Item 5 - EA of City Capital Improvement Project
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
~
I
INITIATED BY:
Honorable Mayor and Members ~~e Cit,Y Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~ '
John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager ~~ I~, "LM
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Service~
JU'Je 4, 1996
Environmental Assessment of a City of Poway Capital Improvement Project
that proposes Rattlesnake Creek Drainage Improvements 300 linear foot
extension of the Rattlesnake Creek drainage box culvert south of Poway
Road
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of the environmental analysis of a City capital
improvement project that proposes channel and drainage improvements on Rattlesnake
Creek in association with the new library site.
(' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Through the environmental initial study process it was revealed that the proposed
project may have a significant effect on the environment, but that this effect can
be mitigated by project related mitigation measures.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $700,000 has been allocated from the 1995-96 Redevelopment Agency Capital
Improvement Program for the Library Site Drainage Improvements.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public Notice'was published in the Paway News Chieftain and mailed to all property
owners residing within 500 feet of the project area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the discussion of the potential environmental impacts contained in this
report, it is reconvnended that the City Council issue a mitigated Negative
Dec larat i on for the Rattlesnake Channel Improvements.
ACTION
/
. \CITYV'LANNING\R.t.l-'O/ol' \LHUtARY. SUM
,)1 -'-'
JUN 4 1996 IT~M 5
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
INITIATED BY
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
John D, Fitch, Assistant City Manager J..\1l
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services~~
Jim Lyon, Assistant Planner II
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
June 4, 1996
SUBJECT:
Environmental Assessment of a City of poway Capital Improvement
Project that proposes Rattlesnake Creek Drainage Improvements
300 linear foot extension of the Rattlesnake Creek drainage box
culvert south of Poway Road
BACKGROUND
On February 16,1995, the City Council selected the old Western Lumber site located on
Poway Road as the location for the new poway City Library. The entire site is within the
1 OO-year floodplain and a portion is within the 100 year floodway of Rattlesnake Creek.
The main channel of Rattlesnake Creek borders the northwest corner of the library parcel.
The existing channel does not have the capacity'to pass the flood water that can be
delivered to the property by the existing storm drain facilities crossing poway Road. To
build on the site, the building pads must be elevated above the 1 OO-year floodplain and
additional drainage improvements must be constructed. A consultant was selected to
prepare concept channel designs that would be capable of carrying the storm waters and
would expand the developable acreage of the site. The design alternatives ranged from
an open natural channel to a completely enclosed box culvert. On May 23, 1995 the City
Council selected Alternative D, that proposed a combination of a reinforced concrete box
culvert and a natural open channel. The box culvert would extend past the library building
pad then open to an expanded width natural earthen channel. This option reduced the
flood risk to the library and made available additional land that could be considered in the
development of the library site plan,
Proiect Descriotion
The project proposes a 300 linear feet exiension of the a concrete box culvert that
originates from under Poway Road, The reinforced concrete box consists of three twelve
foot wide by eight foot high barrels, At the southern terminus of the box culvert the existing
channel will be recontoured to create a 50 foot wide channel bottom with slopes that vary
between one and one-half percent to three percent. Concrete interlocking erosion control
blocks are to be placed on both sides of the transition area exiending approximately 70 feet
down the channel. A similar pattern will be placed as the southern end of the creek as the
channel narrows and enters the Poway Community Park. The 280 feet in between the block
sections will be an open earth channel.
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
2 of 17
Agenda Report
June 4, 1996
Page 2
FINDINGS
State and Federal laws dictate that there shall be no net loss of wetland habitat. A
biological consultant was selected to evaluate the potential impacts that the box culvert and
the expanded channel would have on the wetland habitat associated with the existing
channel. In summary, the report concluded that the proposed project would impact 0.2 aces
of wetland habitat. However, the creation of the 50 foot wide channel would create the
potential for a 0,5 acre freshwater marsh (wetland) habitat, thereby complying with the no
net loss policies. Disturbance of the wetland habitat will require the acquisition of a (1601)
Streambed Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game, a letter of
compliance with the Army Corps of Engineers (404) Nationwide Permit, and a 401 Water
Quality Certification for the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an environmental
initial study was conducted to determine if any significant environmental impacts would
occur as a result of the proposed project. The study was based on a comparison of existing
conditions with the proposed improvements described in the project description and
construction drawings. The environmental assessment documentation concludes that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the project that minimizes potential significant environmental
impacts to a level of less than significant. The following paragraphs discuss the main
environmental issue,
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Through the environmental initial study process it was revealed that the proposed project
may have a significant effect on the environment, but that this effect can be mitigated by
project related mitigation measures,
FLORA/FAUNA
The section of Rattlesnake Channel impacted by the proposed project was surveyed for
biological resources in February 1996. The report noted that much of the channel and
adjoining slopes were void of vegetation as a result of a gasoline/diesel spill that had
previously contaminated the project area. Four types of plant communities were identified
during the survey; Freshwater Marsh, Freshwater Seep, Giant Reed Wetland and Ruderal
Vegetation. Twenty two plant species were identified on the project site, of which 15 were
non-native. None of the plant species identified in the study are considered significant.
Fourteen animal species were observed on or flying above the site. All animal species
noted are common and are often seen in urban and lor disturbed habitats.
3 of 17
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
Agenda Report
June 4, 1996
Page 3
Potential Project Impact
The project will impact 8,500 square feet (0.2 acre) of wetland habitat comprised of 1,620
square feet (.04 acre) of Freshwater Marsh, 6,370 square feet (.15 acre) of Freshwater
Seep and 490 square feet (.01 acre) of giant reed disturbed wetland. In addition 8,500
square feet (.2 acre) of waters of the U,S, and approximately 10,890 square feet (.25 acre)
of ruderal vegetation will be impacted.
The project is located in an area designated as disturbed/developed and outside of the
preserve area in the Poway Subareas Habitat Conservation Plan and the MSCP Plan. No
local or regional wildlife corridors are identified in the vicinity. The elimination of The 0.2
acre of Freshwater Marsh! Freshwater Seep and giant reed wetland is not considered
significant and will not further fragment any larger habitat.
Mitigation Measures
It is anticipated that the Freshwater Marsh/Freshwater Seep will return to the channel
naturally, especially due to the upstream seed source, The expanded 50 foot wide channel
will generate the potential for 0.5 acre of similar wetland habitat. To encourage riparian
species, it is recommended that at a minimum 1 and 5 gallon willow shrubs be planted on
the banks during the rainy season, Given that riparian species do not currently exist, this
is considered a enhancement action and not a mitigation requirement and therefore does
not require a monitoring program.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $700,000 has been allocated from the 1995-96 Redevelopment Agency Capital
Improvement Program for the Library Site Drainage Improvements.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public Notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to all property owners
residing within 500 feet of the project area,
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the discussion of the potential environmental impacts contained in this report, it
is recommended that the City Council issue a mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Rattlesnake Channel Improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Zoning & Location Map
B. Negative Declaration
C. Initial Study
E:'CITY'PLANNING'REPORT'UBAARY AGN
" 0< \ I
'J"\..\N Y. I qq G; TTC./1-i 5
z
<
U
..)
<
a:
<
....
PRO>.JEC-T :!>.Te.
I-
(,)
Ul
l-
e
:>
o
NEW LIBRARY SITE
fRA.
VA EY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
OS
CITY OF POW A Y
CP([~
POWAY COMMUNITY PARK
IT EM: E.NVII~.o~MeN~
r-.__ ~ 1'-'\5"NT
@ SCALE ,
TITLE:
Zot>l11ol4 C L..C.l::Al\~ MAP
I
WA
ATTACHMENT A
~ of 17
JUN 4 1996
CITY OF POWAY
DON HIGGINSON. Mayor
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Deputy Mayor
SUSAN CALLERY, Councilmember
BOB EMERY, Councilmember
BETIY REXFORD. Councilmember
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: City of Powav. 13325 Civic Center Drive. Powav.
CA 92064
2. Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment of the Citv of Powav
Capital Improvement Proiect that proposes Rattlesnake Creek Drainaae
Imorovements that includes a 300 linear foot extension of the existina drainaae box
culvert south of Powav Road. widenina of an additional 300 linear foot section of the
channel. landscaoina and aradina necessary to accomplish the proiect.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City af Poway has determined that
the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Poway are on
file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of Poway.
5. This decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person:
Jim Lvon
Phone: (619) 679-4290
Approved by:
Date:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
E:\CITY'PlANNINGIREPORT\l.IBRARY,NEG
6 of 17
. :.,. ,~. :
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600.
ATTACHMENT B
I
I
695-1400~
lailing Address P 0
JUN
41996
ITEM 5
,
DATE:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT:
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Aoril 28,1996
City of Powav
Rattlesnake Creek Drainaae Imorovements
PROJECT LOCATION:
Southeast corner of Powav Road and Tarascan Drive. Powav CA 92064
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Fact-based explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Soils and Geoloav, Will the proposal have
significant impacts in:
or 17
a.
Unstable ground conditions or in changes
in geologic relationships?
_1-
b,
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or
burial of the soil?
-1L_
c.
Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals?
-L
d.
The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
_1-
e.
Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on- or
off-site conditions?
_1-
f.
Changes in erosion, siltation, or
deposition?
_1-
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
_1-
ATTACHMENT C
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
YES MAYBE lliL
2, Hvdroloav, Will the proposal have significant
impacts in:
a, Changes in currents, or the course in
direction of flowing streams, rivers, or
ephemeral stream channels? - - ---2L.
b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff? -A-_
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? -A-_
d, Change in the amount of surface water in
any body of water? _-A-
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter-
action of surface water quality? _-A-
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? _-A-
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions, or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality? _-A-
Quantity? _-A-
h. The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies? _-A-
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches? _-A-
3. Air Qualitv. Will the proposal have significant
impacts in:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from
mobile or indirect sources? _-A-
Stationary sources? _-A-
b,
Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or
interference with the attainment of appli-
cable air quality standards?
_-A-
c.
Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement moisture
or temperature?
_-A-
8 of 17
J UN 4 1996 ITEM 5
,
YES MA YBE ~
4. Flora, Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of endangered species of plants? _ ---X-
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants? ---X- _
c, Introduction of new or disruptive species
of plants into an area? _ ---X-
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production? _ ---X-
5, Fauna. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or
numbers of any species of animals? _ ---X-
b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals? ---X- _
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of animals into an area, or result in a
barrier to the mitigation or movement of
animals? _ ---X-
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish
or wildlife habitat? _ ---X-
6, Poculation. [Will the proposal] have significant
results in:
a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? _ ---X-
b, [Will the proposal] affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? - - --X-
9 of 17
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
7, Socio-Economic Factors, Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a.
Change in local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values?
8.
b, Will project costs be equitably distri-
buted among project beneficiaries, Le.,
buyers, taxpayers, or project users?
Land Use and Plannina Considerations, Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a.
A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
b.
A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any govern-
mental entities?
9,
c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational opportunities?
TransDortation. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b.
. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction?
c.
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
d.
Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems?
e.
Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people and/or
goods?
Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail, mass transit,
or air traffic?
Increases in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians?
f.
g.
lO or "
YES MAYBE till
....lL
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
_ -X...
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
YES MAYBE tiQ..
10, Cultural Resources, Will the proposal have
significant impacts in:
a,
A disturbance to the integrity of archaeo-
logical, paleontological, and/or historical
resources?
_ _......L
11. Health. Safetv. and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? _ ......L
b, Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? _ ......L
c, A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident? _ ......L
d. An increase in the number of individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms
or the exposure of people to such organisms? _ ......L
e, Increase in existing noise levels? _ ......L
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? _ ......L
g. The creation of objectionable odors? _ ......L
h. An increase in light or glare? _ ......L
12. Aesthetics, Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view? _ ......L
b, The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site? _ ......L
c, A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors? _ ......L
II or 17
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
~:2 of 1"7
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
YES MAYBE .tiO-
15. Mandatorv Findinas of Sianificance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality af the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of the California history or prehistory?
-~
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future,)
-~
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
. individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effect of
past projects, and probable future
projects. )
-~
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
-~
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Le" of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation
measures.)
SEE ATTACHED PAGES
13 of 17
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
III DETERMINATION
D
~
D
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project, A DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE: ~~,
SIGNATURE:
'-+ C f 11
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
The project area is underlain primarily by ~lIuvium, colluvium and artificial fills. Given that
Rattlesnake Creek flows throughout the year, itlis expected that saturated material will be found in
all the soil units adjacent to and immediatel~belOW Rattlesnake Creek. The existing drainage
channel has a bottom width that varies fro five to fifteen feet. The top of slope width is
approximately forty feet across. Constructio of the box culvert section will require grading an
approximate sixty foot wide channel. Once the ox culvert is constructed, soil will be replaced and
compacted along both sides and the top of ,the structure. The top of slope width of the open
channel section will require grading to crea~ a 1 DO-foot span that will include a 50-foot wide
channel bottom,
I
Mitigation: I
Removal of loose, unsuitable soils will be r~quired before placement of engineered fill in all
proposed fill areas. It is recommended that ~rganic matter, oversize rock and other deleterious
materials be removed from the site. All porouj' surface soils and any fill soils not removed by the
grading operation, shall be placed over the concrete slope reinforcement blocks to provide a
medium for plant growth. Similar top soils shall be used on the banks of the earthen section of the
channel to provide a suitable planting material. All grading should be conducted and monitored in
accordance with the Grading Ordinance of th City of Poway
HYDROLOGY
Approximately 600 linear feet of Rattlesnake C eek will be directly impacted by the project with the
objective to increase the carrying capacity the channel through this area. Any reduction in
absorption rates created by the extension 0 the box culvert will be mitigated by the expanded
channel width beyond the culvert. As noted, ttlesnake Creek flows year round with flows varying
according to season.
Mitigation:
To provide the ability to grade and to construct ther improvements within the channel, a temporary
dam and siltation basin is proposed at the be inning of the project area, Drainage waters will be
pumped via a pipe around the construction ite and deposited back into the stream below the
project area in order to maintain existing downstream flows. Because of the potential for
encountering groundwater during the proj ct construction, the City will request in writing
concurrence from the Army Corp of Enginee that the Corp issue a Nationwide Permit to cover
potential groundwater issues.
AIR QUALITY
Potential air quality impacts from the proposed roject are associated exclusively with construction
activities, as particulate matter generated fro construction vehicles would be emitted during the
implementation of the project. Additionally, ust generated during grading activities could also
cause temporary impacts to local air quality.
Mitigation:
To reduce potential adverse construction emi sion/air quality impacts it is recommended that dirt
stock pile areas be sprayed with water dail or as needed to control dust, that water trucks or
equivalent facilities be used to control dust during the grading process, and that construction
vehicles use best available control technolog to regulate emissions.
15 or 17
JUN 4 1996 ITEM S
FLORA/FAUNA
The section of Rattlesnake Channel impacted by the proposed project was surveyed for biological
resources in February 1996, The report noted that much of the channel and adjoining slopes were
void of vegetation as a result on a gasoline/diesel spill that had previously contaminated the project
area, Four types of plant communities wer.e identified during the survey; Freshwater Marsh,
Freshwater Seep, Giant Reed Wetland and Ruderal Vegetation. Twenty two plant species were
identified on the project site, of which 15 were non-native. None of the plant species identified in
the study are considered significant. Fourteen animal species were observed on or flying above
the site. All animal species noted are common and are often seen in urban and lor disturbed
habitats.
The project will impact 8,500 square feet (0.2 acre) of wetland habitat comprised of 1,620 square
feet (.04 acre) of Freshwater Marsh, 6,370 square feet (.15 acre) of Freshwater Seep and 490
square feet (.01 acre) of giant reed disturbed wetland. In addition 8,500 square feet (.2 acre) of
waters the U.S. and approximately 10,890 square feet (.25 acre) of ruderal vegetation will be
impacted,
The project is located in an area designated as disturbed/developed and outside of the preserve
area in the Poway Subareas Habitat Conservation Plan and the MSCP Plan. No local or regional
wildlife corridors are identified in the vicinity. The elimination of The 0.2 acre of Freshwater Marsh/
Freshwater Seep and giant reed wetland is not considered significant and will not further fragment
any larger habitat.
Mitigation:
It is anticipated that the Freshwater Marsh/Freshwater Seep will return to the channel naturally,
especially due to the upstream seed source. The expanded 50 foot wide channel will generate the
potential for 0,5 acre of similar wetland habitat. To encourage riparian species, it is recommended
that at a minimum 1 and 5 gallon willow shrubs be planted on the banks during the rainy season,
Given that riparian species do not currently exist, this is considered a enhancement action and not
a mitigation requirement and therefore does not require a monitoring program.
POPULATION
The proposed channel improvement project is intended to regulate flood waters in and around the
library site. As such, it will not induce direct or indirect growth of population or housing construction,
Given that the site is bordered by commercial land uses and a park, the project will not impact
existing housing. No mitigation measures are required because no impacts are anticipated.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
The proposed channel improvement project is intended to regulate flood waters in and around the
library site and will have no direct impact on commercial diversity or tax rates. The project is funded
by the City of Poway Redevelopment Agency, No mitigation measures are required because no
impacts are anticipated,
LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed channel improvements are located within commercially designated land. The
channel and the areas immediately surrounding the project area are also included within the
floodway or 100 year floodplain of Rattlesnake Creek. The areas where the main channel
improvements are proposed lie either within the existing channel or on vacant city owned land. No
mitigation measures are required because no impacts are anticipated.
16 of 17
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5
TRANSPORTATION
AJ; the proposed project provides channel improvements only, the only transportation issues would
be associated with construction traffic. The project boundaries are Poway Road the Poway
Community Park. Potential impacts could occur from construction vehicles arriving and existing the
site,
Mitigation:
A traffic control plan for the project construction should be prepared by the contractor to the
satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer, who will review and approve the plan. The plan should be
coordinated with the Poway Fire Department, Sheriff department, Community Services Department,
the Weingart Senior Center and the Poway Unified School District.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Poway General Plan identifies the area south of Poway Road as having a high probability for
archeological resources. The subject area and adjoining parcels, however, have been subject to
flooding, the channel to scouring and numerous grading and construction activities associated with
the development of commercial structures and parking lots. With the extensive degree and duration
of different types of disturbance, no archeological resources are anticipated. No mitigation
measures are required because no impacts are anticipated,
HEALTH. SAFETY AND NUISANCE FACTORS
The project proposes to improve the flood water carrying capacity of the channel through the project
area creating a benefit to the immediate area. As a drainage facility no potential increased noise
levels, odors, light or other health hazards are anticipated. The only objectionable noise and odor
could come from construction activities. Mitigation for these are discussed in previous mitigation
measures regarding proper maintenance of vehicle, dust control and traffic control.
AESTHETICS
AJ; noted in the biological study the site contain very limited vegetation, The propose project would
place approximately 300 feet of the existing channel underground. Landscaping could be used to
enhance surface area of this corner of the project, The remaining section of the channel will be
expanded and replanted with native vegetation to restore the appearance of a natural stream
channel.
UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
As a floodway improvement project it will not require additional public services other than
maintenance. The City's Public Service Department will maintain the channel on an annual or as
need basis. No mitigation measures are required because no impacts are anticipated.
ENERGY AND SCARCE RESOURCES
A temporary increase in the use of fuel by vehicles and associated equipment would occur during
project construction, however, this increase is not expected to be significant. No additional fuel or
other resources would be used. No mitigation measures are required because no impacts are
anticipated,
Ii of 17
JUN 4 1996 ITEM 5