Res P-18-23RESOLUTION NO. P-18-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17-003 AND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-003 ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBER 317-534-20
WHEREAS, a request for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 17-003) and Development Review
(DR) 18-003 to subdivide an approximate seven -acre vacant parcel located at the westerly
terminus of Danes Road, in the Rural Residential A (RR -A) and Single -Family Residential - 7
(RS -7) zones, into seven residential lots and an open space lot and construct seven single-family
homes, one on each of the new residential lots, along with associated grading and improvements
were submitted by Mostafa Panah, Applicant, and Mostafa K & Roxana Panah and Navak LLC,
Owner: and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 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), 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 but is not located within the
Mitigation Area of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A Biological Report
(updated, October 2017) was prepared for the project by Cummings and Associates. In the report,
the project's compliance with the HCP is demonstrated and project impacts/mitigation are
specified. Overall, the project will impact 0.9 acres of natural habitat consisting of Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub. The habitat impact mitigation requirement is 0.9 acres. The total habitat impact is
associated with development of the seven residences, which includes the building pads and
driveways, manufactured slopes, as well as the project road and other project infrastructure. Since
the project site is located outside the HCP -designated Mitigation Area, the mitigation requirement
will be achieved by recordation of an off-site Biological Conservation Easement (BCE) over 0.9
acres of similar habitat located within the Mitigation Area of the Poway HCP or through payment
into the City's Habitat In -Lieu Fee account. The current rate is $17,000 per acre. The City will
use these funds to purchase habitat land within the Mitigation Area for preservation. Further, as
set forth in the EIS and MND, all impacts on biological resources will be less than significant after
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 2
implementation of the mitigation measures required by the EIS, MND and MMP attached hereto
as Exhibit A
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 mitigation as outlined in Section 2 above is consistent with and furthers the
implementing objectives of the HCP, since mitigation will consist of the applicant recording
an off-site BCE within the Mitigation Area or paying into the City's habitat impact in -lieu
account for off-site habitat preservation within the Mitigation Area.
B. The off-site habitat mitigation within the Mitigation Area 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 off-site BCE within the Mitigation Area will be recorded, or a habitat impact in -lieu
fee will be paid to the City which will be used towards purchasing habitat land within the
Mitigation Area for preservation. 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 the mitigation will result in conserving habitat land 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 moderate 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 and site survey did not result in the
identification of any historic or prehistoric resources on site. However, based on the moderate
frequency of prehistoric archaeological site surrounding the project area and the potential to
encounter buried or masked archaeological resources during grading, archaeological monitoring
is recommended. 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-18-23
Page 3
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
California, at a regular meeting this 18th day of September 2018.
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
c
N n y Keufeld, CMC, 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. P-18-23 was duly adopted by the City Council
at a meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of September 2018, and that it was so
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: LEONARD, FRANK, GROSCH, MULLIN, VAUS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
DISQUALIFIED: NONE
YaW44
Nanby NWeld, CMC, City Clerk
City of Poway
STE EVAUS,Ntayor CITY OF POWAY
JOHN N[U1JJN, Depuy Mayor
CAYLIN FRANK, Councilmember
DAVE GROSCH, Councilmembec
BARRY LEONARD, Councilmember
4NU1=]Ill L•1
CITY OF POWAY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Resolution No. P-18-23
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Mostafa Panah,
P.O. Box 5000 — PMB 502, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: The project is a proposed subdivision of an
approximately seven -acre parcel which would result in seven residential lots, one open space lot and
the construction of seven single-family homes, one on each of the new residential lots. The project site
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.
The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Oda Audish Phone: (858)668-4661
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
F_1
Attachment 1 Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND CHECKLIST
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
Project Title: Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17-003 and Development Review (DR) 18-003:
Aria Estates
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway. Development Services
13325 Civic Center Drive, Powav, CA 92064
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oda Audish (858) 668-4661
4. Project Location: Westerly Terminus of Danes Road City of Powav APN 317-534-20
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mostafa Panah, P.O. Box 5000 — PMB 502
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
6. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential -A and Residential Single -Family - 7
7. Zoning Rural Residential -A and Residential Single -Family - 7
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 property owner is proposing an eight -lot subdivision consisting of seven residential lots and
one open space lot and the construction of seven single-family homes, one on each of the new
residential lots. The project site is a vacant approximately seven -acre parcel located at the
terminus of Danes Road. The westerly approximate 2/3 of the property consists primarily of a
large knoll that is covered in Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and rises 80-100 feet in elevation above
the surrounding development. The easterly 1/3 of the property is relatively level terrain, partly due
to excavation in the early 1960s when nearby home tracts were developed. A portion of the more
level area is covered by Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub but most of the area has been disturbed due
to the aforementioned excavation.
The proposed residential lots would be created within the easterly, more level portion of the
proposed 5.2 -acre open space lot would consist of the knoll and would serve as a passive
recreational area for the subdivision.
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 6
The proposed subdivision would be accessed through the existing residential neighborhood to the
east via a public street (Danes Road) that terminates at the easterly boundary of the project site.
A private road connecting to Danes Road would be constructed to serve each of the new lots.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located in an urban setting surrounded
by existing development and borders Pomerado Road, a major arterial, to the west. The property
is bordered by single-family residential to the north and east. A senior multi -family residential
complex is located to the west across the street on Pomerado Road. Commercial development
is located to the south.
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.
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 7
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 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
El
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
Oda Audish August 23, 2018
City of Poway Date
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 8
C. EIS and Checklist
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
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:
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 9
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. Where available, the
significance criteria •.
the applicable
pollutionmanagement or air
district may be relied upon to make
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
X
for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 10
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•. -
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
onflictwith any local policies or
rresosites?
rdinances protecting biological
X
urces, such as a tree
reservation policy or ordinance?
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 11
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. -
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 • .
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-18-23
Page 12
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, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
X
creating 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?
VIL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
project: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• HAZARDOUS
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?
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 13
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
d. Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5and, as a
X
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
f. 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 evacuation Ian?
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.. . theproject:
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.
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 14
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a
X
manner which would result in
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
X
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 15
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to,
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
X
community conservation plan.
RESOURCES.XI. MINERAL
Would the project:
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.
Would the projecta.
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
X
has not been adopted, within two
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 16
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
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?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services.
i. Fire protection?
X
ii. Police protection?
X
iii. Schools?
X
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 17
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
iv. Parks?
X
v. Other public facilities?
X
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
h sical effect on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would.• -
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
X
a design feature (e.g.: sharp curves
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 18
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
or dangerous 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 pedestrian facilities, or
X
otherwise decrease the performance
or safely of such facilities?
TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCESXVII.
Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in -
significance of a ..
defined
Resources ••' section 21074
feature,
either a site, 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,
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.
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 19
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of
X
the applicable 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
or expansion of existing facilities, the
X
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?
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 20
•- •
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)?
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 contains a
substantial knoll that is visible from the surrounding lower lying areas. The majority of the
knoll is covered in Diegan Coastal Scrub. The base of the natural knoll formation,
however, has previously been disturbed/modified in connection with the widening of
Pomerado Road, a major arterial, to the west and in connection with the development of
the surrounding residential subdivisions to the north and east. The previously disturbed
areas have minimal aesthetic value. The home development would be concentrated along
the existing disturbed areas along the east side of the knoll and would include landscaping
similar to existing landscaping within the adjacent residential neighborhood. The proposed
approximately 5.2 -acre open space lot along the west side of the property would cover
over 2/3 of the site and would encompass the majority of the knoll. The applicant proposes
to retain the existing topography and vegetation within the open space lot except for
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 21
recontouring the existing slopes along Pomerado Road to allow for landscaping to be
added and thereby improve the street scape appearance. Impacts are considered to be
less than significant.
b) No Impact. There are no State scenic highways in the area. No impact would occur.
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.
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The project site is currently vacant with approximately half of the site in a
natural state and the other half disturbed as a result of the construction of the adjacent
Pomerado Road or the surrounding residential tract home development. The site is 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.
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
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 22
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 with a majority of the site in an
undeveloped, natural condition. The site supports 4.8 -acres of Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub (DCSS) but it is not eligible for on-site mitigation because it is not located within
the Mitigation Area of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A Biological
Report (updated, October 5, 2017) was prepared for the project by Cummings and
Associates. In the report, the project's compliance with the HCP is demonstrated and
project impacts/mitigation are specified. Overall, the project will impact 0.9 acres of
DCSS. The habitat impact is associated with development of the seven residences, which
includes the building pads and driveways, manufactured slopes, landscaping, and the
project road. Given the disturbed nature of the in -fill parcel and that no sensitive species
were found within the habitat area, the habitat impact mitigation requirement is 1:1 ratio
or 0.9 acres. The applicant has the option to mitigate the habitat impact by recording an
off-site Biological Conservation Easement within the HCP -designated Mitigation Area or
paying into the City's habitat impact in -lieu fee fund as described further below. The
project will include establishing an open space lot along the western portion of the site
which would include 3.9 -acres of DCSS habitat remaining on site. The site also supports
three coast live oaks which would be preserved since the project has been designed to
avoid grading impacts to these trees. 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 an off-site Biological Conservation
Easement over 0.9 acres of similar habitat located within the Mitigation Area of the
Poway Subarea HCP or through payment into the City's Habitat In -Lieu Fee account.
The current rate is $17,000 per acre. If an off-site easement is the selected mitigation
method, 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.
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 23
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.
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.
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
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 24
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
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.
c) 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 moderate 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 and site survey did not result in the identification
of any historic or prehistoric resources on site. Based on the moderate frequency of
prehistoric archaeological site surrounding the project area and the potential to encounter
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 25
buried or masked archaeological resources during grading, archaeological monitoring is
recommended. Impacts will be less than significant with incorporation of the following
Mitigation Measures:
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.
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 the initial brushing
of the parcel and any grading of the upper levels of soils disturbance 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,
exposure of formational soils and bedrock, 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 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.
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 26
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.
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 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,
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 27
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. Any fill materials 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."
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 7 new residences, impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. See response Vll.a above.
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 28
VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) No Impact. The project involves and eight -lot subdivision and construction of seven
homes on seven residential lots. The eighth lot would be reserved for open space lot. 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 Vlll.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.
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 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) No Impact. The project site is not located within Poway's designated Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) area (CAL FIRE VHFHSZ map 2009). The project
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires. No impact would occur.
IX. HYDROLOGYNVATER 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
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 29
occur within on-site desiltation basins and other site design features that will be
implemented with the project. Impacts will be less than significant
d) Less Than Significant Impact. See response IX.c above.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. See response IX.a and response IX.c above.
D 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 IX.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 three 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
surrounded by existing residential and commercial uses. Noise associated with adjacent
uses will not impact the project since noise associated with the adjoining uses will be
minimal. Noise from the project will be that typical to residential uses and will not impact
adjacent uses.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is known to have some rock formation which
may have to be broken up to accommodate improvements. There are several ways to
break rock, some of which could cause noise or ground borne vibration. Any rock
Resolution No. P-18-23
Page 30
blasting -activity would need to comply with the City's noise standards and would require
a City Permit to ensure that City Codes are complied with. Impacts are Less than
Significant.
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. The City's requirement for a blasting permit
will ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinance in the event of rock blasting.
Impact are less than significant.
e) No Impact. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station Miramar,
located approximately 5.5 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.
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 7 new homes. 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 1, which is located on
Civic Center Road, approximately 1 mile east 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 1
mile east of the project site. The site is included within the Sheriffs service area. Any