway1andwouldhavenoeffectonthehistoricCarmel
Missionoranyotherscenicresourceswithinitscorridor.
Theprojectwouldrequireminorgradingwithintheproposedalignmenttoensurealevel
surfaceforinstallationofthepath,butsubstantialrecontouringwouldnotoccur.Theproject
wouldalsorequirevegetationremovaltoprovide10feetofverticalclearanceconsistentwith
ClassIbicyclepathstandards.However,theproposeddesignmaydeviatefromthisstandardin
ordertopreserveanymaturecypressand/oroaktreesoverhangingthepathalignment.
Therefore,whiletheproposedpathandfencewouldalterthevisualcharacterofthealignment,
thealterationswouldbeatgroundlevelandminor.Further,theprojectwouldbelocatedina
II.InitialStudy
suburbansettingconsistingprimarilyofresidential,school,andotherrecreationaluseswith
whicharecreationalpathwouldbeconsideredcompatiblebothintermsofuseandvisual
character.Therefore,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethevisualcharacter
orqualityofthepathalignmentorsurroundingproperties.Theimpactwouldbelessthan
significant.
(d)
Theprojectvicinitycontainsexistinglightingassociatedwithresidentialandrecreationaluses.
Theproposedpathwayprojectdoesnotcurrentlyproposenewsourcesoflighting.Therefore,
therewouldbenonewsourcesofsubstantiallightorglarethatwouldadverselyaffectdayor
nighttimeviewsinthearea.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURERESOURCES.Indeterminingwhetherimpactstoagriculturalresourcesaresignificant
environmentaleffects,leadagenciesmayrefertotheCaliforniaAgriculturalLandEvaluationandSite
AssessmentModel(1997)preparedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationasanoptionalmodel
touseinassessingimpactsonagricultureandfarmland.Wouldtheproject:
a) ConvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,
orFarmlandofStatewideImportance
(Farmland),asshownonthemapsprepared
pursuanttotheFarmlandMappingand
MonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResources
Agency,tononagriculturaluse?
b) Conflictwithexistingzoningforagricultural
use,oraWilliamsonActcontract?
c) Involveotherchangesintheexisting
environment,whichduetotheirlocationor
nature,couldresultinconversionofFarmlandto
nonagriculturaluse?
Discussion
(ac)
Theproposedprojectislocatedinanestablishedcommunity.Therearenoagriculturallandsin
theprojectareaorwithinthecitylimitsofCarmel(CarmelbytheSea2003).Assuch,no
developmentwouldoccuronlanddesignatedforagriculturaluseandtheproposedproject
wouldnothaveasignificantimpactonagriculturalresources.Therefore,therewouldbeno
impact.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. AIRQUALITY.Whereavailable,thesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairquality
managementorairpollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations.
Wouldtheproject:
a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationof
theapplicableairqualityplan?
b) Violateanyairqualitystandardor
contributetoanexistingorprojectedairquality
violation?
c) Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenet
increaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichthe
projectregionisnonattainmentunderan
applicablefederalorstateambientairquality
standard(includingreleasingemissions,which
exceedquantitativethresholdsforozone
precursors)?
d) Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantial
pollutantconcentrations?
e) Createobjectionableodorsaffectinga
substantialnumberofpeople?
Discussion
(ac)
TheprojectsiteislocatedintheNorthCentralCoastAirBasin(NCCAB),whichisunderthe
jurisdictionoftheMontereyBayUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict(MBUAPCD).InMarch
1997,theairbasinwasredesignatedfromamoderatenonattainmentareaforthefederal
ozonestandardstoamaintenance/attainmentarea.TheNCCABiscurrentlyinattainmentfor
thefederalPM10(particulatelessthan10micronsindiameter)standardsandforstateand
federalnitrogendioxide,sulfurdioxide,andcarbonmonoxidestandards.TheNCCABisclassified
asanonattainmentareaforthestateozoneandPM10standards.
ShortTermConstructionEmissions
Constructionactivitiesaregenerallyshorttermindurationbutmaystillcauseadverseair
qualityimpacts.Typicalconstructionemissionsresultfromavarietyofactivitiessuchasgrading,
paving,andvehicleandequipmentexhaust.Theseemissionscanleadtoadversehealtheffects
andcausenuisanceconcerns,suchasreducedvisibilityandthegenerationofdust.Emissions
producedduringgradingandconstructionactivitiesareshorttermbecausetheywouldoccur
onlyduringtheconstructionphaseoftheproposedproject.Constructionemissionswould
includetheonandoffsitegenerationofmobilesourceexhaustemissionsaswellasemissions
offugitivedustassociatedwithearthmovingequipment.
Becausetheproposedprojectfootprintislessthan1acreandinvolvesonlyminorconstruction
activityandgrounddisturbance,itisnotanticipatedtoresultinashorttermincreaseinfugitive
dustthatcouldexceedMBUAPCDsignificancethresholds(e.g.,resultingradingofmorethan
2.2acresperday)inaccordancewithairdistrictCEQAguidelines.Asaresult,fugitivedust
emissionsfromconstructionactivitiesarenotanticipatedtocontributetoregional
nonattainmentairqualityconditionsandwouldbeconsideredalessthansignificantimpact.
ConstructionequipmentcouldresultinthegenerationofdieselPMemissionsduring
construction.Exhaustemissionsaretypicallyhighestduringtheinitialsitepreparation,
particularlywhenaprojectrequiresextensivesitepreparation(e.g.,grading,excavation)
involvinglargenumbersofconstructionequipment.However,giventhesizeandextentofthe
project,largenumbersofconstructionequipmentwouldnotberequired.Becauseshortterm
constructionactivitieswouldbeverylimitedandareconsideredminor,theywouldnot
contributetoregionalnonattainmentairqualityconditions.Theimpactisthereforeconsidered
lessthansignificant.
LongTermOperationalEmissions
Operationalemissionsareconsideredlongtermbecausetheycontinueindefinitely.However,
theproposedprojectincludesapedestrianandbicyclepaththatwouldnotgeneratevehicle
tripsoranyotheremissionproducingactivities.Therefore,therewouldbenolongterm
operationalemissions.Additionalmotorvehicletripsrequiredforpathwaymaintenancewould
beincidental.Impactswouldbelessthansignificant.
(d)
TheMBUAPCDdefinessensitivereceptorsasfacilitiesthathouseorattractchildren,theelderly,
peoplewithillness,orotherswhoareespeciallysensitivetoairpollutants.Thesensitive
receptorsclosesttotheprojectsiteconsistofsinglefamilyresidencesandJuniperoSerra
School.However,asnotedabove,constructionandoperationoftheproposedprojectwould
notresultinsubstantialpollutantconcentrations.Impactsonsensitivereceptorswouldbe
consideredlessthansignificant.
(e)
Theproposedprojectisamultiusepathwaythatwouldnotgenerateodorsduringoperation.
Odorscouldbegeneratedbyconstructionequipmentduringprojectconstruction.However,
duetothelinearnatureoftheproject,constructionactivitiesinanygivenlocationwouldbe
shorttermandasubstantialnumberofpeoplewouldnotbeaffectedbyodors.Impactswould
belessthansignificant.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffect,either
directlyorthroughhabitatmodifications,onany
speciesidentifiedasacandidate,sensitive,or
specialstatusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,
policies,orregulations,orbytheCalifornia
DepartmentofFishandWildlifeorUSFishand
WildlifeService?
b) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonany
riparianhabitatorothersensitivenatural
communityidentifiedinlocalorregionalplans,
policies,regulationsorbytheCalifornia
DepartmentofFishandWildlifeorUSFishand
WildlifeService?
c) Haveasubstantialadverseeffecton
federallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedby
Section404oftheCleanWaterAct(including,
butnotlimitedto,marsh,vernalpool,coastal,
etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrological
interruption,orothermeans?
d) Interferesubstantiallywiththemovement
ofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishor
wildlifespeciesorwithestablishednative
residentormigratorywildlifecorridors,or
impedetheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites?
e) Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinances
protectingbiologicalresources,suchasatree
preservationpolicyorordinance?
f) Conflictwiththeprovisionsofanadopted
habitatconservationplan,naturalcommunity
conservationplan,orotherapprovedlocal,
regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan?
4. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES.Wouldtheproject:
ExistingSetting
Theprojectbiologistconductedanevaluationoftheprojectareatocharacterizethebiological
baselineonandadjacenttotheproposedprojectalignment.Theevaluationinvolveda
reconnaissancelevelsurveyaswellasaqueryofavailabledataandliteraturefromlocal,state,
federal,andnongovernmentalagencies.
Databasequerieswereperformedonthefollowingwebsites:
USFishandWildlifeServices(USFWS)Information,Planning,andConservation(IPaC)
System(2015a)
USFWSsCriticalHabitatPortal(2015b)
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife(CDFW)CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase
(CNDDB)(2015)
CaliforniaNativePlantSocietys(CNPS)InventoryofRare,Threatened,andEndangered
PlantsofCalifornia(2015)
AsearchoftheUSFWSsIPaCSystemandCriticalHabitatPortalwasperformedtoidentify
federallyprotectedspeciesandtheirhabitatsthatmaybeaffectedbytheproposedproject.In
addition,aqueryoftheCNDDBwasconductedfortheMonterey,California,USGeological
Survey(USGS)7.5minutequadrangle(quad)andalladjacentquads(SoberanesPoint,Mt.
Carmel,Seaside,Marina)toidentifyknownprocessedandunprocessedoccurrencesforspecial
statusspecies.Lastly,theCNPSdatabasewasqueriedtoidentifyspecialstatusplantspecies
withthepotentialtooccurintheaforementionedquads.Rawdatafromthedatabasequeries
canbefoundinAppendixA.
Theprojectbiologistconductedareconnaissancelevelsurveyoftheprojectstudyarea(PSA)on
April9,2015.Theobjectiveofthevisitwastocharacterizetheexistingbiologicalresources
conditionsonthesiteandevaluatepotentialpresenceofspecialstatusspecies,wetlands,or
othersensitiveresources.ThePSAisdefinedastheprojectfootprintplusa20footbuffer.The
PSAhasrelativelyflattopographywithaslightsoutheastslope.Elevationrangesfrom+30feet
abovemeansealevel(amsl)alongDoloresStreetinthewestto+15feetamslinthesoutheast
cornerofthePSAneartheCarmelRiver.ThePSAisboundedbyurbanlandusesonitswestern,
northern,andeasternsides.Surroundingurbanlandsaremostlyresidential,withtheexception
oftheCarmelMissionandLarsonField,immediatelysouthofthePSA.TheCarmelRiverand
associatedriparianzoneliesouthofthePSAandarecontiguouswithlargeopenspaceareasof
wetland,grassland,andripariancommunities.ThisentireareaisknownasRioPark.
ThePSAconsistsofdevelopedlandassociatedwithLarsonField,aswellasdisturbedareasin
thewesternandmiddleportionsofthesite.ThewesternstretchofthePSAincludesanexisting
dirtroadandalargeclearedareacurrentlyusedasaCitymaterialsstorageyard.Themiddle
stretchofthePSAconsistsofanexistingdirtroadrunningthroughtheedgeoftheriparian
corridorassociatedwiththeCarmelRiver.Figure3depictsthevegetationtypeswithinthePSA.
ThewesternportionofthePSAischaracterizedbyprimarilynonnativevegetation:
passionflower(Passiflorasp.),Frenchbroom(Genistamonspessulana),iceplant(Carpobrotus
sp.),fennel(Foeniculumvulgare),callalily(Zantedeschiaaethopica),sourgrass(Oxalis
pescaprae),plantain(Plantagosp.),panicveldtgrass(Ehrhartaerecta),bromes(Bromusspp.),
wildoat(Avenasp.),mustard(Brassicasp.),wildradish(Raphanussativa),andmallow(Malva
sp.).Scatterednativeshrubsalsoarepresent,includingtoyon(Heteromelesarbutifolia)and
coyotebrush(Baccharispilularis).ArowofMontereycypress(Hesperocyparismacrocarpa)lines
theexistingroadandtwolargeeucalyptus(Eucalyptussp.)occurbetweenthePSAandthe
CarmelMission.
TheriparianareainthecenterofthePSAischaracterizedbyanarroyowillow(Salixlasiolepis)
andPacificwillow(Salixlasiandravar.lasiandra)canopywithadenseunderstoryofCalifornia
blackberry(Rubusursinus),hedgenettle(Stachyssp.),poisonoak(Toxicodendrondiversilobum),
II.InitialStudy
poisonhemlock(Coniummaculatum),andCanaryivy(Hederacanariensis).LarsonFieldis
composedofturfgrasswithtwoMontereycypressandacoastliveoaktree(Quercusagrifolia)
alongRioRoad.
SpecialStatusSpecies
Candidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspeciesarecommonlycharacterizedasspeciesthatareat
potentialriskoractualrisktotheirpersistenceinagivenareaoracrosstheirrange.These
specieshavebeenidentifiedandassignedastatusrankingbygovernmentalagenciessuchas
theCDFWandtheUSFWSandnongovernmentalorganizationssuchastheCNPS.Thedegreeto
whichaspeciesisatriskofextinctionisthedeterminingfactorintheassignmentofastatus
ranking.Somecommonthreatstoaspeciesortoapopulationspersistenceincludehabitatloss,
degradation,andfragmentation,aswellashumanconflictandintrusion.Forthepurposesof
thisbiologicalreview,specialstatusspeciesaredefinedbythefollowingcodes:
1. Listed,proposed,orcandidatesforlistingunderthefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(50
CodeofFederalRegulations[CFR]17.11listed;61FederalRegister[FR]7591,February
28,1996,candidates)
2. ListedorproposedforlistingundertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct(Fishand
GameCode[FGC]1992Section2050etseq.;14CaliforniaCodeofRegulations[CCR]
Section670.1etseq.)
3. DesignatedasSpeciesofSpecialConcernbytheCDFW
4. DesignatedasFullyProtectedbytheCDFW(FGCSections3511,4700,5050,5515)
5. Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA (14 CCR Section
15380)includingCNPSListRank1Band2
ThequeryoftheUSFWS,CNPS,andCNDDBdatabasesrevealedseveralspecialstatusspecies
withthepotentialtooccurintheprojectvicinity.Table1inAppendixAsummarizeseach
speciesidentifiedinthedatabaseresults,includesadescriptionofthehabitatrequirementsfor
eachspecies,andincludesconclusionsregardingthepotentialforeachspeciestobeimpacted
bytheproposedproject.Figure4depictsthelocationsofspecialstatusspeciesrecordedwithin
a1mileradiusofthePSA.
LocallyoccurringwildlifespresenceinthewesternandnortheasternportionsofthePSAis
expectedtobenegligibleduetotheirdisturbed/developednatureandhighratesofhumantraffic;
however,themiddleportionofthePSAsupportsdenseriparianhabitatthatiscontiguousnotonly
withtheCarmelRiverbutalsowithlargeopenspaceareasofwetland,grassland,andriparian
communities.Thisriparianareahasthepotentialtosupportseveralspecialstatusspecies.
Discussion
(a)
Basedontheresultsofdatabasequeriesandhistoricrecords,aswellasknownregional
occurrences,habitatsinthePSAhavethepotentialtosupportseveralspecialstatusspecies,
includingCaliforniaredleggedfrog(Ranadraytonii),westernpondturtle(Emysmarmorata),
northernharrier(Circuscyaneus),peregrinefalcon(Falcoperegrinus),yellowwarbler
(Setophagapetechia),Montereyduskyfootedwoodrat(Neotomamacrotisluciana),and
Montereyornateshrew(Sorexornatussalarius).Inaddition,therowofMontereycypresstrees
inthewesternportionofthePSAprovidessuitableoverwinteringforthemonarchbutterfly
(Danausplexippus),alocallyimportantspecies.Thecypresstreeswouldnotberemovedasa
resultofprojectrelatedactivities;therefore,monarchbutterflyhabitatwouldnotbeimpacted.
Withtheexceptionofthemonarchbutterfly,alloftheaforementionedspecieshavethe
potentialtooccurinthewillowripariancommunityinthePSA.Theportionoftheprojectthat
runsthroughtheriparianareawouldmostlyfollowanexistingdirtroad.Thus,thelevelofdirect
disturbancewouldberelativelylowandconsistofapproximately2feetofvegetationclearing
oneithersideoftheexistingaccessroad.Theproposedpathwouldintroducemorehuman
trafficintothearea,whichcouldincreasetheamountofnoise,trash,andotherhumaninduced
disturbances;however,theproposedpathwouldbebuiltlessthan50feetfromanexisting
schoolandbaseballfield,wheresuchdisturbancesarealreadyoccurring.Basedonthepresence
ofexistingrecreationalfacilitiesadjacenttothePSA,theamountofnoiseandhuman
disturbanceshouldnotsignificantlyincreasefromcurrentconditions.Inordertodeterpeople
fromenteringenvironmentallysensitivehabitatsadjacenttothePSA,mitigationmeasureBIO6
requiresthatcertainfeatureswouldbeaddedtothedesignofthepath,includingwildlife
friendlyfencingandinformativesignseducatingthepublicaboutsensitivebiologicalresources
inthearea.
ThePSAprovidessuitableuplandhabitatforCaliforniaredleggedfrogandwesternpondturtle.
BothspeciesareassociatedwithslowmovingwaterbodiesliketheCarmelRiver;however,they
arealsoknowntoutilizeuplandhabitatadjacenttowaterbodiesfordispersal,nesting,and
aestivation.Therearenumerouspreviouslyrecordedoccurrencesofredleggedfroginthe
CarmelRiver,severalofwhicharewithinamileofthePSA(seeFigure4).Inaddition,thereis
onerecordedoccurrenceofwesternpondturtlewithinamileofthePSA.ThePSAis
approximately140feetnorthofthebankoftheCarmelRiver.Duetothisdistanceandthe
extremelydensevegetationbetweentheriverandthePSA,itisunlikelythatthesespeciesoccur
inthePSA.Althoughthepotentialforoccurrenceislow,directmortalitiestothesespeciesasa
resultofprojectrelatedactivitieswouldbeconsideredapotentiallysignificantimpact.
ImplementationofmitigationmeasuresBIO1throughBIO3wouldreduceimpactstoaless
thansignificantlevelbyeducatingpersonnelaboutspecialstatusspecies,installingprotective
fencingaroundworkareas,andretainingabiologicalmonitortosupervisevegetationclearingin
riparianareaswherethesespecialstatusspeciesmayoccur.
AccordingtoapreviousstudyofRioPark(Jones&Stokes1995),northernharrier,peregrine
falcon,andyellowwarblerhaveallbeenobservedintheripariancorridorintheRioParkarea.
HabitatsonandadjacenttothePSAmayprovidesuitablenestinghabitatforthesespeciesand
otherbirdsprotectedundertheMigratoryBirdTreatyActandSection3503.5oftheCalifornia
FishandGameCode.Theclearingoftrees/vegetationduringconstructionactivitiescouldresult
innoise,dust,humandisturbance,andotherdirect/indirectimpactstonestingbirdsonorinthe
vicinityofthePSA.Potentialnestabandonmentandmortalitytoindividualswouldbe
consideredapotentiallysignificantimpacttoprotectedspecies.Implementationofmitigation
measuresBIO1,BIO2,andBIO4wouldreduceimpactstoalessthansignificantlevelby
educatingpersonnelaboutspecialstatusspecies,installingprotectivefencingaroundwork
areas,andconductingpreconstructionsurveysfornestingbirds.
ThePSAprovidessuitablehabitatforspecialstatusmammalssuchasMontereyduskyfooted
woodratandMontereyornateshrew.Directmortalitiestothesespeciesasaresultofproject
relatedactivitieswouldbeconsideredapotentiallysignificantimpact.Implementationof
mitigationmeasuresBIO1,BIO2,BIO3,andBIO5wouldreduceimpactstoalessthan
T:\_GIS\Monterey_County\MXDs\Carmel\Rio_Park_Trail\IS\Vegetation.mxd (9/10/2015)
Legend
Project Study Area
!
(
Footprint
Existing Access Road

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
Sensitive Habitat Barrier

Ditch
Storm Drain
Overflow Ditch
Cover Type
Disturbed/Developed
Willow Riparian
Ca
rm
el R
iv e
r
Source: PMC (2015); Neill Engineers Corp (2015); Monterey County (2015); ESRI.
50
FEET
100
Figure 3
Vegetation
T:\_GIS\Monterey_County\MXDs\Carmel\Rio_Park_Trail\IS\CNDDB.mxd (7/29/2015)
6, 7
2
7
10
3
1
16
1
1
1
17
15
14
13
17 17
17
17
17
4
12
15
17
5
11
9
15
Legend
Project Study Area (PSA)
1-mile Buffer of PSA
CNDDB Occurrence Type
Amphibian
Fish
Reptile
Invertebrate
Plant
Map ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Scientific Name
Allium hickmanii
Anniella pulchra nigra
Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri
Arctostaphylos pumila
Clarkia jolonensis
Coelus globosus
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
Emys marmorata
Ericameria fasciculata
Fritillaria liliacea
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Malacothamnus palmeri var. palmeri
Microseris paludosa
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Pinus radiata
Piperia yadonii
Rana draytonii
Common Name
Hickman's onion
black legless lizard
Hooker's manzanita
sandmat manzanita
Jolon clarkia
globose dune beetle
monarch - California overwintering population
western pond turtle
Eastwood's goldenbush
fragrant fritillary
Kellogg's horkelia
Santa Lucia bush-mallow
marsh microseris
steelhead - south/central California coast DPS
Monterey pine
Yadon's rein orchid
California red-legged frog
Federal Listing
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Threatened
None
Endangered
Threatened
State Listing
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Rare Plant Rank

1B.2
1B.2
1B.2
1B.2
1B.1
1B.2
1B.1
1B.2
1B.2
1B.1
1B.1
Source: CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife (2015); City of Carmel (2015); Monterey County (2014); ESRI.
2,000
FEET
4,000
Figure 4
CNDDB Occurrences of Special-Status Species within 1 mile of Project Study Area
II.InitialStudy
significantlevelbyeducatingpersonnelaboutspecialstatusspecies,installingprotective
fencingaroundworkareas,conductingpreconstructionsurveysforwoodratnests,andretaining
abiologicalmonitortosupervisevegetationclearinginriparianareaswherethesespecialstatus
speciesmayoccur.
(b)
Sensitivehabitatsinclude(a)areasofspecialconcerntoresourceagencies;(b)areasprotected
underCEQA;(c)areasdesignatedassensitivenaturalcommunitiesbytheCDFW;(d)areas
outlinedinFishandGameCodeSection1600;(e)areasregulatedunderSection404ofthe
federalCleanWaterAct;and(f)areasprotectedunderlocalregulationsandpolicies.Thewillow
ripariancommunityinthePSAisconsideredasensitivehabitatandadesignated
environmentallysensitivehabitatarea(ESHA)bytheLocalCoastalProgram(Jones&Stokes
1995).
Theproposedpathhasbeensitedtoreducepotentialimpactstosensitivehabitatstothe
greatestextentpossible.Italmostcompletelyoverlapswithpreviouslydisturbedlandsandhugs
theurbandevelopmentnorthofthePSAratherthancuttingthroughopenspacetothesouth.In
addition,thelocationoftheproposedprojectstaysasfarawayfromtheCarmelRiveras
possible.Atitsclosestpoint,theproposedpathisapproximately140feetfromthebankofthe
river.
Asmentionedpreviously,theportionoftheprojectthatrunsthroughtheriparianareawould,
forthemostpart,bebuiltonanexistingdirtroad(Figure3).Thus,thelevelofdisturbance
wouldberelativelylowandincludeacouplefeetofvegetationclearingoneithersideofthe
existingaccessroad.Willowtreeswouldbetrimmedtocreateaclearareaconsistentwith
bikewaystandards(12feetwideby10feethigh).Althoughtrimmingwouldoccur,nowillow
treesareplannedforremoval.Inaddition,groundcoverwouldbeclearedoneithersideofthe
existingroad.Thegroundcoveralongtheexistingroadconsistsofprimarilynonnativespecies
suchaswildradish,poisonhemlock,andannualgrasses.Permanentlossofthesespecieswould
notbedetrimentaltothesurroundingriparianhabitat.Lossofnativeriparianhabitatwouldbe
consideredapotentiallysignificantimpact.
Atthetimethisdocumentwaswritten,designplanshadnotbeenfinalized.Shouldtheproject
planschangeandriparianvegetationbeplannedforremoval,implementationofmitigation
measureBIO7wouldensurethatimpactsarelessthansignificantbyreplacingand/orrestoring
alltemporarilyandpermanentlyimpactedhabitat.Furthermore,implementationofthebest
managementpracticesdescribedinmitigationmeasureBIO2andinclusionofthedesign
featuresoutlinedinmitigationmeasureBIO6wouldreduceimpactstoripariancommunities
duringandafterconstruction.Ifnativeriparianhabitatwouldbeimpactedbyprojectrelated
activities(i.e.,willowtreeremoval),itisrecommendedthattheCityconsultwiththeCDFWto
receiveregulatoryapprovalforremovalofnativeriparianvegetationintheprojectimpactarea.
(c)
OnewaterfeatureoccursinthePSA,asmallditchtributarytotheCarmelRiver(Figure3).This
ditchbeginssouthofaconcretelowwatercrossingalongtheexistingaccessroadandmaybe
consideredjurisdictionalbytheUSArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE).TheCarmelRiverlies
approximately140feetsouthofthePSAandwouldnotbeimpactedbyprojectrelated
activities.Nootherwetlandsorjurisdictionalwatersoccuronsite.Ajurisdictionaldelineation
hasnotbeencompletedtodate.
AlthoughaportionoftheditchoccurswithinthePSA,itappearsthepathwouldcompletely
avoidtheditchandnoimpacttothewaterfeaturewouldoccurasaresultofprojectrelated
activities.Inaddition,standardbestmanagementpracticeswouldbeimplementedincluding
erosioncontroltoreducesedimentationandrunoffintonearbywaterbodies(seemitigation
measureBIO2).However,shouldimpactsoccur,mitigationmeasureBIO8wouldensurenonet
lossofwatersbyreplacingand/orrestoringdisturbeddrainages.Ifthedesignplansare
changedtorequirearelocationofthedrainageditch,itisrecommendedthattheCityfirst
consultwiththeUSACEtoreceiveregulatoryapprovalforimpactingpotentialfederally
protectedwaters.
(d)
Wildlifecorridorsrefertoestablishedmigrationroutescommonlyusedbyresidentand
migratoryspeciesforpassagefromonegeographiclocationtoanother.Movementcorridors
mayprovidefavorablelocationsforwildlifetotravelbetweendifferenthabitatareas,suchas
foragingsites,breedingsites,coverareas,andpreferredsummerandwinterrangelocations.
Theymayalsofunctionasdispersalcorridorsallowinganimalstomovebetweenvarious
locationsintheirrange.TheCarmelRiver,adjacenttothePSA,likelysupportslocalwildlife
movement;however,noimpactstotheriverwouldoccurasaresultofprojectrelatedactivities.
Veryminorimpactswouldoccurtotheripariancorridorassociatedwiththeriver,butthey
wouldlargelyoccuralongtheexistingdirtaccessroad.Duetoitsdevelopedanddisturbed
nature,itisunlikelythattherestofPSAfacilitatesanywildlifemovement.Therefore,impactsto
wildlifehabitatandmovementwouldbeconsideredlessthansignificant.
(e)
ThePSAispartiallyintheCarmelbytheSeaCitylimitsandpartiallyinMontereyCountyandis
thereforesubjecttoboththeCountys(1983)CarmelAreaLandUsePlanandtheCitys(2003)
CarmelbytheSeaGeneralPlan/LocalCoastalPlan.TheCoastalResourceManagementElement
andOpenSpace/ConservationElementoftheCitysGeneralPlan/CoastalLandUsePlaninclude
policiesforprotectionofCarmelscoastalenvironmentalresources.Table1inAppendixAlists
thepoliciesintheCarmelAreaLandUsePlanandtheCarmelGeneralPlan/CoastalLandUse
Planthatrelatetonaturalresourcesandtheproposedproject,andprovidesananalysisofthe
projectsconsistencywiththesepolicies.
Chapter12.28oftheCarmelbytheSeaMunicipalCodepertainstotreeremovalandtrimming.
TheprojectwouldberequiredtobeconsistentwiththeCitystreeordinancebyacquiringthe
necessarypermitsforalltreework.Onefallen,butliving,Montereycypressisanticipatedfor
removal.Inaddition,willowsintheriparianareawouldbetrimmed;however,nofulltreesare
plannedforremoval.AllothertreesinthePSAwouldbeavoided.
Theprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywithalllocalpoliciesandordinancesprotecting
biologicalresources.ImplementationofmitigationmeasuresBIO1throughBIO8wouldensure
theprojectsconsistencywithlocalpoliciespertainingtobiologicalresources.Assuch,no
conflictisanticipated,andnoadditionalmitigationmeasuresareproposed.
(f)
Therearecurrentlynoadoptedorproposedhabitatconservationplans,naturalcommunity
conservationplans,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplansthat
affecttheproposedproject.Therefore,noconflictwouldoccur.
II.InitialStudy
MitigationMeasures
BIO1
WorkerEnvironmentalAwarenessTraining.TheCityshallretainaqualifiedbiologistto
conductmandatorycontractor/workerawarenesstrainingforconstructionpersonnel.
Theawarenesstrainingshallbeprovidedtoallconstructionpersonneltobriefthemon
theidentifiedlocationofsensitivebiologicalresources,includinghowtoidentifyspecies
(visualandauditory)mostlikelytobepresentandtheneedtoavoidimpactsto
biologicalresources(e.g.,plants,wildlife,andjurisdictionalwaters),andtobriefthem
onthepenaltiesfornotcomplyingwithbiologicalmitigationrequirements.Ifnew
constructionpersonnelareaddedtotheproject,thecontractorshallensurethatthey
receivethemandatorytrainingbeforestartingwork.
Priortothestartofgrounddisturbance
BIO2
BestManagementPractices.Thefollowingbestmanagementpracticesshallbe
implementedduringallphasesofconstructiontoreduceimpactstospecialstatus
speciesandsensitivehabitats:
a) Thedisturbanceorremovalofvegetationshallnotexceedtheminimumnecessary
tocompleteoperationsandshalloccuronlywithinthedefinedworkareas.
b) Aconstructionbestmanagementpractices(BMP)planshallbesubmittedwith
constructiondrawings.Priortoinitiationofconstructionactivities,construction
BMPsshallbeemployedonsitetopreventdegradationofonandoffsitewatersof
theUnitedStates.Methodsshallincludetheuseofappropriatemeasuresto
interceptandcapturesedimentpriortoenteringnearbywaterways,suchasthe
CarmelRiverandassociateddrainages,aswellaserosioncontrolmeasuresalong
theperimeterofallworkareastopreventthedisplacementoffillmaterial.AllBMPs
shallbeinplacepriortotheinitiationofanyconstructionactivitiesandshallremain
untilconstructionactivitiesarecompleted.Allerosioncontrolmethodsshallbe
maintaineduntilallonsitesoilsarestabilized.
c) Inordertoavoidattractingpredators,alltrashshallbedisposedofinclosed
containersandremovedfromtheprojectareaatleastonceaweek.
d) Followingconstruction,disturbedareasshallberestoredtopreconstruction
contourstothemaximumextentpossibleandreseededwithanativespeciesmix.
Priorto,during,andafterconstruction
Monitoring/Enforcement: City of CarmelbytheSea Department of Community

PlanningandBuilding
BIO3
RiparianVegetationClearingMonitorandProtectiveSiltFencingInstallation.TheCity
shallretainaqualifiedbiologisttomonitorvegetationclearingactivitiesintheriparian
areatoprotectanyspecialstatusspeciesencountered,includingMontereyornate
shrew,westernpondturtle,andCaliforniaredleggedfrog.Inaddition,thebiological
monitorshallsupervisetheinstallationofsiltfencingbetweentheprojectimpactarea
andtheripariancorridorassociatedwiththeCarmelRiverinordertokeepspecialstatus
speciesfromenteringtheworkarea.Thesiltfencingshallbekeptinplaceuntil
constructioninthevicinityoftheriparianareaiscomplete.
Duringriparianvegetationclearingactivitiesandthroughout
construction

PlanningandBuilding
BIO4
NestingBirdPreconstructionSurveys.Ifclearingand/orconstructionactivitieswilloccur
duringtheraptorormigratorybirdnestingseason(February15August15),
preconstructionsurveysfornestingbirds,includingnorthernharrier,peregrinefalcon,
andyellowwarbler,shallbeconductedbyaqualifiedbiologistwithin14dayspriorto
initiationofconstructionactivities.Thequalifiedbiologistshallsurveytheconstruction
zoneanda500footbuffersurroundingtheconstructionzonetodeterminewhetherthe
activitiestakingplacehavethepotentialtodisturborotherwiseharmnestingbirds.
Surveysshallberepeatedifprojectactivitiesaresuspendedordelayedformorethan15
daysduringnestingseason.
Ifactivenest(s)areidentifiedduringthepreconstructionsurvey,a100footnoactivity
setbackformigratorybirdnestsanda250footsetbackforraptornestsshallbe
establishedbyaqualifiedbiologist.Nogrounddisturbanceshalloccurwithintheno
activitysetbackuntilthenestisdeemedinactivebythequalifiedbiologist.

PlanningandBuilding
BIO5
SpecialStatusMammalsPreconstructionSurvey.TheCityshallretainaqualified
biologisttoconductfocusedpreconstructionsurveysinriparianareaswithin3days
priortoclearingand/constructionforwoodratandshrewnestswithintheproject
footprintanda100footbuffer.Ifnowoodratorshrewnestsarefound,nofurther
actionisnecessary.Ifwoodratand/orshrewnestsarefound,theyshallbeflaggedfor
avoidanceduringprojectrelatedactivities.Neststhatcannotbeavoidedshallbe
manuallydeconstructedpriortoclearingactivitiestoallowanimalstoescapeharm.Ifa
litterofyoungisfoundorsuspected,nestmaterialshallbereplaced,andthenestleft
aloneforatleast2weeksbeforerecheckingtoverifythatyoungarecapableof
independentsurvivalbeforeproceedingwithnestdismantling.

PlanningandBuilding
BIO6
AdditionstoPathDesign.TheCityshallincorporatethefollowingfeaturesinthefinal
projectdesign:
II.InitialStudy
a) Abarriertoprovidevisualseparationbetweenthepathandsensitivehabitat,such
asanopen,splitrailfence,shallbeconstructedbetweentheproposedpathandthe
ripariancorridorsouthoftheprojecttodiscouragetrailusersfromentering
environmentallysensitivehabitatareas.
b) Trashcansshallbeplacedatregularintervalsalongthepathinordertoreducethe
amountoftrashandrefusethatmayresultfromincreasedhumantraffic.
c) Informativesignsidentifyingnativefloraandfaunashallbeplacedalongthepath
educatingthepublicaboutsensitivebiologicalresourcesinthearea.
Incorporatedinprojectdesign
PlanningandBuilding
BIO7
NoNetLossofRiparianHabitat.Foreveryacreofriparianhabitatpermanentlyaffected
bytheproposedproject,theCityshallreplacetheaffectedacreageataminimumofa
2:1ratio.Impactsshallbeoffsetthroughrestorationwithinand/oradjacenttothe
projectarea.
Timing/Implementation: Followingconstructionactivities
PlanningandBuilding
BIO8
NoNetLossofWaters.Foreveryacreofdrainageditchaffectedbytheproposed
project,theCityshallreplacetheaffectedacreageataminimumofa1:1ratio.Impacts
shallbeoffsetthroughtherestorationand/orrelocationofdrainageswithintheproject
area.
PlanningandBuilding
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthe
significanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedin
CEQAGuidelinesSection15064.5?
b) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthe
significanceofanarchaeologicalresource
pursuanttoSection15064.5?
c) Directlyorindirectlydestroyaunique
paleontologicalresourceorsiteorunique
geologicfeature?
d) Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthose
interredoutsideofformalcemeteries?
5. CULTURALRESOURCES.Wouldtheproject:
Discussion
(a,b,d)
Holman&Associates(2015)preparedanarcheologicalreportbasedonarchivalresearchanda
pedestrianreconnaissancesurveyperformedinApril2015(seeAppendixB).Therecordssearch
foundfivearcheologicalsiteswithin1kilometeroftheprojectarea,includingthehistoric
MissionCarmel(NationalHistoricLandmark#214;StateHistoricLandmark#135;CAMNT18H)
locatedjustnorthoftheproposedprojectalignment.TheMissionservedastheadministrative
headquartersoftheAltaCaliforniamissionsystemforthefirstfatherpresidentofthemission
system,FatherJuniperoSerra.LarsenFieldcontainedthemissionorchardfrom1779until1829.
Holman&Associatesdeterminedthatencounteringarchaeologicalevidenceofthegardenand
orchardoperationduringgradingfortheprojectisapossibility,butnoindicationsofcultural
resourceswerefoundduringthesurvey.Inaddition,theresearchincludedasearchofthe
CaliforniaInventoryofHistoricResources,CaliforniaHistoricalLandmarks,andtheNational
RegisterofHistoricPlacesforlistedculturalresourcesintheprojectareaandnonewere
discovered.Basedonthesefindings,theproposedprojectwouldnotdirectlyaffectanyknown
historicalresource.
Althoughnohistoricperiodarchaeologicalmaterialswerefoundduringthesurveyoftheproject
area,researchshowedthattheprojectisinanareaofknownprehistoricarchaeological
resources.Damagetotheseorotherpreviouslyundiscoveredresourcesduringground
disturbancewouldbeconsideredasignificantimpact.Inaddition,AssemblyBill(AB)52,the
NativeAmericanCEQAbill,nowrequiresleadagenciestoconsultwithNativeAmericantribesin
theCEQAplanningprocesswhentribeshaverequestedtobecontacted.Althoughthis
requirementbecameeffectivewellaftertheenvironmentalreviewhadcommenced,theCity
intendstoreachouttolocaltribesaspartofthereviewprocess.
Intheeventthathumanremainsarediscoveredduringprojectconstruction,therequired
protocolspecifiedinCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCodeSection7050.5(b)wouldbefollowed.
Thisprotocolisasfollows:
II.InitialStudy
Intheeventofdiscoveryorrecognitionofanyhumanremainsinanylocationotherthan
adedicatedcemetery,thereshallbenofurtherexcavationordisturbanceofthesiteor
anynearbyareareasonablysuspectedtooverlieadjacentremainsuntilthecoronerof
thecountyinwhichthehumanremainsarediscoveredhasdetermined,inaccordance
withChapter10(commencingwithSection27460)ofPart3ofDivision2ofTitle3ofthe
GovernmentCode,thattheremainsarenotsubjecttotheprovisionsofSection27492of
theGovernmentCodeoranyotherrelatedprovisionsoflawconcerninginvestigationof
thecircumstances,mannerandcauseofdeath,andtherecommendationsconcerning
treatmentanddispositionofthehumanremainshavebeenmadetotheperson
responsiblefortheexcavation,ortohisorherauthorizedrepresentative,inthemanner
providedinSection5097.98ofthePublicResourcesCode.
StateCEQAGuidelinesSection15064.5(e)alsorequiresthatexcavationactivitiesbestopped
wheneverhumanremainsareuncoveredandthatthecountycoronerbecalledintoassessthe
remains.IfthecoronerdeterminesthattheremainsarethoseofNativeAmericans,theNative
AmericanHeritageCommission(NAHC)mustbecontactedwithin24hours.Atthattime,the
leadagencymustconsultwiththeappropriateNativeAmericans,ifany,asidentifiedbythe
NAHC.Section15064.5directstheleadagency(orapplicant),undercertaincircumstances,to
developanagreementwiththeNativeAmericansforthetreatmentanddispositionofthe
remains.
Whilecompliancewiththeaboverequirementswouldreduceimpactsrelatedtodiscoveryof
humanremains,monitoringduringconstructionisrecommendedtoensurethathumanremains
oranyotherartifactsarenotinadvertentlydestroyedduringconstruction,permitigation
measureCULT1.
CompliancewithexistingregulationsandwithmitigationmeasureCULT1willensurethatthe
projectdoesnotsubstantiallynegativelyaffectanyarchaeologicalresourceorhumanremains
discoveredduringconstruction.
(c)
Thesiteishighlydisturbedandconsistsofbareearthandsomevegetation.Nofossilsor
evidenceofexposedgeomorphologicalfeaturesthattypicallycontainfossilsareevidentonthe
projectsite,butthatdoesnotprecludethepossibilityoftheirexistencebelowtheground
surface.Becausetheproposedprojectcoulddirectlyorindirectlydestroyaunique
paleontologicalresourceduringconstruction,thisisconsideredapotentiallysignificantimpact.
ImplementationofmitigationmeasureCULT2wouldreducethisimpacttolessthansignificant.
MitigationMeasures
CULT1
Duringconstructionforallgrounddisturbingactivities,aqualifiedarchaeologistshallbe
presentforanyactivityinvolvingexcavationandsoildisturbanceovertheentirelength
oftheprojectalignmentandanyequipmentstagingareas.Ifatanytimepotentially
significantarchaeologicalresourcesareencounteredorsuspected,themonitorshallbe
authorizedtohaltexcavationuntilthearchaeologistprovidesanevaluationofthefind.
Ifthefindisdeterminedtobesignificant,workshallremainhalteduntilamitigation
planisdeveloped,approvedbytheCity,andimplemented.Workmayproceedonother
partsoftheprojectsitewhilemitigationfortheresourceiscarriedout.
Duringconstruction
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of CarmelbytheSea Department of Community
PlanningandBuilding
CULT2
Intheeventpaleontologicalresourcesareencounteredorsuspectedduring
construction,theconstructionmanagershallceaseoperationatthesiteofthediscovery
andimmediatelynotifytheCityofCarmelbytheSeaDepartmentofCommunity
PlanningandBuilding.Aqualifiedpaleontologistshallprovideanevaluationofthefind
andprescribemitigationmeasurestoreduceimpactstoalessthansignificantlevel.In
consideringanysuggestedmitigationproposedbytheconsultingpaleontologist,the
Cityshalldeterminewhetheravoidanceisnecessaryandfeasibleinlightoffactorssuch
asthenatureofthefind,projectdesign,costs,andotherconsiderations.Ifavoidanceis
unnecessaryorinfeasible,otherappropriatemeasures(e.g.,datarecovery)shallbe
instituted.Workmayproceedonotherpartsoftheprojectsitewhilemitigationfor
paleontologicalresourcesiscarriedout.
Duringconstruction
PlanningandBuilding
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. GEOLOGYANDSOILS.Wouldtheprojectexposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantial
adverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolving:
a) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotential
substantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskof
loss,injury,ordeathinvolving:
i. Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault,as
delineatedonthemostrecentAlquist
PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningMap
issuedbytheStateGeologistforthe
areaorbasedonothersubstantial
evidenceofaknownfault?Referto
DivisionofMinesandGeologySpecial
Publication42?
ii. Strongseismicgroundshaking?
iii. Seismicrelatedgroundfailure,including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Wouldtheprojectresultinsubstantialsoil
erosionorthelossoftopsoil?
c) Wouldtheprojectbelocatedonageologic
unitorsoilthatisunstable,orthatwould
becomeunstableasaresultoftheproject,and
potentiallyresultinonoroffsitelandslide,
lateralspreading,subsidence,liquefaction,or
collapse?
d) Wouldtheprojectbelocatedonexpansive
soil,asdefinedinTable181BoftheUniform
BuildingCode(1994),creatingsubstantialrisks
tolifeorproperty?
e) Wouldtheprojecthavesoilsincapableof
adequatelysupportingtheuseofseptictanksor
alternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswhere
sewersarenotavailableforthedisposalof
wastewater.
Discussion
(a,c,d)
Theproposedprojectincludesconstructionofapavedpedestrianandbicyclepath.Nohabitable
structureswouldbebuilt.Theprojectsiteisrelativelyflatwiththeexceptionofthe
westernmostsegmentnearLasuenDrive,andgrounddisturbancewouldbelimitedtominor
gradingrequiredforsmoothtransitionsandpaving.ProjectsitesoilsincludeAquicXerofluvents
(Af)andElderveryfinesandyloam,2to9percentslopes(EbC).Thesesoilshavealowlinear
extensibilityrating(<3),indicatingalowexpansionpotential,andamoderateKfactor(0.37),
indicatingamoderateerosionpotential(USDA2015).Giventheminoralternationsrequiredfor
construction,theabsenceofhabitablestructures,thelowexpansionpotentialoftheunderlying
soiltypes,andtheuseofthepathwaybypedestriansandbicyclists,risksrelatedtogeologic
hazardssuchasseismicactivity,landslides,lateralspreading,subsidence,soilexpansion,and
liquefactionarenotanticipatedanddonotposearisktothepublic.Therefore,noimpactsare
anticipated.
(b)
Asdescribedpreviously,thesoiltypesunderlyingtheprojectsitehaveamoderateerosion
potential(USDA2015).However,constructionoftheproposedprojectwouldberequiredto
complywithChapter17.43,WaterQualityandProtectionOrdinance,oftheCitysMunicipal
Code,whichrequiresimplementationofsitedesign,sourcecontrol,andtreatmentcontrolbest
managementpracticestominimizepollutedrunoffandwaterqualityimpacts.Inaddition,the
projectwouldbesubjecttoMontereyCountysGradingandErosionControlOrdinances
(MunicipalCodeChapters16.08through16.12),whichrequirepreparation,submittal,and
approvalofanerosioncontrolplanindicatingproposedmethodsforthecontrolofrunoff,
erosion,andsedimentmovement.SeealsomitigationmeasureBIO2.TheseBMPsanderosion
controlmethodswouldensurethaterosionandlossoftopsoilwouldbelessthansignificant.
(e)
Theprojectwouldnotinvolvetheuseofseptictanks.Therewouldbenoimpact.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Generategreenhousegasemissions,either
directlyorindirectly,thatmayhavea
significantimpactontheenvironment?
b) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,policy,or
regulationadoptedforthepurposeof
reducingtheemissionsofgreenhouse
gases?
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS
Discussion
(a,b)
Californiaisasubstantialcontributorofglobalgreenhousegases,emittingover400milliontons
ofcarbondioxide(CO2)ayear.ClimatestudiesindicatethatCaliforniaislikelytoseeanincrease
of34degreesFahrenheitoverthenextcentury.Duetothenatureofglobalclimatechange,it
isnotanticipatedthatanysingledevelopmentprojectwouldhaveasubstantialeffectonglobal
climatechange.
Projectrelatedgreenhousegasemissionsincludeemissionsfromconstructionandmobile
sources.Theprimarysourceofgreenhousegasemissionsresultingfromimplementationofthe
proposedprojectwouldbeautomobiletrafficandconstructionequipment.Asapathway,the
projectisintendedtoencourageuseofalternatemodesoftransportation,sotheprojectcould
reduceCO2emissionsduetoadecreaseinvehicletrips.Becausetherewouldnotbea
substantialincreaseinaveragedailytraffictrips,andpathwayconstructionwouldcomplywith
statebuildingregulations(e.g.,Title24)andtheCitysGreenBuildingProgram,theproposed
projectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactonlocalizedgreenhousegasemissions.
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS.Wouldtheproject:
a) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicor
theenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,
use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials?
b) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicor
theenvironmentthroughreasonably
foreseeableupsetandaccidentconditions
involvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsinto
theenvironment?
c) Emithazardousemissionsorhandle
hazardousoracutelyhazardousmaterials,
substances,orwastewithinmileofanexisting
orproposedschool?
d) Belocatedonasitewhichisincludedona
listofhazardousmaterialssitescompiled
pursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection65962.5
and,asaresult,woulditcreateasignificant
hazardtothepublicortheenvironment?
e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportland
useplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeen
adopted,within2milesofapublicairportor
publicuseairport,wouldtheprojectresultina
safetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingin
theprojectarea?
f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivate
airstrip,wouldtheprojectresultinasafety
hazardforpeopleresidingorworkinginthe
projectarea?
g) Impairimplementationoforphysically
interferewithanadoptedemergencyresponse
planoremergencyevacuationplan?
h) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificant
riskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingwildland
fires,includingwherewildlandsareadjacentto
urbanizedareasorwhereresidencesare
intermixedwithwildlands?
II.InitialStudy
Discussion
(ah)
AccordingtoasearchoftheDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControls(2015)EnviroStor
databaseandtheStateWaterResourcesControlBoards(2015)GeoTrackerdatabase,the
projectsiteisnotincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuantto
GovernmentCodeSection65962.5(CorteseList).1Constructionoftheproposedprojectwould
involvetheuseoflimitedamountsofroutinehazardousmaterials,suchasgasoline,dieselfuel,
oils,andsolvents.Contractorswouldberequiredtouse,store,anddisposeofanyhazardous
materialsinaccordancewithallapplicablefederal,state,andlocalregulations.Compliancewith
existingregulationswouldminimizepotentialriskstothepublicandtheenvironmentassociated
withtheuse,storage,andtransportofhazardousmaterialsassociatedwiththeproposed
project.Theproposedprojectwouldnotuseanyhazardousmaterialsaspartofproject
operation.
JuniperoSerraSchoolandCarmelRiverElementarySchoolarelessthanaquartermilefromthe
projectsite.However,projectconstructionwouldnotinvolvetheuseofconstructionequipment
orhandlingofhazardousmaterialssuchthatitwouldresultinasubstantialriskateitherschool.
Theproposedprojectisnotlocatedinthevicinityofanairport,isnotlocatedinanarea
identifiedaspronetowildlandfiresasidentifiedintheCitysGeneralPlan,andwouldnot
interferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan.Therefore,
theprojectisconsideredtohavenoimpactrelatedtohazardsandhazardousmaterials.
GovernmentCodeSection65962.5requirescompilationofalistofhazardouswasteandsubstancessitestobeusedasaplanning
documentbystateandlocalagenciesanddeveloperstocomplywiththeCEQArequirementsinprovidinginformationaboutthe
locationofhazardousmaterialsreleasesites.ThislistiscommonlyknownastheCorteseList.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Issues
9. HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY. Wouldtheproject:
a) Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwaste
dischargerequirements?
b) Substantiallydepletegroundwatersupplies
orinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwater
rechargesuchthattherewouldbeanetdeficit
inaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocal
groundwatertablelevel(forexample,the
productionrateofpreexistingnearbywells
woulddroptoalevelwhichwouldnotsupport
existinglandusesorplannedusesforwhich
permitshavebeengranted)?
c) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainage
patternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthe
alterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,ina
mannerwhichwouldresultinsubstantial
erosionorsiltationonoroffsite.
d) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainage
patternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthe
alterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,or
substantiallyincreasetherateoramountof
surfacerunoffinamannerwhichwouldresultin
floodingonoroffsite.
e) Createorcontributerunoffwaterwhich
wouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplanned
stormwaterdrainagesystemsorprovide
substantialadditionalsourcesofpolluted
runoff?
f) Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewater
quality?
g) Placehousingwithina100yearflood
hazardareaasmappedonafederalFlood
HazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMap
orotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?
h) Placewithina100yearfloodhazardarea
structureswhichwouldimpedeorredirectflood
flows?
i) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificant
riskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingflooding,
includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofa
leveeordam?
j) Inundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow?
II.InitialStudy
Discussion
(a,e,f)
Theproposedprojectcouldresultinwaterqualitydegradationduringconstructionand
operation.Constructionactivitiesassociatedwithdevelopmentoftheprojectsitewouldinclude
gradingandvegetationremoval,whichwoulddisturbandexposesoilstowatererosion,
potentiallyincreasingtheamountofsiltanddebrisenteringdrainages,includingthenearby
CarmelRiver.However,asnotedabove,theprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywiththeCitys
MunicipalCodeChapter17.43,whichrequiresimplementationofBMPstominimizepolluted
runoffandwaterqualityimpacts.TheCityhasadoptedtheBestManagementPractices
GuidanceSeriesfoundinAppendixEoftheMontereyRegionalStormWaterManagement
Program.Theseriesdescribesbestmanagementpracticesdesignedtoreducethedischargeof
pollutantsfromthemunicipalseparatestormsewersystems(MS4s)tothemaximumextent
practicable,toprotectwaterqualityoftheAreasofSpecialBiologicalSignificance(ASBS),2and
tosatisfytheappropriatewaterqualityrequirementsoftheCleanWaterAct.Inaddition,
CarmelBayisconsideredanASBSbytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard.TheCity
operatesundertheGeneralPermitissuedtotheMontereyRegionalStormWaterPermit
ParticipantsGroupissuedbytheRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RWQCB)forstormwater
runoffthataffectsCarmelBay.CompliancewiththeCitysMunicipalCodeandrequirementsin
theStormWaterPermitwouldensurethatwaterqualityimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.
(b)
Somewaterwouldbeusedduringprojectconstruction,suchasfordustcontrol,butthe
quantitieswouldbeincidental.Therewouldbenowaterdemandfromtheprojectduring
operation.Thepavedportionofthepathwouldbeonly8feetwideandborderedoneachside
byapermeableshoulderthatwouldallowrunofftoinfiltratetheunderlyingsoil.Therefore,the
projectwouldnotdepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferewithrechargeoftheunderlying
aquifer.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.
(c,d)
Theproposedprojectwouldinvolveconstructionofan8footwidepavedpathwaywith2foot
shouldersinanareathatisrelativelyflat.Whilesomeminorgradingwouldberequired,the
projectwouldnotsubstantiallyalterthetopographyintheareasuchthatsubstantialerosionor
offsitefloodingwouldresult.Thefinishedpathwaywillbeconstructedatorverynearexisting
gradesandthereforewillnotimpedeorredirectexistingdrainagepatternstowardtheCarmel
River.Therefore,thiswouldbealessthansignificantimpact.
(g,h)
TheprojectsiteislocatedintheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)100yearflood
zone(CarmelByTheSea2003,Figure8.3).However,theprojectdoesnotinvolvethe
constructionofhousingorotherstructuresthatwouldblockorredirectfloodflowsorbe
subjecttodamageorloss.
(i)
TheprojectsiteislocatedintheinundationareasfortheSanClementeandLosPadresdams.
SanClementeDam,constructedin1921,isa106foothighconcretearchdamlocated
AreasofSpecialBiologicalSignificanceinclude34oceanareasmonitoredandmaintainedforwater
qualitybytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard.
approximately18.5milesfromthePacificOceanontheCarmelRiverinMontereyCounty.Due
tosedimentaccumulation,thedamreservoircapacityhasbeensignificantlyreduced.In
addition,theCaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources(CDWR)DivisionofSafetyofDams
identifiedsafetyissuesatthedam.TheCarmelRiverRerouteandSanClementeDamProjecthas
beenimplementedtoaddresstheseandotherissuesandisexpectedtobecompletedbythe
endof2015,whichwouldresultintheremovalofSanClementeDam(CaliforniaAmerican
Water2015).Thus,theproposedalignmentwouldnolongerbeatriskofinundationfrom
failureofthisdam.
LosPadresDam,constructedin1949,isa148foothighearthendamlocated25milesfromthe
PacificOceanontheCarmelRiver.Thedamscapacityhasalsobeensignificantlyreduceddueto
sedimentaccumulation;however,nopublicsafetyriskshavebeenidentified.Thedamisowned
andmaintainedbyCaliforniaAmericanWaterandregulatedbytheCDWRDivisionofSafetyof
Dams,whichroutinelyinspectsthedamtoensurepublicsafety(CDWR2015).Therefore,the
riskofinundationduetodamfailureisconsideredtobelow.Furthermore,theprojectdoesnot
proposetheconstructionofanyhabitablestructures.Therefore,thisimpactwouldbelessthan
significant.
(j)
TheprojectsiteislocatedinanareaidentifiedintheCitysGeneralPlanasanExtremeTsunami
RunUpArea,whichisanareasubjecttoriskforwavesbetween21and45feetabovemean
sealevel.Giventheprojectsuseasapedestrianandbicyclepath,thereisnotasubstantialrisk
ofinjuryordeathfromtsunamisassociatedwiththeproject.Becauseofthetopographyofthe
area,therewouldnotbeasubstantialriskfromseicheormudflows.Thiswouldbealessthan
significantimpact.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?
b) Conflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan,
policy,orregulationofanagencywith
jurisdictionovertheproject(including,butnot
limitedtothegeneralplan,specificplan,local
coastalprogram,orzoningordinance)adopted
forthepurposeofavoidingormitigatingan
environmentaleffect?
c) Conflictwithanyapplicablehabitat
conservationplanornaturalcommunity
conservationplan?
10. LANDUSEANDPLANNING.Wouldtheproject:
Discussion
(a)
Theprojectproposestheconstructionofapedestrianandbicyclepaththatwouldenhance
accessibilityinthecommunity.Therewouldbenoimpact.
(b)
ThesegmentoftheproposedalignmentthatpassesthroughtheCarmelMissionpropertyis
zonedbytheCityofCarmelasImprovedParklands(P2)withaParkOverlay.Standardsforland
useanddesignareestablishedintheLarsonAthleticFieldSpecificPlan.Allremainingsegments
ofthealignmentarewithinthejurisdictionofMontereyCounty.TheCitysImprovedParklands
zoneandtheapplicableSpecificPlanpermitnewparkandrecreationfacilitiessuchasthe
proposedpaththroughapprovalofaConditionalUsePermit(section17.15.370).
TheCountyhaszonedthepropertyasMediumDensityResidential,whichallowsinstallationof
publiccirculationimprovementswithapprovalofaCoastalDevelopmentPermit.Theproject
wouldalsorequireanencroachmentpermitforthetrailconnectiontoLaderaDrive.With
approvedpermitsfrombothjurisdictions,theprojectwouldbeconsistentwithboththeCitys
andtheCountyszoningrequirements.
TheproposedprojectwouldbeconsistentwiththeCitysOpenSpaceandConservationElement
goalsandpolicies,whichcallfortheCitytoprovideaccessible,safe,andwellmaintainedparks,
openspace,andactiverecreationfacilities.
TheprojectwouldalsobeconsistentwiththeCitysLocalCoastalProgram,whichconsistsofthe
LandUse,Circulation,CoastalAccessandRecreation,andCoastalResourceManagement
elementsoftheGeneralPlan,byimprovingaccesstotheshorelinethroughdevelopmentofan
improvedpathsegment.Specifically,theprojectwouldhelpimplementGeneralPlanPolicy
P410,whichcallsfortheCitytocoordinatewithMontereyCountytoestablishacontinuous
coastalpaththroughCarmelthatlinksRioPark,CarmelPoint,theBeachBluffPathway,andthe
pathnetworkinDelMonteForest.
Basedontheprecedinganalysis,theproposedprojectisconsideredtobeconsistentwith
applicablelanduseplans,policies,andregulations.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.
(c)
Therearecurrentlynoadoptedorproposedhabitatconservationplans,naturalcommunity
conservationplans,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplansthat
affecttheproposedproject.Therefore,noconflictwouldoccur,andtherewouldbenoimpact.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknown
mineralresourcethatwouldbeofvaluetothe
regionandtheresidentsofthestate?
b) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofalocally
importantmineralresourcerecoverysite
delineatedonalocalgeneralplan,specificplan,
orotherlanduseplan?
11. MINERALRESOURCES.Wouldtheproject:
Discussion
AccordingtotheCitysGeneralPlan,therearenoknownmineralresourceslocatedinCarmel
bytheSea.Therefore,theprojectwillhavenoimpactonmineralresources.
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationof
noiselevelsinexcessofstandardsestablishedin
thelocalgeneralplanornoiseordinanceor
applicablestandardsofotheragencies?
b) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationof
excessivegroundbornevibrationor
groundbornenoiselevels?
c) Substantialpermanentincreaseinambient
noiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevels
existingwithouttheproject?
d) Asubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincrease
inambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinity
abovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?
e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportland
useplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeen
adopted,within2milesofapublicairportor
publicuseairport,wouldtheprojectexpose
peopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareato
excessivenoiselevels?
f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivate
airstrip,wouldtheprojectexposepeople
residingorworkingintheprojectareato
excessivenoiselevels?
12. NOISE.Wouldtheprojectresultin:
Discussion
(a)
Theproposedprojectconsistsofapedestrianandbicyclepath.Operationofthispathwould
resultinminimalnoiseaspedestriansandcyclistsperiodicallypassalongthepath.Suchnoise
wouldbesimilartothatgeneratedattheadjacentresidentialandschoolusesandwouldnot
exposeanypersonstonoiseinexcessofapplicableCityorCountynoisestandards.Therewould
benosubstantialpermanentincreaseinnoiselevels.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.
(b)
Groundbornevibrationsandnoisecanresultfrombothconstructionandgradingactivities.The
proposedprojectwouldinvolveonlyminorgradingandlimitedconstructionactivities.Thus,itis
notanticipatedthatanyunusualgradingequipmentorblastingwouldberequiredwhichcould
createexcessivegroundbornevibration.Whilesomelocalizedvibrationsmayoccurduring
gradingandheavyequipmentuse,suchvibrationsareexpectedtobeminorandwouldnot
affecttheclosestsensitivereceptors(i.e.,theresidentialneighborhoodtothesoutheastandthe
II.InitialStudy
schooltothenorth).Oncetheprojectiscompleted,noexcessivegroundvibrationsornoises
wouldoccur.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.
(c,d)
Temporarynoiseimpactswouldoccurasaresultofconstructionrelatedactivities,whichcould
affectsensitivereceptorsinthevicinity.Theseincludetheexistingresidentialneighborhoodsto
thesoutheastandnorthwestandtheelementaryschooltothenorth.However,proposed
gradingandconstructionactivitieswouldbeminorandofshortduration.Furthermore,the
projectwouldbesubjecttoCarmelMunicipalCodeSection15.08.180(HoursofConstruction),
whichlimitsconstructiontobetweenthehoursof8:00a.m.and6:30p.m.Mondaythrough
Saturday,unlessotherspecifiedhoursareapprovedorrequiredbytheBuildingOfficialorthe
DirectoroftheDepartmentofCommunityPlanningandBuilding.Thetermhoursof
constructionisdefinedasalltimeswhencontractors,workcrews,orotherpersonsassociated
withtheprojectarepresentonthepropertyandengagedinactivitiesrelatedtoorincluding
construction.Compliancewiththiscodesectionwouldlimitconstructionnoisetotheless
sensitivedaytimehoursandreduceeffectsatadjacentsensitivereceptors.Therefore,the
proposedprojectwouldnotresultintheexposureofpersonstoorgenerationoftemporary
constructionrelatednoiselevelsinexcessofapplicableCityorCountystandards.Thisimpact
wouldbelessthansignificant.
(e,f)
Theprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithin2milesofapublicorprivateairport.Therefore,there
wouldbenoimpact.
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Inducesubstantialpopulationgrowthinan
area,eitherdirectly(forexample,byproposing
newhomesandbusinesses)orindirectly(for
example,throughextensionofroadsorother
infrastructure)?
b) Displacesubstantialnumbersofexisting
housing,necessitatingtheconstructionof
replacementhousingelsewhere?
c) Displacesubstantialnumbersofpeople,
necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacement
housingelsewhere?
13. POPULATIONANDHOUSING.Wouldtheproject:
Discussion
(ac)
Theproposedprojectisamultiusepathwaythatwouldnotresultinanincreasednumberof
housingunitsorpopulation.Therewouldbenoimpact.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. PUBLICSERVICES.Wouldtheprojectresultinsubstantialadversephysicalimpactsassociatedwith
theprovisionofneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilitiesorneedforneworphysicalaltered
governmentalfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentalimpacts,in
ordertomaintainacceptableserviceratios,responsetimes,orotherperformanceobjectivesforanyof
thepublicservices:
a) Fireprotection?
b) Policeprotection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Otherpublicfacilities?
Discussion
(ae)
Theproposedprojectisamultiusepathwaythatwouldnotaddpopulationorotherlanduses
whichwouldincreasedemandonpublicservices.Therefore,itwouldnotresultinphysical
impactsassociatedwiththeprovisionofneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentfacilities.There
wouldbenoimpactrelatedtopublicservices.
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increasetheuseofexistingneighborhood
andregionalparksorotherrecreationalfacilities
suchthatsubstantialphysicaldeteriorationof
thefacilitywouldoccurorbeaccelerated?
b) Includerecreationalfacilitiesorrequirethe
constructionorexpansionofrecreational
facilitieswhichmighthaveanadversephysical
effectontheenvironment?
15. RECREATION.Wouldtheproject:
Discussion
(a,b)
Theproposedprojectwouldexpandrecreationalopportunitiesforcityandcountyresidentsby
constructinganewpubliclyaccessiblepedestrianandbicyclepath.Thus,theprojectwouldnot
resultinthephysicaldeteriorationofanyparksorrecreationalfacilities.Projectconstruction
activities,includingfenceinstallationandrelocationofexistingbattingcages,couldinterfere
withregularuseofthebaseballdiamondsatLarsonField.However,theseactivitieswouldbeof
shortdurationandwouldnotpermanentlyaffecttheoperationofthisfacility.Therefore,the
projectwouldhaveabeneficialimpactonrecreation.
Impactsassociatedwithconstructionoftheproposedpathareassumedaspartoftheproposed
projectandareaddressedthroughoutthisInitialStudy.Potentialimpactsincludedisturbanceof
biologicaland/orculturalresources,temporaryairemissions,soilerosionandwaterquality
degradation,handlingofhazardousmaterials,temporaryconstructionnoise,andtemporary
constructiontraffic.Eachofthesepotentialimpactshasbeendeterminedtobelessthan
significantwithimplementationofthemitigationmeasuresprovidedinthisdocument.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,
orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectiveness
fortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,
takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation
includingmasstransitandnonmotorizedtravel
andrelevantcomponentsofthecirculation
system,includingbutnotlimitedto
intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,
pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransit?
b) Conflictwithanapplicablecongestion
managementprogram,including,butnotlimited
tolevelofservicestandardsandtraveldemand
measures,orotherstandardsestablishedbythe
countycongestionmanagementagencyfor
designatedroadsorhighways?
c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,
includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsora
changeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantial
safetyrisks?
d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoa
designfeature(forexample,sharpcurvesor
dangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses
(forexample,farmequipment)?
e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?
f) Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,or
programssupportingregardingpublictransit,
bicycle,orpedestrianfacilities,orotherwise
decreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuch
facilities?
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.Wouldtheproject:
InAprilthroughJuly,2015,datacollectionandatrafficanalysiswasperformedfortheproposed
projectbyHatchMottMacDonald,whichwastimedtotakeschooltrafficintoconsideration.
TheanalysisevaluatedtrafficsafetyissuesattheproposedpathstwostreetjunctionsRio
RoadandLasuenDriveincludingconnectivitytootherpedestrianandbicyclefacilities,signing,
markings,andstreetcrossingcontrols.ThetrafficanalysisreportisprovidedasAppendixCto
thisIS/MND.
ExistingSetting
RioRoadisatwolanearterialstreetneartheprojectsiteandcarriesabout10,000vehiclesper
day.RioRoadextendsbetweenValVerdeDrive,eastofHighway1,toRidgewoodRoad,westof
Highway1,whereitcontinuesintothedowntownareaasJuniperoAvenue.RioRoadisa
designatedClassIIIbikerouteinCarmel.
Attheprojectsite,RioRoadistwolaneswidewithshouldersofvaryingwidth.Thereisan
existingsidewalkonthesouthsideoftheroadwaythatbeginsabout90feeteastofthe
proposedRioRoadterminusofthepathandendsatMissionFieldsRoad.Thepostedspeedlimit
onRioRoadattheproposedterminusofthetrailis25milesperhour.Amarkedcrosswalkis
providedacrosstheroadwayonthewestlegoftheRioRoad/LaderaDriveintersection,whichis
locatedabout325feetwestoftheproposedRioRoadtrailterminus.TheLarsonFieldsecurity
fencelocatedattheRioRoadterminusofthetrailiscoveredwithvegetation.
LasuenDriveisatwolanelocalstreetwithshouldersoflimitedwidththatextendsfromRio
RoadtothewesterndrivewayservingtheCarmelMission.AttheCarmelMissionwestdriveway,
LasuenDriveturnssharplyandcontinueswestasDoloresStreet.LasuenDriveDoloresStreet
15thAvenueisadesignatedClassIIIbikerouteinCarmel.
Intersectiontrafficoperationsareevaluatedbasedonthelevelofserviceconcept.Levelof
serviceisaqualitativedescriptionofanintersectionandroadwaysoperation,rangingfromLOS
AtoLOSF.LOSArepresentsfreeflowuncongestedtrafficconditions.LOSFrepresentshighly
congestedtrafficconditionswithunacceptabledelaytovehiclesontheroadsegmentsandat
intersections.Theintermediatelevelsofservicerepresentincrementallevelsofcongestionand
delaybetweenthesetwoextremes.
IntersectionturningmovementcountswereconductedonWednesday,May27,2015,to
determinetheexistingpeakhourintersectionvolumesattheRioRoad/AthertonDriveand
LasuenDriveDoloresStreet/CarmelMission/MissionRanchDrivewayintersections.Thecounts
wereconductedduringtheAMandPMpeakcommutehours(79a.m.and46p.m.)and
duringtheafternoonpeakperiodassociatedwithschooldismissal(24p.m.).TheRio
Road/AthertonDriveandLasuenDriveDoloresStreet/CarmelMission/MissionRanchDriveway
intersectionscurrentlyoperateatlevelofservice(LOS)AwithnoworsethanLOSCoperations
ontheminorstreetstopcontrolledapproachtothemajorstreetduringthethreepeakhours.
Discussion
(a,b)
TheproposedprojectconsistsofaClassIpedestrianandbicyclepath.Thus,project
implementationwouldnotaddvehiclestoarearoadwaysandwouldnotresultinadeclineof
serviceatareaintersectionsorotherwiseadverselyaffecttrafficoperations.Theproposedtrail
isshort(approximately1,420feetinlength)andwouldnotprovideaccesstoalargertrail
systemorspecificdestinationorattraction.Assuch,thetrailitselfisnotanticipatedtoattract
measurablenumbersofdayusersorseriousrecreationalistswhowoulddriveprivatevehiclesto
thetrailheads.Forthesereasons,thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.RefertoItem(d)
regardingpotentialconflictswithpedestriansandbicyclesandautomobiles.
(c)
Theproposedprojectconsistsofapedestrianandbicyclepathandwouldhavenoimpactonair
trafficpatterns.
II.InitialStudy
(d)
RioRoadTerminus
TheprojectcurrentlyincludestheconstructionofanewpavedpathwayonthesouthsideofRio
RoadfromthecitylimitsboundaryontheeastsideofLarsonFieldtotheeasternmostdriveway
servingLarsonField.VegetationlocatedonthesouthsideofRioRoadwouldneedtobecleared
atleastpartiallytoinstallthispath,whichwouldservetoconnectthetrailtotheproposed
crosswalkwestofAthertonDrive.
ThecrosswalkacrossRioRoadiscurrentlyproposedtobelocatedonthewestsideofthe
AthertonDriveintersectionleg.Thisconfigurationwouldallowpedestriansandbicyclists
accessingthetrailfromthewestonRioRoadorAthertonDriveandpedestriansandbicyclists
exitingthetrailwithdestinationstothewesttoavoidcrossingtheAthertonDriveapproachto
RioRoad.Inaddition,thecrosswalkislocatedattheexistingtransitstopslocatedoneachside
ofRioRoad.
Thelocationofthecrosswalkwouldresultintwowaybicycleusageonthepavedpathway
betweenthetrailterminusandthecrosswalk,inanareaoflimitedrightofway.Thetraffic
analysisrecommendsthattheproposedsidewalkonthesouthsideofRioRoadbeconstructed
toawidthofatleast10feettoprovidetwowaypedestrianandbicycletraveliftheoriginal
designandcrosswalklocationispursued.Asanalternative,locatingthecrosswalkontheeast
sideoftheRioRoad/AthertonDriveintersectionshouldbeconsidered.Thiswouldallow
westboundpedestrianandbicycletrafficexitingthetrailandpedestrianandbicycletraffic
arrivingfromthewestdestinedtothetrailtocrossnearthetrailterminus.Inthiscase,thenew
pathwayalongRioRoadcouldbedesignedwithastandardwidth.Implementationofmitigation
measureTRANS1wouldrequiretheserecommendationstobeincorporatedintoproject
designs.
LasuenDriveTerminus
GiventherestrictedsightdistanceattheLasuenDriveDoloresStreetintersectionwiththe
proposedtrailterminus,thetrailplanincludestheinstallationofacrosswalkacrossLasuen
Driveabout100feetnorthofthestreettrailintersection.Thetrafficanalysisrecommendsthat
thecrosswalkbelocatedtoprovideadequatestoppingsightdistanceformotoristsapproaching
thecrosswalkineachdirectiononLasuenDriveDoloresStreet.Thecrosswalkinstallationshould
includeadvancecrosswalkwarningsignsoneachapproachaswellasacombined
Bicycle/Pedestrian(W1115)signatthecrossinglocation.
ThecrosswalkanddirectionalsignonLasuenDrivewouldcreatetwowaybicycleandpedestrian
travelontheeastsideofthestreetbetweenthecrosswalkandthetrailentrance.Thetraffic
analysisrecommendsseparatingthisbicycleandpedestriantrafficfromtheadjacent
northboundvehicletrafficbyinstallingabicyclelaneforthislimitedstretchofroadway.Space
forthislanecanbeaccommodatedbyeliminatingtheexistingparkingalongtheeasternedgeof
LasuenDriveinfrontofJuniperoSerraSchool.Thisisanareawithawiderightofwaywhere
informal,unmarkedparkingoccurs.LasuenDriveDoloresStreet15thAvenueisdesignatedin
theCarmelGeneralPlanasaClassIIIbikeway(bikeroute).
ClassIIIbikewaysaresharedfacilitiesthatareestablishedbyplacingbikeroutesignsalongthe
roadway.Thetrafficanalysisrecommendsthatsharedlaneroadwaymarkingsbeinstalledon
theroutetoenhancetheLasuenDriveDoloresStreet15thAvenuebikeroute.Toaddressthis
recommendation,theCityisproposingappropriatesignagethatisdirectlyrelatedtothe
functionandsafetyofthetrail.Therecommendationsforsignagebeyondtheproject
boundarieswouldnotberelatedtoprojectimpactsandwouldnotbeintheCitysjurisdiction.
Becausethetrafficanalysisidentifiedpotentialsafetyhazardsforcyclistsandpedestrians
requiringdesignmodifications,thisimpactwouldbepotentiallysignificant.Implementationof
mitigationmeasureTRAN1wouldreducethisimpacttoalessthansignificantlevelbyrequiring
incorporationoftherecommendedmeasuresintoprojectdesigns,therebyminimizingpotential
safetyhazards.
Inaddition,therearenomeasureablesafetyconcernsbetweenapavedasphaltpathwayanda
decomposedgranite(DG)path.AwellconstructedDGpathwaywouldlikelyreducethespeeds
ofcyclistsusingthefacility,andwouldnotpresentanyuniquesafetyhazardsforusers.During
wetweather,aDGpathsurfacemaydeterusebycyclistscomparedtoanasphaltsurface.
(e)
Theproposedprojectwouldnotinterferewithemergencyaccessintheprojectarea.The
projectwouldinsteadresultinimprovementsatbothitsRioRoadterminusanditsLasuenDrive
terminustoimproveaccessandsafety.AttheRioRoadterminus,theprojectwouldinvolvethe
removaloffencingandvegetationtoimproveaccesstotheprojectsite.AttheLasuenDrive
terminus,theprojectwouldincludewideningoftheentrance/exitattheadjacentparkinglotas
wellasimprovementstofencing,pavement,andsignagetobetterdelineateandseparate
vehicletrafficfrompedestrianandbicycletraffic.Thetrailwouldbeaccessibletoemergency
respondervehiclesatmultiplepointsalongthetrailthroughvehiclegates(seeFigure2a).
(f)
Seesubsection10,LandUseandPlanning,Issueb.Theproposedprojectisconsideredtobe
consistentwithapplicablelanduseplans,policies,andregulations.Asanewpedestrian/bicycle
pathsegmentthatwouldimprovecirculationinthearea,theprojectwouldsupporttheCitys
andCountysplansandpoliciesregardingpedestrianandbicyclefacilities.Withimplementation
ofmitigationmeasureTRAN1,theprojectwouldalsoimprovetheperformanceandsafetyof
thesefacilities.
MitigationMeasures
TRAN1
PedestrianandCyclistSafetyDesignMeasures.TheCityshallincorporatethefollowing
recommendeddesignmodificationscontainedintheRioParkLarsonFieldTrailTraffic
AnalysispreparedbyHatchMottMacDonald,andprovidedasAppendixC.
RioRoadTerminus
1. ConstructtheproposedallweatherpathonthesouthsideofRioRoadto
accommodatetwowaybicycletrafficbetweenthetrailentryandthecrosswalk
atAthertonDrive.
LasuenDriveAccess
1. LocatethecrosswalkacrossLasuenDrivetoprovideadequatestoppingsight
distanceformotoristsapproachingthecrosswalkineachdirectiononLasuen
DriveDoloresStreet.Thecrosswalkinstallationshallincludeadvancecrosswalk
warningsignsoneachapproachaswellasacombinedBicycle/Pedestrian
(W1115)signatthecrossinglocation.
II.InitialStudy
2. InstallatwowaybicyclelaneontheeastsideofLasuenDrivebetweenthenew
crosswalkandthenewtrailtodelineatetheareafortwowaycyclingonthe
eastsideofLasuenDrive.
3. InstallsharedroadwaymarkingsontheLasuenDriveDoloresStreetbikeroute
inconsultationwithMontereyCountyRMAPublicWorks.Markingsshallbe
limitedtolocationsalongLasuenDrive,andforapproximatelyoneblockalong
DoloresStreet.
Priortoapprovalofimprovementplans
Monitoring/Enforcement:
CityofCarmelbytheSeaPublicWorksDepartment
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS.Wouldtheproject:
a) Exceedwastewatertreatmentrequirements
oftheapplicableRegionalWaterQualityControl
Board?
b) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnew
waterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesor
expansionofexistingfacilities,theconstruction
ofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmental
effects?
c) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnew
stormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionof
existingfacilities,theconstructionofwhich
couldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?
d) Havesufficientwatersuppliesavailableto
servetheprojectfromexistingentitlementsand
resources,orareneworexpandedentitlements
needed?
e) Resultinadeterminationbythewastewater
treatmentproviderwhichservesormayserve
theprojectthatithasadequatecapacityto
servetheprojectprojecteddemandinaddition
totheprovidersexistingcommitments?
f) Beservedbyalandfillwithsufficient
permittedcapacitytoaccommodatethe
projectssolidwastedisposalneeds?
g) Complywithfederal,state,andlocal
statutesandregulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?
Discussion
(ag)
Theproposedprojectismultiusepathwaythatwouldnotaddpopulationorotherlanduses
thatwouldincreasedemandonpublicutilitiesandservicesystems.Therewouldbenoimpact
relatedtopublicutilities.
II.InitialStudy
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18.MANDATORYFINDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE.Doestheproject:
a) Havethepotentialtodegradethequalityof
theenvironment,substantiallyreducethe
habitatofafishorwildlifespecies,causeafish
orwildlifepopulationtodropbelowself
sustaininglevels,threatentoeliminateaplant
oranimalcommunity,reducethenumberor
restricttherangeofarareorendangeredplant
oranimal,oreliminateimportantexamplesof
themajorperiodsofCaliforniahistoryor
prehistory?
b) Haveimpactsthatareindividuallylimited,
butcumulativelyconsiderable?(Cumulatively
considerablemeansthattheincremental
effectsofaprojectareconsiderablewhen
viewedinconnectionwiththeeffectsofthe
pastprojects,theeffectsofothercurrent
projects,andtheeffectsofprobablefuture
projects.)
c) Haveenvironmentaleffects,whichwill
causesubstantialadverseeffectsonhuman
beings,eitherdirectlyorindirectly?
Discussion
(a)
Withmitigationincorporated,theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinanysignificantimpacts.
Asdiscussedinsubsection4,BiologicalResources,aftermitigation,theproposedprojectwould
resultinlessthansignificantimpactstospeciesidentifiedascandidate,sensitive,orspecial
statusspecies,onanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunity,andonfederally
protectedwetlandsandwouldnotconflictwithlocalpoliciesandordinancesprotecting
biologicalresources.Similarly,asdiscussedinsubsection5,CulturalResources,aftermitigation,
theproposedprojectwouldresultinlessthansignificantimpactstohumanremains,
archaeologicalresources,andpaleontologicalresources.
(b)
Asignificantimpactmayoccuriftheproject,inconjunctionwithrelatedprojects,wouldresult
inimpactsthatarelessthansignificantwhenviewedseparatelybutwouldbesignificantwhen
viewedtogether.Whenconsideringtheproposedprojectincombinationwithotherpast,
present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureprojectsinthevicinityoftheprojectsite,the
proposedprojectdoesnothavethepotentialtocauseimpactsthatarecumulatively
considerable.Asdetailedintheabovediscussions,theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinany
significantandunmitigableimpactsinanyenvironmentalcategories.Inallcases,theimpacts
associatedwiththeprojectarelimitedtotheprojectsiteorareaofsuchanegligibledegreethat
theywouldnotresultinasignificantcontributiontoanycumulativeimpacts.
(c)
Theproposedprojectdoesnothavethepotentialtosignificantlyadverselyaffecthumans,
eitherdirectlyorindirectly,oncemitigationmeasuresareimplemented.Whileanumberofthe
proposedprojectsimpactswereidentifiedashavingapotentialtosignificantlyimpacthumans,
withimplementationoftheidentifiedmitigationmeasuresandstandardrequirements,these
impactsareexpectedtobelessthansignificant.Withimplementationoftheidentified
measures,theproposedprojectwouldnotbeexpectedtocausesignificantadverseimpactsto
humans.Allsignificantimpactsareavoidable,andtheCityofCarmelbytheSeawouldensure
thatmeasuresimposedtoprotecthumanbeingsarefullyimplemented.
III.DETERMINATION
III.Determination
III.Determination
Onthebasisofthisinitialevaluation:
IfindthattheproposedprojectCOULDNOThaveasignificant
effectontheenvironment,andaNEGATIVEDECLARATIONwill
beprepared.
Ifindthatalthoughtheproposedprojectcouldhavea
significanteffectontheenvironment,therewillnotbea
significanteffectinthiscasebecauserevisionsintheproject
havebeenmadebyoragreedtobytheprojectproponent.A
MITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATIONwillbeprepared.
IfindthattheproposedprojectMAYhaveasignificanteffect
ontheenvironmentandanENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT
isrequired.
IfindthattheproposedprojectMAYhaveapotentially
significantorapotentiallysignificantunlessimpactonthe
environment,butatleastoneeffect(1)hasbeenadequately
analyzedinanearlierdocumentpursuanttoapplicablelegal
standards,and(2)hasbeenaddressedbymitigationmeasures
basedontheearlieranalysisasdescribedonattachedsheets.
AnENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTisrequired,butitmust
analyzeonlytheeffectsthatremaintobeaddressed.
Ifindthatalthoughtheproposedprojectcouldhavea
significanteffectontheenvironment,becauseallpotentially
significanteffects(a)havebeenanalyzedadequatelyinan
earlierEIRorNEGATIVEDECLARATIONpursuanttoapplicable
standards,and(b)havebeenavoidedorpursuanttothat
earlierEIRorNEGATIVEDECLARATION,includingrevisionsor
mitigationmeasuresthatareimposedupontheproposed
project,nothingfurtherisrequired.
MarcWiener,SeniorPlanner
Date:
IV.REFERENCES
IV.References
IV.References
CaliforniaAmericanWater.2015.SanClementeDamRemovalProjectandCarmelRiverReroute.
AccessedJune11.http://www.sanclementedamremoval.org/?page_id=60.
CaliforniaDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl.2015.EnviroStor.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
Caltrans.2015.HighwayDesignManual.
CarmelbytheSea,Cityof.2003.CarmelbytheSeaGeneralPlan/CoastalLandUsePlan.
http://ci.carmel.ca.us/carmel/index.cfm/government/staffdepartments/community
planningandbuilding/generalplan/.
CDFW(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife).2015.CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase
QuickViewToolinBIOS5.Sacramento:CDFWBiogeographicDataBranch.
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.
CDWR(CaliforniaDepartmentWaterResources,DivisionofSafetyofDams).2015.DamsWithin
theJurisdictionoftheStateofCalifornia.AccessedJune11.
http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/Juris(HM)2014.pdf.
CNPS(CaliforniaNativePlantSociety).2015.InventoryofRare,Threatened,andEndangered
PlantsofCalifornia(onlineedition,v801a).Sacramento:CNPS.
HatchMottMacDonald.2015.RioParkLarsonFieldTrailTrafficAnalysis.
Holman&AssociatesArchaeologicalConsultants.2015.ArchaeologicalRecordsSearchandSite
Reconnaissance.
Jones&StokesAssociates,Inc.1995.FinalResultsoftheEnvironmentallySensitiveHabitatArea
StudyConductedfortheCityofCarmelbytheSea.PreparedfortheCommunity
PlanningandBuildingDepartment.
Monterey,Countyof.1983.CarmelAreaLandUsePlan.LocalCoastalProgram.
.2015.MontereyCountyCodeofOrdinances.AccessedJune10.
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/monterey_county/codes/code_of_ordinances.
StateWaterResourcesControlBoard.2015.GeoTracker.
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
USDA(USDepartmentofAgriculture,NaturalResourcesConservationService).2015.WebSoil
Survey.AccessedJune10.
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm?TARGET_APP=Web_Soil_S
urvey_application_esbumymdetr0mlzmh4egy5kg.
USFWS(USFishandWildlifeService).2015a.Information,Planning,andConservation(IPaC).
System.http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
.2015b.CriticalHabitatPortal.http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/flex/crithabMapper.jsp?.

Rio Park-Larson Field Pathway Project Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rio Park-Larson Field Pathway Project Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C ITYOF C ARMEL BY THE S EA

T:\_GIS\Monterey_County\MXDs\Carmel\Rio_Park_Trail\IS\Project Vicinity Map.mxd (7/29/2015)

Mission Fields Road

T:\_CS\Work\Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of\Rio Park-Larson Field IS 15-0030\Figures

CITY a" CARMti

TR()CI(~ CAAH'riNt:: ~ AJdtJ EQUrPIENT ~ U5E" 1h' 1"/!'AIL

SHOMII I'.IIH PAI.fll/G.Al'I'"Il S7W'1'5 ~ ~

~r:~ ~"f ~lllf~rri:~~~r ~~AST

TI-C CHAJN UMr:' niX: DJ(';UJ5WC 71-IE !Mml 1JIM( ,l,flll)

A PORTION rT THE" soom 8ASBAU. RLD F'E:NCE ANO CA Tr llftt

mEr- ml WI" H ICJIJI' ML 7lil'n

Source: Neill Engineers Corp.

T:\_CS\Work\Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of\Rio Park-Larson Field IS 15-0030\Figures

Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

T:\_CS\Work\Carmel, City of\Rio Park - Larson Field\Figures

Western entrance to project site at Dolores

Looking southeast at the line of Monterey

Street and Lasuen Drive

cypress trees in the western portion of

Looking northwest from south corner of the

Looking northeast from south corner of field

along the fence line east of the baseball field

T:\_CS\Work\Carmel, City of\Rio Park - Larson Field\Figures

Two-Way Class I Bikeway (Bike Path)

Source: Caltrans 2015

Existing Access Road

Sensitive Habitat Barrier

Rare Plant Rank

Monitoring/Enforcement: City of CarmelbytheSea Department of Community

Monitoring/Enforcement: City of CarmelbytheSea Department of Community

Monitoring/Enforcement: City of CarmelbytheSea Department of Community

Monitoring/Enforcement: City of CarmelbytheSea Department of Community

You might also like

~r:~ ~"f ~lllf~rri:~r AST