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.