Loading...
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 #~ ---. --- --- --,,~,,----,----,,-,,---_._,---"--~----~._-_._._---------------,--..-.---.