Item 5 - EA 05-03/Expenditure of Funds for Moving and Demolition Expenses
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Dire~
INITIATED BY: Deborah Johnson, Director of Redevelopment Services/Deputy Executive Direc~
DATE: June 21,2005
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment (EA 05-03) and Expenditure of Funds for the purchase,
moving and demolition expenses associated with the acquisition of one parcel
located at 14049 York Avenue (APN 314-214-09 and 314-214-10).
ABSTRACT
On October 30, 2001, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to negotiate terms for the
acquisition of available flood-prone parcels located within the 100- Year Floodway of Rattlesnake Creek. Staff
has conducted site due diligence on the 0.68-acre parcel located at 14049 York Avenue (APN 314-214-09 and
314-214-10) and, negotiated the terms of sale in an effort to pursue the development of potential future open
space andlor other recreational uses within the Paguay Redevelopment Project Area. The property is located
within the 100- Year FEMA designated floodway and floodplain of Rattlesnake Creek. Property encumbered by
the 1 OO-Year f100dway is blighted because it is flood-prone and cannot be improved.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff prepared an Environmental Initial Study based on the proposed site acquisition, demolition, and
environmental remediation. Staff commissioned a Phase I Environmental Assessment. Lead and asbestos
testing is recommended prior to demolition of the single-family home. Approval of the project would have no
significant impact on the environment. The approval of a Negative Declaration is recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
Appropriate of the staff recommendation would result in the expenditure of $614,800 for the property
purchase. Sufficient funds are available in Property/Field Acquisition Project (5650A) for this expenditure.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
A Notice of Public Hearing for the subject acquisition was published in the May 26, 2005, edition of the Poway
News Chieftain and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property boundaries listed in the San
Diego County Assessor's latest equalization roiL
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Councii/Redevelopment Agency approve the Negative Declaration, adopt the
resolution approving the Environmental Assessment, authorize the expenditure of $614,800 from
Property/Field Acquisition Project (5650), approve the purchase of APN 314-214-09 and 314-214-10 located
at 14049 York Avenue, and authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to execute the documents
necessary to complete the acquisition.
ACTION
1 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item # .5
---.-..----.---. ----.------ .--.------------------
CITY OF POWAY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment
Agency
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City ManagerlExecutive Direc
INITIATED BY: Deborah Johnson, Director of Redevelopment Servic
Deputy Executive Director
Ingrid Alverde, Housing Program Mana~
Krissy Toft, Redevelopment Project Adminlstrator~
DATE: June 21,2005
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment (EA 05-03) and Expenditure of Funds
for the purchase, moving and demolition expenses associated with
the acquisition of one parcel located at 14049 York Avenue (APN
314-214-09 and 314-214-10).
BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2001, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to
negotiate terms for the acquisition of flood-prone parcels located within the 100- Year
Floodway of Rattlesnake Creek. This general staff direction is an opportunity-driven
authorization to proceed with property acquisitions when the owner of a property is
willing to negotiate the terms of sale. Staff conducted site due diligence on a subject
property consisting of two contiguous parcels totaling .58-acres located at 14049 York
Avenue (APN 314-214-09 and10). The parcel is located within the 100-Year FEMA
designated floodway and floodplain of Rattlesnake Creek.
FINDINGS
This proposed acquisition would benefit the Paguay Redevelopment Project Area in
that the acquisition of floodway parcels for potential future open space and/or other
recreational uses within the Project Area provides enhanced recreational opportunities.
Property encumbered by the 100-Year Floodway of Rattlesnake Creek is blighted
because it is flood-prone and cannot be improved. Recreational opportunities contribute
to the elimination of blighting conditions within the Project Area and provide benefit to
local residents and the entire community.
2 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item _S
- .._--_.._--_._~--_.__._-----
Agenda Report
June 21,2005
Page 2
The City CouncillRedevelopment Agency authorized an appraisal of the f100dway
parcel and directed staff to negotiate to acquire the available parcel. An appraisal
was commissioned and staff entered into property negotiations to acquire this site
and has negotiated a purchase price of $539,000, which is within the range of
values supported by current market data.
Staff commissioned a Phase I Environmental Assessment. No recognized
environmental conditions were found on the subject parcel. A survey for asbestos and
lead is recommended to be conducted on the 1,349 square-foot, single-story home
prior to demolition. The structure was originally constructed in 1958. Asbestos and
lead components were widely used in building materials up to 1980. Staff is
recommending approval to expend funds to complete the demolition of the home,
garage and storage shed and for the cost of lead and asbestos abatement (as
needed). The estimated cost for demolition and site due diligence work (Phase I, lead
and asbestos testing, and consultant fees) is $51,800.
Acquiring the subject property necessitates providing moving expenses to the sellers,
Jimmy and Marti Webb. Moving expenses are estimated to be between $7,500 and
$10,000 and will be paid to the sellers based on written estimates provided by
professional movers. The sellers may rent back the property for a period of no more
than twelve months after the close of escrow, subject to a month-to-month lease
agreement with the Agency.
The seller has the ability to salvage all property from the subject site during the lease-
back period. The seller shall be responsible for securing the home during the salvage
period and maintaining the appropriate insurance coverage during their tenancy.
The table below summarizes the estimated expenses associated with the proposed
acquisition.
Site Acquisition, including appraisal and estimated closing
costs $543,000
Phase I Assessment and AsbestoslLead testing-
consultant fees $4,800
Demolition, includin Asbestos/Lead Abatement $47,000
$10,000
Site Work- tree trimmin ,weed/trash abatement $10,000
Total Estimated Cost $614,800
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff prepared an Environmental Initial Study based on the proposed site acquisition.
Staff commissioned a Phase I Environmental Assessment. Approval of the project
3 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item#~
-~-, ~---_.._._---
Agenda Report
June 21,2005
Page 3
would have no significant impact on the environment. The approval of a Negative
Declaration is recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the staff recommendation would result in the expenditure of $614,800 for
the property purchase. Sufficient funds are available in Property/Field Acquisition
Project (5650A) for this expenditure.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
A Notice of Public Hearing for the subject acquisition was published in the May 26,
2005, edition of the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to property owners within 500
feet of the property boundaries listed in the San Diego County Assessor's latest
equalization roll.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve the Negative
Declaration, adopt the resolution approving the Environmental Assessment, authorize
the expenditure of $614,800 from Project/Field Acquisition Project (5650), approve the
purchase of APN 314-214-09 and 10 located at 14049 York Avenue, and authorize the
City Manager/Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to complete the
acquisition.
Attachments:
A. Planning Resolution
B. Negative Declaration
C. Environmental Initial Study
D. Site Map
4 of 27 June 21, 2005Item#~
- ---_.._,.._-~
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 05-03,
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 14049 YORK AVENUE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 314-214-09 and 10
WHEREAS, Environmental Assessment (EA) 05-03, Poway Redevelopment
Agency, Applicant, proposes the appropriation of funds to purchase a parcel located
at 14049 York Avenue, in the Rural Residential C (RR-C) zone, compensate the resident
for moving expenses, and demolish the existing buildings on the property; and
WHEREAS, the Poway Redevelopment Agency is acquiring the property for the
purpose of establishing open space and/or other recreational uses; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the City Council held a duly advertised public
hearing to solicit comments from the public, both pro and con, relative to this application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
as follows:
Section 1: The City Council has considered the Environmental Initial Study (EIS),
Negative Declaration (ND), and public comments received on the EIS and ND. The
subject EIS and ND documentation are fully incorporated herein by this reference. The
City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial
evidence the project will have a significant impact on the environment, and that the ND
reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City. The City Council hereby
approves the ND.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
State of California, at a regular meeting this 21 st day of June 2005.
Michael P. Cafagna, Mayor
ATTEST:
L. Diane Shea, City Clerk
5 of 27 ATTACHMENT A June 21, 2005 Item #5..-
--....-...-.-.-.
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, L. Diane Shea, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the
penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution No. P- , was duly adopted by
the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of June 2005, and
that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
L. Diane Shea, City Clerk
City of Poway
6 of 27 June 21; 2005 Item #~
~----,. -- ---.--.
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Mayor CITY OF POWAY
BOB EMERY, Deputy Mayor
MERRILEE BOYACK. Councilmember
DON HIGGINSON, Councilmember
BETfY REXFORD, Councilmember
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: City of Poway and Poway Redevelopment
Aoencv. 13325 Civic Center Drive, Powav, CA 92064
2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment (EA)
05-03: City acouisition of property located at 14049 York Avenue, in the Rural
Residential C (RR-C) zone. The proiect includes funds to purchase the property,
compensate for resident movino expenses, and demolish the existino buildinas on
the property. The parcel is located within the 100-year floodwav and floodplain of
Rattlesnake Creek. The parcel is not identified on the San Oieqo County
Hazardous Materials Establishment List.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway City Council has
found that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment
and has approved a Negative Declaration. An Environmental Impact Report will
not be required.
4. This Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the Environmental
Initial Study that includes the Initial Study and Checklist.
5. The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Jason Martin, Senior Planner Phone: (858) 668-4658
Approved by: Date: June 21 ,2005
Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services
Attachment:
Environmental Initial Study
M:\planningI05report\eaI05-03Inegdec.doc
- CitvJla)' T _____--1 M 1 ~'n5 Civic Center Driv~
7'of.tzr1lg Address: P.O. BoxAlTACHMENT Bmm 92074-0789 · (858lJune-0f.,I"'200.6. vltem..Q.:::
(!) Printed on Recycled Paper
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Mayor CITY OF POWAY
BOB EMERY, Deputy Mayor
MERRILEE BOYACK, Councilmember
DON HIGGINSON, Councilmember
BETTY REXFORD, Councilmember
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION"
DATE: June 14, 2005
TO: County Clerk FROM: City of Poway
County of San Diego Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 1750 13325 Civic Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92112-4147 Poway, CA 92064
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of
the Public Resources Code.
Environmental Assessment (EA) 05-03: Citv Property Acauisition
Project Title
NIA
State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse)
Jason Martin. Senior Planner (858) 668-4658
Contact Person Telephone
Number
14049 York Avenue. Poway San Dieqo
Project Location County
Environmental Assessment (EA) 05-03: Citv acauisition of propertv, appropriation of funds for
site acauisition and environmental remediation. involvinq the property located at 14049 York
Avenue. in the Rural Residential C (RR-C) zone. for potential future use as open space. other
recreational uses andlor affordable housinq. The proiect includes funds to purchase the
property. compensate the resident for movina expenses. and demolish the existinq buildinas on
the propertv. The parcel is located within the 100-vear f100dwav and floodplain of Rattlesnake
Creek. The parcel is not identified on the San Dieao Countv Hazardous Materials
Establishment List.
Project Description
This is to advise that on June 21,2005, the City of Poway approved the above-described project
and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project:
1. The project 0 will, ~ will not, have a significant effect on the environment.
2. o An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions
of CEQA.
3. ~ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
4. Mitigation measures 0 were, ~ were not, made a condition of approval for this project.
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
8'O'f'2V1g Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (858June 2f1.;v2006- ~ltern4#5-
$ Printed on Recycled Paper
------ ...-.--- -----_._-~.,..._------_._---_.._-_. _._----~~-------"----~"~---~ ---
Notice of Determination
Page 2
5. Findings 0 were, ~ were not, made pursuant to the provisions (Section 15091 of CEQA).
6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 was, ~ was not, adopted for this project.
This is to certify that a copy of the Negative Declaration or Final Environmental Impact Report
with comments and responses and record of project approval is available for review by the
general public at the City of Poway, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064.
June 21. 2005
Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services Date
Name of Official Filing Notice
Date Received for Filing
Filing Fee Transmitted (If no filing fee is required pursuant to AB3158,
to County Clerk complete form below.)
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION ~ Check here if applicable
(De Minimis Impact Finding)
Findings of Fact:
1. The City of Poway, Department of Development Services, has completed an Initial Study for
the above-referenced property, including evaluation of the proposed project's potential for
adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
2. Based on the completed Initial Study and substantial evidence considering the record as a
whole, the City of Poway finds that the proposed project will not encroach upon fish or
wildlife habitat area, will have no potential adverse individual or cumulative effects on fish or
wildlife resources, requires no mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed
project which would affect fish or wildlife, and hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse
effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14, California Code of Regulations.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above findings of fact and that, based
upon the Initial Study and hearing record, the project will not individually or cumulatively
have an adverse effect on fish or wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish
and Game Code.
City of Powav
Project Applicant Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services
13325 Civic Center Drive
Powav. CA 92064 Lead Aaency: City of Powav
Applicant Address
(858) 668-4657
Applicant Phone Number
M:lplannlng\05reportleaI05-03\nod.doc
9 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #-5-
--...,.--.-,.- --~-_.__._..-
CITYOFPOWAY
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND CHECKLIST
A. INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Initial Study and Checklist, along with information contained in the public record,
comprise the environmental documentation for the proposed project as described below, pursuant
to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the information
contained herein, and in the public record, the City of Poway has prepared a Negative Declaration for
the proposed project.
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Environmental Assessment (EA) 05-03. Citv Propertv Acauisition
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Citv of Powav. Development Services Department
Plannina Division. 13325 Civic Center Drive. Powav. California 92064
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jason Martin. Senior Planner (858) 668-4658
4. Project Location: 14049 York Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Citv of Powav. Development Services Department.
Plannina Division. 13325 Civic Center Drive. Poway. California 92064
6. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential C
7. Zoning: Rural Residential C. in the Old Powav Specific Plan area
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
The project involves a requestfor authorization to purchase a property located at 14049 York
Avenue, in the Rural Residential C (RR-C) zone. The approximate 0.68-acre site contains a
single-family home. The f100dway and floodplain of Rattlesnake Creek encumbers
a portion of the property. The project includes the appropriation of funds for property
acquisition, moving expenses for the residents, and demolition of existing single-family home.
The Poway Redevelopment Agency is acquiring the property for the purpose of establishing
open space, other recreational uses, andlor affordable housing.
The Lead Agency (City of Poway) has determined that its appropriation offunds for acquisition
of the property, moving expenses for the residents, and demolition of existing buildings would
not have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts. This determination
is based upon the fact that this action would not cause any changes to the physical
environment, other than demolishing the buildings, which are not historic. No land use
entitlement or construction would be authorized by this action, nor does this action change any
planned density, land use, or zoning for the subject property as currently designated by the
Poway General Plan and Poway Zoning Development Code. Nor does this action change the
location of the f100dway .or floodplain boundaries over the parcel.
,
10 of 27 ATTACHMENT C June 21, 2005 Item *=2-
-...- .-- ~ ~ - - --.. '-
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
9. Surrounding land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary).
South: Sinqle-Family Residential
West: Sinale-Familv Residential
North: Sinqle-FamilY Residential
East: Sinale-Familv Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or partiCipation
agreement): None
Environmental Factors Potentiallv Affected: The environmental factors checked below would
be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
o Land Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation o Public Services
o Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service
Systems
o Geological Problems o Energy and Mineral o Aesthetics
Resources
o Water o Hazards/Hazardous Materials o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation
o Agricultural Resources o Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this Initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. t:8J
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect In this case as revisions In the project
have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant Impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
2
11 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #~
. a_. --_..._._----~ ---------.-------.....--...------,....--- --- -. -.- ---- ..
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but It must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration,
Including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further Is required. 0
~or Planner May 10. 2005
Date
City of Poway
12 of 27 3 June 21, 2005 Item #-S..-
-- .~--,~- ~----_.._-
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
Checklist
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proiect:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic X
hiahwav?
b. Have a demonstrable negative X
aesthetic effect?
c. Create liaht or alare? X
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of
Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique X
farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance (farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-a!:lricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for X
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the X
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to
non-aaricultural use
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,
the significance criteria
established by the applicable air
quality management or air
pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the
proiect:
a. Conflict with or obstruct X
implementation of the applicable
air aualitv plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or X
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
4
13 of 27- June 21, 2005 Item #~
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
c. Expose sensitive receptors to X
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Create objectionable odors X
affecting a substantial umber of
oeoole?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the oroiect:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect X
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect X
on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruotion or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the X
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policv or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an X
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
5
14 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item~
"".'---".----..-- --~._------- _.._-----~._._---_._----,_._-"-----_._--~--_._-
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse X
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5
b. Directly or indirectly destroy a X
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
c. Disturb any human remains, X
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOilS. Would
the proiect:
a. Expose people or structures to X
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
iniurv or death involvinq;
i) Rupture of a known earthquake X
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
iil Strona seismic around shakina? X
Iii) Seismic-related ground failure, X
includina Iiauefaction?
iv) landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion X
or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or X
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result
in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
Iiauefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
propertv?
e. Have soils incapable of X
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
6
15 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #.:5....- .
..........-....---.-...--...... ----.----..---..---------.--..----------
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the oroiect:
a. Create a significant hazard to the X
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disoosal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or X
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is X
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
oublic or the environment?
e. For a project located within an X
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or
workina in the oroiect area?
1. For a project in the vicinity of a X
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the
oroiect area?
g. Impair implementation of, or X
physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
olan?
h. Expose people or structures to a X
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
16 of 27 7 June 21, 2005 Item #~
--~_.._.._._"".._-~--,._-~._'-'-'-'-
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORA liON
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY. Would the Droiect:
a, Violate any water quality X
standards or waste discharge
reauirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater X
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
to a level, which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been aranted\.
c. Substantially alter the existing X
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner,
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing X
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water X
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
Dolluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade X
water nualitv?
g, Place housing within a 100-year X
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
maD?
h. Place within a 100-year flood X
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
8 Item #.5
17 of 27 June 21, 2005
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
i. Expose people or structures to a X
significant risk of loss. injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X
mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the Droiect:
a. Physically divide an established X
communitv?
b. Conflict with applicable land use X
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable X
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
olan
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the oroiect:
a. Result in the loss of availability of X
a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the
State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of X
a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general ~an, specific
olan or other land use olan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result
in:
a. Exposure of persons to, or X
generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other aaencies?
b. E'Iposure of persons to, or X
generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or
around borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase X
in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels ,
existina without the oroiect?
9 June 21, 2005 Item #~
18 of 27
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
d. A substantial temporary or X
periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above
levels existina without the proiect?
e. For a project located within an X
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, wtthin two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of X
a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the oroiect:
a. Induce substantial growth in an X
area either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of X
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housina elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of X
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a. Would the project result in X
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
anv of the public services:
i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police orotection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
10 Item #~
19 of 27 June 21, 2005
-_.. .-.-.--,- ._-_._-,--~.."._--_.. <-------_._---'---- _.__._.~----- .- - ----..---
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
v. Other Dublic facilities? X
XIV.RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the X
use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include X
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORT A TIONITRAFFIC.
Would the nroiect:
a. Cause an increase in traffic, X
which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (I.e.,
result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips,
the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at
intersections \7
b. Exceed, either individually or X
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
hiohwavs?
c. Result in a change in air traffic X
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safetv risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards X
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.o., farm eauiDmenll?
e. Result in inadequate emergency X
access?
f. Result in inadequate parking X
caDacitv?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, X
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
11
20 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #~
- - - - _.. -----....--. ""---------.----.- -------..- - - ~ --_.-
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATION
XVI.UTlLlTIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the nroiect:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment X
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b. Require or result in the X
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
sianificant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the X
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
exnanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in the determination by the X
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve project's
projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with X
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disoosal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state and X
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the X
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate imoortant examnles of
12 Item~
21 of 27 June 21, 2005
.- - -.. -. ------ ....-.-..."..--..-----. -_..__._-_._--_.~--_..._-_....,_._.- ..---. - .---..----.-.-...
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO IMPACT
SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORA liON
the major periods of California
historv or orElhistorv?
b. Does the project have impacts X
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulative considerable"
mElans that the incremental
Elffects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with thEl effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
nrobable future Drojects)?
c. Does the project have X
Elnvironmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse Elffects
on human bElings, either directly
or indirecllv?
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the
following evaluation.
I. AESTHETICS:
The proposed project will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with any of the
questions listed under this issue area. As discussed above in Section B (Description of
Project), the proposed project would not have the potential to cause significant adverse
impacts because the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the physical
environment, except for the demolition of existing structures. The Lead Agency's action
to approve the project would not approve any land use entitlement, or authorize the
construction of a proposed land development project, which may have the potential to
cause physical changes to the environment. Since no significant adverse impacts have
been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:
The site is not being used for agricultural activities. As the project, in and of itself, would
not cause any changes to the physical environment, except for the removal of structures,
the proposed project will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with agricultural
resources. The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not approve any land
use entitlement or authorize the construction of a proposed "land development project",
which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the environment. Since no
significant adverse impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
III. AIR QUALITY:
As the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the physical enYironment,
except for the demolition of the existing structures, the proposed project will not cause
13
22 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #~
~-_._._-_._--_._- .--.- ----- ----~-- -_._,,-
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
significant adverse impacts associated with air quality. The Lead Agency's action to
approve the project would not approve any land use entitlement or authorize the
construction of a proposed land development project, which may have the potential to
cause physical changes to the enyironment. Since no significant adverse impacts haye
been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
No significant adverse biological impacts are anticipated with the proposed project in that
the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the physical environment,
except for the demolition of the existing structures. Remoyal of mature trees in connection
with future development would require City approval of a Tree Removal Permit and tree
replacement in accordance with the City's Urban Forestry Ordinance. The Lead Agency's
action to approve the project would not approve any land use entitlement or authorize the
construction of a proposed land development project, which may have the potential to
cause physical changes to the environment. Since no significant adverse impacts have
been identified, mitigation measures are not required. Environmental review of future
development proposals on the project site will evaluate potential impacts to biological
resources.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
The project site is not on the City of Poway's Historical Sites Survey and is, therefore, not
considered a significant historical resource. Although, according to the General Plan,
the property is located in an area with moderate probability of archaeological resources,
no significant adverse impacts to any cultural resource are anticipated because the
proposed project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the physical
environment, except for the demolition of existing structures. Since no significant adverse
impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
The proposed project will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with any of the
questions listed under this issue area. As discussed in more detail in Section B above
(Description of Project), the proposed project would not have the potential to cause
significant adverse impacts because the project, in and of itself, would not cause any
changes to the physical environment except for the demolition of existing structures. The
Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not approve any land use entitlement, or
authorize the construction of a proposed land development project, which may have the
potential to cause physical changes to the environment. Since no significant adverse
impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
VII. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
The parcels were not identified on the San Diego County Hazardous Materials
Establishment. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted by
Environmental Business Solutions, Inc. (EBS) on the subject site to determine if the site
poses a threat for any potential environmental contamination. The results of the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment draft report dated March 3, 2005, show that there is a low
likelihood that the site has been subject to a release of hazardous materials/wastes or
14
23 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #~
-~"- .--..-.. _."--'._"'-~-----'.'--"-'----- ..- ------..-----..---.--.. ._-~-_._.-.--------.._._.-..
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
petroleum products. There is evidence that agriculture took place from prior to 1928 to the
late 1950s. Accordingly, EBS recommends that construction guidelines for this site will
include testing the soil for potential hazards prior to off-site transport and keeping the soil
wet during grading activities to minimize the possible generation and migration of dust.
As part of this project, demolition of existing buildings will be conditioned in accordance
with local, State, and Federal requirements and regulations. An asbestos and lead-based
paint demolition survey will be conducted at the site prior to demolition. If it is found that
building materials contain asbestos and/or lead paint, such materials will be removed prior
to demolition. A certified asbestos abatement contractor, in accordance with EPA
protocols, would complete this work. An independent third party would monitor the
asbestos removal to document the abatement activities, to insure the work is properly
performed, and to determine air/fiber concentrations are at acceptable levels. Similarly,
all flaking or peeling lead paint samples would be removed and properly disposed of by a
certified contractor. Lead paint firmly attached to a surface may remain and be disposed
of with the other demolition materials. An existing septic system and associated piping
should also be removed prior to site demolition and grading.
The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not specifically approve any land
use entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed land development project,
which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the environment.
VIII. HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY:
Because the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the physical
environment, no significant adverse impacts to any hydrological resource are anticipated
with the proposed project. The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not
approve any land use entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed land
development project, which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the
environment. Since no significant adverse impacts have been identified, mitigation
measures are not required. Environmental review of future deyelopment proposals on
the project site will evaluate potential impacts to Hydrology and Water Resources.
IX. LAND USE and PLANNING:
As discussed in Section B above (Description of Project), the proposed acquisition project
will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with any of the questions listed under
Land Use and Planning because the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes
to the physical environment, except for the demolition of existing structures on the site.
The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not approve any land use
entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed land development project, which
may have the potential to cause physical changes to the environment. Since no significant
adverse impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES:
The proposed project will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with any
mineral resource as the proposed project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to
the physical environment. The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not
15
24 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #~
-.----..-----.- - ----- --- ~
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
approve any land use entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed land
development project, which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the
environment. Since no significant adverse impacts have been identified, mitigation
measures are not required.
XI. NOISE:
The proposed project will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with any of the
questions listed under this issue area. As discussed in Section B aboye, (Description of
Project), the proposed project would not cause any changes to the physical environment;
therefore, the project, in and of itself, would not have the potential to cause significant
adverse impacts. The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not approve any
land use entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed land development project,
which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the environment. Since no
significant adverse impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
XII. POPULATION and HOUSING:
The proposed acquisition will not affect the potential residential density of development on
the site. The proposed acquisition would not have the potential to cause significant
adverse impacts because the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the
physical environment, except for the demolition of existing structures. The Lead Agency's
action to approve the project would not approve any land use entitlement, or authorize the
construction. of a proposed land development project, which may have the potential to
cause physical changes to the environment. Since no significant adverse impacts have
been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES:
The proposed project will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with any of the
questions listed under this issue area, as the project, in and of itself, would not cause any
changes to the physical environment, except for the demolition of existing structures. The
Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not approye any land use entitlement,
or authorize the construction of a proposed land development project, which may have the
potential to cause physical changes to the environment. Since no significant adverse
impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
XIV. RECREATION:
No significant adverse impacts to any recreational resource are anticipated with the
proposed project in that the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the
physical environment. The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not approve
any land use entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed land development
project, which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the environment,
except for the demolition of existing structures. Since no significant adverse impacts have
been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC:
The proposed project will not cause significant adverse impacts associated with any of the
questions listed under this issue area as the project, in and of itself, would not cause any
16
25 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #~
_...."..._...~._.- ---"--_.,---.. ....------ _.._~._~~- -
EIS and Checklist
EA 05-02
changes to the physical environment. The Lead Agency's action to approve the project
would not approve any land use entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed
land development project, which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the
environment. Since no significant adverse impacts have been identified, mitigation
measures are not required.
XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS:
The acquisition of the subject property will not directly impact any utility system or service
because the project, in and of itself, would not cause any changes to the physical
environment, except for the demolition of existing structures. The Lead Agency's action to
approve the project would not approve any land use entitlement, or authorize the
construction of a proposed land development project, which may have the potential to
cause physical changes to the environment. Since no significant adverse impacts have
been identified, 'Tlitigation measures are not required.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
The proposed project is the acquisition of the subject parcel for potential development of
future open space and/or other recreational uses. The project, in and of itself, would not
cause any changes to the physical environment, except for the demolition of existing
structures. The Lead Agency's action to approve the project would not approve any land
use entitlement, or authorize the construction of a proposed land development project,
which may have the potential to cause physical changes to the environment. Since no
significant adverse impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are not required.
M:lplannlngI05report\eaI05-03Iels.doc
17
26 of 27 June 21, 2005 Item #.!2....-
-~._.~ -- --.--------.- -_.-._~~---,._"- -----.--
Vicinity Map
Site Location
14049 York Avenue
aks Road
~ Ik Street
~
'"
~ ~
et
~
Street
.- or Street
'is
:!1
City Acquisition i
of Property
EA 05-03 N
27 of 27 ATTACHMENT D June 21, 2005 Item #~
---. --- --- --,,~,,----,----,,-,,---_._,---"--~----~._-_._._---------------,--..-.---.