Loading...
Item 8 - EA Consideration of Mitigated Negative Declaration for Proposed SR 56 Roadway Extension {( ~ AGENDA REPORT CITY OF POW A Y TO: FROM: INITIATED BY: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ Reba Wrlght-Quastler, Director o~Plannlng Services ~~ James R. Nessel, Senior Planner ~ January 3D, 1990 DATE: SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Consideration of a Mltl ated Ne ative eclaratlon or the roposed tate Route 5 Roadway Extension Construction Project, Applicant/Lead Agency: City of Poway ABSTRACT The proposed SR 56 project has undergone extensive environmental review. This review Included the preparation of a project-specific Extended Initial. StUdy and an associated comprehensive enhancement plan for Identified on-site biologi- cal resources. A public notice of a 3D-day public review period, along with all environmental documentation, was distributed to the State agencies having juris- diction over natural resources. An expanded, local publiC notice of the review period was also provided to adjacent and other affected property owners and jurisdictions. The Extended Initial StUdy document, Including all technical reports, was distributed to the Councllmembers on January 8, 1990 for review. It is recommended by staff that the City Council consider the Information con- tained In the Extended Initial Study, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comment letters received and the responses thereto, and adopt the attached resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration pur- suant to the provisions of CEQA State Guidelines. This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment Is based on project revisions and special mitigation measures added to the project which now fully avoid and mitigate all significant, and potentially significant, environmental effects previously Identified In an Environmental Extended Initial StUdy conducted by the City of poway. BACKGROUND The public notice of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Is shown as Attachment I, and the MND document Is shown as Attachment 2. The Extended Initial StUdy addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the ACTION: I 1 of 73 JAN 3 0 1990 ITEM 8 Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 2 extension of State Route 56 (SR 56) in the City of Poway. As a condition of the City of San Diego'S approval of the Carmel Mountain Ranch (CMR) project, CMR was required to prepare a Facilities Benefit Assessment District which InCluded construction of a segment of SR 56 within CMR as well as the segment within the City of Poway. The route has now been constructed through CMR and In the City of Poway with the exception of an 1,850-foot segment located between Pomerado Road and Poway's western boundary. The Extended Initial StUdy focused on five Issues which were determined to be potentially significant by the City of poway. Other Issue areas Identified In the Environmental Initial StUdy Checklist (Attachment 3) as having a potential for significant effects are discussed under Section II - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation of the Initial StUdy Checklist (see Insert A at the end of Attachment 3). The environmental analysis concluded that the Issue areas discussed would avoid significant and potentially significant impacts through Implementation of pro- ject revisions and recommended mitigation measures should the proposed project be Implemented. The five issue areas and the corresponding technical reports are as follows: · Geotechnical/Hydrology - Appendix B · Biological Resources - Appendix C . Transportation/Traffic Circulation - Apprendlx 0 . Noise - Appendix E . Landform Alteration/Visual Quality - no Appendix In addition, a discussion of growth inducement and cumulative effects are included within the stUdy. The technical reports corresponding to the five issue areas are appended at the end of the Extended Initial StUdy text. The Extended Initial StUdy analysis was prepared for the City by ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State of California CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and the City of Poway environmental review guidelines. The consultants who prepared the technical reports will be In attendance at the January 30, 1990 public hearing. The City Council resolution, shown as Attachment 4, contains recommended mitiga- tion measures (conditions of project approval) for the identified Impacts, and a proposed framework mitigation monitoring and reporting program. At the time of this writing, ERC consultants were preparing the responses to public comments and a fully developed (detailed) monitoring and reporting program. This addi- tional Information will be distributed to the City Council prior to the public hearing and would be incorporated Into the resolution subject to Council appro- val. It is also recommended that the monitoring and reporting program be made a condition of project approval. Project Description Attachments 5, 6, 7, and 8 depict the project location, project site plan, surrounding land uses, and General Plan Circulation Element conformance, respec- tively. JAN 301990 ITEM 8 2 of 73 Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 3 The proposed project site Is a 34.3-acre, City-owned parcel located In the western-central portion of the City of poway. The site Is bordered by Pomerado Road on the east, the City of San Diego boundary on the west, Caltrans right-of- way on the south, and the Carmel Vista residential subdivision in the RS-3 zone to the north. The project area is dominated by two northwest-southeast trending ridges and a southeast-flowing ephemeral stream which Is positioned between them. The eastern portion of the site slopes downward and terminates at Pomerado Road. To the south, the site slopes down to grassy open areas (CalTrans ROW) and a resi- dential condominium project. The land west of the site Includes previously graded hillsides, the CMR golf course, and the nearly completed segment of SR 56 in the City of San Diego. The project site Is currently undeveloped and primarily supports coastal sage scrub (which Includes historically reported vernal pool habitat), southern California grassland, and freshwater marsh vegetation associated with the ephe- meral stream. Disturbance of the site Is presently minimal, with the exception of a series of dirt roads that traverse the site. The project site is currently zoned RR-C (1 du per 1, 2, or 4 net acres). Existing surrounding land uses are shown on Attachment 7. The proposed extension of SR 56 within the City of poway Involves physical changes to approximately 14 acres (roadway and manufactured slopes) within the 34.3 acres designated as the project site. An additional 1.2 acres would be graded In the City of San Diego as shown on the project site plan (see Attachment 6). The proposed extension of the SR 56 roadway through the project site would cover approximately 5.5 acres and the development of manufactured slopes adjacent to the alignment would cover approximately 8.2 acres. A total of approximately 20 acres would be retained In Its current state In areas to the north and south of the manufactured slopes within the project property. The proposed route was approved by the City of poway with the adoption of the City of poway General Plan and EIR and by the City of San Diego with the adop- tion of the CMR Community Plan. This extension is currently shown In the Circulation Element of the City of Poway Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 8). The goal of the project Is to provide a major east-west access by connecting the existing SR 56 which currently dead-ends at the east side of Pomerado Road, and the segment of SR 56 which is being constructed In the City of San Diego. The proposed extension would be a six-lane, divided, primary arterial with an approximate 126 foot wide right-of-way. This connecting portion of SR 56 would serve to further complete this east-west travel corridor between 1-15 and Highway 67. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the report summarizes the evaluation of the five environmental issue areas determined by staff to incur potentially significant impacts and are discussed In greater detail In the Environmental Initial Study (EIS) document. (See Section IV. Environmental Analysis, beginning at page 4-1.) 3 of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM a Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 4 Significance of Environmental Impacts 1. Soils/Geology: Potentially significant Impacts associated with soils/geology Include a number of effects related to major regional seismic actIvity. The most likely and significant adverse effect resulting from seismic activity would be landslldlng of natural and manufactured slopes. The potential for adverse Impacts to affect the proposed roadway resulting from soIl properties on-site Is considered to be moderate (see Attachment 9). These soil properties have been recorded for the project site and are not considered to be potentially significant. Once construction of the manufactured slopes has been completed, the landscaping and Irrigation plan shall be Implemented on these slopes. Subsequent establishment of trees, shrubs and plants proposed by the landscaping plan would help promote slope stabilization and erosion control. The proposed irrigation system would promote maximum vegetative cover on the manufactured slopes which would help reduce erosion potential on these slopes. Potential slope failure (gravity-induced landslldlng) of manufactured cut- and-fill slopes, however, Is considered significant. Due to local soil pro- perties, proposed grading exposing the contact area between the Friar's Formation and the Stadium Conglomerate, the proposed 2:1 slope gradients, and the proposed 1.5:1 slope gradient on the upper portion of the northern cut slope, gravity Induced failure of these slopes Is considered potentially significant. 2. Hydrology: Potentially significant Impacts associated with hydrology Include effects related to drainage alteration, construction of Impervious surfaces, and generation of urban pOllutants. The inclusion of two proposed retention basins In project design, however, would reduce runoff flow rates leaving the site to below the existing flow rate. These basins would there- fore reduce potential significant impacts associated with Increased runoff (I.e. erosion, sedimentation) to below a level of significance. The poten- tial for water quality degradation resulting from contaminants being collected in runoff from the proposed roadway is considered Incremental and Insignificant. Recommended Mitigation Measures and Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This Information was taken directly from the Extended Initial StUdy docu- ment, and due to Its length, was placed within the Council resolution to avoid unnecessary repetition. (See Exhibit A of Attachment 4.) Mitigation measures for soils/geology and hydrology include the following specific Impact areas: 4 of 73 JAN 30 1990 ITEM 8 , Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 5 Soils/Geology . Grading and earthworks . Slope stablllty/stablllzalton fills . Surface and subsurface drainage . Post rough grading . Landscape and Irrigation . Grading plan review Hydrology . Drainage facilities . Landscape and irrigation Level of Significance After Mitigation The Extended Initial StUdy concludes that It Is anticipated that all Iden- tified Impacts related to soils/geology and hydrological resources shall be mitigated to below a level of significance. 3. Biological Resources: Development of the SR 56 roadway corridor as pre- sently proposed would be anticipated to result In the following Impacts to biological resources. For impact analysis purposes, It was assumed that all activities associated with this project are contained within the limits of grading as shown on Attachment 6. (See Attachment 10 for Biological Resources Map and Attachment 11 for summary table of Impacted vegetation.) The loss of three vernal pool basins totalling 31.0 m2 and their watershed (0.2 acre) on the crest of the site's central ridge would be a significant adverse Impact of the proposed project, and would require mitigation. Approximately 0.21 acre of freshwater marsh vegetation would be lost as a result of project implementation. This Is an adverse Impact of the proposed project, and an Incremental loss of natural habitat. While the loss of this small amount of habitat may not be particularly significant from a biologi- cal perspective, It would be considered significant by the CDFG under their no new wetland loss policy. Other losses directly associated with the loss of coastal sage scrub Include (a) the loss or displacement of a pair of California black-tailed gnatcatchers, and the potential Indirect effect of construction on two other pairs; (b) the loss or displacement of one or more rufous-crowned sparrows; (c) the loss of a minimum of 36 Individuals of San Diego barrel cactus; and (d) the loss of ashy spike moss. The loss of these sensitive species Is not significant on an Individual species basis due to either the low number of Individuals affected (I.e., black-tailed gnat- catchers) or the current low sensitivity status of the species (I.e., rufous-crowned sparrow, coast barrel cactus, and ashy spike moss). These losses, however, constitute cumulative adverse Impacts. While mitigation is not required for non-significant impacts, recommendations are provided where appropriate to reduce the level of these Impacts. 5 of 73 JAN 30 1990 ITEM 8 Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 6 The loss of approximately 3.7 acres of Southern California grassland vegeta- tion which Is a rapidly declining plant community In San Diego County, Is considered an adverse but nonsignificant Impact. No rare, endangered, or otherwise sensitive plant species were revealed as a result of the spring survey In this habitat. Off-site Impacts, totalling 1.2 acres, would occur to coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat as a result of filling the small canyon west of the site and extension of the roadway through a future SDG&E easement In the site's southern corner. No sensitive species of plants or animals were detected In these areas, and overall, this loss of habitat Is considered an adverse but nonsignificant Impact. Recommended Mitigation Measures and Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Exhibit A of Attachment 4) It should be noted here that the mitigation measures were developed through both early consultation with State Agency representatives and by Agency review of preliminary recommendations to mitigate biological resources. Mitigation measures for biological resources include the following specific impact areas: . Wetlands o Recommendations for transplantation, construction activities, and vernal pool enhancement Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce anticipated Impacts to vernal pool resources and freshwater marsh habitat to below a level of significance. Quality replacement habitat proposed on-site will serve to eliminate these anticipated Impacts all together. 4. Transportation/Traffic Circulation: To adequately evaluate potential Impacts on local street segments and intersections, the proposed project was reviewed under two scenarios. The first scenario assumed "existing plus project con- ditions" with a continuous SR 56 from Rancho Penasqultos Boulevard east to Twin Peaks Road. The second scenario examined horizon year conditions which assumes bulldout of the poway General Plan, as well as the SANDAG Series VII growth forecasts for the surrounding study area. Both scenarios were ana- lyzed under "no project" conditions, which assumes the segment of SR 56 bet- ween the westerly City limit of poway and Pomerado Road would remain unconstructed. In addition, both scenarios were evaluated for short-and long-term impacts. Attachment 12 shows ADT generation under the existing plus "no project" condition, and Attachment 13 depicts the existing plus project condition. 6. of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 f Agenda Report January 30, 1989 Page 7 Short-Term (Street Segments) Under existing conditions and no project, all segments of SR 56 are pro- jected to operate at LOS A. All other vicinity street segments are antici- pated to operated at LOS A or B (see Attachment 14). Under existing plus project conditions, SR 56 Is projected to carry 7,400 and 9,400 ADT east and west of Pomerado Road, respectively. East and west of Rancho Carmel Drive/Sabre Springs parkway, this road segment Is expected to accommodate 10,700 and 16,900 ADT, respectively. LOS A Is projected on all segments of SR 56 under existing plus project conditions. As shown on Attachment 14, Camino Del Norte Road would experience a signifi- cant traffic reduction west of SR 56 under existing plus project conditions (24,000 ADT, LOS B to 18,600 ADT, LOS A). This Is expected because SR 56 Is anticipated to divert traffic from Camino Del Norte Road/Twin Peaks Road which Is currently used to access Interstate 15. The segment of Camino Del Norte Road west of Pomerado Road would Improve from LOS B to A with the addition of the proposed project. This Is the only LOS designation for a road segment that would change .In the short-term (existing) with the addi- tion of project conditions. Pomerado Road would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. It should be noted, volumes along Poway Road would tend to decrease slightly under existing plus project con- ditions due to anticipated rerouting of traffic to SR 56 to avoid current congestion at the Poway Road/Interstate 15 Interchange during peak periods. Carmel Mountain Road east of Interstate 15 would experience slight traffic decreases under existing plus project conditions and would continue to operate at high levels of service. Short-Term (Intersections) Attachment 15 summarizes the results of the short-term intersection analyses for project vicinity Intersections for the PM peak hour under existing plus "no project", and existing plus project conditions. All project vicinity intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions plus "no project" conditions. Under existing plus project conditions the level of service at project vici- nity Intersections would remain consistent and, In some cases, would improve over existing conditions. The Intersection of Pomerado Road and Camino Del Norte Road would Improve from LOS C to B, and the Intersection of Camino Del Norte Road and Carmel Mountain Road would Improve from LOS B to A. JAN 3 Q 1990 ITEM 8 7 of 73 Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 8 Long-Term (Street Segments) In order to evaluate the long range Impacts associated with the SR 56 exten- sion, WIlldan Associates has utilized forecasts performed by SANDAG for the City of poway In conjunction with the South poway Planned Community Subsequent EIR. The "horizon year" does not refer to any precise year, but rather to the development of land use assumptions. The forecasts reflect a bulldout land use condition within the City of Poway and year 2010 SANDAG Series VII growth forecast for the remainder of the San Diego region. Attachments 16 and 17 show horizon year dally traffic volumes In the project vicinity both with and without the proposed project. Attachment 18 Indicates horizon year street segment daily traffic volumes and levels of service In the project vicinity. Pomerado Road from south of SR 56 to north of Camino Del Norte/Twln Peaks Road would be severely Impacted under horizon year conditions with the proposed project and would operate at LOS E and F. Without the proposed project, Pomerado Road is pro- jected to operate at LOS F on all street segments In the project vicinity. Camino Del Norte/Twln Peaks Road would be severely impacted east and west of Pomerado Road (LOS 0 and E) under horizon year "no project" conditions. The congested condition of Camino Del Norte/Twin Peaks Road east and west of Pomerado Road would be significantly Improved by the addition of the project to LOS Band C, respectively. East of SR 56, this roadway segment is pro- jected to carry 60,000 ACT both with and without the proposed project which would produce LOS F conditions. Carmel Mountain Road east of Interstate 15 is forecast to carry 50,000 and 55,000 ADT with and without the proposed project, respectively. According to City of Poway standards, these ADT represent LOS 0 and E for this respec- tive segment. This segment of road, however, Is located within the City of San Diego. San Diego standards Indicate the segment will operate at LOS C and 0, respectively. It should be noted that without the proposed project, traffic volumes on Poway Road would increase and thus further impact this over-burdened roadway. Long-Term (Intersections) Intersection LOS cannot be accurately estimated In the horizon year with available Information (Willdan Associates 1989). It can be stated, however, that Impacted road segments in the horizon year with "no project" would result in congestion at the Pomerado Road Intersections of SR 56 and Camino Del Norte Road, the SR 56 and Camino Del Norte/Twln Peaks Road intersection, and the Carmel Mountain Road and Camino Del Norte Intersection. The project would Improve the level of service along these road segments In the horizon year, and would therefore Incrementally Improve the anticipated congestion at the Intersections previously described. 8 of 73 JAN301990 ITEM 8 r Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 9 Recommended Mttigation Measures and Proposed Mttt,atton Monttoring and Reporting Program (see Exhibit A of Attachment 4 Level of Stgnificance After Mittgation No significant project-specific traffic Impacts have been Identified as being attributed to the proposed SR 56 extension. The recommended mitiga- tion measures, however, would Incrementally reduce significant Impacts resulting from area bulldout (horizon year) to local street segments and Intersections. 5. No1se: Existing Conditions The SR 56 project site Is currently undeveloped. Currently, the project site Is zoned RR-C (1 du per 1. 2. or 4 net acres) although there are no development plans proposed for the 20 acres of the vacant land which will exist to the north and south of the proposed roadway on-site. Land uses surrounding the project site are shown on Attachment 7. A recent develop- ment Is the 21 single-family home, Carmel Vista residential development which Is currently being constructed Immediately north of the project site. City Noise Guidelines The City of Poway has established noise guidelines for different land uses which exist or may be proposed within or adjacent to the project site. The City's noise objectives for residential development In the Noise Element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that acceptable outdoor noise levels should not exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL adjacent to single-family areas. The existing noise environment was analyzed to determine noise levels the project site Is currently exposed to, prior to development. To the north of the project site, existing single-family homes within Parcels 36 and 37 are currently exposed to exterior noise levels of 66 dB(A) CNEL, and 62 dB (A) CNEL, respectively. The residences on Parcels 36 and 37 are located approximately 160 to 385 feet (horizontal distance) from the centerline of Pomerado Road, respectively (see Attachment 19). The southeastern corner (proposed Lot 9) of the Carmel Vista residential project which is currently being graded for development Is exposed to 61 dB(A) CNEL. Significance of Impact Future noise levels projected from vehicular traffic on the proposed segment of SR 56 would cumulatively contribute to noise levels In the eastern por- tion of the project site and In areas to the north of the project site, (from the eastern portion of Carmel Vista to Pomerado Road) which would be subject to noise levels above 60 dB (A) CNEL even without noise contributed from vehicular traffic on SR 56. The addition of approximately 2 to 5 dB(A) CNEL In these on-site and off-site areas from vehicular traffic on SR 56 9 of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 10 represents a cumulative adverse impact. Projected noise levels from vehicu- lar traffic on the proposed segment of SR 56 would result In noise levels above the 60 dB(A) CNEL guideline within a portion of Carmel Vista residen- tial development (Lots 6, 7, and 8) which would represent a significant cumulative adverse noise Impact along with future noise levels contributed from vehicular traffic on Pomerado Road. Noise generated by the proposed project (I.e., vehicular traffic) would result in noise levels In excess of 60 dB(A) CNEL In vacent lands within project site boundaries to the north and southwest of the proposed align- ment, and off-site to the south. Projected noise levels would represent significant adverse noise Impacts If single-family units are built In these areas. Recommended Mitigation Measures and Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Exhibit A of Attachment 4) Level of Significance After Mitigation Although vehicular traffic on SR 56 would Increase ambient noise levels In the project vicinity, implementation of recommended mitigation measures (I.e., measures presented In this report and measures recommended from sub- sequent analyses on specific site plans for development around the project) would reduce significant noise impacts generated by the project to below a level of significance. 6. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality: Landfrom Alteration: The grading plan for the site proposes approximately 588,800 cubic yards of cut and 165,000 cubic yards of fill, which would result in 422,900 cubic yards of export material from the site. The grading would Impact 13.7 acres of the 34.3 total acres within the Poway City limits or approximately 40 percent of the site. An additional 1.2 acres would be graded outside the Poway City limits. In general, the proposed grading would lower a portion of the higher elevations by approximately 90 feet while Increasing particular lower elevations by 40 to 55 feet. Manufactured slopes of a 2:1 gradient (horizontal to vertical) would be created in a number of areas adjacent to the roadway on-site, with a maximum slope height of approximately 80 feet. Only the area above the proposed buttress on the northern cut slope would be steeper than a 2:1 gradient. This area from the buttress to the top-of-slope Is proposed as a 1.5 to 1 gradient slope, with a maximum slope height of apprOXimately 30 feet. The northern cut slope (2:1 and 1.5:1 gradient slope) and the southern cut slope (2:1 gradient slope) would have maximum cut slope heights of approximately 110 and 80 feet, respectively. Attachment 20 depicts the manufactured slo- pes that would result from the proposed project. 10 of 73 JAN301990 ITEM 8 ~ Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 11 All grading on the project site shall be done In accordance with the City of Poway Grading Ordinance policy and standards. Proposed contour grading along the sides of the slopes will serve to m1nlmlze the effect of landform alteration associated with the manufactured slopes on-site. A detailed landscaping and Irrigation plan has been prepared by a qualified landscape architect (Halsey Design Group 1989) and has been approved by the City of Poway (Cannon 1989). All proposed landscaping, Irrigation, and maintenance associated with the project shall be conducted In conformance with City of poway standards. Once construction of the manufactured slopes has been completed, the landscaping and Irrigation plan shall be Implemented on these slopes. Subsequent establishment of trees, shrubs, and plants proposed by the landscaping plan shall serve to help stabilized manufactured slopes. The landscaping plan proposes direct planting and hydroseedlng mixes to establish drought-tolerant species Including native plan species. A colored copy of the landscaping plan will be wallmounted at the public hearing. Significant visual quality Impacts would not be anticipated to viewers surrounding the site. The proposed roadway would not significantly alter the visual character of the area and would not be In conflict with visual policies presented In the poway Comprehensive Plan. The visual alteration of the site will be minimized through proposed contour grading of the sides of the cut slopes and Implementation of the proposed landscaping and Irriga- tion plan. These efforts shall minimize the visual Impact associated with the manufactured slopes, and shall Improve the visual transition between manufactured slopes and the natural landform. Reconmended Mitigation Measures and Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Because no significant impacts have been Identified pertaining to landform alteration and visual resources, no mitigation measures are necessary. The landscaping and Irrigation plans (approved by the City of Poway) which have been Incorporated Into project design, however, would serve to minimize the adverse visual alteration associated with manufactured slopes. Level of Significance: Significant, adverse impacts to landform and visual resources are not anticipated from Implementation of the proposed roadway. Therefore, additional measures beyond those proposed within project design, would not be required to reduce impacts to a level below significance. RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS A public notice (Attachment 1), along with the Extended Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to all affected agencies for a 3D-day, public review period pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The public review distribution list Is shown on page three of Attachment 2. The publiC notice JAN 301990 ITEM 8 11 of 73 Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 12 was also mailed to all adjacent and other affected property owners and jurisdic- tions as discussed In the Correspondence section below. The 3D-day publiC review period generated only three comment letters shown as Attachments 21a, 21b, and 21c. At the time of this writing, the City's environmental consultant was preparing the responses to public comments which will be provided to the City Council prior to the hearing on this Item. PROPOSED FINDING OF A MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed and recommended finding that the project will not have a signifi- cant effect on the environment Is based on project revisions and special mitiga- tion measures added to the project which now fUlly avoid and mitigate all significant and potentially significant environmental effects as previously Iden- tified in the Extended Initial StUdy conducted by the City. CORRESPONDENCE The public hearing for this item was advertised In the Poway News Chieftain, and mailed notice was sent to all property owners, State and local agencies, and affected jurisdictions that were noticed for the 3D-day public review period. The public notice of the 3D-day review period was also advertised In the Poway News Chieftain. An expanded local mailed notice of the hearing Included the required 500 foot radius notice as well as notice to the property owners within the Colonies and Adobe Ridge subdivisions, the developer of the Carmel Vista residential subdivision to the north of the project site, the Twin Peaks Plaza property owners, and to the affected property owners within the condominium development located south of the old SR 56 (CaITrans) right-of-way. FISCAL IMPACT The Implementation of the proposed project and associated project costs will be administered pursuant to the agreement between the City of Poway and the deve- loper of Carmel Mountain Ranch. RECO""'ENDATION It Is recommended that the City Council review and consider the Information con- tained In the Extended Initial StUdy, the recommended mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring/reporting program, the public comments and responses thereto, and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve the attached resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration. JLB:RWQ:JRN:pn JAN 3 0 1990 IT E Iv1 8 12 of 73 Agenda Report January 30, 1990 Page 13 Attachments: 1. Public Notice of Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. Initial StUdy Environmental Checklist with Insert A 4. Proposed City Council Resolution 5. Project Site on Poway USGS Map 6. Project Site Plan (Detail) 7. Existing Surrounding Land Use on Aerial Photo 8. Poway General Plan Circulation Element Plan 9. On-site Geologic Units 10. BIloglcal Resources Map 11. Summary Table of Potentially Impacted Vegetation 12. Existing Plus "No Project" ADT 13. Existing Plus "Project" ADT 14. Short-term Street Segment ADT and LOS 15. Short-term Intersection LOS 16. Horizon Year "No Project" ADT 17. Horizon Year ADT "with" the Project 18. Horizon Year Street Segment ADT and LOS, Both With and Without Project 19. Future Noise Contour Map 20. Project Manufactured Slopes 21. Public Review Comment Letters A/A-I-30.10-14H JAN 301990 ITEM 8 13 of 73 CITY OF POW A Y CARL R. KRUSE, M.yor LINDA BRANNON, Depuly M.yor DON HIGGINSON, Councilmon IAN GOLDSMml, Councilm.n non EMERY. Gouncilman PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of poway Planning Services Department for the project described below: Environmental Assessment of Proposed State Route 56 Roadway Extension Construction Project, Applicant/ Lead Agency: City of Poway The proposed project involves the construction of an approximate 1,850-foot segment of State Route 56 (SR-56) within the western-central portion of the City of poway in San Diego County. The roadway segment is a six-lane, divided arterial that would begin on the west side of Pomerado Road and directly oppo- site existing SR-56 Improvements on the east side of Pomerado Road, and would continue on a southwesterly alignment to the western boundary of the City of Poway. This western boundary adjoins the.Clty of San Diego where the Carmel Mountain Ranch Community Plan development Is now under construction. The pro- ject site is a 34.3-acre parcel located 2,000 feet south of the intersection of Pomerado Road and Camino Del Norte/Twin Peaks Road. SUBJECT PROJECT: This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on project revisions and special mitigation measures added to the project which now mitigate potentially significant environmental effects previously identified in an Environmental Extended Initial StUdy con- ducted by the City of Poway. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Extended Initial StUdy, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Poway Planning Services Department, 13202 poway Road, Poway, California 92064. For environmental review information, contact Jim Nessel, Senior Planner (619) 748-6600. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Mitigated Ne9ative Declaration must be received by the Planning Services Department at the above address by 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 8, 1990. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision-making authorities. 14 of 73 City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive .-J -'.0. Box 789, Poway, California 92064 . (619) 748-6600, (619) 695-1400 JAN 30 1990 ITEM (3 ATIAO-l ME~.rr .1.. CITY OF POW A Y CARL R. KRUSE. Mayor UNDA llRANNON, Deputy Mayor OON HIGGINSON. Couneihnan 1AN GOLDSMmJ. Councihnan DOB EMERY. Councilman PROPOSED MITIGATED Negative Declaration SUBJECT PROJECT: Environmental Assessment of Proposed State Route 56 Roadway Extension Construction Project, Applicant/ Lead Agency: City of Poway I. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: See Section II of attached City of Poway Extended Initial StUdy II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See Section III of attached City of Poway Extended Initial StUdy III. DETERMINATION The City of Poway conducted an Extended Initial S.tudy which determined that the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect. Subsequent revisions In the project design and specially developed mitigation added to the project create the speCific mitigation iden- tified in Section V of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The pro- ject, as revised through design changes and added mitigating measures, now avoids or mitigates the potentially significant environmental effects previously identified, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. IV. DOCUMENTATION The attached City of Poway Extended Initial Study with Appendix A (Initial Study Environmental Checklist) prepared for the proposed State Route 56 Roadway Extension Construction Project documents the reasons to support the above determination. The Extended Initial StUdy also includes the following technical appendices: Appendix B - Geotechnical and Hydrology Reports Appendix C - Biological Resources Report, Spring Survey. Vernal Pool Enhancement Plan Appendix 0 - Traffic Analysis Report Appendix E - State Route 56 (North City Parkway) Noise Technical Report The technical appendices have been sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the state agencies for a 3D-day, publiC review period. Any public agency or individual desiring to review a copy of the above noted technical reports as well as project grading and landscaping/irrigation plans should contact the City of poway in accor- dance with the attached public notice. \ . " City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive n 'I. Box 789, Poway, California 92064' (619) 748-6600, (619) 695-l41OOEIv1 J A N 3 0 1990 IT 13 ArrACHf(\e"-l-r 2. 15 of 73 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration SR-56 Roadway Extension Construction Project Page 2 V. MITIGATION MEASURES/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING Section IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS of the attached Extended Initial Study provides a focused site-specific, detailed evaluation of five environmental issue areas which were determined to be potentially significant by the City of poway as Lead Agency. The five issue areas are: '. A. Soils/Geology/Hydrology B. Biological Resources C. Transportation/Traffic Circulation D. Noi se E. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality The environmental analysis of each of the above issue areas Is presented as in the following format: B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Existing Conditions 2. Specific Environmental Impact 3. Significance of Impact 4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 5. Recommended Mitigation Measures **6. Level of Significance After Mitigation 7. Mitigation Monltor.ing and Reporting **AII identified impacts have either been avoided by revisions to the project design or will be mitigated to below a level of signi- ficance. Other issue areas identified in the City of Poway Environmental Initial Study Checklist (Appendix A) as having a potential for significant effects are addressed under Section II - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (see "Insert A" of Section II). The Environmental Analysis within Section IV of the Extended Initial StUdy and the environmental evaluation in "Insert A" conclude that the issue areas discussed would avoid significant and potentially significant Impacts through Implemen- tation of recommended mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring/reporting. The Extended Initial StUdy also provides a discussion of Growth Inducement (see Section V) and Cumulation Effects (see Section VI). VI. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION A copy of the Notice of Public Review with the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft) was distributed to the following public agencies and individuals for a 3D-day public review period: 16 of 73 JAN 3 0 1990 IT E M 8 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration SR-56 Roadway Extension Construction Project Page 3 State of California Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research SANDAG - Areawide Clearinghouse City of San Diego Councllmember, Abbey Wolfshelmer City Manager Development and Environmental Planning Division Planning Department Engineering and Development Department Water Utilities Department California Native Plant Society, Timothy Burr California Department of Fish and Game Carmel Mountain Ranch Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Audubon Society CatTrans U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Diego County' Department of Health Services Army Corps of Engineers San Diego Gas and Electric County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use Air Pollution Control District Sheriff's Department, poway Substation Sierra Club San Diego Chapter PCA, Michael Fry VII. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW: () No comments were received during the publiC review period. () Comments were received but did not address the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study/Extended Initial Study documents. No response is necessary. The letters are attached. (~) Comments addreSSing the findings of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study/Extended Initial StUdy documents were received during the public review period. The letters and responses follow. Copies of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available In the office of the City of Poway Planning Services Department for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction. December 4, 1989 Date of Draft Report / R. Nessel, Senior Planner f Poway Planning Services Department JAN 301990 ITEM 8 17 of 73 CITY OF POWAY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: ,January 10, 1989 APPLICANT: City Of ~owayjCarmel f10untain f:anch (City of San Diego) N/A LOG NUMBER: ~1/ A FILING DATE: PROJECT: Construction of I-56 Between Pomerado and Hesterly City limit of poway PROJECT LOCATION: City of Po way AP~I: 3:7-040-17 (J4.32AC.) I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) YES MAYBE NO. 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have slgnlflcant lmpacts in: a. Llnstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. . Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or buri a 1 of the soil? X X c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? X d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical featureS? x e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on- or off- site conditions? X f. Changes in erosion, siltation, or deposition? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 18 of 73 JAN 3 0 1990 ITEM B ,An Ac'HMEl'JT 3 2. HYdrolog~. Will the proposal have significant. 1mpacts 1n: a. Changes in currents, or the course in direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change'j n the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any altera- tion of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Qual i ty? . Quanti ty? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? j. ~xposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding 01" seiches? 3. Ai I" Qua Ii ty. Wi" the proposal have s i gnifi cant 1mpacts In: a. Constant 01" periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient ail" quality and/or i.nterference with the attainment of appl i- cable ail" quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conoitions, affecting air movement moisture or temperature? 19.of 73 YES MA YBE NO x x x x x x x ..L.. ..L.. x x -r x x JAN301990 ITEM a 20 of 73 4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant results 1n: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reducti on of the numbers of any uni que, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? Q. Reouction in the potential for agricultural production? 5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results 1n: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a .barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Population. [Will the proposal] have significant resu 1 ts 1 n : YES MAYBE NO x x x x ..L x ~ x a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human popu 1 ati on of an area? .A.- _ b. [Wi 11 the proposa I] affect exi sti ng housi ng, or created a demand for additional housing? X JAN 301990 ITEM 8 7. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have Slgnltlcant results In: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversi"y, tax ra"e, ana property values? b. Will project cos"s be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, taxpayers, or project users? 8. Land Use and Plannin~ Considerations. Will the proposal have Slgnlflcant results In: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental . enti ti es? c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? 9. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant resul"s In: a. Generation of sUbstan"ial additional vehicular movemen"? b. Effects on exis"ing streets, or demand for new street cons"ruction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movrment of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potentia I water-borne, rail, mass trans it, or air traffic? g. Increases; n traff; C hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 21 of 73 YES MAYBE NO x ...L x x x x x x x x x x ,JAN :301990 ITEM l' " 22 of 73 1U. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have slgnlTlcant lmpactS in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeo- logical, paleontological, an%r historical resources? 11. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have s1gnlflcant results In: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential heal th hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. Increase in light or glare? 12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant resu 1 ts 1 n : YES MAYBE NO x x x ..L x x x x x a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vi sta or vi ew? X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? X X JAN :J 0 1990 IT EM B 23 of 73 13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have signlflcant need for new systems, or alter- ations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. r100d control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 14. Enerqy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have Slgnlflcant lmpacts In: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in demand for development of new sources of energy? d. .An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? e. 3uostantial depletion of any non-renewable or scarce natural resource? YES MA YBE NO x x x ..L L L ..L L L L L x x x x x x x JAN301990 ITEM 8 YES MAYBE NO 15. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California nistory or prehistory? x b. Does the project nave the potential to aChieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A snort-term impact on the environmental is one wnich occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future proj- ects. ) x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions, plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures. l See Insert A. 24 of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 INSERT A II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. Soils and Geolol!v. This issue is discussed in detail in Section IV-A., SoiVGeologylHydrology. 2. Hydrolop. This issue is discussed In detail in Section IV-A., SoiVGeologylHydrology . 3. Air Ouality. Vehicular traffic that would utilize the proposed SR-56 extension in the City of Poway would generate emissions which would incrementally impact regional air quality. Vehicular traffic along this proposed roadway, however, would be generated by surrounding land uses and not by the roadway itself. The inclusion of additional roads often reduces basinwide emissions by making the circulation system more efficient. This would .be the case with the proposed SR-56 extension, although from a localized perspective more cars would be anticipated in this area (rerouted from Poway Road) with the project than without it. Emissions from vehicular traffic along this proposed roadway have been anticipated by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in their State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision. This plan documents the necessary overall strategy and individual tactics by which the San Diego Air Basin can meet its attainment goal. The proposed roadway (in the Circulation Element) and the residential zoning designation for the project site are included in the City of Poway Comprehensive Plan. These land uses are entered in SANDAG's Series VII growth forecasts (Carnevale, 1989) which are then incorporated into SIP Revisions. Therefore, these emissions are anticipated by the APCD and significant impacts to regional air quality would not be anticipated. Short-term impacts to air quality would be anticipated from construction of the roadway (from grading and construction equipment emissions), however, these impacts are considered to be short-term and insignificant. The Air Quality Element of the Poway General Plan contains policies regarding land use, transportation, energy use, and planning and its overall effect on air quality. These policies, when implemented on a project by project basis, serve to fully mitigate any potential significant .ldverse impacts to air quality. The A-I JAN 301990 ITEM 8 25 of 73 Air Quality Element is found on pages 310 through 313 of the Poway General Plan and is hereby incorporated by reference. 4. Ekml. This issue is discussed in the text in Section IV-B., Biological Resources. 5. Eimn.il. This issue is discussed in the text in Section IV-B., Biological Resources. 6. Population. The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly alter the location, distribution, density, diversity and/or growth rate of the human population of the area. The potential alterations caused by the SR-56 extension are not considered to represent significant, adverse impacts to the population of Poway. The project would be developed on approximately 14 acres of land currently zoned as RR-C (1 du/per I, 2 or 4 net acres). This project would preclude residential development over these 14 acres, however, this roadway land use has been anticipated by the City of Poway as it is included in the Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed extension is expected to improve the circulation system by providing a major east-west access in this portion of the City. This improved access could incrementally expedite development in this area of the City. Vacan"t areas zoned as rural residential which exist to the north and south of the proposed project alignment within the site could be developed without being significantly impacted by the proposed roadway. This project is not anticipated to affect existing housing (except for visual impacts, see Section IV-D., Landform Alteration/Visual Quality) or: create a demand for additional housing. 7. Socio-economic Factors. The proposed project is not anticipated to create significant, adverse impacts to local or regional socio-economic characteristics. The impacted area onsite (approximately 14 acres) would prevent the development of residential units as determined by site zoning. This project, therefore, could preclude development of these units and would eliminate them from City's taX rolls. Residential development on either side of the roadway, however, would require some road building to provide access. This improvement in the circulation system would improve east-west access through the area and could incrementally reduce transportation costs for residents using this roadway on a regular basis. The extension of SR-56 has been anticipated as it is included in the City's Circulation Element and is also identified in the County Circulation Element. A-2 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 26 of 73 The majority of the cost for the proposed roadway would be assumed by the CMR development The City of San Diego in 1986 required CMR to build this link of SR-56 in the City of Poway as a condition of approval for their Tentative Map. On September 10, 1987, the City of Poway entered into an agreement with Cannel Mountain Ranch entitled "Agreement for Construction of Public Improvements" (i.e., Camino del Norte and SR-56). The said agreement document is on file in the office of the Poway City Clerk, and is hereby incorporated by reference. 8. Land Use and Planninl! Considerations. The project site is designated for Rural Residential land use (RR-C zone) under the Poway Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed SR-56 extension is included in the City's Circulation Element contained within the Comprehensive Plan. This anticipated improvement to the circulation system is not in conflict with designations, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities. An exception to this is that the proposed project will be built to primary arterial standards (6-lane divided) while the General Plan Circulation Element classifies the project as a major arterial (4-lane undivided). The necessity for two additional lanes was not anticipated when the General Plan was adopted. A six-lane facility is necessary for two primary reasons: first, to accommodate the projected regional traffic flows, and secondly to match the roadway design of SR-56 within the adjacent Carmel Mountain Ranch community in the City of San Diego. The difference in roadway designation for SR-56 between the proposed project and the General Plan Circulation Element is minor and is not considered a significant adverse impact, The project therefore is' not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to regional land use and planning considerations. The proposed project is also not anticipated to adversely affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities. In general, this improvement in the Circulation System would incrementally improve access to recreational opportunities to the east and west. 9. Transportation. This issue is discussed in detail in the text in Section IV-C., TransportationfI'raffic Circulation. 10. Cultural Resonrces. There are no known archaeological, paleontological or historical resources onsite. The Archaeological Resources Sensitivity Map of the Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Preservation Element of the Poway A-3 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 27 of 73 General Plan identifies the project site as an area of "low sensitivity". Policy S.b of the element states that the subject resources sensitivity map shall be used when reviewing development applications. Projects within a low sensitivity area shaH be required to submit an archaeological review if the subject parcel is SO acres or greater. The project site is approximately 34 acres in size and since no resources are known to occupy the site, further review is not necessary. Therefore, the proposed extension of SR-56 would not be anticipated to significantly impact cultural resources. 11. Health. Safetv. and Nuisance Factors. The Initial Study Checklist indicates that no environmental impacts would occur concerning items lla, b, c, d, g, and h. The proposed roadway segment improvement project will provide a transportation facility link between existing and unimproved segments of SR-56 to the east and west of the project, respectively. The project description and project characteristics are such that the above mentioned items would not be introduced into the project vicinity, therefore no impacts are anticipated. Because the proposed project involves the extension of a roadway, potential impacts would be primarily realized from vehicular traffic along this road segment. Potential adverse impacts to health and safety are not anticipated from the project. 1::[cig. This issue is discussed in the text in Section IV-D, Noise. 12. Aesthetics. The proposed project would have an adverse impact on the scenic view of the project site available from viewing points around the site. Although the site does not contain prominent ridgelines or hilltops (as defined by the City's Community Design Element), and does not possess outstanding scenic resources which are visible from selected roadways (as defined by the City's Scenic Roadways Element), the rural, mostly undisturbed, project site would be given a more urbanized appearance with the addition of the proposed roadway. Most viewers around the project site currently have a view of a major roadway (Pomerado Road and/or the existing SR-56 in the City of Poway), therefore the visual addition of the proposed project would not disturb a rural setting which does not already contain several major roadways. The development of the roadway would not be considered to be aesthetically offensive, especially if the manufactured slopes were naturally contoured and revegetated with native plant materials. A-4 JAN 301990 ITElvl 8 28 of 73 Additional discussion on potential aesthetic impacts can be reviewed in Section IV - . D., Landform Alteration/Visual Quality. 13. Utilities and Public Services. The proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant need for new systems, or alteration of existing systems for City of Poway utilities and public services. There are currently no utilities or public services being provided to the site. The proposed roadway is designated in the Circulation Element of the Poway Comprehensive Plan and would be anticipated to enhance the provision of particular utilities and public services by improving regional access and by potentially providing an alignment for the extension of utilities (e.g., water, communication systems etc.,) in the area. The proposed roadway would cross a future SDG&E easement located just west of the Poway City limit. If power lines are extended through this easement, SDG&E will safely cross SR-56 by providing sufficient power line clearance over the roadway or by undergrounding power lines. Maintenance of the roadway and potential flood control facilities (as proposed by the drainage study, see Appendix B) are normal features of a roadway project that have been anticipated by the proposed roadway's inclusion in the City's Circulation Element 14. Enerl!v and Scarce Resources. The proposed project does not involve the development of energy consuming systems that would significantly impact the demand upon existing sources of energy. The proposed roadway is designated in the City's Circulation Element and is not anticipated to require the development of new sources of energy. Gasoline demand generated by vehicles traveling on the roadway would not adversely impact regional supply. 15. Mandatorv Findinl!s of Sil!nificance. The proposed project has the potential to eliminate reported vernal pool habitat (Bauder, USFWS 1986; and Beauchamp 1979) on the eastern mesa. ERC Environmental Energy Services Company (1989) measured the vernal pool habitat as encompassing 0.2 acres (31 m2 of pools and 0.2 acres of watershed). This potential impact is considered to be the most significant impact that could be realized from project implementation. See Section IV-B., Biological Resources, for a thorough discussion. In response to this projected impact, a Vernal Pool Enhancement Plan has been produced by ERC Environmental Energy Services Company (1989), which is provided in A-S JAN 301990 ITEM 8 29 of 73 30 of 73 Appendix C. In: addition, in or<!er to provide sufficient area for a vernal pool mitigation area on the mesa onsite, the northern cut slope grading limit has been drawn approximately 40 to 45 feet (horizontal distance) to the south (MV Engineering Inc. 1989). Additional significant impacts would be anticipated to freshwater marsh vegetation, soils/geologic stability on manufactured slopes, and noise. It is anticipated, however, that these impacts could be mitigated to a level below significance through recommended mitigation measures incorporated into project design. The proposed project has the potential to improve the circulation system in the short-term and also in the long-term. This anticipated improvement in the circulation system would improve traffic flow thereby incrementally improving air quality, transportation, and health, safety and nuisance impacts as compared to a no project scenario. The adverse environmennil long-term impacts that would be anticipated from the project include modification of existing geologic features and landform; incremental alteration of groundwater characteristics; impacting of aesthetic features onsite and views from surrounding land uses; incremental alteration of population and socio-economic patterns; and an increase in noise levels in this localized area. The project would be anticipated to result in a net improvement to the regional circulation system. The project would, however, allow for potentially higher traffic volumes (capacity) in the area in the short- and long-term and would also result in substantial traffic volumes within the project site that would not be realized without the project. Mitigation measures have been discussed within Section IV, Environmental Analysis, and within this discussion of environmental issues in the Environmental Checklist. It is anticipated that some unavoidable adverse impacts would occur after implementation of these measures to varying degrees. Additional mitigation would require alteration of the proposed project (e.g., alteration of the alignment), although most of the identified potential impacts are inherent in the proposed development of a roadway in a previously undisturbed area. The project does have the potential to cause future environmental effects which could cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. Potential noise impacts to human health could be realized from vehicular traffic utilizing the proposed roadway. It is anticipated, however, that a condition of A.6 WI 30 1990 ITEM 8 31 of 73 approval for future residential development adjacent to the roadway and on adjacent properties to the northwest of the project site would involve the construction of noise barriers if significant noise impacts were identified. A-7 JAN 30 1990 ITEM 8 Ill. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: D I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect of the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ I find tnat although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: 1/10/90 I I :::~RE'--i~~~ F/FORM52-52.7 psn/3-14-88 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 32 of 73 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE STATE ROUTE 56 ROADWAY EXTENSION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (SCH NO. 89010233) - CITY OF POWAY: LEAD AGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Poway, as lead agency and decision-maker, proposes the State Route 56 (SR 56) Roadway Extension Construction Project Involving an approximate 1,850-foot segment of SR 56 located between Pomerado Road and the western boundary of the City of Poway; and WHEREAS, the construction of the project Is the responSibility of the deve- loper of Carmel Mountain Ranch (CMR) and an agreement between CMR and the City of poway has been executed to Implement the project; and WHEREAS, the City of poway conducted an Extended Environmental Initial Study for the project, and said stUdy Identified potentially significant effects which required that project revisions be made and that special mitigation measures be added to the project as conditions of approval which fully avoid and mitigate all previously Identified significant and potentially significant environmental effects; and therefore, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA State Guidelines, the City of poway provided a public notice of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and distributed all environmental documentation for a 3D-day public review period; and WHEREAS, the public review period generated several written comments and responses to said comments have been Incorporated Into the final Extended Initial StUdy; and WHEREAS, In accordance with the California Government Code and CEQA, the Poway City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on January 30, 1990 to review and consider the Information contained In the Extended Initial StUdy, including responses to written public comments, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the recommended mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring/reporting program as Identified In Exhibit A hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Poway, as lead agency and decision-maker for the subject project, hereby finds that project revisions and special mitigation measures added to the project as con- dltlo~s of approval, as Identified in Exhibit A hereof, fully avoid and mitigate all previously Identified significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, and therefore, the City Council hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the State Route 56 Roadway Extension Construction Project. Attachment 4 JANJ01990 ITEM 8 33 of 73 Resolution No. Page 2 APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, this 30th day of January, 1990. Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, No. , was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 1990, and that It was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk City of Poway R/R-I-30.21,22 JAN301990 ITEM B 34 of 73 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measures and Mitigat10n Monitoring and Reporting Program for State Route 56 Roadway Construction Project A. SOlLS/GEOLOGY!HYDROLOGY Recommended Miril!ation Measures Soils/Geolo,:v. Thc GeoSoils, Inc. geotechnical report (1988) and the MV Engineering Inc. geotechnical report (1989) (Appendix B) conclude the SR-56 . . projcct is feasible from a geologic and soil engineering viewpoint provided the following recommendations are incorporated into final plans and implemented during the construction phase. It will be a condition of the proposed project that all grading shall be performed in accordance with the requiremcnts of the lead agency (i.e., City of Poway). These requirements are defined by grading, stream alteration, drainage provisions, and othcr appropriatc sections of the Poway Municipal Code. Gradinl! and Earthworks. I. Rcmoval and recompaction of the unsuitable soils will be necessary in the areas of the subject property which are planned to support fill or any other improvemcnts. 2. Material removals shall include all topsoil/slopewash alluvium and highly weathered bedrock material, and landslide debris in areas to be graded. Material removal will require designation of material disposal methods, locations and haul routes, including coordination with and approval by appropriate regulatory agencies and property owners. The project applicant shall be responsible for coordinating proper material removal. 35 of 73 JAN301S90 !TElv1 l3 36 of 73 3. The upper alluvial/colluvial soils and landslide debris are not suitable for the support of the proposed fills and road improvements. The indicated unsuitable soils shall be excavated down to firm competent formational material and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the corresponding maximum dry density and required moisture content. The excavations of upper natural alluvial/colluvial soils will be on the order of one to six feet below and will reach 10 to 23 feet in the deeper alluvial areas and landslide debris. The exact depths to fIrm formational material cannot always be predicted and will vary throughout the site. The actual removals will be determined during the grading by the geotechnical engineer or his representative on the site. Appropriate keyways and proper benching will be required for the reconstruction of the proposed fIll slopes. 4. All keyways shall be extended a minimum of three feet into fIrm natural ground and inspected and approved at the site by the project geotechnical engineer. Benching of the natural hillside associated with the fIll slope construction shall be at least one eq\lipment width wide and three feet deep excavated into the fInn formational material. All keys, benches, and exposed natural formational materials shall be fIeld inspected and approved by the geotechnical consultant. 5. Use of design and/or a dewatering measure to accommodate excavation in areas of shallow groundwater (if encountered) shall be conducted. This process shall include consultation with local RWQCB off1cials to ensure proper groundwater disposal locations and methods. Slave Stability/Stabilization Fills. I. Alluvial materials in the main canyon along the western side of the site are likely to be wet. Air drying and/or mixing of these materials may be needed prior to or during placement as compacted fill. 2. Fill material for the two main fIll slopes in the western portion of the site derived purely from the Friars Formation claystone shall not be placed in concentrations on fIll slopes or within 15 feet of a fIll slope surface. Fill material determined to be excessively permeable by the soil engineer shall be treated in the same manner unless it is mixed with cohesive soil to the satisfaction of the soil engineer. JAN :lO 1990 JTEI>A 8 ~ 3. All cut grading exposing the Friars Form~tion will require construction of a buttress stabilization fill. The buttress fill shall be provided with adequate key width and depth to construct stable slopes for proposed heights and gradients. The height of the buttress fill and width and depth of the keyway will vary with the exposed height at the Friars Formations. Stability calculations indicate that a key width from to 55 feet and depth of four to seven feet will be necessary depending upon overall slope height and exposed Friars Formations. Actual limits will be verified during grading operations based upon the actual conditions. 4. There shall be at least a l5-foot wide bench at the top of the buttress fill which extends above the StadiumlFriars Formation contact The northern side buttress fill shall be provided with at least one additional six-foot wide bench at mid- height. 5. All buttress stabilization fills shall be provided with subdrains as proposed in MVEngineering Inc. report (Plates 15 and 16, on file with the City of Poway Planning Department). CMP type subdrains may also be considered as recommended by GeoSoils, Inc.; however, a Ph/Rcsistivity test is rccommended to dctermine appropriate gaugc. In our opinion, subdrain types as indicatcd on Plate 16 (on file with the City of Poway Planning Department) should be used. 6. Fill slopes constructed of material derived from the on-sitc deposits will be grossly stable against surficial and deep seated failures at a maximum 2: 1 gradient if properly benched and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. Proper mixing and moisture conditioning will be necessary to obtain the neccssary compaction. No fill over.cut slopes is proposed. 7. All fill slopes shall be backrolled at three-foot vertical increments and compacted to "trackwalking" the slope face. Near surface slope density tests will confirm adequate compaction levels within the fill slopes. As an alternative to trackwa1king, the slopes may be overbuilt approximately threc feet and cut back to the dcsign configuration at the completion of rough grading. 37 of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 8. At least six-foot wide benches shall be constructed at every 30 feet maximum vertical slope gain in order to prevent cobbles on cut slopes constructed at 2: I gradients exposing Stadium Conglomerate from becoming loose and moving downslope. 9. Additional subdrains may be necessary where cut grading for slope construction encounters water seeps. The need for subdrains and associated earth work requirements will be provided during grading.based upon actual exposed conditions. Surface and Subsurface Drainae:e. 1. The grading plans for the roadway show fills will be placed in the small drainage coarse to the west of the project. A subdrain will be necessary beneath the fills in the flowline tied into the planned culvert which will be placed in the main canyon. The proposed canyon drain shall be constructed in accordance with Typical Canyon Subdrain Details. 2. Subdrains shall be placed in all canyons upon completion of removals and prior to fill placement. Subdrains shall also be provided for stabilization fills and constructed where the Stadium Conglomerate and Friars Formation contact is buried by compacted fill. Post Roue:h Gradin!!. 1. After completion of the ground preparations and approval of the project geotechnical consultants, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils beneath the proposed highway, roadway, and parking improvements shall be scarified and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the corresponding maximum dry density at the required moisture content. The subgrade soils shall be prepared at a time not to exceed more than approximately 72 hours prior to the placement of the base materials in order that the appropriate moisture content is maintained. 2. The base materials shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the corresponding maximum dry density at the required moisture content. The base materials shall be placed at a time not to. exceed more than approximately 72 hours prior to the concrete paving or pouring operations. jAN 301990 ITEM 8 38 of 73 , 39 of 73 Landscapinl! and Irril!ation. The proposed landscaping and irrigation plan shall be implemented on the manufactured slopes once construction of these slopes has been completed. Establishment of trees, shrubs, and plants proposed by the landscaping plan will help promote slope stabilization and erosion control. The proposed sprinkler irrigation system would promote maximum vegetative cover (i.e., landscaping plant establishment and survival) which would help reduce erosion potential on these slopes. Gradinl! Plan Review. Project grading plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in this report and be reviewed and approved by the City of Poway. Additional recommendations will also be given at the time of the grading plan revicw if necessary. All mitigation measures adopted as conditions of project approval shall be incorporated into final grading plans and incorporated into recordation of the Final Map. Hvdrolol!V. The inclusion of two retention basins is anticipated to mitigate potential significant hydrologic impacts associated with increased runoff resulting from project implementation. These basins would reduce 100-year storm flow rates to below the existing rates (Appendix B). Therefore, impacts such as erosion and sedimentation from increased runoff would not be expected. Additional mitigation measures are recommended which would serve to reduce and/or eliminate adverse. impacts. Drainal;c Facilities. I. Regular maintenance of all drainage facilities to insure proper working conditions shall be conducted. 2. Graded berms, swales, and area drains shall not be blocked or destroyed, and water shaH not be allowed to pond ill roadways or flow down graded or natural slopes. 3. Erosion control measures shall be incorporated into project design. Short-term measures would likely include mcthods such as the use of seasonal work restrictions, sediment catchment devices (e.g., sandbags, hay bales, or J A N "1 0 1990 \ T E lvl ~ 40 of 73 sedimentation basins), or retention of native vegetation and soils. Long-term erosion control could be accomplished through retention basin maintenance to control flow rates and by maintenance of the proposed manufactured slope landscaping and the irrigation system onsite. Additional Measures. I. Compaction and use of impervious materials shall be avoided wherever feasible to increase infiltration and decrease runoff. 2. Removal and disposal of groundwater (if any) encountered during construction activities shall be coordinated by Cannel Mountain Ranch with the local R WQCB to ensure proper disposal methods and locations~ Landscapinl! and Trril!ation. A detailed landscaping (i.e., revegetation) and irrigation plan has been prepared by a qualified landscape architect (Halsey Design Group 1989) and has been approved by the City of Poway. This plan shall be implemented on the manufactured slopes as soon as possible once grading has been completed. Drought-tolerant spccies arc proposcd for this rcvcgctation cffort which will reducc irrigation, herbicidc, and fcrtilizcr rcquircments. No pcsticides are proposed by this plan. Thc irrigation sprinklcr system is dcsigned to avoid surface runoff. Implcmcntation of this landscaping and irrigation plan would rcducc crosion potcntial (i.c., sedimcnt transport) and would minimizc thc potcntial for irrigation runoff carrying pcsticidcs and fcrtilizcr. Mitil!ation Monilorinl! and Rcportinl! Soils/Gcolol!vlHvdrolol!v. Monitoring and rcporting of gcotechnical and hydrological mitigation measurcs shall bc conducted by a qualified enginccring geologist and/or a qualificd soils enginccr. All cut slopcs and backcuts for the buttrcss fills shall bc observed and inspected by thc project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut slopes and buttress fill cutbacks shall be performed at the time of grading in ordcr to confirm conditions of stability. Additional and/or rcviscd recommendations may be neccssary bascd upon the geology of the cxposcd dcposits and'should be anticipated. JAN :J 01990 ITEI'I1 8 l The 19 mitigation measures pertaining to geology and soils which are listed in this rcport undcr the headings Grading and Earthworks; Slope Stability/Stabilization Fills; Surfacc and Subsurface Drainagc; Post Rough Grading; and Landscaping and Irrigation shall bccome conditions of project approval and shall be monitored and reporlcd upon by a qualified Environmental Spccialist (ES). In addition, the 6 mitigation measures pertaining to hydrology shall become conditions of project approval and shall be monitored and reportcd upon by a qualified ES. Any additional mitigation measures pertaining to geology, soils, and/or hydrology which become conditions of project approval shall be incorporated into final grading plans and recordation of the Final Map, and shall also be monitored and reported upon by a qualified ES. The ES shall confirm that aH mitigation pertaining to soil preparation and the implementation of particular structures (e.g., s.ubdrains) has been completed. If these mitigation measures are not properly implemented, the ES shall be permitted to halt construction until conflicts are resolved. Due to the number and complexity of geotechnical and hydrological mitigation measures, it is recommended that the ES and the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) meet with the construction crew prior to grading and construction to clarify mitigation that will be conducted. During monitoring the ES shall provide updates to the MCC. Upon completion of monitoring, the ES shall provide a written report to the MCC, confirming completion of required mitigation measures, which will then be submitted to the City of Poway. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Recommended Mitigation Measures Identified significant impacts which would require mitigation include impacts to recorded vernal pool resources and freshwater milI"Sh habitat. Wetlands Because of the loss of vernal pool and freshwater marsh habitats, the reguiatory agencies including the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and United States and J A N 3 0 1990 IT E I'll 8 41 of 73 42 of 73 Wildlife Service (USFWS), shall review and comment on the proposed development. The CDFG 1603 Agreement and mitigation would be required for loss of all wetlands. The ACOE 404 permit would be required for all proposed direct impacts to the vernal pools. The USFWS reviews both direct and indirect effects to vernal pool habi tat Mitigation of the reduction in vernal pool resources shall be accomplished through a vernal pool enhancement program which has been prepared by ERC Environmental Energy Services Co. in consultation with USFWS. The plan proposes enhancement of existing natural depressions/basins to the north of the northern cut slope on the mesa top onsite. The plan proposes establishment of a vernal pool mitigation area in which approximately 156 m2 of vernal pool basin area would be enhanced, thereby providing a 5: I mitigation replacement ratio for the CC-5 pools that would be lost. The watershed surrounding the enhanced basins totals approximately 1,040 m2 providing a mitigation area greater than 1:1 over the impacted watershed. The mitigation program will require final approval by the ACOE, CDFG, and the USFWS. Impacts to freshwater marsh would not require Corps of Engineers review due to the small acreage impacted (0.21 acre). It would require review and approval of a CDFG 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement Full mitigation of this impact (i.e., at a 1: 1 ratio of habitat replaced to habitat lost) could be accomplished onsite through enhancement and enlargement of existing habitat in the natural drainage. Recommendations The following recommendations are provided in an attempt to reduce the overall effects of this project on biological.resources. Trans\)lantation. Individuals of San Diego barrel cactus present within the area slated for grading should be salvaged and transplanted to appropriate habitat within the property. This is generally a simple procedure, although it wo~ld involve, at a minimum, the preparation of a transplantation and monitoring program. Transplantation property should be chosen which is JAN 301990 IT E1Vl 8 'I under the jurisdiction of the City of Poway. A potential transplantation location may be specified in vacant land adjacent to the northern cut slope or within the proposed vernal pool mitigation area. Construction Activities. All construction activities should be confined within the limits of grading. In addition, wetlands outside the grading area should be clearly marked (i.e., by flagging or staking on the grading plan) prior to the onset of construction activities by a qualified biologist to ensure that no additional impacts occur to this habitat. Additional wetland impacts would likely require mitigation at a 1:1 ratio or greater. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan has been prepared by a qualified landscape architect (Halsey Design Group, 1989) to facilitate desired slope revegetation. The landscaping plan proposes direct. planting and hydroseeding mixes to establish proposed drought-tolerant species including native plant species. This plan will enhance the impacted areas (i.e., graded slopes) and would provide a diversity of plant species (i.e., approximately 40 species) in this area which could potentiaHy be utilized by wildlife species. All landscaping plans should be reviewed by a qualified biologist prior to their finalization to ensure that species used are compatible with the existing native vegetation adjacent to these slopes. The City of Poway has approved the landscaping and irrigation plan and it will be implemented after specified grading activities (Cannon 1989). Mitiiation Monitorint;! and Renortinl! Monitoring and reporting of required habitat enhancement mitigation programs shaH be conducted by a qualified biologist(s). This Environmental Specialist(s) (ES) shaH confirm that mitigation programs related to vernal pools and freshwater marsh habitat have been properly implemented and completed. The Vernal Pool Enhancement Plan proposed by ERC Environmental Energy Services Co. details how the plan will be implemented, and specifies a performance criteria and . necessary maintenance once the mitigation area has been enhanced. The plan states that all monitoring shall be conducted by qualified biologists familiar with vernal pool flora and ecology, and that all aspects of the post-project monitoring plan shaH be conducted for no less than 5 years. Monitoring will include determination of species establishment and survivorship, and the condition of specified control JAN 301990 ITElvl 13 43 of 73 44 of 73 pools. Results of each species survivorship, pool dominance, plus pool diversity matched against the control pools will provide a gauge of success for the mitigation efforts. Details of the Vernal Pool Enhancement Plan monitoring criteria are provided in Appendix C. Monitoring and reporting of vernal pool mitigation will ultimately be based on the mitigation plan (including monitoring criteria) which is approved by the appropriate resource agencies. Mitigation for the projected loss of 0.2 acre of freshwater marsh habitat will be monitored by a qualified biologist (Environmental Specialist). It is anticipated that mitigation can be accomplished onsite through enhancement and enlargement of existing habitat in the. natural drainage (i.e., at a I: 1 ratio of habitat replaced to habitat lost). To achieve compliance with the agency's 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, mitigation for the projected loss of freshwater marsh habitat will require review and approval by CDFG.. Once a mitigation plan is. approved by CDFG, monitoring can be tailored to specific mitigation components. It is anticipated that monitoring will oversee implementation and survivability of species planted in enhanced areas. In addition, it is anticipated that monitoring will be conducted over three to 5 years to conf1I1Il establishment of plant species in the enhanced area. Once biological recommendations are adopted as conditions of project approval, monitoring and reporting will be required.. Biological recommendations include transplantation of specimens of San Diego barrel cactus onsite, flagging of freshwater marsh habitat outside the limits of grading to avoid potential construction impacts, and review of the landscaping and irrigation plan by a qualified horticulturist to conf1I1Il that the proposed plant composition is compatible with J adjacent natural vegetation and the proposed vernal pool mitigation area. Monitoring related to transplantation of San Diego barrel cactus and review of the landscaping and irrigation plan would be conducted by Environmental Specialists (ES) while flagging and protection of wetland habitat could be overseen by an Environmental Monitor (EM). During all biological monitoring the ES and/or EM shall provide updates to the MCC. Upon completion of monitoring, the ES and/or EM shall provide a written report to the MCC conf1I1Iling proper completion of required mitigation measures which will then be submitted to the City of Poway. JAN :3 0 19QO ITElvl ? C. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFlC CIRCULATION Recommended Mitil!ation Measures Although no significant project-specific impacts have been identified, measures are recommended to partially mitigate identified long-term impacts associated with horizon year buildout. These recommended measures are discussed below. . The City of Poway should restrict access and parking along SR-56, Pomerado Road, and Twin Peaks Road/Camino del Norte to increase capacity and flow characteristics. . The City of Poway should work with the City of San Diego to coordinate traffic signals along SR-56, Pomerado Road, and Twin Peaks Road/Camino del Norte. J . The City of Poway should reserve additional right-of-way at. intersections along Pomerado Road and Twin Peaks Road/Camino Del Norte to accommodate special widening in the future. Miti~ation Monitorin~ and Reportin~. Because no mitigation measures are required pertaining to the issue of traffic, no mitigation and monitoring program is necessary. D. NOISE Recommended Mitivarion Measures The Noise Element of the Poway Comprehensive Plan includes policies to reduce noise levels to an acceptable level (City of Poway 1983). The Noise Element recommends utilizing setbacks, architectural design (e.g., proper entrance and window location), and construction techniques (e.g., use of dense building materials) be'fore requiring noise walls and berms to attenuate interior noise impacts. It is anticipated that mitigation for exterior noise impacts can be accomplished through the use of noise walls and/or berms. Reduction of exterior 'A" '30 190n IT E Iv! 8 .J 1'1 , ....'-' 45 of 73 noise levels to below 60 dB(A) CNEL would be expected to eliminate the potential for interior noise impacts. Standard building materials are expected to reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 15 dB(A) CNEL within interior areas. If residential development is proposed in the eastern portion of the project site, existing noise levels generated by vehicular traffic on Pomerado Road can be mitigated through the use of a noise wall positioned on top of the existing berm (the berm is approximately 4 to 5 feet above the road grade), approximately 40 feet west of the centerline of Pomerado Road. A wall in this position along the length of Pomerado within the project area could also mitigate existing significant noise levels within areas to the north of the project site. Preliminary noise modeling indicates that a 4 to 6 foot high wall positioned on top of the berm adjacent to Pomerado Road could mitigate existing noise levels to below 60 dB(A) CNEL. Although, additional noise modeling of future development plans may require noise walls over 6 feet in height. The SR-56 project, would not be responsible for mitigating significant noise impacts created by Pomerado Road. Projected (i.e., horizon year) extcrior significant advcrse noise impacts onsite and offsite resulting from vehicular traffic on Pomerado Road. and the proposed scgment of SR-56 could also be mitigated to an acccptablc level (below 60 dB(A) . CNEL) through the use of noise walls and/or berms. Prcliminary noise modeling indicates that 4 to 6 foot high walls adjacent to Pomerado Road and the proposed segment of SR-56 would reduce projected noise levels onsite and offsite to below 60 dB(A) CNEL. As previously mentioned, however, additional noise modeling of future development plans may require noise walls over 6 feet in height. If noise walls are required to mitigate future onsite and offsite noise levels, it is rccommended noise walls adjacent to the proposed project segmcnt of SR-56 be positioned at the top of slope of both cut slopes in the eastern portion of the site and then adjacent to the roadway on both sides through the western portion of the site. An alternative to noise walls positioned adjacent to Pomerado Road and SR-56 would involve constructing noise walls and/or berms around existing and future residential development onsite and offsite. It is recommended that once potential onsite and otfsite development plans are proposed including lot location~ and pad elevations, that more specific noise modeling be conducted. JA;'.( ;3 n ~99r; ~ T E \\)~ ~ 46 of 73 47 of 73 SpeciaHy, the SR-56 project shall be responsible for mitigating projected significant adverse noise impacts generated by the project. Thus, the project shall be required to mitigate significant noise impacts which may be realized within Cannel Vista Lots 6, 7, 8, and possibly 9 (projected significant cumulative adverse impact within Lot 9). . It is.recommended once a residential unit within Lots 6, 7,8, or 9 in Cannel Vista is constructed and SR-56 is completed, that a qualified acoustical engineering using a Larson-Dains Model 700 ANSI Type 2 sound level meter conduct onsite monitoring to quantify future noise levels. It is recommended that monitoring should be conducted upon completion of these projects (SR-56 and Carmel Vista) then at least once a year to quantity the change on noise levels over time. If noise levels adjacent to homes within Cannel Vista exceed the City's exterior guideline, then implementation of mitigation measures shall be required at that time. A specific noise analysis at that time will determine necessary mitigation measures (e.g., height of wall) to reduce significant noise levels to below a level of significance. . It is also r~ommended that prior to construction of homes within Cannel Vista, homeowners be informed of the potential for significant noise impacts. This would provide homeowners the opportunity to employ measures recommended by the City of Poway Comprehensive Plan including utilizing set-backs, architectural design, and construction techniques to reduce interior noise levels. If exterior noise impacts are not adequately mitigated within existing and future development surrounding the project, interior noise levels will need to be reduced below 45 dB(A) CNEL. It is anticipated that interior noise levels can be adequately mitigated through the use of upgraded building materials (e.g., denser building materials). Mitil!ation Monitorinl! and R~portinl! If a noise mitigation plan is required in response to the proposed project, the City of Poway is required to implement a noise mitigation monitoring and reporting program. This program shall be designed to ensure compliance with the proposed mitigation measures and to verify that the required measures are effective at reducing any identified significant impacts to below a level of significance. To JAN 301990 ITEIv'! 8 fulfill the mitigation monitoring requirement, at the completion of potential construction on site and/or offsite and prior to occupancy, interior and exterior CNEL measurements shall be conducted in the field to determine whether the appropriate barrier/wall positions and home construction materials were used to attenuate noise levels to comply with the City's standards. The monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer using a Type 2 sound lever monitor, similar to that used for the acoustical analysis. The field monitoring results shaH be documented in wrinen report for review by the City. E. LANDFORM AL TERATION!VlSUAL QUALITY Recommended Mitil!ation Measures Because no significant impacts have been identified pertaining to landform alteration and visual rcsources, no mitigation measures are necessary. The landscaping and irrigation plans (approved by the City of Po way) which have been incorporated into project design, however, would serve to minimize the adverse visua4 alteration associated with manufactured slopes. Mitil!ation Monitorinl! and Reportiol! Because no mitigation measures are required pertaining to landform alteration and visual resources, no mitigation monitoring and reporting program is necessary. The landscaping and irrigation plans which have been incorporated into project design, however, would require maintenance. Under agreement with the City of Poway, the project applicant will be responsible for landscaping and irrigation maintenance for 90 days after which time the City of Poway will assume maintenance responsibility (Cannon 1989) JAN ;j 0 1998 IT E IVI :;: 48 of 73 -~ ERe _ Environmental and Energy Services Co. p . roject Site as Depicted on Powa y USGS 7$ Quad rang Ie , .. .. '5.1 ...~..II.' I" . . ...451 FIG U R F. 2-2 2-3 JAN ;j I) 1 . A TT AGI-lIV\e"-Tr 49 of 73 s , CITYOFPOWAY ZONING BOUNDARY .~' , .'. ",.f, ., .:, REVISED LIMIT . ~ . . ,*". '1 ~"._;,.Mr . , . ~~". '~-~, :::! - L"':'- --~_.. - . , --J -,: . ,1" " ",' 2.4 Q 0 250 FEET F I G U R R 2-3 JAN J I<' '-/ I I .1 ".~''--- - ERe _~ Environmental and Energy Services Co. State Route 56 (Nonh City Pal1<way) Project Site 50 of 73 A1TAC.HMEtV-r b """"4#'i~,,,..g.r, II .~iit!;Pil...q ~;;lj['!rt:~..ij;$ ,'~\"";'/:' ;.'.;:.....:.<.- r ., . - ERe _~ Environmental and Energy Services Co. F R F. existing Land Uses Surrounding the Project Site (Approximate Boundary of SUrrounding Land Uses) 2-4 2-6 JAN J 0 1 5 ATT"'A.C~ MlS~'- ., 51 of 73 - 1<:A~c.H , , 6?' -<~~ _cd.' h. ~....... l.e, --r' I / / 52 of 73 ~ PRoPO SED SR-SiC. E'.x'reNSION Pr<'D.:rr::c..,.. CARMEL ((\()Ut..trAI"-l orr of" fbw/:lli'r I/~I .. ____-/L____... ___ ,~-, ( f Y . I \\5 ------i SR-Sf, K'QADWA"(' ~x--re~SION 'R<:O~.,- f'OWA"l G5~J<Al.... 'PC.At.J CI1<-CuLA-rIDN e:Le~"iiEM ~ Aif~cAMEtJ-r 8 . :i :i il :1 :! REVISED LIMIT OF GRADING .. , , i I. Tst "") 'jl ~ , "~ \ \ I I I (1 \'..-:::r.,./ \'. . . . ~.:f' 1;/ o ',\ '\ f'~" . < ;jy-;:' ..,~, <:)::;: \ . \ ;C', " /~':".":h" I als ill ':> \~ ..' , , _ <." \ 15 6 \\ TI \ t ,."^". :;~' I g ~, -'\". ~ ,. ".;, .' '~<, ,:i-;./< / 2 wB\.~'::j" ',<, ., .~. ! ~ ~.~ii ~:'~~ ") / l~ ..~....::.l. ; _~ .:j\...;. yt ~ / \ Tst f \,,/ I :-':~-/~ '~l c...-t~..,,::\.. .'.' V"'" ~ -:-,"~:'-.;c=.: ..,:/1 '\': \ .f \ I als I . ......,....,L . a ilf.. I If. ,I ;. \ \ I <~-c. :. Is / / f.1 .." f \ .... '. . (:5~~~;~i ..-c/~\' '~f ',:;;Y\& J.\/ \\ ./ \ \\ als · !'~" ,,/.; J I \ Tf \ I \" "'.... : : ." .,/. ./.\' '. . / I " / -- - - : ' . Tstl'V !/---..~? . .. ;"/\. )' af .,:.. ': 4/ \ ' :/: If \ .. /~! : J. ! : "I'" .: / : ./ .;) / I ::i 1 .nl ,,/ I~l /1::' .' Ii " " . " " " " .. .. " . " " . " " SOURCE: GeoSoils. Inc.. 1987. l . " I'~" ''''',.~ , i~ c k- ~-t" , 0 c: Q .l o 250 FEET Tst LEGEND QIs . LANDSLIDE 081 . ALLUVIUM n . FRIARS FORMATION Tst . STADIUM CONGLOMERATION af . ARTIFICIAL FILL - ERe _~ Environmental and Energy C....e.:.......r.... FIGURE existing Geologic Untts Onstte 53 of 73 4.4 4-1 ArrlilCH"l-RJ"B"r ... , .... OJ .::;:, eo E-o <Zl W - E-o ~ W Cl. o ~ Cl. ..l - o <Zl W E-o - <Zl Z o ... o Z o ... E-o Cl. ... ~ U <Zl W Q ... ..8- = <a"'<.l '::5 E ='::1 c.. .!:lg..2 0'- 0 Cl.E> :.:l8 .~ :0 ] U.l - "- ~.fl '1= ..:.d<.l =- .1: d: ..c: '" '" u ." - '" "'.1: .~ aJ ",- >>u ..c:~ Cl...c: U 53A of 73 - ,,- ~2;>' V)._ .?;o 1-._ ..:.d'- > c:9 '::1 '1:"" u ..c:o", r.f)~~ ..c: "" E'- , E . OJ).... '-....... :::: ._ C': ::I 0 >. = 0 .c N'- C c:s 0 ~ o~~::Iu-c.. -.c l1) """ 0 B e"O~ = e = o.-..c: >>0 aJ.~ - ~-:Q 0 "8oo....",o.aE ......"0=0"" ,IIl!:jo"'C_C':uc 2;> .;: ." g <.l ~ o 00'" .... \0 ~ ::cO >>c. --~ ~~u- .... e =~ u ;u:'=t'tE: <.l '8~ 0 ZE<a,a ..c: Oll :E o.l.n..: "'0>'6 o >.'- C -= ::I o i:':S 0 c:s U._ = "'O_en u>o "'O...~uE _::I>. 0_ 0 00== 'a M e-~ ~ ~ : ~ .a e ~ 'E @ ~ ...!:l =a ...:.~ > i:':S"'C~"i: E iU 0 'C::~ = C'3 QJ Vol ~ E 2 ~ G ;;: ~ i;.5 '" o .1: o '" ..- '" = <.l 'a c. ..c:..2 5'" >- .- = -0 ou 0..9 8- :E~o ~'-("l"'\ .- CI ' CI~O\ .S '" ... " - ~>>. tn.= ~ ~:::'> c..c._ 'c:.g t> .c....ai "'<.l... , = 0 E"" E . "'00- C ::: o ._ ::I = 0 e~u:.a=oen o=u -g- 0...."'0 E - _<.l '- o l+oI >. 0 .... "'O_'--u ..c:~~~o.o3 .2P = N C ..c _ -...=.9=Oc:s r.f)Q,).c~....u= ou..- _'_1:""- "" . .-V"l >>u . _t":S.u ~ l;;: e ~-: 2 u eo"'" 0. -g g::c b ... l:: c. > ~C.I.l_O .!:l e o '8 :E OIl.l>.>.v::l"'O>'>" U'- -S'-I:\3--t":S-=c:o c.. ~ IU -'0 0 - t) u 0 ... H..9 > u en U ~.5 ;; ~ "E "'0 >. t":S c ] 0 '"0 "'0 .~ = >,_ .- = Q,) = 0 __..Q IV . en ~.~ .i; .!:l.oo ;:; >>....; "" >>E '" ;" E'" '"0 t":S -'- -:::Ill,) I .... u.c.c 0 iU"i>._:.:: =~c.._..cenE>>I-o>.1-o . IUQU= .c....=='u....iUou :> E U.c 0 ::I 0 1-0 = >- _"" >0 .:::... ;;>> "'O_(.)en'-~=O ,,. ..- '" 8- ..2 '" =- =...., = .a '" 0 ~..c: u ",=CI-o - 0 0 o>c. >.- '--0\ 0-0 ' ~'" 4-3 '" r- 0\ o u .E " '" = .s -; 1:: " '" = o U .S '" ;; ~ ::l o '" J A N 3 0 1990 , T E IV1 ~ 1 " iV',/ . , REVISED LIMIT OF GRADING ) I '- !..~~IY~ i ,.",.1' ~::~,'fi, (II 1.(; I _I t ,I "'C ' II 0_ :;:i m' ::DI >, cl. 0.. ::D. o. > c. ,,- -~(, . .-r'.. .... Q 250 .. o ~ ,. ~ " \\ \~~ J \\\ FEET LEGEND <S9 ft'?.. ~ o SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRASSLAND VEGETATION . RUFOU5-CROWNED SPARROW ~ CAlIFORNIA BLACK-TAILED GNATCATCHER Ii;;)I (_. MOVEMENT PATTERN) o SAN DIEGO BARREL CACTUS DISTURBED. WEEDY VEGETATION COASTAL SAGE SCRUB VEGETATON 0.,'. ,..,..,,:.:.... FRESHWATER MARSH VEGETATlON O REPORTED VERNAL POOL HABrTATl (reler \0 figure 4) NOT SHOWN: ASHY SPIKE.MOSS AND TURKEY VULTURE 1 Bauder, 1986. San Diego Vernal Pools, USFWS - ERe _"J Environmental and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Biological Resources Map 4-5 JA;~ ~ e 54 of 73 4.33 AlTAGH""~ ro POTENTIALLY IMPACTED VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (IN ACRES) Habitat Existing Impacted Coastal Sage Scrub I 22.8 8.1 Southern California Grasslandl 4.5 3.7 Freshwater Marsh Vegetation 0.9 0.2 Vernal Pools (31 m2) . 0.008 0.008 Disturbed Area .-i..2 ...L1. Total 34.1 13.7 I An additional 1.2 acres comprised of coastal sage scrub and southern Californian grassland would be impacted outside site boundaries as shown on Figure 4-5. Vernal pool acreage measured by ERC Environmental Energy Services Co. (acreage does not include associated watershed area), 1989. 2 55 of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM ;0; ATlACH ~,,-,-r II CAMINO DEL NORTEI 1-15 INTERCHANGE CARMEL I MTN RDI '':'15 INTER- CHANGE o. ~I ~i o. 5\ . '" ... W I- 0( I- Ul II: w I- ~ 1.3 . i..J 10.7 l > ~ I ~ ~ j:s ~ .> 15 ~ . L'l POWAY RD 3.4 SR56/1-15 INTERCHANGE (AND HOV ENTRANCI; &. EXITI > == :.: Q. Ul Cl z ii:. Q. Ul W II: III .- I POWAY RD/I-15 INTERCHANGE Source: Willclan Associates. 1989 - ERC _ ~ Environmental and Energy Services Co. Q NO SCALE 17.5 - LEGEND -- CITY BOUNDARY UNCONSTRUCTED ROADWAY --- FIGURE Existing plus "No Project" ADT (In Thousands) 4-8 ~ 3 4-52 56 of 73 JIIN 3 9 19 ATT'ACHMe;~-r- 1"2. CAMINO DEL NORTEI 1-15 INTERCHANGE Q CARMEL I MTN RDI 1';'15 INTER- CHANGE NO SCALE 17.5 1ft ... Cjl.RtJlE 16.8 ~ ~ III :e a: 0( (J o :r (J z 0( a: 4.1 o. ~I z. ~I _ 13.8 O. 5\ 9.4 III. I- 0( ?- m a: III I- ; 10.7 POWAY RD/I-15 INTERCHANGE > ~ :.: a. m Cl z a: a. m III a: III ~ . L.l POWAY RD L roJ 17.4 , ~ I> g . 0( 0( I ~ .~ i~ ~ \ 5 LEGEND 3.5 SRS6/1-15 INTERCHANGE CAND HOV ENTRANCE a. EXIT) CITY BOUNDARY Source: Willdan Associates. 1989 - ERe _ ~ Environmental and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Existing plus Project ADT (In Thousands) 4-9 4-55 JAN J 0 1990 ATTAC.HM~ 1"3 57 of 73 - Table 4-4 SHORT TERM STREET SEGMENT VOLUMES AND LOS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Existing + No Project Existing + Project Street Segment Vol. LOS Vol. os State Route 56 ElO 1-15 7,400 A 16,900 A E/O Sabre Springs Pkwy. 1,300 A 10,700 A ElO Poway City Limits N/A N/A 9,400 A ElO Pomerado Road 2,600 A 7,400 A Pomerado Road S/O SR 56 16,700 A 17,400 A S/O Twin Peaks Road 15,200 A 13,800 A N/O Twin Peaks Road 17,500 A 17,500 A Twin Peaks Road! Camino Del Norte ElO 1-15 25,700 A 20,700 A ElO Carmel MIn. Road 30,600 A 21,800 A ElO Pomerado Road 24,000 B .18,600 A ElO SR 56 25,300 B 25,300 B . Carmel Mountain Road ElO I-IS 19,500 A 16,800 A ElO Rancho Cannel Drive 19,800 A 17,100 A Rancho Cannel Drive/ Sabre Sprine:s Pkwv. N/O SR-56 4,100 A 4,100 A S/O SR-56 3,400 A 3,500 A N/A = Not Applicable Source: Willdan Associates, 1989. 4-56 58 of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM :3 ,ATT ACI-l""lind'r 14-- Table 4.5 SHORT TERM PROJECT VICINITY INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing + Existing + "No Project" Project Intersection LOS Los Pomerado Road/SR-56 A A Twin Peaks RoadlSR-56 C C Pomerado Road/ Camino Del None! Twin Peaks Road C B Camino Del None! Cannel Mtn. Road B A SR-56 B Ramps/ . Rancho Cannel Drivel Sabre Springs Pkwy. A* A* SR-56 B Ramps/ Rancho Cannel Drive! Sabre Springs Pkwy. A* A* * Level of Service estimated. Source: Willdan Associates, 1989. 4-58 59 of 73 JAN 301990 ITEM 8 ~1.uy\&;NT" , 5" 220.0 Q CAMINO DEL NORTEI 1-15 INTERCHANGE c,.~tAe. 55.0 a: Q .J W ~ a: ~ 260.0 ~ z ~ 25.0 II: 230.0 CARMEL I MTN RDI '':'15 INTER- '" .. CHANGE w ~ l- ll) II: W I- ! SRs6l1-15 INTERCHANGE lAND' HOV ENTRANCE I. EXIT J 210.0 NO SCALE 40.0 o. ~I z. ~I o. 5\ 7'If,'.... (to "O~4k: '0 ~ -9() 20.0 i.-.J 4S.' \ > ~ I ~ i i :s ~ I 5 ~ . L.l POWAY RD 5.0 > ~ ll: Q, lI) Cl z ii! Q, lI) W II: ID LEGEND CITY BOUNDARY - - - UNCONSTRUCTED ROADWAY POWAY RD/I-15 INTERCHANGE - I Source: Willdan Associates. 1989 - ERC _~ Environmental and Energy Services Co. 60 of 73 FIGURE Horizon Year "No Project" Dally Trafllc Volumes I 4-10 I (In Thousands) 4.60 JAN 301990 ITEM c; An'AG.MM~rv.,.... Ib . 1,-1 3.., , ~ I> ~ I~ z . a: I~ g; > ~ 15 ~ . L'l POWAY AD I .-' I 220.0 CAMINO DEL NORTE/ 1-15 INTERCHANGE 220.0 C,&.p.ME. 50.0 :s ..J III :E a: c( u o i3 z c( a: .0 '0 ~i z. ~I o. 51 . 45.0 CARMEL I MTN RDI '':'15 INTER- CHANGE :2 ~ 240.0 ~ lI.I a: III ... Z 40.0 5.0 SR5.6/I-15 INTERCHANGE lAND HOV ENTRANCE " EXIT) 220.0 POWAY RD/I-15 INTERCHANGE Source: Willdan Associates, 1989 - ERC _ ~ Environmental and Energy Services Co. Q NO SCALE f r \- . I 40.0 ~ o o c( a: III :E o II. LEGEND -. CITY BOUNDARY SOURCE: CITY OF POWAY 1/89 FIGURE Horizon Year Dally Traffic Volumes with the Project (In Thousands) 4-11 4.61 61 of 73 JII.N 3 0 1990 ~ ATTAC.I.U'Icou"" 17 ~ Table 4.6 HORIZON YEAR STREET SEGMENT VOLUMES AND LOS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Horizon Year Horizon Year No Project Street Segment Vol. LOS Vol. Los State Route 56 EtO 1-15 75,000 F* 40,000 C* E/O Sabre Springs Pkwy. 40,000 C 20,000 A EtO Poway City Limits 45,000 C NIA N/A EtO Pomerado Road 25.000 B 5,000 A Pomerado Road S/O SR-56 35,000 E 45,000 F S/O Twin Peaks Road 35,000 E 40,000 F N/O Twin Peaks Road 40,000 F 40,000 F Twin Peaks Road! Camino Del None EtO I-IS 35,000 B 45,000 C EtO Cannel Mm. Road 40,600 C 55,000 E E10 Pomerado Road 35,000 B 50,000 D E10 SR"56 60,000 F 60,000 F Cannel Mountain Road EtO 1-15 50,000 D 55,000 E EtO Rancho Cannel Drive 30,000 A 35,000 B Rancho Cannel Drive/ Sabre Sprinl!s Pkwy. N/O SR-56 25,000 B 25,000 B S/O SR-56 5,000 A 5,000 A N/A = Not Applicable * = LOS is understated due to expressway construction standards on this segment Source: Willdan Associates, 1989. 4-62 62 of 73 JAN :J 0 1990 IT E Iv1 ATT A.c. \.l tv\ E""" .8 1\ , i=: z 5~ ~~~ z~ ~c If a og ~ .:f-~.~:'."" ---:""'." . i _ _"'I....<J~r. :_ ,.1 f1.1~J1ft:.. t.: 65 - ERe _~ Environmental and Energy 63 of 73 ~ 70 -. -c I 65 . . . . . . : II. .i ~1 ..,.. l .h......,.;J5IiE' ...,......" ..,. \ - - ; " -' : -;',] !. .;"i-;~' ,\~ ----::1 !_~. ...:......... . . II ~ ____ ._...... ~__ -- _ _ . : 'I" LJ ~. ,'Sol. . " ,. -..-' ~...... . J'-<r:~... ,. :i~ -'.. h CARMEL VISTA (-..:z- :, :; ". \ ,..- \~t RESIDENTIAL r',.~;~ ~ \ \ '\ .... ~....., DE\IELOPtJENT. , , -- i \ \ \. . \ . . :~.":::J ...... : \, .,., '....~... l"." JI..........1-.=.t... ,.,~". .' '.;~. ,... .",,- =~'~-- l ~''- . " - ~ '>, -:;:t:,,;:.....d, _: ." . _" I .... ..... -..... ;...:~~. :' . _ ...." ~. ~ ...- -'''i.~ .1 ~" "','.." _a ...., 'V i ~ _. H; ..\< \ .!i. ~\: ..... ~~ ( : ~ :r' / ~:": ~ : . , '~:.o _i~....4~.=_ . =-- . . . . """"'-- -~ , .1 I EXISTING HOMES , , .. ... ] PARCELl ..., 36 .",\ . "',. 'It \ I .."-- , . .._, ._1." .' ...AI'J< .............'. I ., i' i i Cl ;i <(..- 0: a: o c 0:0:1 c: w :::;: o c. , I )/>- I ,( ." 70 \ 65 SR-S6 PROJECT SITE Q t: LEGEND CNEL NOISE CONTOUR LINES' o 250 . location 01 contours based on future topography (assuming a soli site) FEET FIGURE Future Unmitigated Noise Levels (In CNEL) 1~- rl~, ~ 4-73 JAN 3 ATrACHMe-~ I~ APPROX. 30 FEET HIGH 1.5:1 SLOPE APPROX. 80 FEET HIGH 2:1 BlfITRESSED CUT SLOPE \.,'-- ,. .~': "I: _'- I'J L .J REVISED LIMIT OF GRADING i' 25 FEET HIGH APPROX; 6 PERCENT SLOPE ,. l "'~.-_."'tJ"""'-j t \ . .'\ >-.. , ~ 40 FEET HIGH 0\ 2:1 FILL SLOPE c.., u. '\' ,. 0'\ ''4,\' ~ ~. '\ 'tI 13 I. 80 FEET HIGH 2:1 CUT SLOPE , i I, .' C ,I <_I o I!: 0' C, < ,. I!: W :; o c.. .. ..?~~n" " ~./. , " 50 FEET HIGH 2:1 FILL SLOPE Q 250 o FEET LEGEND "\ DIRECTION OF ARROW INDICATES DESCENDING SLOPE - ERe _~ Environmental and Energy Servirpr,;, r,.. FIGURE Manufactured Slopes Adjacent to the Proposed Interstate 56 Extension ~ 64 of 73 4.85 JAN ATTAc.I-lME'tu-r z.o STA!! Of CAUFORNIA-oFFlCE Of THE GO' .OR GEORGE OEUKMEJ1AN, Govwmor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1_ !!NTH STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 958'" -, ... .,.. \~.' t d:.O @ James Nessel City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 ."....t'. 1" \';j';jU .. nr:nP'\.1'rp~t;:r~ ." '1 ,li',n"';' .. ,I' January 8, 1990 Subject: State Route 56 Roadway Extension, SCH# 89010233 Dear Mr. Nessel: The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order. please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section Z1104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: 'a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency.' Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. These comments are fo~~rded for your use in preparing your final ErR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Garrett Ashley at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, cJ2-0-- ~ David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assist~nce Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 65 of 73 JAN 3 0 1990 IT E Ivl ~ f\TlACrlM6N. Zl a.. ...- ...- Shlto .. Canlernla 8...ln_. Tranlportatlon and Woullnll Alloncy b\emorandum To , STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Dato I ATTENTION Garrett Ashley Pile No.1 January 4, 1989 ll-SO-056 (rut. fac.-Poway) Prom , J9.1.l~ dFltRANSPORT ATION SublOd : state Route 56 Roadway Extension Extended Initial study and proposed Mitiqated Negative Declaration, SCH 89010233 Caltrans oistriot 11 oomments are as follows: 1. The subject projeot is actually a city of poway street that could possibly become a traversable. route, state Route 56, if it meets our standards and connects Interstate 15 to State 67. 2. Twin Peaks Road at level of servioe "F" will not meet Califor- nia Transportation Commission criteria for a traversable route. Our contact person for State Routes 56 and 125 in poway is Gary Klein, .project Manager, projeot studies Branch "A", (619) 237-6134. & . . ~ . W-z. ..:/""2 L .!--. s T. CHESHIRE, Chief Environmental Planning Branoh MO:yg JAN 301990 ITEM ;;\ 66 of 73 ~. 67 of 73 Notice of completion ProJect LDC.tl~ . County: 1__ ~ CrossStrel:b: AnesIor's Pan:eJ No. Within 2 Mila: SweHwyt: -: SOl:lion: Waccrway.: Railways: Twp. TolAlAc:Tes: Range: _ Bue: ~b: NEPA: o NOI other: DBA o Draft EIS o FONSI ----------------------------------------- Document Type CECA: oNOP o Early COTUl C8'NcgDec o Droll Em o SupplemenclSubsequent o EIR (Prior 8CH No.) 00.... o Joint Documenc o Final Coauncnl 00.... ----------------------------------------- Local Action Typ. o General filii Update o Oeneral PI_ Amendment o Gcncnl Pl_ Elemem o ColNftuniry Plan o SpecifIC Plan a Muw PJIA o Planned Unit Development o She PIon o Rezone o Prezone o Use Pamil o Land Division (Subdivision. P.cel Map. TrKt Map. etc.) o Annexation o Redevelopment o Coastal Permit 0""'" ----------------------------------------- D.v.lop....nt Typ. o Residential: Uniss_ Acrn_ o Office: Sq/t._ Acres_ EmpIoyUJ_ o Commercial:Sqft._ Acru_Employus_ o lnduIll'iaJ: Sqtt._Aua_Emp~_ o Educational o Reenationa1 o Wlrcr Facilities: Type o Tnnspartation: Type o MiNna: MinuaJ o Power: Typ. o Wale Treaanenc Typ. o HuardouI Wasle: Type 0"""" Project laau.. Dlecu...clln Document o Aesthetic/Visual o AlriculNral. Und o Air Quality o ArcheololicallHislDric::a1 o Coastal Zone o Drain_Ie/Absorption o Economic/Jobl OFiscd MGD_ Wmr.r_ o Rood PtUn/Floodinl o Forut LandlF'n Hazad o CeololiclSeianic o MinenI. o Noi.. o Pop.al..ion/HOUIinl Bal_ D Public' Sen'icnJFcilitie. 0...............'" o SchooblUnivenitie. o Septic 5y,tanS o Sew<< C.r-:ity o Soil ErosioruCompKIionlGradinl o Solid Watc o TOll.iclHazardolU o TrafficICirculabon o V~leu.tiol\ o Water Quality o Waler SuflplylOroundwmr o WellandlRiparian DWildlire o Growth lnducinc o Und_ O Cumulative EffectS o OIhu ----------------------------------------- Pre.ent Unci U../Zonlng/Oene"1I Plan U.. ----------------------------------------- ProJect D..anallan .___ d_,_ construction of an approximate 1.8S0-foot within the western-central Dortion of the City The proposed project involves the segment of State Route 56 (SR-56) of powav in San D1eQo Countv_ CLEAllNGHOUSE CONTACT. 9161445-0613 CAIUIIlTT ASBLEY STAT! UVlEV BECAN. DIPT IXY TO AGENCY I AGIlICY REV 10 5CH I sea COMPLIANCE l1..-.L - 9.6! I _ '1. I_"?" l_7 -- PLD.SJ: ~ HOC VITB ALL CCH4EHTS AqHD/APCDI 21 (ReaOUreul}L,!!:1..-.) r.s. - 8en~ by lead ..- - 8@nt by SCH) CMT SNT State/Con,user Svcs CMT SNT ~- =~Bd --- ~P11h , Game - - ___ ~P.rk8 , lee/QIP . =z;. =. eg. WQCB I _~CHP -~ -::::::r--.-Caltranl'...11.- - . NAHC - 'q r JAN :301990 ITEM 8 8 JAN 1990 James R. Nessel, Senior Planner Planning Services Department, City of poway Dear Mr. Nessel I have studied the SR56 Extended Initial Study and its Appendix C. I have hiked the project site and I have discussed vernal pool relocation with R. Mitchel Beauchamp. My concerns are the risks of relocating the vernal pools, the steep road cut slope near the mitigation area, and the noise level at the Carmel Vista subdivision. It is very unfortunate that nearly all the vernal pools have been lost in Poway. I'm sure that many of us would have objected had we known. If the loss of these remaining pools is to be mitigated by attempting to create new ones, then more effort should be made than the small area proposed. Also, the remaining CC-l and CC-7 pools should receive additional protection. I believe additional vernal pools are located at the west side of the Caltrans property south of the project site. If not actual vernal pools, the area would be a good site for additional relocation efforts. The initial study did not mention how dry 1989 was. We nearly set the record for the all time low rainfall since 1854. 1990 appears to be the third drought year in a row. All vernal pool sites are hard to identify at this time. Since vernal pool relocation has had only very limited success, Mitchel Beauchamp reconmends relocation before 1 JAN 301990 ITEM i\ A""ACI-tM~1 1.1 b_ 68 of 73 destruction. The pro~osed relocation site should be 9repared immediately and transplant efforts begun this winter. If this mitigation site is unsuitable, further attempts would be possible. The small size of the mitigation area, the steep roadcut and the noise levels at CQrmel Vista would all be improved if the SR56 roadway was moved south about 400 feet. The extra cost of moving the SR56/pomer~do intersection would be offset by reduced grading and shorter length of the roadway on the 9roject site. If the roadway w~s straightened instead of curved as proposed, it would create the same benefits as above. The SR56/Pomerado intersection would not meet at right angles. A more complete study would explore these tradeoffs. The Initial Study does not consider alternate roadway alignments. It does not report on previous attempts to relocate vernal pools. How many successful relocations exist? How many failures? I suspect the odds are not favor~ble. What about long term protection? The Lopez Ridge vernal pool fences have been regeatedly torn down. The fences around the Carmel Mtn. Ranch golf course show signs of being climbed over and crawled under. I hope these comments assist you in preserving our unique botanical heritage. Very Tr~ly Yours_ c:=2 I /??t!-.u:--~~/- ~- Michael N. Fry V 12819 Selma Ct. Poway, CA, 92064 69 of 73 2 JAN 301990 ITEM ~ ,JI-m _ I~~U PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dece~ b~..- 30) "89 C(!-t of F'oo./"-Y /'/' d . - ClhMlhJ dn Se-~Vlc.es J 32.0<:- Po......" y RJ. P""v'<'y)cA. 'l2.06'i O"I'",...J-M€'" f- ANe..,t;o" M.... J",",eS H IV"S5",./) S~..,,;'.. PI"",,, "'..- RE.: Sfaft> 801.11-", 56 Aoad......oy Exj-"'ns,on) /:xl-€"d<l-d "I"I-"d I Srvdy, M.., rJ",.<s",/) T dpp....ec/af-~ f-hc=- o??o-fvYI,'f-y to Cl.."_.,,,...,~,.,f (,)1-"\ I-he l3,'oIO,;CC3 I F?eso",...ce- A~roY"i- d'" d Ve-"'~d / ;='00/' <:-nh(V,.,c.e-..en+ PI"" ;.... +J,~ E~I-"",d..d T,.,;f/o / 5fudV fOrI-I, c. Sl-afp 110"f("- 56 ROCJd....."y E..,,.,I-<-n,;oY1 /"1",,,. ]: "'FF.... tJ..~ A.I/ow,;"') Cc''''''''''''/:; / "()vesl-,t,..,s (:oY" yov" r",v,,",...v e"Hi e~I'I""a r'o....: F;~'" r /e"" f,) A-ca fl, c>...... i" I-ho II ;c: (oj; a I B ...od, a",.d O"<..u H; I) Dvd /"'Yd V"'.., "'jd /-<:1) /'1",/11.. Cfev",j",..,c/;/) eJn c:i Oph :0':] /OSSVHl .1",s; fa..., Ie","" ....,e..." /,~fed os /,I ,.,o-r d"r-ecf-Cf6/f!- "'.;- I-,'r-,.. "'~ .:;"rvE'Y ) b",1- If CI SvrVe-y ".f: yect"- T" bE' "'.sSv..... <!.d J.,a..<, C1 s,..,ojj pof.." f{'" / rov oce. vr.../....'J IS ...0+ ca....,~c1 ov+ ",f f-he "'pp.....,p..,~ ff! dt?f~cf tht>Sf? ;:>/"'n-l-S I -tj,~;... occvt>-..,....,cP ctf1 cl occov,.,+e-d +a~ k/;~}, .....,; rl'jClI-/cl?~ . " <"'''lS, f~ .. ;-;""",. ,..,,,s1" Three 0""',..,"'/ sp"'c.,e.s) t-h.,. /3/och.t-<Y,'!"c! 3",ofc "fc.1,Oi'-v.) O~CfnJe TJ,~<><<f<2d f.,vh"pl-..;I) 0,., d fl,. Co,",sf Ho...,.,"cI L/z-orc/ eve ca...,dal-es +,,,v Cf.,f-;'",.... st-<yt-.. 0.- r"d""'a.1 /ISI':":1' Th<-sp .:JpQ>C.'/~-S are c-o"ldCi.+es dve- Tv +-h~/',- '''''''lA/;rJ'j s<::.o,....c./~y dS (j vesv If 0 P p...<>)..c.fs svc.J, os 1-1,:5. .5t-"/,,5 ,.,....d {-co b".hlt,..... /-0 ,....,~I-I:Jt:JI-~ f),e /<>S.5 or: rJ,..;.... hahih,,-t-, 7r .0 5peC;C5 ......"'5 ...".;- d./...ecfly ohs....ved (Vhil'fcri/ 0'" ITEM J1\NJO)990 i'l 73loyned L)zoyJ) byf 1-""4J,,;...ed hOb;!",f is p~eSE" ) /r ATT' AC. H Ml!!i~"- 2\ Co . 70 of ;.........05-1- bE' ass....YVl"c/ +1-,,,,1- i-h/s f{>ec/es OCc."r.s 0"15;-1-"" i in,.. b/O/O');<:"Ci/ .-er""'-+ "..,,,"1-:""'5 /oorh;,,') of ...,~f-,"ctl-,'on ..fo..... rhE-se d..s",rv;"" :JpeclCi's. r""... sensil-,"v" hob;.l-",fs oc.<:..",..- Q>) 1-),;5 1"'-0)"'<.-1- s-,.f-e: ICo~SI-<t./ Set:;" S<.-r....b) N<d-,'ve G,..",sslct,.,dj r.-e5h ~df-O',..- M~.-s/-') \0,,<1 V",......., 0 I Pools, TI- ;5 beco....;'" '''C.....''''5;''<;J'/ c.Je...".... iI-haT c/,'FFe-,....I1-f yo",,..,, h""h;t"TS ;.,...sf- be p,.-ol-ec..ted. !/~ 1(1......'J e ) J-'1a-f-vJ-r:L I open - 5jJClC<f- C'I --eas ro In SV,.- E' I-h t?" iS~v';"'d/ of- r",re- ,:..c//vld....'" I .5f'ec../~s OC.C....r-I...., ,',., !rht>,S<? ).,o;','-I-"".f-s, The- loss of: q"y on~/'f-e Sl?ns/I-/ve :h", b,'l-oL+..s .......,51 h" c..QMs-/d<>'-f-d s/~nif"cdn f [1" d ad"".-"e I ldvl? /-0 The c:............,... 1m f-ivt? ~FF"cf-.s of f-/','5 p,.-"')e:c.!- ",..,J. I a,., V of-he..... proJe,cl-s ;'" I-h.. sv"",o"""c/;""'j OY'eCi., M,'/-i'Jd7;Q... jf'o.- +h.. loss of 1fil.$';8 coasf-aJ Set:)'" sc.,..vb) A)dl-IVE- f,:J,....~55/O'hd) and. .p,-f?5h~~f~r r-tC1~$h :,$ nesscfsc:O-YI Pl-"'<:"~t'!ytf ip)"'opos<?cI .........; 1-/<;; a 1-/010'1 Foy verncl / l~oO/ d(?<.sI-~'-"Cf-I'C1~ ,'5 HO+ :CJccepf-~b Ie, A/50) verndl I lc.O,.,.,,,,r- of f-J,e poo I htJ bit", f p.....o) ecf 5; fe J,.., f-J,,,, 50ufh-""",,"s-/-eY"r, , 15 VV1CiCc.ovntf-d Fo...., , '''' 71 of 73 i-H.e- b/olo'J/c.c.l "'''50""c€' ,.-..1"01'(-, TI,,'s has,',.., c",,,loi 6", 'd +' · 'I ,\ ) (, l- i (? er-,....,/.....,~d d """or-c;j'nr::J_ VG'r-I?q/ /~oo ')/,..,:1</1-- 0 i-),fY [1,"'.5,'".s j=',..-oposed +:0..... ",,,l,aMc..-.en+),Ir c.ovlc/. ;-'01" :"",al-e,.. ,;" OJ o.ver year s<.Ich "'~ 1"t83, T/"s pool <:In,! ,$""''''0''''' d;,,::; VV<:lf-..,.-sj,e-c1 l,'e5 d;-'!'c.fJy 1"'-' f-), '" (><yl-h ;of- -fhe S6 exf-ens,'oh pY"<>Jec.f "'nd dl?s<!rv'es ......;-1-/":),.;.-,01'>. Pool baSins propos<:cI fo..... c>,..,ha"c.,...-,e-nr l~;+-i.,<t.;.i<Jn) ,J-s+ "''''.....fJ, of ./-h<? :Jrad'.":J ho"nd"'YJ d,.-". no-/- d",[:','"c-d ,as V"'...n 01 I .p60/S In f-), e bl';;/O"j/Cd I ;-C?SOVI'C E-5 '-<:1' CJrj- ,dvE- +-0 f-J,e fdcf -1-1,,,,.,. f),ey /",<-1, ,;,d;c,,!-o.... 'p"C.If!>S. .I+""",,,,ver) I--/".. p"'sf- Fe.....- 1"''''.....S I,dvc> h,,"en d~y (h<!'Jow ,dv<:y-o,e "'''''''''<:i/ rd',..,fdJ/) ."d /1- i5 pGss//'/O' fh~1- t"T),i=sr JAi1 30 1990 I t. iV ,b".5I''''S cr"-C' vC'rne! / /,:>00/5) Ic'ck.,''''CJ l;"d,'Cdl"Y5 d-...". -1-0 '> '. ~ ..absenc.e." of ._d.f-e,.,..." p_apuseJ ~;r,',<t.;',,~;'f t,.VGlv)c:I q,.,f-q,'j I- .I, . ,\ f' /"" <,-r"tL1-'~n .c> r-. ?",o/.s ""J.,p",.. tA", Y c!/;-edJy (">)(/5r. .r;; I-J,:s_pyojee-.;..;:. t-o 'j" -I-hro~')A) ,.;.I-;:J~ h.".... {'._Y' .d-PP..<-+-ecl ve.....a/ pools) se"'s;f-/v~ .5pe-<,-'~S) ",,.,CL . 5<?YI.s;I-ive /-"<<b~ f-"'-+-5. shovle:! bE> CJcc",....,p/,~1, ",<I c> f.t:;1"; ~e-f J"05s;l,il;f-/c-s /,.,clvJe-t-J,e dc'/;vIs/hol-> of I",.,d. conf-",,',.,,;.,, 1-1,.. above sens;f-ive :5pec..'~s. ct",d hab/f-ot.r.s 4 clJ<1:. e'?1"+ 1-0 cr'" o/;-<-<<cJ/ ",s-l-",hl,~hed p..e-SF-,-ve (O"'/ Ma.... I'1f!'Scij .T,eorrClsa,.,+ct) Of-eLY l'1esd). On-SI.!'" ....;f;Jail-,.o,., <1-F~ev I-he ro",d5 <'-0"""/'" 1-,'".., ,'5 h..,f- dccepl-o:Jhle dv" ';"0 .../-h:s p....ap",rf;e-s ,"s"I",I-;<>" -F;-",.., ",ny /q,,"'J/Y ,."-.tic-v/'/op,,,"d j",,.,ds, r", f-),,, &'/o')lc.q/ ..."'por+-} fj,. 5,,<-1/0>1 ;-p:J"rd,'"" r),~ v"......,a/ pool ,....,'-".;:'),,-1-;0..., s/f",s ""c:I6;I/fy 1-0 f:..,,,,<-~,'oV) "",hen ,'t- /5 /e{:+ CIS a ...."5'" -Fret,,...,e"'7 ,'.so)o-l-ec! "'-.0.... ') _dpvelop >"1"",';' \\ cl..es no+ :;0 I~ 1-0 1:!1''-' V ~J., d" l-at'1 p".-f-a;""n, ./-0 .J-he p.." dal-;"" OM "'al-iv", 5?ec;<-s hV dO""..5.J.-,'c ",,.,,;,.,<:/ Is (p",t-s .{.,-"""" I->!?",,-bV d.<?v<!l.p.....,,,..,fs) a,.,c!. :"",vas/o" <!J.{. .."o-/-,'c p/CI..,+.s, No d""ov..,f "'.;:. F"'....c-'''''J "",ill.h.ld .up e>lc,'f-ed c),"I,j...."'V1 look..;n, toY- a FI<:Jc.e f-c) bv~/J ,cOY1-S In f-).,f?hyvs),. 5.fd...d,'..,~_ ......-a+"", ;~ a!frC/cf-,'ve fo chOd","",- .h.,,'.f-h hoo+, q...o! Sk,,'pp,i-t<j sfones, rso/a-fed vf?~n"') 1"00) .pV"l!"sevvl?.s ne-a,,- M/ra....-.c;... Ad. "....e 1-"''''5),''' d dve;. 1-0 nn.dv",",p''..,j) f-r"""p/';"'J and oil '-v..,-o.j)-f r~o"'" C1 ,.,ec.,.-61 ..r.d. I do..,'+ I-h,',.,k f-J,ese """;';',<I-I-/on pools wovld. hI!" I,...,,...,vne -1-0 d"5I-vvhCi",ce~ These p""obl..",,s lead ,T"1C?' tv J~-opose 0';::1=- 5;1--.. )l'f,..-,J.. t:t~'-';S"f/'oh In le-s5 . developed L,., dr@C{5, c.aoVlc;.,/v'S/Oh ),,'o/o,:<:.a/ losses OYl I-J,;s p'-,,)f?c-f Te.......e d i",s",.,-,,c;<:.cu.,-f ) nor MC!ed,;', pc;sf.) each p...."J..c-i 1-heLt- d.d.cJ"cl v(>ynct../ pool ho.6,'1-", I- ~Atf'30 19to" nE!t'@Y~ 5d,e 5crvb /,..., -/-),'" Covn-fY1 ......"'5 5,'-1-". _ aV'e ::;",nerC/)ly -"";+/30;+'0"" Tn f-he To +hc? 900....{ /"'H of 72 of 73 / f I / oSS" c""",a !C..,,.,,.i.ct'e..-ed' ;"'S"I'J"';~"Gco?-f,T/,;$ 's d",e 1-0 1-),,,, /ctc.t( !o;'.-I:ctc.hp>-o)<>cl-J- c:Jc..covnf-/",'J 01- cv....,'""-'-'/"'I-,.V~ I FF L - , "" J f- f'r.L I". eCr:s..lh,s pr-oJecr..s Cv~~v a ;V~ errec,5 [vsr-bf?u h4.f?n 1;"';-0 C1c..c.ol.ln f '-vlf-I-, /"''''f? SCct/€' 1,...,:1-;,,,-+/<;>,..., Fo~ C?ctc)., se-..,s;.J.-,.....e 5?<?C/'c-S 01-' h",J.,;/-af< 1 ~ ~{.ec..l-f? d, I I .. A:J r/,'" i- f/-, ~ 5-6 I-h a Y1 A jo u to..-- r),,,. Of'/" o..--I-""'?J' fV ROClr/""<lY Exf-eYlsl'o", P,,-oJO!cl-.4 fo I-h". dbove c.o,...,,...,.....!-.:,. as well fo Cln'.,"""n1- /e}f,;,v ; jOh I I .1 ' Iv",s/"onct In:) j / e ;l-G-.... S II? c...1 t..-'.s /0 h , in ;L/-,,,, /'-,;'a / ~/8 I-v-ov/<I tY S 1-/'/5 he Q pp..-ec./a f ~r:I, 51,.,'ce..-/y) o:-~ /~~ D<Lv;ci. /10 ::JCI'1 JAN30199D ITEM <3 73 of 73