Res P-16-10RESOLUTION NO. P -16 -10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 13 -035
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 323 - 010 -26
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Minor Development Review Application
(MDRA) 13 -035, a request to construct a 2,758- square -foot single family residence with
a 528 - square -foot attached garage on a vacant 1 acre lot accessed from the cul-de =sac
of Belvedere Drive, in the Rural Residential C (RR -C) zone. The project also involves
the installation of a septic system to serve the residence and the construction of an
access driveway; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the City Council held a duly advertised public
meeting to receive testimony from the public, both for and against, relative to this
matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway
as follows:
Section 1: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) and a proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) have been prepared for MDRA 13 -035. The City Council has
considered the EIS, MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, and public
comments received on the EIS and MND. The subject EIS and MND 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, that the mitigation measures contained in the EIS
included as Attachment 1 of the attached Exhibit A hereof will mitigate potentially
significant impacts to a less than significant level, and that the MND reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council hereby adopts the
MND and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Resolution as
Attachment 2 of Exhibit A.
Section 2: No habitat covered by the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) is present on the site. There is no wetland habitat on the property or nearby.
The project site contains disturbed ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees because the
lot has been previously disturbed through weed abatement activities. However, the
neighboring property to the south contains Coastal Sage Scrub which is a habitat type
known to support the nesting of the California gnatcatcher. In accordance with
Condition H of the Poway HCP Incidental Take Permit to protect active California
gnatcatcher nests, biological monitoring will be required from February 15 through July
1 during grading activities on the project site to prevent harassment of nesting birds due
to grading noise and vibrations.
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 2
Section 3: A Cultural Resources Survey report, dated June 9, 2014, was prepared by
Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA) on the property and for the proposal. It was
reported that two archaeological sites had been recorded within quarter -mile of the
project site (SDI -4428 and SDI -15993 Locus 1). In addition one cultural resource (SDI -
15993 Locus 2) was identified within the project area during the survey. BFSA found
that the site exhibits no features or unique elements and is composed of lithic
production waste only.
As a result, the limited variety of artifacts, limited subsurface deposit, impacts from the
surrounding construction roadways, weed abatement, and general erosion, the portion
of the site recorded within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) is not significant or
important in accordance with the significance criteria thresholds provided in CEQA.
As part of the current project design, Site SDI -15993 will be directly impacted by the
proposed project. BFSA did not classify the portion of site SDI -15993 Locus 2 within
the project impact area as significant under CEQA and did not call for site - specific
mitigation measures.
Given that prior disturbances with the project APE might mask archaeological deposits
and the moderate frequency of archaeological deposits in and around the proposed
project, a potential does exist that prehistoric deposits may exist associated with the
occupation of SDI -15993 Locus 2, Therefore, BFSA recommends that a cultural
resources monitoring program be implemented during grading of the project.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway
at a regular meeting this 5th day of April 2016.
D
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
LincTa K. Hascup, CMC, Interim Olty Clerk
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Linda K. Hascup, CIVIC, Interim City Clerk, of the City of Poway, do hereby
certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. P -16 -10 was duly
adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of
April 2016, and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES: LEONARD, GROSCH, MULLIN, CUNNINGHAM, VAUS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
DISQUALIFIED: NONE
�'C.
- sa� 1_" � I-P
Linda K. Hascup, CIVIC, Interini City Clerk
City of Poway
STP'V 1,. \1A Us, Mayor CITY OF POWAY R
JIM CUNNINGHAM, Depury Mayor
DAME GROSCH, Coundmember
BARRY 1130NARD, Councilmcmber
JOHN MULLIN, Councilmcmber
Exhibit A
CITY OF POWAY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Name and Address of Applicant: Jonathan Webster, 2445 Brant Street #511, San Diego,
CA 92101
2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Minor Development
Review Application 13 -035: A request to construct a 2,758 - sqaure -foot, single- family residence with a 528 -
square -foot attached garage on a vacant 1 -acre lot accessed from the cul -de -sac of Belvedere Drive, in the
Rural Residential C (RR -C) zone. The project also involves the installation of a septic system to serve the
residence and the construction of an access driveway.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Oda Audish, Associate Planner Phone: (858) 668 -4661
Approved by:
Robert J. Manis
Director of Development Services
Attachments:
1. Environmental Initial Study
2. Mitigation Monitoring Program
Date:
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074 -0789
www.poway.org
EXHIBIT B
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF POWAY
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND CHECKLIST
A. INTRODUCTION
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 5
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 Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Environmental Assessment and Minor Development Review Application 13 -035
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway, Development Services
13325 Civic Center Drive Poway CA 92064
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oda Audish, Associate Planner, (858) 668 -4669
4. Project Location: The terminus of Belvedere Drive, Assessor Parcel Number 323 - 010 -26
Poway, CA 92064
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jonathan Webster, 2445 Brant Street #511.
San Diego, CA 92101
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
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).
The project involves the construction of a 2 758- sgaure -foot single - family residence with a
528 - square -foot attached garage on a vacant 1 -acre lot accessed from the cul -de -sac of
Belvedere Drive, in the Rural Residential C (RR -C) zone The project also involves the
installation of a septic system to serve the residence and the construction of an access
driveway.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding development includes similar large lot low
density residential development.
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement): None
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 6
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
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.
❑ Land Use and Planning
❑ Trans portation/Traffic
❑
Public Services
❑ Population and Housing
®
Biological Resource
❑
Utilities and Service
❑ Geology /Soils
❑
Mineral Resources
Systems
❑ Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Hazards /Hazardous Materials
❑
Aesthetics
❑ Air Quality
❑
Noise
®
Cultural Resources
❑ Agricultural /Forestry
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Recreation
Resources
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
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 as revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent and /or mitigation has been agreed to. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an LO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed 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
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 mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
Oda Audish - City of Poway
2
Date
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 7
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
C. EIS and Checklist
LESS THAN
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic hiahwav?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its X
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or X
nighttime views in the area?
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 X
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? X
3
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 8
LESS THAN
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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 X
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 X
of forest land to non - forest land?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of farmland X
to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non - forest use?
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
X
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
X
quality violation?
c. 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
X
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
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?
X
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 9
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined X
in Section 15064.5?
c. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource X
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique X
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a. Expose people or structures to 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 X
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
5
LESS THAN
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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
X
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 Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
X
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 resident
X
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
X
reservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
X
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined X
in Section 15064.5?
c. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource X
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique X
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a. Expose people or structures to 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 X
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
5
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 10
LESS THAN
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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?
X
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including
X
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
X
topsoil?
d. 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
X
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
X
(1994), creating substantial risk to life or
property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
X
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a X
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing X
the emissions of qreenhouse oases?
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, X
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
A
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 11
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
LESS THAN
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
substances or waste within one - quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which 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
X
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
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
X
safety hazard for people residing or working
within the project area
f. For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
X
people res ding or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
X
response plan or emergency evacuation Ian?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
X
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
— — "�{ �y;'ro -i,tN
y'7 p �,
NI
rr?M :
,' °"••,
0
0 0 0 n 3
"`''e''�5•".
^ 4 , s �g 1.
,�;'7' ; .` i
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b. 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 (e.g., the production
X
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 granted.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
X
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 12
LESS THAN
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or X
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide X
substantial additional sources of pollute
runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard X
boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect X
flood flows?
i. Exposing people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
a. Physically divide an established community?
X
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, local coastal X
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community X
conservation plan.
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value X
to the region and the residents of the State?
L.*]
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 13
LESS THAN
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific X
plan or other land use plan?
a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise X
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive ground borne vibration or ground X
borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X
existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X
above levels existing without the project?
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 X
public use 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 X
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
a. Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, X
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housina elsewhere?
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
wz
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 14
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
10
LESS THAN
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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.
i. Fire protection?
X
ii. Police protection?
X
iii. Schools?
X
iv. Parks?
X
v. Other public facilities?
X
"°•;SY.rd •` "S',`'t' ''.; #. 't:.; . "«
�: ,! } w "Dtrn'��I;.W
r,
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
X
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
X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
® ® r w' �.: yb�; r .�
.0
RI
k "(bn`t •',' «' r
"y:
0 0 0
t' r",
.:rr•',;`,
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation, including mass transit and non-
motorized travel, and relevant components of
X
the circulation system, including, but not
limited to, intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to, level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
X
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
10
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 15
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
11
LESS THAN
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
X
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g.: sharp curves or dangerous
X
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.: farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle or
X
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
X
Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
X
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
X
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e. Result in the 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
X
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
X
g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X
11
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 16
LESS THAN
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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 eliminate
important examples or the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulative considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project X
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? X
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the
following evaluation.
AESTHETICS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant
adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area. While the 1 -acre hillside property
is currently undeveloped, development of the project site with a single - family
residence and access driveway will be consistent with the existing residential
development on the adjacent properties.
b. No Impact. The project will not have significant impact on scenic resources
within a state scenic highway. Therefore no impact would occur.
C. No Impact, See I.a. above.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes the development of a
single - family home and access driveway in an area that is surrounded by
existing residential development. The proposed development of the site could
result in an incremental increase in ambient light levels resulting from the new
single - family residence. This impact however, would be minimal, and thus
considered less than significant.
12
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 17
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY-RESOURCES:
a. No Impact. According to the California Important Farmland Finders Map
prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, the subject property is mapped as other land, and urban
land and built up land, which is surrounded on all sides by urban development
and not suitable for livestock and agricultural related use. The site is not
designated as prime, unique or farmland of statewide importance. The project
therefore will have no impact on the agricultural resources in the area.
b. No Impact. The zoning designation of the subject property is RR -C. Both
residential and horticultural uses are permitted within the RR -C zone. In
addition to the construction of a new residence, the property could also be used
for horticultural purposes. The project will not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
C. No Impact. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
The zoning designation of the subject property is zoned RR -C. Both residential
and horticultural uses are permitted within this zone. If approved, the project
site could be developed with a residence; and conceivably could also be used
for horticultural purposes. No impact would occur.
d. No Impact. The project would not result in the conversion of any forest land to
non - forest use, so no impact would occur.
e. No Impact. The project would not directly impact forest lands, nor introduce
new elements into the landscape that would contribute to future conversion of
agricultural use to non - agricultural use or forest land to non - forest use. The
subject property is undeveloped. There is no evidence that the subject property
has ever been used for agricultural purposes and presently no agricultural
activity is occurring on the site. The proposed project will result in the
development of a single - family residence. No impact would occur.
III. AIR QUALITY:
a. No Impact. The City of Poway is part of the San Diego Air Basin and air
quality in the area is administered by the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District (APCD). An air quality management plan (AQMP) describes air,
pollution control strategies to be taken by a City, County or region classified as
a non - attainment area to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The
main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with the
requirements of federal and state air quality standards, and to coordinate
regional and local governmental agencies to achieve air quality improvement
goals. A San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan — 1994 (jointly
developed by the Air Pollution Control District and the San Diego Association of
Governments - SANDAL) exists for the San Diego area and provides strategies
for pollution control to improve air quality in the region. Land use plans and
build out projections of the General Plans of jurisdictions within the San Diego
area were considered in establishing the strategies of the Regional Air Quality
Strategies Plan. The Poway General Plan includes strategies that are directed
toward reducing air emissions through land use patterns, transportation
planning, regional agency cooperation, energy conservation, and construction.
13
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 18
The project is consistent with the Poway General Plan strategies, in that this
type of proposed residential development was envisioned on property
designated for low- density residential development, like the site. Therefore the
project is also consistent with the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategies
Plan.
The project will not have a significant adverse long -term impact on air quality in
the area. In the short term during construction, the project will implement dust
control measures. Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality
standard.
b. No Impact. See Ill.a above.
C. No Impact. See Ill.a above.
d. No Impact. See Ill.a above.
e. No Impact. See Ill.a above.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
a. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project involves the
construction of a residence and an access driveway and the installation of a
septic system on a vacant residential lot that in has been previously disturbed
through weed abatement activities and contains disturbed ruderal vegetation
and ornamental trees. There is no wetland habitat or on the property or nearby.
The project is not located within the Mitigation Area, the Biological Core and
Linkage Area (BCLA) or any Proposed Resource Protection Area (PRPA) of the
Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The site is also not within
the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey area.
The neighboring property to the south contains Coastal Sage Scrub which is a
habitat type known to support the nesting of the California gnatcatcher. In
accordance with Condition H of the Poway HCP Incidental Take Permit, a take
of active California gnatcatcher nests, which includes harassment of the bird
due to grading noise and vibrations from February 15 through July 1, is not
permitted.
The following project mitigation measures will address the identified potential
significant impacts to biological resources to a level that would be less than
significant.
Mitigation
In accordance with Condition H of the Poway HCP Incidental Take Permit, a
take of active California gnatcatcher nests, which includes harassment of the
bird due to grading noise and vibrations from February 15 through July 1, is not
permitted. The project site is located within 500 feet of coastal sage scrub
habitat (CSS). Therefore, grading during this time frame will only be permitted
subject to the following conditions having been met to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services:
The applicant is hereby advised that, during grading, if active nests are
found within 500 feet of the grading, the grading activity shall be
stopped until such time as mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the
14
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 19
City and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) are
implemented. There is no guarantee that grading will be allowed to
resume during nesting season.
2. Before issuance of a Clearing /Grading Permit, if grading is to occur
between February 15 and July 1, the applicant shall provide to the
Planning Division a letter from a qualified biologist retained by the
applicant, with a scope of work for a CSS habitat and Gnatcatcher
Survey, and a report for the area to be graded and CSS habitat areas
within 500 feet of such area. The biologist shall contact the USFWS to
determine the appropriate survey methodology. The purpose of the
survey is to determine if any active gnatcatcher nests are located in the
area to be graded, or in CSS habitat within 500 feet of such area. To be
considered qualified, the biologist must provide the City with a copy of a
valid Gnatcatcher Recovery Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ( USFWS).
3. The scope of work shall explain the survey methodology for the
biological survey and the proposed gnatcatcher nest monitoring
activities during the clearing /grading operation. Should the report show,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, that
gnatcatcher nests are not present within the area to be graded /cleared,
or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, approval may
be granted to commence clearing /grading within the gnatcatcher
nesting season from February 15 through July 1.
4. If gnatcatchers are nesting within the area to be graded /cleared, or
within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, no grading will
be allowed during this time.
5. The biologist must attend the City's pre- construction meeting for the
project and must be present on -site during all clearing /grading activities
to monitor that the clearing/ grading activities stay within the designated
limits. During this period, the biologist shall also monitor and survey the
habitat, on a daily basis, within the area to be cleared /graded and any
habitat within 500 feet of said area for any evidence that a gnatcatcher
nest(s) exists or is being built. Weekly monitoring summaries shall be
submitted to the Planning Division. Should evidence of a gnatcatcher
nest(s) be discovered, the grading operation shall cease in that area
and be directed away from the gnatcatcher nest(s) to a location greater
than 500 feet away from the nest(s).
6. If grading is required to stop due to the presence of active nests, the
applicant shall be required to provide erosion control, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. This paragraph must be included as a note on the
cover sheet of the clearing /grading plan.
7. The biologist shall provide the City with written confirmation that the
limits of clearing/ grading are in accordance with the project's Biological
Resource Assessment.
8. Upon completion of the clearing /grading activities, the applicant's
biologist shall submit to the Director of Development Services a
biological monitoring report summarizing the daily observations of the
biologist, including whether any gnatcatchers or evidence of active
gnatcatcher nests were present during clearing and grading activities
within the area and any habitat within 500 feet of said area.
15
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 20
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
b. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. See IV.a. above.
C. No Impact. The project site does not support any wetlands, nor would the
project propose any activity that could result in substantially adverse effects on
wetlands. No impact would occur.
d. No Impact. The project site is not located within any reported local or regional
wildlife corridors. Given the developed nature of the surrounding properties, the
project site would not serve any meaningful wildlife corridor function, nor would
it be likely to provide a native wildlife nursery site. No impact would occur.
e. Less than Significant Impact. The project will not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation ordinance.
Eight ornamental and fruit trees are located on the northerly portion of the
project site. The applicant is not planning to remove any of the trees.
However, based on proximity to the proposed leach field on site, a California
pepper tree and an olive tree have a potential to be impacted to some degree.
Eleven Afghan pines are located off -site just west of the access easement that
connects the Belvedere Drive cul -de -sac and the project site. The access
easement currently contains a dirt driveway. As a condition of approval, this
driveway needs to be widened and paved. The applicant is not planning to
remove any of these trees. However, based on an arborist report prepared by
Ralph Stone and Associates dated April 29, 2015, the eleven Afghan pines
along the access easement are not expected to survive the construction of a
retaining wall that is needed in order to construct required driveway
improvements.
None of the potentially impacted trees are of a species native to Poway and are
not protected by the City of Poway's Urban Forestry Ordinance (Poway
Municipal Code (PMC) Title 12, Chapter 12.32 Urban Forestry, Section
12.32.110 Tree Removal Permit). There is no requirement to replace the trees
per City Codes should the trees be removed.
In accordance with the City's Tree Removal Ordinance, tree removals shall be
conducted in compliance with California State codes and the Federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918.
No Impact. The Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan /Natural Community
Conservation Plan (HCP /NCCP) serves as the planning document for the
protection and management of biologically effective, interconnected open
spaces in the City of Poway. The Poway Subarea HCP /NCCP, which was
adopted in April 1996, is consistent with the regional and sub - regional planning
efforts within San Diego County pursuant to the State of California's NCCP act
of 1991. The project is not located within the Poway Subarea HCP Mitigation
Area. No impact would occur.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
a. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The subject property is
mapped in the Poway General Plan as being in area where there is moderate
potential for cultural resources to exist. The site was surveyed and a records
16
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 21
search was completed by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA). A Cultural
Resources Survey report dated June 9, 2014 was prepared for the project.
The survey findings are on file in the office of the Poway Development Services
Department, Planning Division. It was reported that two archaeological sites
had been recorded within quarter -mile of the project site (SDI -4428 and SDI -
15993 Locus 1). In addition one cultural resource (SDI -15993 Locus 2) was
identified within the project area during the survey.
A Phase I extended inspection of the property was conducted which included
an archaeological surface and subsurface inspection to evaluate the
presence /absence of any cultural remains related to the prehistoric occupation
of SDI -15993 and record any cultural resources present within the project area.
BFSA conducted 24 surface collection points within the property which yielded
a total of 79 pieces of debitage and 10 subsurface shovel test pits which
yielded 14 pieces of debitage.
BFSA found that the site exhibits no features or unique elements and is
composed of lithic production waste only. Given the limited nature of the
subsurface deposit, it is unlikely that further excavation would produce
additional data that would identify the site as significant. The testing of Site
SDI -15993 has exhausted the research potential of this site. As a result, the
limited variety of artifacts, limited subsurface deposit, impacts from the
surrounding construction roadways, weed abatement, and general erosion, the
portion of the site recorded within the Area of Potential Effect is not significant
or important in accordance with the significance criteria thresholds provided in
CEQA.
As part of the current project design, Site SDI -15993 will be directly impacted
by the proposed project. BFSA did not classify the portion of site SDI -15993
Locus 2 within the project impact area as significant under CEQA and did not
call for site - specific mitigation measures.
Given that prior disturbances with the project APE might mask archaeological
deposits and the moderate frequency of archaeological deposits in and around
the proposed project, a potential does exist that prehistoric deposits may exist
associated with the occupation of SDI - 15,993 Locus 2. Therefore, BFSA
recommends that a cultural resources monitoring program be implemented
during grading of the project.
Mitigation
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be implemented to
monitor ground- disturbing activities by a properly credentialed archeological
monitor and a recognized Native American monitor to ensure that if buried
cultural materials, either historic or pre- historic, are present, they will be
handled in a timely and proper manner:
The applicant shall provide written verification that a certified
archeological monitor and recognized Native American monitor have
been retained to implement a monitoring program. This verification shall
17
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 22
be presented in a letter from the project archeologist to the Planning
Division of the City of Poway.
2. The certified archeological monitor and the Native American monitor
shall attend the pre - grading meeting with the contractors to explain and
coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program.
3. During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the
archeological monitor(s) and Native American monitor shall be on -site,
as determined by the project archeologist, to perform periodic
inspections of the excavations. The frequency of inspections will
depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the
presence and abundance of artifacts and features.
4. Isolates and clearly non - significant deposits will be minimally
documented in the field so the monitored grading can proceed.
5. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are
discovered, the archeological monitor shall have the authority to divert
or temporarily halt ground- disturbance operation in the area of discovery
to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources.
The project archeologist shall contact the Planning Division of the City of
Poway at the time of discovery. The project archeologist, in consultation
with the City of Poway, shall determine the significance of the
discovered resources. Concurrence from the City of Poway Director of
Development Services must be obtained with the evaluation before
ground disturbing activities will be allowed to resume in the affected
area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data
Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the' project
archeologist and approved by the City of Poway before being carried out
using professional archeological methods. If any human bones are
discovered, the county coroner and City of Poway shall be contacted. In
the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American
origin, the most likely descendant, as identified by the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be contacted in order to determine proper
treatment and disposition of the remains.
6. Before ground disturbing activities are allowed to resume in the affected
area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using
professional archeological methods. The archeological monitor(s) shall
determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate
artifact sample for analysis.
7. All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program
shall be processed and curated according to the current professional
repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be
transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility (one
meeting the Curation of Federally Owned and Administered
Archeological Collections standard — 36CFR79), to be accompanied by
payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
8. A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the
artifact and research data within the research context shall be
completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Poway
Director of Development Services prior to the issuance of any building
permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archeological Site
Forms.
18
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 23
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
b. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. See V.a.
C. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. See V.a.
d. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. See V.a.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
a i. No Impact. No known active faults traverse the project site. Murphy Canyon
Fault is the nearest main southern California fault, located approximately, 13
miles southwest of the project site. Three major fault systems within the project
vicinity include the Elsinore, San Jacinto and Rose Canyon faults. The active
Elsinore fault trends northwest and is about 19 miles northeast of Poway. The
San Jacinto fault is also an active northwest- trending fault about 45 miles
northeast of Poway. The Rose Canyon fault is located about 16 to 20 miles
west of Poway in the Pacific Ocean and is considered potentially active. There
is potential for some local damage in the event of a major earthquake along
one of these fault systems, which could result in significant impacts to project
facilities. While the potential for on -site rupture cannot be completely
discounted (e.g.: unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the site), the
likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due to the absence of
known faulting within or adjacent to the site. As a result, no impacts related to
fault rupture will occur.
a.ii. No Impact. The project site is located in seismically active southern California
and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking.
Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of
known active and potentially active faults in the region, including several
unnamed faults, larger faults such as Murphy Canyon Fault, and major fault
systems such as Elsinore, San Jacinto and Rose Canyon. An earthquake
along any of these known active fault zones could result in severe ground
shaking and consequently cause injury and /or property damage in the project
vicinity. The proposed residence will be required to be designed and
constructed pursuant to existing guidelines such as the City of Poway's
Grading Ordinance and Building Code). No impact would occur.
a.iii. No Impact. The project site is not located in an area that has potential for
liquefaction. Thus, no impacts from seismically related ground failure would
occur.
a. iv. No Impact. There are no known landslides on the property. Therefore no
impacts should occur from landslides.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. Grading activities will comply with City
requirements, including implementation of standard erosion control measures,
and will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts are
less than significant.
C. No Impact. See VI.a.iv above.
d. No Impact. See VI.a.iv above.
e. Less Than Significant Impact. The new home will be serviced by a private
septic system. A conceptual septic system has been designed for the project
and it is anticipated that the soil on the site is adequate for the system to
function properly. Therefore the project should have no septic system related
impact to soil on the site.
w
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 24
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), allow solar
radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from
escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both
natural processes and human activities; and the accumulation of GHGs in the
atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess
of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the
enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed
"global warming. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, states that climate change and global warming is
generally the result of greenhouse gases caused by carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions. CO2 emissions come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels
(vehicle emissions) and energy consumption. AB 32 mandates that California
reduce its' annual greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) aligns regional land use, transportation, housing, and
greenhouse gas reduction planning efforts. SB 375 requires Air Resources
Boards to set regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for
passenger vehicles and light trucks for 2020 and 2035 (GC § 65080(b)(2)(A)).
The targets are for the 18 Municipal Planning Organizations (MPOs) in
California.
In response to, and in compliance with, the State measure the San Diego
Association of Governments ( SANDAG), as San Diego's MPO, adopted
emission reduction targets of 7 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035. While
SANDAG has published the proposed target levels, the standards for
measuring the significance of a project's cumulative contribution to global
climate change, nor a consistent method to achieve these reductions, have not
been determined.
The state of California's Climate Change Scoping Plan aims to reduce state
and local GHG emissions by primarily targeting the largest emitters of GHGs:
transportation, including emissions from vehicles, and energy sectors. The
project involves the construction of one residence. Item XVI.a below concludes
that the project is not anticipated to result in substantial numbers of new vehicle
trips on local roads. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Less Than Significant Impact. See Vll.a above
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
a. No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 the subject
property is not listed on the ,current listing of the Hazardous Materials
Establishments and Sites as prepared by the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health. The project is the construction of a single - family home
and the use will not involve hazardous materials. No transport, storage or use
of hazardous materials beyond that which typically occurs with a single - family
residential use will occur. No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. As the project does not propose the use of hazardous materials, it
will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment. No impact would occur.
20
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 25
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
C. No Impact. As the project does not propose the use of hazardous materials, it
will not emit hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials into the
environment. No impact would occur.
d. No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, as such would
not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impact would
occur.
e. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport. The closest airports to the project site are
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of
the project site and Gillespie Field, located approximately 10 miles southeast of
the project site. Thus the project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur. No impact
would occur.
f. No Impact. See Item Vlll.e above. The project site is not within the vicinity of
a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur.
g. No Impact. The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan. The project would not interfere with
people's ability to utilize roadways for evacuation purposes and, on a more
local level, emergency vehicle lanes within the project parking lot would be kept
free of vehicles and storage materials in compliance with City ordinances.
Accordingly, no impact would occur.
h. No Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ)
map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is not located within a
VHFHSZ. Therefore no impact would occur.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will comply with all storm water
quality regulations, which will be ensured as part of future grading and building
plan review. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements and impacts will be less than significant.
b. No Impact. The project does not propose any construction activities that would
directly affect groundwater, contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies
or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact would occur
C. Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the development of a new
residence and access driveway. Grading associated with the building pad and
driveway will be required to comply with all storm water and water quality
regulations. While the project will result in alteration of the existing drainage
pattern of the site, it would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-
site. A less than significant impact would occur.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the development of a new
residence and access driveway. Grading associated with the building pad and
driveway will be required to comply with all storm water and water quality
regulations. While the project will result in alteration of the existing drainage
pattern of the site, it would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or
amount of surface runoff which would result in flooding on or off -site. A less
than significant impact would occur.
21
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 26
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project has been designed such that the
amount of storm water runoff beyond which currently occurs will be negligible.
Runoff from the site will be treated to minimize pollutants in compliance with
City standards. Best management stormwater treatment site design features
will be implemented with the project and runoff treatment will occur on site.
Therefore Impacts will be less than significant.
f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project has been designed to comply with
all storm water and water quality regulations, and contains permeable areas for
surface water percolation. Therefore, the project will not otherwise substantially
degrade water quality. A less than significant impact would occur.
g. No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area
as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map area. Based on the fact that the project
site is not located within a mapped inundation area the project would not place
housing within a 100 year flood hazard area. No impact would occur.
h. No Impact.. See response IX.g. The project will not place structures within a
100 -year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. No
impact would occur.
i. No impact. The project is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area or
near any bodies of water. Therefore the project will not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impact would
occur.
j. No Impact. The project site is not near any water body. "No impact would
occur.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
a. No Impact. The project has been designed to conform to the General Plan, to
be in character with development in the area and comply with applicable City
development requirements. The project does not have the potential to
physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. The project site is zoned and designated by the City of Poway
General Plan for residential use. No impact would occur.
C. No Impact. See IV.f. No impact would occur.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES:
a. No Impact. Pursuant to the City of Poway Master Environmental Assessment
prepared in conjunction with the update to the Poway General Plan in 1991,
there are no known mineral resources on the site.
b. No Impact. See Item XI.a.
XII. NOISE:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is the construction of a single
residential residence and access driveway located in an area that is
surrounded by existing single - family residential development. Noise
associated with adjacent uses will not impact the project since noise associated
with the adjoining residential uses will be minimal. The project will result in an
incremental increase in the ambient noise level of the area. Noise from the
project will be that typical to residential uses and will have a less than
significant impact on adjacent uses.
22
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 27
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project grading activities (grading for
driveway and building pad) will result in temporary or periodic increases in the
generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels
typically related to construction. Per City standards, the noise generating
construction activities are limited to certain times of the day and days of the
week. A less than significant impact could occur.
C. Less Than Significant Impact. See Xll.a above. Potentially a less than
significant impact could occur.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project grading activities (grading for
required driveway and building pad for proposed residence) will result in
temporary or periodic increases in noise typically related to construction. Per
City standards, the noise generating construction activities are limited to certain
times of the day and days of the week. Potentially a less than significant
impact could occur.
e. No Impact. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site, and
Gillespie Field, located approximately 8 miles southeast of the project site. The
project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of either of these
airports. No impact would occur.
f. No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, the project would not expose people residing within the project to
excessive noise levels and no impact would occur.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
a. No Impact. The project will result in the construction of single - family residence
and access driveway. A residence is a permitted use within the Rural
Residential C zone and the development is consistent with the low density land
use designation for the property. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
density limitation of the underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the
site. No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. See Xlll.a.
C. No Impact. See Xlll.a.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a.i. Fire Protection — Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by
the City of Poway Fire Department. The project could result in an incremental
increase in the demand for fire protection and emergency services. The site is
already included within the Fire Department service area. Any specific service
provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to this project is
accounted for. No new or upgraded fire protection facilities would be required
as a result of establishment of this project and no physical impacts resulting
from construction of new facilities are identified. A less than significant impact
would occur.
a.ii. Police Protection — Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Poway
contracts with the San Diego County Sheriffs Department for law enforcement
services. The project site is currently served by the Poway Station, which is
located at 13100 Bowron Road. The site is included within the Sheriffs service
area. Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected)
emergency call to the site is accounted for. No new or upgraded police
protection facilities would be required as a result of establishment of this project
23
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 28
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
and no physical impacts resulting from construction of new facilities are
identified. A less than significant impact would occur.
a.iii. Schools — Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a new
residence. Children from the site will be accommodated by existing schools
which are in proximity to the project site. The project is consistent with the
density limitation of the underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the
site. A less than significant impact would occur.
a.iv. Parks — Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not require new or
physically altered park facilities as the construction of one new residence is
consistent with the density limits of the General Plan. Project residents can be
accommodated in existing parks that are in proximity to the site. A less than
significant impact would occur.
a.v. Other Public Facilities — Less Than Significant Impact. The project would
result in an incremental increase in the need for use of public facilities or
service, but would not require new or physically altered public facilities. A less
than significant impact would occur.
XV. RECREATION:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the construction of a new
residence. This would result in an incremental increase in the use of existing
neighborhood and regional park or other recreational facilities. Project
residents can be accommodated in existing parks that are in proximity to the
site. The project would have a less than significant impact.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. Existing recreation facilities can accommodate
the increased demand expected from the new residence. The project would
have a less than significant impact.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not conflict with an applicable
plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
performance of the circulatory system. The project will result in the
construction of one new single - family residence. The estimated average daily
trips (ADT) associated with the additional new home is ten (10). Therefore, the
project will result in an incremental increase in traffic in the area, which is
considered to be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The SANDAG Congestion Management
Program (CMP) is intended to determine if a large project (greater than 2,400
ADT AM or PM peak hour trips) would adversely impact the CMP transportation
system. A CMP analysis is not required for this project because the project is
calculated to generate fewer than 2,400 ADT AM or PM (an additional 10 ADT).
The project would have a less than significant impact.
C. No Impact. The project site is not located within an Airport Influence Area.
Therefore, the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would
result in substantial safety risks. No impact would occur.
d. No Impact. The project involves the construction of a new single - family
residence. Adequate roadway access exists to the site. No impact would
occur.
24
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 29
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
e. No Impact. The project does not involve any roadway or traffic improvements,
land use changes or changes to the existing facilities that would result in
inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur.
f. No Impact. The project involves the construction of a new single family
residence and access driveway. The project will not conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. No
impact would occur.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
a. No impact. The project will be served by a private septic system. The project
would not require the construction or expansion of any wastewater facilities or
exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore no impact
would occur.
b. No Impact. See Item XVll.a for a discussion of the adequacy of wastewater
treatment facilities. The project will not require or result in the construction of
new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impact
would occur.
C. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in an incremental
increase in stormwater runoff in the area. The project is required to comply
with the City's stormwater management regulations and provide any necessary
site specific stormwater improvements. Adequate public stormwater facilities
exist in the area to serve the site. The project would not result in the
construction of stormwater facilities that could cause a significant impact on the
environment. The project would have a less than significant impact.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within an area identified to
be served by the public water system and will result in an additional residence.
Because the project would not generate significant amounts of water demand,
it would not require the construction or expansion of any facilities. Adequate
water facilities and services are in place to serve the project site. It is
anticipated that a less than significant impact would occur
e. Less Than Significant Impact. See XVII a above.
f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be served by an existing
solid waste disposal service with sufficient capacity. The project would result in
the creation of one additional home. It is anticipated that a less than significant
impact would occur.
g. No Impact. The project residents will appropriately separate their waste so
that recyclables and controlled wastes are separated from landfill trash in
accordance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. The project
would comply with all federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste,
including the California Integrated Waste Management Act. No impact would
occur.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a. Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. See response
IV.a.
b. Less than Significant Impact. The project will have an incremental impact
that would be less than significant, when considered cumulatively with past and
future projects. The project, as well as past projects and future projects have
or will comply with the land use and density limitations of the City's General
Plan. Infrastructure and services per the General Plan are in place or are
25
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 30
EIS and Checklist
MDRA 13 -035
planned and will be provided to accommodate future projects. A less than
significant impact would occur.
C. Less Than Significant Impact. See responses l.a and d; IV.a and e; Vl.b and
e; Vll.a and b IX.a, c, d and e; XIV.i, ii, iii, iv and v; XV.a and b; XVI.a and b;
XVll.c , d, a and f.
M \planning \15 reports \mdra \mdra13 -035 Panwebster SFR \EIS and checklist
W
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 31
EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT 2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR MDRA 13 -035
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that public agencies "adopt a reporting
or monitoring program for the changes which it has adopted or made a condition of project
approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or
monitoring program shall be designated to ensure compliance during project implementation."
This mitigation monitoring program has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of
the Public Resources Code.
Non - compliance with any of these conditions, as identified by City staff or a designated monitor,
shall result in issuance of a cease and desist order for all construction activities. The order
shall remain in effect until compliance is assured. Non - compliance situations, which may occur
subsequent to project construction, will be addressed on a case -by -case basis and may be
subject to penalties according to the City of Poway Municipal Code. When phasing of
development has been established, it may be necessary for this Monitoring Program to be
amended, with City approval.
Topic
Mitigation Measure
Timing
Responsibility
Biological
In accordance with Condition H
Prior to Grading
Applicant
Resources
of the Poway HCP Incidental
Permit
Take Permit, a take of active
California gnatcatcher nests,
which includes harassment of
the bird due to grading noise and
vibrations from February 15
through July 1, is not permitted.
The project site is located within
500 feet of coastal sage scrub
habitat (CSS). Therefore,
grading during this time frame
will only be permitted subject to
the following conditions having
been met to the satisfaction of
the Director of Development
Services.
1. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit or any ground -
disturbing activities,
whichever comes first, the
applicant shall provide written
verification that a certified
archaeologist has been
retained to implement the
monitoring program. This
verification shall be presented
in a letter from the project
archaeologist to the Planning
Division of the City of Poway.
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 32
2. The certified archaeologist
shall attend the pre - grading
meeting with the contractors
to explain and coordinate the
requirements of the
monitoring program.
3. During the original cutting of
previously undisturbed
deposits, the archaeological
monitor(s) shall be on -site, as
determined by the consulting
archaeologist, to perform
periodic inspections of the
excavations. The frequency
of inspections will depend on
the rate of excavation, the
materials excavated, and the
presence and abundance of
artifacts and features.
4. Isolates and clearly non-
significant deposits will be
minimally documented in the
field so the monitored grading
can proceed.
5. In the event that previously
unidentified cultural resources
are discovered, the
archaeologist shall have the
authority to divert or
temporarily halt ground -
disturbance operation in the
area of discovery to allow for
the evaluation of potentially
significant cultural resources.
The archaeologist shall
contact the Planning Division
of the City of Poway at the
time of discovery. The
archaeologist, in consultation
with the City of Poway, shall
determine the significance of
the discovered resources.
Concurrence from the City of
Poway Director of
Development Services must
be obtained with the
evaluation before construction
activities will be allowed to
resume in the affected area.
For significant cultural
resources, a Research Design
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 33
and Data Recovery Program
to mitigate impacts shall be
prepared by the consulting
archaeologist and approved
by the City of Poway before
being carried out using
professional archaeological
methods. If any human bones
are discovered, the county
coroner and City of Poway
shall be contacted. In the
event that the remains are
determined to be of Native
American origin, the most
likely descendant, as
identified by the NAHC, shall
be contacted in order to
determine proper treatment
and disposition of the
remains.
6. Before construction activities
are allowed to resume in the
affected area, the artifacts
shall be recovered and
features recorded using
professional archaeological
methods. The archaeological
monitor(s) shall determine the
amount of material to be
recovered for an adequate
artifact sample for analysis.
7. All cultural material collected
during the grading monitoring
program shall be processed
and curated according to the
current professional repository
standards. The collections
and associated records shall
be transferred, including title,
to an appropriate curation
facility, to be accompanied by
payment of the fees
necessary for permanent
curation.
8. A report documenting the field
and analysis results and
interpreting the artifact and
research data within the
research context shall be
completed and submitted to
the satisfaction of the City of
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 34
Poway Director of
Development Services prior to
the issuance of any building
permits. The report will
include DPR Primary and
Archaeological Site Forms.
Cultural
A Mitigation Monitoring and
Prior to
Applicant
Resources
Reporting Program shall be
issuance of a
implemented to monitor ground-
grading permit
disturbing activities by a properly
or any ground -
credentialed archeological
disturbing
monitor and a recognized Native
activities,
American monitor to ensure that if
whichever
buried cultural materials, either
comes first.
historic or pre- historic, are
present, they will be handled in a
timely and proper manner:
1. The applicant shall provide
written verification that a
certified archeological
monitor and recognized
Native American monitor
have been retained to
implement a monitoring
program. This verification
shall be presented in a letter
from the project archeologist
to the Planning Division of
the City of Poway.
2. The certified archeological
monitor and the Native
American monitor shall
attend the pre - grading
meeting with the contractors
to explain and coordinate the
requirements of the
monitoring program.
3. During the original cutting of
previously undisturbed
deposits, the archeological
monitor(s) and Native
American monitor shall be
on -site, as determined by the
project archeologist, to
perform periodic inspections
of the excavations. The
frequency of inspections will
depend on the rate of
excavation, the materials
excavated, and the presence
and abundance of artifacts
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 35
and features.
4. Isolates and clearly non-
significant deposits will be
minimally documented in the
field so the monitored
grading can proceed.
5. In the event that previously
unidentified cultural
resources are discovered,
the archeological monitor
shall have the authority to
divert or temporarily halt
ground- disturbance operation
in the area of discovery to
allow for the evaluation of
potentially significant cultural
resources. The project
archeologist shall contact the
Planning Division of the City
of Poway at the time of
discovery. The project
archeologist, in consultation
with the City of Poway, shall
determine the significance of
the discovered resources.
Concurrence from the City of
Poway Director of
Development Services must
be obtained with the
evaluation before ground
disturbing activities will be
allowed to resume in the
affected area. For significant
cultural resources, a
Research Design and Data
Recovery Program to
mitigate impacts shall be
prepared by the project
archeologist and approved
by the City of Poway before
being carried out using
professional archeological
methods. If any human
bones are discovered, the
county coroner and City of
Poway shall be contacted. In
the event that the remains
are determined to be of
Native American origin, the
most likely descendant, as
identified by the Native
Resolution No. P -16 -10
Page 36
American Heritage
Commission shall be
contacted in order to
determine proper treatment
and disposition of the
remains.
6. Before ground disturbing
activities are allowed to
resume in the affected area,
the artifacts shall be
recovered and features
recorded using professional
archeological methods. The
archeological monitor(s) shall
determine the amount of
material to be recovered for
an adequate artifact sample
for analysis.
7. All cultural material collected
during the grading monitoring
program shall be processed
and curated according to the
current professional
repository standards. The
collections and associated
records shall be transferred,
including title, to an
appropriate curation facility
(one meeting the Curation of
Federally Owned and
Administered Archeological
Collections standard —
36CFR79), to be
accompanied by payment of
the fees necessary for
permanent curation.
8. A report documenting the
field and analysis results and
interpreting the artifact and
research data within the
research context shall be
completed and submitted to
the satisfaction of the City of
Poway Director of
Development Services prior
to the issuance of any
building permits. The report
will include DPR Primary and
Archeological Site Forms.