The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 2 - GPA 05-03/ZOA 05-03 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~ INITIATED BY: Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services DATE: June 21,2005 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 05-03, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 05-03, a Poway Municipal Code Amendment to Title 15; Applicant: City of Poway ABSTRACT At the City Council Workshop of March 3, 2005, after hearing a series of proposed recommended changes to the building and development codes designed to improve fire safety, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the Poway Municipal Code to reduce road and driveway slopes from 25 percent to 20 percent. The additional grading required to comply with the new standard could result in a reduced building pad and/or exceeding the maximum graded area for the parcel as currently permitted by General Plan criteria. As such, the City Council also directed staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment that would change the grading criteria so any additional grading required to meet the 20% slope requirement would not count toward the maximum graded area. The General Plan Amendment would also give the Director of Development Services the ability to approve minor grading that exceeds the maximum graded area when associated with meetinq the new road and driveway slope criteria. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Initial Study was completed based on the request to amend the poway General Plan to modify the criteria that regulates the maximum amount of graded area permitted per lot and amendments to the Poway Municipal Code reducing road and driveway slopes from 25% to 20%. Through the Initial Study, it was determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The approval of a Negative Declaration is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A public hearing notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and copies of the staff report were also sent to John Fitch, Stan Kaminiski and Don Mechling. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council hold first reading of the proposed Ordinance for Zoning Ordinance Amendment 05-03 and a Poway Municipal Code Amendment to Title 15, waive further reading, and continue the public hearing for second reading ofthe Ordinance, and adoption of the proposed Resolution approving GPA 05-03, to Julv 5, 2005. ACTION M:\planningI05reportlgpaIGPA 05-03 Gradinglagn sum.doc 1 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ~'_. -~-- CITY OF POWAY AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Member~ City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana INITIATED BY: Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services Patti Brindle, City Planner ff' Jim Lyon, Senior Planner ~ DATE: June 7,2005 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment (GPA) 05-03 - A City-Initiated General Plan Amendment to the Community Development Element of the General Plan regarding modifications to the maximum graded area standard; Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 05-03, An Ordinance of the City of Poway, California, Amending Section 17.08.170, Property Development Standards - Additional Requirements, of the Poway Municipal Code pertaining to reducing the City's road and driveway slope requirements from 25% to 20%, and Section 15.24.170, Fire Apparatus Access Roads - Specifications, reducing the maximum slope of fire access roadways from 25% to 20%. BACKGROUND In the aftermath of the Cedar Fire, representatives from the Development Services and Safety Services Departments met to evaluate City codes and policies to determine if there was room for improvement. On March 3, 2005, the Development Services and Safety Services Departments presented to the City Council a series of revised fire safety standards intended to minimize the loss of life and property from wildfire. The proposed standards included: . Identification of emergency access routes for the Del Poniente and High Valley areas; . Building Code changes; . Modification to the timing of Weed Abatement; . Revisions to the City's Fire Management Zones; and . Revisions to driveway and road construction standards (steepness and paving requirements). 2 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ':L --.,.".-.'''---.. ..--.-----.---"--.--- Agenda Report June 21,2005 Page 2 After discussing the proposed amendments the City Council gave staff the approval to: . Modify the timing of the weed abatement notices; . Reduce the number and design of the fire management zones from 5 to 2; and . Proceed with a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment associated with reducing the maximum driveway and road slope requirement from 25% to 20% slope. The proposed Ordinance amendments change the City standards that reduce the maximum road and driyeway slope from 25% to 20%. The corresponding General Plan Amendment addresses the additional grading that may be required to achieve the 20% road or driveway slope. FINDINGS General Plan Amendment 05-03 The Community Development Element of the General Plan contains policies and strategies relating to land use deyelopment, including policies and strategies specifically regarding subdivision, site design, and hillside development. The City's current regulations permit road and driyeway slopes up to 25%. The proposed language would amend the Poway Municipal Code to reduce the maximum slope from 25% to 20%. This, in turn, may result in additional grading that may conflict with the maximum graded area allowed, as defined in the Community Design Element of the General Plan. The justification for the proposed General Plan Amendment is based on the fact that development of many of the remaining residential parcels in the City involves hillside lots that present unique challenges for access. Many ofthe existing roads and driveways that proYide access to these parcels, which are typically privately owned and maintained, contain steep grades. Studies have found that heavily loaded fire trucks are often not able to negotiate such steep grades, particularly if the roadway or driveway is narrow and winding. Compression in diesel engines is not always able to provide sufficient torque to start on slopes that exceed 20%. In these situations, if a fire truck must stop mid-slope and lose its momentum, it may not be able to reach its destination without re-starting at the bottom ofthe slope. It is also important to point out that the Federal Motor Vehicle and National Fire Protection Association measure air brake standards at a maximum grade of 20%. It is uncertain if the brakes on heavily loaded vehicles such as fire trucks, moving vans, and trash trucks would be able to hold on grades over 20%. Finally, studies have shown that mechanical pumps on fire trucks are impacted by steeper grades due to location of the interior pick-up tubes within the tanks, resulting in diminished oil circulation and water tank capacities. To make these parcels more accessible to emergency and delivery vehicles, the City Council directed staff to amend the City standards to reduce the maximum road and driveway slope from 25% to 20%. Modifying the standards would result in additional grading. Three approved homes were reviewed and the estimated additional quantities ranged from 3,600 3 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ -_.._.._-~_._----_._---~-~._- -----"~-----~---~_.._-----------_. .._~-----_._-_..._...__.._- -------- Agenda Report June 21, 2005 Page 3 to 11,200 square feet. Under current General Plan policies, the amount of grading is limited based on the average natural slope of the parcel as indicated below: Goal 1 , Policy C - Site Design, Strategy 19 of the Community Design Element 19. The maximum allowable area of the lot that may be graded for driveway, residence and accessory functions is determined by the degree of average natural slope as follows: Slope Graded Area 0- 14.9 Entire lot 15-19.9 50% or 35,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater 20 - 24.9 20% or 25,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater 25 - 44.9 10% or 20,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater 45.0+ "No grading or development permitted and no developable acreage credit given 'Sensitive biological or other environmental constraints may require the application of stricter standards. "Exemptions apply to the High Valley area for slopes in excess of 45% for determining parcel size. (Amended per GPA 93-02C.) To minimize any reduction of the building pad as a result of the additional grading required to comply with the reduced grade standard, staff is proposing that the following language be added to the above General Plan Strategy. The amount of grading permitted above the General Plan standard is limited only to extra material required to construct the road or driveway to a 20% grade. It does not provide the homeowner any additional density. *** Additional grading required to meet the 20% slope road and driveway standard shall not count against the maximum graded area permitted by the above slope/graded area table. To achieve a grading allowance, the applicant will be required to prepare two concept grading plans, one denoting the 25% or less driveway and the other a 20% or less driveway slope. The difference in the amount of graded area between the two concept grading plans would not be counted toward the maximum graded area. If the quantity of material graded to achieve the 20% slope exceeds the maximum graded area for the lot, the Director of Development Services may approve the additional grading. The quantity of material that may exceed the maximum graded area is limited to only the quantity of material necessary to reduce the road or driveway slope from a maximum of 25% to 20%. Zonina Ordinance Amendment 05-03 In addition to amending the General Plan, Sections 15 and 17 of the Poway Municipal Code will need to be changed. 4 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ') Agenda Report June 21,2005 Page 4 Section 17.08.170D of the Poway Municipal Code contains standards for driveway construction. It allows a maximum 25% grade for driveways serving one or two parcels in residential zones. In response to the City Council's direction to reduce road and driveway slopes to 20% to accommodate emergency and delivery vehicles, and based on the aforementioned justification, staff is recommending this section be amended to read as follows (revisions noted in strikeout and bold): D. Driveway Requirements. 1. Each building site shall have a minimum 20-foot-wide vehicular access to a street. 2. Driveway and other concrete or asphalt concrete areas available for parking shall not exceed 50% of the required front yard area. 3. Driveways serving one or two parcels in residential zones shall be constructed subject to the following standards Zones Max. Grade Break* Max. Slope Min. Surfacing Width 0-15% 15-25% RS-3 RS-4 14% ~ Min. 12 feet RS-7 (minimum tangent length -10') 20% *** 6"P.C.C. 6"P.C.C. Max. 30 feet RC RA RS-1 RS-2 ~ Min. 12 feet RR-A 14% 20% *** 2" A.C.** 6"P.C.C. Max. 30 feet RR-B RR-C * Vertical Curve (min. 50 feet long) can be utilized with approval of the City Engineer. ** For slopes between 1 % and 10%, gravel may be used based upon the following specifications: a. The native soil must have a minimum R-value of 50 and minimum sand equivalency of 20. b. Scarify and compact the top 12" of subgrade to 95% relative compaction. Over subgrade, compact the specified amount of Class II base to 95%, based upon the following table: c. Drainage improvements and culverts must be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ --~_.. ---.-.- Agenda Report June 21,2005 Page 5 R-Value Inches of Base 50 6" 60 5" 68 4" 75 3" 80 and over None ... Slopes in excess of 20% may be approved for very limited distances where topographic or geologic constraints prohibit compliance with the standard. In no case shall road and driveway slopes exceed 25%. Modification of the slope standard is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Development Services. Additional grading required to meet the 20% slope road and driveway standard shall not count against the maximum graded area permitted by the above slope/graded area table. To achieve a grading allowance, the applicant will be required to prepare two concept grading plans, one denoting the 25% or less driveway and the other a 20% or less driveway slope. The difference in the amount of graded area between the two concept grading plans would not be counted toward the maximum graded area. If the quantity of material graded to achieve the 20% slope exceeds the maximum graded area for the lot, the Director of Development Services may approve the additional grading. The quantity of material that may exceed the maximum graded area is limited to only the quantity of material necessary to reduce the road or driveway slope from a maximum of 25% to 20%. Section 15.24.170 (Fire Code) of the Poway Municipal Code also references road and driveway slope criteria for fire access roadways. To remain consistent with changes proposed to Section 17, staff is recommending that Section 15.24.170 of the Poway Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: Grade: The gradient for a fire apparatus access roadway shall not exceed 25.0% 20.0%. Grades exceeding 15.0% (incline or decline) shall not be permitted without mitigation. Minimal mitigation shall be the installation of fire sprinkler systems appropriate to the structures and uses served. The Chief may require additional mitigation measures where he deems appropriate. The angle of departure and angle of approach of a fire access roadway shall not exceed the maximum approved by the Chief. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Initial Study was completed based on the request to amend the Poway General Plan to modify the criteria that regulates the maximum amount of graded area permitted per lot and amendments to the Poway Municipal Code reducing road and driveway 6 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # , Agenda Report June 21,2005 Page 6 slopes from 25% to 20%. Through the initial study it was determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts (Attachment C). The approval of a Negative Declaration is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A public hearing notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and copies of the staff report were also sent to John Fitch, Stan Kaminski and Don Mechling. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council hold first reading of the proposed Ordinance for Zoning Ordinance Amendment 05-03 and Poway Municipal Code Amendment 05-01, waive further reading, and continue the public hearing for second reading of the Ordinance, and adoption of the proposed Resolution approving GPA 05-03 to July 5, 2005. Attachments: A. Recommended Ordinance Approving ZOA 05-03 and PMCA 05-01 B. Recommended Resolution Approving GPA 05-03 C. Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study M:\planning\o5reportlgpaIGPA 05-03 Gradinglagn- working draft.doc 7 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ------.--.-.---. .,-----..----- ------_._------~ - ------ ..-- --- ..-- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 05-03 TO AMEND SECTION 17.08.17 OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE (PMCA 05-01) REDUCING THE CITY'S MAXIMUM ROAD AND DRIVEWAY SLOPE REQUIREMENTS FROM 25% TO 20% AND AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.24.170, FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - SPECIFICATIONS REDUCING THE SLOPE OF FIRE ACCESS ROADWAYS FROM 25% TO 20%. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Poway Municipal Code to improve safety standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment would assist emergency medical, fire, and delivery vehicles in gaining safe and timely access to hilltop properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this amendment is consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council has considered the Environmental Initial Study (EIS) and Negative Declaration (ND) for ZOA 05-03 and PMCA 05-01, and public comments received on the EIS and ND. The subject EIS and ND documentation are fully incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant impact on the environment. The City Council hereby approves the Negative Declaration. Section 2: The following Section 17.08.170D of Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: D. Driveway Requirements. 1. Each building site shall have a minimum 20-foot-wide vehicular access to a street. 2. Driveway and other concrete or asphalt concrete areas available for parking shall not exceed 50% of the required front yard area. 3. Driveways serving one or two parcels in residential zones shall be constructed subject to the following standards: 8 of 31 ATTACHMENT A June 21, 2005 Item # ~ - -------------- Ordinance No. Page 2 Zones Max. Grade Break* Max. Min. Surfacing Width Slope 0-15% 15 - 25% RS-3 RS-4 14% Min. 12 feet RS-7 (minimum tangent 20%*** 6" P.C.C. 6" P.C.C. RC length - 10') Max. 30 feet RA RS-1 RS-2 Min. 12 feet RR-A 14% 20%*** 2" A. C..* 6" P.C.C. RR-B Max. 30 feet RR-C * Vertical Curve (min. 50 feet long) can be utilized with approval of the City Engineer. ** For slopes between 1 % and 10%, gravel may be used based upon the following specifications: a. The native soil must have a minimum R-value of 50 and minimum sand equivalency of 20. b. Scarify and compact the top 12" of subgrade to 95% relative compaction. Over subgrade, compact the specified amount of Class II base to 95%, based upon the following table: c. Drainage improvements and culverts must be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. R-Value Inches of Base 50 6" 60 5" 68 4" 75 3" 80 and over None *** Slopes in excess of 20% may be approved for very limited distances where topographic or geologic constraints prohibit compliance with the standard. In no case shall road and driveway slopes exceed 25%. Modification of the slope standard is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Development Services. 9 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ). -~_.._._,._- -. .'-..- ---~- - -..-..- Ordinance No. Page 3 Additional grading required to meet the 20% slope road and driveway standard shall not count against the maximum graded area permitted by the above slope/graded area table. To achieve a grading allowance, the applicant will be required to prepare two concept grading plans, one denoting the 25% or less driveway and the other a 20% or less driveway slope. The difference in the amount of graded area between the two concept grading plans would not be counted toward the maximum graded area. If the quantity of material graded to achieve the 20% slope exceeds the maximum graded area for the lot, the Director of Development Services may approve the additional grading. The quantity of material that may exceed the maximum graded area is limited to only the quantity of material necessary to reduce the road or driveway slope from a maximum of 25% to 20%. Section 3: The following Section 15.24.170 of Title 15 of the Poway Municipal Code Fire apparatus access roads - Specifications are amended to read as follows: S 902.2.2.6 Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roadway shall not exceed 20.0%. Grades exceeding 15.0% (incline or decline) shall not be permitted without mitigation. Minimal mitigation shall be the installation of fire sprinkler systems appropriate to the structures and uses served. The Chief may require additional mitigation measures where he deems appropriate. The angle of departure and angle of approach of a fire access roadway shall not exceed the maximum approved by the Chief. Section 4: This Ordinance shall be codified. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of this passage; and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once with the names and members voting for and against the same in the Poway News Chieftain, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Poway. 10 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # "l. .------..- ----..- ---"----- --_..,'_..._~-- ~ Ordinance No. Page 4 Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway held this 21st day of June 2005, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the 5th day of July 2005, by the following roll call vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: Michael P. Cafagna, Mayor ATTEST: L. Diane Shea, City Clerk M:\planningI05reportlgpaIGPA 05-03 Gradinglord.doc 11 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ')., _._,----~. ~-_.- _._---,._..._---_._._.._._._--_.-._-_._~ -- - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF POWAY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 05-03 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway recognizes that the need may arise to amend the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 65350, et seq., of the California Government Code describes the procedures for amending General Plans; and WHEREAS, on May 10,2005, the City of Poway initiated General Plan Amendment 05-03, which involves excluding from consideration additional graded material required to reduce road and driveway slopes from 25% to 20% from the maximum graded area permitted by the General Plan, and the ability for the City to approve grading in excess of the maximum graded area allowed when necessary to meet the 20% road and driveway slope criteria; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment would assist property owners in meeting the City's 20% slope and driveway criteria without compromising their maximum permitted graded area; and WHEREAS, on June 21,2005, the City of Poway held a properly noticed public hearing in accordance with the California Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: Section 1: An Environmental Initial Study was completed based on the request to amend the Poway General Plan to modify the criteria that regulates the maximum amount of graded area permitted per lot and amendments to the Poway Municipal Code reducing road and driveway slopes from 25% to 20%. Through the initial study it was determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The approval of a Negative Declaration is recommended. Section 2: The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 05-03, amending the Community Development Element (Goal 1 , Policy C - Site Design, Strategy 19) of the City of Poway General Plan to read as follows: 19. The maximum allowable area of the lot that may be graded for driveway, residence and accessory functions is determined by the degree of average natural slope as follows: 12 of 31 ATTACHMENT B June 21, 2005 Item # ~ -.-..--.----.- Resolution No. Page 2 Slope Graded Area 0-14.9 Entire lot 15 - 19.9 50% or 35,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater 20 - 24.9 20% or 25,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater 25 - 44.9 10% or 20,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater 45+ .. No grading or development permitted and no developable acreage credit given . Sensitive biological or other environmental constraints may require the application of stricter standards. .. Exemptions apply to the High Valley area for slopes in excess of 45 percent for determining parcel size. (Amended per GPA 93-02C) ... Additional grading required to meet the 20% slope road and driveway standard shall not count against the maximum graded area permitted by the above slope/graded area table. To achieve a grading allowance, the applicant will be required to prepare two concept grading plans, one denoting the 25% or less driveway and the other a 20% or less driveway slope. The difference in the amount of graded area between the two concept grading plans would not be counted toward the maximum graded area. If the quantity of material graded to achieve the 20% slope exceeds the maximum graded area for the lot, the Director of Development Services may approve the additional grading. The quantity of material that may exceed the maximum graded area is limited to only the quantity of material necessary to reduce the road or driveway slope from a maximum of 25% to 20%. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, this 5th day of July 2005. Michael P. Cafagna, Mayor ATTEST: L. Diane Shea, City Clerk 13 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item# "" --------,- --.-..-.-.-----.------- Resolution No. Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, L. Diane Shea, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution No. , was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of July 2005, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: L. Diane Shea, City Clerk City of Poway M:\planningI05reportlgpaIGPA 05-03 Gradinglres.doc 14 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # ". _..__.~_._-~_... --------,-- ----- _...___ '~'_~~.._. n.___m_"' ........._ MICKEY CAFAGNA, Mayor CITY OF POWAY BOB EMERY, Deputy Mayor MERRILEE BOYACK, CounciImember DON HIGGINSON. Councilmember BETTY REXFORD, Coundlmember CITY OF POWAY NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name and Address of Applicant: City of Poway P.O. Box 789, Poway, CA 92074 2. Project Name: Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment 05-03, Zone Ordinance Amendment 05-03 and Poway Municipal Code Amendment 05-01 3. Brief Description of Project: A City-Initiated General Plan Amendment to the Community Development Element of the General Plan regarding modifications to the maximum graded area standard; Zoning Ordinar:lce Amendment (ZOA) 05-03, An Ordinance of the City of Poway, California, Amending Section 17.08.170, Property Development Standards - Additional Requirements, of the Poway Municipal Code pertaining to reducing the City's road and driveway slope requirements from 25% to 20%, and Poway Municipal Code Amendment 05-01 An Ordinance of the City of Poway, California, Amending Section 15.24.170, Fire Apparatus Access Roads - Specifications, reducing the maximum slope of fire access roadways from 25% to 20%. 4. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway City Council has found that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment and has approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. 5. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is comprised of this form, along with the Environmental Initial Study that includes the Initial Study and Checklist, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program containing the mitigation measures approved for this project. 6. The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final. Contact Person: Jim Lyon Phone: (858) 668 - 4657 Approved by: Date: June 26, 2005 Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services Attachments: Environmental Initial Study , M:\planningI05reportlgpaIGPA 05-03 GradingIND.doc City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789. (858) 668-4400 FAX 668-1205 1 5 t 3P1rinted on Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT C June 21, 2005 Item # ".),. -.--- CITY OF POWAY ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST A. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Initial Study and Checklist, along with information contained in the public record, comprise the environmental documentation for the proposed project as described below, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the information contained herein, and in the public record, the City of Poway has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 05-03, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 05-03, Poway Municipal Code Amendment 05-01, Applicant: City of Poway 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway. CA 92064 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jim Lyon, 858-668-4657 4. Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Poway (same as above) 6. General Plan/Zoning Designation: N/A 7. Description of Project: A City-Initiated General Plan Amendment to the Community Development Element of the General Plan regarding modifications to the maximum graded area standard; Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 05-03, An Ordinance of the City of Poway, California, Amending Section 17.08.170, Property Development Standards - Additional Requirements, of the Poway Municipal Code pertaining to reducing the City's road and driveway slope requirements from 25% to 20%, and Poway Municipal Code Amendment 05-01 An Ordinance of the City of Poway, California, Amending Section 15.24.170, Fire Apparatus Access Roads - Specifications, reducing the maximum slope of fire access roadways from 25% to 20%. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is applicable Citywide. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or participation agreement: None. 16 of 31 June 21, 2005 Item # 1. --..---"-- --..- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 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. D Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service o Geological Problems 0 Energy and Mineral Systems D Water Resources D Aesthetics D Air Quality D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Cultural Resources o Agricultural Resources 0 Noise 0 Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency): The Poway General Plan and a Traffic Study, prepared by VRPA, dated July 9, 2004, were used to evaluate potential project impacts. These reports were used in the preparation of the Environmental Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Poway Development Services Department. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and t8:I a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0 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 D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant D 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, 0 because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or miti ation measures that are im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired. ~~ M,,1320~ Cit 0 ow Date 170f31 2 June21,2005 Item# 1- -"_._... .....--.-...----.--.--- --~- ---.---- _.......~-------_._-_._._..._"..,. EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 C. Checklist ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION I. AESTHETICS. Would the proiect: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic X hiahwav? b. Have a demonstrable negative X aesthetic effect? c. Create liqht or qlare? X II. AGRICULTURAL 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. Would the oroiect: a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to X the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-aaricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson X Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could X result in conversion of farmland to non-aaricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the oroiect: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation 0 the applicable X air Quality plan? 18 of 31 3 June 21, 2005 Item # '1. -.------..-,.-. -~_.~ ------....--.-.-- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X oeople? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the oroiect: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special X 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 X 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 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Glean Water Act (including, but X not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, 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 X resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurserv sites? 19 of 31 4 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ __'_'M. ___._.__...._ --_.,---~-,---_..__._----. ----"--_._---- ----.-.-.-- --------- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X resources, such as a tree oreservation oolicv or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat conservation Plan, Natural Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation olan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Proiect: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 b. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the oroiect: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X effects, including the risk of loss, iniurv or death involvina: i) Rupture 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 X based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Soecial Publication 42. ii) Cause strong seismic ground X shakina? III) Cause seismic-related ground X failure, includina liauefaction? iv) Cause Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion X or the loss of toosoil? 20 of 31 5 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ .--..-.-----. -~~----_.._------ -----...-- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION 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 X in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liauefaction or collaose? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creating substantial risk to life or orooertv? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative X wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disoosal of wastewater? VI I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the oroiect: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through X the routine transport, use, or disoosal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or orooosed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the oublic or the environment? 21 of 31 6 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ -~.._-_..._--, -----_. ~--------_.__._-----_.._-~-_.__._._-- ----.- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within miles of a public X airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workina within the oroiect area? f. For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for X people residing or working in the oroiect area? g. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation olan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires including where wildlands are X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VII I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the oroiect a. Result in an increase in pollutant discharge to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy X metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-' demanding substances, and trash). b. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or X followina construction? c. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated X increased runoff? 22 of 31 7 June 21, 2005 Item # .1 --_..._~"-- .-- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION d. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage X patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? e. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table lever X (e.g. the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level, which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been aranted. f. Result in increased erosion X downstream? g. Project tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an X increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? h. Is the project tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? X Is so, can it exacerbate already sensitive conditions? i. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface X water quality, to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? j. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground water X Quality? k. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water X quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? I. Impact aquatic, wetland, or X riparian habitat? 23 of 31 8 June 21, 2005 Item # 'l... -.- .-.....---.-... ---------.---- ---~---------_._---,--- - - _._.._---_.-.-.-_._._-_._----~------- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 m. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater X drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of oollute runoff? n. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard boundary X or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation mao? o. Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? p. Exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including X flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? q. Cause inundation by seiche, X tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the oroiect: a. Physically divide an established X communitv? b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation olan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the oroiect: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the X region and the residents of the State? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use olan? 24 of 31 9 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ._~_. _'_'__'_u,___,__,__~__"_ ---.--------.------.----.-----.--.---.-----.-...-- ~ ------.-.-.,.---. ..... .""--..-.. EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established X in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other anencies? b. Exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive X ground borne vibration or around borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existinn without the oroiect? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the nroiect? 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 X airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or X working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the nroiect: a. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating X the construction of replacement housina elsewhere? 25 of 31 10 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ -~... --... _._----~----_._--_._------_..._.._- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII.PUBLlC SERVICES. Would the proiect: a. 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 X 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. i. Fire protection? X ii. Police protection? X iii. Schools? X iv. Parks? X v. Other public facilities? X XIV.RECREA TION a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X 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 X recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC/ Would the oroiect: a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a X substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 26 of 31 11 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ---. "-~ -----------~~-~~---_.__.._--_.- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county X congestion management agency for desinnated roads or hiohwavs? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a X change in location that results in substantial safetv risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses le.a., farm eauiomentl? e. Result in inadequate emergency X access? f. Result in inadequate parking X caoacitv? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicvcle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the oroiect: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 27 of 31 12 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ~._--,--_....._-----_._--_._---------_.__.- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 ISSUE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATION e. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served be a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disDosal needs? g. Comply with federal, site and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to 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 X eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminated important examples or 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 X of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effect of probably future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse X effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 28 of 31 13 June 21, 2005 Item # 'l.. ._..~_.._----.. .- --~-_._-------_._------------_.._._-- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the following evaluation. I. AESTHETICS: The proposed General Plan and ordinance amendments propose only text amendments will not cause any direct visual or aesthetic impacts. Compliance with the new 20% road and driveway slope standards may require additional grading. The additional grading could result in potential visual impacts. City ordinances, however, require that cut and fill slopes be landscaped. Landscaping of the cut and fill slopes will reduce potential visual impacts to a level of insignificance. As none of the aforementioned applications propose any site-specific improvements, no visual impacts are anticipated. Individual development projects resulting from the proposed amendments will require separate development applications and environmental analysis. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: As there are no agricultural resources located within the project area, there will be no impacts to any agricultural resource. III. AIR QUALITY: As the project proposes only text amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal they will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing air quality problem. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: As the amendment proposes only to modify the text of the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code no biological resources will be impacted. The proposed ordinance amendments to reduce road and driveway grades from 25% to 20% may result in additional grading, that will in turn, could potentially result in the loss of additional habitat. Mitigation for the loss of native habitat should reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. Individual development projects resulting from the proposed amendments will require separate development applications and environmental analysis. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: As the amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code do not propose site-specific development applications, no impacts to any cultural resource will occur. Depending on the site, subsequent development applications may require an historic or archeological survey as a condition of approval. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: There is no construction proposed with the amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code, so there will be no affect on geology or soils. A soils report and grading plan will be required in association with subsequent development applications. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: There is no construction proposed with the amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code. As such, the proposed project will not create a significant hazard, or expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss. 29 of 31 14 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ~. _"__~'_ ._.._...._________ - - ___ - - __________m_ un _________..._______ EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: As the project requests only text amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code, it will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss or injury due to flooding, cause changes in drainage patterns or flow rates, or interfere with groundwater recharge or supplies. As such, mitigation is not required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The proposed General Plan and Poway Municipal Code Amendments are intended primarily to improve emergency service access to hillside development by reducing road and driveway slopes from 25% to 20 %. The companion amendment address grading issues associated with the reduction in the road grades. As the project requests only text amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code and proposes no site specific development project, the proposed amendments will not conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: There are no known mineral resources within the project area. As the project proposes to change land uses, reduce the width of a segment of Midland Road, and the text of the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code, no impacts to any mineral resource are anticipated. XI. NOISE: As the project does not propose any site-specific development and requests only to amend the text of the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code, it will not expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: As the project does not propose any site-specific development and requests only to amend the text of the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code there will be no impacts on population or the need for additional housing. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: The text amendments to the Poway General Plan and poway Municipal Code will not result in any significant increase in demand on public services as police and fire already service the project area. XIV. RECREATION: There are no site-specific construction projects proposed with the amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code. As such, the proposed project will not impact any recreational resource. XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: As the project does not propose any site-specific development and requests only to amend the text of the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code there will be no impacts on traffic volumes or circulation routes. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: There are no site-specific construction projects proposed with the amendments to the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code. As such, the proposed project will not impact any utility system or create a demand for additional service. XVII. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed Poway Municipal Code amendments call for the reducing in the maximum road and driveway slopes in the City from 25% to 20%. The General Plan Amendment addresses the additional grading that may be required to achieve the 20% grade by not counting the additional grading 30 of 31 15 June 21, 2005 Item # ':L .------- -_.~----_._._-_..__.._---------- EIS and Checklist GPAlZOA 05-03 against the maximum graded area currently permitted by the General Plan. The proposed ordinance amendments to reduce road and driveway grades from 25% to 20% may result in additional grading, that will in turn, could potentially result in the loss of additional habitat. Mitigation will be required for any additional the loss of native habitat. This requirement should reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. 31 of 31 16 June 21, 2005 Item # ').. ---------..-----------...-