Item 1 - EA TPM 98-13 Brad Burke
Additional Material - Distributed 1/12/99
~
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manat .
INITIATED BY: Ronald L. Ballard, Interim Director of Planning Services.L.
DATE: January 19, 1999
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 98-13 Brad Burke,
Applicant
ABSTRACT
A request to divide a 4.96 acre parcel into two parcels of 2.01 acres and 2.48 acres (net), located
on the southeast corner of Kingman and Oak Canyon Roads and fronting on Skyridge Road within
the Rural Residential B zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures
(indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated due to the addition of special
requirements to the project).
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and sent to 26 property owners within
500 feet of the site.
RECOMMENDA nON
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures and
adopt the attached resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 98-13.
II A=ON I
N:\PLANNINGlREPORTlTPM9813,SUM
1 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM 1 '"
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~
INITIATED BY: Ronald L. Ballard, Interim Director of Plaß] Services L
Stephen A. Streeter, Principal Planner /
DATE: January 19,1999
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: 50 days after City Council action on the environmental determination
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 98-13 Brad
Burke, Applicant: A request to divide a 4.96 acre parcel into two
parcels of 2.01 acres and 2.48 acres (net), located on the southeast
comer of Kingman and Oak Canyon Roads and fronting on Skyridge
Road within the Rural Residential B zone.
APN: 278-300-64
BACKGROUND
This tentative map is a request to divide a 4.96 acre parcel into two parcels of 2.01 acres
and 2.48 acres (net), located on the southeast comer of Kingman and Oak Canyon Roads
and fronting on Skyridge Road within the Rural Residential B zone. TPM 88-03R was
approved in a similar configuration for Robert Hartsfield on November 28, 1989,
FINDINGS
This site is within the High Valley area, the subject of a land use study that will come
forward to the City Council by March 1999. The City Council had expressed concem about
lot width and related issues as part of the October 1998 approval of the Jacinto Tentative
Tract Map. Since this project had a prior approval, its shape requires that one of the lots
be somewhat long and narrow and only one additional lot is being created, it is
recommended that this application be allowed to proceed.
Two conditions that the applicant has discussed extensively with City staff are:
1. Skyridge Road, from Kingman Road to the easterly subdivision line, and Kingman
Road, between the northem end of the existing 20 foot wide improvements and the
driveway access to Parcel 2, shall be improved to a 20-foot wide roadway per the
City's Local Non-dedicated Rural Street Standards Sections 12.20.110 and
12.20.120.
2 of 28 .
Agenda Report
January 19, 1999
Page 2
A similar condition was placed on the prior TPM approval for Mr. Hartsfield in 1989.
In addition, the prior Safety Services Department condition also required that all
roads were to be finished to a minimum of 20 feet all-weather surface. Mr. Burke's
reasons for objection are included in the attached letters(Attachment F)
2. Upgrade of the water system in the area is needed to serve existing and future
residences, i.e. a second reservoir near the Skyridge Reservoir. The applicant now
agrees to participate in a future assessment district for upgrade of the water system
with a second reservoir.
ZONE STANDARDS TABLE
PARCEL NET LOT LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH FLAG LOT
AREA
Standard 2 net ac. High 110ft. 150 ft. 20 ft.
Valley area
Parcel 1 2.01 ac. 185-330 ft. 290-350 ft. NIA
Parcel 2 2.48 ac. 150-210 ft. 607 ft. NIA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures (indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated due to the
addition of special requirements to the project). A prior Negative Declaration with
Mitigation Measures was issued on November 28, 1989 for Tentative Parcel Map 88-03.
FISCAL IMPACT
None,
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and sent to 26 property owners
within 500 feet of the site.
3 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM 1 .u
Agenda Report
January 19,1999
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures and adopt the attached resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 98-13.
Attachments:
A. Proposed Resolution
B. Negative Declaration
C. Environmental Initial Study
D. Zoning and Location Map
E. Tentative Parcel Map 98-13
F, Letters from the Applicant
N:IPLANNINGIREPORnTPM9813A.AGN
4 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM 1 .~
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-13
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 278-300-64
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 98-13, submitted by Brad and Honey Burke,
applicants, proposes to divide a 4.96 a'cre parcel into two parcels of 2.01 acres and 2.48
acres (net), located on the southeast comer of Kingman and Oak Canyon Roads and
fronting on Skyridge Road within the Rural Residential B zone.
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1999 the City Council held a hearing on the above-
referenced item.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d)(1) , NOTICE IS
FURTHER GIVEN that the 90-day period to protest the imposition of any fee, dedication,
reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of
this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental Findinas:
The City Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures
(indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated due to the
addition of special requirements to the project).
Section 2: Findings:
1. The approved project is consistent with the General Plan in that the 2.01 and
2.48 (net) acre parcels are consistent with the RR- B zoning and the General
Plan designation of Rural Residential B.
2. The design and improvements required of the tentative parcel map are
consistent with all applicable general and specific plans; in that the approved
parcel sizes and configurations adhere to the development standards for the
RR-B zone.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and the density
proposed; in that the overall slope of the property is 14.7 percent which is
within the City of Poway standards for parcel maps and the site is located
within an area of predominantly rural residential development.
4. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or other habitat in that
5 of 28 ATTACHMENT A
,'HI 1 ~ 1oqo m=u , .'1
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
the majority of the site has been previously disturbed by agricultural
development and the conditions of approval assure that any impacts
associated with the proposed development will be mitigated.
5. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems
in that City water service is available to the property and the County
Environmental Health Division has found the parcels are suitable for septic
systems.
6. The design of the tentative parcel map will not conflict with any easement by
the public at large, now of record. for access through or use of the property
within the proposed subdivision.
Section 3: Citv Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map 98-13 subject to the
following conditions:
Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit in writing that all conditions
of approval have been read and understood.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES.
Conditions preceded by an asterisk (*) are also mitigation measures.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the
Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein.
2, Revised site plans incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitted to the
Planning Services Department.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
4. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,
all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning Services.
5. The developer shall pay an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee to the Planning Services
Department per City Ordinance prior to building permit issuance.
6 of 28 JAN 1 9 199Q ITEM
1
REVISED JANUARY 18, 1999 FULL ~TSTRIBUTION ON 1/19/99
TPM 98-13
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
6. Low-volume plumbing fixtures and low water usage irrigation, shall be installed
within the new residences and for surrounding landscaping.
7.* Any native treeorshrub removal shall occur between the months of September and
February to avoid any potential impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act:
8. The approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire at the end of two years if
either a parcel map has not been approved and recorded or a time extension has
not been sought by January 19, 2001.
ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REQUIRED
A Minor Development Review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a
building permit on the new parcel.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
GRADING
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building
Code, City Grading Ordinance, approved grading plan and geotechnical report, and
accepted grading practices.
2. The grading plan shall contain a certificate signed by a registered civil engineer that
the grading plan has preserved a minimum of 100 square feet of solar access for
each dwelling unit and for each future building site within the subdivision.
3. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of
Califomia to perform such work and copies thereof shall be provided to the City with
first submittal of grading plans.
4. The final grading plan, prepared on a standard sheet of mylar, shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning and Engineering services Departments and
shall be completed prior to start of grading operation.
5. A pre-blast survey of the surrounding property shall be conducted to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer prior to any rock blasting. A blasting permit shall be obtained
from the Engineering Services Department prior to any rock blasting. Seismic
Recordings shall be taken for all blasting and blasting shall occur only at locations
and levels approved by the City Engineer.
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
6. All new slopes shall be a maximum of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical).
7. A final compaction report shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of
building permits.
8. A certification of line and grade, prepared by the project civil engineer, shall be
submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
9. Buildings and parking lots shall be at least five feet from tops and toes of slopes,
unless waived by Planning and/or Engineering Services Departments prior to
grading permit issuance.
10. Non-supervised or non-engineered fill is specifically not allowed. Rock disposal
areas shall be graded in compliance with City-approved soils investigations and
recommendations and grading plans.
11. Erosion control, including but not limited to desiltation basins, shall be installed and
maintained from Oct. 15th to April 15th. An erosion control plan shall be prepared
by the project civil engineer and shall be submitted as part of the grading plan. The
developer shall make provisions to insure the proper maintenance of all erosion
control devices throughout their intended life.
12. The tops and toes of all graded slopes shall be constructed with a five-foot minimum
setback from any open space area and property lines.
STREETS
1.* Skyridge Road, from Kingman Road to the easterly subdivision line, and Kingman
Road, between the northern end of the existing 20 foot wide improvements and the
driveway access to Parcel 2, shall be improved to a 20-foot wide roadway per the
City's Local Non-dedicated Rural Street Standards Sections 12.20.110 and
12.20.120.
Should there be a driveway access to Parcel 2 from Oak Canyon Road, then said
Oak Canyon Road shall also be improved to the same standards required for
construction of Skyridge Road and Kingman Road.
2. Improvement plans for the improvements to Skyridge Road, Kingman Road, Oak
Canyon Road (if there is a driveway access to Parcel 2 from this road), and a water
main line installation and fire hydrant (if required by the City Fire Marshal) shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval with appropriate securities posted prior
to parcel ffiap approval of'tl1eGl:!!'tificatesof,occupancy.
Resolution No. P-
Page 5
Plans¡and construction of the improvements for Sk.yridgeRoad shall be completed
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Parcel 1. Plans and construction
of the,improvemerítsforKingman¡ Roadst;¡älI¡becampk¡ted:prio r¡ toissu ance¡of a
certificate of occupancy for Parcel2.
3. A road maintenance and construction agreement for that portion of Kingman Road
and Skyridge Road, and Oak Canyon Road (to be included only if there is driveway
access to Parcel 2 from this road), along the subdivision's frontage, shall be
executed and recorded in the office of the San Diego County Recorder prior to
approval of parcel map. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
4. All damaged off-site public works facilities, including parkway trees, shall be
repaired and replaced prior to exoneration of bonds and improvements, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
5. Prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way or City-held easements, a
right-of-way permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department and
appropriate fees paid, in addition to any permits required.
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL
1. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing all surface water originating
within the project, and all surface waters that may flow onto the project from
adjacent lands, shall be required. Said drainage system shall include any
easements and structures as required by the Director of Engineering Services to
properly handle the drainage. '
2. Portland cement concrete gutters shall be installed where water crosses the
roadways.
3. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks shall not be permitted.
SEWER
1. Sewage disposal system shall be designed and constructed to meet the
requirements of the City of Poway and San Diego County Department of Health.
2. A Health Department certificate for the sewage disposal system shall be obtained
prior to parcel map approval. The approved certificate wording shall be placed on
the parcel map, except the non-title sheet.
Resolution No. P-
Page 6
.
WATER
1. Fire hydrant, if needed, shall be installed at locations to be determined by the City
Fire Marshal. A water system analysis may be required to determine the size and
location of the water main and adequacy of fire flow. (Refer to Condition #2 under
Streets.)
UTILITIES
1. All proposed electrical/communication/CA TV utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing electrical utilities less than 34.5 KValong
Circulation Element roads and/or highways.
2. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving utility
companies and the Director of Engineering Services.
3. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and undergrounding of
existing public utilities except as allowed to be waived per Resolution 91-003
(Criteria for the Waiver of Undergrounding of Utilities).
4. Existing telephone, gas, electric, water, sewer, and other public utility lines and
appurtenances shall be shown on the gradinglimprovement plans.
5. All public utility lines (Le., water, sewer, drainage) not located within public streets
shall have an improved access over and along the respective easement, the
surfacing and width of which shall be acceptable to the City Engineer.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS
1. The parcel map shall conform to City standards and procedures, City subdivision
ordinance, Subdivision Map Act, and land Surveyors Act.
2. No work and no structures are allowed within any City-held easement that would
compromise the use and purpose for which it was originally dedicated.
3. A monumentation bond in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer shall be
posted prior to parcel map approval, unless monuments have already been set and
that a certificate for setting the monuments issued by the surveyor or engineerÎs
provided to the City.
Resolution No. P-
Page 7
DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES
1. The following fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance:
Water connection fee = $ 3,710.00 per meter (based on ¥4" water meter)"
Water meter fee =$ 130,00 per meter (based on ¥4" water meter)"
Water lateral = $ 1 ,350.00 per meter (for servicè to :y." water meter)"
SDCWA fee = $ 1,585.00 per meter (based on :y." water meter)"
Traffic Mitigation fee = $ 990.00 per lot
Drainage fee = None
Park fee = $ 2,720.00 per lot
Note: The above fees are those currently in effect and are subject to change. All
water fees are required only if property owner(s) utilize(s) City water system.
" For other sizes, contact Engineering Services Department
2. Permit and plan checking fees shall be paid upon submittal of parcel map,
improvement, andlor grading plan, as applicable.
MISCELLANEOUS
1, The property has been assigned 2 assessment units in the Integrated Financing
District 96-1 formed April 16, 1996. After parcel map recordation, each created
parcel within the subdivision will be assessed one benefit unit in the District.
2.* Prier te 9afeel fI'Ia 9 a 9 9l'6val, tl'ie a :! 9IiÐ8Rv-elevcle ger shall 9ay a 9re fata share fer
the ..ater s~stefl'l Ðx 9aRsieR iR tl'ia Ili§h V811e~ Area AsSeSSfI'IeRt Distriet. The
"vater s)stefl'l ex 9aRsieR shall iReh:Jee eest fer aefll:JisitieR et Reeessaf) .vater
eaSefl'leRts, aRe eeRstfl:letieR et a ..ater taR ( I't:ser.eir aRe a 9 9l:JFteRaRt IiRes aRe
fOOttres-. The.. a iJ~~I¡It::li!gÆ!~m~..pa rtici~t~:;¡m.:a._~:;aS~li!s smêl1t. ..d istrict... fo r
upg.rade. of.theWâteí"isystemwittl..a..secondkreservØit.
Resolution No. P-
Page 7
Water connection fee
Water meter fee =$
Water lateral
SDCWA fee = $ 1,585.00 per meter
Traffic Mitigation fee = $ 990.00 per lot
Drainage fee = None
Park fee
Note: The above fees are those curren y in effect and are subject to change. All
water fees are required only if prope owner(s) utilize(s) City water system.
* For other sizes, contact Enginee' 9 Services Department
2. Permit and plan checking fee shall be paid upon submittal of parcel map,
improvement, and/or grading an, as applicable.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. The property has been signed 2 assessment units in the Integrated Financing
District 96-1 formed Ap 1116, 1996. After parcel map recordation, each created
parcel within the subdi ision will be assessed one benefit unit in the District.
2.* Prior to parcel map proval, the applicant/developer shall pay a pro rata share for
the water system xpansion in the High Valley Area Assessment District. The
water system ex ansion shall include cost for acquisition of necessary water
easements, and onstruction of a water tank reservoir and appurtenant lines and
fixtures.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE
ED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY SERVICES.
1. xceeding 150 feet in length shall require an approved fire department
2. A water nk (10,000 gallons) shall be required where distances from house to fire
hydrant) exceed 500 feet by way of fire truck access.
11 of 28 ¡I EM 1
JAN 1 9 1999
Resolution No. P-
Page 8
3. The determination as to whether a residential fire sprinkler system is required shall
be made upon plan submittals during Minor Development Review application
(MDRA).
4. The abatement of vegetation on each new building shall comply with section six
"Wildland Fire Management" of the City's guide to landscape requirements.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES.
The parcel is located within the General Plan's conceptual trail scheme as a Local Feed
Trail having a ten foot wide dedicated easement that will be improved to City Standards
(signs, brow ditches, erosion control bars, etc.).
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California.
this 19th day of January, 1999.
Michael P. Cafagna, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lori Anne Peoples. City Clerk
12 of 28
,//.Ii 1 0 1000 fT=U1
"" Pow Ay
L..ITY OF
~IIU~EY l:,-\F,-\C;;-':,-\, ~I."",
B\'BH,1ERY,I)cl""'~I."",
lAY l,l,LI1BY,l~""", 01""",1."
110;-.: HI\ ;c;INSON, C"un"l",cmh"
BETTY REXFORI1, Cnun,dnwmh"
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1, Name and Address of Applicant: Brad Burke. 615 J Street. San Dieao CA 92101
2. Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map
98-13 Brad Burke Apolicant: A reQuest to divide a 4.96 acre Darcel into two parcels
of 2,01 acres and 2.48 acres (net) located on the southeast corner of Kinaman and
Oak Canvon Roads and frontina on Skvridae Road within the Rural Residential B
zone.
3, In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
California 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: Stephen Streeter Phone: (619) 679-4293
Approved by: Date:
Ronald L, Ballard
Interim Director of Planning Services
" II,']! '0 ,I.: ,r :;, ~ l II. \ ,',IVI [\1'1\,
\ i , \. ill I 1'.." ~"I 1"'\\1 \rIll"I""!~,'~~.,'~,,J. 11,1 - i "'1,,', ",',.]-\.'
13 of 28 ATTACHMENT B
"" . ~ .nno I""".~,. -
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DATE: December 10, 1998
APPLICANT: Brad Burke Acclicant
PROJECT: Tentative Parcel Mac 98-13
PROJECT LOCATION: Divide a 4.96 acre Darcel into two carcels of 2.01 acres and 2.48 acres (net),
located on the southeast corner of Kinaman and Oak Canvon Roads and frontina on Skyridge Road
within the Rural Residential B zone,
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Fact-based explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE !:!Q...
1. So i I sand Geo logy. Wi I I the proposal have
significant Impacts in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in ¡./'
geologic relationships? - - -
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or ./
bur ial of the soi I? - -
c, Change in topography or ground surface ./
contour intervals? - - -
d. The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical ./
features? - - -
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soi Is, affecting either on- or V
off-site conditions? - -
f. Changes in erosion, si Itation, or ./
deposition? - - -
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, I ands I ides,
muds I ides, ground fai lure, or simi lar /'
hazards? - - -
2. Hydrology. Wi II the proposal have significant
Impacts In:
a. Changes in currents, or the course in
direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ,/
ephemeral stream channels? - -
b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of ,/
surface water runoff? - - -
c, Alterations to the course or flow of ,/
flood waters? - -
d. Change in the amount of surface water in /
any body of water? -
e. Discharge Into surface waters, or any alter- L
act ion of surface water qua Ii ty? -
14 of 28 ATTACHMENT C ITEM
, AN 1 g 199~ 1 "
Env i ronmenta I Study CheCo.. i st
Page 2
YES MAYBE NO
1. Alteration of groundwater ,/
characteristics? - - -
g. Change In the Quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions, or wlth-
drawals, or through interference with an
aQu i fer? ,/
Quality? - - 7'
Quant I ty? - -
h. The reduction in the amount of water otherwise /
avai lable for public water suppl ies? - - 7
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches? - - -
3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant
Impacts In:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from ~
mob I ie or Indirect sources? - -
Stationary sources? - -
b. Deterioration of ambient air Qual ity and/or
interference with the attainment of appl i- ~
cable air Quality standards? - - -
c. A I terat ion of local or regional cl imatlc
conditions, affecting air movement moisture ,,/
or temperature? - - -
4. Flora. Wi II the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number v'
of endangered species of plants? - -
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, 1
rare, or endangered species of plants? - -
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species ,,/
of plants Into an area? - -
d. Reduction In the potential for agricultural ,/
production? - - -
5. Fauna. Wi II the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change In the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or ,/
numbers of any species of animals? - -
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ~
rare, or endangered species of animals? - -
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of animals into an area, or result In a
barrier to the mitigation or movement of ,/
animals? - - -
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish I
or wi Idl ife habitat? - - -
15 of 28
JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM , 1
Environmental Stud) ~heckllst
Page 3
YES MAYBE ~
6. Population. [Wi II the proposal] have significant
resu I ts In:
a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, distri- ,/
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? - - -
b. Wi II the proposal affect existing housing, ./
or create a demand for additional housing? - - -
7. Socio-Economic Factors. Wi II the proposal have
significant results In:
a. Change In local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, Including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and prop- v'
erty values? - -
b. Will project costs be eQuitably dlstrl-
buted among project beneficiaries, i.e., /
buyers, taxpayers, or project users? - - -
8. Land Use and Plannln9 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,
pol icies, or adopted plans of any govern- ,/
mental entities? - - -
c. An impact upon the Qual ity or Quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive ,/
recreational opportunities? - - -
9. Transportation. Wi II the proposal have significant
results In:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular v'
movement? - - -
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for ¡/
new street construction? - - -
c. Effects on existing parking facl I Ities, or ./
demand for new parking? - - -
d. Substant I a I Impact upon existing transpor- -L
tat ion systems? - -
e. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
latlon or movement of people and/or V
goods? - -
1. Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rai I, mass transit, ,/
or air traffic? - - -
g. Increases In traffic hazards to motor V
vehicles, bicycl ists, or pedestrians? - - -
16 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM J ' ~ r
Env i ronmenta I Study Chel... i st
Page 4
YES ~ NO
10. Cultural Resources. Wi II the proposal have
significant Impacts In:
a. A disturbance to the Integrity of archaeo-
logical, paleontological, and/or historical /
resources? - - -
11. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Wi II the
proposal have significant results In:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential vi'
health hazard? - - -
b. Exposure of people to potential health /
hazards? - - -
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous /
substances in the event of an accident? - - -
d. An Increase In the number of Individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms ./
or the exposure of people to such organisms? - -
e. Increase In existing noise levels? - _ ./
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous L
noise levels? - -
g. The creation of objectionable odors? - - 1
h. An Increase In I ight or glare? - - /
12. Aesthetics. Wi II the proposal have significant
resu I ts In:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic ,/
vista or view? - -
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive vi'
si te? - -
c. A conflict with the objective of designated ,/
or potential scenic corridors? - - -
13. Uti I ities and Public Services. Wi II the proposal
have Significant need for new systems, or alter-
ations to the following:
a. Electric power? ,/
- - -
b. Natural or packaged gas? V
-'- ,/
c. Communications systems? - -
d. Water supply? - ~ -
e. Wastewater faci I itles? - - 1
1. Flood control structures? - - ,/
g. Sol id waste faci I ities? ,/
- - ./
h. Fire protect ion? - -
17 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITeM J
Env i ronmenta I StU(¡. '::heckllst
Page 5
YES MAYBE ~
I. Pol ice protect ion? - - L
j. Schools? ,/
- - -
k. Parks or other recreational facil ities? .I
- -
I. Maintenance of publ ic facll ities, including .;
roads and flood control facilities?
- - 7
m. Other governmental services? - -
14. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have sIgnifIcant Impacts In:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or .I
energy? - -
b. Substantial Increase In demand upon existing /
sources of energy? - - -
c. An Increase in the demand for development of .I
new sources of energy? - - -
d. An Increase or perpetuation of the consump-
tion of non-renewable forms of energy, when
feasible renewable sources of energy are V
available? - -
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable I
or scarce natural resources? - -
15. Mandatory Findings 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 wlld-
life population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to el iminate
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 tI
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 wi II ,/
endure we I I into the future.) - - -
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually I imlted, 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.) - - -
18 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITëM J '
Env i ronmenta I StUdy Che\.., i at
Page 6
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which wi II cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either L
directly or Indirect Iy? - -
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures.)
SEE ATTACHED PAGES
III. DETERMINATION
D 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION
MEASURES Will BE PREPARED.
D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
DATE: December 10. 1998 SIGNATURE: ~d£4
tephen A, Streeter
TITLE: Princical Planner
E:\PLANNING\REPORT\TPM9813,EIS
19 of 28 IT;:.., , ,~,
"" . !' 10M
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
TPM 98-13
Page 7
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This tentative map is a request to divide a 4.96 acre parcel into two parcels of 2.01
acres and 2.48 acres (net), located on the southeast corner of Kingman and Oak
Canyon Roads and fronting on Skyridge Road within the Rural Residential B zone.
Surrounding properties include rural residences on parcels of two acres or larger. The
property has been used for agricultural purposes over the years with remnants of a
grove on Parcel 1. The land is at an elevation of 1240 to 1300 feet above sea level.
1. Soils and Geoloay: Grading of the site to prepare building pads and install
driveways will result in some minor alteration of the natural topography. These
changes are not significant as the site has already been disturbed by agricultural
use. The requirement that the applicant obtain a grading permit and conduct
soils and geologic testing will insure that the grading and development of the
property is consistent with City of Poway standards.
2. Hvdroloav: Additional runoff may occur where driveways and other impervious
surfaces are added with development of the parcels. In order to mitigate this
impact, the developer will be required to design a drainage system capable of
handling and disposing of all surface runoff originating on the site to meet current
City standards.
4. Flora & Fauna: A biological survey was done in October 1998. A small patch of
coastal sage scrub (0.06 acre) is at the northeast comer of the site. The prior
avocado and olive tree grove on the site disturbed the native habitat.
Mitigation: Any tree removal is to occur between the months of September and
February to avoid any potential impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
9. TransDortation: Construction of two homes on the site will result in about 20
vehicular trips per day on the surrounding streets. Conditions of approval require
improvement of street frontages contiguous to the site to meet non-dedicated
rural road standards(20 foot minimum width). This requirement will be sufficient
to mitigate any impacts relating to traffic. '
Mitigation: Skyridge Road, from Kingman Road to the easterly subdivision line,
and Kingman Road, between the northern end of the existing 20 foot wide
improvements and the driveway access to Parcel 2, shall be improved to a 20-
foot wide roadway per the City's Local Non-dedicated Rural Street Standards
Sections 12.20.110 and 12.20.120.
13. Utilities and Public Services: Upgrade of the water system in the area is needed
to serve existing and future residences, i.e. a second reservoir near the Skyridge
20 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 rTëM ,
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
TPM 98-13
Page 8
Reservoir.
Mitiaation: The applicant agrees to participate in a future assessment district for
upgrade of the water system with a second reservoir.
Reference:
. TPM 88-03R Hartsfield environmental initial study for same site
E:\PLANN I N GIREPORT\ TPM9813.1S
-
21 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM 1 .~ I
--
RR-A
CITY OF POvV A Y ITEM: TPM 98-13
@ SCALE. TITLE: 5fJI2LDUNÖ/N6 ZON/¡y¿;
AND 66VE£,.7L ,dLHN
¡ -
~ :Uo^Jí:: ATTACHMENT: D
~
~ -- --
22 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM J
~ .
~i z' 1 \ '......,
I'^ .í. I ;,: ~¡'j m"
UJ ,~. ~ "~. . .~
II") 1-. I. 1 :0:.1 ., I .~! ~. Ii ; a ~" i!.
- .1] t I lit! II ~. . i"l ~ ¡; i' "I" ~ .
' ., .3 . õ'."." U . aD' ~~~ ~
"I ¡Ei, J!!.I ~ ~ ! .' t.. " !!:~. ;!.!i! ~,~~ ~
-'Ö [l!~=I j¡j'¡h:~l.ljij.¡.~ ¡, ;;i"'~~;';I'~;~~.~~:. .. ~:
~', :."" ~! - . 1" . ¡¡Ie;¡ !i~U> Os & G
'ti!¡ .ldf i ~ i { , i:1 . 1\ i. .,W~f §~I.
(L g Ip!1 .11¡¡~lnl? ;\1' '¡"' :~¡, -8 t I !~~~, ~h~ ..
~I f¡1 ' , 'f.' i.' 'I" . . . ¡af-' ~~..
«;1.. .) nh;'~ 'Ii. .! .¡¡ g ~:.~~ ,.¡;!~t ,
; 1 . wt '.0' '. ¡ i< 'ub~ "-" ......,
. :1;. . i ,!]¡¡rþ¡=:¡ i:d ~ I' f~! ~~,:ji§~ ~~~~}~
,~ Þ ~dti H II HH~nn ~!P~1d.! j'. hi ¡.!i;~i ~m~â ~1"
!.Jt f nh~!¡. t ¡1 '.!' .,: , ¡W~B~ .~~~ ~"5î ~
. I', is" &.E. . , '. .. .t. - "--~ ..-. ..~i
! 0 ~. f~ i',!:J;." d. :;, 1.1 t,,) -a "!o "~"A ~~'.
"n .~;. "t" t -,. ~ .' _w~d .u-.
fïl~íî Hh:!itl ~ d~ h ~ ~ : ~~: aa:§ ;~h
:r: -,po. ...." ....".. ._01 . It,! ¡¡~8i
- -.. ~u :.: r~U
I (L ¡¡~!~ w'o'. ...
.GO-.' ""'" ~"a~ ~4..- . . !"
« ~S" ;~~~"A:=~"
,~,,"" ;' --
~ .. J;~;
~6 V ~:
-! :¡; >1'" ; f~
w .... ; t];¡~
U '/ I ~=
~ h
.« ~
(L ,
W
>
f-
«
I-
.".
.J
U
z
<5
z
~
w
w
Z
(3
1 ~ z
~ ~ w
G' CD
0:::
w
:~
:1
"
""." N
~- ~
" I
ro
m
23 of 28 ATTACHMENT E JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM 1 I'
December 16, 1998
STUDIO [ Mr. Steve Streeter
Planning Department RECEIVED
ARCHITECTS City of Poway
P.O. Box 789 DEC 1 8 1998
Poway, CA 92074-0789
Re: Burke Parcel Split PU\NNI~c; DEPT.
Src,?,C'
s~,' ["AgO
'2""
Steve:
ç-,",.
-0, .,"'~U~ As a follow up to our meeting and recent phone conversations, I wanted
to sununanze the directions and decisions made,
TENTATIVE MAP
Per our conversation, we are on track to have the Tentative Map heard
January 12'h. I have not received a response from the Engineering
Department on my letter outlining why I believe only Kingman Road
should require improvements. If you have anymore inpUt on this issue
prior to the hearing please let me know. I look forward to reviewing a
draft copy of the conditions when ready as we discussed.
MDRA
Per our conversation, we will be subnútting the MDRA package for the
Blelloch's house shonly. As we discussed, the required processing can
begin immediately; however, the final approval cannot be fonnall)'
issued until the Final Map is recorded.
FINAL MAP
We are subnútting the Final Map for first plan check today, I appreciate
J avid's direction that we can process this prior to Tentative Map
approval since I am willing to pay the plan check fees in light of the
potential risks,
IMPROVEMENT PlANS
As discussed with J avid and Nino)', any road improvements will be
required to be constructed prior to occupancy of either of the houses,
Therefore, the Final Map will be processed and recorded prior to any
improvement plans being submitted. The improvement plans will be
prepared and plan checked while the houses are being constructed, Per
Javid, we will sit down and agree on an appropriate bond amount once
the final conditions are approved by Council. I will post that bond prior
to Final Map recordation,
24 of 28 ATTACHMENT F
".. . 0 'M- "'~" . , ..
Steœ Streeter - Burke Parœl Splzt
GRADING PlAN
We will be submitting the grading plan for the Blelloch's house within
the next couple weeks, As discussed, a grading permit can be issued for
this without any further approvals (except the grading plan itself) since I
am allowed to grade other parts of my property, The building pennit
for this house will not be issued until the Final Map has been recorded,
the MDRA permit issued and the pad certification completed.
OVERALL TlMELINE
In regard to the proposed overall processing sequence and timeline for
the project, I have revised our timeline to reflect the City's input and the
decisions made, A copy is attached for your information. Though I do
not expect any type of formal commitment by the various City
Departments, I believe this timeline is realistic and achievable on all
fronts, Paul and I are going to do all we can to meet it.
I greatly appreciate your assistance and that of all City staff involved in
this project, Both my family and the Blelloch family are greatly looking
forward to becoming active members of the community.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do or further information I
can provide,
Thank you,
~
Brad Burke
Cc: Paul Blelloch w / enclosure
25 of 28 JAH 1 9 1999 ITeM 1 "
December 4,1998
STUDIO E Mr, Steve Streeter Mr, Javid Siminou
Planning Depanment Engineering Depanment
City of Poway
ARCHITECTS 13325 Civic Center Drive RECEIVED
Poway, CA 92064
Re: Burke Property Tentative Map DEC 0 7 1998
Steve/Javid: PLANNiNG DEPT
Thank you for taking time to meet with me regarding the timing and
", "'C conditions for development of our property.
¿;s.(n2 I have done some more thinking on the issue of improving Skyridge Road, I
undorstand your po3ition that you need to implelllem what you view as City
policy, However, I believe this partiC1.Ùar parcel allows a different approach,
Here is why: The property is currently addressed off Skyridge Road, I will be
building my house utilizing this road for my access, My house, which I am
entitled to build on the property, is currently in building department plan check
and will be permitted prior to the final map recordation, The approval process
for the right to build my house is entirely separate from the tentative map
process and correctly so. Because I already have one legal parcel, think of it as
if my house islwas already existing.
Now let us consider the tentative map and improvements that City policy
should rightfully consider, Not knowing exactly where this City policy
mandating road improvements for subdivisions is found, my understanding
from our conversations is that new parcels, which are created, need to confonn
to this policy, Based on the fact that I am creating one new property with this
subdivision and its access will be taken from Kingman, it is clear that I need to
widen the portion of Kingman Road in order to provide the required tWenty
feet to the new parcel's driveway,
In the same way, it also becomes clear that because no new parcels are being
created which take access from Skyridge, improvements on Skyridge should
not be required. This follows the same exact reasoning as to why no
improvements on Oak Canyon are required.
Based on these facts, I believe it is quite clear that requiring inlprovements on
Skvridge Road is beyond the intention of existing CitY policy as no new
property is being created with access off Skyridge..
Therefore, based on this new infonnation, I request that any proposed
conditions regarding improvements to Skyridgc be removed,
ln that same light, since the condition for improving Skyridge was placed in my
MDRA dlle to anticipation of the tentative map conditions, I request that that
condition be removed from the MDRA,
26 of 28
JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM J
I believe very strongly that this understanding of the issues and policies
specifically related to this parcel with its tWo means of access is accurate,
reasonable and justifiable,
Please let me know if this is your understanding as well, I would be pleased to
discuss this with you both in person at your earliest convenience should that be
necessary,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from
you soon,
¥
Brad Bur
PrinÓpaJ, StUdio E /u.dulec..s
27 of 28 JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM 1 ' ..
October 20, 1998
STUDIO [ Mr, Steve Streeter PEC~I\!EC
City of Poway Planning Dept.
13325 Civic Cemer Drive, Building A OCT 2 3 19S~
Þ,RCHITECTS Poway, CA 92064-5755
Re: Burke Property Tentative Map PLMj~'II\JG DEPj
15040 Skyridge Road
,I S"ee' Steve:
~'eo: Cþ
I wamed to fo]]ow up on our conversation last week when I submitted the
L:..j2¿2 revised temative map,
'" 2ô5.QS22
Our submitted plan is nearly idemical to the previous plan of Mr.
Hartsfield, The differences are that the boundary Ime between the parcds
is shifted and the house pad for the northerly parcel is moved back closer
to Kingman Rd,
As you are aware, the previous plan by Mr. Hartsfield had gone through
the emire review process and was about to be scheduled for Council
hearing. My understanding is that the conditions of approval were
basica]]y set based on your letter to Don Ayles of ERB Engineering dated
4/08/98,
Based on these facts and my imerest in doing what I can to expedite the
T emative Map process, I wam to forma]]y let you know I am wi]]ing to
accept all the conditions as outlined in your lener with one exception, I
would request that the condition requiring that I make road
improvements in from of my neighbors house on Skyridge be removed, I
don't believe it is fair for the City to place the financial burden on me to
have to pay for improvements to my neighbors property, I would ask
that this one item be reconsidered,
It is my hope that by accepting a]] but a portion of one previous
condition, vou wi]] be in a position to utilize the work on the previous
application and forward our application on for public notice and Council
:,earing as ,'.)L'n as p'-'S5¡~,:e.
I am available at any time to discuss this application either by phone or ,ll
,'our office. Please let me know if there is anything I can do or provide
vou with in order to assist in facilitating this application,
Thank you for \'our work,
Sincerel\',
~
Br.ld Burke
Principal. Studio E Architects
28 of 28
JAN 1 9 1999 ITEM 'I