Res 20-016RESOLUTION NO. 20-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-019,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-008, VARIANCE 19-001 FOR AN
EXPANSION OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 275-510-19
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 18-019,
Development Review (DR) 18-008, and Variance (VAR) 19-001 for a phased modification and
expansion of the St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church campus located at 16275 Pomerado Road
in the Rural Residential -C (RR -C) zone consisting of the demolition of an existing 8,435 square -
foot, two-story parish hall, establishment of a new parking lot area, expansion of the existing pre-
school playground area, construction of a new 13,422 square -foot two-story parish community
center, conversion of six Sunday school classrooms to six preschool classrooms, an increase in
the maximum number of preschool students from 82 to 154 students, and allowing the proposed
parish community center to observe a 29 -foot front yard setback along Pomerado Road where 40
feet is required in the RR -C zone;
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2020, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to
receive testimony from the public, both for and against, relative to this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the agenda report for the proposed
project, including the attachments, and has considered all other evidence presented at the public
hearing.
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 CUP 18-019, DR 18-008 and VAR 19-001 involving
the expansion and modification of the St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church campus. The City
Council has considered the EIS and MND, and public comments received on the EIS and MND.
The subject EIS and MND documentation are fully incorporated herein by this reference. The
City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant impact on the environment. The City Council hereby adopts the
MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMP) included as Exhibit A and
Attachments 1 and 2.
SECTION 2: According to the Prehistoric and Historic Resources Element of the Poway
General Plan, the project site is in an area with a high probability that archeological/cultural
resources are present. The project site was developed with a church in 1967 and has been
subject to several expansion projects over the years. Grading and excavation required for the
project will be located in areas of previous disturbance. However, based on the high 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. The Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians asked that native cultural monitoring
be conducted during ground disturbance considering that the church is located about half a mile
from a known sensitive cultural resource to the north of the church site. With the implementation
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 2
of the recommended mitigation measure to provide cultural and tribal monitoring during grading
and excavation activities, the potential impacts of the Project on any unknown cultural resource
would be reduced to a Tess than significant. These mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the MND and will be enforced through the MMP attached hereto as Attachment 2 of Exhibit
A.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Poway, California on the 7th day of April, 2020 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: MULLIN, LEONARD, GROSCH, VAUS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRANK
DISQUALIFIED: NONE
ATTEST:
Faviola M
'a CMC, City Clerk
Steve Vaus, Mayor
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF POWAY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Mark Davis,16275 Pomerado Road, Poway CA 92064
2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) 18-019, Development Review (DR) 18-008, and Variance (VAR) 19-001; a request for a
phased modification and expansion of the St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church campus located at
16275 Pomerado Road in the Rural Residential -C (RR -C) zone consisting of the demolition of an
existing 8,435 square -foot, two-story parish hall, establishment of a new parking lot area, expansion of
the existing pre-school playground area, construction of a new 13,422 square -foot, two-story parish
community center, conversion of six Sunday school classrooms to six preschool classrooms, and
increasing the maximum number of preschool students from 82 to 154 students. A Variance is also
requested to allow the proposed parish community center to observe a 29 -foot front yard setback along
Pomerado Road where 40 feet is required in the RR -C zone.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway City Council has found that the above project will
not have a significant effect upon the environment and has approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the Environmental Initial
Study that includes the Initial Study and Checklist and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program
containing the mitigation measures approved for this project.
5. The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Oda R. Audish Phone: (858) 668-4661
Attachments:
1. Environmental Initial Study
2. Mitigation Monitoring Program
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF POWAY
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND CHECKLIST
A. INTRODUCTION
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 4
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: St Bartholomew's Episcopal Church Parrish Community Center and Preschool
Expansion, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 18-019, Development Review (DR) 18-008, and
Variance (VAR) 19-001
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway, Development Services
13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oda Audish, Associate Planner, (858)668-4661
4. Project Location: 16275 Pomerado Road, Poway CA 92064
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mark Davis, 16275 Pomerado Road, Poway, CA 92064
6. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential -C
7. Zoning: Rural Residential -C (RR -C)
8. Description of Project: This is a request for a phased modification and expansion of the St.
Bartholomew's Episcopal Church campus located at 16275 Pomerado Road consisting of the
demolition of an existing 8,435 square -foot, two-story parish hall, establishment of a new parking
lot area, expansion of the existing pre-school playground area, construction of a new 13,422
square -foot, two-story parish community center, conversion of six Sunday school classrooms to
six preschool classrooms, and increasing the maximum number of preschool students from 82 to
154 students. A Variance is also requested to allow the proposed parish community center to
observe a 29 -foot front yard setback along Pomerado Road where 40 feet is required in the RR-
C zone. The proposed project will also require grading, installation of a new wall along the parking
lot, construction of a new walkway, removal of trees, installation of stormwater treatment facilities,
and relocation of a fire hydrant.
The proposed project will be constructed in phases over approximately eight years as funding
becomes available. The first phase would include the demolition of the existing parish hall and
replacing it with a new parking lot. A new pedestrian ramp will be created from the new parking
lot to the existing columbarium and the area of the existing ramp will be developed with a separate
playground for two-year old children.
The two next phases would include the construction the new parish community center. The first
floor with an interim roof terrace covered with red fabric would be constructed first. Subsequently,
1
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 5
EIS and Checklist
the roof terrace would be converted to the second floor of the community center and a permanent
roof would be constructed.
The final phase would involve changing six existing Sunday School classrooms to preschool
classrooms to allow the preschool student count to increase from 82 to 154 students at any one
time.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 5.16 -acre project site is located in an urban setting and
surrounded by single-family residential uses on all sides, except for a religious facility that is
located to the north. Pomerado Road borders the site along the west property line.
The site slopes approximately 80 feet downward from the southwest corner to the northeast
corner. The project site is developed with a religious facility consisting of five buildings (a
sanctuary, an administration building, an education (preschool) building, and a parish hall) totaling
34,384 square feet. In addition, the site is developed with a columbarium, playground, parking
lot, and landscaping. The approximately one -acre southeasterly portion of the site consists of
disturbed native vegetation.
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? If so, is there a
plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to
tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), the Mesa Grande Band of
Mission Indians and Barona Band of Mission Indians tribes, which are traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Poway's jurisdiction, requested formal notice
of and information on proposed projects within the City of Poway. On January 12, 2020, in
compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City of Poway, as Lead
Agency, sent a letter to the Tribal Representatives for those tribes notifying the tribes of the
proposed project. Responses to the AB 52 consultation notices were received as discussed in this
document.
NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies,
and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential
adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the
environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also
be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public
Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources
Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
2
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 6
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
❑ Biological Resource
1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑ Agricultural /Forestry
Resources
❑ Air Quality
n Energy
❑ Geology /Soils
/1 Cultural Resources
❑ Land Use and Planning
❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials
❑ Hydrology / Water
❑ Population and Housing
❑ Mineral Resources
Quality
❑ Transportation
Public Services
❑ Noise
❑ Mandatory Findings of
/1 Tribal Cultural Resources
❑ Recreation
Significance
❑ Wildfire
❑ Utilities and Service
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.
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.
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed 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.
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.
[z
o
City of Poway
3
Date
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 7
EIS and Checklist
C. EIS and Checklist
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
NO
IMPACT
I. AESTHETICS.
Except as provided in Public Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
X
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including
timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by
the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the
state's inventory of forest land,
X
4
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 8
EIS and Checklist
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
NO
IMPACT
including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California
Air Resources Board. Would the
project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique
farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance (farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest land?
X
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
X
III. AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable
air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
5
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 9
EIS and Checklist
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
NO
IMPACT
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
d. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
•eo•le?
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
e. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
6
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 10
EIS and Checklist
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
NO
IMPACT
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
.reservation .olic or ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation
•Ian?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
X
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
X
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY.
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
o aeration?
X
X
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death
involvin.:
X
I) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geolo • ist for the area or
X
7
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 11
EIS and Checklist
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
NO
IMPACT
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on -
or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risk to life or property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
8
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 12
EIS and Checklist
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
X
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
•reenhouse eases?
X
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the pro.ect:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working within the
project area
X
f. Impair implementation of, or
physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g. Expose people or structures either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
9
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 13
EIS and Checklist
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
X
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite?
X
(ii) substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
matter which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
X
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
X
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
10
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 14
EIS and Checklist
Xl. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
X
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental
effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
'
X
X
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use • Ian?
XIII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient, noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other a. encies?
X
X
b. Generation of, excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
X
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
X
11
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 15
EIS and Checklist
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
X
re•Iacement housin. elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services.
i. Fire protection?
X
ii. Police protection?
X
iii. Schools?
X
iv. Parks?
X
v. Other •ublic facilities?
XVI. RECREATION.
X
a. Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
X
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
X
•h sical effect on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a. Conflict with program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b. Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c. Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.:
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g.: farm equipment)?
X
12
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 16
EIS and Checklist
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
a. Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
X
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined
in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1 k , or
X
ii. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource
to a California Native American
tribe.
XIS. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
si.nificant environmental effects?
X
X
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonabl foreseeable future
X
13
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 17
EIS and Checklist
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c. Result in the determination by the
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project, that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
X
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e. Comply with federal, state and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
XX. WILDFIRE rv,
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
:.
X
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
X
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
14
EIS and Checklist
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples or the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 18
X
b. Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulative considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly?
X
15
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 19
EIS and Checklist
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the following
evaluation.
I. AESTHETICS:
a. No Impact. The project site is not located in the City's designated Hillside
Ridgeline areas or along a street that is designated a scenic corridor. The project
site is currently developed with a church that is mainly visible from Pomerado
Road due to site topography. The proposed new parish hall and parking lot will
be located in an area of the site that has been previously developed. Full and
partial visibility of the project will be limited to the neighborhoods in the immediate
vicinity of the project site and to Pomerado Road. The architecture of the
proposed parish hall building will be similar to the architecture of existing building
on the site. Thirty-eight trees are proposed to be removed due to the health of
the trees or to make room for the new development. The project calls for
landscaping, including, but not limited to, trees will be planted to soften the
appearance of the proposed parking lot and parish hall. No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any State scenic
highway, the proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a
State scenic highway. No impact would occur.
c. No Impact. See response I.a.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The site is currently developed with a religious
facility with sources of light and glare consisting of headlights on cars in the
parking lot, exterior light fixtures in the parking lot and court yards, and interior
light spilling through windows. The proposed project would include the
installation of five additional parking lot and seven courtyard lights. The new
parish hall would also have interior light that would be visible from the surrounding
area. Compliance with City lighting standards, including, but not limited to
directing exterior lights downward would help to ensure that the light and glare
created by the proposed project would be consistent with the levels of light and
glare currently emitted in the surrounding developed environment. Therefore, a
less -than significant impact would occur.
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:
a. No Impact. The project site is a previously developed property 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.
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.
16
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 20
EIS and Checklist
d. No Impact. As stated in response II.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. No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. See response II.a above.
c. Less Than Significant. Grading of the project will likely result in the creation of
dust and can affect the surrounding residential area. Standard City best
management practice 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.
d. No Impact. The project will not result in the creation of objectionable odor. No
impact would occur.
17
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 21
EIS and Checklist
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
a. No Impact. Almost the entire property subject to this proposal has been
developed or previously disturbed. Since the proposed development is
contained within areas that have been previously disturbed or developed, no
impacts to habitat would occur. Approximately 36 ornamental trees are proposed
for removal on the site to make room for the proposed development or because
the trees are diseased and pose a danger of falling over. None of the trees are
native. The trees proposed for removal are required to be replaced in accordance
with the City of Poway's Urban Forestry Ordinance, Chapter 12.32 of the Poway
Municipal Code (PMC). No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive habitat that would be
directly impacted by the proposed development. The property to the south is
occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat which is a sensitive natural community
identified in the Poway Habitat Subarea Conservation Plan (HCP) and a type of
habitat that is known as nesting habitat for the California Gnatcatcher. In
accordance with the HCP, its companion Implementing Agreement, and
associated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the HCP, a condition of approval
of the church expansion project will prohibit grading within 500 feet of Coastal
Sage Scrub during February 15 to July 1 which is the gnatcatcher nesting season
adopted by the HCP unless a California gnatcatcher nesting survey has been
completed and demonstrates that there are no California gnatcatcher nesting
within 500 feet of the proposed area to be graded. No impact would occur.
c. No Impact. The site and adjoining areas do not contain any wetlands. No impact
would occur.
d No Impact. The project site is not located within any reported local or regional
corridors for native or migratory wildlife. See IV.b.
e. No Impact. See IV.a.
f. No Impact. See IV. b.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
a. No Impact. The subject site does not contain any historical resources. The
existing parish hall to be demolished is not on the City's list of historical
structures. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
b Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site
was developed with a church in 1967 and has been subject to several expansion
projects. Grading and excavation required for the project will be located in areas
of previous disturbance. However, since the subject property is mapped in the
Poway General Plan as being in an area where there is high potential for cultural
resources to exist, there is a potential during construction of the discovery of
cultural resources. Grading and trenching in greater depths than have previously
occurred on the site, as well as other ground -disturbing actions, have the
potential to damage or destroy previously unidentified and potentially significant
cultural resources within the Project area. Disturbance of any deposits that have
18
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 22
the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant
impact under CEQA. As discussed in XVIII.a.ii, the Mesa Grande Band of Mission
Indians asked that native cultural monitoring be conducted during ground
disturbance considering that the church is located about half a mile from a known
sensitive cultural resource to the north of the church site. The potential impacts
of the Project on any unknown cultural resource would be reduced to less than
significant with the implementation a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program listed below.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written
verification that a qualified archaeologist and recognized Native American
monitor 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 and recognized Native American monitor shall
attend the pre -grading meeting with the contractors to explain and
coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program.
3. The consulting archaeologist and recognized Native American monitor
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 and recognized Native American 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 and recognized Native American monitor shall have the
authority to divert or temporarily halt ground -disturbance operation in the
area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant
cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the
time of discovery. The archaeologist and recognized Native American
monitor, 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
19
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 23
county coroner and City of Poway shall be contacted. In the event that
the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most
Likely Descendant, as identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission (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 and recognized Native American monitor 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 Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) Primary and Archaeological Site Forms.
c. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See V.b.
VI. ENERGY
a. Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would create
temporary increased demands for electricity and vehicle fuels compared to
existing conditions. Construction of the project would require electricity use to
power construction equipment. Electricity use during construction would vary
during different phases of construction. The majority of construction equipment
would be gas powered. Since the project site is already served by onsite
electrical infrastructure, adequate electrical infrastructure capacity is available to
accommodate the electricity demand during construction. Operation of the larger
parish hall and the increase in the number of preschool students would result in
an increase in electricity demands. However, there is sufficient electricity
infrastructure in the region for the increase in electricity demand and the project
would not require expanded electricity supplies. Therefore, impacts from energy
use during short-term construction activities and operation would be less than
significant.
b. No Impact. The project would not obstruct any state or local plans for renewable
energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
a.i) No 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
20
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 24
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. No impact would
occur.
a.ii) No Impact. The project site is located in seismically active southern California
and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking.
Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of
known active and potentially active faults in the region, including several
unnamed faults, larger faults such as Murphy Canyon Fault, and major fault
systems such as Elsinore, San Jacinto and Rose Canyon. An earthquake along
any of these known active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking and
consequently cause injury and/or property damage in the project vicinity. 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, pursuant to these
existing guidelines. No impact would occur.
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 would occur.
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 Toss 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. The parking
lot and pad for the proposed parish hall will be graded according to City
requirements and 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.
21
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 25
EIS and Checklist
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. 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.
f. 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. The project site is located on a site
developed with a church in 1967 and has been subject to several expansion
projects. Grading and excavation required for the project will be located in areas
of previous disturbance. Therefore, the project would result in less than
significant impact to paleontological resources.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
a & b. Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHG), 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." GHG impacts that attributable to this proposed project are emissions
associated with construction activities and operations related to traffic and energy
use.
A Greenhouse Gas Analysis report was prepared for the project by Dr. Valorie L.
Thompson (on behalf of Eilar Associates, Inc.) and dated October 29, 2018. The
report explains that many lead agencies have adopted the threshold as
recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA), CEQA and Climate Change — Evaluating and Addressing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act as a guidance on screening when a project would
generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the
environment and would warrant further analysis. 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. The project GHG analysis concluded that the net increase of GHG
emissions of 250 metric tons of CO2 is well below the CAPCOA threshold of 900
metric tons. Furthermore, the emissions associated with the project will be
further reduced to a level that is consistent with the goals of AB 32 to reduce
statewide GHG emissions through the implementation mobile source emission
regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, and renewable portfolio
standards adopted by the State of California. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in a cumulatively considerable global climate change impact.
22
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 26
EIS and Checklist
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
a - c. No Impact. The project involves the construction of a new parish community
center, addition of parking spaces, and an increase in preschool student count at
a site with an existing church. No transport, storage or use of hazardous
materials beyond that which typically occurs with a religious facility will occur. 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 10 miles southwest of the project site, and
Gillespie Field, located approximately 9 miles east 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 or working in the project area and no impact would occur.
f. 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. No
impact would occur.
g.
No Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ)
map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is not located within the
VHFHSZ. Accordingly, the project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would
occur.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
a. No Impact. The project will comply with all storm water quality regulations or
waste discharge requirements surface water quality as governed by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the County of San Diego, and the
City of Poway. The project will require a grading permit and a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which will be ensured as part of the project
improvements plan review and building permit process. The project will
incorporate pervious paving in new parking lot areas and implement other Low
Impact Development (LID) features. The project incorporates stormwater basins
and will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
No impact would occur.
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 through the use of pervious paving and
implementation of LIDs. No impact would occur.
c.i-iii) No Impact. The project has been designed such that there is no increase in the
amount of storm water runoff beyond which currently occurs. The project will
incorporate pervious paving in new parking lot areas and implement other Low
Impact Development (LID) features and will include the construction of storm
23
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 27
water treatment facilities. The stormwater management facilities are required to
be maintained throughout the life of the project as outlined in section 16.104 of
the Poway Municipal Cod. No impact would occur.
c.iv) Less than Significant Impact. The project has been designed such that there
is no increase in the amount of storm water runoff beyond which currently occurs.
The project will incorporate pervious paving in new parking lot areas and
implement other Low Impact Development (LID) features and will include the
construction of storm water treatment facilities. The stormwater management
facilities are required to be maintained throughout the life of the project as
outlined in section 16.104 of the Poway Municipal Cod. Impacts will be less than
significant
d. No Impact. The project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone
that would pose the risk of pollutants being released due to project inundation.
No impact would occur.
e. No Impact. See X.a and X.b above. No impact would occur.
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
a. No Impact. The project involves the construction of a new parish community
center, addition of a parking lot, and an increase in preschool student count at a
site with an existing church. The project will not divide an established
neighborhood. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would modify an existing religious
facility which is an allowed land use with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed project will comply with all development standards for the RR -C
zone and a semi-public facility such as a church, except for a requested variance
to allow the Parish Community Center building to maintain a 29 -foot front yard
setback along Pomerado Road when 40 feet is required for the RR -C zone. The
requested reduced front yard setback will not result in an aesthetic impact or
other environmental effect considering that the setback is identical to an existing
building on the site and the visual effect of the structure as seen from Pomerado
Road will be softened by the grade difference between the proposed structure
and the adjacent road and sidewalk and incorporation of trees and landscaping.
Furthermore, the nearest home to the building with the reduced setback is
located more than 125 feet away, across Pomerado Road behind a wall. The
nearest development to the south and east will not be able to see the portion of
the building with the reduced setback. The nearest property to the north that
would be able to see the building is more than 300 feet away and is also
developed with a religious facility. Therefore, allowing a reduced front yard
setback will have Tess than significant impact.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES:
a & b. No Impact. Pursuant to the City of Poway Master Environmental Assessment
prepared in conjunction with the update to the Poway General Plan in 1991, there
are no known mineral resources on the site. Additionally, the site has been
previously developed and the proposed church expansion is located in an area
24
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 28
that has been previously developed or disturbed. Therefore, no impacts would
occur.
XIII. NOISE:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The applicant submitted a noise analyses titled
St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church Improvements, dated June 13, 2019 and
prepared by dBF Associates, Inc. The noise analysis evaluates potential noise
that would affect or be produced by the church's project. The primary noise
source in the project vicinity is vehicular traffic, particularly from Pomerado Road
which borders the Project site on the west side.
The noise analysis evaluated the effect traffic noise has on the proposed
preschool playground expansion. The study found that the future Exterior Noise
Levels (CNEL) would be 54 dBA which is within the "Normally Acceptable" noise
levels for playground areas (up to 67.5 dBA) as established in the Public Safety
Element of Poway General Plan. The noise analysis also evaluated the interim
condition for the Parish Community Center building when the building would be
one-story with a roof top terrace. A project feature of the rooftop terrace includes
a solid five-foot high noise barrier along its full west edge and western half of its
north edge. With this project feature, the future exterior noise level on the outdoor
usable area would be 63 dba which is within the "Conditionally acceptable" noise
levels for auditoriums, concert halls and amphitheaters as established in the
Public Safety Element of Poway General Plan. Although the general plan states
that the outdoor environment will seem noisy, such space and associated use
could be approved. The outdoor terrace area will only be used for special
function and for short durations.
The noise analysis evaluated the existing and future noise sources generated by
the proposed Project consisting of HVAC units, children in the playground, people
having conversations in outdoor gathering areas, and vehicle movement. The
noise study also considered occasional use of amplified sound on the proposed
terrace for specific events subject to City approval of a Temporary Use Permit.
The analysis found that at the property line, the noise levels generated by the
project would be 50 dBA Leq or less during daytime hours, 45 dBA Leq or less
during the evening, and 40 dBA Leq or less during the night. These noise levels
comply with the Poway Municipal Code noise limits for residential areas along
the north, east, and south property lines and with the City of San Diego Municipal
Code noise limits along the west property line.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The noise study described above in XIII.a.
analyzed construction vibration generated by the proposed Project. The report
lists typical vibration levels associated with potential construction equipment.
Considering that earth moving equipment would be at least 150 feet away from
the nearest residence, the study found that the vibration level generated by the
equipment would be "barely perceptible" to humans within neighboring residence
and would not cause damage to nearby residential structures. The temporary
vibration impacts associated with the Project construction would be less than
significant.
c. No Impact. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar, located approximately 10 miles southwest of the project site, and
25
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 29
Gillespie Field, located approximately 9 miles east 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 noise hazard for people
working in the project area and no impact would occur.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
a & b. No Impact. The proposed project is located on a lot that is currently developed
with a religious facility along a major arterial. A religious facility is a semi-public
use that is allowed in the RR -C zone with the approval of a CUP. The project
will not induce growth indirectly as it will be serviced by existing infrastructure
within the project vicinity. Additionally, no people or housing will be displaced as
project as the site does not contain of any residential uses. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a.i Fire Protection — Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by
the City of Poway Fire Department. The project could result in an incremental
increase in the demand for fire protection and emergency services with the larger
parish hall and increased preschool student count. The site is already included
within the Fire Department service area and the incremental increase in potential
for an unexpected emergency call to this project can be accounted for. Aside
from relocating an existing fire hydrant to make room for the proposed parish
community center, no new or upgraded fire protection facilities would be required
as a result of this project and no physical impacts resulting from construction of
new facilities are identified. A less than significant impact would occur.
a.ii. Police Protection — Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Poway
contracts with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement
services. The project site is currently served by the Poway Station, which is
located at 13100 Bowron Road. The site is included within the Sheriff's service
area. Any specific service provided that should be an (unexpected) emergency
call to the site is accounted for. No new or upgraded police protection facilities
would be required as a result of establishment of this project and no physical
impacts resulting from construction of new facilities and increase in preschool
student count are identified. A less than significant impact would occur.
a.iii. Schools — No Impact. The proposed church expansion and increase in
preschool student count will not generate the need for additional school facilities
as no new residents would be associated with the project. No impact would
occur.
a. iv. Parks — No Impact. The proposed church expansion and increase in preschool
student count will not generate the need for additional park space as no new
residents would be associated with the project. The proposed project includes
an expansion of the playground area to accommodate the additional children. No
impact would occur.
a.v. Other Public Facilities — Less Than Significant Impact. The project would
result in an incremental increase in the need for use of public facilities such as
storm drain usage, solid -waste disposal, water usage, and wastewater disposal
26
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 30
or service, but would not require new or physically altered public facilities. A Tess
than significant impact would occur.
XVI. RECREATION:
a. No Impact. The recreational needs of proposed additional in preschool students
would be met with the proposed playground expansion. The remainder of the
project involves the construction of a new parish community center and creation
of additional parking spaces at a site with an existing church. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in an increase in the use of existing
neighborhood and regional park or other recreational facilities. No impact will
occur.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new parish community center
and creation of additional parking spaces at a site with an existing church will not
require the need for development of recreational facilities. The recreational
needs of proposed additional in preschool students would be met with the
proposed expansion of the playground. The new playground would be developed
in an area that is currently developed with an existing walkway/ramp leading to
an existing columbarium garden through grading and construction of a retaining
wall. The walkway/ramp will be reestablished a more northerly location similar to
the existing walkway/ramp. Therefore, the proposed playground expansion will
have less than significant adverse physical effect on the environment.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION:
a. No Impact. The proposed project is a minor expansion in the capacity of an
existing religious facility and would not be in conflict with program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. No impact will occur.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not be in conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) in that the
proposed project is a land use project involving an expansion of an existing
religious facility and existing preschool that is located approximately 200 feet
from a bus stop along Pomerado Road which is a major arterial with connections
to major transit stops. Therefore, the proposed project would cause less than a
significant transportation impact.
c. No Impact. The proposed project would not affect the design of streets. The
existing driveway will be used as access to the site. No impact will occur.
d. No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access as the
site will be accessed via the existing driveway from the public street. The
parking lot will be reconfigured to provide closer and more direct emergency
vehicle access to existing and proposed buildings. No impact will occur.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:
27
EIS and Checklist
a.i)
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 31
No Impact. The project site is not on a "Local register of historical resources"
and is not officially designated or recognized as historically significant by Poway.
No impact would occur.
a.ii) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See V.b and V.c.
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), the Mesa
Grande Band of Mission Indians and Barona Band of Mission Indians tribes,
which are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the
City of Poway's jurisdiction, requested formal notice of and information on
proposed projects within the City of Poway. On January 12, 2020 in compliance
with California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City of Poway, as
Lead Agency, sent a letter to the Tribal Representatives for those tribes
requesting notification of the proposed project. The Barona Band responded that
it did not have any further requests. The Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
requested that native monitoring be conducted during ground disturbance
considering that the church is located about half a mile from a known sensitive
cultural resource to the north of the church site. The incorporation of mitigation
measures for cultural resources as listed in V.a.1 through V.a.8 would also
reduce the potential impacts on tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Mitigation:
See mitigation measures V.a.1 through V.a.8
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
a. No Impact. The proposed Project is an expansion of an existing church facility
with a preschool. As such, the proposed project would only result in an
incremental need for increased use of water, wastewater treatment, electric
power, natural gas, and telecommunication systems. Further, the proposed
project would result in a minor increase of impervious areas (9.5 percent
increase. The project includes adding stormwater treatment basins and other
facilities on-site designed to address the incremental increase. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
b. No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in in a minor
increase the intensity of existing uses on the project site. The resulting increased
water use would be considered insignificant. The project is served by the City of
Poway which has a sufficient water supply available to serve this project. No
impact would occur.
c. No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in an
insignificant increase in wastewater generation. The City of San Diego treatment
plant has adequate capacity to treat the incremental wastewater generated by
the project. No impact would occur.
d. No Impact. Demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed
project would result in the generation of solid waste such as scrap lumber,
concrete, residual wastes, packing materials, and plastics. The project would be
required to dispose of such materials according to a Construction Waste
Management Plan. Operation of the larger parish hall and increase in the number
28
EIS and Checklist
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 32
of students on the project site would likely be associated with an increased
generation of solid waste. Solid waste collection and disposal is currently
provided in EDCO Waste Management. Solid waste is collected and sorted for
recyclables and the solid waste that is not recycled is hauled to a permitted
landfill. The solid waste generated by the project is not anticipated to significantly
impact the life expectancy of the landfill that serves the city. The solid waste
generated by the project will increase, it will not significantly impact its life
expectancy of the landfill. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e. No Impact. This project will be required to comply with and meet all applicable
with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste
collection and disposal. The facility will appropriately separate its waste so that
recyclables and controlled (and food) wastes are separated from landfill trash in
accordance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. Therefore,
no impact would occur.
XX. WILDFIRE:
a. No Impact. See Section XV.a.i. (Public Services — Fire Protection).
b. No Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ)
map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is not located within the
VHFHSZ. Accordingly, the project would not expose any project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
No impact will occur.
c. No Impact. The proposed parish community center, parking lot expansion and
increase in preschool student count would not require the installation or
maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, no impact will occur.
d. No Impact. As discussed in Section X, the project site is not located in a dam
inundation area, at the base of a mountainous landform, or in an area prone to
flooding. Additionally, the project will not be altering drainage patterns on the site.
Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. No impact would occur.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation. See responses V and XVIII.
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, VII, and XIII above.
29
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 33
ATTACHMENT 2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-019
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-008
AND VARIANCE 19-001
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
Cultural
Resources
and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
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.
As noted
Applicant
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.
As noted
Applicant
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.
During grading
Applicant
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
During grading
Applicant
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 34
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. Isolated and clearly non-
significant deposits will be
minimally documented in the field,
so the monitored grading can
proceed.
During grading
Applicant
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.
During grading
Applicant
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
Resolution No. 20-016
Page 35
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.
During grading
Applicant
8. All cultural material collected
during the grading monitoring
program shall be processed and
curated according to the current
professional repository standards.
As Noted
Applicant
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
As noted
Applicant
Archaeological Site Forms.