The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 19 - Attachment A - Exhibit A - Appendix A - NOP-IS-Public Scoping CommentsAppendix A IS/NOP/Public Scoping Comments NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING NOP Comment Period: May 10, 2019 to June 10, 2019 The Farm in Poway The City of Poway will be the lead agency for the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), as defined in Section 15161 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for the proposed Farm in Poway project (proposed project). The proposed project is located in the northern portion of the City of Poway and consists of the decommissioned StoneRidge Country Club and associated 18-hole golf course. The project site is bordered by Espola Road to the south. Figures 1 and 2 depict the location of the proposed project within the region and project vicinity, respectively. Figure 3 illustrates a conceptual site plan for the project site. The EIR will consider all potential environmental effects of the proposed project, with the exception of agricultural and forestry resources, and mineral resources, as the proposed project was determined to have no impact during the Initial Study with regard to these resource areas. See Sections 3.2 and 3.12 of the Initial Study for further information. The EIR will consider all other potential environmental effects of the proposed project to determine the level of significance of the environmental effects, and will analyze the potential effects to the detail necessary to make appropriate determinations about significance. In addition, the EIR may consider those environmental issues which are raised by responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and members of the public or related agencies during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process. An electronic version of this notice, including the Initial Study and project-related documents can be found on the City’s website: https://poway.org/329/Recent-Projects-Environmental-Documents. We need to know the views of your agency or organization as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities or of interest to you in connection with the proposed project. This includes the following for responsible and trustee agencies: 1. Whether your agency will be a responsible or trustee agency. 2. List of permits or approvals required by your agency for the proposed project. 3. If your agency would like to meet with the City regarding the proposed project. 4. Significant environmental issues and reasonable alternatives and/or mitigation measure(s). Due to the time limits mandated by state law, responses from responsible agencies, other agencies, and organizations must be sent and received by the City of Poway not later than 30 days following the publication of this NOP (5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 10, 2019). Project-related comments may be sent to: David De Vries, City Planner City of Poway, Development Services Care of: Dudek 605 3rd Street Encinitas, CA 92024 ddevries@poway.org If response from your agency or organization is not received, we will presume that your agency or organization has no response. A responsible agency, trustee agency, or other public agency may request a meeting with City representatives in accordance with Section 15082(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Scoping Meeting The City will also conduct a Public Scoping Meeting on Thursday, May 23, 2019, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Poway City Council Chambers located at 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California 92064. Your agency and the public are invited to attend. The purpose of this scoping meeting is to further define the issues, feasible alternatives, and potential mitigation measures that may warrant in-depth analysis in the EIR. Project Description Location The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Poway (City) and consists of the decommissioned StoneRidge Country Club and associated 18-hole golf course. The project site bordered by Espola Road to the south. The project site consists of approximately 117.2 acres and currently has an address of 17166 Stoneridge Country Club Lane, Poway, California 92064. Figure 1 shows the project location within the County of San Diego (County) and the City. Regionally, the City is situated near the middle of the County, approximately 20 miles north of downtown San Diego via Interstate (I) 15. The project site is approximately 2 miles east of I-15. The City of Poway boundary is approximately 0.5 miles to the west. Figures 2 and 3 depict the project vicinity and a conceptual site plan for the project site, respectively. Proposed Specific Plan Summary The Farm in Poway project (proposed project) consists of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment to change the land use and zoning designation of the project site from Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) to Planned Community (PC-9). The amendments consist of both a Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendments. Currently the PC zone may only be applied to properties 300 acres or larger. The text amendment will revise this portion of the text to allow properties of 100 acres or larger. In addition, a new section would be added to the Zoning Ordinance that briefly describes the proposed project. This designation is consistent with other Specific Plan areas throughout the City. The proposed project would also consist of a Specific Plan, Development Plan, and a Tentative Map to allow for the development of 160 single-family dwelling units. The new land uses proposed for the Farm in Poway Specific Plan Area (SPA) include two open space uses and five residential uses as described below:  Open Space – Conservation (OS-C) is designed to serve as a physical and visual buffer between existing residential uses and new residential development, maintaining neighbors’ privacy and providing the visual backdrop for the new community. Parcels designated as OS-C shall be deed-restricted to ensure that they are preserved as open space in perpetuity. Parcels designated as OS-C may be planted with agriculture or naturalized drought-tolerant landscaping and may include trails, gardens, water quality basins, and tot lots. Thematic structures and buildings as well as accessory buildings such as sheds, greenhouses, and similar that are ancillary to agricultural and garden uses would also be permitted with a maximum building coverage of 15%.  Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) is intended to replace the recreational amenities once provided by the golf course to support new and existing residential uses within and around the SPA. Up to 30,000 gross square feet (GSF) of non-residential buildings would be permitted. Up to 16,100 GSF may consist of social and recreational uses such as event barns, social clubs, fitness clubs, restaurants, and similar. The remaining GSF may consist of educational amenity space such as classrooms, a butterfly vivarium, educational greenhouses, and similar facilities. These uses are similar to those permitted under the existing zoning designation.  Residential – Twin (R-T): Allows for the development of up to 22 duplex homes. Each unit would be situated on its own lot and units are connected along a common interior property line.  Residential – Cottage (R-C): Allows for the development of up to 90 single-family homes. Residential cottage homes would consist of 2–4 single-family homes arranged around a common motor court space. Individual driveways and garages would take access from the motor court.  Residential – Garden (R-G): Allows for the development of up to 13 single-family homes. Residential garden homes are single-family homes that take direct access from a private street. The minimum lot width for garden homes is 70 feet.  Residential – Homestead (R-H): Allows for the development of up to 20 single-family homes. Residential homestead lots would consist of single-family homes that take direct access from a private street or existing public street, and are located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.  Residential – Meadow (R-M): Allows for the development of up to 15 single-family homes. Residential meadow homes would be large single-family homes that take direct access from a private street. Residential uses account for approximately 33.85 acres within of the SPA and have been clustered to conserve approximately 55.72 acres of the SPA as OS-C. The OS-C areas would consist of professionally managed farmland or naturalized open space. Tot lots, gardens, water quality basins, and multi-use trails would also be permitted and proposed within these OS-C areas. The remaining land within the SPA would be developed as private streets or OS-R. The OS-R area account for 14.65 acres of the SPA. Recreational uses proposed by the Tentative Map and Development Plan include a fitness club; social club with food and beverage service, including alcohol; a multipurpose event barn with outdoor event space for parties, weddings, and similar events; a tranquility garden; and a butterfly education center. An extensive multi-use trail system, for walking and bicycling, would also wind through the various open space areas and connect residents to the variety of recreational amenities. The majority of the trail system would consist of 10-foot-wide private trails surfaced with compacted decomposed granite or native earth. Although trails are private, they would be open and available for public use. An existing 100-foot-wide San Diego County Water Authority easement runs generally through the middle of the property. This easement would be preserved by utilizing access roadways and this corridor as part of this trail system. The 16-foot-wide access roads would be surfaced with decomposed granite and would be expanded in some location to include an additional 5-foot-wide decomposed granite trail. A small segment of the trail system would also occur along Espola Road and consist of a 9-foot-wide public, paved, meandering multi-use trail. Infrastructure The proposed new land uses are either replacing existing facilities with existing infrastructure or are surrounded by existing development with existing infrastructure. No extensions or expansion of infrastructure systems will need to be made, only connections to existing infrastructure systems. Existing infrastructure consists of vehicular access and partial circulation, water, sewer, drainage and dry utilities that include gas, electricity, and telecommunications. Primary access to the project site would occur from Espola Road, at the existing intersection of Martincoit Road and Espola Drive. Secondary access to the site would be provided via existing residential public roadways including St. Andrews Drive, Cloudcroft Court, Tam O’Shanter Drive, and Boca Raton Lane. Together, Tam O’Shanter Drive, Boca Raton Lane, and St, Andrews Drive form a large loop that provides access to the single-family homes that surround the former golf course. Secondary access points have been limited to minimize increased traffic on adjacent existing residential public roadways and located to discourage cut-through traffic. An internal roadway system would also be developed consisting of private streets. A new system of City of Poway water pipes and infrastructure would be installed within private streets and would connect to the City’s existing system of pipes located in Espola Road and adjacent public residential streets. Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the City of Poway and would consist of a new gravity system of pipes located within private streets. This system would also connect to the City’s existing sewer system via existing pipes located in Espola Road and adjacent residential streets. The project site currently accepts stormwater drainage from a number of adjoining properties. To maintain these existing drainage patterns and minimize drainage impacts to existing neighborhoods, a series of public bypass storm drains would be provided to collect this stormwater at the project site boundary and convey it through the site to the City’s existing storm drain system downstream. Project Entitlements/Approvals The proposed project consists of the following entitlements and agency approvals, which would be processed concurrently unless noted:  General Plan Amendment  Zoning Amendment  Specific Plan  Development Plan  Tentative Map  EIR Certification Issues to be Addressed in the EIR An Initial Study was prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (attached). Based on the results of the Initial Study, an EIR will be prepared to address potential direct and cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources/tribal resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and services, and wildfire. To review the Initial Study, please visit the City’s website at the link below: https://poway.org/329/Recent-Projects-Environmental-Documents. 15 D EERVALLE Y E STATES VALLEYVIE W RDINTERSTATE15NBPASE O DELVERANO AVENID A C O R DILLERASYCAMOREC REEKRD EDINAWAYCAMINOANCHOMONTERORD R E C REATIONALTRLESPOLA RDHIGHLANDSRANCHRD PASEOLUCIDO CAMINITO VECINOSSOLERAWAYADENALN AVENIDAFLORENCIACAMINOE MPAR RAD OTA M O SHANTER DR FELIC E D RSINTON T EDRMIRASOLDRREGALOLN ESCALA D R BAJADA R DCRESTADRALONDRADRGREENSEASTRD AVENIDALAVA LENC IAHORADO R D BERNA RDOT RAILS D R G A B A R D A R DNACIDODR R OC A D RCASERORD RIOSRD CEDILLA PLAC EIT U N O STFAIRHO P ERDC A L L E COL INAOLD COACHWAYSENCILLODRSUM M ERSA GE R DHI DDEN VALLEYR ANCHRD S ARAPEDROAKCR EE K TRLJ U A R E Z DRC A MINODELVALLE GRANDEEPL VALLEVERDERDC A L L E A NA OLDCOACH RD OBI S PO R D B UT T E R FIELDTRLC A M INITO B ALATA MANTILLARD O L D W INERYRD POMERADOCT LOM AS VERDESDR V ILLAMOURADR DE CANTDR BE LLOTADRBRIDLEWOOD RDCOUNTR Y D A Y RDOL DCOACHD RGRA N DEERDBE R N AR D O O A KSDRMAR TINC OI TRDABR A DRVEZELAYLN GREE N V A L L E Y TRUCKTR LDEL P A SODRV I ADELTO R OCAMPILLODRF R ONDOSOD R ROCKRD ROSTRATA RD C A LLADORD POLVE R A DRDEV E R E UX RDPASEO DELVERANONOR PARISHRD ORCHAR DBE NDRD T A NNINDRAVENIDACONSENTID O RANCHOBERNARDORD CAMINO VUELOC O RTEP AULIN APOME R A DORDS T A G ECO AC H RD V E RANODR ELMFIELDLNPINATADRACENADR SILVER SADDLE LN C A M INODELA BRECCIA P A STOR A L R D GIB RAL TARDR POMARD WAYC U M AN A TER F R ANCISCODRCLOUDCROFT DRVIA M OURA DOMINICANDR SA IN T ANDREW S D R LOMICADR SAGEWOOD DR Project Location The Farm in Poway SOURCE: SANGIS 2017, 2019Date: 5/1/2019 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1187201\MAPDOC\IS\Figure1-RegionalMap.mxd02,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 1 Chula Vista SolanaBeach Encinitas San Diego Carlsbad Oceanside Lemon Grove El Cajon Santee Poway San Marcos EscondidoVista Imperial Beach Coronado Riverside County Mexico 209 75 52 94 125 241 9854 195 56 86 111 67 74 74 76 79 78 805 215 8 155 Project Site Date: 5/1/2019 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1187201\MAPDOC\IS\Figure2-VicinityMap.mxdValley VerdeNeighborhoodPark INDIANCANYONLN P ENIN A S T OLD WINERYRD DECANTDR PORT MARNOCK DR TAWNY WAY D ORS ET WAY SOLERAWAY TAM O SHANTER DR ORCHARDBENDRDESPOLA RD STARMOUNTWAY B U T T E R F IE L D T R LEDINA WAY SAINT ANDREWS DR ALDERWOODL NVINTER WAY THESQ U A R EC A LLE COLINA OLD WINERY WAY CUV EECTCIELO CTMERLOTPLLOMASVERDES DR VILLAMOURA DR VENDORPLTINING DR CLOUDCROFTC TCLEECOPL VALLE VERD ETERMARTINCOIT RDOLDCOA C H R D WESTLINGCTOL D W I N E M A S T E R W A Y ANTELOPESTATION V ALLEVERDERDSAGEWOOD DR DE L P A S O D R VALLEDELOBO DR SAGEWOODLNJOYAS CT CORTELOMASVERDESVINEYARDLN BOCARATONLNVIA LO MA D R CLIQUOTCTWILLOW RUN RD OVERLAND PASS WHITE ROCK STATION RD WHITE W O O D CANYON CLOUDCROFT DR ASH HOLLOWXINGRD Project Vicinity The Farm in Poway SOURCE: SANGIS 2017, 2019 0 500250Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 2 1" = 300' 0'300'150'600' ST . ANDRE W S DR.ST. ANDREWS DR.ST. ANDREWS DR.ST. ANDREWS DR.TAM O' SHANTER DRIVECLOUDCROFT DR.CLOUDCROFT DR. TAM O'SHANTER DR. ESPOLA RD.CLOUDCROFT CT.TAM O' SHANTER DRIVE BOCA RATON LANEPVT DRIVE "E" PVT DRIVE "B"PVT DRIVE "E"PVT DRIVE "A"PVT DRIVE "A" PVT DRIVE "D" VILLAMOURA DR. VALLE DE LOBO DR.PORT MARNOCK DR .PVT DRIVE "A"MARTINCOIT RD.2 1 97 98 99 100 93 114 112 110 150 152 108 158 107 153 156 159 OSR-1 OSR-2 OSR-3 OSR-4 OSR-5 OSR-6 OSR-7 OSR-8 OSC-1 OSC-2 OSC-3 OSC-4 OSC-5 OSC-6 OSC-7 OSC-8 OSC-9 OSC-10 OSC-11 OSC-12 OSC-13OSC-14 OSC-15 OSC-16 OSC-17 OSC-18 OSC-20 OSC-19 OSC-27 OSC-26 OSC-25 OSC-24 OSC-21 OSC-23 OSC-22 PS-1 PS-2 PS-3 PS-4 PS-5 PS-6 PS-7 PS-8 PS-9 PS-10PS-11PS-12PS-13PS-14 PS-15PS-16 PS-17PS-20 PS-1 8 PS-1 9 PS-21 PS-22 PS-23 PS-24PS-31 PS-25 PS-30 PS-26 PS-29 PS-27 PS-28 101 102 103104 94 95 96 105 91 92 3 45 67 89 1011 1213 1415 1617 1819 2021 2223 24 33 3431 3229 3027 2825 26 63 64 65 66 6768 7069 7172 7473 7576 7877 7980 8281 8384 8685 8788 9089 57 58 56 55 53 54 52 51 49 50 48 47 45 46 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 35 36 37 160 157 155 154 151 106 109 149 111 113 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 145 146 147 148 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 133 134 135 136 137 138139140141142143144 5960 61 62 132 9 6 3 8 9 9 9 9 8 910 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 5 6 12 10 10 10 10 4 5 65 10 10 1010 10 10 10 7 7 11 11 7 5 10 12 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 E E E E D A A A BB C C 1 2 9 10 10 10 5 10 10 6 12 15 10 14 15 15 12 9 10 13 9 4 3 10 10 10 14 15 15 6 7 127 9 6 15 1210 9 13 8 8 10 13 12 11 SITE LEGEND OS REC LOTS TM LOT #AC 1 THE BARN OSR 1 0.87 AC MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM MUSIC VENUE WEDDING VENUE THE SOCIAL OSR 6 1.78 AC CAFE / COFFEE / WINE & BEER GARDEN 2 THE BUTTERFLY FARM 2.03 AC VIVARIUM OSR 2 0.70 AC GREENHOUSE OSR 3 0.71 AC OFFICE / MEAINTENANCE OSR 4 0.20 AC CLASSROOM OSR 5 0.41 AC PICNIC AREA GARDEN 3 THE CLUB OSR 7 6.85 AC FAMILY POOL YOGA PAVILION MEN'S & WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM 3 TENNIS COURTS 16 PICKLE BALL COURTS 4 THE MEADOW OPEN SPACE OSR 8 3.13 AC TOTAL 14.65 AC OS REC LOTS TM LOT #AC 5 TOT LOT 6 POLLINATOR GARDEN 7.81 AC OSC 6 7.61 AC OSC 24 0.20 AC 7 EDIBLE LANDSCAPE OSC 10 0.79 AC 8 SUCCULENT GARDEN OSC 14 1.20 AC 9 COMMUNITY GARDENS 5.73 AC OSC 3 2.13 AC OSC 7 0.24 AC OSC 19 1.46 AC OSC 21 1.90 AC 10 TRAILS 3.56 MILES 4.45 AC 11 DOG PARK 12 OPEN SPACE 17.51 AC OSC 1 2.88 AC OSC 5 1.52 AC OSC 11 2.47 AC OSC 12 4.55 AC OSC 13 2.02 AC OSC 15 2.68 AC OSC 18 1.40 AC 13 SLOPE 2.92 AC OSC 8 2.64 AC OSC 22 0.27 AC 14 AGRI-FIELDS 15.79 AC OSC 16 6.88 AC OSC 17 1.24 AC OSC 26 2.38 AC OSC 27 5.29 AC 15 BASIN 3.97 AC OSC 2 0.84 AC OSC 4 0.88 AC OSC 9 0.96 AC OSC 20 0.47 AC OSC 23 0.32 AC OSC 25 0.50 AC TOTAL 60.17 AC RESIDENTIAL*TM LOT #AC A 20 110' X 100' HOMESTEAD LOTS LOT 125-144 8.00 AC B 13 70' X 100' GARDEN HOME LOTS LOT 116-124, 145-148 2.78 AC C 11 32' X 100' TWIN HOMES LOTS SF 2.05 AC1138' X 100' TWIN HOMES LOTS SF LOT 106-115, 149-160 D 15 90' X 100' MEADOW LOTS LOT 91-105 4.31 AC E 90 90' X 90' COTTAGE LOTS LOT 1-90 16.71 AC TOTAL 160 HOMES TOTAL 33.86 AC SITE TOTAL 117.19 AC NOTES *PERIMETER BUFFER ZONES 50FT TO 100FT *ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATE Site Plan The Farm in Poway FIGURE 3SOURCE: Architects BP Associates, 2019Z:\Projects\j1187201\MAPDOC\IS The Farm in Poway Initial Study Prepared for: City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, California 92064 Contact: David De Vries, City Planner Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Asha Bleier MAY 2019 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 11872 i May 2019 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. III 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 5 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 17 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 19 3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 20 3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 21 3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 21 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 22 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 23 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 24 3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 26 3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 27 3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 27 3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 28 3.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 28 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 29 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 30 3.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................. 30 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................... 31 4 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS.................................................................................................................. 33 4.1 References Cited ................................................................................................................................. 33 4.2 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 34 FIGURES 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 35 2 Project Vicinity ................................................................................................................................................... 37 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY PAGE NO. 11872 ii May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11872 iii May 2019 Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym/Abbreviation Definition CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Poway EIR environmental impact report HCP Habitat Conservation Plan MRZ Mineral Resource Zone NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan SPA Specific Plan Amendment THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 iv May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11872 1 May 2019 1 Introduction 1. Project title: The Farm in Poway 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Poway, Development Services 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California 92064 3. Contact person and phone number: David De Vries, City Planner / 858.668.4604 4. Project location: The project is located at 17166 Stoneridge Country Club Lane, Poway, California 92064. The project site is bounded by Valle Verde Road, St. Andrews Drive, Tam O’Shanter Drive, Cloudcroft Drive, and Espola Road. 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: The Farm in Poway LLC 12919 Corte Juana Poway, California 92064 ATTN: Kevin McNamara Email: yourpoway@gmail.com 6. General plan designation: Existing: Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) 7. Zoning: Existing: Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) 8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary): Location The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Poway (City) and consists of the decommissioned StoneRidge Country Club and associated 18-hole golf course. The project site bordered by Espola Road to the south. The project site consists of approximately 117.2 acres and currently has an address of 17166 Stoneridge Country Club Lane, Poway, California 92064. Figure 1 shows the project location within the County of San Diego (County) and the City. Regionally, the City is situated near the middle of the County, approximately 20 miles north of downtown San Diego via Interstate (I) 15. The project site is THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 2 May 2019 approximately 2 miles east of I-15. The City of Poway boundary is approximately 0.5 miles to the west. Figures 2 and 3 depict the project vicinity and a conceptual site plan for the project site, respectively. Proposed Specific Plan Summary The Farm in Poway project (proposed project) consists of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment to change the land use and zoning designation of the project site from Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) to Planned Community (PC-9). The amendments consist of both a Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendments. Currently the PC zone may only be applied to properties 300 acres or larger. The text amendment will revise this portion of the text to allow properties of 100 acres or larger. In addition, a new section would be added to the Zoning Ordinance that briefly describes the proposed project. This designation is consistent with other Specific Plan areas throughout the City. The proposed project would also consist of a Specific Plan, Development Plan, and a Tentative Map to allow for the development of 160 single-family dwelling units. The new land uses proposed for the Farm in Poway Specific Plan Area (SPA) include two open space uses and five residential uses as described below:  Open Space – Conservation (OS-C) is designed to serve as a physical and visual buffer between existing residential uses and new residential development, maintaining neighbors’ privacy and providing the visual backdrop for the new community. Parcels designated as OS-C shall be deed- restricted to ensure that they are preserved as open space in perpetuity. Parcels designated as OS- C may be planted with agriculture or naturalized drought-tolerant landscaping and may include trails, gardens, water quality basins, and tot lots. Thematic structures and buildings as well as accessory buildings such as sheds, greenhouses, and similar that are ancillary to agricultural and garden uses would also be permitted with a maximum building coverage of 15%.  Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) is intended to replace the recreational amenities once provided by the golf course to support new and existing residential uses within and around the SPA. Up to 30,000 gross square feet (GSF) of non-residential buildings would be permitted. Up to 16,100 GSF may consist of social and recreational uses such as event barns, social clubs, fitness clubs, restaurants, and similar. The remaining GSF may consist of educational amenity space such as classrooms, a butterfly vivarium, educational greenhouses, and similar facilities. These uses are similar to those permitted under the existing zoning designation.  Residential – Twin (R-T): Allows for the development of up to 22 duplex homes. Each unit would be situated on its own lot and units are connected along a common interior property line.  Residential – Cottage (R-C): Allows for the development of up to 90 single-family homes. Residential cottage homes would consist of 2–4 single-family homes arranged around a common motor court space. Individual driveways and garages would take access from the motor court.  Residential – Garden (R-G): Allows for the development of up to 13 single-family homes. Residential garden homes are single-family homes that take direct access from a private street. The minimum lot width for garden homes is 70 feet. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 3 May 2019  Residential – Homestead (R-H): Allows for the development of up to 20 single-family homes. Residential homestead lots would consist of single-family homes that take direct access from a private street or existing public street, and are located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.  Residential – Meadow (R-M): Allows for the development of up to 15 single-family homes. Residential meadow homes would be large single-family homes that take direct access from a private street. Residential uses account for approximately 33.85 acres within of the SPA and have been clustered to conserve approximately 55.72 acres of the SPA as OS-C. The OS-C areas would consist of professionally managed farmland or naturalized open space. Tot lots, gardens, water quality basins, and multi-use trails would also be permitted and proposed within these OS-C areas. The remaining land within the SPA would be developed as private streets or OS-R. The OS-R area account for 14.65 acres of the SPA. Recreational uses proposed by the Tentative Map and Development Plan include a fitness club; social club with food and beverage service, including alcohol; a multipurpose event barn with outdoor event space for parties, weddings, and similar events; a tranquility garden; and a butterfly education center. An extensive multi-use trail system, for walking and bicycling, would also wind through the various open space areas and connect residents to the variety of recreational amenities. The majority of the trail system would consist of 10-foot-wide private trails surfaced with compacted decomposed granite or native earth. Although trails are private, they would be open and available for public use. An existing 100-foot-wide San Diego County Water Authority easement runs generally through the middle of the property. This easement would be preserved by utilizing access roadways and this corridor as part of this trail system. The 16-foot-wide access roads would be surfaced with decomposed granite and would be expanded in some location to include an additional 5-foot-wide decomposed granite trail. A small segment of the trail system would also occur along Espola Road and consist of a 9-foot-wide public, paved, meandering multi-use trail. Infrastructure The proposed new land uses are either replacing existing facilities with existing infrastructure or are surrounded by existing development with existing infrastructure. No extensions or expansion of infrastructure systems will need to be made, only connections to existing infrastructure systems. Existing infrastructure consists of vehicular access and partial circulation, water, sewer, drainage and dry utilities that include gas, electricity, and telecommunications. Primary access to the project site would occur from Espola Road, at the existing intersection of Martincoit Road and Espola Drive. Secondary access to the site would be provided via existing residential public roadways including St. Andrews Drive, Cloudcroft Court, Tam O’Shanter Drive, and Boca Raton Lane. Together, Tam O’Shanter Drive, Boca Raton Lane, and St, Andrews Drive form a large loop that provides access to the single-family homes that surround the former golf course. Secondary access points have been limited to minimize increased traffic on adjacent existing residential public roadways and located to discourage cut-through traffic. An internal roadway system would also be developed consisting of private streets. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 4 May 2019 A new system of City of Poway water pipes and infrastructure would be installed within private streets and would connect to the City’s existing system of pipes located in Espola Road and adjacent public residential streets. Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the City of Poway and would consist of a new gravity system of pipes located within private streets. This system would also connect to the City’s existing sewer system via existing pipes located in Espola Road and adjacent residential streets. The project site currently accepts stormwater drainage from a number of adjoining properties. To maintain these existing drainage patterns and minimize drainage impacts to existing neighborhoods, a series of public bypass storm drains would be provided to collect this stormwater at the project site boundary and convey it through the site to the City’s existing storm drain system downstream. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings): North: Residential single-family homes, vacant land South: Residential single-family homes East: Residential single-family homes, vacant land West: Residential single- and multi-family homes 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): TBD 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 11872 5 May 2019 2 Summary of Findings Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 6 May 2019 Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date 11872 7 May 2019 3 Initial Study Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 8 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 9 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 10 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? VI. Energy – Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 11 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 12 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 13 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 14 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XVI. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII.TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 15 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 16 May 2019 Potentially Significant Impact Less-Than- Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 17 May 2019 3.1 Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. No officially designated or eligible state scenic highways exist within City limits (Caltrans 2011). Espola Road, which borders the southern boundary of the project site, is designated as a local scenic roadway within the City’s General Plan Transportation Element (City of Poway 2010). However, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The entire project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Natural Resources Agency. The closest tract of land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is approximately 0.5 miles east of the project site, and is designated as Unique Farmland (DOC 2019a). Additionally, the proposed project would change the land use designation of the project site from Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) to Planned Community (PC-9). This designation would allow for limited residential development as well as two open space designations, Open Space – Conservation, and Open Space – Recreation. Under the Open Space – Conservation designation, limited agricultural uses would be THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 18 May 2019 permitted. Thus, as the proposed project would allow for limited agriculture and would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use, no impact would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conversion Act of 1969 (California Government Code, Section 51200 et seq.), preserves agricultural and open space lands from conversion to urban land uses by establishing a contract between local governments and private landowners to voluntarily restrict their land holdings to agricultural or open space use. The project site and surrounding area are not located on any lands with Williamson Act contracts (DOC 2013). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. According to the City of Poway General Plan, the project area is currently designated as Open Space – Recreation (OS-R), and the surrounding land consists of residential uses (City of Poway 2019). The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, any forest or timberland since none of those land types are located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed project is located in an urban, developed area and is not located within or in the vicinity of forest land. Because the project is located in an urban, developed area, and no forest is located within the project’s vicinity, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. No farmland or forest land exists within the vicinity of the project site, as described in Sections 3.2(a)–(d). Therefore, no farmland or forests would be converted for nonagricultural or non-forest use due to the proposed project, and no impact on farmland or forest land would occur. 3.3 Air Quality a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 19 May 2019 b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.4 Biological Resources a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is highly disturbed and largely consists of ornamental vegetation. However, a biological resources reconnaissance survey will be prepared in order to map the vegetation communities and special-status species, if any. While it is unlikely that special-status species may be present, a habitat assessment for potentially occurring sensitive resources that are not apparent at the time of the survey will also be identified (e.g., rare annual plants, special-status wildlife species). Therefore, this issue topic will be analyzed in the EIR. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 20 May 2019 d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within the City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Subarea HCP/NCCP). The City’s Subarea HCP/NCCP was adopted in 1996. The City’s Subarea HCP/NCCP serves as the project document for the protection and management of biologically effective, interconnected spaces in the City. A preserve system within the City has been designated as the Poway Mitigation Area as part of the City’s Subarea HCP/NCCP (City of Poway 1996). The project site is not located within the Poway Mitigation Areas. This is due to the highly developed setting of the property and its isolation from adjacent undeveloped habitat areas by residential development. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. This topic will be further discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.5 Cultural Resources a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 21 May 2019 3.6 Energy a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.7 Geology and Soils a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is not located on any known “active,” “potentially active,” or “inactive” fault traces as defined by the California Geological Survey (DOC 2010). Further, according to the City’s General Plan, no active faults are present in the City (City of Poway 1991a). The Newport–Inglewood and Rose Canyon Fault zones, located approximately 16 miles west of the site, are the closest known active faults. Therefore, impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault are expected to be less than significant. This topic will be further discussed and analyzed in the EIR. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-Than-Significant Impact. According to the City of Poway General Plan, the proposed project site and greater Poway Valley have little or no potential for liquefaction. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction are expected to be less than significant. This topic will be further discussed and analyzed in the EIR. iv) Landslides? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 22 May 2019 b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impact would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 23 May 2019 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Significant Impact. The closest school to the proposed project is Painted Rock Elementary School, located approximately 0.15 miles south of the project site. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is not located within any adopted airport land use plans. The closest airport to the proposed project is the Ramona Airport located approximately 6.25 miles east of the project site. Due to the project’s distance from an airport, development of the proposed project would not result in any airport- related safety hazards or excessive noise, and no impact would occur. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 24 May 2019 g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 25 May 2019 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in a flood hazard area according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Hazard Layer mapping tool (FEMA 2019). Additionally, the project site is located approximately 14 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and 1.6 miles northwest of Lake Poway. Thus, the proposed project would not be at risk of inundation by tsunami or seiche. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.11 Land Use and Planning a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would be located on a site that has previously been developed as a golf course, which had controlled access during its operation. Currently, Villamoura Drive, located in the northern portion of the project site oriented in an east–west direction, is the only roadway that transects the site. Valle De Lobo Drive also circulates through this same portion of the project site, but both the east terminus and west terminus end within the project site. Both Villamoura Drive and Valle De Lobo Drive are private roadways. The proposed project would develop open space and residential uses throughout the site and surrounding the existing residential developments located along Villamoura Drive and Valle De Lobo Drive. Access to the existing residential developments via Villamoura Drive and Valle De Lobo Drive would remain. Further, the project site is currently designated as Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) in the City’s General Plan (City of Poway 2019) and the site is surrounded by existing residential uses on all sides. The proposed project would redesignate the project site to Planned Community (PC-9) to allow for a mix of open space and residential uses, which would conform to existing adjacent developments. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide the existing community, and impacts would be less than significant. This topic will be further discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 26 May 2019 3.12 Mineral Resources a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The City is located in the Western San Diego County Production-Consumption (P-C) Zone according to the California Mineral Land Classification System. The County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance Mineral Resources show the project site, along with the majority of the City, as being located in Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). MRZ-3 areas contain known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources, however; further exploration work within these areas would need to occur to reclassify into the MRZ-2 category—areas with mineral resources present (County of San Diego 2008). Furthermore, according to the City’s General Plan, the only known valuable mineral resource within the City, as recognized by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, is construction quality sand and gravel, which is located in the South Poway area (City of Poway 1991b). The project site is located in the northern portion of the City, and there are no known mineral resources within the project site. Additionally, according to the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, there are no gas, geothermal, or other known wells located on or within 2 miles of the project site (DOC 2019b). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the state, and no impact would occur. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to response 3.12(a). The City’s General Plan does not identify any zones of locally important mineral resources within or around the project site. Additionally, the project site is located within a highly urbanized area of the City of Poway. Mineral extraction land uses would be incompatible with the existing and planned land uses within and around the project site. Therefore, no impact to locally important mineral resources would occur. 3.13 Noise a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 27 May 2019 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located within any adopted airport land use plans. The closest airport to the proposed project is the Ramona Airport located approximately 6.25 miles east of the project site. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the proposed project. Due to the project’s distance from an airport, development of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur. 3.14 Population and Housing a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is an infill residential development and is not anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the area. The project would not remove an impediment to growth to the surrounding area by removing infrastructure limitations. If the project creates substantial new permanent employment opportunities, it could indirectly induce growth by stimulating the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. Given the small size of proposed commercial use and activity, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. However, this topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is currently a decommissioned golf course. There are no existing residential uses on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace any existing people or housing, and no impact would occur. 3.15 Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 28 May 2019 Police protection? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. Schools? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. Parks? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.16 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.17 Transportation a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 29 May 2019 b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 30 May 2019 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.20 Wildfire a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 31 May 2019 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be discussed and analyzed in the EIR. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 32 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11872 33 May 2019 4 References and Preparers 4.1 References Cited 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2011. Officially Designated Scenic Highways – San Diego County. September 7, 2011. Accessed April 2019. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. City of Poway. 1991a. City of Poway General Plan Public Safety Element. November 19, 1991. Accessed April 2019. http://docs.poway.org/WebLink/0/doc/49303/Electronic.aspx City of Poway. 1991b. City of Poway General Plan Natural Resources Element. November 19, 1991. Accessed April 2019. http://docs.poway.org/WebLink/0/doc/49302/Electronic.aspx City of Poway. 1996. City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. April 1996. Accessed April 2019. http://docs.poway.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=23936&openfile=true City of Poway. 2010. City of Poway General Plan Transportation Master Element. March 2010. Accessed April 2019. http://docs.poway.org/WebLink/0/doc/50446/Electronic.aspx City of Poway. 2019. City of Poway Online Maps, PowGIS – Zoning and Land Use. Accessed April 2019. https://powaygis.poway.org/websites/PowGIS_JS/ County of San Diego. 2008. Guidelines for Determining Significance, Mineral Resources. July 30, 2008. Accessed April 2019. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dplu/docs/ Mineral_Resources_Guidelines.pdf. DOC (Department of Conservation). 2010. “Fault Activity Map of California.” California Geological Survey. Accessed April 2019. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. DOC. 2013. “San Diego County Williamson Act 2013/2014” [maps]. 1:120,000. DOC, Division of Land Resource Conservation. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/San_Diego_w_13_14_WA.pdf. DOC. 2019a. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. DOC. 2019b. Well Finder. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Accessed October 21, 2016. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/Wellfinder.aspx. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2019. “National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer” [digital data]. Accessed April 2019. https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer-nfhl. THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 34 May 2019 4.2 List of Preparers Joe Harrison – Environmental Analyst David De Vries – City of Poway, City Planner 15 D EERVALLE Y E STATES VALLEYVIE W RDINTERSTATE15NBPASE O DELVERANO AVENID A C O R DILLERASYCAMOREC REEKRD EDINAWAYCAMINOANCHOMONTERORD R E C REATIONALTRLESPOLA RDHIGHLANDSRANCHRD PASEOLUCIDO CAMINITO VECINOSSOLERAWAYADENALN AVENIDAFLORENCIACAMINOE MPAR RAD OTA M O SHANTER DR FELIC E D RSINTON T EDRMIRASOLDRREGALOLN ESCALA D R BAJADA R DCRESTADRALONDRADRGREENSEASTRD AVENIDALAVA LENC IAHORADO R D BERNA RDOT RAILS D R G A B A R D A R DNACIDODR R OC A D RCASERORD RIOSRD CEDILLA PLAC EIT U N O STFAIRHO P ERDC A L L E COL INAOLD COACHWAYSENCILLODRSUM M ERSA GE R DHI DDEN VALLEYR ANCHRD S ARAPEDROAKCR EE K TRLJ U A R E Z DRC A MINODELVALLE GRANDEEPL VALLEVERDERDC A L L E A NA OLDCOACH RD OBI S PO R D B UT T E R FIELDTRLC A M INITO B ALATA MANTILLARD O L D W INERYRD POMERADOCT LOM AS VERDESDR V ILLAMOURADR DE CANTDR BE LLOTADRBRIDLEWOOD RDCOUNTR Y D A Y RDOL DCOACHD RGRA N DEERDBE R N AR D O O A KSDRMAR TINC OI TRDABR A DRVEZELAYLN GREE N V A L L E Y TRUCKTR LDEL P A SODRV I ADELTO R OCAMPILLODRF R ONDOSOD R ROCKRD ROSTRATA RD C A LLADORD POLVE R A DRDEV E R E UX RDPASEO DELVERANONOR PARISHRD ORCHAR DBE NDRD T A NNINDRAVENIDACONSENTID O RANCHOBERNARDORD CAMINO VUELOC O RTEP AULIN APOME R A DORDS T A G ECO AC H RD V E RANODR ELMFIELDLNPINATADRACENADR SILVER SADDLE LN C A M INODELA BRECCIA P A STOR A L R D GIB RAL TARDR POMARD WAYC U M AN A TER F R ANCISCODRCLOUDCROFT DRVIA M OURA DOMINICANDR SA IN T ANDREW S D R LOMICADR SAGEWOOD DR Project Location The Farm in Poway SOURCE: SANGIS 2017, 2019Date: 5/1/2019 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1187201\MAPDOC\IS\Figure1-RegionalMap.mxd02,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 1 Chula Vista SolanaBeach Encinitas San Diego Carlsbad Oceanside Lemon Grove El Cajon Santee Poway San Marcos EscondidoVista Imperial Beach Coronado Riverside County Mexico 209 75 52 94 125 241 9854 195 56 86 111 67 74 74 76 79 78 805 215 8 155 Project Site THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 36 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 5/1/2019 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1187201\MAPDOC\IS\Figure2-VicinityMap.mxdValley VerdeNeighborhoodPark INDIANCANYONLN P ENIN A S T OLD WINERYRD DECANTDR PORT MARNOCK DR TAWNY WAY D ORS ET WAY SOLERAWAY TAM O SHANTER DR ORCHARDBENDRDESPOLA RD STARMOUNTWAY B U T T E R F IE L D T R LEDINA WAY SAINT ANDREWS DR ALDERWOODL NVINTER WAY THESQ U A R EC A LLE COLINA OLD WINERY WAY CUV EECTCIELO CTMERLOTPLLOMASVERDES DR VILLAMOURA DR VENDORPLTINING DR CLOUDCROFTC TCLEECOPL VALLE VERD ETERMARTINCOIT RDOLDCOA C H R D WESTLINGCTOL D W I N E M A S T E R W A Y ANTELOPESTATION V ALLEVERDERDSAGEWOOD DR DE L P A S O D R VALLEDELOBO DR SAGEWOODLNJOYAS CT CORTELOMASVERDESVINEYARDLN BOCARATONLNVIA LO MA D R CLIQUOTCTWILLOW RUN RD OVERLAND PASS WHITE ROCK STATION RD WHITE W O O D CANYON CLOUDCROFT DR ASH HOLLOWXINGRD Project Vicinity The Farm in Poway SOURCE: SANGIS 2017, 2019 0 500250Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 2 THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 38 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1" = 300' 0'300'150'600' ST . ANDRE W S DR.ST. ANDREWS DR.ST. ANDREWS DR.ST. ANDREWS DR.TAM O' SHANTER DRIVECLOUDCROFT DR.CLOUDCROFT DR. TAM O'SHANTER DR. ESPOLA RD.CLOUDCROFT CT.TAM O' SHANTER DRIVE BOCA RATON LANEPVT DRIVE "E" PVT DRIVE "B"PVT DRIVE "E"PVT DRIVE "A"PVT DRIVE "A" PVT DRIVE "D" VILLAMOURA DR. VALLE DE LOBO DR.PORT MARNOCK DR .PVT DRIVE "A"MARTINCOIT RD.2 1 97 98 99 100 93 114 112 110 150 152 108 158 107 153 156 159 OSR-1 OSR-2 OSR-3 OSR-4 OSR-5 OSR-6 OSR-7 OSR-8 OSC-1 OSC-2 OSC-3 OSC-4 OSC-5 OSC-6 OSC-7 OSC-8 OSC-9 OSC-10 OSC-11 OSC-12 OSC-13OSC-14 OSC-15 OSC-16 OSC-17 OSC-18 OSC-20 OSC-19 OSC-27 OSC-26 OSC-25 OSC-24 OSC-21 OSC-23 OSC-22 PS-1 PS-2 PS-3 PS-4 PS-5 PS-6 PS-7 PS-8 PS-9 PS-10PS-11PS-12PS-13PS-14 PS-15PS-16 PS-17PS-20 PS-1 8 PS-1 9 PS-21 PS-22 PS-23 PS-24PS-31 PS-25 PS-30 PS-26 PS-29 PS-27 PS-28 101 102 103104 94 95 96 105 91 92 3 45 67 89 1011 1213 1415 1617 1819 2021 2223 24 33 3431 3229 3027 2825 26 63 64 65 66 6768 7069 7172 7473 7576 7877 7980 8281 8384 8685 8788 9089 57 58 56 55 53 54 52 51 49 50 48 47 45 46 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 35 36 37 160 157 155 154 151 106 109 149 111 113 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 145 146 147 148 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 133 134 135 136 137 138139140141142143144 5960 61 62 132 9 6 3 8 9 9 9 9 8 910 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 5 6 12 10 10 10 10 4 5 65 10 10 1010 10 10 10 7 7 11 11 7 5 10 12 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 E E E E D A A A BB C C 1 2 9 10 10 10 5 10 10 6 12 15 10 14 15 15 12 9 10 13 9 4 3 10 10 10 14 15 15 6 7 127 9 6 15 1210 9 13 8 8 10 13 12 11 SITE LEGEND OS REC LOTS TM LOT #AC 1 THE BARN OSR 1 0.87 AC MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM MUSIC VENUE WEDDING VENUE THE SOCIAL OSR 6 1.78 AC CAFE / COFFEE / WINE & BEER GARDEN 2 THE BUTTERFLY FARM 2.03 AC VIVARIUM OSR 2 0.70 AC GREENHOUSE OSR 3 0.71 AC OFFICE / MEAINTENANCE OSR 4 0.20 AC CLASSROOM OSR 5 0.41 AC PICNIC AREA GARDEN 3 THE CLUB OSR 7 6.85 AC FAMILY POOL YOGA PAVILION MEN'S & WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM 3 TENNIS COURTS 16 PICKLE BALL COURTS 4 THE MEADOW OPEN SPACE OSR 8 3.13 AC TOTAL 14.65 AC OS REC LOTS TM LOT #AC 5 TOT LOT 6 POLLINATOR GARDEN 7.81 AC OSC 6 7.61 AC OSC 24 0.20 AC 7 EDIBLE LANDSCAPE OSC 10 0.79 AC 8 SUCCULENT GARDEN OSC 14 1.20 AC 9 COMMUNITY GARDENS 5.73 AC OSC 3 2.13 AC OSC 7 0.24 AC OSC 19 1.46 AC OSC 21 1.90 AC 10 TRAILS 3.56 MILES 4.45 AC 11 DOG PARK 12 OPEN SPACE 17.51 AC OSC 1 2.88 AC OSC 5 1.52 AC OSC 11 2.47 AC OSC 12 4.55 AC OSC 13 2.02 AC OSC 15 2.68 AC OSC 18 1.40 AC 13 SLOPE 2.92 AC OSC 8 2.64 AC OSC 22 0.27 AC 14 AGRI-FIELDS 15.79 AC OSC 16 6.88 AC OSC 17 1.24 AC OSC 26 2.38 AC OSC 27 5.29 AC 15 BASIN 3.97 AC OSC 2 0.84 AC OSC 4 0.88 AC OSC 9 0.96 AC OSC 20 0.47 AC OSC 23 0.32 AC OSC 25 0.50 AC TOTAL 60.17 AC RESIDENTIAL*TM LOT #AC A 20 110' X 100' HOMESTEAD LOTS LOT 125-144 8.00 AC B 13 70' X 100' GARDEN HOME LOTS LOT 116-124, 145-148 2.78 AC C 11 32' X 100' TWIN HOMES LOTS SF 2.05 AC1138' X 100' TWIN HOMES LOTS SF LOT 106-115, 149-160 D 15 90' X 100' MEADOW LOTS LOT 91-105 4.31 AC E 90 90' X 90' COTTAGE LOTS LOT 1-90 16.71 AC TOTAL 160 HOMES TOTAL 33.86 AC SITE TOTAL 117.19 AC NOTES *PERIMETER BUFFER ZONES 50FT TO 100FT *ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATE Site Plan The Farm in Poway FIGURE 3SOURCE: Architects BP Associates, 2019Z:\Projects\j1187201\MAPDOC\IS THE FARM IN POWAY INITIAL STUDY 11872 40 May 2019 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK The Farm Public Scoping Comments 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:03 PMTo:Burt IsraelSubject:RE: Stoneridge _The Farms--Comments/ConcernsThank you for your comments Mr. Israel. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Burt Israel <burtsearch@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2019 10:27 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: Fw: Stoneridge _The Farms--Comments/Concerns Mr. De Vries, This is regarding the proposal for Stoneridge. 1--My house is at 17739 St. Andrews Drive and I back up to the 15th at what was Stoneridge CC. I support the proposed plan, BUT, since you may be building 20 houses past me on what was holes 14 and 13, I would like you to put a speed bump on the street in the middle of my house. We are at the bottom of the hill and have speeders go by all day--All the police are near the Valle Verde end and never see it. I would like not to hear the excuse, we cannot do it because of the fire engines-- which I heard before! There are speed bumps all over RB, Carmel Mountain Ranch, etc. No one ever checks this out--but i see it all day long and with the addition of 20 houses and the only way to get there is drive by my house--i would like to see this implemented. 2 2--Why on earth would we put a Butterfly Emporium? Has there been a ground swell of demand for this which is arguably one of the dumbest ideas i have heard?. Another thing to maintain and waste tax payers money on. we all can live without it! I will be pleased to discuss this in more detail. Regards, Burt Israel 17739 St Andrews Dr Poway, 92064 858-775-9474 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 8:53 AMTo:Carl RossiSubject:The Farm NOP Comments 6-9-19 (2)Thank you Carl for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org -----Original Message----- From: Carl Rossi <carl.rossi@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 5:21 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: The Farm Hello, Here is the problem, 70% of voters won’t give a damn about any of this. I personally believe it is better to do something than nothing with the land. Although investors need to sell homes to make this work, in order to entice the outlier voters, you need to offer something more than a wine tasting room/beer hall ‘potential’ and a walking path. Something s needed that captivates the minds and needs of folks that think the northerners look down on the southerners in a positive way. Not sure a butterfly pavilion does this but it is a good try. With respect to environmental concerns, water sources and building approvals in San Diego County are dubious to begin with in desert geography promoting artificial community landscapes, but this never stops anyone. The traffic, sewer, schools, crime, agriculture, and electrical (hi and lo volt) will all be just fine. There needs to be a greater ‘public’ component or benefit to the proposal to win the larger voting group. Just my two cents. Carl Rossi 17232 Saint Andrews Drive Poway, CA. 92064 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2019 7:53 AMTo:Chris CruseSubject:RE: EIR the Farm scoping commentThank you Mr. Cruse for the comments and questions below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments and questions have been received. These will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. I should have a pretty good handle on your questions in a couple weeks if you want to call me or we can meet here at city hall. Thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cruse <cmcruse@cox.net> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 3:43 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: EIR the Farm scoping comment from: Chris Cruse 13734 Utopia Rd Poway, CA 92064 Via email My EIR concerns/questions about The Farms: 1) The previous owner of the parcels had a court agreement with the City which obligated the owner to use recycled water when it became available. Is that agreement pass to the current owner via a deed restriction or some other means? 2) I would imagine that other developers may want and have some right to rezone to one of the five new residential zones and / or to the new OS-conservation zone. Since agriculture is allowed in the new OS zone, what would be the City rules for water use in this zone? 3) Would the water rate be the same, more or less, than for residential use? 4) If there was a drought, would the uses in this new conservation zone be subject to the same limitations as residential uses? 5) If the city incurred fines for overusing water in a drought, would their share of the fine be paid by users in the new OS zone or would the fine fall on the residential users again? 6) if The Farm used well water, what effect might it have on the wells in the surrounding residential neighborhoods? When Maderas used well water, several people said that their wells went dry? 2 7) what impact might well use have on the aquifer? Would it possibly affect nearby habitat areas if the aquifer was depleted? 8) Will run off of chemicals and fertilizers affect surrounding areas? 9) Would fertilizer smells affect neighboring areas? 10) would agricultural workers for The Farms be paid enough to be able to live in Poway? 11) in the event that any aspect of businesses operating in the OS areas fail, what would be required to make a change of use for the parcel? Who would have to pay to change the deed restriction? 12) who are the parties to the deed restriction? Who would have standing in court to change the deed restriction? 13) Would the City of Poway have any authority over the deed restriction or over a business that was noncompliant with the deed restriction? 14) Could the owner change the deed restriction if the owner decided to do it? 15) Could the City change the allowable uses in the OS conservation zone? 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 5:32 PMTo:dlong1@san.rr.comCc:Chris Prine; Kevin McNamaraSubject:Re: Stoneridge resident response to The Farm in Poway notice of public scopingHi Mr. Long, thank you for your comments. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report. At this time, we do not have a detailed fencing plan, but my understanding is that the trail systems are proposed to be open to the public with both in and out privileges to all. Since this is a specific plan and requires a vote of the people, the applicant is allowed to propose development standards contrary to city standards including standards related to slope analysis. A detailed slope analysis has not been provided to the city at this time. Feel free to reach out to me with any further questions. Thanks, David De Vries Sent from my iPhone On May 16, 2019, at 8:09 PM, "dlong1@san.rr.com" <dlong1@san.rr.com> wrote: David my name is Dale Long. My wife Dorothy and I have lived at 17631 Boca Raton Lane, Poway, CA 92064 for a little over 34 years. During that time the “Old Coach collection” was developed. There is never a project where everyone is happy. You would be well served to look up the promises made and promises kept on that project because they are likely to come up here. The transitions between neighborhoods did not transpire as promised. The only issue I still have challenges with are the locked gates between our communities back on Boca Raton. It makes for double standards. The folks can and do come up through the gate at Indian Canyon and lock it behind them. Meaning they can walk on our streets and we cannot walk on theirs. Now one might say “Dale that’s petty” and it is. The challenge is our neighborhood is not connected as a community. What makes it worse is when I joke with them about it they are smug and respond we pay more taxes. To which I respond we have a better view and easier access to Espola. Yes it is petty. Not the kind of relations that bind a community together. Why do I mention this? Because we have an opportunity in this development plan to connect the existing Stoneridge community and The Farm in Poway together.  Specifically in the section of this plan that describes the extensive trail system. It ends with the line “Although trails are private, they would be open and available for public use.” We don’t have any side walks around the perimeter of Stoneridge, you may want to come out and see. So I will want to see strong language in the zoning change to guarantee the trails and walkways will be open to local public use. Remember your plan calls for the Farm’s residents to exit via our streets (with no sidewalks) on Boca Raton and Tam O’Shanter. I am changing my schedule to be a the meeting next Thursday to see what is possible.  Homestead lots 133,134,135,136 and 137 across the street from us seem to be the most compatible to the Stoneridge complex at 10,000 sq. ft. lot size. The challenge is we across the street are all on 20,000 sq. ft. or larger lots. I say this because we have slope issues to contend with. How are you going to get the grading for lots 133 through 135 to comply with current Poway slope restrictions in the Poway grading plan? We were developed across the street in the 70’s when this was county. Further I am interested to see the plot plan for lot 133. It looks to be in or very close to a major existing storm drainage. 2 I look forward to learning more about this project. None of us ever dreamed 30 years ago we needed to worry about the golf course closing. Times are changing and we are all keen for the best outcome in the long term for ourselves and Poway. I look forward to meeting and talking with you, Dale Long Dale J Long 17631 Boca Raton Ln. Poway, CA 92064 Email: dlong1@san.rr.com Cell 619-990-9272 Leave No Trace Master Educator Western Region Area 6 Outdoor Ethics Advocate Resource site: www.outdoorethics-bsa.org Please Practice Leave No Trace 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 3:32 PMTo:Asha BleierCc:Carey Fernandes; Joe HarrisonSubject:FW: Notice of Preparation for The Farm in Poway ProjectHi asha, let me know how to respond. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Denise Lidell <dlidell@hightechpros.com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:54 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>; yourPoway@gmail.com Subject: RE: Notice of Preparation for The Farm in Poway Project My home is at 17517 Saint Andrews Drive on the golf course. Community gardens are proposed behind my place. There are several pine trees behind my home on the golf course. Will the healthy pine trees be left there? They would block the view of the new homes that are proposed to be built on the hill behind my home on the other side of where the old golf course was. From: David De Vries [mailto:DDeVries@poway.org] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:41 AM Cc: Asha Bleier; Carey Fernandes; Joe Harrison Subject: Notice of Preparation for The Farm in Poway Project The City of Poway is beginning the environmental review and scoping process for The Farm in Poway project. Attached is the notice of preparation for the proposed project, which can also be found at https://poway.org/329/Recent-Projects- Environmental-Documents. You are receiving this notice containing information about the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project details and information on the public review process and upcoming public scoping meeting are provided in the notice of preparation. Thank you. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:54 PMTo:Denise LidellSubject:FW: Pine trees behind my property - Stoneridge redevelopmentAttachments:maps showing my home.jpg; pine trees next to property.jpg; Tall trees.jpgThank you for your comments Denise. I appreciate your input at the Scoping meeting last Thursday. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. At this time, a landscape plan has not been submitted and trees proposed to remain and to be removed have not been identified. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Denise Lidell <dlidell@hightechpros.com> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2019 6:56 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: Pine trees behind my property - Stoneridge redevelopment David, We spoke at the Stoneridge environmental meeting last Thursday regarding the pine trees located behind my property. I thank you for your time at the meeting. I you showed where my home was on the map. You had said then to send you this email and that you were going to look into whether we could save these trees and that they might possibly be saved because I was on the south border of what you considered the high fire zone. These trees also are in the area that they have designated for agri-fields. The trees are about 40-60 feet I believe from my border of my property (from the fence line) and at least 150 feet or more from my home. I’ve been corresponding with kevin about this too and he said he’s working on trying to keep the trees. My issue is that if these trees were removed then the homes built on the hillside behind would be looking right onto my property and these trees provide the privacy for homes on both sides of the golf course. I’ve attached some pictures. The first is a map of the course and I’ve circled in black where my home is with the pool. It’s at 17517 Saint Andrews Drive. I’ve circled in red the 6 pine trees that I’d like saved. They are the 6 pine trees south of the big rock outside my fence and down to the back of the home south of me. The next picture is of the trees from taken from my back yard and you can see how well they would block the view of construction they want to happen on the hill on the other side, as well as the already existing homes. With these trees removed the already existing homes would also be viewing onto my property. I really, really would like these trees saved and would be very much against this project from happening if they can’t be saved. 2 IF this project were to be passed and the pine trees were removed, then I would probably plant very tall, fast growing trees all along on the edge of my property that are like the third picture attached as they would be the only thing that would block out the view of the homes across on the hillside. I see this as a far worse situation than keeping the existing pine trees. I appreciate your looking into this. I look forward to hearing back from you after you’ve had a chance to look into matter. Thank you, Denise __________________________________ Denise L. Lidell Staffing and Recruiting Director High-Tech Professionals (858) 560-8088 http://hightechpros.com Green Valley Civic AssociationSteven Stone, President PO Box 114 Poway, CA 92074 760-522-8610 Please speciÞcally include in the EIR, evaluation of the following and what mitigating actions are proposed: 1. Noise and lights resulting from the pool, tennis, club and parking lots 2. Sight lines of existing homes compromised by new structures 3. TrafÞc impact on Martincoit Road through to Stone Canyon 4. Agricultural management impact (dust, fertilizer, chemicals, etc) resulting from the agri-Þelds 5. Unwanted activity (noise, litter, criminal, etc) that may result from public access of the proposed trails 6. Impact on schools and associated additional trafÞc to the schools 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 1:01 PMTo:Julie EllisSubject:The Farm NOP 6-7-19 (4) Thank you Ms. Ellis for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. I have a good understanding of the project if you would like to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Julie Ellis <jellisfamily@cox.net> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 6:16 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: concerns on proposed "The Farms" developement Hi David, I am a member of the GVCA and know they have submitted concerns to be addressed on “The Farms” development. I agree with the list but would like to add an additional concern. Safety concern for traffic jams if we have a wild fire or an emergency evacuation situation. I feel that if this high density housing development is built in that location - it will be a death trap waiting to happen. Espola Rd is the main road for Ramona residents, High Valley residents and Poway residents to use in an emergency situation like a wild fire. This is a serious concern to add many more cars to a road that is already impacted. If built, this would put many people at risk trying to flee a fast moving wild fire. We need to be smart with future planning since we live in a fire risk area. I also feel that Martincoit Road to Stone Canyon Rd down to Pomerado Road will be used as a main drag for the high density housing development. It is already busy enough with parents driving their children to and from Painted Rock. Why add an additional 200 plus more cars driving on a residential street? These are residential streets not main streets. The development project road should not be connected to the existing Martincoit Road so they can have a straight shot up Martincoit. Too dangerous for the children crossing the road at Painted Rock and for the residence that live in that area. More chances for accidents to happen on those winding narrow roads. If we are the city in the country - why are we allowing large high density development? Sadly the name “The Farms” does not describe what is really being built in that area. It is misleading to the public. The developer only wins with high density housing. The more units he develops, the more money he makes. The local residence are left with negative impact and safety problems. As our City Planner, I hope you can see through all of this and help prevent such problems. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Thank you!! Have a nice day. Julie Ellis 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 3:27 PMTo:Karen OgdenSubject:Re: The Farm in Poway - ViewsHi Ms. Ogden, thank you for your comments. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environment impact report. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Thanks, David De Vries Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2019, at 5:09 AM, Karen Ogden <kogden@icloud.com> wrote: We are in favor of the proposal project, The Farm in Poway. Our organization, SOLE Effects, would be interested in utilizing the event space for our leadership meetings, as it would benefit our youth and families in Poway. Thank you - Karen and Kevin Ogden Karen Ogden Retired Teacher, PUSD 29 Years Cofounder, CEO SOLE Effects www.soleeffects.com 858-382-9052 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2019 3:22 PMTo:Karen OgdenSubject:RE: The Farm in Poway - ViewsThanks to you both, related to pickle-ball tournaments and events in the Barn, my understanding is this would be up to the HOA for the club and the social portion of the development to determine events once they’re in operation. There certainly wouldn’t be anything restricting tournaments and educational events in the zoning. I know meeting rooms are proposed that could accommodate these events. I will let the developer, Kevin McNamara, and his team know of you interest in these matters. Thanks again for the feedback. See you tomorrow. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Karen Ogden <kogden@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 8:06 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: Re: The Farm in Poway - Views Thanks David - Thanks for opening this up to questions - I do have a few: We were thrilled to see 16 Pickleball courts on the plans! My husband and I are avid players and drive to Encinitas 3-4 times a week to play. We were wondering if there would be opportunities for tournaments to be held there - I have to say, it could be very profitable if there were which could also help out any retail & wine/beer gardens. Bobby Riggs is an awesome club which might be a great model direction is needed there. Also, we have a non-profit which City of Poway has been supporting, www.soleeffects.com. We train and mentor college students to equip 9th graders with interpersonal and life skills. We would love to host special events (parent education meetings, trainings for our college students/advisors, etc.) in the barn and get this new community involved, as it’s a multi-generational mentoring program, impacting our youth. We think it could be an incredible place to bring our community together for a common good. Would it be possible to consider having small conference rooms to hold meetings for organizations? Thanks for your time and we look forward to meeting you on Thursday evening, Karen & Kevin Ogden Karen Ogden Retired Teacher, PUSD 29 Years Cofounder, CEO SOLE Effects 2 www.soleeffects.com 858-382-9052 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead On May 20, 2019, at 3:27 PM, David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> wrote: Hi Ms. Ogden, thank you for your comments. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environment impact report. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Thanks, David De Vries Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2019, at 5:09 AM, Karen Ogden <kogden@icloud.com> wrote: We are in favor of the proposal project, The Farm in Poway. Our organization, SOLE Effects, would be interested in utilizing the event space for our leadership meetings, as it would benefit our youth and families in Poway. Thank you - Karen and Kevin Ogden Karen Ogden Retired Teacher, PUSD 29 Years Cofounder, CEO SOLE Effects www.soleeffects.com 858-382-9052 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 12:21 PMTo:Katharine QiuSubject:The Farm NOP 6-9-19 (3)Thank you Katharine for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Katharine Qiu <katharineqiu@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 4:26 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Cc: Katharine Qiu <katharineqiu@sbcglobal.net> Subject: response to public scoping re The Farm in Poway Dear David, Thank you for soliciting feedback from Poway residents. Below are my concerns and suggestions relating to some of the issues and risks observed. Issue/risk 1 Native trees will be cut/removed indiscriminately in the current proposal and during housing development Suggestion 1 Must maintain >60% of the current trees and >90% of the native trees in The Farm in Poway. Reason 1 We enjoy hearing birds singing and small animals playing today in StoneRidge neighborhood and across the city of Poway because we preserve nature. There are many trees on this 117 acres of property that are at risk of being destroyed without property developers being given certain limits. This is a property development project everyone in and outside of Poway watching: how we, the residents of Poway, live up to our good reputation and strong culture of preservation: "a city in the countryside". What will the countryside look like without nightingales singing from their beloved trees? Issue/risk 2 No proper definition of easement between current residential area and the new housing/trail/parking/driveway development area Suggestion 2 Easement restrictions need to be applied and mandated to prevent scope creeping during development Reason 2 Developers will always wish to build more than what they are given space for (not necessary a fault). Without mandating easement and restrictions, disputes and legal actions can follow. 2 Issue/risk 3 Cheap barbwire fence ruin current residents' natural environment Suggestion 3 Requirement to remove the current temporally fences once the Farm in Poway property is developed Reason 3 We've moved to and lived in this neighborhood years ago to enjoy a natural and upscale environment, not come to witness a third world country scene of cheaply fenced property. Thank you for your considerations. Katharine 17218 Cloudcroft Drive, Poway, CA 92064 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 12:16 PMTo:Keith SatoSubject:RE: The Farm NOP Comments 6-9-19 (1)Thanks Ms. Sato, we will add your comments below to your previous comments. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 12:08 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: Re: The Farm NOP Comments 6-9-19 (1) Jill Sato On Monday, June 10, 2019, 11:52:48 AM PDT, David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> wrote: Ok, thanks, can I have your name for the record? Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org 2 From: Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 9:19 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: Re: The Farm NOP Comments 6-9-19 (1) Thank you for replying back. I am actually Keith's wife and the one who wrote the e-mail. I wanted to add that the surrounding homes of Poway High School knew, when they bought their homes, that the marching band would be playing--unlike building a concert venue in StoneRidge, where homes have been for over 40 years. On Monday, June 10, 2019, 8:42:45 AM PDT, David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> wrote: Thank you Mr. Sato for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org 3 From: Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 8:14 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: StoneRidge We are very concerned about having a concert venue on the StoneRidge property. We can hear the Poway marching band practicing at Poway High School. Having concerts right in our backyard would be awful! Please consider all the homeowners in the area. No one wants to hear music so loud and close to their homes. 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 11:57 AMTo:Ken&ErinSubject:The Farm NOP 6-10-19 (2) Thank you Mr. and Ms. Sakaguchi for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Ken&Erin <wedgestang@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 8:58 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: The Farm at Poway EIR Mr De Vries My family lives on Cloudcroft Drive in the Stoneridge area. As part of the EIR to approve "The Farm at Poway" on the old golf course, we noticed that traffic was going to be evaluated. We would like to request that a traffic signal be considered at the intersection of Cloudcroft Drive and Espola Road. There is already enough traffic on Espola Road that there is a need for a light. With the new project, there will be even more traffic in this area. It is difficult (and dangerous) to turn from Cloudcroft Drive onto Espola at both morning rush hour and evening rush hour as can be seen by an increase in accidents at that intersection. It also appears from the map we received of the new construction that some of the new roads in "The Farm" might connect to existing roads within the community further adding to the traffic. There is also no safe place to cross the street from Green Valley to the trail along Espola Road (which many people do). The only crosswalks are at Martincoit and Old Coach Road which is quite a distance. We request a new traffic signal be evaluated to increase safety for autos as well as pedestrians. Thank you Ken and Erin Sakaguchi 17023 Cloudcroft Drive Poway 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 4:22 PMTo:WELCOM CENTER,* MIDDLEBROOKCc:Daniel WelteSubject:Re: Response to Notice of Preparation/EIR Letter of 5/10/19, The Farm in PowayHi Mr. Middlebrook, thank you for your comments. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environment impact report. Regarding weed abatement and vandalism, I have CCed Dan Welte, our code compliance officer. He will give you an update this week on the actions taken and in progress regarding these issues. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Thanks, David De Vries Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2019, at 1:12 PM, WELCOM CENTER,* MIDDLEBROOK <rmiddlebrook@comcast.net> wrote: David, my name is Mark Middlebrook (17229 Saint Andrews Drive, Poway) and I am responding with questions to your letter (Notice of Preparation/EIR) dated 5/10/19, The Farm in Poway. As an individual homeowner, I am not sure whether my questions directly fit within you request as to the "scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statuatory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project.", but I will ask them in hopes that my voice as a homeowner who is directly impacted by this proposed project be heard. My questions specifically relate to two issues to be evaluated in the EIR, aesthetics and noise. Before I ask my questions I would like to share some background. My house/lot and those of my immediate neighbors has for over 40 years enjoyed the "aesthetic" of facing the serene expanse of being on the fairway, water pond & waterfall, and putting green of the 9th hole of the golf course. While I fully understand that the golf course closed and my neighbors and I are powerless to change that outcome, we are the only houses surrounding the old course to be confronted with a parking lot and street as our immediate view (our new "aesthetic") with this proposed plan. We all went to the previous community input meeting at the elementary school in Green Valley and, at the request of the developer, gave them hours of input. We were told they would go back and make adjustment to the proposed plan but from what I see nothing has changed. So my questions are: 2 --Can the project be downsized, requiring less parking so that the one parking area and street south and west of the tennis courts (the only parking area/street in the entire project that veres from the internal core of the project) does not disrupt the aesthetics previously enjoyed by ALL houses/lots that surround (immediately adjacent to) the old golf course? With the exception of our seven or eight homes none of the rest of the homes surrounding the old golf course are made to look out at a parking lot/street. --How will the noise of new parking lots/streets and automobiles coming and going, and people gathering and talking outside of their parked cars directly adjacent to homes surrounding the old golf course be addressed? --I keep reading about the promise to "have a 100 foot buffer on three sides" of the project (see article on front page of Poway News Chieftan, 5/16/19). Does that mean that any noise buffering wall bordering a parking lot/street would be at least 100 feet away from the edge of my (and my neighbors) property line? --Last question (and not related to EIR), my neighbors and I understand that the property owner must "maintain" the property. What does that mean according to the City of Poway? I can drive south on I-15 and see the old closed down golf course on the west side of Carmel Mtn Road and for weeks now the grass/tall weeds has be mowed. I know it is not being watered but at least it is "maintained". The old Stoneridge golf course is an absolute mess, with weeds taller than I am. I have heard something to the effect that the owner is waiting for the weeds to "die off" before mowing them, but why is he allowed to wait. This is a completely different "maintenance" standard than what I see elsewhere. Meanwhile, there are almost nightly vandals ransacking the old club house, busting out windows and wreacking havoc. I have many times considered calling 911 to report this activity and stopped short of doing so. The mailman encouraged me to do so and I did one recent night and the sheriff never bothered to come. I am not writing to bitch and moan but what happens when some vandals set fire to the clubhouse or surrounding area. Those weeds are going to burn like hell and fire will spread. The last thing my neighbors and I want are for our homes to burn down because the City of Poway did not require the property owner of the old golf course to "maintain" the property. I thank you for the opportunity to submit my input. Sincerely, Mark Middlebrook (homeowner, Poway) 2 --Can the project be downsized, requiring less parking so that the one parking area and street south and west of the tennis courts (the only parking area/street in the entire project that veres from the internal core of the project) does not disrupt the aesthetics previously enjoyed by ALL houses/lots that surround (immediately adjacent to) the old golf course? With the exception of our seven or eight homes none of the rest of the homes surrounding the old golf course are made to look out at a parking lot/street. --How will the noise of new parking lots/streets and automobiles coming and going, and people gathering and talking outside of their parked cars directly adjacent to homes surrounding the old golf course be addressed? --I keep reading about the promise to "have a 100 foot buffer on three sides" of the project (see article on front page of Poway News Chieftan, 5/16/19). Does that mean that any noise buffering wall bordering a parking lot/street would be at least 100 feet away from the edge of my (and my neighbors) property line? --Last question (and not related to EIR), my neighbors and I understand that the property owner must "maintain" the property. What does that mean according to the City of Poway? I can drive south on I-15 and see the old closed down golf course on the west side of Carmel Mtn Road and for weeks now the grass/tall weeds has be mowed. I know it is not being watered but at least it is "maintained". The old Stoneridge golf course is an absolute mess, with weeds taller than I am. I have heard something to the effect that the owner is waiting for the weeds to "die off" before mowing them, but why is he allowed to wait. This is a completely different "maintenance" standard than what I see elsewhere. Meanwhile, there are almost nightly vandals ransacking the old club house, busting out windows and wreacking havoc. I have many times considered calling 911 to report this activity and stopped short of doing so. The mailman encouraged me to do so and I did one recent night and the sheriff never bothered to come. I am not writing to bitch and moan but what happens when some vandals set fire to the clubhouse or surrounding area. Those weeds are going to burn like hell and fire will spread. The last thing my neighbors and I want are for our homes to burn down because the City of Poway did not require the property owner of the old golf course to "maintain" the property. I thank you for the opportunity to submit my input. Sincerely, Mark Middlebrook (homeowner, Poway) 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2019 3:59 PMTo:cherylroddy@gmail.comSubject:RE: Stoneridge Country Club EIR issuesThank you for your comments. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environment impact report. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Cheryl Roddy <cherylroddy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 3:54 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: Stoneridge Country Club EIR issues Dear Mr. DeVries: The Poway Chieftain advises that you should be contacted concerning issues to be included in the Environmental Impact Report for the Stoneridge Country Club land. Our primary concern is that the developers propose the permanent elimination of open space zoned for recreation. Our next concerns are noise created by construction, traffic, and the increased population density, increased traffic on Espola Road, increased demand for water, especially in view of the water rationing that the community has previously endured, diminished air quality due to construction and increased population, the generation of increased greenhouses gases, and the burdening of local schools by an increased population. Thank you. Michael and Cheryl Roddy 17759 Valle Verde Rd, Poway, CA 92064 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2019 10:47 AMTo:Kevin McNamara; erin.mckinley@colliers.com; Asha Bleier; Carey Fernandes; Joe HarrisonSubject:FW: Email to Mayor re StoneRidge (The Farm)Fyi, I’m not responding related to the eir. Sent to Mayor Vaus only. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Bob Manis Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 10:35 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: FW: Email to Mayor re StoneRidge (The Farm) From: Nancy O'Donnell <no_donnell@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:58 AM To: Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org> Subject: The Farm in Poway Dear Mayor Vaus, My house is right next to Stone Ridge Country Club so I am very excited about the plans for The Farm in Poway. But, I do have a few concerns and recommendations. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass the vote on November 2020 due to the number of homes on the property. If the 34 cottage lots in Area E could be removed and there be a high end YMCA with an indoor and outdoor swimming pool, workout center, childcare, indoor basketball courts, it would surely grab the attention and approval of the neighboring community. A perfect example is the Maryland Farms YMCA in Brentwood, TN. Maryland Farms YMCA The YMCA we belonged to in Chandler, AZ was FREE for active 2 duty military and my nephew in San Diego is able to go to any YMCA for FREE because he has cerebral palsy. These extra benefits that the YMCA provides will raise more community support! Another idea, what about using Area E to put in a City of Poway Library and extension of the Poway Adult School? Yesterday, my 9-year-old son asked me to teach him hot to play basketball. And, I couldn't think of 1 public basketball court I could take him to that was less than 20 minutes away from my house. The Principal at Chaparral Elementary said almost every grade in the school is full. If you are to add 160 homes, where are the children going to go to school? The only other solution would to make certain areas of The Farm to be 55 and older homes. I am grateful for all your hard work and love of Poway. I hope these suggestions will be helpful and I look forward to the progress. Thank you, Nancy 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:00 PMTo:Peter R. BuerkiSubject:RE: Comment re: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGOn behalf of Mayor Vaus and myself, thank you for your comments Dr. Buerki. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Peter R. Buerki <pbuerki@twc.com> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2019 2:46 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>; Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org> Subject: Comment re: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Dear Mr. DeVries, Dear Mayor Vaus, This letter is in response to your NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING issued May 10, 2019. I am the owner of the property at 17141 Cloudcroft Drive, Poway, CA 92064 that is adjacent to the former Stone Ridge golf course and planned development of The Farm in Poway (referred to as “The Farm” below). Like other homeowners, I am concerned about the number of residential units being planned on the property, which will considerably increase traffic on Espola, increase the burden on existing escape routes in case of fire, and noise level to existing properties. I have the following comments / suggestions in terms of issues, mitigating measures, and feasible alternatives, and I believe that the implementation of these items will increase the likelihood that the proposal will be pass the vote of November 2020: 1. I strongly support the idea suggested by one of my neighbors to replace some or all of the residential units in area E by a YMCA or similar not-for-profit facility (i.e., not a for-profit fitness club). The nearest YMCA is in Ranch Penasquitos, which is too far away to take advantage of their offerings. For example, we do not have an indoor or outdoor swimming pool nearby that is open to the public. I am also in favor of alternative use proposals such as a City of Poway Library branch or an extension of the Poway Adult School in area E. 2. I anticipate that the public facilities planned on The Farm will generate considerably more noise than the former golf course, particularly in the evenings that will be an nuisance for the surrounding homeowners. Therefore, as a mitigating measure I propose an enforced quiet time/curfew of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. on weekends for all public facilities on The Farm. 2 3. The traffic on Espola is already quit heavy during rush hour, as it is the only artery providing access of North Poway to Interstate 15. The planned construction of 160 residential units will generate a lot more traffic that will all sooner or later flow into Espola Road. This will lead to increase backlogs, which will be a particular affect Cloudcroft Drive. Cloudcroft Drive is the only side street of Espola that does not have a traffic light. Thus I propose that as a mitigating measure, a 3-way traffic light (or alternatively a roundabout) is installed on the intersection of Cloudcroft Drive and Espola Road that provides preferential treatment for cars entering Espola from Cloudcroft and vice versa. 4. To further mitigate the increased traffic on Espola, I propose that all traffic lights from I15 to Lake Poway Road be synchronized and a “Green Wave” implemented. 5. In our first meeting with the developer in our community, I raised the concern that the increased number of residents served by Espola will clog up the escape route for all residents living upstream of The Farm in case of wildfires. The developer mentioned about the possibility of sheltering in place. However, I do not see any shelters for residents of The Farm and surrounding residents in the project. I therefore propose the implementation of one or several underground shelters big enough to shelter at least 2,000 people in case of wildfires or other natural disasters. Thank you. I appreciate your time and consideration of these proposals to be included in the EIR. Sincerely, Peter R. Buerki, Ph.D. 17141 Cloudcroft Drive Poway, CA 92064 pbuerki@twc.com 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:48 AMTo:Phil MaiorcaCc:Councilmembers; Bob Manis; Chris HazeltineSubject:RE: Memo of May 10,2019 on StoneRidgeThanks Mr. Maiorca, these are not adopted zones by the City of Poway; these are new zones proposed in the Draft Specific Plan for “The Farm in Poway” project . The project will likely be reviewed by the City Council in Winter or early Spring 2020. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:38 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Cc: Councilmembers <Councilmembers@poway.org> Subject: RE: Memo of May 10,2019 on StoneRidge Mr. De Vries: Thank you for your prompt response. However, you did not answer my question. I am extremely familiar with use of Prop FF , as I explained in the correspondence. your explanation , being accurate, added nothing to my knowledge base. What and Where did these “new: zones” [ OS-C;R-T;R-C;R-G; R-D AND R-] referenced in the EIR Notice come from? Regards, Phil Maiorca 858-602-6819 From: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:58 AM To: Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com> Cc: Bob Manis <BManis@poway.org>; Chris Hazeltine <CHazeltine@poway.org>; Councilmembers <Councilmembers@poway.org> Subject: RE: Memo of May 10,2019 on StoneRidge 2 Hi Mr. Maiorca, this is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environment impact report. For your reference, a Prop FF City-wide voter approval is required for this project to be approved. The developer’s goal is to have the project on the November 2020 ballot. The developer has requested that the City Council consider the project for approval prior to the Prop FF vote which is why the EIR is being prepared. The project will likely be reviewed by the City Council in Winter or early Spring 2020. A 500 foot radius public notice to property owners and occupants will be mailed prior to the hearing date including notices to interested parties and stakeholders and a public notice in the Chieftan. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:35 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>; Councilmembers <Councilmembers@poway.org> Subject: Memo of May 10,2019 on StoneRidge Mr. De Vries: I have live and owned homes in Poway since 1977. I have been involved in all things Zoning: Measure A, all other Prop FFs and keep a very close “eye” on the Zoning of Poway. I don’t know if this was an oversight, but if it was, it is pretty bad: Where in the hell is: OS-C;R-T;R-C;R-G; R-D AND R-M ON ANY OFFICIAL POWAY ZONING MAP? My understanding of Poway Zoning and the simplicity, OS Open Space[ Hills etc.] OS-R Open Space :Single Family Houses about perimeter RC-Condos RE-x: x= number of homes per acre. [x can be <1 for Horse Areas or Open Land.] 3 So , it seems you are allowing “The Farms Group” to create these new Zones: Only the Council could perform that change and they would notify the public. Again, I hope this was an oversight. Thanks for your time Regards, Phil Maiorca 858-602-6819 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 12:24 PMTo:Phil MaiorcaCc:'Green Valley Civic Association'Subject:The Farm NOP 6-8-19 (1) Thank you Mr. Maiorca for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com> Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2019 10:14 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Cc: 'Green Valley Civic Association' <president@gvca.info> Subject: Input on Traffic Process for EIR-Farms Project INPUT FOR EIR REPORT: “FARMS PROJECT”  In measuring Traffic effects, it is necessary to not only Count Car-Trips PER DAY but more importantly, Count Car-Trips PER HOUR OF DAY. This is due to the fact that Traffic is dependent upon the vast majority of Vehicles in the hours of heavy transportation needs. These times occur for only 4-5 hour [School/Job Transport.]. Measuring only Trips per day [ 24 hours] DILUTES THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC IMPACT by a factor of 5-6. These finding should be projected upon the probable traffic WITHIN the proposed Development, as well, given the roads proposal versus units. 2 Thank you for the opportunity for input. Phil Maiorca 17172 Tam-O-Shanter Dr. 858-602-6819 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 12:14 PMTo:ralschbach@powayusd.comCc:rlittle@powayusd.com; mkimphelps@powayusd.com; caosborne@powayusd.com; brusso@powayusd.comSubject:The Farm NOP 6-10-19 (3)Attachments:The Farm in Poway.pdf; PUSD_SFNAReport_2018_FINAL.pdfThank you for the comments attached. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Alschbach, Rheia <ralschbach@powayusd.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 8:56 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Cc: Little, Ronald <rlittle@powayusd.com>; Phelps, Marian <mkimphelps@powayusd.com>; Osborne, Carol <caosborne@powayusd.com>; Russo, Brigitte <brusso@powayusd.com> Subject: The Farm in Poway - EIR Good Morning Mr. De Vries, The School District has reviewed the Initial Study prepared for The Farm in Poway. We agree with the findings that the project’s “impacts are considered potentially significant,” and would like to ensure enrollment impact is fully analyzed in the preparation of the EIR. We have prepared the attached response in reference to proposed project and the possible impact on the school boundaries for the specific area. We appreciated the opportunity to respond and look forward to working with you and your environmental consultant as needed. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. Thanks, Rheia Alschbach 2 Assistant Director of Planning Poway Unified School District 15250 Avenue of Science San Diego, CA 92128 858-679-2570 Ext. 2447 (office) The Poway Unified School District (PUSD) is an equal opportunity employer/program and is committed to an active Nondiscrimination Program. PUSD does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ethnic group identification, ancestry, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identification, gender expression, mental or physical disability. For more information, please contact the Associate Superintendent, Personnel Support Services, Poway Unified School District, 15250 Avenue of Science, San Diego, CA 92128-3406. Telephone: 858- 521-2800. 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 10, 2019 1:08 PMTo:user587274@aol.comSubject:The Farm NOP 6-7-19 (5) Thank you Mr. Carpe for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org -----Original Message----- From: user587274@aol.com <user587274@aol.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 4:58 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: the Farm Can you consider putting a vineyard in the areas adjacent to the Chateaus? Richard Carpe 17802 Valle De Lobo Drive Poway, CA 92064 (949) 887-2605 Sent from my iPhone 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 6:11 PMTo:massmans@sbcglobal.netCc:patrowean@aol.comSubject:FW: The EIR process as affected by Poway Prop FFAttachments:City Council 3.docx; Title 14 CEQA.docx; PROBLEMS WITH PLAN AS DISTRIBUTED.docxThank you for your comments Mr. Massman. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Pursuant to CEQA, the EIR will propose reasonable alternatives to the project and the EIR will be reviewed and considered by the City Council. The ballot language is at the discretion of the developer, but my understanding is the description of the project proposal is not expected to include alternatives. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Rudy Massman <massmans@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2019 8:42 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Cc: Pat Rowean <patrowean@aol.com> Subject: The EIR process as affected by Poway Prop FF Mr Devries: The attached memo includes a copy of the memo Delivered to the City Manager on May 21. The theme is based on CEQA, which you are undoubtedly well versed in. But in this case it makes the point that this EIR should provide opportunity for alternatives to be voted upon by the Voting Public, and the ballot prepared by the city should provide more than a vote on the plan or a Vote no. In 2017, the Prop FF vote on the would be developers plan left the land use unchanged. This time a vote on alternatives mlght at least change the zoning to a Poway Zone which would allow housing. A vote only on the plan or no, could leave the zxoning unchanged again. While you have no need to respond to me, I would appreciate your evaluation of these comments. There also an attachment based on the plan materials which show "Private Roads" on the graphics, and calls out 16 foot width for the roads ;in the written material. It also calls for crushed rock paving. These roads would lead to the home owners building to the edge of the road, and blocking future widening to Poway road standards. Dissatisfaction with roads would ultimately lead to calls for the City to take over an inadequate road system. Thanks for the opportunity to comment Rudy Massman 2 ._. .._ _.. _._ _ To: Members, Poway City Council Subject: City of Poway Preparation for City-Wide Prop FF Vote on Rezoning the Property now known as Stoneridge. The City of Poway is Lead Agency for preparation of an (E I R) which must describe reasonable alternatives for a project on the Stoneridge property. Because of Prop FF the Voters of Poway are “The Decision Makers” whose vote is required to change zoning of the property. If alternatives are not properly reviewed in the EIR, they cannot be placed on the ballot. If the ballot does not include reasonable alternatives the Voters decision would be limited. Voters must be provided with alternatives on the ballot. If an objective of the Poway City Council is to provide more housing that should be in a clearly written statement of objectives for the project. (CEQA, Art 9, Sect, 15124), and the public must have the opportunity to vote on the alternatives. This is a request for the Poway City Council to provide an EIR that evaluates 3 or more zoning alternatives These could be: 1. Zoning to allow The project of the would- be Stoneridge developer, 2. Zoning allowing for a Poway residential Zone of homes and public streets similar to those in the perimeter subdivision, Valle Verde Country Club Estates. 3. Null, no change. Testimony before the City Council might raise other alternatives. To SUMMARIZE: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) calls for ”The lead Agency to develop a reasonable range of alternatives in the EIR and will aid the DECISION MAKERS……”(Art 9, Sect15121) In this case prop FF makes the POWAY VOTING PUBLIC the DECISION MAKERS. Their options will be limited to what the Council places on the ballot. In 2020. The ballot should provide at least three good alternatives for the public to evaluate. The ability to have a choice between alternatives in the 2020 election starts with the development of the EIR followed by the City Council including good alternatives on the ballot. Thank you. R J Massman, Home Owner Valle Verde Country Club Estates May 21, 2019 Title 14. California Code of Regulations Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports Sections 15120 to 15132 15120. General (a) Environmental Impact Reports shall contain the information outlined in this article, but the format of the document may be varied. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state where in the document each element is discussed. (b) The EIR may be prepared as a separate document, as part of a general plan, or as part of a project report. If prepared as a part of the project report, it must still contain one separate and distinguishable section providing either analysis of all the subjects required in an EIR or, as a minimum, a table showing where each of the subjects is discussed. When the Lead Agency is a state agency, the EIRshall be included as part of the regular project report if such a report is used in the agency's existing review and budgetary process. (c) Draft EIRs shall contain the information required by Sections 15122 through 15131. Final EIRsshall contain the same information and the subjects described in Section 15132. (d) No document prepared pursuant to this article that is available for public examination shall include a "trade secret" as defined in Section 6254.7 of the Government Code, information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information that is subject to the disclosure restrictions of Section 6254 of the Government Code. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21100, 21105 and 21160, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section provides general information on the EIR document. The document may be prepared in a wide variety of formats so long as the essential elements of information are included. In order to promote public understanding of the document, the Guidelines require that when the required elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document must include a statement as to where each element is discussed. Subsection (b) is also designed to allow Lead Agencies flexibility in preparing the document. This section provides that the EIR may be a separate document by itself, or the EIR may be included within another document. Where the EIR is included within another document, the EIR must be a distinguishable section of that larger document. The flexibility allowed by this section enables Lead Agencies to achieve efficiencies in different situations. For example, where a Local Agency Formation Commission has prepared a large document analyzing the effects of a proposed annexation, the LAFCO may reduce its cost by including the EIRwithin the larger document. The decision in Russian Hill Improvement Association v. Board of Permit Appeals, (1974) 44 Cal. App. 3d 158 ruled that the EIR must be a separate, distinguishable document rather than merely a collection of reports prepared for some other purpose. This section allows agencies to combine the EIR with other documents so long as the EIR is a separate identifiable entity that would meet the standards of the Russian Hill decision. Subsection (c) highlights the differences in contents for draft EIRs and final EIRs. The Guidelines refer so often to draft or final EIRs that the contents should be identified in the introductory section in the article on EIR contents. Subsection (d) clarifies that limitations on the disclosure of ìtrade secretsî and archaeological sites established by state law outside of CEQA also apply to environmental documents. Limiting disclosure of archaeological sites and sacred lands is particularly important in order to reduce the chances that they might be damaged or destroyed by collectors. 15121. Informational Document (a) An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency. (b) While the information in the EIR does not control the agency's ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings under Section 15091 and if necessary by making a statement of overriding consideration under Section 15093. (c) The information in an EIR may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's action on the project if its decision is later challenged in court. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21061, Public Resources Code; Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors, (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 817. Discussion: This section describes the fundamental role played by the EIR in CEQA. This section makes the point that the EIR provides information to assist the agency in making decisions on the project but does not control the agency's exercise of discretion. 15122. Table of Contents or Index An EIR shall contain at least a table of contents or an index to assist readers in finding the analysis of different subjects and issues. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21061, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section identifies the statutory requirement for an EIR to contain either a table of contents or an index. The requirement is included here in the article on EIR contents in the interest of clarity. 15123. Summary (a) An EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences. The language of the summary should be a clear and simple as reasonably practical. (b) The summary shall identify: (1) Each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; (2) Areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public; and (3) Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. (c) The summary should normally not exceed 15 pages. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21061, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section identifies the statutory requirement for an EIR to contain a summary. The section then provides additional regulatory requirements for the summary. This section requires the summary to focus on the major areas of importance to decision-makers and to use clear, simple language to promote understanding. The section suggests a 15-page limit to the summary. 15124. Project Description The description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. (a) The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a detailed map, preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map. (b) A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.. (c) A general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals if any and supporting public service facilities. (d) A statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR. (1) This statement shall include, to the extent that the information is known to the Lead Agency, (A) A list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making, and (B) A list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project. (C) A list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies. To the fullest extent possible, the lead agency should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and consultation requirements. (2) If a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA should be listed, preferably in the order in which they will occur. On request, the Office of Planning and Research will provide assistance in identifying state permits for a project. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21080.3, 21080.4, 21165, 21166, and 21167.2, Public Resources Code; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. Discussion: This section requires the EIR to describe the proposed project in a way that will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision-makers. Although the statute contains no express requirement for an EIR to contain a project description, the statutory points of analysis need to be supplemented with a project description for the analysis to make sense. This section is a codification of the ruling in County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, cited in the note. There the court noted that an accurate description of the project has been required by case law interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act. The state court of appeal declared that an accurate, stable, finite project description is an essential element of an informative and legally sufficient EIR under CEQA. Subsection (b) emphasizes the importance of a clearly written statement of objectives. Compatibility with project objectives is one of the criteria for selecting a reasonable range of project alternatives. Clear project objectives simplify the selection process by providing a standard against which to measure possible alternatives. Subsection (d) calls for a brief statement of how the Lead Agency and any Responsible Agencies will use the EIR in their approval or permitting processes. This is necessary to make the EIR fit the Lead Agency concept which requires all permitting agencies to use the same EIR. In addition, it encourages the lead agency to consult with other agencies and to integrate CEQA review with other related environmental reviews. This advances Public Resources Code section 21003 which provides that, to the extent possible, CEQA is to be applied concurrently with other review processes. PROBLEMS WITH PLAN AS DISTRIBUTED Roads are private, 16 feet wide, surfaced with granular material This means no street parking, maintenance not provided for, Future concerns after homeowners block the area outside athe road making it impossible to widen them to standards like 40 foot road on 60 foot rights of. Desire of owners to have City take over roads. Inadequate legal dedicated road right of way Plan does not provide for alternatives, but EIR must. Cloudcroft Court used as privae road connector 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:Asha BleierSent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 5:11 PMTo:Joe HarrisonSubject:FW: The Farm in Poway Asha R. Bleier, AICP, LEED AP BD+C DUDEK T: 760.479.4858 | C: 858.699.4453 -----Original Message----- From: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 12:48 PM To: sdflyer@twc.com Cc: kdflyer@twc.com Subject: RE: The Farm in Poway This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environment impact report. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org -----Original Message----- From: sdflyer@twc.com <sdflyer@twc.com> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 4:18 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Cc: sdflyer@twc.com; kdflyer@twc.com Subject: The Farm in Poway Dear Mr. De Vries - Regarding your letter of May 10, 2019, concerning " The Farm in Poway ". My wife and I are both adamantly against this proposal for various detrimental environmental reasons. It will reduce our quality of life, increase air and noise pollution, and have a negative effect on City of Poway traffic congestion, water usage, and most any other issue one can think of. Your letter does not address, as it may be premature, the issue of requiring a city-wide vote for approval (?) Regards 2 Steven and Kathleen Davis 17468 Tam O Shanter Drive 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:46 AMTo:Asha Bleier; Joe Harrison; Carey Fernandes; Kevin McNamara; erin.mckinley@colliers.comSubject:FW: The Farm in Poway Pre-Development Meeting to Discuss ConcernsFyi only, since it wasn’t addressed to any city official, I won’t include it as a responsive request. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Bob Manis Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:54 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: FW: The Farm in Poway Pre-Development Meeting to Discuss Concerns This was BC’d to CM Leonard From: Steven Beaver <smbeaver@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:30 PM To: Steven Beaver <smbeaver@outlook.com> Subject: The Farm in Poway Pre-Development Meeting to Discuss Concerns Greetings Neighbors: If you recall, I was keeping you posted on the development on StoneRidge Country Club a few years ago. It has come to my attention that this Thursday night there is a meeting about a new development for the construction of about 150 homes (not positive this is the correct number). This meeting will be to discuss neighbors concerns prior to an Environmental Impact Report is produced. This will be a great opportunity to let them know of our traffic concerns this development will create. https://www.gvca.info/stoneridge I would like you to attend this meeting and let them know that our traffic concerns needs to be addressed for us to approve the ballot measure in 2020. 2 The meeting will be Thursday, May 23, 2019, 6:30pm to 8:00pm, City of Poway City Council Chambers, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway. I know it is a couple of hours on a weeknight, but if the development goes through without us voicing our concerns, it will be too late to deal with this issue. Respectfully, Steven p.s. if you want your name removed from this list, please reply back to let me know. You will be removed. Steven Beaver cell : 619 778 7054 | fax : 858 618 3873 : smbeaver@outlook.com 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Friday, May 24, 2019 11:48 AMTo:Steven BeaverSubject:RE: EIR for "The Farm in Poway"thank you for your comments and suggestions. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Steven Beaver <smbeaver@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 7:29 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: EIR for "The Farm in Poway" Attached is your Written Comment Form. If you are unable to use this form for any reason, please let me know how best to send in my comments. Regards, Steven Beaver Steven Beaver cell : 619 778 7054 | fax : 858 618 3873 : smbeaver@outlook.com 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Thursday, May 30, 2019 8:24 AMTo:Fisher’s EmailCc:Daniel WelteSubject:RE: EIRThank you for your comments. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Regarding your questions, Dan Welte, our Code Compliance officer, will contact you regarding the weed abatement on the property, he is cc'd and his # is 858.668.4664. Regarding the basins, see the links below. Regarding planting and maintenance of the agricultural fields, the developer is saying the new HOA will contract with a farmer to plant and maintain them. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Stormwater Basins explained: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrcs.usda.gov%2FInternet%2FFSE_DOCUMENTS%2Fnrcs141p2_017822.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cjharrison%40dudek.com%7C041f568bc1804d0cec2208d6e512daf0%7C82b8a27d5b4c4dbeba360ee75edffcac%7C1%7C0%7C636948266498045600&sdata=PXYHzFPwvC8HweG0FCL1DNvY0tZu3Nq93Yw8%2B5Z8se0%3D&reserved=0 Sample picture of a Stormwater Basin: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.asla-sandiego.org%2Fstormwater-management-creative-low-impact-development-program-april-30%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjharrison%40dudek.com%7C041f568bc1804d0cec2208d6e512daf0%7C82b8a27d5b4c4dbeba360ee75edffcac%7C1%7C0%7C636948266498045600&sdata=X5My6MYjq9lhLUaVGNDZW4MCZGt5Ac7BJhF94SU5IUY%3D&reserved=0 Other resources related to Stormwater Basins and why they are required: https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fsandiego%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjharrison%40dudek.com%7C041f568bc1804d0cec2208d6e512daf0%7C82b8a27d5b4c4dbeba360ee75edffcac%7C1%7C0%7C636948266498045600&sdata=yb1sqjyNzpwsoxNWVk2Bzhn%2BoABcJO4T40b9WLwa40w%3D&reserved=0 Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org -----Original Message----- From: Fisher’s Email <tobteri@san.rr.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 6:29 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: EIR 2 My comments are the following: 1. Who is responsible for maintaining the weeds that have grown on the old Stoneridge course. It is a fire hazard as is. We feel the city needs to Pressure the owner to get this done at once. We live on the 18th. Fairway Close to the old clubhouse, the weeds are taller then the fence now. When I called recently I was told after the rain, in June. Does that still hold? 2. What is the purpose for the basins? 3.who will plant and maintain the agricultural gardens? Thank you in advance, Teri Fisher 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 5:17 PMTo:Bob and Terry PraySubject:Re: Stoneridge "Farms"Thank you for your comments. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environment impact report. We have reached out to your hoa property manager with a request to discuss the project on June 6th or 7th. The goal of this meeting is to address the questions of the members of the Hoa and to discuss potential trail easements over your private streets. This project is proposed to be private with no cost to surrounding properties or the green valley association and will be maintained privately, but several portions will be open to the public including the trail system. After construction, complaints would be received by the Hoa of the new development and to our code compliance division. If you’re not able to attend this meeting, please let me know and I’ll make sure to get back to you to answer these questions in more detail. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Thanks, David De Vries Sent from my iPhone > On May 17, 2019, at 7:45 AM, Bob and Terry Pray <bob.terry.pray@gmail.com> wrote: > > We live in the Stoneridge Chateaus Condos and are not able to attend the May 23 meeting due to conflicts but would like some questions answered , hoping you can provide us with those answers. > > Listing below are the concerns: > > 1. Does this developer have fencing plans in place around the entire Stoneridge Chateaus Condo Complex? How will our property be protected from the general public using our property as a thoroughfare or cut off to get to the trails? > > 2. Our complex streets are private and not public streets, we maintain them. How will you make sure cars don't infiltrate and park on our private streets that are clearly marked as NO PARKING ALLOWED for residents or visitors, to gain access to the Trails. There doesn't appear to have ample parking for Trail visitors and the streets will be the only option. > > 3. Once the development is completed, whose responsibility is it to maintain and pay for the upkeep of the property and specials functions? > > 4. Are street lights going to be installed along the streets? > > 5. Who do we as current homeowners contact if a problem arises with any of these issues, especially if our private property is used as a public thoroughfare? > 2 > Thank you for you response. These issues will directly affect us as long time Poway homeowners and need to be answered so we can make our own decisions on the future of our personal homeownership here. > > Terry and Bob Pray The Farm Public Scoping Comments Late Comments 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Thursday, July 11, 2019 10:36 AMTo:alan wilsonSubject:Re: Proposed redevelopment of former Stoneridge CC Hi Mr. Wilson, these comments have been received and will be considered as a part of the project proposal. I’ve forwarded this to Public Works for review. Thanks for your feedback. Thanks, David De Vries Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 10, 2019, at 8:07 PM, alan wilson <awmai@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Hello, Mr. De Vries: > > I am a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee that was formed in order to make recommendations to Poway's City Council regarding the future of its Landscape Maintenance Districts 83-1 and 86-1. Our committee has been working for nearly a year on this issue and we’re making some progress! However, at this time, I am writing to you only in my capacity as a concerned Poway resident. > > This is to request that, as a condition of Final Map approval for the proposed development of the former Stoneridge golf course property, the City of Poway will require the developer to execute an annexation agreement that would place the entire subdivision into Landscape Maintenance District 86-1. I think doing so would make a lot of sense. > > The District's boundaries along the north side of Espola Road nearly adjoin the Stoneridge property on both its east and west sides, so Stoneridge is a gaping "hole in the District’s donut” along that portion of Espola. Homeowners within the District are already paying small annual LMD assessments in their property tax bills to maintain the enhanced landscape and hardscape improvements that already exist along the Espola Road frontage in the immediate vicinity of Stoneridge. Future homeowners within the proposed Stoneridge development would also enjoy the special benefits associated with those improvements (that our Committee is striving to improve to an even greater extent). > > The “windows” to the proposed development from both directions will be enhanced, which will benefit the project. From the developer’s perspective, annexation into the District shouldn't be a burden because, presumably, the LMD assessments would be triggered only upon the sale of homes to individual homebuyers. That process is exactly how LMD 86-1 was formed originally. > > Needless to say, the extra LMD assessment revenue would go a long way in helping to return the District to financial health, but it’s also a matter of fairness. Why should 140+- new homeowners enjoy the benefits of the enhanced landscaping along Espola Road without contributing to their maintenance, like the rest of us have been doing for over 30 years? > > I mentioned this idea to Mike Obermiller and Eric Heidemann earlier, and they seemed receptive. Both are intimately familiar with the LMD issue, as I’m sure you know. > 2 > I hope you'll give some serious consideration to my request, Mr. De Vries. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. > > > Best, > > > Alan M. Wilson, MAI > > > > > > 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 8:12 AMTo:Karen OgdenSubject:RE: The Farm in PowayFollow Up Flag:Flag for follow upFlag Status:FlaggedThank you Karen for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Karen Ogden <kogden@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 10:10 AM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: The Farm in Poway Hi David - I hope your council meetings have been positive regarding “The Farm”. We could not be more excited about this development even though we know it will bring more traffic to our area. The pros definitely outweigh the cons for us, especially when it comes to Pickleball courts! We drive to Encinitas 4-5 times per week to play, so thinking it could be in our “backyard” would be amazing! I do want to share with you one potential concern that neighbors could have - it is a very loud game as sound of the ball hitting the surface/paddles can travel long distances. There are many very disgruntled neighbors at next to Bobby Riggs Paddle & Racket as it is changing from tennis to Pickleball. In fact, I spoke with a neighbor and she said that the value of their home has gone down - they even hear it inside their home with their doors/windows closed. Again, we would LOVE to have Pickleball courts, but just wanted to give you this heads-up - maybe changing the location to a more centralized area away from homes? Just a thought. Thanks for all you’re doing and look forward to hearing more about “The Farm”, Karen 2 Karen Ogden Retired Teacher, PUSD 29 Years Cofounder, CEO SOLE Effects www.soleeffects.com 858-382-9052 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:25 AMTo:Matt ChittleSubject:RE: The Farm in PowayThank you Mr. Chittle for the comments below. I appreciate your input. This is to confirm your comments have been received. These comments will be reviewed and considered as a part of the environmental impact report and forwarded to the developer for consideration. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions and thanks again for your feedback. Thank you, David De Vries, AICP City Planner Development Services City of Poway | 13325 Civic Center Drive | Poway, CA 92064 Phone (858) 668-4604|Fax (858) 668-1211 ddevries@poway.org From: Matt Chittle <matt@chittle.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 8:45 PM To: David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org> Subject: The Farm in Poway Mr. DeVries, I'm aware that we are past the comment period for the letter sent to residents near the proposed "Farm" in Poway, however, I'm certain that there will be much more commentary and many steps before the fate of this property is resolved. My summary comment is that I could not support the proposed development. The name alone is disingenuous. I grew up near farms and each property in the area averaged 10 acres. The density shoehorned into this plan cannot be honestly deemed "farm." Any plan I would consider would have half the number of housing units and twice the volume of open space. In looking at the plan it appears that the open space only exists because it would be impractical to cram more housing in to the remaining space. I don't mind developers making a fair profit from this property but the plan as presented is gluttonous. A huge return on investment could be made with half the density. The previous plan proves it is possible. The first proposal that we voted on was far better than this one and it was defeated soundly. This proposal is an insult and exactly the outcome that the developer who shut down the golf course threatened. He said that the next proposal would be worse and on that he was correct. It makes no difference who is presenting or profiting from the plan, it is clearly worse. Best, Matt Chittle 16937 Cloudcroft Dr. Poway, CA 92064 2 -- Matthew T. Chittle  310.291.5704  matt@chittle.com  www.chittle.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/chittle 1 Joe HarrisonFrom:David De Vries <DDeVries@poway.org>Sent:Thursday, July 11, 2019 2:35 PMTo:Phil MaiorcaCc:Asha Bleier; Carey Fernandes; Joe HarrisonSubject:Re: Scoping Progress of EIR for FARM Project.Thanks Mr. Maiorca, I’m going to have the consultants respond to this. They are cc’d. I really appreciate your positive feedback. Thanks, David De Vries Sent from my iPhone On Jul 10, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com> wrote: David: Firstly, I would like to thank you for your prompt responses, transparency and relevant information which you have given upon my request for information; you are doing a great job in delivering open and honest information exchange. I have two more brief question which I do not want any real in depth answers, simply overviews:  Has the SCOPING portion of the EIR Process determined which Issues/Subjects will be discussed and studied for conclusions?  For example, has ANY Studies been performed on TRAFFIC, since those statistics and results MUST be done when Schools are in session, as that is the environment which is most relevant to an accurate result. Truly Yours, Philip P. Maiorca 17172 Tam-O-Shanter Dr. Poway, CA, 92064 858-602-6819