Loading...
Res P-14-20RESOLUTION NO. P -14 -20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 13 -017 WHEREAS, the City Council considered Minor Development Review Application (MDRA) 13 -017, a request to construct a 5,000- square -foot residence with a 936 - square -foot garage and a 1,000- square -foot guest house on a vacant, 15.89 -acre property located north of the 13100 block of Coyotero Drive (Assessor Parcel Number 317 - 102 -18), within the Rural Residential A (RR -A) zone; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2014, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to receive testimony from the public, both for and against, relative to this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: Section 1: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) and a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared for MDRA 13 -017. The City Council has considered the EIS, MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, and public comments received on the EIS and MND. The subject EIS and MND documentation are fully incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant impact on the environment, that the mitigation measures contained in the EIS included as Attachment 1 of the attached Exhibit A hereof will mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level, and that the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council hereby adopts the MND and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Resolution as Attachment 2 of Exhibit A. Section 2: A biological resources report, dated April 24, 2014, was prepared by Everett and Associates Environmental Consultants on the property and for the proposal. It was reported that the site contains 13.43 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), with the remaining area being classified as disturbed. Implementation of the project will result in habitat impacts to approximately 1.03 acres of CSS. The site is located outside of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Mitigation Area. Pursuant to the HCP, the project is required to mitigate impacts to CSS at a 2:1 ratio, for a total mitigation requirement of 2.06 acres. Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 2 Mitigation can be met through offsite dedication of a Biological Conservation Easement (BCE) over similar quality, unencumbered CSS habitat located within the Poway Mitigation Area and /or payment of a Habitat Mitigation In -Lieu Fee at the established rate at the time of payment. The proposed project complies with the HCP and HCP Implementing Agreement. In accordance with the HCP, the required findings for approval of the proposed mitigation for the removal of CSS for the project are as follows: A. While the project site is outside the Mitigation Area of the HCP, the mitigation is consistent with and furthers the implementing objectives of the HCP, since mitigation through offsite dedication of a BCE or payment of a Habitat Mitigation In -Lieu fee will be provided in compliance with the guidelines of the HCP. The mitigation as outlined in Section 2 above is consistent with and furthers the implementing objectives of the HCP. B. The offsite habitat mitigation or payment of an In -Lieu Fee will enhance the long- term viability and function of the reserve system. C. The mitigation will be to the long -term benefit of the covered species and their habitats in that an offsite BCE within the Mitigation Area will be recorded or an In -Lieu Fee will be paid to go towards the purchase of land that will have undisturbed habitat on which a BCE will be recorded. Said land will promote a meaningful addition to the assembly of a viable regional system of interconnected natural habitat resources, habitat linkages, buffers, and wildlife corridors. D. The mitigation will foster the incremental implementation of the HCP in an effective and efficient manner in that any offsite conservation area is required to be within an identified Mitigation Area within the City. E. The mitigation will not result in a negative fiscal impact with regard to the successful implementation of the HCP. Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 3 PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway at a regular meeting this 16th day of December 2014. Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: Sheila 13 Cobian, CMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Sheila R. Cobian, City Clerk, of the City of Poway, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. P -14 -20 was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 16th day of December 2014, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: CUNNINGHAM, MULLIN, GROSCH, VAUS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DISQUALIFIED: NONE heila , Cobian, MC, City erk City of Poway Exhibit A Resolution No. P -14 -20 srevE onus, Mayor CITY OF POWAY DAVE GROSCH, Deputy Mayor JIM CUNNINGF AM, Councilmember JOHN MUL.LIN, Councilmember CITY OF POWAY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 4 G,� l OF POWgr A C��•INV THE CoJ 1. Name and Address of Applicant: Don Ayles, ERB & Associates, LLC 12320 Stowe Drive, Ste. E, Poway, CA 92064 2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Minor Development Review Application 13 -017: A proposal to construct a 5,000- square -foot residence with a 936- square -foot garage and a 1,000 - square -foot quest house on a vacant, 15.89 -acre property located north of the 13100 block of Coyotero Drive, within the Rural Residential A zone. 3. In accordance with Resolution 83 -084 of the City of Poway, implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the 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: Carol Rosas Associate Planner Phone: (858) 668 -4659 Approved by: Date: 12 i% obert J. ani Director of Development rvices Attachments: 1. Environmental Initial Study 2. Mitigation Monitoring Program City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074 -0789 www.poway.org Exhibit A Resolution No. P -14 -20 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 CITY OF POWAY ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST A. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Initial Study and Checklist, along with information contained in the public record, comprise the environmental documentation for the proposed project as described below pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the information contained herein and in the public record, the City of Poway has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed project. B. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Environmental Assessment, Variance 14 -005 and Minor Development Review Application 13 -017 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway, Development Services 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Carol Rosas, (858) 668 -4659 4. Project Location: APNs: 317 - 102 -18 and 317 - 573 -08 north of the 13100 block of Coyotero Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Don Ayles, ERB & Associates, 12320 Stowe Drive, Suite E, Poway, CA 92064 6. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential A (RR -A) (APN: 317 - 102 -18) and Residential Single- Family 7 (RS -7) (APN: 317 - 573 -08) 7. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). The project involves the construction of a 5,000- square -foot, single - family home with a 936- square -foot garage and a 1,000- square -foot guest house on a vacant, 15.89 -acre property (317- 102 -18). The project also involves the construction of an access driveway and an approximate 100 -foot -long, combined height (approximately 10.4 feet) retaining wall with a 6- foot -high wood privacy fence on top within a 20 -foot -wide access easement along the easterly limits of a vacant, 8,300 square foot residential lot (317- 573 -08). A condition of approval of the project will require the dedication (but not the construction) of a 10- foot -wide public trail. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The properties are bordered on the north and west by moderate density (10,000- square -foot lots) single - family residences; high to moderate density (4,500 to 10,000- square -foot lots) residences to the south, vacant residentially zoned land to the north, and residential condominiums to the east. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 6 EIS and Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing ® Biological Resource ❑ Utilities and Service ® Geology /Soils ❑ Mineral Resources Systems ❑ Hydrology / water Quality ❑ Hazards /Hazardous Materials ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ® Cultural Resources ❑ Agricultural /Forestry ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Recreation Resources ® Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment I ❑ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case as revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and /or mitigation has been agreed to. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant ❑ unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. /Oty City of Poway Date 4 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 7 EIS and Checklist C. EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED o - e ® - a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? x b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and X historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site x and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? N. e PdftEVAY 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 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 8 EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code X section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest X land? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non- X agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? ,o 0 1 arice criteria bsteiblitfibd'oy,the . D O . 0 - D . 0- 0 poilotion con'trol,',dis.tricf;rq8q 'D 00 0 0 0 0 e ®e- - - - ct a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing X or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality X standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 9 EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? • e o 0 6 Id th - e s - a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or X regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited X to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 10 EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation Ian? V AL VLTVR • ® u I ® - ®- a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical X resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or X unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries? • e a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic - related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or offsite Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 11 EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform X Building Code (1994), creating substantial risk to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal X systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 u Id th - ®o - a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may X have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose X of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? + D D + D ' 0 0 �t te, I'pj,, 0 I 0c a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within X one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government X Code Section 65962.5and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 12 EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area f. For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation Ian? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX D'• • ' I + • ' • e - o ® - a. Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table lever (e.g., the X production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level, which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a X manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, X Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 13 EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater X drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollute runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede X or redirect flood flows? L Exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding X as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X lx • a LAN Wou ldlh& 0 0 ' a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, X specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plan. Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 14 EIS and Checklist 10 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED • • e o •- a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be X of future value to the region and the residents of the State? T.- Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use Ian? - a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration X or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in X the project area to excessive noise levels? ••- • Would the • • - a. Induce substantial growth in an area X either direct) for example, by 10 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 15 EIS and Checklist 11 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IM IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction X of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 s , 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 X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 11 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 16 EIS and Checklist 12 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED xvii • ®- • • - • o - a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit x and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand x measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location X that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.: sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or x incompatible uses (e.g.: farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? x f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or x otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? . • Wquljqlthp • o - a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality x Control Board? 12 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 17 EIS and Checklist 13 POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, X or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate X the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to X solid waste? B ®' B a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples or the major periods of California history or prehistory? 13 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 18 EIS and Checklist ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT NO IMPACT b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulative considerable" means X that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings X either directly or indirectly? D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the following evaluation. AESTHETICS: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area. While the 15.89 -acre site is currently undeveloped and natural in appearance, the surrounding properties have been developed with high and moderate density residential development. Future development of the properties with a single - family residence, guest house and access driveway will be consistent with existing development in the area. The project also includes a proposal to construct a 10.4 -foot high combined height (4.4 -foot high) retaining wall with a six foot high wood privacy fence on top. The privacy fence is at the request of an adjacent neighbor to preserve rear yard privacy because the finished grade elevation of the access driveway will result a view into the neighbor's rear yard. The neighbor requesting the privacy fence on top of the access driveway retaining wall is the only property that would be impacted by the height of the 10.4 foot high combined retaining wall /privacy fence. b. No Impact. The project will not have significant impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Therefore no impact would occur. C. Less Than Significant Impact. See response I.a. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes the development of a single - family home and guest house in an area that is surrounded by existing residential development. The proposed development of the site could result in an incremental increase in ambient light levels resulting from the new single - family residence and guest house. This impact however, would be minimal, and thus considered less than significant. 14 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 19 EIS and Checklist AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES; a. No Impact. According to the California Important Farmland Finders Map prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, the subject properties are mapped as other land, and urban land and built up land, which are surrounded on all sides by urban development and not suitable for livestock and agricultural related use. The site is not designated as prime, unique or farmland of statewide importance. The project therefore will have no impact on the agricultural resources in the area. b. No Impact. The zoning designation of the subject properties are RR -A and RS -7. Both residential and horticultural uses are permitted within the RR -A and RS -7 zone. In addition to the construction of a new residence and guest house, the properties could also be used for horticultural purposes. The project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Willamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur. C. No Impact. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The zoning designation of the subject properties are RR -A and RS -7. Both residential and horticultural uses are permitted within these zones. If approved, the project site could be developed with a residence and guest house or conceivably could also be used for horticultural purposes. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. The project would not result in the conversion of any forest land to non - forest use, so no impact would occur. e. No Impact. The project would not directly impact forest lands, nor introduce new elements into the landscape that would contribute to future conversion of agricultural use to non - agricultural use or forest land to non - forest use. The subject properties are presently undeveloped. There is no evidence that the subject properties have ever been used for agricultural purposes and presently no agricultural activity is occurring on the site. The proposed project will result in the development of a residential lot which conceivably could be used for single - family residential purposes or horticultural purposes. No impact would occur. Ill. AIR QUALITY: a. No Impact. The City of Poway is part of the San Diego Air Basin and air quality in the area is administered by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). An air quality management plan (AQMP) describes air pollution control strategies to be taken by a City, County or region classified as a non - attainment area to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and state air quality standards, and to coordinate regional and local governmental agencies to achieve air quality improvement goals. A San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan — 1994 (jointly developed by the Air Pollution Control District and the San Diego Association of Governments- SANDAG) exists for the San Diego area and provides strategies for pollution control to improve air quality in the region. Land use plans and build out projections of the General Plans of jurisdictions within the San Diego area were considered in establishing the strategies of the Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan. The Poway General Plan includes strategies that are directed 15 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 20 toward reducing air emissions through land use patterns, transportation planning, regional agency cooperation, energy conservation, and construction. The project is consistent with the Poway General Plan strategies, in that the type of proposed residential development was envisioned on property designated for low- density residential development, like the site. Therefore the project is also consistent with the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan. The project will not have a significant adverse long -term impact on air quality in the area. In the short term during construction, the project will implement dust control measures. Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality standard. b. No Impact. See response Ill.a above. C. No Impact. See response Ill.a above. d. No Impact. See response Ill.a above. e. No Impact. See response Ill.a above. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project involves the construction of a residence, guest house and an access driveway on a vacant residential lot. Additionally, a condition of approval of the project will required the dedication of a 10- foot -wide recreation trail along the easterly side of the subject lot. The property is surrounded by existing high and moderate density single - family homes to the north, south and west, and residential condominiums to the east. The topography of the site consists of gentle to moderate slopes which range in elevation from 520 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 600 feet above MSL. The project is not located within the Mitigation Area, the Biological Core and Linkage Area (BCLA) or any Proposed Resource Protection Area (PRPA) of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The site is also not within the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey area. A biological resources report, dated April 24, 2014, was prepared by Everett and Associates Environmental Consultants on the property and for the proposal. It was reported that the site contains 13.43 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), with the remaining area being classified as disturbed. An approximate 110 - foot -wide bare dirt area exists along the southerly and easterly sides of the property in the southeast corner where historic fire break clearing has occurred. No California Gnatcatchers were identified on the property during the biological site assessment. Only one sensitive, covered species was detected onsite - two groupings of Coast Barrel Cactus. Both areas are well clear of proposed development, so the cacti will not be impacted by the project. The proposed development will impact approximately 2.19 acres of the 15.89 -acre site. Of the 13.43 -acres of CSS on the property, the project proposes to disturb 1.03 acres. The impacted habitat will be mitigated offsite at a 2:1 ratio, for a total of 2.06 acres. Everett and Associates Environmental Consultants reported that implementation of the following project mitigation measures will address the 16 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 21 identified potential significant impacts to biological resources to a level that would be considered less than significant. Mitigation A. Prior to issuance of a Grading or Administrative Clearing Permit impacts to 1.03 acres of CSS shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (2.06- acres). This requirement shall be met through either offsite dedication of a Biological Conservation Easement (BCE) over similar quality and type habitat. In lieu of the offsite dedication, the applicant may opt to pay the Habitat Mitigation In -Lieu Fee at the established rate at the time of payment. Presently the rate is $17,000 /acre. B. Prior to issuance of a Grading or Administrative Clearing Permit temporary fencing and signage shall be installed around both groupings of coast barrel cactus to avoid impacts during grading and construction. C. During grading and construction activity Best Management Practices (BMPs) including erosion and sediment control and diversion of runoff water to detention basins shall be implemented to reduce impacts from temporary construction activities to a level than significant. D. While the project will not impact any native trees (Coast Live Oaks, Canyon Live Oaks, Englemann Oaks or California Sycamores), the project will impact non - native trees. Pursuant to the Urban Forestry Ordinance of the City of Poway, a Tree Removal Permit is only required in instances where a native tree is proposed for removal associated with single - family residential development. Project grading activities should occur outside of the avian breeding season, which generally runs from January 1 to September 1, to avoid take of birds or their eggs. If avoidance of the avian breeding season is not feasible, pre- construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (experienced in conducting breeding bird surveys) to determine the presence or absence of protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat that is to be disturbed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area, and within 500 feet for raptors. Reductions in the recommended nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity and /or proximity to existing urban development, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. If an active nest is determined to be present, the project biologist shall work with the City to develop avoidance and mitigation measures, which shall remain until all young have fledged. E. In accordance with Condition H of the Poway HCP Incidental Take Permit, a take of active California gnatcatcher nests, which includes harassment of the bird due to grading noise and vibrations from February 15 through July 1, is not permitted. Therefore, grading and removal of habitat during this time frame will only be permitted subject to the following conditions having been met to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The applicant is hereby advised that, during grading, if active nests are found within 500 feet of the grading, the grading activity shall be 17 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 22 stopped until such time as mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS,) are implemented. There is no guarantee that grading will be allowed to resume during nesting season. Before issuance of a Clearing /Grading Permit, if grading or clearing is to occur between February 15 and July 1, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Division a letter from a qualified biologist retained by the applicant, with a scope of work for a CSS habitat and Gnatcatcher Survey, and a report for the area to be cleared and /or graded and CSS habitat areas within 500 feet of such area. The biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine the appropriate survey methodology. The purpose of the survey is to determine if any active gnatcatcher nests are located in the area to be cleared or graded, or in CSS habitat within 500 feet of such area. To be considered qualified, the biologist must provide the City with a copy of a valid Gnatcatcher Recovery Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS). The scope of work shall explain the survey methodology for the biological survey and the proposed gnatcatcher nest monitoring activities during the clearing /grading operation. Should the report show, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, that gnatcatcher nests are not present within the area to be graded /cleared, or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, approval may be granted to commence clearing /grading within the gnatcatcher nesting season from February 15 through July 1. If gnatcatchers are nesting within the area to be graded /cleared, or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, no grading will be allowed during this time. The biologist must attend the City's pre- construction meeting for the project and must be present onsite during all clearing /grading activities to monitor that the clearing/ grading. activities stay within the designated limits. During this period, the biologist shall also monitor and survey the habitat, on a daily basis, within the area to be cleared /graded and any habitat within 500 feet of said area for any evidence that a gnatcatcher nest(s) exists or is being built. Weekly monitoring summaries shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Should evidence of a gnatcatcher nest(s) be discovered, the grading operation shall cease in that area and be directed away from the gnatcatcher nest(s) to a location greater than 500 feet away from the nest(s). If grading is required to stop due to the presence of active nests, the applicant shall be required to provide erosion control, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This paragraph must be included as a note on the cover sheet of the clearing /grading plan. At a minimum, all protected biological areas, as shown on the grading plan, shall be staked by a licensed surveyor and delineated with lathe and ribbon. The applicant shall have said staking inspected by the Engineering Inspector prior to any grading, clearing or grubbing. A 18 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 23 written certification from the engineer of work, or a licensed surveyor, shall be provided to the Engineering Inspector stating that all protected areas are staked in accordance with the approved project plans. The biologist shall provide the City with written confirmation that the limits of clearing/ grading are in accordance with the project's Biological Resource Assessment. Upon completion of the clearing /grading activities, the applicant's biologist shall submit to the Director of Development Services a biological monitoring report summarizing the daily observations of the biologist, including whether any gnatcatchers or evidence of active gnatcatcher nests were present during clearing and grading activities within the area and any habitat within 500 feet of said area. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response IV.a. above. C. No Impact. The project site does not support any wetlands, nor would the project propose any activity that could result in substantially adverse effects on wetlands. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. The project site is not located within any reported local or regional wildlife corridors. Given the developed nature of the surrounding properties, the project site would not serve any meaningful wildlife corridor function, nor would it be likely to provide a native wildlife nursery site. No impact would occur. e. No Impact. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation ordinance. No impact would occur. While some non - native trees exist on the site, their removal or disturbance does not require approval from the City. No native trees will be impacted by the project, so no permits would be required from the City for the project. No impact would occur. f. No Impact. The Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan /Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP /NCCP) serves as the planning document for the protection and management of biologically effective, interconnected open spaces in the City of Poway. The Poway Subarea HCP /NCCP, which was adopted in April 1996, is consistent with the regional and sub - regional planning efforts within San Diego County pursuant to the State of California's NCCP act of 1991. The project is not located within the Poway Subarea HCP Mitigation Area. No impact would occur. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES; a. No Impact. The subject property is mapped in the Poway General Plan as being in an area where there is low probability that historical resources exist. Additionally, the project site is not on the City of Poway's Historical Sites Survey. The site therefore is not considered to be a significant historical resource and no impact to historical resources would occur. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject property is mapped in the Poway General Plan as being in area where there is moderate potential that cultural resources could exist. The site was surveyed and a records search was completed by Laguna Mountain Environmental Inc. A Cultural Resources Survey report dated October, 2013, and a subsequent addendum dated September 16, 2014, were prepared on the project. The 19 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 24 survey findings are on file in the office of the Poway Development Services, Planning Division. It was reported that two prehistoric bedrock milling sites were identified during the survey (one site was identified on the subject property [CA- SDI - 21057] and the other site is located nearby on an adjacent residential property [CA- SDI - 210561). The survey report addendum concluded that while the CA- SDI -21057 site does contain cultural resources of archeological significance, because of the distance and topography between the CA- SDI -21057 site and the proposed development, direct and indirect impacts to this resource will not result from the proposed development. The report addendum also concluded that the distances between a 10- foot -wide trail easement that is required of the project along the easterly property line and the CA- SDI -21057 site and CA- SDI -21056 site are adequate enough to avoid any direct impacts to either of the cultural resource sites from future trail construction and maintenance. Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. reported that the following mitigation measure will result in long -term preservation and avoidance of impacts to the CA- SDI -21057 site Mitigation A. An Open Space Easement incorporating the CA- SDI -21057 site and a 30 -foot buffer around the site shall be recorded on the subject property prior to issuance of the project Grading Permit or Administrative Clearing Permit. C. No Impact. The site was surveyed and a records search was completed by Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. A Cultural Resources Survey report dated October, 2013, and a subsequent addendum dated September 16, 2014, were prepared on the project. The survey findings are on file in the office of the Poway Development Services, Planning Division. The report concluded that the site contains cultural resources of archeological significance, but there were no reported paleontological resources or unique geologic features identified. No impact therefore would occur. d. No Impact. The site was surveyed and a records search was completed by Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. A Cultural Resources Survey report dated October, 2013 and a subsequent addendum dated September 16, 2014, were prepared on the project. The survey findings are on file in the office of the Poway Development Services, Planning Division. The report concluded that the site contains cultural resources of archeological significance, but there were no reported human remains identified. Additionally, there is no known cemetery or burial areas on the subject lot. No impact therefore would occur. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: a i. Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within an area that according to the Geology of the Poway Quadrangle prepared in 1975 by the State of California Resources Agency Department of Conservation is mapped as having soil type that includes Friars Formation which is a soil type prone for slippage. No active known faults traverse the project site. Murphy Canyon Fault is the nearest main southern California fault, located approximately 13 miles southwest of the project site. Three major fault systems within the project vicinity include the Elsinore, San Jacinto and Rose Canyon faults. The active Elsinore fault trends northwest and is about 19 miles northeast of Poway. The San Jacinto fault is also an active northwest- trending fault about 45 miles 20 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 25 EIS and Checklist northeast of Poway. The Rose Canyon fault is located about 16 to 20 miles west of Poway in the Pacific Ocean and is considered potentially active. There is potential for some local damage in the event of a major earthquake along one of these fault systems, which could result in significant impacts to project facilities. While the potential for onsite rupture cannot be completely discounted (e.g.: unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the site), the likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due to the absence of known faulting within or adjacent to the site. As a result, impacts related to fault rupture are assessed as less than significant. a ii. No Impact. The project site is located in seismically active southern California and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region, including several unnamed faults, larger faults such as Murphy Canyon Fault, and major fault systems such as Elsinore, San Jacinto and Rose Canyon. An earthquake along any of these known active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking and consequently cause injury and/or property damage in the project vicinity. The proposed residence and guest house will be required to be designed and constructed pursuant to existing guidelines such as the City of Poway's Grading Ordinance and Building Code). No impact would occur. a iii. No Impact. The project site is not located in an area that has potential for liquefaction. Thus, no impacts resulting from seismically related ground failure would occur. a iv. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The site is located in an area that according to the Geology of the Poway Quadrangle prepared in 1975 by the State of California Resources Agency Department of Conservation is mapped as having soil type that includes Friars Formation which is a soil type prone for slippage and landslide. A Geotechnical Investigation and Landslide Study and subsequent addendum letter dated March 13, 2013, and March 25, 2013, respectively, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. found that while the site contained large ancient translation landslide conditions, the "project study portions of the property could be safely developed utilizing special stabilization and construction techniques." The techniques would locally stabilize the development portion of the site, while the remaining areas of the property would remain prone to potential landsliding hazards. The Study provided two alternatives for site development. These alternatives are summarized and included in the following list as mitigation for the project: Mitigation A. Grading plans shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval and a Grading Permit obtained prior to the onset of grading activity. The project shall be designed to comply with the Poway Grading Ordinance and in accordance with either of the following recommended Alternatives for project grading site design: Alternative One — Shear Key Stabilization Option: The developer shall design the project to utilize a deep stabilization shear key for the basal and secondary landslide feature and shear piles for temporary stabilization support during constructions. Site monitoring by slope inclinometers (installed prior to earthwork operations) will be required during and after construction. 21 EIS and Checklist Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 26 ii. Alternative Two — Deep Pile Foundation Support Option: The developer shall design the project to utilize deep concrete piles for building support. The concrete piles would be large building foundation elements resisting the lateral slide loads. Split -level type designs and transition walls may be considered to accommodate sloping ground under the building. Periodic site evaluation by installation and monitoring slope inclinometers is also required to detect any possible movement around building perimeter. The developer at this stage is proposing to design the project in accordance with Alternative Two. b. Less Than Significant Impact. Grading activities will comply with City requirements, including implementation of standard erosion control measures, and will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts are less than significant. C. Less Than Significant Impact. See the comments in VI.a.iv above. d. Less Than Significant Impact. See the comments in VI.a.iv above. e. No Impact. The new home will be serviced by public sewer service, so no septic system will be needed. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: a. Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities; and the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed "global warming. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, states that climate change and global warming is generally the result of greenhouse gases caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 emissions come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels (vehicle emissions) and energy consumption. AB 32 mandates that California reduce its' annual greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) aligns regional land use, transportation, housing, and greenhouse gas reduction planning efforts. SB 375 requires Air Resources Boards to set regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles and light trucks for 2020 and 2035 (GC § 65080(b)(2)(A)). The targets are for the 18 Municipal Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California. In response to, and in compliance with, the State measure the San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG), as San Diego's MPO, adopted emission reduction targets of 7 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035. While SANDAG has published the proposed target levels, the standards for measuring the significance of a project's cumulative contribution to global climate change, nor a consistent method to achieve these reductions, have not been determined. 22 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 27 EIS and Checklist The state of California's Climate Change Scoping Plan aims to reduce state and local GHG emissions by primarily targeting the largest emitters of GHGs: transportation, including emissions from vehicles, and energy sectors. The project involves the construction of one residence and a guest house. Item XVI.a below concludes that the project is not anticipated to result in substantial numbers of new vehicle trips on local roads. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. b. No Impact. See Vll.a above VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: a. No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 the subject property is not listed on the current listing of the Hazardous Materials Establishments and Sites as prepared by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. The project is the construction of a single - family home and guest house and the use will not involve hazardous materials. No transport, storage or use of hazardous materials beyond that which typically occurs with a single- family residential use will occur. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. As the project does not propose the use of hazardous materials, it will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impact would occur. C. No Impact. As the project does not propose the use of hazardous materials, it will not emit hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials into the environment. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, as such would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impact would occur. e. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site, and Gillespie Field, located approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site. Thus the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur. No impact would occur. f. No Impact. See Item Vlll.e above. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur. g. No Impact. The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project would not interfere with people's ability to utilize roadways for evacuation purposes and, on a more local level, emergency vehicle lanes within the project parking lot would be kept free of vehicles and storage materials in compliance with City ordinances. Accordingly, no impact would occur. h. No Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ. Therefore no impact would occur. 23 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 28 EIS and Checklist IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will comply with all storm water quality regulations, which will be ensured as part of future grading and building plan review. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts will be less than significant. b. No Impact. The project does not propose any construction activities that would directly affect groundwater, contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact would occur C. Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the development of a new residence and guest house and will require the construction of a new access driveway. Grading associated with the building pad and driveway will be required to comply with all storm water and water quality regulations. While the project will result in alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site, it would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. A less than significant impact would occur. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the development of a new residence and guest house and will require the construction of a new access driveway. Grading associated with the building pad and driveway will be required to comply with all storm water and water quality regulations. While the project will result in alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site, it would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff which would result in flooding on or offsite. A less than significant impact would occur. e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project has been designed such that the amount of storm water runoff beyond which currently occurs will be negligible. Runoff from the site will be treated to minimize pollutants in compliance with City standards. Best management stormwater treatment site design features will be implemented with the project and runoff treatment will occur on site. Therefore Impacts will be less than significant. f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project has been designed to comply with all storm water and water quality regulations, and contains permeable areas for surface water percolation. Therefore, the project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. A less than significant impact would occur. g. No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map area. Based on the fact that the project site is not located within a mapped inundation area the project would not place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area. No impact would occur. h. No Impact... See response IX.g. The project will not place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. i. No impact. The project is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area or near any bodies of water. Therefore the project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impact would occur. j. No Impact. The project site is not near any water body. No impact would occur. 24 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 29 EIS and Checklist X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: a. No Impact. The project has been designed to conform to the General Plan. Future development of the parcel would also be required to be in character with development in the area and comply with applicable City development requirements. The project does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. The project site is zoned and designated by the City of Poway General Plan for residential uses. No impact would occur. C. No Impact. See response IV.f above. No impact would occur. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES a. No Impact. Pursuant to the City of Poway Master Environmental Assessment prepared in conjunction with the 1990 update to the Poway General Plan, there are no known mineral resources on the site. b. No Impact. See response to Item XI.a. XII. NOISE: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is the construction of a single residential residence and guest house located in an area that is surrounded by existing single - family residential development. Noise associated with adjacent uses will not impact the project since noise associated with the adjoining residential uses will be minimal. The project will result in an incremental increase in the ambient noise level of the area. Noise from the project will be that typical to residential uses and will have a less than significant impact on adjacent uses. b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project grading activities (grading for driveway and building pad) will result in temporary or periodic increases in the generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels typically related to construction. Per City standards, the noise generating construction activities are limited to certain times of the day and days of the week. A less than significant impact could occur. C. Less Than Significant Impact. See response Xll.a above. Potentially a less than significant impact could occur. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project grading activities (grading for required driveway and building pad for proposed residence and guest house) will result in temporary or periodic increases in noise typically related to construction. Per City standards, the noise generating construction activities are limited to certain times of the day and days of the week. Potentially a less than significant impact could occur. e. No Impact. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site and Gillespie Field, located approximately 8 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of either of these airports. No impact would occur. f. No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing within the project to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur. 25 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 30 EIS and Checklist XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: a. No Impact. The project will result in the construction of one single- family residence and one guest house. Both a residence and guest house are permitted uses within the Rural Residential A zone and are consistent with the low density land use designation for the property. Therefore, the project is consistent with the density limitation of the underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the site. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. See response Xlll.a. C. No Impact. See response Xlll.a. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the public services of the area. There are adequate public services to serve the project. ai. Fire Protection — Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by the City of Poway Fire Department. The project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection and emergency services. The site is already included within the Fire Department service area. Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to this project is accounted for. No new or upgraded fire protection facilities would be required as a result of establishment of this project and no physical impacts resulting from construction of new facilities are identified. A less than significant impact would occur. aii. Police Protection — Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Poway contracts with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. The project site is currently served by the Poway Station, which is located at 13100 Bowron Road. The site is included within the Sheriffs service area. Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to the site, is accounted for. No new or upgraded police protection facilities would be required as a result of establishment of this project and no physical impacts resulting from construction of new facilities are identified. A less than significant impact would occur. aiii. Schools — Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in one new residence and guest house. Children from the site will be accommodated into existing schools which are in proximity to the project site. The project is consistent with the density limitation of the underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the site. A less than significant impact would occur. aiv. Parks — Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not require new or physically altered park facilities as the construction of one new residence and guest house is consistent with the density limits of the General Plan. Project residents can be accommodated in existing parks that are in proximity to the site. A less than significant impact would occur. ay. Other Public Facilities — Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in an incremental increase in the need for use of public facilities or service, but would not require new or physically altered public facilities. A less than significant impact would occur. XV. RECREATION: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the construction of a new residence and guest house. This would result in an incremental increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional park or other recreational facilities. 26 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 31 EIS and Checklist Project residents can be accommodated in existing parks that are in proximity to the site. The project would have a less than significant impact. b. Less Than Significant Impact. Existing recreation facilities can accommodate the increased demand expected from the new residence and guest house. The project would have a less than significant impact. XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for performance of the circulatory system. The project will result in the construction of one new single - family residence and guest house. The estimated average daily trips (ADT) associated with the additional new home is ten (10). Therefore, the project will result in an incremental increase in traffic in the area, which is considered to be less than significant. b. Less Than Significant Impact. The SANDAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) is intended to determine if a large project (greater than 2,400 ADT AM or PM peak hour trips) would adversely impact the CMP transportation system. A CMP analysis is not required for this project because the project is calculated to generate fewer than 2,400 ADT AM or PM (an additional 10 ADT). The project would have a less than significant impact. C. No Impact. The project site is not located within an Airport Influence Area. Therefore, the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. No impact would occur. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the construction of a new single - family residence and guest house. Adequate roadway access exists to the site. While the project is not required to complete any roadway improvements, the project does include grading and the construction of an access driveway which will be developed approximately 15 -feet west of an existing residence. The access driveway will be developed within an existing 20 -foot wide access easement which runs along the easterly limits of a vacant residential lot which takes direct access from Coyotero Road, a public street. The access driveway has been designed to comply with City standards. A less than significant impact would occur. e. No Impact. The project does not involve any roadway or traffic improvements, land use changes or changes to the existing facilities that would result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur. f. No Impact. See response to item XVI.a above. No impact would occur. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within an area identified to be served by the public sewer system. Because the project would not involve the construction of facilities that would generate significant amounts of sewage, it would not require the construction or expansion of any wastewater facilities or exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Adequate wastewater treatment facilities and services are in place to serve future use at the project site. A less than significant impact would occur b. Less Than Significant. See Item XVll.a for a discussion of the adequacy of wastewater treatment facilities. Adequate water treatment facilities and services are in place to serve uses at the project site. The project will not 27 Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 32 EIS and Checklist require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. A less than significant impact would occur. C. Less Than Significant. The project will result in an incremental increase in stormwater runoff in the area. The project is required to comply with the City's stormwater management regulations and provide any necessary site specific stormwater improvements. Adequate public stormwater facilities exist in the area to serve the site. The project would not result in the construction of stormwater facilities that could cause a significant impact on the environment. The project would have a less than significant impact. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within an area identified to be served by the public water system and will result in additional residence and guest house. Because the project would not generate significant amounts of water demand, it would not require the construction or expansion of any facilities. Adequate water facilities and services are in place to serve future uses at the project site. It is anticipated that a less than significant impact would occur e. Less Than Significant Impact. See responses XVII a above. f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be served by an existing waste disposal facility with sufficient capacity. The project would result in the creation of one additional home and guest house. It is anticipated that a less than significant impact would occur. g. No Impact. The project residents will appropriately separate their waste so that recyclables and controlled wastes are separated from landfill trash in accordance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. The project would comply with all federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act. No impact would occur. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: a. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response IV.a. b. Less than Significant Impact. The project will have an incremental impact that would be less than significant, when considered cumulatively with past and future projects. The project, as well as past projects and future projects have or will comply with the land use and density limitations of the City's General Plan. Infrastructure and services per the General Plan are in place or are planned and will be provided to accommodate future projects. A less than significant impact would occur. C. Less Than Significant Impact. See responses I.a, c and d; Ill.b; Vl.ai,.b, c and d; Vll.a; IX.a, c, d, e, and f; Xll.a, b, c, and d; XIV.a.i, a.ii, a.iii, a.iv, and a.v; XV.a and b; XVIA; XVll.a, b, c, d, e, and f. Wplanning \14 Reports \VAR \VAR 14 -005 -MDRA 13 -017 U.S. Financial\EIS and check.docx Kfl Resolution No. P -14 -20 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 33 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR MDRA 13 -017 Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that public agencies "adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designated to ensure compliance during project implementation." This mitigation monitoring program has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Non - compliance with any of these conditions, as identified by City staff or a designated monitor, shall result in issuance of a cease and desist order for all construction activities. The order shall remain in effect until compliance is assured. Non - compliance situations, which may occur subsequent to project construction, will be addressed on a case -by -case basis and may be subject to penalties according to the City of Poway Municipal Code. When phasing of development has been established, it may be necessary for this Monitoring Program to be amended, with City approval. Topic Mitigation Measure Timing Responsibility Biological A. Impacts to 1.03 acres of A. Prior to A. Applicant Resources CSS shall be mitigated at a Grading Permit 2:1 ratio (2.06- acres). This or requirement shall be met Administrative through either offsite dedication Clearing Permit of a Biological Conservation issuance. Easement (BCE) over similar quality and type habitat. In lieu of the offsite dedication, the applicant may opt to pay the Habitat Mitigation In -Lieu Fee at the established rate at the time of payment. Presently the rate is $17,000 /acre. B. Temporary fencing and B. Prior to B. Applicant signage shall be installed Grading Permit around both groupings of or Coast Barrel Cactus to avoid Administrative impacts during grading and Clearing Permit construction. issuance. C. Best Management C. During C. Applicant Practices (BMPs) including Grading and erosion and sediment control construction and diversion of runoff water to activity. detention basins shall be implemented to reduce impacts from temporary construction activities to a level less than significant. Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 34 D. While the project will not D. Prior to D. Applicant impact any native trees (Coast grading or Live Oaks, Canyon Live Oaks, activity on Englemann Oaks or California the site Sycamores), the project will pursuant to impact non - native trees. an Pursuant to the Urban Forestry approved Ordinance of the City of Poway, Grading or a Tree Removal Permit is only Adminis- required in instances where a trative native tree is proposed for Clearing removal associated with single Permit. family residential development. Project grading activities should occur outside of the avian breeding season, which generally runs from January 1 to September 1, to avoid take of birds or their eggs. If avoidance of the avian breeding season is not feasible, pre- construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (experienced in conducting breeding bird surveys) to determine the presence or absence of protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat that is to be disturbed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area, and within 500 feet for raptors. Reductions in the recommended nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity and /or proximity to existing urban development, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. If an active nest is determined to be present, the project biologist shall work with the City to develop avoidance and mitigation measures, which shall remain until all young have fledged. E. In accordance with E. Prior to E. Applicant Condition H of the Poway HCP grading or Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 35 Incidental Take Permit, a take clearing of active California gnatcatcher activity nests, which includes pursuant to harassment of the bird due to an grading noise and vibrations approved from February 15 through July Grading or 1, is not permitted. Therefore, Administrati grading and removal of habitat ve Clearing during this time frame will only Permit. be permitted subject to the following conditions having been met to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The applicant is hereby advised that, during grading, if active nests are found within 500 feet of the grading, the grading activity shall be stopped until such time as mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) are implemented. There is no guarantee that grading will be allowed to resume during nesting season. Before issuance of a Clearing /Grading Permit, if grading or clearing is to occur between February 15 and July 1, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Division a letter from a qualified biologist retained by the applicant, with a scope of work for a CSS habitat and Gnatcatcher Survey, and a report for the area to be cleared and /or graded and CSS habitat areas within 500 feet of such area. The biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine the appropriate survey methodology. The purpose of the survey is to determine if any active gnatcatcher nests are located in the area to be cleared or graded, or in CSS habitat within 500 feet of such area. To be Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 36 considered qualified, the biologist must provide the City with a copy of a valid Gnatcatcher Recovery Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The scope of work shall explain the survey methodology for the biological survey and the proposed gnatcatcher nest monitoring activities during the clearing /grading operation. Should the report show, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, that gnatcatcher nests are not present within the area to be graded/ cleared, or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, approval may be granted to commence clearing /grading within the gnatcatcher nesting season from February 15 through July 1. If gnatcatchers are nesting within the area to be graded/ cleared, or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of said area, no grading will be allowed during this time. The biologist must attend the City's preconstruction meeting for the project and must be present onsite during all clearing /grading activities to monitor that the clearing/ grading activities stay within the designated limits. During this period, the biologist shall also monitor and survey the habitat, on a daily basis, within the area to be cleared /graded and any habitat within 500 feet of said area for any evidence that a gnatcatcher nest(s) exists or is being built. Weekly monitoring summaries shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 37 Should evidence of a gnatcatcher nest(s) be discovered, the grading operation shall cease in that area and be directed away from the gnatcatcher nest(s) to a location greater than 500 feet away from the nest(s). If grading is required to stop due to the presence of active nests, the applicant shall be required to provide erosion control, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This paragraph must be included as a note on the cover sheet of the clearing /grading plan. At a minimum, all protected biological areas, as shown on the grading plan, shall be staked by a licensed surveyor and delineated with lathe and ribbon. The applicant shall have said staking inspected by the Engineering Inspector prior to any grading, clearing or grubbing. A written certification from the engineer of work, or a licensed surveyor, shall be provided to the Engineering Inspector stating that all protected areas are staked in accordance with the approved project plans. The biologist shall provide the City with written confirmation that the limits of clearing/ grading are in accordance with the project's Biological Resource Assessment. Upon completion of the clearing /grading activities, the applicant's biologist shall submit to the Director of Development Services a biological monitoring report summarizing the daily observations of the biologist, including whether an Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 38 gnatcatchers or evidence of active gnatcatcher nests were present during clearing and grading activities within the area and any habitat within 500 feet of said area. Cultural A. . An open space easement A. Prior to A. Applicant Resources incorporating the CA- SDI -21057 issuance of the site and a 30 -foot buffer around project Grading the site shall be recorded on the Permit or subject property Administrative Clearing Permit. Geology and A. Grading plans shall be A. Prior to A. Applicant Soils prepared and submitted to the Grading City for review and approval Permit and a Grading Permit obtained Issuance prior to the onset of grading activity. The project shall be designed to comply with the Poway Grading Ordinance and in accordance with either of the following recommended Alternatives for project grading site design: i. Alternative One — Shear Key Stabilization Option: The developer shall design the project to utilize a deep stabilization shear key for the basal and secondary landslide feature and shear piles for temporary stabilization support during constructions. Site monitoring by slope inclinometers (installed prior to earthwork operations) will be required during and after construction. ii. Alternative Two — Deep Pile Foundation Support Option: The developer shall design the project to utilize deep concrete piles for building support. The concrete piles would be large Resolution No. P -14 -20 Page 39 building foundation elements resisting the lateral slide loads. Split -level type designs and transition walls may be considered to accommodate sloping ground under the building. Periodic site evaluation by installation and monitoring slope inclinometers is also required to detect any possible movement around building perimeter. The developer at this stage is proposing to design the project in accordance with Alternative Two.