Loading...
Item 5 - EA St. Michael's Church - - ~ TO: Honorable Mayor and Members or the City Council FROM: James L Bowersox, City Man~ INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Asllltant City Manager Reba Wrlght..Quastler, Director or Planning Services DAlE: August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Environmental Aaeament or the City or poway Cap/tallmprovement Project that proposes the Construction or a Bicycle Lane on the west Side or Pomerado Road from St, Mlchaer. Church to 350 Feet North of Heath Drive ABSTRACT This report introduces the environmental assessment of a 1995-96 City of poway Capital Improvement Project that proposes the construction of a bike lane, sidewalk section, and roadbed improvement along Pomerado Road between st. Michaers Church and Heath Drive. It is recommended that the City Council issue the attached Neaative Declaration. - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW , Issuance of a Negative Declaration. FISCAL IMPACT $250,000 in Transit Development Act Funds and additional street maintenance funds have been provided to construct the project. AnnrnONAI. PIJRT"C NOTIFICATION ANn CORRF'-:;PONnF.NCF. Public Notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to all property owners located within 500 feet of the oroiect area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council issue the attached Negative Declaration approving the construction of the bike lane, sidewalk section, and roadbed imorovements on Pomerado Road. ACTION - E:\CITYlPLANNING\REPOR1\POM-BlKE.SUM 1 of 16 AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 '., CITY OF POW A Y AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ ~' INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~V\ ~& Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ing Services James H. Lyon, Assistant Planner II DATE: AugustS, 1995 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment of the City of Powav Caoitallmorovement Proiect that Proooses the Construction of a Bicvcle Lane on the West Side of Pomerado Road from SI. Michael's Church South to 350 feet North of Heath Drive ABSTRACT The subject bike lane and road widening project was anticipated in the Poway Redevelopment Agency Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96. The City is required by CEQA to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and to make a determination whether the project would result in any significant adverse impacts. The issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. BACKGROUND Pomerado Road extends from Interstate 15 at Lake Hodges south to Scripps Ranch. Bike lanes are located on a majority of this roadway except for a few sporadic locations. The roadway section of Pomerado Road between SI. Michaels Church and Heath Drive is of substandard width and does not contain bicycle facilities. Last year Staff was successful in obtaining $250,000 in Transit Development Ad grant funds to design and construct the bike lane and sidewalk facilities. FINDINGS The bike lane project proposes the removal and replacement of an existing deteriorated asphalt walkway, the widening of Pomerado Road by five feet for the bike lane, and the reconstruction of the existing deteriorated road surface west of the street centerline. Existing slot drains will be replaced with drainage culverts and two drainage headwalls and inlet drainage structures located west of and adjacent to the existing roadway will be removed and relocated. AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 '... 2 of 16 - - Agenda Report - August 8, 1995 Page 2 The northern section of the project area contains vacant land. Five single family residences are located along the southern portion. Widening of the roadway will require driveway intersection improvements, the removal/relocation of several mature trees and new landscaping for those areas impacted by the widening. To construct the project as designed will require the removal of the wetland vegetation located within the drainage channel, coastal sage scrub, as well as additional ornamental landscaping that has been planted within the existing public right-of-way. The removal of the wetland habitat will necessitate the approval of a stream bed alteration permit (1601) from the State Department of Fish and Game. Loss of the Coastal Sage Scrub will also require mitigation and approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Based on the above description and a review of the projects construction drawings, staff conducted an environmental initial study to determine if any significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. Staff has also reviewed the Poway Comprehensive Plan and the Poway Redevelopment Plan and has determined that the proposed Pomerado Road widening is consistent with the goals and objectives of said documents. -- POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Through the environmental initial study process it was revealed that the proposed project may have potential effects on the environment. A biological study was conducted to determine the potential impacts of the project. The survey indicated the presence of 0.17 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub and 0.08 acres of freshwater marsh. Although the presence of these plant species are important, the loss of this habitat is not determined to be significant and can be mitigated through the acquisition of wetland habitat and payment into a coastal sage mitigation bank. The following paragraphs discuss the potential effects and mitigation measures either incorporated into the roadway design or otherwise recommended by staff. BIOLOGY The adjoining propertieslhillside to the west of the project area drain toward two concrete drainage inlets located adjacent to Pomerado Road. The drainage area leading up concrete inlets represents a form of intermittent stream and, as such, could accommodate various forms of riparian vegetation and associated wildlife. The proposed project would require the removal of approximately 3,900 square feet of freshwater marsh. In addition to the freshwater marsh, the site contains coastal sage scrub. The brush represents an isolated patch of habitat located between Pomerado Road and a 100+ foot wide fire break - clearing. The subject plants were not previously removed in association with the annual AUG 8 1995 ITEM , I~ 3 of 16 Agenda Report August 8, 1995 Page 3 weed abatement program because of a steep slope and fencing. Omamentallandscaping planted within the public right-of-way that may be removed as part of this project include iceplant and several mature eucalyptus trees. Where feasible, it is suggested that the mature trees be relocated back onto the resident's property should they so desire. PUBLIC NOTICE AND ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE Public notice was published in the Powav News Chieftain and mailed to all property owners residing within 500 feet of the project area. FISCAL IMPACT $250,000 in Transit Development Ad. grant funds was allocated from the 1994-95 SANDAG Bicycle Facilities Committee for the bike lane project. Additional funds from the City's street maintenance account, also supplied from gas tax revenues, will be used for the road bed reconstruction. RECOMMENDATION Based on the discussion of the potential environmental impacts contained in this report and the mitigation measures outlined herein, it is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration for the proposed widening of Pomerado Road to accommodate a new five foot wide bike lane and the reconstruction of a new concrete sidewalk through the project area. JLB:RWQ:JHL:kls Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Negative Declaration 3. Environmental Initial Study AUG 8 1995 aTaI 5 ,,,. 4 of 1 6 . "- - -- ,awU'ADO Ho...rU.L . I IT MI<lt/AlLl "1DlC"~ O''1CU MNCM --......00 "~II C"utIIC~ 4NO -..... 0 "NO NIGM __"'00l. \ ""00' \ i \ I ... I I ... , , lttm ... - - - - -- Hili I I , ' , , ! VAC."T ~ I i Proleo! Lo",;oO- .. [ I I t I , , : -... i , - I I i . I , i . - I , ~ ~ CITY OF POW A Y ITEM: Fl:1'\S:~Do Jq;" ~II<.E l....t..<c ,- @ SCALE, -"fA TITLE: I ~"""1T0/0l ~ ATTACHMENT: I AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 -, .. 5 'Of 1 Ii ;- CITY OF POWfi.r DON HIGGINSON. .\1ayor SL'SA.1\J CALLERY. Deputy \1ayor BOB EMERY. Councilmember \1ICKEY CAFAGNA. Counclimember BETTY REXFORD. Councilmember CITY OF POWAY NEGATIVE OECLARA TJON 1. Name and Address of Applicant: Citv of Powav P.O. Box 789 Powav CA 92064 2. Brief Description of Project: Construction of a Bicvcle Lane on the West Side of Pomerado Road from St Michael's Church South to 350 feet North of Heath Drive includinQ the removal and reconstruction of a five foot wide sidewalk 3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the city of Poway, implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of 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: James H Lvon Phone' (6191748~600 Approved by: Date: Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP I I I i I , I A TT ACHMENT 2 City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive .' ;Jailing Address POBox 789. Powav. California 9207.+,0789 . (619) 748-6600. 695-1400 ~ ~ I) c: 16 . AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5' . - - CITY OF POWAY - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: June 27 1995 APPLICANT: City of poway PROJECT: Pomerado Road Bicvcle Lane PROJECT LOCATION: Pomerado Road from aooroximately Via Monte Carlo to Heath Drive I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geoloav. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? __-L b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or burial of the soil? __-L c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? __-L d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? __-L e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on- or off-site conditions? __-L f. changes in erosion, siltation, or deposition? __-L g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? __-L - ITEM 5 1"4 ATTACHMENT 3 ~UG 8 1995 7 of 16 YE.S. MAYBE ~ 2. Hvdrolo~1Y. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Changes in currents, or the course in direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? _ _-X... b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? _ _-X... c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _-X... d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? _ _ -X... e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter- action of surface water quality? _ _-X... f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? _ _-X... g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions, or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? _ _-X... Quantity? _ _-X... h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? _ _-X... i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? _ _-X... 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? _ _-X... Stationary sources? _ _-X... b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of appli- cable air quality standards? _ _ -X... c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement moisture or temperature? _ _ -X... AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 '4 - n:: 2 r. - -- ill MAYBE till.. 4. E.\Qra. 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. AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 1~ 9 0: 16 ----.------------ YES MAYBE .t:l..Q.. 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? __-A- b. Will project costs be equitably distri- buted among project beneficiaries, Le., buyers, taxpayers, or project users? -1L __ 8. Land Use and Plannim;l Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? __-A- b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern- mental entities? __-A- c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? __-A- 9. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? __-A- b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? __-A- c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? __-A- d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? __-A- e. Alterations to present patterns of circu- lation or movement of people and/or goods? __-A- f. Alteration to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit, or air traffic? __-A- g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? __-A- AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 .,.., : 0 of 16 - YES. MAYBE ~ 10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeo- logical, paleontological, and/or historical resources? _ _----A- 11. Health Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ _----A- c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? _ _----A- d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or parthenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? _ _----A- e. Increase in existing noise levels? _ _----A- f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? _ _----A- g. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _----A- h. An increase in light or glare? _ _----A- 12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? _ _----A- b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? _ _----A- c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? _ _----A- AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 . ,1 of 16 ---------- .~ YES MAYBE lliL 13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have significant need for new systems, or alter- ations to the following: a. Electric power? _ _-A. b. Natural or packaged gas? _ _-A. c. Communications systems? _ _-A. d. Water supply? _ _-A. e. Wastewater facilities? _ _-A. f. Flood control structures? _ _-A. g. Solid waste facilities? _ _-A. h. Fire protection? _ _-A. i. Police protection? _ _-A. j. Schools? _ _-A. k. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _-A. I. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? _ _-A. m. Other governmental services? _ _-A. 14. Enerav and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? __-.....X... b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? _ _-A. c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? _ _-A. d. An increase or perpetuation of the consump- tion of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? _ _-A. e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resources? _ _-A. AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 .;. 12 of 16 - YES MAYBE tiQ.. 15. Mandatorv Findinas of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or 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? _ _---.2L 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.) _ _---.2L 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. ) _ _---.2L d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _---.2L II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIO~ - (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures.) SEE ATTACHED PAGES AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 ' I 13 of 16 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: D 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. D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I OAT,!:: ~ 2"( <fs SIGNATURE: ~ II AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 1 14 ~; 1C V.l... _ '-' - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. SOILS and GEOLOGY The widening of Pomerado Road to accommodate the bike lane and the relocation of an existing sidewalk will require grading approximately ten feet into the adjoining hillside section. Additional grading may be required to create appropriate cut slope angles and driveway improvements. All grading shall be in compliance with the City of Poway Grading Ordinance 2. HYDROLOGY The proposed project will not divert or change the volume of water in the area. A minor impact in the potential ground water absorption rate may occur as a result of the project but, given the limited scope of the project, the impact is not considered significant. 3. AIR QUALITY The vehicles associated with grading and construction of the sidewalk may create a minor temporary air impact, this impact however, is not considered significant. 4. FLORA -. Construction of the proposed bike land and sidewalk will result in the disturbance of approximately 3,690 square feet of wetland (Freshwater Marsh) habitat located within an adjoining drainage basin, 7,S11 square feet of Coastal Sage scrub, 27,214 square feet of annual grassland and 6,1 OS square feet of horticultural landscaping. A biological survey was conducted by Marque and Associates for the project site. The report indicated that the drainage area supported limited vegetation consisting of scattered low individual numbers of Curly Dock, Western Ragweed, and Spiny-leaf Sow-Thistle. An open field west of the sidewalk is bladed annually as part of a City weed abatement program and is dominated by weedy, ruderal species and annual grasses. Small, isolated groupings of coastal sage and chaparral are located between the existing sidewalk and the bladed area and are of little biological value. Based on these findings, the consultant determined the habitat to be moderate to low quality. Because the quality of the wetland habitat is considered equally low, a 1:1 wetland mitigation ratio was recommended. This ratio would equate to the acquisition and/or enhancement of 0.17 acres of wetland habitat. Funds deposited into a special mitigation account are proposed to offset the loss of Coastal Sage scrub. S. FAUNA The biological report conducted for the project indicated the presence of twelve common bird species, ground squirrels and fence lizards. No California Gnatcatchers were heard or seen on or near the site. The impact area is a maximum ten foot wide section of vegetation between a major roadway and a bladed area having little biological value. Due to the disturbed nature of the vegetation, the report concluded that these combined factors would inhibit the use of the area by native birds and mammals. As such, impacts to the site are not considered significant. - AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 , : 'i of 16 6. POPULATION The project proposes the construction of a bicycle lane and sidewalk. The project would not create tho demand for or relocation of any new housing. 7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS The cost of the project is provided through Transit Development Act grant funds and other gas tax revenue sources and would not effect tax rates or require reimbursement from surrounding property owners. 8. LAND USE and PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The Bike lane project would not conflict with or require redesignation of any land use or zoning and is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 9. TRANSPORTATION The project completes a missing gap in the City bike lane system and will not have any significant impact on any existing street, parking facility or circulation pattern. 10. CULTURAL RESOURCES The areas has been previously disturbed during the construction of the roadway, drainage culverts anc' annual disking. Brian Smith and Associates, an archeological consultant firm, walked the project are.. and determined that the site did not contain any historical or archeological resources. 11. HEALTH SAFETY and NUISANCE FACTORS The project will provide a benefit to the health and safety of the community by completing a missing section of bike lane that has, in the past, required bicycle riders to share the travel lane with motor vehicles. 12. AESTHETICS The project area is not part of a scenic view or corridor. No significant rock outcropping or tree stands will be impacted. 13. UTILITIES and PUBLIC SERVICES The project proposes the construction of a bicycle lane and sidewalk and will not alter or require the construction of any other utility system. 14. ENERGY and SCARCE RESOURCES Only the fuels necessary to construct the bike lane and side walk will be associated with this project No additional costs or energy resources are required. AUG 8 1995 ITEM 5 , : 6 of 16