Res 22-051RESOLUTION NO. 22-051
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 21-003 AND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-002 ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBER 314-192-02
WHEREAS, a request for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 21-003) and Development Review
(DR 21-002) was submitted by Cornerstone Communities to subdivide a 4.77-acre parcel into 20
lots and construct 20 single-family dwelling units located at 13667 Twin Peaks Road, in the
Residential Single -Family 4 (RS-4) zone; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, 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) a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), attached as Exhibit 1, and an
Environmental Initial Study (EIS), attached as Exhibit 2, 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 the project will have a significant impact on
the environment, that the mitigation measures contained in the EIS will mitigate potentially
significant impacts to a less than significant level, and that the MND reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council hereby adopts the MND and the associated
Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 3.
SECTION 2: A Biological Report dated July 2021, was prepared for the project by Alden
Environmental. The report indicates that no special status plants or animals were observed at
the project site during a biological survey, and none are expected based on the disturbed nature
of the project site. No active bird nests were observed on the project site during the general
biological survey or during the focused nesting survey conducted for the project. Three inactive
raptor nests were observed in the pine trees on site during the surveys. Raptors and potentially
other bird species would likely utilize these nests for breeding in the future. Thus, the project
would result in potentially significant impacts to migratory or nesting birds, and mitigation is
required. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 a would reduce potentially significant
impacts to migratory or nesting birds to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation measure BIO-1 a
is included in Exhibit 3 of this resolution. There is a low potential for roosting bat species to occur
in the structures and/or mature palm trees on the project site, and mitigation is required.
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 b would reduce the impact roosting bats to a less
than significant level. Mitigation measure BIO-1 b is included in Exhibit 3 of this resolution.
SECTION 3: According to the Prehistoric and Historic Resources Element of the Poway
General Plan, the project site is located in an area with a high probability that archeological
resources are present (Poway 2002). A Cultural Resources Technical Report was conducted for
the project by ASM Affiliates, dated August 2021. The project site is located within the boundary
of the prehistoric Village of Paguai. Archaeological resources have been identified on the project
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 2
site in the past and recently during the archaeological survey conducted for the project. Based
on the known presence of the Village of Paguai on the project site, and the identification of a large
number of artifacts on the project site, the presence of an intact subsurface deposit is possible.
This site is presumed eligible for listing in the CRHR. As such, a CRHR-eligible resource is present
on the project site and implementation of the project would result in potentially significant impacts
to known and unknown archaeological resources. To address potential impacts to Cultural
Resources, the Barona Band of Mission Indians and the La Posta Band of Mission Indians
requested a Native American monitor of consultant be present during earth moving activities. The
implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 would reduce these impacts to a
less -than -significant level. Mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 are included in Exhibit 3
of this resolution.
SECTION 4: Notice of the availability of the EIS and proposed MND for public review
and comment was provided pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Three comment letters were
received. One letter was received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requesting
that a mitigation measure be included to 1) require a pre -construction bat acoustic survey; 2)
revise the mitigation measure addressing bird nesting surveys; and 3) recommend that native tree
species be used as the replacement trees. Two comment letters came from neighbors raising
concerns over biology and traffic. The comments letters are included as Exhibit 4 of this resolution
and the responses to the comment letters are included as Exhibit 5 of this resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Poway, California on the 19th day of July, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: LEONARD, FRANK, MULLIN
NOES: GROSCH, VAUS
ABSENT: NONE
DISQUALIFIED: NONE
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 3
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF POWAY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Cornerstone Communities
4635 Executive Drive, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92121
2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: A request for a 20-lot single-family
residential subdivision that would be accessed from an extension of the existing
cul-de-sac of Holly Oak Way. The project also consists of the demolition of an
existing single-family residence, removal of trees present on the site, mass
grading, and the construction of 20 single-family dwelling units. The project
includes one affordable housing unit which makes the project eligible for a density
bonus per State law. Pursuant to State density bonus law, the project is eligible
for concessions and waivers from City Development Standards. The applicant is
requesting reduced lot sizes, lot widths and side yard setbacks.
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: Austin Silva
Phone: (858) 668-4658
Approved by: Date:
Robert J. Manis, Director of Development Services
M:\planning\forms\Environmental\mit neg dec form.docx
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 5
extended to the site. A six -foot -high, concrete masonry unit (CMU) decorative block wall would be
constructed along the rear property line of the homes that would back up to Twin Peaks Road and
would provide noise attenuation. A pedestrian easement would extend from Holly Oak Way and
connect to the pedestrian trail along Twin Peaks Road. The Holly Oak extension streetscape
improvements would include new pedestrian sidewalks, street, trees, and decorative Old Poway
street lights consistent with the existing street lights on Holly Oak Way. The protect includes 39
street trees along the extension of Holly Oak Way.
Proiect construction would require the excavation of 5,900 cubic yards (cy) of soil, with 7,000 cy
of fill. Approximately 1,100 cy of soil would be imported to the site to accomplish grading of the
site. Construction would occur in four phases of approximately five homes each over a period of
several years.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include institutional uses and single-
family residential uses. The Diroma Estates subdivision is located off Midland Road to the
south/southwest of the proiect site along Holly Oak Way and is also zoned RS-4. Living Way
Church and a single-family residence at the end of Outlook Drive are located west of the project
site; these properties are also zoned RS-4. Administrative offices, Poway adult school, and a bus
fleet storage lot for the Poway Unified School District are located across Twin Peaks Road, north
of the project site. St. Gabriel Catholic Church is located Oust east of the school district property.
The Kent Hills subdivision with access off Twin Peaks Road is located east of the proiect site
along Kent Hill Way and is also zoned RS-4. Traffic signals operate along Twin Peaks Road at
the intersections with Midland Road and Budwin Lane, while a stop sign controlled intersection
occurs along Midland Road at the intersection with Holly Oak Way. The project site is surrounded
by land within the Old Poway Specific Plan area.
Elevations on the project site range from approximately 550 to 560 feet above mean sea level.
The project site was historically used for farming and now contains a residence that was
constructed in the late 1950s. The existing residence is surrounded by mature trees. The
remainder of the parcel is vacant and has been disturbed by previous orchard activities. The
project site contains developed, disturbed, and ornamental vegetation communities.
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.?
City staff contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a consultation
list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project.
The NAHC provided a consultation list of 16 tribes. On April 19, 2022, 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 notifying the tribes of the proposed project. Responses to the Assembly
Bill (AB) 52 consultation notices were received, as discussed in this document (refer to the Tribal
Cultural Resources impact discussion).
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
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 7
C. EIS AND CHECKLIST
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS -THAN-
NO
ISSUE
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
1. AESTHETICS.
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
section 21099,
would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
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
X
accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light
or glare that would adversely affect day X
or nighttime views in the area?
FORESTRYIII. AGRICULTURAL AND •
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique
farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance (farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to 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?
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 9
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS -THAN-
NO
ISSUE
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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,
X
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife 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, regulations, or
X
by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
X
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 migratory
X
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
X
policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
X
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 11
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS -THAN-
NO
ISSUE
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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 off -site
X
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), creating substantial direct
X
or indirect risk to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
X
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or X
unique geologic feature?
GREENHOUSEaEMISSIONS.
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
X
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
X
gases?
HAZARDSXIX r HAZARDOUS
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
X
materials?
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 13
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS -THAN-
NO
ISSUE
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
X
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
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 that
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site;
X
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a matter
that would result in flooding on or off
X
site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water
that would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
X
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
X
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
X
project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
X
plan?
■ USE AND
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
X
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
X
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
10
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 15
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS -THAN-
NO
ISSUE
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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 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?
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that
X
might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
X
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
X
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
12
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 17
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS -THAN-
NO
ISSUE
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
X
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
X
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
X
project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
X
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes X
and regulations related to solid waste?
XX WILDFIRE
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
X
emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
X
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
14
Resolution No. 22-051
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist Page 19
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the following evaluation.
AESTHETICS
a. Less -than -Significant Impact. The City does not specifically designate scenic
vistas. However, the project site is located within the Old Poway Specific Plan. The
Old Poway Specific Plan identifies the segment of Midland Road between Hilleary
Road and Twin Peaks Road as a scenic roadway. While the project site is not
directly adjacent to Midland Road, the site is located approximately 450 feet east
of Midland Road and portions of the project site would be briefly visible from some
locations along the designated segment of Midland Road. The project site would
include a vinyl fence along the western portion of the site. This fence would obstruct
views of much of the development from Midland Road. The rooftop and second
story portions of the residences would be visible above the fence. The project would
include four single -story residences and sixteen two-story residences. The
development would include four plan types, and each plan would feature two
architectural schemes, with four different color scheme options. Exterior building
elevations of the residences would be Craftsman style, consistent with the Old
Poway Specific Plan. The exteriors would feature cement tile roofs, overhanging
eaves, wood accents, and patterned windowpanes, with various combinations of
board and batten, lap siding, stone, and brick. The exterior colors would be earth
tones, including green, brown, and taupe. Street lights on the extension of Holly
Oak Way would include decorative Old Poway street lights, consistent with the
existing street lights on Holly Oak Way. The proposed residences would be
developed consistent with the architectural standards identified in the Old Poway
Specific Plan, would be consistent with surrounding development, and would
maintain the character of the Old Poway Specific Plan area. With the incorporation
of architectural design, as required by the Old Poway Specific Plan, the project
would not result in significant visual impacts associated with the nearby scenic
roadway portion of Midland Road. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. No Impact. The project site is not located within or adjacent to a designated state
scenic highway. The nearest designated state scenic highway is a portion of State
Route 52, located approximately 9 miles south of the project site (California
Department of Transportation 2022). As such, no impact associated with scenic
resources within a state scenic highway would occur.
C. Less -than -Significant Impact. See response I.a. The project would result in the
development of the project site with 20 single-family residences. The single-family
residential use would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations
for the site. The project would implement the architectural standards required by
the Old Poway Specific Plan to provide a development that is visually consistent
with the character of the Old Poway Specific Plan area. Visual changes at the
project site would occur as a result of the project; however, with the exception of
the two zoning concessions (reduction in minimum lot size and reduction in side
yard setbacks) provided consistent with the Poway Municipal Code and State
bonus density laws, the project would be developed consistent with the Old Poway
Specific Plan and zoning requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with visual
changes to the project site would be less than significant.
d. No Impact. The project would result in minor sources of new lighting associated
with single-family uses that would be consistent with the City's Municipal Code and
16
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 21
emissions from the operation of on -site heavy duty construction vehicles and motor
vehicles transporting the construction crew and necessary construction materials.
Exhaust emissions generated by construction activities would generally result from
the use of heavy-duty construction equipment that may include excavation
equipment, forklift, skip loader, and/or dump truck. Total daily construction
emissions are a function of the level of equipment activity, length of construction
period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics,
weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials
being transported on or off -site. Fugitive dust emissions generally represent 30
percent of all particulate matter and are generally associated with land clearing and
grading operations. Standard City requirements include implementation of dust
control measures and the construction activities would be subject to SDAPCD
standards, including dust control measures. Based on the small size of the project,
construction emissions would be minor and temporary in nature, and impacts would
be less than significant.
Operational air pollutant emissions would include those associated with stationary
sources, energy sources, and mobile sources. Stationary sources associated with
the project would come from landscape equipment, general energy use, and solid
waste. Energy emissions would come from electricity and natural gas use. Mobile
source emissions would be generated due to personal vehicles use from residents
(estimated to be 200 average daily trips (ADT)). Based on the small project size,
project -related long-term operational emissions are expected to be minor and would
result in less -than -significant impacts.
C. No Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, resident care facilities,
day care centers, or other facilities that may house concentrations of individuals
with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality.
Adjacent land uses include residential and institutional (consisting of a church, and
administrative offices and a bus fleet storage lot for the Poway Unified School
District across Twin Peaks Road). Twin Peaks Middle School and Terra Bonita
Elementary School are situated more than 0.25-mile northeast of the project site.
Therefore, the project site does not have adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors.
Based on the small project size, temporary nature of the construction emissions,
and minor amount of operational emissions, and the project would not result in the
exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants. No impact would occur.
Less -than -Significant Impact. Odors would be temporarily generated from
equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the project. Odors produced
during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned
hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and architectural coatings.
Such odors are temporary, localized and generally occur at magnitudes that would
not affect a substantial number of people. No sources of odor would be associated
with long term residential use of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in a less than significant odor impact.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site
has been historically disturbed by development and prior agricultural activities. No
special status plants or animals were observed at the project site during a biological
survey, and none are expected based on the disturbed nature of the project site
(Alden Environmental 2021). No active bird nests were observed on the project site
during the general biological survey or during the focused nesting survey conducted
18
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 23
b) AGtive nests skull- be—rnGnitered en a daily basis te deteFmiRethe
e 26ir'P2i�c"�v-O the a1.1A_rc aRGe measyFes being ttCYtt2�. The
hielenist shall meniter all active nests i Rtil all y 9YRg have fledged n
until the nest is determined inactive
G) A, FniRimym 300 feet hu #eF betvv'eeR the !vE`utf6rr of _A.A active FapteF
TyeuRg have fledged 49m the Rest er until the nest is de-termined
antiVe Fer nests of nee ranter birds a buffer of 199 feet shall he
main
4) While no specific noise thresholds have been established for nesting
raptors or other non -listed bird species, construction activities that are
expected to generate noise levels above the ambient noise level at the
edge of an established nest buffer shall be measured by an acoustician
technician. The aActive nests shall also be monitored on a daily basis by
a qualified biologist to determine if there is any adverse effect on the
breeding behavior of the particular species from the -elevated noise levels.
If it is determined that the elevated noise level is having an effect on the
breeding behavior of the nesting bird species, then the noise generating
construction activity shall be suspended in the vicinity of the active nest
buffer until such time as the Voung have fledged, are no longer being fed
bV the parents, and are no longer being impacted bV the noise as
determined bV a qualified biologist all of the „ei inrrJ birds ho„e fledged er
Until the nest is determiner- incentive
SI®-1 b: Removal of the trees and existing structures on site shall occur
outside of the roosting season for bats (approximately March through
September). If removal must occur during the roosting season, a qualified
biologist with expertise and experience conducting bat surveys shall be
retained bV the applicant as a qualified bat biologist.
A pre -construction survey shall be conducted by the qualified bat biologist no
more than 30 days prior to the removal of trees and existing structures. The
qualified bat biologist shall survey all trees or structures that provide suitable
bat roosting habitat. The applicant shall submit the results of the pre -
construction survey to the CitV of PowaV for review and approval prior to
initiating any construction activities. If a maternity roost is determined
present, a 300-foot buffer shall be placed around the roost, and no work shall
occur within the buffer until after the roosting season is over. Work within the
buffer maV proceed after the qualified bat biologist is able to verify that the
roost is no longer active.
20
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 25
properties. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted HCP/NCCP. No impact would occur.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The existing
residence on the project site, which was constructed between 1953 and 1958, was
evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR), as a City of Poway historic resource or Historic Landmark, and as a
historic resource under CEQA. As part of the evaluation, an on -site survey of the
home and property, archival research, and a review of building records were
conducted (ASM Affiliates 2021 b). The evaluation determined that the single-family
residence at the project site is not eligible for listing under the CRHR and the City
of Poway criteria; therefore, the residence does not meet the definition of a
historical resource under CEQA. However, the project site is located within the
boundary of the prehistoric Village of Paguai (CA-SDI-4606), as discussed further
in response V.b below. This site is presumed eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and
would require mitigation measures CULA through CUL-5, as discussed below, to
reduce potentially significant impacts to a less -than -significant level.
b. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site
is located within the boundary of the prehistoric Village of Paguai (CA-SDI-4606),
and archaeological resources have been identified on the project site in the past,
and recently during the archaeological survey conducted for the project (ASM
Affiliates 2021a). A total of 35 cultural resources have been recorded within 1-mile
of the project site, with one resource (CA-SDI-4606) covering the entire project site.
CA-SDI-4606 has been previously recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR,
which indicates that it has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information
important to the prehistory or history of a local area, California, or the nation (CRHR
Criterion 4). During the pedestrian field survey conducted as part of the archaeology
survey, 135 artifacts were recorded on the surface of the project site, including 59
pieces of brownware potsherds, 67 pieces of debitage, two granitic hand stone
fragments, two volcanic cores, one possible polishing stone, and four retouched
flakes. Artifacts were scattered on the surface primarily along the eastern half of
the project site; however, several of the artifacts were observed in the animal
burrow tailings suggesting a possible buried component of the project site. Based
on the known presence of CA-SDI-4606 on the project site, and the identification of
a large number of artifacts on the project site, the presence of an intact subsurface
deposit is possible. This site is presumed eligible for listing in the CRHR. As such,
a CRHR-eligible resource is present on the project site and implementation of the
project would result in potentially significant impacts to known and unknown
archaeological resources. The implementation of mitigation measures CULA
through CUL-4 would reduce these impacts to a less -than -significant level.
CUL-1: A treatment plan for the archaeological data recovery program and
construction monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist prior
to issuance of a grading permit. The treatment plan shall identify the project
site and take into consideration the vertical and horizontal extent of proposed
grading and ground disturbing activities within the project site. The plan shall
describe how archaeological data would be scientifically and systematically
collected from the project site, and how this data would be used to address
research issues.
22
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 27
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
6) Isolates and clearly non -significant deposits will be minimally documented
in the field so the monitored grading can proceed.
7) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered,
the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt
ground -disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the
evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist
shall contact the City of Poway at the time of discovery. The
archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Poway, shall determine the
significance of the discovered resources. The City of Poway must concur
with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume
in the affected area.
8) 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.
9) 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.
10) 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 City of Poway prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
C. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response
V.b. Mitigation measure CUL-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts
associated with the discovery of human remains to a less -than -significant level.
CUL-5: If human remains are discovered, they shall be treated with respect.
If human remains are found during any ground disturbance associated with
project development activities, including the archaeological data recovery
programs, the archaeological monitor and the construction contractor shall
comply with PRC 5097.98. Details of this law are summarized below for this
project:
1) The discovery location shall be protected and secured from further
disturbance.
2) The construction contractor shall contact the San Diego County Medical
Examiner to identify any possible human remains.
3) If the remains are determined by the Medical Examiner or an authorized
representative to be Native American, the Medical Examiner shall contact
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
4) The NAHC shall contact the Most Likely Descendant (MLD).
5) The Project proponent shall provide the MLD with access to the discovery
location, which shall have been protected from damage.
24
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 29
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.i. No Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No known active faults are mapped within the project
site. The nearest active fault is the San Diego Section of the Newport -Inglewood -
Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately 15.8 miles to the southwest. The
nearest active strand of the Elsinore fault zone lies approximately 25 miles to the
northeast of the project site. Based on the geotechnical analysis conducted for the
project (NOVA 2020), due to the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential
for surface rupture at the site is considered to be very low. Shallow ground rupture
due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard.
As such, no impact would occur.
a.ii. Less -than -Significant Impact. Like most of Southern California, the project site is
located within a seismically active area, and there is potential for strong ground
motion due to seismic activity at the project site during the design life of the
proposed structures. Based on the site -specific geotechnical evaluation (NOVA
2020), the project site may be subjected to a Magnitude 7 seismic event. The
project would be designed to comply with local and state standards for seismic and
geologic conditions. Compliance with these standards, including construction
consistent with the California Building Code would ensure impacts associated with
strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii. Less -than -Significant Impact. Potential ground movement associated with
earthquakes include liquefaction, dry sand settlement, and lateral spreading.
Liquefaction refers to the loss of soil strength during a seismic event and is often
observed in areas that include geologically younger soils, shallow water table, and
cohesionless soils of loose consistency. Based on an analysis of soil borings from
the project site, the dense weathered tonalite at the project site would be resistant
to liquefaction. Due to the limited potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral
spreading is identified as very low at the project site. Additionally, the worst -case
settlement is estimated at 0.5 inch of settlement at the ground surface, with a more
typical settlement estimate at about 0.2 inch at the ground surface. As identified in
the project geotechnical report (NOVA 2020), the analysis of liquefaction,
settlement, and lateral spreading at the project site indicates these hazards are not
a constraint to the development of the project site with single-family residences.
Impacts would be less than significant.
a. iv. No Impact. The project site and immediately surrounding area consists of level
ground. As such, the potential for landslide hazards at the project site are
considered negligible (NOVA 2020). No impact associated with landslides would
occur.
b. Less -than -Significant Impact. The project would be required to comply with all
erosion control regulations, including implementation of standard erosion control
measures in accordance with the City Municipal Code. As such, the project would
not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less
than significant.
C. Less -than -Significant Impact. Refer to responses Vll.a.iii and Vll.a.iv.
Liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading, and landslides are not identified as
significant hazards for the project site. Additionally, the project would not result in
instability associated with embankments, based on the existing flat nature of the
site and adjacent areas (NOVA 2020). Additionally, soils at the project site are not
26
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 31
IX
X.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. No Impact. The project would result in the construction of 20 single-family
residences. No transport, storage, or use of hazard materials beyond that which
typically occurs with a single-family home would occur. No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. See response IX.a above. No impact would occur.
C. No Impact. See response IX.a above. No impact would occur.
d. No Impact. Based on a review of the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, neither the project site nor directly adjacent
properties are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 (DTSC 2022). Items observed on the project
site that could be potential sources of contamination include: two 5-gallon
containers of hydraulic oil; minor amounts of pesticides, paints, cleaning chemicals,
and other chemicals; a well and associated equipment; small containers of
unidentified substances; and waste materials (Ninyo & Moore 2020). A review of
historical resources, a search of the environmental databases, and records request
from various agencies did not yield evidence of known contamination (Ninyo &
Moore 2020). The former use of the project site for agricultural uses was identified
as a recognized environmental condition, based on the potential for organochlorine
pesticide use and arsenic to be present in shallow soil at elevated levels; however,
soil sampling and testing revealed that organochlorine pesticides and arsenic were
not present at the project site above their respective laboratory reporting limits or
human health/background screening levels (Ninyo & Moore 2021). Therefore, no
impact would occur.
e. No Impact. The airports closest to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar, located approximately 8 miles southwest of the site, and Ramona Airport,
located approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the project site. The project site is not
located within the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones for Marine Corps Air
Station Miramar (Marine Corps Air Station Miramar 2020) or within the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan area for the Ramona Airport (San Diego County Airport
Land Use Commission 2011). Thus, the project would not result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise associated with airports. No impact would occur.
f. No Impact. The project would not impact 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.
g. No Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) map
for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), while the project is adjacent to land within the
VHFHSZ, the project site is not located within the VHFHSZ. As such, no impact
associated with the significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving a wildfire would
occur.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Less -than -Significant Impact. The project would comply with all storm water
quality regulations or waste discharge requirements for 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 would require a grading permit and
28
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 33
XII. 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 3 miles south of the site. No impact
would occur.
b. No Impact. See response XII.a above. No impact would occur.
XIII. NOISE
Less -than -Significant Impact. Noise from the project would be that typical of
residential uses in the neighborhood and would not result in impacts to adjacent
uses. During project construction, temporary or periodic increase in noise levels
would occur. Per City standards, the noise generating construction activities are
limited to certain times of the day and days of the week. Compliance with City
requirements related to construction activities would ensure that temporary
increases in noise levels associated with construction would remain less than
significant.
In regard to permanent increases in noise levels, the primary source of noise in the
project vicinity is vehicular traffic on Twin Peaks Road. Existing ADT occurring on
area roadways include 21,475 ADT on Twin Peaks Road between Midland Road
and Budwin Lane, and 4,753 ADT on Midland Road between Twin Peaks Road and
Holly Oak Way (Intersection Metrics 2021a). As discussed in more detail in
Section XVII, the project would generate 200 ADT. A 3 dB change in noise levels
is the minimum level required for a perceptible change in noise levels for the general
population. In order to increase ambient road noise by 3 dB, a project would have
to double the amount of traffic on a road. The project would introduce a small
increase in traffic trips to area roadways but would not result in doubling of traffic
on these roadways. As such, the project would not result in a discernable
permanent increase in traffic noise and impacts associated with the project's
contribution to traffic noise increases would be less than significant.
Based on sound level measurements taken as part of the project noise analysis
(dBF Associates 2021), sound levels at the northern project property line were
measured at approximately 68 A -weighted decibels equivalent continuous sound
pressure (dBA Leq). Existing worst -case exterior noise levels at the proposed
residential parcels would range from below 60 dBA community noise equivalent
level (CNEL) at lots 1 and 20 (at the southern edge of the project site) to
approximately 72 dBA CNEL at the northern edge of the project site, on proposed
lots 10 and 11. The project includes the construction of a continuous 6-foot-high
CMU wall along the northern property boundary. This wall would provide an
approximately 9 dBA noise reduction from Twin Peaks Road traffic noise. With the
wall, future exterior noise levels at all project outdoor use areas would be below
65 dBA CNEL. As such, permanent noise impacts to future residents of the project
would be less than significant.
b. Less -than -Significant Impact. Project grading and construction activities may
result in temporary generation of groundborne vibration associated with the
operation of construction equipment. The generation of groundborne vibration
associated with the operation of construction equipment would be temporary,
during the construction period and would occur in different locations on the site.
30
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 35
net -acre site. The increase in 5 units is expected to have a minimal impact on the
Poway School District. Impacts would be less than significant.
Parks — Less -than -Significant Impact. The project would not result in the need
for new or physically altered park facilities. The RS-4 zoning designation for the site
allows for 4 dwelling units per acre, or 15 units for the 3.91-net-acre site. The
increase in 5 units is expected to have a minimal impact on the City's park facilities.
Project residents would be able to utilize existing parks in the project area (Aubrey
Park, Silverset Park, Old Poway Park, and Railroad, among others). The addition
of project residents would result in a less -than -significant impact to parks.
Other Public Facilities — No Impact. The project would not result in the need for
new or physically altered public facilities. No impact would occur.
IZQI=0JQ4J0JZF �[�7►1
Less -than -Significant Impact. The project would result in the construction of 20
new single-family residences. The residents associated with these new homes
would utilize existing recreational amenities already existing in the city and project
vicinity. The additional demand created by residents of 20 single-family homes
would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks in such a
manner that would result in substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. As
such, impacts to existing recreational facilities would be less than significant.
No Impact. The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities,
nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No
impact would occur.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
a. Less -than -Significant Impact. A Traffic Operations Assessment (Intersecting
Metrics 2021 a) was prepared for the project. The estimated ADT associated with
the 20 new homes is 200 daily trips, with 16 trips occurring in the a.m. peak hour
and 20 trips occurring within the p.m. peak hour. The addition of project traffic to
local roads would not result in significant impacts to roadway segments in the
project area, as these roadways are operating well below design capacity. The
City's Transportation Element contains a policy prohibiting development that would
result in levels of service exceeding D during the two highest peak hours at an
intersection unless no feasible alternatives exist. Intersections within the project
traffic study area (i.e., Midland Road/Twin Peaks Road and Budwin Lane/Twin
Peaks Road) are anticipated to operate as acceptable levels of service (D or better
under the "no project" and "with project" scenarios). The project would include the
extension of Holly Oak Way to provide local access to the site. This road extension
would be designed consistent with City requirements, and would include pedestrian
sidewalks, street trees, and decorative Old Poway street lights consistent with the
existing street lights on Holly Oak Way. The addition of 20 single-family residences,
as proposed by the project, would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed project would not be in conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The City has
not adopted guidelines for conducting either screening level or full vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) analysis in accordance with Senate Bill 743. Therefore, the San
Diego Region Guidelines prepared by the Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE) were
32
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 37
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Less -than -Significant Impact. The project site is within an area served by the
public water and wastewater systems. The project site is designated for residential
uses and is consistent with the General Plan. Public utility infrastructure would be
extended onto the site and constructed to serve the proposed 20 single-family
residences. Water, wastewater, storm water, electric power, natural gas, and
electrical infrastructure would be connected to existing infrastructure in the project
area. The provision of public utilities to the project site would not require or result in
the relocation or construction of new or expanded infrastructure. Impacts would be
less than significant.
b. Less -than -Significant Impact. The resulting increase in water use associated with
the development of 20 single-family residences would be considered insignificant.
The project would be served by the City of Poway, which has sufficient water supply
available to serve anticipated demands in the City (City of Poway 2021). As such,
impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant.
Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed 20 single-family residences would
result in an insignificant increase in wastewater generation. The project would be
served by a new connection to the City's wastewater system. The City of San
Diego's North City Water Reclamation Facility has adequate capacity to treat the
incremental wastewater generated by the project. Impacts would be less than
significant.
d. Less -than -Significant Impact. Construction of the project would result in the
generation of solid waste associated with construction activities, including waste
associated with demolition of the existing residence. The project would be required
to dispose of such materials according to a Construction Waste Management Plan.
The 20 new single-family residences would result in the incremental generation of
solid waste, which would be handled by the City's contracted waste hauler, similar
to other residential uses nearby. The solid waste generated by the project is not
anticipated to significantly impact the life expectancy of the landfill that serves the
city. Impacts would be less than significant.
e. No Impact. The project would be required to comply with and meet all applicable
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste collection
and disposal. The contracted waste hauler would separate waste so that recyclable
waste is separated from landfill trash in accordance with the City's waste reduction
and recycling program. No impact would occur.
XX. WILDFIRE
a. No Impact. See response IX.f. The project would not impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact would occur.
No Impact. See response IX.g. The project site is not located within the VHFHSZ.
As such, no impact associated with the exposure of pollutant concentrations for a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire on project occupants would occur.
C. No Impact. The project would include the extension of the Holly Oak Way cul-de-
sac and would include the extension of utilities onto the project site. However, this
roadway extension and the installation of utilities would not exacerbate fire risks.
No impact would occur.
34
Resolution No. 22-051
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist Page 39
E. REFERENCES
Alden Environmental, Inc.
2021 Existing Biological Resources on the McKee Orchard Parcel. July 15.
ASM Affiliates
2021 a Cultural Resources Technical Report for McKee Orchard Affordable Housing Project,
City of Poway, San Diego County, California. August 20.
2021 b Draft Historical Resource Evaluation Report for 13667 Twin Peaks Road, Poway, San
Diego County, California. October.
California Department of Conservation
2022 California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed April 1, 2022.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
2009 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5966/poway.pd .
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
2022 EnviroStor Mapping database. Accessed April 4, 2022.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.
California Department of Transportation
2022 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed April 1, 2022.
https:Hcaltrans.maps.arcqis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c
c8e8057116f1 aacaa.
City of Poway
2021 City of Poway Final Urban Water Management Plan. June.
1996 Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.
1988 Old Poway Specific Plan (SP 88-01).
dBF Associates
2021 Noise Analysis, McKee Orchard. August 17.
Demer6, Thomas and Walsh, Steven
1993 Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego, California.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
2012 Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C1117G. May 16.
Intersecting Metrics
2021 a McKee Orchard Traffic Operations Assessment. June 7.
2021 b McKee Orchard— Twin Peaks Road Driveway— Sight Distance Study. May 5.
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 41
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR TTM21-003/DR21-002
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
Biology
1310-1 a: Removal of the trees on
Prior to Tree
Applicant
site shall occur outside of the
Removal
breeding season for nesting
Permit
birds, which generally runs from
Approval
February 1 through September
15 (as early as January 1 for
some raptors). If removal of the
pine trees must occur during the
breeding season, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a pre -
construction survey to determine
the presence or absence of
nesting birds or raptors
protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and California
Fish and Game Code. The pre -
construction survey shall be
conducted within 3 calendar
days prior to the start of
construction activities (including
removal of vegetation) and shall
include the limits of disturbance
and an additional 100 feet (300
feet for raptors) from the area of
disturbance. The applicant shall
submit the results of the pre -
construction survey to the City of
Poway for review and approval
prior to initiating any
construction activities.
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 43
have fledged, are no longer
being fed by the parents, and are
no longer being impacted by
construction as determined by a
qualified biologist. Reductions in
a nest buffer distance may be
appropriate depending on the
avian species involved, ambient
levels of human activity,
screening vegetation, or possibly
other factors as determined by a
qualified biologist.
4) While no specific noise
thresholds have been
established for nesting raptors or
other non -listed bird species,
construction activities that are
expected to generate noise
levels above the ambient noise
level at the edge of an
established nest buffer shall be
measured by an acoustician
technician. Active nests shall
also be monitored on a daily
basis by a qualified biologist to
determine if there is any adverse
effect on the breeding behavior
of the particular species from
elevated noise levels. If it is
determined that elevated noise is
having an adverse effect on the
breeding behavior of the nesting
bird species, then the noise -
generating construction activity
shall be suspended in the vicinity
of the active nest buffer until
such time as the young have
fledged, are no longer being fed
by the parents, and are no longer
being impacted by the noise as
determined by a qualified
biologist.
131O-1 b: Removal of the trees and
existing structures on site shall
Prior to Tree
Applicant
occur outside of the roosting
Removal Permit
season for bats (approximately
Approval and
March through September). If
Building Permit
removal must occur during the
Issuance for
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 45
collected from the project site,
and how this data would be
used to address research
issues.
CUL-2: Prior to excavation and
Prior to grading
Applicant
ground disturbing activities, a
permit issuance
data recovery program shall be
completed by a qualified
archaeologist. The data
recovery phase shall focus on
recovering archaeological data
sufficient to mitigate the
destruction of CA-SDI-4606
within the project site. The
amount of excavation and the
locations of the excavation shall
be determined through a
Ground Penetrating Radar
study as well as surface
observations. Standard hand -
excavated archaeological 1-x-1-
m test units can be used during
this phase, although these may
be expanded if features are
discovered or to cover a larger
part of the project site. The units
shall be excavated by hand
using arbitrary 10-cm levels
unless cultural stratigraphy is
identified. Hand tools potentially
including shovels, picks,
trowels, brushes, and probes,
shall be used in the excavation.
All soils shall be passed through
1/8-inch mesh screen (or
smaller if column samples are
taken and processed), using a
water -screening technique.
Following completion of
excavation, all cultural materials
shall be washed, cataloged, and
analyzed. Technical analyses
shall include lithic artifact
analysis, shellfish analysis,
chronometric studies, faunal
studies, and other analyses as
needed to describe the cultural
materials and address the
research issues. A data
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 47
4) Native American monitoring
will be required during
During Grading
Applicant
grading, unless the certified
archaeologist determines that
the potential for cultural
resources has been
exhausted. The Native
American monitors shall be
invited to participate in the
monitoring program and will
be directed by the project
archaeologist.
5) During the original cutting of
previously undisturbed
During Grading
Applicant
deposits, the archaeological
monitor and Native American
representative shall be on site,
as determined by the qualified
archaeologist, to perform
inspections of the excavations.
Full- or part-time inspections
may be needed depending
upon the rate of excavation,
the materials excavated, and
the presence and abundance
of artifacts and features.
6) Isolates and clearly non-
significant deposits will be
At Instances of
Applicant
minimally documented in the
Discovery of
field so the monitored grading
Cultural
can proceed.
Resources
During Grading
7) In the event that previously
unidentified cultural resources
At Instances of
Applicant
are discovered, the
Discovery of
archaeologist shall have the
Cultural
authority to divert or
Resources
temporarily halt ground-
During Grading
disturbance operation in the
area of discovery to allow for
the evaluation of potentially
significant cultural resources.
The archaeologist shall
contact the City of Poway at
the time of discovery. The
archaeologist, in consultation
with the City of Poway, shall
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 49
with project development
activities, including the
archaeological data recovery
programs, the archaeological
monitor and the construction
contractor shall comply with
PRC 5097.98. Details of this
law are summarized below for
this project:
1) The discovery location shall
be protected and secured
from further disturbance.
2) The construction contractor
shall contact the San Diego
County Medical Examiner to
identify any possible human
remains.
3) If the remains are determined
by the Medical Examiner or
an authorized representative
to be Native American, the
Medical Examiner shall
contact the Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC).
4) The NAHC shall contact the
Most Likely Descendant
(MLD).
5) The Project proponent shall
provide the MLD with access
to the discovery location,
which shall have been
protected from damage.
6)The MLD shall make a
recommendation for treatment
of the remains within 48
hours. Possible options for
treatment include:
a) Preservation in place and
avoidance.
b) Removal by a qualified
archaeologist. Analysis by an
osteologist or physical
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9728AA69-3C1E-4045-9BE9-EDD518B82DD4
Resolution No. 22-051
EXHIBIT 4
Page 51
Y
State of California — Natural Resources Agency
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Directors'
South Coast Regionr�,'
3883 Ruffin Road2,,
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
Letter A
www.wildlife.ca.gov
June 15, 2022
Austin Silva
Senior Planner
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
ASilva(a-)Poway. org
Subject: McKee Orchard (Project), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND),
SCH #2022050573
Dear Mr. Silva:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the above -referenced
MND, dated May 26, 2022, for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.'
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those Al
activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that
CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own
regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW's Role
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources
in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) &
1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
§ 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation,
protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically
sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW
is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency
environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the
potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources. A2
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW may need to exercise regulatory authority
as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory
authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). CDFW also administers the Natural Community
Conservation Planning (NCCP) program (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et seq. The City of Poway
(City) participates in the NCCP program by implementing its approved Poway Subarea Habitat
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines"
are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 1500.
Conserving California's Wi(dffe Since 1870
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9728AA69-3C1E4045-9BE9-EDD518B82DD4 Resolution No. 22-051
Page 53
Austin Silva
City of Poway
June 15, 2022
Page 3 of 6
animals to change their mode of egress and/or ingress to a roost. Although temporary, such
disturbance can lead to the abandonment of a maternity roost (Johnston et al. 2004).
Bats are considered non -game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take
and/or harassment (Fish & G. Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1). Bats with a California
SSC status meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA
Guidelines § 15065). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead
Agency (CEQA Guidelines § 15065).
Mitigation Measure #1: BIO-1 Pre -Construction Bat Acoustic Survey
Because various bat species have the potential to occur within the Project area, CDFW
recommends that the Project proponent conduct two sets of bat surveys prior to the initiation of
the Project. The first survey should occur during the bat roosting season within all suitable
habitat to determine presence/absence of bat species and analyze the potential significance of
tree removal. The second (pre -construction) survey should be conducted no less than 30 days
prior to tree removal, to ensure no bats are roosting (e.g., day, night, maternity roosts) within the
trees at the time of removal.
CDFW recommends the following added language to the Biological Resources, BIO-1 mitigation
section of the IS, to adequately survey and avoid Project impacts to bat species that may occur
within the Project corridor:
"A qualified bioloaist with exDertise and experience conducting bat surveys, shall be retained b
the City as a Designated Bat Biologist. The Designated Bat Biologist conduct a bat survey within
the Project area (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows) to identify potential habitat that could
provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites, and any maternity roosts, especially within trees
within the Proiect area. The survey shall occur during the roosting season (approximately
March -September), using acoustic technology and emergence counts to maximize detection of
bats on -site. Night roosts are typically utilized from the approach of sunset until sunrise.
Maternity colonies, composed of adult females and theiryoung, typically occur from spring
through fall. No more than 30 days prior to vegetation removal, the Designated Bat Biologist will
conduct a pre -construction bat survey within all trees or structures that provide suitable bat
roosting habitat. If a maternity roost is determined present within a tree to be removed, a 300-
foot no work buffer shall be placed around the roost and no work shall occur within the buffer
until after the roostina season is over. Work may proceed after a qualified bioloqist is able to
verify that the roost is no longer active"
Comment #2: Nesting Raptors
Per the IS, page 19, no active bird nests were observed on the project site during the general
biological survey on March 3, 2021, or during the focused nesting survey conducted on June 23,
2021. However, there were three inactive raptor nests observed in the pine trees on the Project
site during the surveys (Alden Environmental 2021). There is the potential for raptors and other
bird species to utilize these trees for breeding in the future. Nesting birds are protected per Fish
and Game Code section 3503; therefore, to avoid impacts to sensitive species, these measures
as written should establish clear bird breeding survey protocols and nest buffers for other
nesting birds that may be impacted by Project activities.
A5
cont.
A7
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9728AA69-3C1E-4045-9BE9-EDD518B82DD4 Resolution No. 22-051
Page 55
Austin Silva
City of Poway
June 15, 2022
Page 5 of 6
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative
declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or
supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).)
Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during
Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey
form can be found at the following link: https:HwiIdIife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The
completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:
CNDDB(abwildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the
following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing
fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead
Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee
is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal.
Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and
mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Emily Gray,
Environmental Scientist, at Emily. Gray(@wildlife.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
D70084520375406...
David A. Mayer
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
ec: CDFW
David Mayer, San Diego — David. Mayer(cD.wildlife.ca.gov
Karen Drewe, San Diego — Karen. Drewe(E�wildlife.ca.gov
Emily Gray, San Diego — Emily. Gray(a)wildlife.ca.gov
Cindy Hailey, San Diego — Cindy. Haileya-wildlife.ca.gov
State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research — State. Clearinghouseaopr.ca.gov
Jonathan Snyder, USFWS — Jonathan D Snyder(cDfws.gov
A
Al
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 57
June 11, 2022
TO: Mr. Bob Manis, Director
Development Services,
City of Poway
FROM: Quoc Vuong, Property Owner,
13620 Holly Oak Way, Poway, CA 92064
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM
USING HOLLY OAK WAY AS ACCESS STREET.
PROJECT NAME: Mc KEE ORCHARD
PROJECT #: TTM21-003/DR21-002
Dear Mr. Manis,
Letter B
My name is Quoc M. Vuong, my house, Lot 1 of Diroma Estate, is at the North-East corner of Midland Road & Holly
Oak Way in the city of Poway and I have resided at this location since 2004. I am responding to your Notice Of Public B 1
Review Period For A Mitigated Negative Declaration (the `Notice') to respectfully request your office to reconsider
using Holly Oak Way as an access street for the proposed Mc Kee Orchard (the `Project') for the following reasons:
Part IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Pages 18 & 19, Part IV, a, BIO-1
On page 18 of the Notice, city staff stated:
"IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site
has been historically disturbed by development and prior agricultural activities. No special status plants or animals were
observed at the project site during a biological survey, and none are expected based on the disturbed nature of the proj ect
site (Alden Environmental 2021). No active bird nests were observed on the project site during the general biological
survey or during the focused nesting survey conducted for the project. Three inactive raptor nests were observed in the
pine trees on site during the surveys (my emphasis). Raptors and potentially other bird species would likely utilize these B2
nests for breeding in the future. Thus, the project would result in potentially significant impacts to migratory or nesting
birds, and mitigation is required. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce potentially significant
impacts to migratory or nesting birds to a less -than -significant level."
My house is under renovation and some of the workers told me recently that a hawk just flew out of the pine trees, and
swooped low by my backyard to grab a pigeon nesting under my roof porch. This fact shows that migratory birds and
raptors continue to use the old -growth pine trees as nesting or hunting sites and that some, if not all, of the pine trees,
should be preserved. Frequently in the afternoon, I have been able to observe those hawks soaring high above the pine
trees looking for their next meals. It will be a sad thing to remove all of the old -growth pine trees.
On page 19 of the Notice city Staff stated
"B1Q-1: Removal of the trees on site shall occur outside of the breeding season for nesting birds (February 1 to
September 15). If removal of the pine trees must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre -construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds or raptors protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. The pre -construction survey shall be conducted B3
within 3 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation) and shall include the
limits of disturbance and an additional 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) from the area of disturbance. The applicant shall
submit the results of the pre -construction survey to the City of Poway for review and approval prior to initiating
any construction activities (my emphasis)."
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 59
Why is an access street via Twin Peaks Road might be possible and might be a better choice?
II. Part XVII. TRANSPORTATION Page 31 of the Notice
From this Notice, it appears that the Senior Planner for the Project has already made up his mind to use Holly
Oak Way as the street access for the Project. I respectfully disagree with the Senior Planner for the following reasons:
Please refer to the attached Google map of the Project and its surroundings and the two attached street photos.
I . On the North-West corner of Midland Road & Twin Peaks Road, there are two homes built around 2005. Back
then, the builder created a dedicated right -turn exit lane for the property owners to access the gated entrance from Twin
Peaks road (westerly direction). Exiting their properties, they may only make a right turn (westerly) onto Twin Peaks
Road.
Please note that the distance between the intersection of Midland & Twin Peaks and the Project lot is more than
twice the distance between the intersection of Midland & Twin Peaks and the dedicated right turn exit lane for the two
properties above -mentioned.
If this exit lane is possible (being so close to the intersection of Midland Road & Twin Peaks Road) and there
has not been any traffic accident caused by the construction of this exit lane since 2005, then why isn't it possible to have
the same right turn exit lane for the Project?
2. Very near the North-East comer of Community Road & Twin Peaks Road (between Community Road &
Midland Road), there is a street named Victoria Estates Lane (hereinafter referred to as `VEL') running north South.
VEL dead -ends to the north, it intersects with Twin Peaks Road to the south and there is a dedicated left -turn lane for
cars making a left turn to Twin Peaks Road (easterly direction). There are a total of eighteen (18) homes bordering VEL.
Sixteen (16) of those homes must use VEL daily to gain access to Twin Peaks Road, and two (2) of those homes have
their driveways directly abutting Twin Peaks Road.
Again, please note that the distance between the intersection of Community & Twin Peaks & VEL is nearly
equal to the distance between the intersection of Midland & Twin Peaks and the Project lot.
If the eighteen (18) property owners on VEL have no problem accessing Twin Peaks Road between a curved
portion of Community Road and Midland Road (with no major traffic accidents over the past two decades at this
location), then why are the property owners on the Project having difficulty accessing Twin Peaks Road with a dedicated
left turn lane?
3. To the east of the intersection of Midland Road & Twin Peaks Road, the next controlled traffic light is at
Budwin Lane. If an access street to Twin Peaks Road for the Project is created, it will place the access street pretty much
at the midpoint on Twin Peaks Road between Midland Road & Budwin Lane. This is extremely similar to the VEL
location between the two (2) traffic lights at Community Road & Midland Road.
4. Midland Road and Holly Oak Way. Unlike Twin Peaks Road with two traffic lanes in each direction, Midland
Road & Holly Oak Way are "One -Lane only" streets in each direction and there is NO possibility for future enlargement.
This "T ' intersection is NOT controlled by a traffic light. There is a dedicated left turn lane in a southerly direction on
Midland Road to Holly Oak Way and a Stop Sign at Holly Oak to Midland Road. Please note the presence of a Bike
Lane thus an increased risk of traffic accidents during rush hours.
On page 31 of the Notice city staff stated:
` ... (a) The estimated ADT associated with the 20 new homes is 200 daily trips, with 16 trips occurring in the
a.m. peak hour and 20 trips occurring within the p.m. peak hour. "
How did city staff arrive at this `estimated ADT with the twenty (20) new homes? Is the city willing to explain
how it arrived at this estimation?
B5
Cont.
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 61
C- •[1fie, 11NOMPA11911
Page 6Better C
From: Fred Zuill <fzuill.agile@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 11:06 PM
To: Austin Silva
Cc: fredyukie36@fredzuill.com
Subject: Zuill comments about McKee Orchard Environmental Initial Study
You don't often get email from fzuill.agile@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
To: Austin Silva, Senior Planner, City of Poway
From: Fred & Yukie Zuill, owners/residents 13636 Outlook Rd, Poway
(Our property borders approx 4 new neighbors -- approx 200 feet -- on west side of McKee Orchard development)
RE: Comments about McKee Orchard (TTM21-003/DR21-002) ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST
Date:6/15/2022
We are putting our stream of thoughts on record here. Trying to be mindful of the checklist style of the report while
being realistic about our limited ability to communicate the things on our mind that are addressed so succinctly in the
report.
Our thoughts are not professionally prepared -- we are simply the individual property owners (residents) that will likely
have greatest individual impact from this development due to the sheer length of our property line that borders the
development -- longer than any other bordering residents -- and the number (4 1 think) of new adjacent neighbors that
we will border and will interface with on a continual daily basis long after these impacts are measured, these
development decisions are made, and these houses are sold. In addition, we are in a unique position to observe the
impact of things like that grove of massive trees and of its special inhabitants every day for 30+ years. Not to mention its
direct impact of such things on us.
So here are the topics mentioned in the Environmental Impact Study Checklist that we believe should be considered and
discussed with us in light of the uniquely extensive impact the development will have on our particular residence -- and
in light of our unique position to observe things that might impact others and the environment.
1. Multiple important aspects of the grove of large trees:
Our house sits in the extensive shade of the impressive grove of trees that are slated to be removed. The limbs of trees
in the grove intertwine with trees in our yard. The grove is perhaps an acre of almost solid trees -- maybe 200 feet by
200 feet. And the western 200 foot edge of that grove borders our 200 foot eastern edge of property. I can't possibly
enumerate the aspects of impact on our neighborhood and as well as our individual quality of life that this acre of trees
provides... but I'll throw out a few. The pine trees are very, very tall. And there are quite a few. Those tall, tall pines are
a big portion of that acre of trees. The shade they provide is massive. Our house is not even in the middle of that grove,
but we have never needed air conditioning in 30+ years partly because of that grove as well as the trees on our
property. That cooling impacts the whole neighborhood -- but especially our house. I chose shade and cooling as just
one of the many impactful aspects of that big grove. Unless tempered in some way for our corner of the McKee Orchard
development where the trees have a long history of actual impact to existing residents, the grove's removal will be a
grievous, long lasting loss.
C1
C2
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 65
continuously arbitrate the protection and care of the trees that share the space. This has been a continual problem with
the Holly Oak development, long after the developer is gone. Of course, the Kent Sycamore is the most grievous
example -- neighbors sued the city at some point. My tree was eventually condemned. 12 years of needless battles
between city and citizens; between neighbors. Then.... On Outlook Rd (which I own), there were 3 very tall Torrey
Pines. Even though I warned the city before plan approval, the houses were approved to be built too close to those C6
great trees which straddle the property line between me and my new neighbors. Eventually, 1S years later -- without cont.
any discussion with me, or any arbitration or compensation -- one of those great 100 foot tall Torrey Pines was cut down
by a neighbor because they believed it was affecting their foundation. They cut it down without my involvement -- a
grand tree that sat half on my property. 2 others remain, shared with a different neighbor who is currently more
accomodating. Future is murky.
The planning of this development needs to recognize that there are trees that are on my property yet are close to the
property line or that straddle the properties in some form and should be considered for preservation. This needs to be
considered as part of the impact, whether this is legally part of this particular report or belongs in another phase of the C7
dicussion before approval. This topic of "trees on the edge" needs to be discussed and resolved with the Zuills in the
loop as much as any other party before any approval.
3. Fence on the 200 foot of western edge of the Southern most 4 houses of McKee development:
Of course, that's the 200 feet that borders my yard. The impact study describes that a "white fence" is planned. Seems
neighborly and wise to include the Zuills in a discussion. Again, the fence is mentioned in this impact report, so I'm
treating it as part of the impact. A plastic fence sounds like something affordable for the developer which will need to C8
be maintained by the future owners (when developer is out of the loop.) For me, it means 4 fences -- once with each
different neighbor. Fences which eventually need to be mutually maintained. If not done wisely, my experience is that
a poor fence becomes a source of friction. For the developer it is one fence... and they are done once they sell the
houses. For me it is 4 fences, bordering a variety of neighbors that I don't yet know.
This "comment" document is not the place for specific proposals or suggestions, but the city should should again bring
all parties together to discuss this important "interface" before approving the developers request. The city represents
us all and is somewhat of an arbitrator as it sits in the position of approving plans. There are things on my list to
consider from my side of the fence -- things which can be handled in a way that comes out as a "win" for all Cg
parties. Good for the developer and good for all the future neighbors. Please, city planners, bring us all to the table and
make that 200 feet of fence one of the things that needs to be hashed out in a healthy way for all. I leave out the
details of my concerns and ideas because it's best if we all sit down and explore on this topic with collaborative creativity
to smooth out each party's needs and concerns interactively. (think height, material, robustness, privacy, sound,
aesthetics, etc.)
4. Drainage
We had terrible flooding when the Living Way Church was developed according to drainage plans that the city designed
and insisted on. I knew the flooding would happen if we followed the city plan. The church people knew the flooding
would happen if they followed the city plan. Before approval, we told the city what would happen, discussed with them,
tried to reason, eventually argued with the city engineer. But the city required a certain design and insisted it would be C10
fine -- we had no choice. After the grading and paving, the rain came, and my neighborhood was flooded which had
never happened before -- and so every rain since. For 20+ years. We monkey with it continuously to make it
bearable. We're not going through the same thing with this development. Drainage directly affects us and we have a
history with bad plans foisted on the project. Another topic that the city must bring all players to the table to discuss
and work out together to something that satisfies all before approving.
That's it! Sorry for the "stream of consciousness" style -- this isn't my wheelhouse and it's all I have to offer. And sorry C11
that I'm not tying each topic to a specifically referenced point in the report. I could do that I suppose once we sit down
3
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 67
McKee Orchard TM
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comment Letters
Letters of comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were received from the
following agency and individuals (Table RTC-1) during the 30-day public review. A total of three
comment letters/e-mails were received during the public review period. While responding to
comments it was determined that minor revisions were needed to clarify the analysis. These
changes to the text are indicated by strikeout (deleted) and underline (inserted) markings in the
Final MND. Individual comments within each letter are bracketed and subsequently numbered in
the margin of the comment letter. Bracketed/numbered comment letters are placed before the
responses to the letter.
Table RTC-1
List of Commenting Agencies and Organizations
Letter Commenter Page
Organizations
A California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) RTC-1
Individuals
B Quoc Vuong RTC-1
C Fred and Yukie Zuill RTC-1
CDFW
Al Comment noted; no response required.
A2 Comment noted; no response required.
A3 The information in this comment is summarized from and consistent with the
Draft MND.
A4 Comment noted; refer to response to comments A5 through A8 regarding the
project's impacts on sensitive biological resources.
A5 As noted in the biological technical memo, no evidence of bat activity was
recorded during field observations. With regard to the three species noted in this
comment:
The pocketed free -tailed bat is not expected to roost on the project site because
its preferred roosts include cliffs, quarries, and rock outcrops (i.e., vertical
features; Tremor et al. 2017, San Diego County Mammal Atlas); none of these
habitats are present on site.
The Mexican long -tongued bat roosts in dimly lit areas of caves and cave -like
structures (Tremor et al. 2017, San Diego County Mammal Atlas), which are not
present on the project site. The species has also been observed in man-made
structures such as wooden garages and maintenance buildings (Tremor et al.
2017, San Diego County Mammal Atlas), and the unoccupied residence and shed on
site have a low potential to be used by bats to roost.
RTC-1
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 69
A7 The EIS acknowledges the potential for significant impacts to raptors and other
avian species, and mitigation BIO-1 a is directed at reducing those potential
impacts to less -than -significant levels. In response to this comment, BIO-1 a has
been clarified to incorporate the revised breeding season dates, and the
construction buffer language provided in the comment.
A8 As discussed in the EIS, the project site supports non -sensitive developed,
disturbed, and ornamental vegetation communities/land cover types, and does
not contain habitat or other sensitive natural communities. None of the trees
present on the project site were considered habitat or identified as sensitive
plants. The project would plant approximately 78 replacement trees in the 20
residential lots and adjacent rights -of -way. The project applicant is proposing the
use of a combination of native trees and drought -tolerant (i.e., low-water usage)
non-native trees to meet the City's required replacement ratio. The removal of
trees at the project site and the installation of replacement trees would be
conducted consistent with the requirements of the City of Poway's Urban Forestry
Ordinance.
A9 No sensitive species were observed on the project site; therefore, a CNDDB field
survey form does not need to be completed.
A10 Comment noted; the CDFW filing fee will be paid when the NOD is filed with the
County Clerk.
Al Comment noted; no response required.
Ouoc Vuong
131 Comment noted; refer to response to comments B6 through B12 regarding issues
related to project site access from Twin Peaks Road.
B2 Comment regarding the observation of a hawk and the presence of migratory
birds and raptors in the area is noted. The EIS acknowledges the presence of
raptors on the project site, consistent with commenter's observations, and
determines that project impacts would be less than significant provided mitigation
is implemented.
B3 The mitigation measures included in the EIS, including the mitigation measure
referenced in this comment (measure BIO-1), would become conditions of
approval for the project. Monitoring compliance with these conditions is the City's
responsibility and is implemented via a project -specific Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP). The qualified biologist identified in mitigation
measure BIO-1 would work with City staff on implementation of the mitigation
requirements. As stated in the mitigation measure, the results of the pre -
construction survey would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior
to the initiation of construction activities, with mitigation to be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City.
B4 Compliance with California Fish and Game Code requires pre -construction surveys
if trees are removed during the breeding season for nesting birds; however, trees
can be removed outside of the breeding season with no significant impacts to
breeding birds. Once the on -site trees are removed (outside of the breeding
season for nesting birds or within the breeding season, with the required pre -
construction surveys and appropriate mitigation, if necessary), there is no further
RTC-3
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 71
B8 The commentor indicates that Victoria Estates Lane is a similar distance from the
Community Road/Twin Peaks intersection as the project site is from the Midland
Road/Twin Peaks Road intersection. However, the distance between Victoria
Estates Lane and the Community Road/Twin Peaks intersection (at a distance of
approximately 500 feet) is longer than the distance between the project site is
from the Midland Road/Twin Peaks Road intersection (at a distance of
approximately 280 feet). As discussed above, a number of factors are considered
when analyzing adequate sight distance, including the horizontal and vertical
curvature along the roadway, and the presence of visual obstructions at proposed
access ways, such as vegetation, street trees, and structures. The referenced
driveway at Victoria Estates Lane is also on the north side of Twin Peaks Road, on
the opposite side of the roadway from any Twin Peaks Road access that could
occur for the project site. The Victoria Estates Lane driveway is also located west of
the curve along Twin Peaks Road. Similar to the scenario described in response B7,
the sight distance at the Victoria Estates Lane driveway is much better than would
occur along Twin Peaks Road in the vicinity of the project due to differences in
roadway configuration and differences in intervening visual obstructions. The
Sight Distance Study prepared for the project analyzing the specific location of
proposed access to the project site from Twin Peaks Road demonstrates the lack
of suitability of the location for a main access point to the project site.
B9 For the reasons discussed in response B8, a proposed access point for the project
off of Twin Peaks Road would not be similar to the existing access that occurs at
Victoria Estates Lane, due to the differences in roadway configuration and visual
obstructions specific for each location. Site distance issues identified at a
proposed project access include the horizontal curvature of the roadway to the
west of the project site and the presence of mature street trees along the
roadway, which would obscure views of roadway from a proposed access point to
the project site from Twin Peaks Road. In addition, alternative access to another
public street is available for the project site as identified in response B6.
B10 This comment reports the existing roadway conditions along Holly Oak Way and
Midland Road. As reported, Holly Oak Way is a two-lane road, with one lane in
each direction. Midland Road also contains one travel lane in each direction, with a
center turn lane along most of its length. As noted in the comment, there is a
dedicated left turn lane in a southerly direction on Midland Road to Holly Oak Way.
The intersection of Midland Road and Holly Oak Way is controlled with a stop sign
on Holly Oak Way, which would provide the necessary traffic control for future
traffic conditions, with the project. The presence of a five -foot -wide Class II Bicycle
Lanes on each side of Midland Road is noted. Bicyclists and motorists along area
roadways are required to adhere to and obey all traffic laws. The project would
add an estimated 16 trips to the Midland Road/Holly Oak Way intersection during
the AM peak hour and 20 trips to the intersection during the PM peak hour. Less
trips would be added during non -peak hour conditions. The presence of a bicycle
lane along Midland Road and the addition of project traffic to area roadways is not
expected to lead to an increased risk of traffic accidents during rush hours to the
Midland Road/Holly Oak Way intersection.
B11 Project trip generation was calculated in the project's Traffic Operations
Assessment (Intersecting Metrics 2021). The project's anticipated trip generation
RTC-5
Resolution No. 22-051
Page 73
Fred and Yukie Zuill
C1 Comments noted.
C2 As noted in the comment, the project would result in the removal of trees on the
project site, adjacent to commenter's property. The loss of shading provided by
the trees proposed for removal is not considered an impact under CEQA.
C3 The on -site trees would be removed consistent with the requirements of Poway's
Municipal Code section 12.32.150, Private Tree Removal Permit. The removed trees
would be replaced consistent with the requirements of Poway Municipal Code
section 12.32.170, Replacement of Trees. The removal of trees exceeding 8 inches
diameter at breast height would require replacement at a ratio of two 48-inch box
specimen trees per one tree removed. Other trees would be replaced at a one-to-
one ratio consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code. Refer to
response to comment A8 for additional information on replacement trees.
C4 Comment regarding the observation of red tail hawks is noted. The EIS
acknowledges the presence of raptors on the project site, consistent with
commenter's observations, and identifies impacts to raptors during project
implementation. As discussed in the EIS and in responses B3 and B4 above, the
project would implement mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to
nesting raptors to a less than significant level.
C5 As noted, the project would require removal of trees adjacent to commenter's
property to implement the project; although not a CEQA issue, the project
applicant would be willing to discuss the effects of tree removal on the
neighboring properties with affected parties.
C6 Comment noted. Please refer to response C5.
C7 Comment noted. Please refer to response C5.
C8 The project site would include a vinyl fence along the western portion of the site,
between the proposed residences and adjacent uses to the west. An existing
wooden fence is currently present along the western property line, which would
remain in place, with the new fence placed adjacent to and parallel to the existing
fence. Although not a CEQA issue, the project applicant is willing to discuss fencing
materials with neighboring property owners.
C9 Comment noted. Please refer to response C8.
C10 The project would be required to control runoff from the project site to ensure
that post -development runoff does not increase beyond levels that currently exist
at the project site; however, the project is not responsible for resolving drainage
issues from other properties, outside of the project limits. The project would
incorporate infiltration trenches and trees wells for storm water treatment and
hydromodification management plan controls. The storm water management
facilities are required to be maintained throughout the life of the project as
outlined in section 16.104 of the Poway Municipal Code. The project would comply
with all storm water quality regulations and waste discharge requirements for
surface water quality, as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board,
the County of San Diego, and the City of Poway.
C11 Comment noted.
RTC-7