Item 6 - EA TPM 91-11 H&L Land Development & Tom Nodes � AGENDA REPORT
F
G� W�Y
CITY OF POWAY
T
y6�. • w �w V�2�
�1N THE CO
T0: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man�\�
INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services K- �•
PROJECT
PLANNER: Kris Gridley, Assistant Planner II Y�
DATE: November 10, 1992
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Mau 91-11. H&L
Land Develooment and Tom Nodes. Aoolicants. Philip E.
Metrovich. Owner: A request to subdivide an 84.66 acre site
into three buildable lots and one open space lot The property
is located north of Poway Grade and west of Highway 67 in the
RR-A zone.
APN: 321-111-01, 321-110-18
BACKGROUND
The sub�ect tentative parcel map is a lot averaged subdivision of an
environmentally sensitive tract of land located in the hilly terrain north of
Poway Grade. The map will`create three buildable lots and a 21.2 acre open space
lot which will be deeded to the City in fee title.
DISCUSSION
Tentative Parcel Map 91-11 was originally proposed to the City as a standard
three lot parcel map. During the environmental review of the project, it was
determined that there were many sensitive biological resources on the site, some
of which would have required off-site mitigation. The applicant opted to
preserve most of the coastal sage habitat in a lettered open space lot and to lot
average in order to allow the creation of a separate apen space lot through the
reduction af the size of the three buildable lots.
In accordance with Section 17.08.180.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, the overall
density permitted for this map was first determined by review of a standard
subdivision design (see Attachment 6) . Slope criteria were applied to the
proposed lots as follows:
ACTION:
�
1 of 26
�Wt.IV 1 U 1992 �1 t b
Agenda Report
November 10, 1992
Page 2
OLD PARCEL N0. AVERAGE SLOPE NET LOT SIZE
1 15.9 31.96
2 14.04 23.74
3 17.52 21.43
The overall slope average for the site was calculated at 15.84 percent which
necessitated a minimum lot size of 20 acres. A total of 7.33 acres were deducted
for road easements. When areas exceeding 45 percent slope are also deducted, lot
sizes are actually reduced to 22.01, 20.54, and 20.32 acres; however, they remain
consistent with the minimum 20 acre requirement.
The lot averaged version of the map proposes the following lot sizes:
PARCEL N0. - NET LOT SIZE
1 16.5
2 16.1
3 23.2
4 (Deeded Open Space) 21.2
These lots meet the minimum lot size for the RR-A zone (four acres) and the
development will adhere to the maximum density of three units as established by
the standard subdivision design.
It should be added that the deeded open space lot was reduced in size to avoid
incorporation of an existing 60 foot road easement extending northward, through
the site, from the Eucalyptus Heights subdivision. Instead, the easement and
area to the east has been incorporated into Parcel 3 and designated as an open
space easement. Staff believes that the lot line would serve as an effective
limit of grading and that the City would not wish to assume liability for any
future private roadway development.
Develooment Facilities
Considerable off-site road improvements will be necessary in order to provide
access to the new parcels. The applicants propose access from Nighway 67 via
Mina de Oro, Running Deer Trail (recently paved) , and Westview Road, which are
existing private road easements. The dirt roads which are located in the
easements will have to be upgraded to meet the City's Non-Dedicated Rural Road
Standards.
The applicant has submitted a well testing report which verifies that each of the
three parcels has access to a well which will supply adequate water for a single-
family residence. All three lots will utilize a septic system for sewage
disposal .
2 of 26 �nv i o �9s2 IYEM 6
Agenda Report
November 10, 1992
Page 3
, Affordable Housina
On January 21, 1992, Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 350 which required
that 15 percent of the lots contained in every new tract map be set aside for
affordable housing. This requirement would be particularly severe for this
project in that it would actually equal a 33 percent set aside and because of the
size of the lots. Staff believes that the subject map, while not approved prior
to adoption of Ordinance No. 350, was substantially complete. The project was
submitted on August 12, 1991. By December 9, 1991, the applicant had submitted
the well testing report and detailed biological and cultural resource surveys
which were required by staff.
The project was not scheduled at that time as the applicant and Planning staff
needed additional time to develop a suitable mitigation plan, examine road
improvement options, review the lot averaged revision to the map and send the
pro�ect through the State Clearinghouse for review.
Staff recommends that this project be found to have been substantially complete
prior to adoption of Ordinance Na. 350.
� ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW -
The applicant submitted both a biological and cultural resources survey for the
subject map. The archaeological reconnaissance did not identify any unique
resources that would require preservation. The biological evaluation, on the
other hand, identified a number of sensitive species and habitats on the site.
The proposed open space lot was found to contain a high quality coastal sage
plant community where a California Gnatcatcher was observed. In addition, other
sensitive species including the Orange Throated Whiptail and Granite Night
Lizard, the Rush-like Bristleweed (Haplopappas junceus) and San Diego Sagewort
(Artemisia Palmeri) were found in the upland chaparral .
As sensitive species were spread throughout the chaparral , it was determined that
the best method to avoid adverse impacts would be a combination of fee title open
space, open space easements, and grading limitations. Staff proposes a maximum
of three acres of grading for each buildable lot (not including driveway access) .
The area may be divided to allow a separate pad for dwelling and outbuildings or
barn. In addition to the 21.2 acres of fee title open space, approximately nine
acres of open space easements are proposed in order to ensure that a significant
area for sensitive species will be protected on the site.
The resulting map configuration allows the applicant several choices of building
sites on each lot while still protecting sensitive biological resources.
The Environmental Initial Study and special studies were circulated to the State
- Clearinghouse for review. Comments from the State Department of Fish and Game
are incorporated as Attachment 7.
3 of 26 n�nv 1 0 �9s2 iTEM 6
Agenda Report
November 10, 1992
Page 4
Staff has incorporated most of the comments, with the exception of the
requirement to fence open space area. After consulting with the project
biologist, staff determined that fencing might have an adverse impact on the
wildlife corridor which extends along the southern and eastern boundary of the
site.
With incorporation of the mitigation measures listed above, as well as others
contained in the attached proposed resolution, staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration with mitigation measures for this project.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain� and mailed to 7
property owners within 500 feet of the project area. To date the onTy
correspondence received is from the State Clearinghouse and Department of Fish
and Game.
FISCAL IMPACT
As this residential project is not located within the Redevelopment Agency area,
the City will annually receive 19 percent of the property taxes on the property
based upon 1 percent of the assessed valuation (which will be increased by the
creation of three developable lots) .
FINDINGS •
All findings required for approval af this project can be made and are listed in
the attached resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with
mitigation measures and approve Tentative Parcel Map 91-11 subject to the
conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution.
JLB:RWQ:KAG:pcm
Attachments:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Environmental Initial Study
3. Negative Declaration
4. Surrounding Zoning and General Plan
5. Tentative Parcel Map 91-11
6. Hypothetical Standard Subdivision Design
7. Letter, State Department of Fish and Game
REPORT\TPM9111.AG
4 of 26 NOV 1 01992 �TE� 6
�
RESOLUTION N0. P-
- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVIN6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-11 ,
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 321-111-01, 321-110-18
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 91-11, hereinafter "Map, submitted by H&L
Land Development, applicant, Tom Nodes and Philip Metrovich owners, for the
purpose of subdividing real property situated in the City of Poway, County of San
Diego, State of California, described as the southwest quarter of the northwest
quarter and the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township
14 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Poway,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to United States Government
Survey approved August 20, 1890, regularly came before the City Council for
public hearing and action on November 10, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning Services has recommended approval of the
Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Planning Services Department
report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered said report and has
considered other evidence presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
_ Section 1: Environmental Findinas:
The City Council finds that given the proposed mitigation measures, the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and
hereby issues a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures.
Sect9on 2: Findinas:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan in that it
proposes to create three large parcels for residential development
and the site is designated for low density rural residential
development.
2. The design or improvement of the tentative parcel map is consistent
with all applicable general and specific plans, in that the proposed
lot sizes and configurations adhere to the development standards for
the RR-A zone and the adopted standards for a lot averaged map.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed, in that the map proposes lots 16 acres or larger in size
which is suitable given the mountainous terrain and rural character
of the area.
4. the site is physically suitable for the density of the development
proposed, n that lot sizes conform to the density criteria of the
RR-A zone and the lot averaging standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or
5 of 26 N�V 1 01992 ITEM 6
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
other habitat,in that mitigation measures are required to offset
potential impacts. The measures include preservation of 21 acres in
fee title open space, nine acres in open space easements and a three
acre grading limitation on each lot.
6. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public
health problems, in that all lots can be served by well water and
septic/leach field systems are required to meet county Health
Department standards.
7. 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 91-11 subject to the
following conditions:
Within 30 days of approval : (1) the applicant shall submit in writing
that all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the
property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: _
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. A revised site plan incorporating all conditions af approval shall be
submitted to the Planning Services Department prior to recordation of
final map.
3. Appraval 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. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
5. At the time new residential dwelling unit(s) are constructed, the
applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. The
following fees, including but not limited to, traffic mitigation,
drainage, and park fees prior to occupancy. Permit and plan check fees
shall be paid upon submittal of a map, and/or grading plan as applicable.
Fire protection fees (S50) must be paid upon submittal of final parcel
map.
6 of 26 NOV 1 01992 ITEM 6
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
6. No grading for private road improvements or building pad construction
shall be permitted to encroach on the deeded open space lot.
*7. The following note is displayed at the bottom of the tentative map:
NOTE: Owner reserves water and drilling rights on all
easements and deeded open space. Also reserving rights
to install leach fields in atl easements and deeded open
space.
Prior to recordation of the final map, this note shall be revised to omit
all references to fee title open space and to state that any leach fields
located in open space easements must be trenched by hand. In addition,
the location and plan for any such leach field located within an apen
space easement must be reviewed by a qualified biologist and approved by
the City of Poway Planning Services Department prior to start of work.
The grading for installation of any leach field located in an open space
easement must be monitored by a qualified biologist.
8. The three buildabie parcels created by this map are located in a
hillside/ridgeline area. Any building or grading plans for the sites must
be approved by the City Council through the Hillside/Ridgeline minor
development review process and conform to the Hiliside Development
Policies listed on Pages II-10 through II-13 of the City of Poway General
' Plan.
*9. Tentative Parcel Map 91-11 includes a potential building site which could
impact almost an acre of coastal sage habitat. In order to mitigate for
this disturbance, the applicant shall revegetate an equal area where .
coastal sage has been destroyed by off-roading activity. The hydroseed
mix and application shall be approved by the City of Poway's landscape
architect and must be applied at the start of the rainy season. The
revegetation plan must be submitted prior to final map approval and the
work must be completed prior to issuance of any building permit on Parcel
One.
*10. The developer shall record individual covenants on Parcels 1, 2, and 3
restricting future grading for building pad, accessory structures, and
leach fields to a maximum of three acres per lot. Grading for reasonable
driveway access need not be included within the calculation of maximum
graded area.
11. The final map shall prominently carry the following covenant:
This tract is a lot averaged subdivision. Pursuant to
Section 17.08.180(0) of the City of Poway Municipal
Code, none of the lots can be further subdivided unless
City water is brought to the boundary of the property
and newly created lots meet all applicable slope
requirements of the RR-A zone.
*12. By separate document at the recording of the final subdivision map or on
the final subdivision map, there shall be granted to the City an open
space easement over portions of Parcels 1, 2, and 3. Said open space
7 of 26 NOV 1 01g92 I��N; 6
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
easement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney and shall limit
the use of the open space in a form acceptable to the Director of Planning
Services. ,
� 13. The 21.2 acre area labeled as "Deeded Open Space" on the tentative parcel
map shall be dedicated to the City in fee title. Said transfer of title
shall commence at the recordation of the final map.
LANDSCAPING
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan for slopes and revegetation area
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Services Department
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All graded slopes greater than five feet in height shall be landscaped and
irrigated, and those three feet or greater shall be planted in accordance
with adopted Poway Landscape Standards. A non-irrigated drought tolerant
native hydroseed mix may be approved for slopes created by off-site road
improvements; however, the hydroseeding must demonstrate a substantial
measures of success before any erosion control bonds/deposits are
refunded.
ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REOUIRED
1. The developer shall provide potential buyers with a current Zoning and
Land Use Map, and/or suitable alternative, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning Services.
2. Any sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall
include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks,
and streets.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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. A soils and geotechnical report shall be prepared by a qualified soils
engineer and geologist licensed by the State of California to perform such
work submitted with the first grading submittal .
3. The final grading plan, prepared on a standard size sheet, shall be
subject to review and approval by the Planning Services and Engineering
Services Departments and shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
4. A pre-blast survey of surrounding property shall be conducted to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to any rock blasting. Seismic
recordings shall be taken for all blasting and blasting shall occur only
at locations and levels approved on the City blasting permit.
8 of 26 N�JU 1 01g92 ITEI�7 6
Resolution No. P-
Page 5
5. All new slopes shall be a minimum of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) . Cut
slopes may be steepened to 1.5:1 only upon prior approval of the Directors
of Planning and Engineering Services Departments.
6. A final compaction report and record drawing shall be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of building permits.
7. Site grading shall be certified by the project civil engineer prior to
issuance of building permits or release of securities.
8. Buildings and parking lots shall be at least five feet from tops and toes
of slopes.
9. If pad elevations increase by greater than two feet in height from those
approved on the tentative map, City Council approval will be required.
10. Non-supervised nor non-engineered fill is specifically not allowed. Rock
over 12 inches in maximum dimension may only be placed in areas clearly
delineated on approved plans. Rocks may not be nested in groups greater
than three, nor may any loose soils be allowed to remain on or around rock
groupings. No rocks shall be placed on or in manufactured slopes.
11. Erosion control , including, but not limited to desiltation basins, shall
be installed during the period between October 15 and April 15. The
develaper shall make provisions to insure the proper maintenance of all
erosion control devices until landscaping has provided complete ground
cover.
*12. The tops and toes of all graded slopes shall be constructed with a five
foot minimum setback from any open space area.
T�EE?s ..
1. Private road improvements shall be designed and secured prior to
scheduling the final parcel map for City Council approval .
2. Roads serving each parcel shall be constructed on-and off-site to the
City's non-dedicated rural road standard to the nearest publicly-
maintained road. Specific improvements for one possible alignment have
been schematically represented on a plan prepared by the applicant's
engineer.
3. The required road improvements shall be constructed under a grading
permit. The applicant shall provide a letter of acknowledgement from the
owner of the underlying fee title of each property being,graded. In the
absence of such a letter, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
grading will be consistent with the easement rights held and will not
unreasonably interfere with the intended use of the easement.
4. A road maintenance agreement shall be executed for all parcels created on
this map providing for the maintenance of the access road to the nearest
public-maintained road. The property may elect to join existing
maintenance agreements that may exist and be deemed adequate by the City
� Attorney.
9 of 26 �(tU 1 D 1992 ����+'� 6
Resolution No. P-
Page 6
5. Private street improvement plans shall be prepared and processed as a
grading plan. Said plans shall be prepared on standard sized sheets by a
Registered Civil Engineer. The grading plans shall be approved and
securities posted prior to final map approval . The securities shall be
posted with a standard agreement which requires the developer to construct
the facilities within two years of execution of the agreement. The
security shall be for 100 percent of the total estimated cost of the
improvements. The normal requirement for a 50 percent payment and 10
percent warranty security is waived due to the fact that this is not a
public improvement.
6. A monument bond in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer shall be
posted prior to scheduling of the final parcel map for City Council
approval .
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL
A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of all surface water
originating within the development, and all surface waters that may flow
onto the development from adjacent lands, shall be required.
UTILITIES •
1. Overhead utility service may be utilized per City Council Resolution No.
91-003; however, lines between the structure and the nearest pole must be
underground. The closest pole lines must be at least 40 feet from the
structure unless it is located on a property line.
2. The developer shall contact the appropriate cable television service
provider to make any appropriate arrangements for cable service prior to
issuance of grading or building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY SERVICES REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1 . Fire Department access to all lots shall be via all-weather surface roads,
a minimum of 20 feet in width. .
2. All lots shall be provided with a minimum 10,000 gallon water storage
tanks.
GENERAL REOUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS
1. Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City standards and
procedures.
2. Should this subdivision be further divided, each final map shall be
submitted for approval by the Director of Engineering Services.
3. All provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance of the Poway Municipal Code
shall be met as they relate to the division of land.
l0 of 26 �OU 1 01992 '���� 6
Resolution No. P-
Page 7
4. The applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication for all
private road easements as shown on the tentative map. Said IOD shall be
recorded as part of the final map, rejected by the City Council , and held
open for future acceptance at the City Council 's discretion.
5. The tentative map approval shall expire on November 10, 1994. Application
for time extension must be received 90 days prior to expiration in
accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this lOth day of November 1992.
Kathy McIntyre, Deputy Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY Of SAN DIEGO )
I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby
certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, No. _
was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council
�el�on�e day of , 1992 and that it was so adopted by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ar�orie . a sten, ity er
City of Poway
REPORT\TPM9111.RES
ii of 26 Nt!u 1 01992 ITL1�7 6 �
• - ,-
CITY OF POWAY �
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIROMIENTAL CHEqCLIST
DATE: March 27, 1992
APPLICANT: Tom Nodes/H&L Land Development
FILING DATE: 8/21/91 LOG NUMBER: Tentative Parcel Map 91-11
PROJECT: Three parcel subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION: Clearvtew Road, Poway, CA 92064
I . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Fact—based explanations of ali "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets. )
YES MAYBE NO
1 . Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have
signiiica�impacts in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships? � X
b. Disruptions, dispiacements, compaction, or
burial of the soit? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals? X
d. The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? X
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on— or .
oif—site conditions? X
f. Changes in erosion, siltation, or
deposition? •• _ X _
g. Exposure of people or property to geologlc
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? X
2. �Hyd�rol��o_�gy� �. Will the proposal have significant
imp�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
12 of 26 ATTACHMENT 2 N01�� 1 01992 I��P�7 6
• . �.�
Environmental Study Chec.� ist
Page 2
YES MAYBE NO
f. Alteration of groundwater
characteristics4 _ X
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions, or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aqulier9
Ouality7 x
Guantity? — �
h. The reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies? X
i . Exposure of people or property to water X
related hazards such as ftooding or seiches? — —
3. A���i��r�Ou_�alit . Will the proposat have significant
mpa�s
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from
mobile or indirect sources? X
Stationary sources9 — —
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
4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant
resuTts in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of endangered species of piants? _ X _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants? X _
c. I�troduction of new or disruptive species
of plants into an area9 X
d. Retluction in the potential for agricultural
production? X
5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant
resuTts in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or
numbers of any species of animais? X
b. Reduction of the numbers oi any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animalsl _ X _
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of animals into an area, or resuit in a
barrier to the mitigation or movement of
animals? x
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish
or wildlife habitat? X
13 of 26 Np11 1 01992 ���ti'� 6
Environmental Study Chec�� ist
Page 3
YES MAYBE NO
6. Population. [Will the proposal ] have significant
resuT'tT:
a. [Will the proposal7 alter the Iocation, 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
7. Socio-ECOnomic Factors. Wiil the proposal have
signi ican resu s n:
a. Change in local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and pro-
perty values4 X
b. Will proJect costs be equitably distri-
buted among project beneficiaries, i .e. ,
buyers, taxpayers, or proJect users? X
8. Land Use and Plartnin Considerations. Wilt the
proposa ave sign� ican resu s n:
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? X
b. A conflict with any designations, obJectives,
policfes, or adopted plans of any govern-
mental entities? X
c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational opportunities? X
9. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant
resu—f�in:
a. 6eneratfon of substantial additional vehicular
movement? _ X
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction? X
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems? X
e. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
Iation or movement of people and/or
goods? X
f. Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail , mass transit ,
or air traffic? X
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X
14 of 26 NpV 1 O tgg2 �T�ti� 6
Environmentai Study Chec�� ist
Paga 4
YES MAYBE NO
10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
s gn� can mpac s in:
a. A disturbance to the fntegrity of archaeo—
logical , paleontological , and/or historical
resourcesl _ X
11 . Health Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposa ave sign can resu s n:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? _ X
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? x
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident? X
d. An increase in the number of Individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms
or the exposure of people to such organisms? _ X
e. Increase i� existing noise levels? _ X
t. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise Ievels4 X
g. The creation of obJectionable odorsl _ X
h. An increase in Iight or glare? _ X
12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
res�in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any Scenic
vista or view? X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site? X
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors9 _ X
13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
ave signi �can nee or new systems, or alter—
ations to the following:
a. Electric power? X
b. Natural or packaged gas? _ X
C. Communications systems? _ X
d. Water supply? _ X
e. Wastewater facitities? X
f. Flood control structures? X
g. Solid waste facilities? _ X
h. Fire protection? _ X
15 of 26 NOV 1 0 1992 IT�N7 6
�, �
Environmental Study Chec�� ist
Page 5
YES MAYBE NO
i . Police protection? _ X
J . scnools? � x
k. Parks or other recreational facilities? � X
I . Maintenance of public facilities, Including
roads and flood control facilities? _ X
m. Other governmental services? � X
14. Ener y and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
ave signi ican impac s in:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or
energy? _ X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy? _ X
c. An increase in the demand for development of `
new sources of energy? _ X
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consump-
tion of non-renewable forms of energy, when
teasible renewable sources of energy are ,
available7 _ X
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
or scarce natural resources? X
15. Mandatory Findings of Significance. .
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality ot 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? X
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. ) X
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
consfderable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when
viewed in connectfon with the effect of
past projects, and probable future
projects.) _ X
16 of 26 MOU 1 � 1992 e'����'.� u
Environmental Study Checw� ist `�
Page 6
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which wlll cause substantial
adversa effects on human beings, elther
directly or indirectly? _ X
II . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
( I .e. , o a rma ve answers o e a ove questions plus a discussion of
proposed mitigation measures.)
This proJect is the subdivision of an 84 acre site into three lots ranging from
21 to 35 acrea in size. The property is located in eastern Poway and takes
access via Highway 67 and Allna de Oro. Zoning is RR—A (RUral Residential A) and
the minimum lot size is 20 acres given that the average slope of the site is 16
percent and no City water is available. The project will ultimately result in
gradtng of building pads for three custan homes and improvement of approximately
6200 Iineal feet of existing dirt roadway to meet City standards.
1 . Soils and Geology. The project w( tl include grading of three building
pa s a�Tn wTi�enTng and paving of a private road. Cut and fill slopes could
result in erosion.
Miti ation. Grading plans will be required in accordance with the City's
ra ng rdinance. Revegetation ot till slopes and any cut slopes (which
are not too rocky to support vegetation) will be required prior to final
' grading approvals. •
2. Hydrology. Additfonai surface runoff will be generated by residential
improvements and road constructlon.
M�� i�t��i ga�_t��ion�. Payment of Drainage Fees per master plan and installation of
ra�age�acillties. ,
3. Air Uuality. No signiticant impacts to alr quality are anticipated trom
iFF s p o eot which wi I I result in a net increase of only two dwel I ing
units.
4. flora. The proJect may result tn grading of up to nine acres for
residential buildings and accessory structures. A biologiCal survey of
the property Identified over 20 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub on the site
and two sensitive plant species: Rush—like Brtstleweed (Haplopappus
junceus) and San Diego Sagewort (Artemisia Palmeri ) . The survey concludes
that the Rush—Iike Brfstleweed is a significant biological resource oi the
prope�ty because ot the very large number oi specimens present. The San
Diego Sagewort was not determined to be a regionally significant
population because of the fact that much more substantial populatlons are
present within a few miles of this site.
M��i�ti ga_t�io��n_. AIl of the Coastal Sage Scrub on the site will be
inco�ed into an open space easement . An additional 14 to 16 acres of
habitat incorporating the two sensitive plant species will also be placed
in open space easements. In addition to the open space easements,
building pad/or development envelope on each lot is limited to three
acres. This limitation will be implemented through the minor development
review process which is required prior to construction of single—family
residences and associated grading.
5. Fauna. Several sensitive species were observed on the site ineluding the
range Throated Whiptafl Granite Night Lizard and California Gnatcatcher .
- Grading and development of the site would be expected to have some impacts
on these specfes.
Miti gation. The large open space easements described under Flora above
wiTl minimize impacts on sensitive species. The project biologist has
indicated that the Orange Throated Whiptail and Granite Night Lizard's
habitat and range is not Iimited to specific portions of the site.
�� of 26 Nav 1 o ,ss2 �er�a 6
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 7
Mitigation has therefore been based on limiting the percentage of
disturbance on the site. Building pads and clearing for accessory
structures will be limited to three acres per lot -- only slightly more
than one percent of the entire site. All of the Coastal Sage Scrub plant
community will be incorporated in open space with the exception of areas
impacted by widening the existing dirt road to 20 feet.
6. Pooulation. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan
and zoning density expected when the site was designated as RR-A in 1983.
Mitiaation. None.
7 . Socio-Economic Factors. This three lot subdivision is too small in scale
to have significant Socio-Economic Factors.
So Land Use and Plannina Considerations. The project is consistent with
General Plan and Zoning guidelines for the area.
9. Transportation. The project will require improvement of an existing dirt
road to meet minimum rural road standards. No significant impacts are
anticipated due to the small scale of the project.
10. Cultural Resources. An archaeological reconnaissance of the site was
conducted in October 1991. No significant prehistoric or historic
resources were found on the property.
11. Health and Nuisance Factors. No impacts are anticipated from this small
subdivision.
12. Aesthetics. Future homes on Parcels 2 and 3 will be visible from some
points on Poway Grade.
Mitigation. Mitigation for potential adverse impacts will include
limiting of graded slopes which are visible to the valley floor to 15 feet •
and limitation of building colors and finishes to those which ,will blend
with the natural surroundings . Landscape materials on visible slopes will
be selected to blend with the native vegetation (rather than producing
sharp contrasts) and also to minimize fire danger.
13. Utilities and Public Services. The project will utilize ground water and
private septic systems. Conditions of approval require the use of water
conserving plumbing fixtures throughout the homes and low flow drip micro-
irrigation systems for any automatic irrigation.
14. Energv and Scarce Resources. No significant impacts are anticipated from
the three future homes.
III .DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
� I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
XX 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 WILL BE PREPARED.
18 of 26 NQV 1 0 7992 ITEI!�: 6
-. , '. —. �
Environmental Study Chec..�rist
Page 8
❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment , and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required.
4
DATE: 3/27/92 SIGNATURE:
r s r ey
TITLE: Assistant Pla II
NAG\TPM9111.EI3
19 of 26 NOV 1 01992 �TFP�'� 6
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY
After completion of the foregoing Initial Study, the subject parcel map was revised by
creating a separate lettered lot for deeded open space. This should provide even
stronger protection for biological resources than the easements referenced in the Initial
Study. Although the size of the three buildable lots has been reduced to create the
open space lot, building pad areas are still restricted to three acres. Potential impacts
from the revised map will be the same or less than those anticipated for the original
version.
20 of 26
CITY OF POWAY F ,�
JAN GOLDSMI'CH,Mayor G� 91'
KATHY MCAI'CYRE.Depury Mayor
--.DON HIGGINSON,Councilmember
B.TONY SNESKO,Councilmember � �.y
BOB EMERY,Councilmember F "^�^•' jO
C� M THE GO
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant :H & L Land DeveloAment
1525 S . Escondido Blvd. Suite A
Escondido, CA 92025
2 . Brief Description of Project : Reauest to subdivide an 84 . 66
acre site into three buildable lots and one oben soace lot .
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 deteiznined 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: Kris Gridlev Phone: (619) 679-4290
Approved by: Date: 11/10/92
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D. , AICP
Director of Planning Services
ATTACHMENT 3 NQV 1 01992 (TEP�7 6
21 of 26 City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 • (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
�.�
=. � RR-A
OS-RM
34
3 �
� � �
/
I -�
�
� - _ RR-A � OS-RM
�
i
� �
/
�
' RR A stre , � , ,
..............
/
�
� �
ao� I� / / 1 �—
RR-A �
�
� , /
. ,a
/
,
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : _ rom 9r-,i
TITLE : S e�pulVDiNG
ZoN�NG f�-Np G�E�� !��
3CALE : ATTACHMENT : `�
22 of 26 NOV 1 01992 iTEP�7 6
- .-
� � �
�Jl/,FSJ itti�''- ��\�-'//,/�',�'�}'�a'> yr'�l///l�/%iilr"d6! ���\\\\\\\����� s�
,���� �.� � - ��;Ji��� � �� , � �
{ , ��/ � ��: r��J / ir,��� ������ �
��� �.\\�a�v �.. �*��'v��� �\\ ��1\ .1� \\� CITY OF POHAY
c\\�.
��I � /I�c� � �''�� /'� / .. . � iENTATIVE PAPCEL MAP
���� � � �
.Y< �_� Y��� �•i���� i� .i .Cy \ � i
�,�""�-�—a„� �/'/ ����y�.,"i'' . ^ F-%/i '\ ��� � .'�..�.n� �
, ������ ;��`� I�'i,, r, _ ���� �; >._
l -- � r r )J j .�--
;����/���„S, ii'r j�i�li�r � .���,�,��')�'u�Yr1�;�=�\ \. ,,,,.,.._..W
�ri�)'1 i %f -/J \ ���� �i '1 �\�C� \\ _ � `� ` � �\ \ \ �
`f �� (�A�C�L��� �� �\`��� i� ���" � �� 4\� ... .
*. ie,.� c 1L � � �eF �2, xe. ! J \- �o...�`.�.���.. .
�- - \ yf \ n y �:Mt a�-,� r � '�
wi +
� r:'\ °;�. � ' ll�\ a� �:����,.�.� '� ••�
�, , ,,, `
� � _ !�,`:` �. ;� r� �,� ..���;���
� � . _ _ ��� � � ��...�..,.�
� - -' � �� � a�-- �:�--- ,r� .�
'��r • , _ ��r �. _
/ � ' - -� \��\ ' � ��1, .'� :�'
14� I ` �• ' �-� : ' \ C
/ � � ��� ��,'ti��' � � `� '
�
% e � 'V �y-„yr, / � .� � �\ t\\� :,a
:;,;: - � - - =-� _ ;�f?:' _ - - _ _ , .
, '- - ; � ; ./ / `
, i �a . � wx
�. , � I.._}.u.�- � \ f�
� -
�� �III I t -''� f �- s � , � " •„":•
; � �� �,^ ` -'f � i �ii ,..F.o
��a. vl� , ��� eJ. ` *}i��� � � � ^�In II 5"-...}rs
CV. : <`--� . � l . � �� . �'° , >il "� ) j,t��;i
�� � � �"`�_",.�)/i � .;���i � �i'/ii/`\�� �II �--^'� � .
\�\\' i \,�/���+I M1 - / y' ,.a J ` li'!II���\�� � 1� ` i '
� �/ i"- � , � 1 [�
� � 1 . ' ��. �r'. 'l.� � 'j�� �I �\��
� d �� / � " e .y. �.� '�l II / .
r � � � . / — �o �+_ l,
' , � v ��� z r,� � s'�Iu�B� I� � 1 I �
� � � J \f�l �v �..,�� I �4� 1.` -
. � „ \"� ' i i i � /�. !,\ � w
i
71 • :\ �� % �, ,�i.' il / . ��/ �
��,:" �? "l ���, �\���I 'y`�t�� ' ; t,����r� �r ;�,�� ���' �' 1\\g�,, � �
' �. I�� � �1 � � 4°�� '� �t �jy `� - � i i� i�G .ii1�11 mNll�!�1�5�.I�.. �, i
�a �\ ��� .�, ` i � . ",� � I I /� �� / I� � �I'�li���'���� n�<.. �
�� � _.� _,�r f/r���� � �1 ���� �.44� tii � � ......... .�.. ....
_ ��. � �} � � i n i�(✓. ,i �� ����I�',�
�%\_�EiF9�l}��Jq�� �����` I��� ' � � \ � ` i ll_\\ um.
- '��.i���-'�� ��✓��� a�� ��� S d� 4. ,'�� / A ,r �\ .. un.....�..
: =� �-�-��-�l�—>�\���' d, � � o•�:'��! '
� ��// I 4 / /1 1 \ 4� . �. nrv�n w�vin ruenrin�iiY
`l�� �// I /1 I
\_���=f��� ��-�� �II I �� :� ��/ � II� �+-�,� . mume�e��s
I � 1 1 \
s`�-- -� ���((l '� ,� `��� �, �, „ , �
����� (� � ' � l \� '!�-
� � � �. ?� �
�-�=-�-�"��: ` l( ( �� " i �e .� _-,=hai)V 1 01992 R�P�7 6
� � -�,,_ � � 1 ,, °�
� ,�- .�--� , '� �, v'� � � ITEM : TP/17 /—�—
�,
, S , �
, �
,.�=—.�!� � � t�)t i�� ,` ����� _
�� ��—'=l�/((II�����II����� ��`;` � "� ;�, ' � TITLE : �,eDPQSF.D
~- ��` T��riu� PA�ec�� l�
23 of 26
ATTACHMENT : 5
_ ,.^4
�A�° DENS�7y DE7E�2M�N�}l�oN c�NLy '
� `�T ih�_—�C�\� i a!I x /�.f �� i � i/ ��r� �AAA " U '
� ���� ^�- � r � �� ,,� � ��� � _ LITY OF PONAY
/� ���� ✓ � �� � /� \ a�� :� v TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
i '�,� / � \ �ti` ��`
j - ��\� ���f��� i� \\�c�`� �\�.`'_' '� �
� ���� ���� r��'� ,.�°�0�\�� \�\ :: ,...:.� ....,.._
�: -�-���` �� � J :'�/ /r'� y ����✓ ,,,
i �� �� ���
_ ;� �� �)` �`�`� ,�� ����,,, �, __ ..��.
/ _ I � M �� �
J V � � \ �<�� l _��` � �\\ `
t � � " � � ' .�.s-� T � *�. �.-'...,._...,r
���'� �aftcF1�; ' 1� " `,� `.° f'aRC L�,"�� � i.�\ .\ \�- � N.�.���.
r , � �
� i � i. s .ti. ' iN(��ai� � i`' �7 �'\;` a.mS.ms•s�.-t.�.:.
i . � f�..,w,� �—t� � � 1 l��h�� � .'7 ��`qv s^�^��'
� �r� . 1 `l `� ` ., .....n.....w..,u
/c "4 � ! �. ���� (/i
!l� � �i .- — . . . \, P � .���`� .1��. \\� � �y����:.•• �,\/r�y�",\���
�. �'e-.c— •. _ - • \ �\\\ \ \ ^�� ��.�%
,�,fl � �� - a�7�� ��G'�� i � �i.
� ��t �� / --�1 , � "� � �� 1 � ' .� ��p r����� � �
� I , �, `r .. e �� ��� � \
i�)�� � �� r� , ;� ��.� � �
��.,'� � ��; _, � �� �,���� �_ .� � �.,,.
a� " i _r � � �., � � ��/� - 6�' .
� i v�y,l( .. f-� - ^' '� .�� J. //� �, ���
� � L���,l 1\ ) _ � , i �� / � µ�M•
\ \ ✓�,��I 1`. /. �. `` ) � �\ r� l �/ ua\ f'
t
\ / 1J�� F�/` ` �_ ���
\ //� �� �.��t��_�" � �l � �� � �!� � �Ni✓�w
. ��4� 'y� r —� . � _ ,� ���j�� ,..
�, ��,,�� � � ..�� ^ , ��- �,. .,.o
, �/ ,,. �� �-�` �� �w��: i '�
� \��\ �� 1 �/� �y'�'�'/ /� � _�!. '��
\ 1 1) j,� l ���_/\J/I s, \��1. p �.�`i -
�a�/"� � .
� l�\ � �' , ; I -�', ��
r��- -�
� A 1 1 ��j . l� , �— � i � `Y'c,l 1��,'' � ':
J � �r'� 1\ �� ` . y r`'`�/�y-.� � l t � � ,�:.
r t
� �
� � s� ��� ��:,} ,� �y�;� ���r�> ���r�1� '\�-- �. _ � �.
-- , �.f�� 1� _, .-t:.� -I
_ ��' � \�� ,} � � _ � , � �.. /./�� � I ��' �
��� ~� jJ %l�.: i ���� j i l// ��� ��,,! r � �'I
�� � �.il£E�w. _ " �I 1 I / rr f . / ...�.�...e . ...,.
= - t �_�----�`�� i a� 2 - � � 1 fi ��.f�t�� _ � � � . ... �...
�'_ ��-�'�ti��� �. � a � l �����f' �.� 7�[ �
�R~��J '��� '.`�� � S I f `�� � � �( �\ - � .,...
—��i`i�s—�-- � / /� I � � ��\.
_ � — .� �� 'l' I �� �1 ( � �\� �� ' . o��.�....... "�'...�.
_ ^ . � ' + i \ � ""1^''i"°^°
v l�^ � � � � � � �y�` � ��_ . �.�.,,.....e.,�
r`�.��� �.,.. '. ` \\ � ; ' n J'�
�-�,r_���` ;r��� �\\��.
�-�-- il ` >.
�����l�t I' ' � ` ���� �'� �
� -
� r - --
�,_ , --�-,, (?�1101992 ITEA,7 6
��--������,��,�� ' ;�,;������.� TPht 9!-/l i
\�- �� ITEM .
, �� T���-�;`l
TITLE : STA�IDR/LA
, SueD�VIS�ON �5�C�1�/
24 of 26
' ATTACHMENT : �
STATE OF ULIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Goverrwr
�pARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
J Golden Shore, Suite 50 • :^
Long Beach, California 90802
(310) 590-5113 „� ,._. .
�� � �,, �. � �" � �_'
JUN �� 1992
May 29, 1992
yZ � �� �..1.1' `IJ:'4�T1�'�
Ms. Kris Gridley P�Ar�i��''��; '-���� ,
City of Poway
Planning Department
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, California 92064
Dear Ms. Gridley:
A Department biologist familiar with the project area has
reviewed the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 91-11
for'the subdivision of 84 . 6 acres into three lots for single-
family residential development (SCH 92051009) . The project site
is located in eastern Poway, north of Highway 67 and accessed via
Mina de Oro Road. We would concur with this project if the
following measures for the protection of biological resources are
' . included as conditions of approval of the Negative Declaration:
1. Provide 50-foot buffer areas around coastal sage scrub and
sensitive biological resource open space easements. Also,
locate fencing on the development edge of these buffers to
' protect habitat and associated wildlife species from human
and pet encroachment.
2 . Reduce fragmentation and impacts to open space easements
through removal and/or realignment of access roads and
driveways within the easements.
3 . Restrict the removal and/or thinning of vegetation for fire
protection and leach fields to the three-acre building
envelopes. Disturbance of vegetatien within designated
open space easements should be prohibited.
4 . Mitigate direct impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat at a
ratio of 1: 1 through revegetation of existing disturbed
areas within designated open space. Temporary impacts to
coastal sage scrub habitat from roadway construction,
grading activity, and placement of utilities should also
be restored through revegetation.
— vnv i o �ss2 ITE��� 6
' ITEM : 7p/�1 9/'/�
TITLE : � ��� «0M
25 of 26 �� OF ��SI'f '`�''��
��__ e �rTAf'.HMENT : _ �I
Ms. Kris Gridley
May 29, 1992
Page Two
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. We request that the lead agency provide us a copy of
their response to our comments and/or the final environmental
document prior to filing the Notice of Determination. If you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Krishan Lal,
Environmental Specialist, at the letterhead address or telephone
(310) 590-4844 .
Sincerely,
�'��'1������`��'
Fred Worthley
Regional Manager
Region 5
cc: State Clearinghouse
ESD
26 of 26 NQV 1 01992 i-r�r�� 6