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