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