Res P-18-07RESOLUTION NO. P-18-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 16-005
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 314-032-01 AND 314-370-05
WHEREAS, a request for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 16-005) to subdivide an
approximate 80 -acre site (which is comprised of two, contiguous, approximate 40 -acre lots)
located at the easterly terminus of Larchmont Street, in the Rural Residential A (RR -A) and Rural
Residential C (RR -C) zones, into ten residential lots with associated grading and improvements
was submitted by Dandeana Larchmont LLC, Applicant/Owner; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing 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), attached as "Exhibit A", have been prepared for the project. 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 supporting a fair argument that 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 (and imposed by the MND and the associated
Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) will mitigate all potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level, and that the EIS and MND reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the
City. The City Council hereby adopts the MND and the associated MMP attached to this
Resolution as Attachment 2 of "Exhibit A".
Section 2: The site supports natural habitat communities and is located within the
Mitigation Area of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A Biological Report (updated, February
2018) was prepared for the project by Kory Klutz. In the report, the project's compliance with the
HCP is demonstrated and project impacts/mitigation are specified. Overall, the project will impact
18.6 acres of natural habitat consisting of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Diegan Costal
Sage/Chaparral Scrub. The habitat impact mitigation requirement is 37.2 acres. The total habitat
impact is associated with development of the 10 residences, which includes the building pads and
driveways, manufactured slopes, and limits of fire fuel management, as well as the project road
and its fire fuel management and other project infrastructure. The project will be setting aside
approximately 59 acres, or 74 percent of the site in open space. The project site is located within
the Twin Peaks Proposed Resource Protection Area (PRPA) of the HCP where there is an 80
percent overall preservation goal. The Biological Report includes an assessment of the proposed
project, past projects, and future projects and concludes the Twin Peaks PRPA will achieve 83
percent overall preservation. Further, as set forth in the EIS and MND, all impacts on biological
resources will be less than significant after implementation of the mitigation measures required
by the EIS, MND and MMP attached hereto as "Exhibit A".
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 2
The proposed project complies with the HCP and the HCP Implementing Agreement. In
accordance with the HCP, the required findings for approval of the proposed mitigation for the
removal of natural habitat for the project are as follows:
A. The project site is in the Mitigation Area of the HCP, the mitigation
is consistent with and furthers the implementing objectives of the HCP, since mitigation
through onsite dedication of a Biological Conservation Easement (BCE) within the
Mitigation Area will be provided in compliance with the guidelines of the HCP. The
mitigation as outlined in Section 2 above is consistent with and furthers the implementing
objectives of the HCP.
B. The onsite habitat mitigation will enhance the long-term viability and function of the reserve
system.
C. The mitigation will be to the long-term benefit of the covered species and their habitats in
that an onsite BCE within the Mitigation Area will be recorded. Said land will promote a
meaningful addition to the assembly of a viable regional system of interconnected natural
habitat resources, habitat linkages, buffers, and wildlife corridors.
D. The mitigation will foster the incremental implementation of the HCP in an effective and
efficient manner in that any onsite conservation area is required to be within an identified
Mitigation Area within the City.
E. The mitigation will not result in a negative fiscal impact with regard to the successful
implementation of the HCP.
Section 3: According to the Prehistoric and Historic Resources Element of the Poway
General Plan, the project site is located in an area with a high probability that archeological
resources are present (Poway 2002). A Cultural Resources Study was conducted for the project
by Brian Smith and Associates (dated May 2016). The study identified the presence of one
isolated artifact found on the project site, which has been recovered, and a total of nine cultural
resource sites (i.e. camp ground or milling feature). Two have been identified as significant and
one as potentially significant. All others are considered not significant. The project grading will
directly impact four cultural resource sites, all of which are not considered significant. Standard
requirements/mitigation measures for an on-site archeological monitor, and other standard
protocols, are recommended. Four of the five remaining cultural resource sites will be placed in
an open easement and will not be impacted. The other remaining resource site is within an area
of necessary flammable (natural) vegetation clearing for fire protection. The potential for impact
to this resource site resulting from clearing, however, will not occur since mitigation measures
required this work be done by hand and that the area also be placed in a preservation easement.
Further, as set forth in the EIS and MND, all impacts on cultural and historic resources will be
less than significant after implementation of the mitigation measures required by the EIS, MND
and MMP attached hereto as "Exhibit A".
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 3
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
California, at a regular meeting this 20th day of March 2018.
a
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
yz��7
Nancy W001d,kMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Nancy Neufeld, City Clerk of the City of Poway, California, do hereby certify under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 18-P-07 was duly adopted by the City Council
at a meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of March 2018, and that it was so adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED
GROSCH, LEONARD, MULLIN, VAUS
CUNNINGHAM
NONE
NONE
Nancy zKeufd, CMC, City Clerk
City of Poway
,UEVE VAUS, Mayor CITY OF P OWAY
JOHN MULLIN, Deputy Mayor
JIM CUNNINGHAM, Coundmember
DAVE, GROSCH, Councilmember
BARRY LEONARD, Couneilmember
i�cn:3�ra
CITY OF POWAY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Dandeana Larchmont LLC, Attention Dar
13428 Maxella Ave Suite 984, Marina De
2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: The Larchmont Street s
proposed on two vacant, contiguous parcels of privately -owned property that are ap
in size. The project site is located at the easterly terminus of Larchmont Street,
Pomerado Road and north of Twin Peaks Road. The owner is proposing a subdivi:
that will create 10 residential lots, associated infrastructure, and public trails in accoi
General Plan. Ultimately 10 homes would be constructed with a gated entry.
"clustered" on the westerly portion of the project site on lots ranging in size from
This clustering is allowed under the Poway Municipal Code to promote the pn
topographic features and open space. An area totaling approximately 59 ac
southeast of the development area, which contains rock outcroppings and
vegetation, will be permanently preserved open space.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, impleme
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway City Council has found that t
not have a significant effect upon the environment and has approved a Mitigated
An Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the
Study that includes the Initial Study and Checklist and the approved Mitigation
containing the mitigation measures approved for this project.
5. The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Jason Martin _ Phone: i
Attachments:
Environmental Initial Study
Mitigation Monitoring Program
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789
www.poway.org
Resolution No. P-18-07
Pana A
ATTACHMENT?
CITY OF POWAY
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND CHECKLIST
A. INTRODUCTION
Resolution No. P-18-07
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Mao 16-005/1-archmont Street Subdivision
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway. Development Services
13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jason Martin (858) 668-4658
4. Project Location: Easterly Terminus of Larchmont Street, City of Poway
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dandeana Larchmont LLC Attention Daniel Ginsburg
13428 Maxella Ave Suite 984 Marina Del Rev CA 90292
6. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential A and Rural Residential C
Zoning: Rural Residential A and Rural Residential C
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
The Larchmont Street subdivision project is proposed on two vacant, contiauous parcels that are
approximately 80 acres in size. The project site is located at the easterly terminus of Larchmont Street,
which is Fust east of Pomerado Road and north of Twin Peaks Road. The owner is proposing a
subdivision map and grading that will create 10 residential lots, associated infrastructure, and public
trails in accordance with the City's General Plan. Ultimately 10 homes would be constructed with a
gated entry. The homes will be "clustered" on the westerly portion of the project site on lots ranging in
size from one to seven acres. This clustering is allowed under the Poway Municipal Code to promote
the preservation of unique topographic features and open space. An area totaling approximately 59
acres to the east and southeast of the development area which contains rock outcroppings and high
quality natural vegetation, will be permanently preserved open space.
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 6
EIS and Checklist
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is proposed on a site that is in a natural,
undeveloped state. Developed, detached homes exist to the west and south of the site. Areas
to the east and north of the site are undeveloped and zoned Rural Residential A.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? Yes
If so, has consultation begun? Yes
NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies,
and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential
adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the
environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also
be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public
Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources
Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
`a
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 7
EIS and Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be
potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Agricultural /Forestry
❑ Air Quality
® Biological Resource
Resources
❑ Geology /Soils
❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
® Cultural Resources
❑ Hydrology / Water
❑ Land Use and Planning
❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Quality
❑ Population and Housing
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Noise
❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Public Services
❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of
❑ Tribal Cultural Resources
❑ Utilities and Service
Significance
Systems
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 rase 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 n
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.
Jason Martin
City of Poway
3
2/8/2018
Date
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 8
EIS and Checklist
C. EIS and Checklist
n
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
1. AESTHETICS. Would the • •
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
X
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
X
and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
X
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURAL . FORESTRY
-
RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to
In•
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:
n
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 9
EIS and Checklist
5
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
a. Convert prime farmland, unique
farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance (farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
X
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
X
contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
X
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
X
forest land?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
X
conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
Ill. AIR QUALITY. a
significance criteria established •
the applicable
managementor pollution
district may be ed upon
the following determinations. Would
the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
X
quality Ian?
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
X
or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non -
X
attainment under an applicable
5
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 10
EIS and Checklist
11
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
federal or state ambient air quality
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
X
a substantial number of eo le?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the ..-
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
X
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
X
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 Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
X
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 resident
X
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
X
resources, such as a tree
reservation policy or ordinance?
11
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 11
EIS and Checklist
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
X
Plan, or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation
Ian?
RESOURCES.V. CULTURAL
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
X
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
X
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
X
unique geologis feature?
d. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
X
dedicated cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
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 Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
X
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,
X
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil?
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 12
EIS and Checklist
0
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
X
project, and potentially result in on -
or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil creating
X
substantial risk to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
X
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the ..-
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
X
indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
X
purpose of reducing the emissions of
reenhouse ases?
HAZARDS -D•
MATERIALS. Would the ..-
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
X
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonable 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, substances or waste within
X
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
X
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
0
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 13
EIS and Checklist
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
result, would it create a 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
X
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working within the project area
I. For a project in the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
X
residing or working in the project
area?
g. Impair implementation of, or
physically interfere with, an adopted
X
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuationplan?
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
X
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY. Would the ..-
a. Violate any water quality standards
X
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
X
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 granted.
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
X
course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 14
EIS and Checklist
10
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
offsite?
d. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
X
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite?
e. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
X
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
pollute runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade
X
water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100 -year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard boundary or
X
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard
area structures which would impede
X
or redirect flood flows?
i. Exposing people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding
X
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
X
mudflow?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
X
community?
b. Conflict with applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to,
X
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
10
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 15
EIS and Checklist
11
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
X
community conservation plan.
RESOURCES.X1. MINERAL
Would the ..-
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
X
be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
X
general plan, specific plan or other
land use Ian?
NOISE.
projectWould the
a. Exposure of persons to, or
generation of, noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local
X
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to, or
generation of, excessive ground
X
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
X
vicinity above levels existing without
theproject?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
X
the project vicinity above levels
existing without theproject?
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?
11
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 16
EIS and Checklist
IW
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
X
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would.. -
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 the
X
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
SERVICES.
XJV. PUBLIC
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services.
i. Fire protection?
X
ii. Police protection?
X
iii. Schools?
X
iv. Parks?
X
v. Other public facilities?
X
IW
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 17
EIS and Checklist
RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
X
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
a. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
X
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the • .
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
X
mass transit and non -motorized
travel, and relevant components of
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
X
measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
X
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g.: sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
X
incompatible uses (e.g.: farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency
X
access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs regarding public transit,
Ix
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
13
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 18
EIS and Checklist
otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities?
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
X
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1 k , or
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
X
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
• SERVICE
SYSTEMS
'
• . ,.
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
X
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction
of new stormwater drainage facilities
X
or expansion of existing facilities, the
10
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 19
EIS and Checklist
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
X
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
X
project's projected demand in
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
X
needs?
g. Comply with federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to
X
solid waste?
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 eliminate a plant or animal
X
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
X
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
15
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 20
EIS and Checklist
c. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
X
adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly?
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 site is undeveloped and is in the vicinity of a
locally well known, geologic feature called Twin Peaks mountain. Twin Peaks mountain,
which is comprised of a pair of peaks, is situated in the approximate center of the City and
is surrounded by development. Twin Peaks mountain is visible from many locations City-
wide and is considered to be scenic. There are no State scenic highways in the area.
Espola Road is a locally designated roadway however, the project site will not be visible to
Espola Road. The project will be west of Twin Peaks mountain and contiguous to existing
development to the west and south. The closest proposed home site in the project is
situated over 2,200 feet from the top of Twin Peaks mountain. That building pad height is
764 feet above sea level and the height of Twin Peaks mountain is approximately 1,300 feet
above sea level. Building pad elevations on the other of the home sites range from 670 —
715 feet above sea level. Given the lower height elevations of the building pads, and their
distance from Twin Peaks mountain, the project will not be visible from most locations in the
City. The project will not be visible from any public park or from Twin Peaks Road, which is
south of the project site. The visibility of the project from Pomerado Road, which is a high
volume and higher speed arterial to the west of the site, will be minimal, if at all. Full and
partial visibility of the project will be limited to the neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of
the project site and to Twin Peaks recreation trail users. The homes will be "clustered" on
the westerly portion of the project site to enable the preservation of approximately 59 acres
of open space on the east and southeast portion of the site, which contains rock
outcroppings and high quality natural vegetation. The project is subject to, and complies
with, the City's graded area limits, which minimizes grading in hillside areas. Impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. See response La.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. See response I.a.
d) No Impact. The project will result in new lighting associated with single-family uses that
will be similar in nature to the lighting in the surrounding area. No impact would occur.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The project site is in a natural state and not identified as important farmland.
Thus, the project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland
or Farm -land of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The project site is not being used for agricultural production and does not
contain Williamson Act contract land. No impact would occur.
16
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 21
EIS and Checklist
c) No Impact. The project site does not contain, and is not zoned for, forest land, timberland
or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur.
d) No Impact. As stated in response Il.c, the project site is not located in an area containing
forest land. Accordingly, the project would not convert any forest land to non -forest use,
and no impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The project would not directly impact agriculture or 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. 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-SANDAG) 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. The project is consistent with the
Poway General Plan strategies, in that the General Plan envisioned this type of
development on the project site,, therefore it is also consistent with the San Diego Regional
Air Quality Strategies Plan. There will be no impacts.
b) No Impact. See response Il.a above.
c) No Impact. See response Il.a above.
d) Less Than Significant. Grading of the project will likely result is the creation of dust and
can affect the surrounding residential area. Standard City requirements include
implementation of dust control measures and the operations are subject to San Diego Air
Pollution Control District standards. Impacts will be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project will not result in the creation of objectionable odor. No impact
would occur.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site is vacant,
characterized by moderate to steep topography, and generally in an undeveloped, natural
condition. The site supports natural habitat communities and is located within the
Mitigation Area of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A Biological Report (updated,
February 2018) was prepared for the project by Kory Klutz. In the report, the project's
compliance with the HCP is demonstrated and project impacts/mitigation are specified.
Overall, the project will impact 18.6 acres of natural habitat consisting of Diegan Coastal
17
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 22
EIS and Checklist
Sage Scrub and Diegan Costal Sage/Chaparral Scrub. The habitat impact mitigation
requirement is 37.2 acres. The habitat impact is associated with development of the 10
residences, which includes the building pads and driveways, manufactured slopes, and
limits of fire fuel management, as well as the project road and its fire fuel management
and other project infrastructure. In addition to satisfying the habitat mitigation on-site
within a Biological Conservation Easement, the project will also be preserving the
remaining habitat on the site in an open space easement. In total, the project will be setting
aside approximately 59 acres, or 74 percent of the site in open space. The project site is
located within the Twin Peaks Proposed Resource Protection Area (PRPA) of the HCP
where there is an 80% overall preservation goal. The Biological al Report includes an
assessment of the proposed project, past projects, and future projects and concludes the
Twin Peaks PRPA will achieve 83% overall preservation. Project impacts will be less
than significant with incorporation of the following Mitigation Measures:
Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit or Administrative Clearing Permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall mitigate impacts to natural habitat as
specified in the project Biological Report on file with the City. The mitigation
requirement will be achieved by recordation of a Biological Conversation Easement
(BCE) over a minimum of 37.2 acres of remaining habitat on the approximate 80 -acre
site, which is in the Mitigation Area. A legal description and plat of the BCE area shall
be prepared and stamped by the project engineer, and submitted to the Planning and
Engineering Divisions for review. Easement review fees are required and are the
responsibility of the applicant. The BCE shall be approved by the City Attorney, and
shall be notarized and recorded with the County of San Diego. In compliance with the
HCP, the City shall subsequently re -zone the mitigation land to Open Space -Resource
Management to ensure its permanent preservation. The BCE limits shall be shown on
the grading plan and on the Final Map. The applicant shall be responsible for installing
City -issued signs to be posted on the site identifying the limits of the BCE upon
establishment of the BCE.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Grading Permit or Administrative Clearing Permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall record an Open Space Easement (OSE) over
remaining habitat on the project site. A legal description and plat of the OSE area shall
be prepared and stamped by the project engineer, and submitted to the Planning and
Engineering Divisions for review. Easement review fees are required and are the
responsibility of the applicant. The OSE shall be approved by the City Attorney, and
shall be notarized and recorded with. the County of San Diego.
3. 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.
Therefore, grading and removal of habitat 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 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.
me
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 23
EIS and Checklist
Before issuance of a Clearing/Grading Permit, if grading or clearing 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 cleared and/or 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 cleared or
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 USFWS.
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.
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 until
such time as mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City and the USFWS are
implemented.
The biologist must attend the City's pre -construction meeting for the project and must
be present onsite 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 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).
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.
At a minimum, all protected biological areas, as shown on the grading plan, shall be
staked by a licensed surveyor and delineated with lathe and ribbon. The applicant
shall have said staking inspected by the Engineering Inspector prior to any grading,
clearing or grubbing. A written certification from the engineer of work, or a licensed
surveyor, shall be provided to the Engineering Inspector stating that all protected areas
are staked in accordance with the approved project plans.
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.
Upon completion of the clearing/grading activities, the applicant's biologist shall submit
19
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 24
EIS and Checklist
to the Director of Development Services a biological monitoring report summarizing
the 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
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response IV.a.
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 will
occur.
d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response IV.a.
e) No Impact. The project has been designed in compliance with all standards and
mitigation requirements specified in the Poway HCP. No impacts will occur.
f) No Impact. See response IV.e.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. According to the Prehistoric and Historic Resources Element of the Poway
General Plan, the project site is located in an area with a moderate probability that historic
sites are present (Poway 2002). The site is not on the City's list of historic sites and
structures. No impact would occur.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Prehistoric and
Historic Resources Element of the Poway General Plan, the project site is located in an area
with a high probability that archeological resources are present (Poway 2002). A Cultural
Resources Study was conducted for the project by Brian Smith and Associates (dated May
2016). The study identified the presence of one isolated artifact found on the project site,
which has been recovered, and a total of nine cultural resource sites (i.e. camp ground or
milling feature). Two have been identified as significant and one as potentially significant.
All others are considered not significant. The project grading will directly impact four cultural
resource sites, all of which are not considered significant. Standard requirements/mitigation
measures for an on-site archeological monitor, and other standard protocols, are
recommended. Four of the five remaining cultural resource sites will be placed in an open
easement and will not be impacted. The other remaining resource site is within an area of
necessary flammable (natural) vegetation clearing for fire protection. The potential for
impact to this resource site resulting from clearing, however, will not occur since mitigation
measures required this work be done by hand and that the area also be placed in a
preservation easement.
Mitigation measures are recommended according. Impacts will be less than significant with
incorporation of the following Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification
that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program.
This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead
agency.
P411
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 25
EIS and Checklist
2. The certified archaeologist shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the contractors
to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program.
3. The consulting archaeologist shall direct the field monitor during grading of all areas
identified for development.
4. During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological
monitor shall be on-site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist, to perform
inspections of the excavations. The frequency of inspections may vary from full time
to part time depending upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the
presence and abundance of artifacts and features.
5. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field
so the monitored grading can proceed.
6. In the event that previously unidentified historic 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 lead agency at the time of
discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, shall determine
the significance of the discovered resources. The lead agency must concur with the
evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area.
For significant cultural resources that are discovered and which will be destroyed by
grading, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be
prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the lead agency before
being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are
discovered, all grading at that location must stop and the county coroner and lead
agency 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.
7. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the location of any discovered
significant cultural deposits, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 lead agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report
will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms.
10. No mechanical equipment shall be used to clear vegetation within the boundaries of
SDI -21,701. Any vegetation clearing needed to adhere to the conditions of the fuel
21
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 26
EIS and Checklist
modification shall be completed by hand with appropriate tools to avoid damage to any
cultural features or subsurface deposits. A preservation easement, which includes
this stipulation shall be recorded on this property prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. Prior to the clearing of the fuel modification zone, an archaeologist shall physically
delineate the northwestern boundary of SDI -21,701 with temporary stakes and
flagging. This temporary delineation shall serve as a boundary between areas where
machinery can be used for clearing and where only hand tools can be used.
12. All work associated with the clearing of the fuel modification zone within the boundary
of SDI -21,701 shall be monitored by an archaeologist. Should the archaeological
monitor identify any cultural materials, appropriate measures shall be implemented,
including mapping and collecting artifacts, diverting any mechanical clearing from
areas of archaeological importance, and archaeological excavations to mitigate
impacts to any disturbed cultural deposits.
c) No Impact. The project does not propose any significant ground excavation activities that
could affect potentially present and unknown paleontological resources or unique geologic
features. Grading primarily consists of imported material for home pad development. No
impact would occur.
d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response V.b above.
VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS
a i) Less Than Significant Impact. No active known faults traverse the project site or are
near the site. The nearest known fault is an unnamed fault located approximately three
miles west of the project site. Murphy Canyon Fault is the nearest main southern
California fault, located approximately ten 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 22 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 onsite 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, impacts related to fault rupture are
assessed as less than significant.
a ii) Less Than Significant 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. This could potentially result in significant impacts to project facilities. The
buildings will be designed and constructed to incorporate measures to accommodate
projected seismic loading in compliance with current construction codes. These codes
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 27
EIS and Checklist
are produced through joint efforts by industry groups to provide standard specifications for
engineering and construction activities. They are widely accepted by regulatory
authorities and are regularly included in related standards such as municipal building and
grading codes, and they include measures to accommodate seismic loading parameters.
The buildings will be designed and constructed to accommodate projected seismic
loading, pursuant to these existing guidelines. Accordingly, potential impacts associated
with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
a iii) No Impact. No impacts resulting from seismically related ground failure would occur
a iv) No Impact. The project site is not underlain by formations identified as susceptible to
seismically induced landslides. No impact is identified.
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. The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project. Residential building pads will
consist primarily of fill material which will be compacted in compliance with City standards
and inspected for adequacy before the issuance of any building permits. No impact would
occur.
d) No Impact. Expansive soils change in volume (shrink or swell) due to changes in moisture
content of the soil. The buildings will be constructed in accordance with geotechnical
recommendations that incorporate California Building Code (CBC) standards, as required
by the City of Poway. Thus, potential expansion would be unlikely. No impact would
occur.
e) No Impact. The project site will be served by the public sewer system. No septic tanks
or other alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. No impact would occur.
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."
A Greenhouse Gas assessment was prepared for the project by Ldn Consulting, Inc. In
the Memorandum it is explained that, the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) prepared a white paper (the CAPCOA white paper) that provided
guidance on when a project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a
significant impact on the environment. In that document, CAPCOA proposed a
quantitative threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions as a threshold
below which no significant impacts on the environment would be anticipated. According
to the CAPCOA white paper, 900 metric tons represents the emission that would be
generated by 50 single-family residences annually. Since the project is a residential
development for 10 new residences, impacts would be less than significant.
23
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 28
EIS and Checklist
b) Less Than Significant Impact. See response Vll.a above.
VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) No Impact. The project involves establishment of a 10 -lot residential subdivision. No
transport, storage or use of hazardous materials beyond that which typically occurs with
a single-family home will occur. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. See response Vlll.a above. No impact would occur.
c) No Impact. See response VIII.a above. No impact would occur.
d) No Impact. The site is not on the established lists of hazardous wastes site. No impact
would 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. Thus, operation of the project would
not result in a safety hazard for people residing in the project area and no impact would
occur.
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 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. Operation of the project would not interfere with
people's ability to utilize roadways for evacuation purposes. Accordingly, no impact would
occur.
h) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
(VHFHSZ) map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is located within the VHFHSZ.
Implementation of defensible space around the units is required in conjunction with
development of the homes. Accordingly, the project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts will
be less than significant.
IX. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will comply with all storm water quality
regulations, which will be ensured as part of the project improvements 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 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. Treatment will
occur within on-site desiltation basins and other site design features that will be
implemented with the project. Impacts will be less than significant
9E
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 29
EIS and Checklist
d) Less Than Significant Impact. See response IX.c above.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. See response IX.a and response IX.c above.
Less Than Significant Impact. See response IX.a above.
g) No Impact. The project site is not in or near a designated flood prone area.
h) No Impact. See response IV.g above.
No Impact. The project site is not located within or adjacent to any mapped dam inundation
areas. No impact would occur.
j) No Impact. The project site is not near any water body. No impact would occur.
X. LAND USE/PLANNING
a) No Impact. This issue generally relates to major roadways or other facilities that cut one
part of a neighborhood off from another making it more difficult for individuals to access
services and public amenities. 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 uses. No impact would occur.
c) No Impact. See response IV.f above. No impact would occur.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. According to the Poway General Plan, the only known valuable mineral
resource, as recognized by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines
and Geology, is construction quality sand and gravel located in the South Poway area of
the City which is more than five miles south of the site. No impacts would occur.
b) No Impact. See response to Item XI.a.
XII. NOISE
a) No Impact. The project is a residential subdivision located adjacent to an area that is
primarily developed. Residential uses exist to the west and south of the site. Noise
associated with adjacent uses will not impact the project since noise associated with the
adjoining residential uses will be minimal. Noise from the project will be that typical to
residential uses and will not impact adjacent uses.
b) No Impact. The project does not include any components that would result in excessive
ground borne vibration. No impact would occur.
c) No Impact. See response Xll.a above.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project construction activities will result in temporary
or periodic increases in noise typically related to construction and may include some rock
blasting. Per City standards, the noise generating construction activities are limited to
certain times of the day and days of the week. Impact are less than significant.
25
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 30
EIS and Checklist
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 does not currently contain,
nor does it propose, habitable structures that would result in people being exposed to
noise from these airports. In addition, 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 in the project to excessive noise levels and no
impact would occur.
XIII. POPULATION/HOUSING
a) No Impact. The project will result in 10 new homes as result of the subdivision. 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 response Xlll.a above
c) No Impact. See response Xlll.a above.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a i) Fire Protection. No Impact. The project site is served by the City of Poway Fire
Department. The closest fire station to the project site is Station 3, which is located
Pomerado Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site. Implementation
of the project may 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. No impacts would occur.
a ii) Police Protection. No Impact. The City of Poway contracts with the San Diego County
Sheriffs Department for their services in law enforcement. The project site is currently
served by the Poway Station, which is located at 13100 Bowron Road, approximately 4
miles southwest of the project site. The site is included within the Sheriffs service area.
Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to this
building is accounted for. No new or upgraded police 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. No impacts would occur.
a iii) Schools. No Impact. The project will result in 10 new homes as result of the subdivision.
Children from the homes will be accommodated into existing schools which are in close
proximity to the project site. The project is consistent with the density limitation of the
underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the site. No impact would occur.
a iv) Parks. No Impact. Project implementation would not require new or physically altered
park facilities as the number of new homes is consistent with the density limits of the
General Plan. Project residents can be accommodated in existing parks that area in close
proximity to the site (i.e. Arbolitos Park, Aubrey Park, Old Poway Park, Lake Poway
Recreation area). No impact would occur.
26
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 31
EIS and Checklist
a v) Other Public Facilities. No Impact. Project implementation would not require new or
physically altered public facilities. No impact would occur.
XV. RECREATION
a) No Impact. Existing recreation facilities can accommodate the increased demand
expected from the new home. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. See Item XV.a. No impact would occur.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) No Impact. The project will result in 10 new homes as result of the proposed 10 -lot
subdivision. The estimated average daily trips (ADT) associated with the net 10 new
homes is 100. The project is located at the terminus of Larchmont Street which has been
designed to accommodate its extension for residential development. No impacts would
occur.
b) No Impact. The SANDAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) is intended to
determine if a large project (greater than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 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 100 ADT and fewer
AM or PM peak hour trips. No impact would occur.
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 road that will serve the project has been designed to comply with City
standards. No impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The project would not involve any traffic improvements, land use changes or
changes to the existing facilities that would result in inadequate emergency access. No
impact would occur.
No Impact. See response to item XVI.a above. No impact would occur.
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The project site is not listed, or eligible for, listing in the California Register of
Historical Places, or the local register. Requirements for consultation have been followed,
with no tribe indicating interest in the project. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. A Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the project by Brian Smith and
Associates (dated May 23, 2016). See Section V for a discussion on cultural resources
on the project site. The Study does indicate the site is significant pursuant to the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Requirements for
consultation have been followed, with no tribe indicating interest in the project. No impact
would occur.
27
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 32
EIS and Checklist
XVIII. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) No Impact. The project site is within an area identified to be served by the public sewer
system. Because the project would not involve the construction of facilities that would
generate significant amounts of sewage, it would not require the construction or expansion
of any wastewater facilities or exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements.
Adequate wastewater treatment facilities and services are in place to serve future uses at
the project site. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. See response XVlll.a.
c) No Impact. See response IX.c.
d) No Impact. The project site is within an area identified to be served by the public water
system and will generate an additional 10 homes. 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 future uses
at the project site. No impact would occur
e) No Impact. See response XVlll.a.
f) No Impact. The project would be served by an existing waste disposal facility with
sufficient capacity. No 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.
XIX. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation. See responses IV.a and V.b above.
b) No Impact. The project, considered cumulatively with past and future projects, will not
result in significant impacts. 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 planned and will be
provided to accommodate future growth.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. See responses I, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII above.
M
Resolution No. P-18-07
ATTACHMENT 2 Page 33
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-005
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
1. Prior to approval of Final Map,
As noted
Applicant
Resources
Grading Permit or Administrative
Clearing Permit, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall mitigate
impacts to natural habitat as
specified in the project Biological
Report on file with the City. The
mitigation requirement will be
achieved by recordation of a
Biological Conversation Easement
(BCE) over a minimum of 37.2
acres of remaining habitat on the
approximate 80 -acre site, which is
in the Mitigation Area. A legal
description and plat of the BCE
area shall be prepared and
stamped by the project engineer,
and submitted to the Planning and
Engineering Divisions for review.
Easement review fees are required
and are the responsibility of the
applicant. The BCE shall be
approved by the City Attorney, and
shall be notarized and recorded
with the County of San Diego. In
compliance with the HCP, the City
shall subsequently re -zone the
mitigation land to Open Space -
Resource Management to ensure
its permanent preservation. The
BCE limits shall be shown on the
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 34
grading plan and on the Final Map.
The applicant shall be responsible
for installing City -issued signs to be
posted on the site identifying the
limits of the BCE upon
establishment of the BCE.
2. Prior to approval of the Final
As noted
Applicant
Map, Grading Permit or
Administrative Clearing Permit,
whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall record an Open
Space Easement (OSE) over
remaining habitat on the project
site. A legal description and plat of
the OSE area shall be prepared
and stamped by the project
engineer, and submitted to the
Planning and Engineering
Divisions for review. Easement
review fees are required and are
the responsibility of the applicant.
The OSE shall be approved by the
City Attorney, and shall be
notarized and recorded with the
County of San Diego.
3. In accordance with Condition H
On going
Applicant
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. Therefore, grading and
removal of habitat 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 City and the
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) are
implemented. There is no
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 35
guarantee that grading will be
allowed to resume during nesting
season.
Before issuance of a
Clearing/Grading Permit, if grading
or clearing 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 cleared and/or 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 cleared or 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 USFWS.
The scope of work shall explain the
survey methodology for the
biological survey and the proposed
gnatcatcher nest monitoring
activities d;iring 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.
If gnatcatchers are nesting within
the area to be graded/cleared, or
within CSS habitat located within
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 36
500 feet of said area, no grading
will be allowed during this time until
such time as mitigation measures,
to the satisfaction of the City and
the USFWS are implemented.
The biologist must attend the City's
pre -construction meeting for the
project and must be present onsite
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 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).
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.
At a minimum, all protected
biological areas, as shown on the
grading plan, shall be staked by a
licensed surveyor and delineated
with lathe and ribbon. The
applicant shall have said staking
inspected by the Engineering
Inspector prior to any grading,
clearing or grubbing. A written
certification from the engineer of
work, or a licensed surveyor, shall
be provided to the Engineering
Inspector stating that all protected
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 37
areas are staked in accordance
with the approved project plans.
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.
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
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
Cultural
Prior to issuance of a grading
As noted
Applicant
Resources
permit, the applicant shall provide
written verification that a qualified
archeologist has been retained for
onsite monitoring and other
professional work that may be
necessitated by the project. This
verification shall be presented in a
letter from the project archeologist
to the City.
The certified archeologist shall
During grading
Applicant
attend the pre -grading meeting
with the contractors and City.
The consulting archeologist shall
During grading
Applicant
direct the field monitor during
grading of all areas identified for
development.
During the original cutting of
During grading
Applicant
previously undisturbed deposits,
the archeological monitor shall be
on-site, as determined by the
consulting archeologist, to perform
inspections of the excavations.
The frequency of inspections may
vary from full time to part time
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 38
depending upon the rate of
excavation, the materials
excavated, and the presence and
abundance of artifacts and
features.
Isolates and clearly non-significant
During grading
Applicant
deposits will be minimally
documented in the field, so the
monitored grading can proceed.
In the event that previously
unidentified historic resources are
During grading
Applicant
discovered, the archeologist 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
archeologist shall contact the City
at the time of discovery. The
archeologist, in consultation with
the City, shall determine the
significance of the discovered
resources. The City must concur
with the evaluation before
construction activities will be
allowed to resume in the affected
area. For significant cultural
resources that are discovered, and
which will be destroyed by grading,
a Research Design and Data
Recovery Program to mitigate
impacts shall be prepared by the
consulting archeologist and
approved by the City before being
carried out using professional
archeological methods. If any
human bones are discovered, all
grading at that location must stop
and the county coroner and City
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.
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 39
Before construction activities are
allowed to resume in the location of
During grading
Applicant
any discovered significant cultural
deposits, 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.
All cultural material collected
during the grading monitoring
Ongoing
Applicant
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.
A report documenting the field and
analysis results and interpreting
Ongoing
Applicant
the artifact and research data
within the research context shall be
completed and submitted to the
satisfaction of the City prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
No mechanical equipment shall be
used to clear vegetation within the
As Noted
Applicant
boundaries of SDI -21,701. Any
vegetation clearing needed to
adhere to the conditions of the fuel
modification shall be completed by
hand with appropriate tools to
avoid damage to any cultural
features or subsurface deposits. A
preservation easement, which
includes this stipulation shall be
recorded on this property prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Prior to the clearing of the fuel
modification zone, an archeologist
shall physically delineate the
As noted
Applicant
northwestern boundary of SDI -
21,701 with temporary stakes and
Resolution No. P-18-07
Page 40
flagging. This temporary
delineation shall serve as a
boundary between areas where
machinery can be used for clearing
and where only hand tools can be
used.
All work associated with the
clearing of the fuel modification
zone within the boundary of SDI-
As noted
21,701 shall be monitored by an
archeologist. Should the
archeological monitor identify any
cultural materials, appropriate
measures shall be implemented,
including mapping and collecting
artifacts, diverting any mechanical
clearing from areas of
archeological importance, and
archeological excavations to
mitigate impacts to any disturbed
cultural deposits.
Tribal Cultural
In the event that previously
As noted
Applicant
Resources
unidentified, potential tribal
cultural resources are discovered,
the archeologist shall have the
authority to divert or temporarily
halt ground -disturbance operation
in discovery to allow for the
evaluation of the potential
resources. The archeologist shall
contact the City at the time of
discovery. The City and/or the
archeologist shall contact the
Native American tribal
representatives on file with the City
who have requested notification of
projects pursuant to AB 52 to
discuss recovery options to be
implemented as determined
appropriate by the City. If the tribal
representative does not respond
to the City within 2 weeks of
notification, the City will consult
with the archeologist for
recommendations before allowing
grading to continue.