Res P-15-02RESOLUTION NO. P -15 -02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14 -001 AND
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 14 -014
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 321 - 271 -06
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 14 -001 and
Minor Development Review Application (MDRA) 14 -014; a proposed three -lot
residential subdivision of a 33.8 -acre site located on the west and east sides of Millards
Road at Poway Road. The proposal also involves grading for three building pads,
public and private improvements, and construction of an approximate 9,700- square -foot
residence on one of the lots, located on the west side of Millards Road at Poway Road,
within the Rural Residential A (RR -A) zone; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2015, the City Council held a duly advertised public
hearing to receive testimony from the public, both for and against, relative to this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway
as follows:
Section 1: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) and a proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared for the project. The City Council has
considered the EIS, MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, and any 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 Report (dated November 5, 2014) was prepared for the
project by Brian Smith and Associates. In the report, the project's compliance with the
Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is demonstrated and project
impacts /mitigation are specified. Overall, the project will impact 7.69 acres of natural
habitat consisting of disturbed and undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) and
Southern Mixed Chaparral (SMC). Of that total, 5.9 acres are associated with
development of the three residences, which includes the building pads and driveways,
manufactured slopes, septic fields, and limits of fire fuel management. The balance of
impacts is 1.79 acres and is associated with the project road and its fire fuel
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 2
management and the project water line. Impacts associated with the public trail (1.15
acres) are identified in the Biological Report since the trail easement is being
established with the project. However, the impacts will not occur in conjunction with the
project as the trail improvements will be done by the City at some point in the future, at
which time additional environmental review will be conducted. Direct project impacts,
therefore, are 7.69 acres. Total mitigation required, based on applicable ratios specified
in the HCP, is 8.3 acres.
The proposed project complies with the HCP and the HCP Implementing Agreement. In
accordance with the HCP, the required findings for approval of the proposed mitigation
for the removal of natural habitat for the project are as follows:
A. A portion of the project site is in the Mitigation Area of the HCP, the mitigation is
consistent with and furthers the implementing objectives of the HCP, since partial
mitigation through onsite dedication of a Biological Conservation Easement
((BCE) within the Mitigation Area, and payment of a Habitat Mitigation In -Lieu fee
for the balance, will be provided in compliance with the guidelines of the HCP. It
should be noted that the applicant may pursue annexation of the portion of the
site that is not in the Mitigation Area into the Mitigation Area and in this case the
balance of mitigation could be satisfied by recordation of another BCE on the
site. The mitigation as outlined in Section 2 above is consistent with and furthers
the implementing objectives of the HCP.
B. The onsite habitat mitigation and /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 onsite BCE within the Mitigation Area will be recorded and /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 onsite 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 -15 -02
Page 3
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway
at a regular meeting this 13th day of January 2015.
Q
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
A 0 Kva-q -C 4 L-(� -
Sheil . 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 -15 -02 was duly adopted by the
City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 13th day of January 2015, and
that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES: CUNNINGHAM, MULLIN, GROSCH, VAUS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
DISQUALIFIED: NONE
I
S eila . Cobian, CMC, City Clerk
City of Poway
Exhibit A Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 4
CITY OF POWAY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Mark Catrambone
12709 Tree Ridge Terrace Poway CA 92064
2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment, Tentative
Parcel Map 14 -001 and Minor Development Review (MDRA) 14 -014: a proposed three -
lot residential subdivision of a 33.8 -acre site located on the west and east sides of
Millards Road at Poway Road. The proposal also involves grading for three building
pads, public and private improvements, and construction of an approximate 9,700 -
square -foot residence on one of the lots, located on the west of Millards Road, within
the Rural Residential A (RR -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: Jason Martin, Senior Planner Phone: (858) 668 -4658
Approved by:
Robert J. Manis
Director of Development Services
Attachments:
1. Environmental Initial Study
2. Mitigation Monitoring Program
Date:
CITY OF POWAY
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND CHECKLIST
A. INTRODUCTION
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 5
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: Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 14 -001 and Minor Development Review Application
(MDRA) 14 -014
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Poway. Development Services
13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064
Contact Person and Phone Number: Jason Martin, (858) 668 -4658
4. Project Location: South side of Poway Road at Millards Road, Poway, CA 92064
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: William Bourgeois, 13000 Gregg St., Poway, CA 92064
6. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential A (RR -A)
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 subdivision of an approximate 33.8 -acre, residentially zoned property
into three separate lots, which will range in size from approximately 9 to 14 acres, grading the
site, and initial construction of one residence on one of the lots. The subject property is vacant
and is generally in an undeveloped, natural condition. The project will involve grading for three
building pads and an access road, construction of the road and a water line to serve the
residences, storm water treatment facilities, natural vegetation management for fire protection,
establishment of septic waste disposal systems for each of the lots, establishment of a public
recreation trail easement (with no physical improvements), and an approximate 9,700- square-
foot residence on Parcel 2. Future development of residences on Parcels 1 and 3 would be
subject to future discretionary review under an MDRA.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Adjacent to the site to the south and east are developed
and undeveloped large residential lots. Across Poway Road to the north, and west of the site
are undeveloped large residential lots. The surrounding area consists of moderate to steep
sloping topography and is sparsely developed.
9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement): None
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 6
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
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
❑ Trans portation/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 ❑
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.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
Jason Martin, City of Poway
11
Date
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 7
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
C. EIS and Checklist
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
a. Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic X
vista?
b. Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock X
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or X
quality of the site 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?
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
12
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 8
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
13
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory
of forest land, including the
Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment
Project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the
project:
a. Convert prime farmland,
unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide
importance (farmland), as
shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
X
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to non - agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act
X
contract?
c. Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
X
defined by Public
Resources Code 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
X
land to non - forest land?
e. Involve other changes in
the existing environment
X
13
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 9
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
which, due to their location
or nature, could result
in conversion of farmland
to non - agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non - forest use?
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
X
applicable air 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
X
ambient air quality
standard (including
releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
X
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
14
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 10
LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT
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 X
local or 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 X
local or regional plans,
policies, 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 X
with established native
resident migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the
15
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 11
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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, Natural
Community Conservation X
Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state
habitat conservation plan?
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 X
site or unique geologic
feature?
d. Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal X
cemeteries?
a. Expose people or
structures to potential
16
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 12
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
17
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
X
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic - related ground
failure, including
X
liquefaction?
iv Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
X
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 potentially
X
result in on- or offsite
landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18 -1 -B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
X
creating substantial risk to
life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
X
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
17
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 13
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
for the disposal of
wastewater?
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have X
a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of X
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse qases?
a. Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
X
disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident
X
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances or
X
waste within 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
X
compiled pursuant to
18
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 14
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within
an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or X
public use 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 X
safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
g. Impair implementation of,
or physically interfere with,
an adopted emergency X
response plan or
emergency evacuation
Ian?
h. Expose people or
structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands X
are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences
are intermixed with
wildlands?
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste X
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or X
interfere substantial) with
19
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 15
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
20
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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 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
X
a stream or river, in a
manner which would result
in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite?
d. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or
X
substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-
or offsite?
e. Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
X
provide substantial
additional sources of
pollute runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
X
20
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 16
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
g. Place housing within a
100 -year flood hazard area
as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard boundary or X
Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year
flood hazard area
structures which would X
impede or redirect flood
flows?
i. Exposing people or
structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, X
including flooding
as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow? X
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 community
conservation plan? X
21
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 17
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that X
would be of future value to
the region and the
residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally -
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on X
a local general plan,
specific plan or other land
use Dlan?
a. Exposure of persons to, or
generation of, noise levels
in excess of standards
established in the local X
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to, or
generation of, excessive X
ground borne vibration or
round borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity X
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
e. For a project located within
an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
22
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 19
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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
a. Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that X
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational X
facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
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 and non -
motorized travel, and
X
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 18
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?
f. For a project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose X
people residing or working
in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
a. Induce substantial growth
in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing
new homes and X
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial
numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the
construction of X
replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial
numbers of people,
necessitating the X
construction 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
23
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 20
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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 measures, or
X
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
X
levels or a change in
location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase
hazards due to a design
feature (e.g.: sharp curves
X
or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g.:
farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate
X
emergency access?
f. Conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs
regarding public transit,
bicycle or pedestrian
X
facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance
or safetv of such facilities?
a. Exceed wastewater
treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional
25
EI
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 21
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
26
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
NO
SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
INCORPORATED
Water Quality Control
Board?
b. Require or result in the
construction of new water
or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the
X
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the
construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing
facilities, the construction
X
of which could cause
significant environmental
effects?
d. Are sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project from existing
entitlements and
X
resources, 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
X
the 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?
26
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 22
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
POTENTIALLY
ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
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 X
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the
number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate
important examples or the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulative considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are X
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 X
on human beings either
directly or indirectly?
27
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 23
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the
following evaluation.
AESTHETICS.
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the City's
Hillside /Ridgeline Review Area, which is an area comprised of visually prominent
hillside properties. Development of the project will alter the natural appearance of
the site; however, the extent of development will be limited through adherence with
the City's hillside development regulations, which restrict the amount of graded
area that may occur. Additionally, development is further limited through
adherence with the natural vegetation clearing limits established by the Poway
Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Impacts will be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. See response 1.a.
c. Less Than Significant Impact. See response 1.a.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in the eventual construction
of three new residences, which in turn will result in additional nighttime lighting
beyond that which currently exists. Lighting will be typical to that associated with a
residence. Impacts will be less than significant.
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 property is not designated as prime, unique or farmland of
statewide importance. No impacts will occur.
b. No impact. The project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract. No impact will 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. No
impact will occur.
d. No Impact. The project would not result in the conversion of any forest land to
non- forest use. No impact will 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. No impact
will occur.
III. AIR QUALITY:
a. No Impact. The City of Poway is part of the San Diego Air Basin and air quality in
the area is administered by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD). An air quality management plan (AQMP) describes air pollution control
strategies to be taken by a city, county or region classified as a non - attainment
area to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The main purpose of an
AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and
state air quality standards, and to coordinate regional and local governmental
agencies to achieve air quality improvement goals. A San Diego Regional Air
Quality Strategies Plan — 1994 (jointly developed by the Air Pollution Control
District and the San Diego Association of Governments - SANDAL) exists for the
San Diego area and provides strategies for pollution control to improve air quality
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 24
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
in the region. Land use plans and build out projections of the General Plans of
jurisdictions within the San Diego area were considered in establishing the
strategies of the Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan. The Poway General Plan
includes strategies that are directed toward reducing air emissions through land
use patterns, transportation planning, regional agency cooperation, energy
conservation, and construction.
The project is consistent with the Poway General Plan strategies, in that the
General Plan envisioned this type of development on the project site; therefore,
it is also consistent with the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan. 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. No impacts will occur.
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 subject site is
vacant, characterized by moderate to steep topography, and generally in an
undeveloped, natural condition. The site supports natural habitat communities.
The portion of the site which is located north /northwest of Millards Road, where
topography is moderate and development is proposed, is located within the
Mitigation Area of the HCP. The portion of the site south /southeast of Millards
Road, which is constrained for development due to steeper topography, is not
located within the Mitigation Area. A Biological Report (dated November 5, 2014)
was prepared for the project by Brian Smith and Associates. In the report, the
project's compliance with the HCP is demonstrated and project impacts /mitigation
are specified. Overall, the project will impact 8.84 acres of natural habitat
consisting of disturbed and undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub and Southern Mixed
Chaparral. Of that total, 5.9 acres are associated with development of the three
residences, which includes the building pads and driveways, manufactured slopes,
septic fields, and limits of fire fuel management. The balance of impacts is 2.94
acres and is associated with the project road and its fire fuel management, the
project water line, and a future public trail. Impacts associated with the public trail
are identified in the Biological Report since the trail easement is being established
with the project. However, the impact will not occur in conjunction with the project
as the trail improvements will be done by the City at some point in the future at
which time additional environmental review will be conducted. Project impacts will
be less than significant with incorporation of the following Mitigation Measures:
Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Administrative Clearing
Permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall mitigate impacts to natural
habitat as specified in the project Biological Report on file with the City. The
mitigation requirement will be achieved by recordation of a Biological
Conversation Easement (BCE) over approximately 6.4 acres of remaining
habitat on the site, which is in the Mitigation Area. A legal description and plat
of the BCE area shall be prepared and stamped by the project engineer and
submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions for review. Easement
We
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 25
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
review fees are required and are the responsibility of the applicant. The BCE
shall be approved by the City Attorney, and shall be notarized and recorded
with the County of San Diego. In compliance with the HCP, the City shall
subsequently re -zone the mitigation land to Open Space- Resource
Management to ensure its permanent preservation. The BCE limits shall be
shown on the grading plan and on the Final Map. The applicant shall be
responsible for installing City- issued signs to be posted on the site identifying
the limits of the BCE upon establishment of the BCE. The balance of the
mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by recordation of a BCE on other
property that is within the Mitigation Area or by payment of the established "in
lieu" City fee in effect at the time of payment. It is acknowledged that the
applicant intends to pursue annexation of the portion of the project site which is
south /south -east of Millards Road into the Mitigation Area. In this case, and
provided the annexation is approved by the City and the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, mitigation may occur by recordation of a BCE on that portion of
the site.
Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Administrative Clearing
Permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall record an Open Space
Easement (OSE) over remaining habitat on the site which is south /southeast of
Millards Road. Recordation of the OSE shall not preclude this area from further
encumbrance with a BCE for project mitigation or for mitigation for other
projects if the area is annexed into the Mitigation Area. A legal description and
plat of the OSE area shall be prepared and stamped by the project engineer,
and submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions for review. Easement
review fees are required and are the responsibility of the applicant. The OSE
shall be approved by the City Attorney, and shall be notarized and recorded
with the County of San Diego.
In accordance with Condition H of the Poway HCP Incidental Take Permit, a
take of active California gnatcatcher nests, which includes harassment of the
bird due to grading noise and vibrations from February 15 through July 1, is not
permitted. Therefore, grading and removal of habitat during this time frame will
only be permitted subject to the following conditions having been met to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
The applicant is hereby advised that, during grading, if active nests are found
within 500 feet of the grading, the grading activity shall be stopped until such
time as mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) are implemented. There is no
guarantee that grading will be allowed to resume during nesting season.
Before issuance of a Clearing /Grading Permit, if grading or clearing is to occur
between February 15 and July 1, the applicant shall provide to the Planning
Division a letter from a qualified biologist retained by the applicant, with a scope
of work for a CSS habitat and Gnatcatcher Survey, and a report for the area to
be cleared and /or graded and CSS habitat areas within 500 feet of such area.
The biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine the appropriate survey
methodology. The purpose of the survey is to determine if any active
gnatcatcher nests are located in the area to be cleared or graded, or in CSS
habitat within 500 feet of such area. To be considered qualified, the biologist
30
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 26
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
must provide the City with a copy of a valid Gnatcatcher Recovery Permit from
the USFWS.
The scope of work shall explain the survey methodology for the biological
survey and the proposed gnatcatcher nest monitoring activities during the
clearing /grading operation. Should the report show, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services, that gnatcatcher nests are not present within
the area to be graded /cleared, or within CSS habitat located within 500 feet of
said area, approval may be granted to commence clearing /grading within the
gnatcatcher nesting season from February 15 through July 1.
If gnatcatchers are nesting within the area to be graded /cleared, or within CSS
habitat located within 500 feet of said area, no grading will be allowed during
this time, until such time as mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City
and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service are implemented
The biologist must attend the City's pre- construction meeting for the project and
must be present onsite during all clearing /grading activities to monitor that the
clearing /grading activities stay within the designated limits. During this period,
the biologist shall also monitor and survey the habitat within the area to be
cleared /graded and any habitat within 500 feet of said area for any evidence
that a gnatcatcher nest(s) exists or is being built. Weekly monitoring
summaries shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Should evidence of a
gnatcatcher nest(s) be discovered, the grading operation shall cease in that
area and be directed away from the gnatcatcher nest(s) to a location greater
than 500 feet away from the nest(s).
If grading is required to stop due to the presence of active nests, the applicant
shall be required to provide erosion control, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. This paragraph must be included as a note on the cover sheet of the
clearing /grading plan.
At a minimum, all protected biological areas, as shown on the grading plan,
shall be staked by a licensed surveyor and delineated with lathe and ribbon.
The applicant shall have said staking inspected by the Engineering Inspector
prior to any grading, clearing or grubbing. A written certification from the
engineer of work, or a licensed surveyor, shall be provided to the Engineering
Inspector stating that all protected areas are staked in accordance with the
approved project plans.
The biologist shall provide the City with written confirmation that the limits of
clearing /grading are in accordance with the project's Biological Resource
Assessment.
Upon completion of the clearing /grading activities, the applicant's biologist shall
submit to the Director of Development Services a biological monitoring report
summarizing the observations of the biologist, including whether any
gnatcatchers or evidence of active gnatcatcher nests were present during
clearing and grading activities within the area and any habitat within 500 feet of
said area.
b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response IV.a
31
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 27
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
c. No Impact. The project site does not support any wetlands, nor would the project
propose any activity that could result in substantially adverse effects on wetlands.
No impact will occur.
d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response IV.a.
e. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response IV.a.
f. No Impact. The project has been designed in compliance with all standards and
mitigation requirements specified in the Poway HCP. No impacts will 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 and 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 an area where there is moderate
potential that archeological resources could exist. Accordingly, the site was
surveyed and a records search was completed by Brian Smith and Associates. A
Cultural Resources Assessment (dated May 5, 2014) was prepared on the project
by Brian Smith and Associates. The report concluded that the site has the
potential to contain archeological resources and recommends the presence of an
archaeologist onsite during grading. Impacts will be less than significant with
incorporation of the following Mitigation Measures:
A qualified archeologist shall be present at the subject site to monitor any
ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to, proposed excavation
for driveway, building pad, accessory structures, utility trenching,
or construction of storm water improvements. The purpose of the monitoring is
to ensure that if buried cultural materials are present they will be handled in a
timely and proper manner. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant
shall provide written verification that a certified archaeologist has been retained
to implement the monitoring program. This verification shall be presented in a
letter from the project archaeologist to the City of Poway — Planning Division.
In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the
archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground
disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of
potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the
City of Poway at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with
the City of Poway, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources.
The City of Poway must concur with the evaluation before construction
activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural
resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts
shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the City of
Poway before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If
any human bones are discovered, the County Coroner and the City of Poway
shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of
Native American origin, as identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission, the Most Likely Descendant shall be contacted in order to
determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains.
32
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 28
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the
artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional
archeological methods for an adequate artifact sample for analysis.
All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be
processed and curated according to the current professional repository
standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred,
including title, to an appropriate curation facility, to be accompanied by payment
of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
A report documenting the field and analysis results, and interpreting the artifact
and research data within the research context shall be completed and
submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Poway prior to the issuance of any
Building Permits. The report shall include the required archaeological forms.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources
Assessment (dated May 5, 2014) was prepared on the project by Brian Smith and
Associates. The report concluded that the site has the potential to contain
paleontological resources and recommends the presence of a qualified
professional onsite during 'grading. Impacts will be less than significant with
incorporation of the following Mitigation Measures:
A qualified professional shall be present at the subject site to monitor any
ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to, proposed excavation
for driveway, building pad, accessory structures utility trenching or construction
of storm water improvements. The purpose of the monitoring is to ensure that if
buried paleontological resources are present, they will be handled in a timely
and proper manner. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall
provide written verification that a qualified professional has been retained to
implement the monitoring program. This verification shall be presented in a
letter from the project archaeologist to the City of Poway — Planning Division.
d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response V.b
above.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
a i. Less Than Significant Impact. 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 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 less than significant.
33
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 29
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
a ii. Less Than Significant Impact. See response VI.a.i
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. No Impact. The site is located within an area that is mapped on the Geologic
Formations Map (Figure VII -1) of the Poway General Plan, Public Safety Element
as Woodson Mountain Granodiorite. This is not a geologic type that is prone for
landslide. No impact will occur.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. Grading activities will comply with City
requirements, including implementation of standard erosion control measures,
and will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts will be
less than significant.
C. No Impact. See response VI.a.iv.
d. No Impact. See response VI.a.iv.
e. No Impact. Documentation has been submitted that the site is capable of
supporting the use of three septic systems. No impact will occur.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), allow solar radiation
(sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping,
thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural
processes and human activities; and the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere
regulates the Earth's temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural
ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the
greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed "global warming." 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 (SANDAL), 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.
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. 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.
34
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 30
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
b. Less Than Significant 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 (February 2012) of the Hazardous Materials
Establishments and Sites as prepared by the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health. The project is a residential subdivision and the use will not
involve hazardous materials. No impact will 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 will 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 will 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, and as such would not
create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impact will 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 does not currently contain, nor does it propose, habitable structures that
would result in exposure of people to safety hazards from these airports. In
addition, the project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of either of
these airports. Thus, operation of the project would not result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur.
f. No Impact. 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. Accordingly, no impact
would occur.
h. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones (VHFHSZ) map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is located
within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, potentially the project could result in people or
structures being exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires. Development will comply with City standards for development in the
VHFHSZ. Impacts will be less than significant.
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 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 will occur
35
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 31
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
c. Less Than Significant Impact. The existing drainage pattern of the site will not be
significantly altered in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or offsite. A less than significant impact would occur.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. See response IX.c.
e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project has been designed such that the
amount of storm water runoff beyond that which currently occurs will be negligible.
Impacts will be less than significant.
f. Less Than Significant Impact. See response IX.c.
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 will occur.
h. No Impact. See response IX.g. The project will not place structures within a 100 -
year flood hazard area that 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.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
a. No Impact. The project has been designed to conform to the General Plan.
Future development of residences will 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 will
occur.
b. No Impact. The project site is zoned and designated by the City of Poway General
Plan for residential uses. No impact will occur.
c. No Impact. See response IV.f. .
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. No impact will occur.
b. No Impact. See response to Item XI.a.
XII. NOISE:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is a three -lot residential subdivision
located in an area that is either developed, or will be developed in the future, with
residences. 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 a negligible increase in the ambient noise level of the area. Noise
from the project, therefore, will be that typical to residential uses and will have a
less than significant impact on adjacent uses. Noise from Poway Road adjacent to
the project site was evaluated in a noise study prepared by ABC Acoustics, Inc.
According to the study noise associated with Poway Road does not exceed City
standards. Impacts will be less than significant.
36
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 32
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project grading activities will potentially result
in increases in vibrations and noise typically related to construction. Per City
standards, the construction activities are limited to certain times of the day and
days of the week. Impacts will be less than significant impact.
c. Less Than Significant Impact. See response Xll.a.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. See response Xll.a and X.11.b.
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 does not currently contain, nor does it propose, habitable structures that
would result in people being exposed to noise from these airports. In addition, the
project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of either of these
airports. No impact will 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 subdivision to
excessive noise levels and no impact will occur.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
a. No Impact. The project is the subdivision of a parcel into three residential lots.
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:
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 associated with three
new residences. 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. Impacts
will be less than significant.
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 project could result in an incremental increase in
demand for police protection associated with three new residences. Any specific
service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to this project 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. Impacts will be less than significant. .
aiii. Schools — Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in three new
residences. Children from the residences could be accommodated in existing
schools (i.e., Twin Peaks Middle School and Poway High School) 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. Impacts will be
less than significant.
aiv. Parks — Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would not require
new or physically altered park facilities as the development of three new
37
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 33
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
residences 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.
Impacts will be less than significant.
ay. Other Public Facilities — Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in
development of three new residences. Project implementation however, would not
require new or physically altered public facilities. Impacts will be less than
significant.
XV. RECREATION:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in three new residences.
Existing recreational facilities can accommodate the increased demand expected
from three new residences. Impacts will be less than significant.
b. No Impact. The project does not involve recreational facilities nor will it require the
construction of recreation facilities which might have an adverse effect on the
environment. No impact would occur.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC:
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is the subdivision of the site into three
new residential lots. The amount of traffic generated by three new residences
(estimated to be approximately thirty average daily trips per day) is negligible.
Impacts will be less than significant.
b. No 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 since approximately 30 average daily trips will result from
the subdivision. No impact will occur.
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 will occur.
d. No Impact. The project does not involve any design features that will increase or
otherwise cause hazards in the existing transportation system. No impact will
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 will occur.
f. No Impact. The project does not conflict with plans, policies, programs or existing
facilities relating to transit, bicycling, or pedestrians. Additionally the project is
providing a public trail easement for the City's future use. No impact will occur.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
a. No Impact. The project site is not within an area that is 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. No impact will occur.
b. No Impact. Regarding waste water facilities, see response XVll.a. Regarding
potable water facilities, the project will be extending water to the development in a
looped system in compliance with City standards, therefore, there will be no
impacts to potable water facilities.
W-*
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 34
EIS and Checklist
TPM 14- 001 /MDRA 14 -014
c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an area with
storm water conveyance facilities that are adequate to accommodate the project.
Impacts will be less than significant
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within an area identified to be
served by the public water system and will generate three new residences.
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. Impacts
will be less than significant.
e. No Impact. See response XVll.a.
f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be served by an existing solid
waste disposal facility with sufficient capacity to accommodate three new
residences. Impacts will be less than significant.
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 will occur.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response
IV.a, V.b and V.c .
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in in three new residential
lots. Future development of residences could result in incremental effects on the
environment that would be considered less than significant even when considered
cumulatively with past and future projects. The project, as well as past projects
and future projects, has 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.
c. Less Than Significant Impact. See responses I.a -d; VI.ai -ii; V.Ill.h; Xlll.a -d.
39
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 35
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Tentative Parcel Map 14 -001 and Minor Development Review Application 14 -014
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 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
1. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading
As specified
Applicant/
Resources
Permit or Administrative Clearing Permit,
in Mitigation
Property Owner
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall
Measure
mitigate impacts to natural habitat as specified
in the project Biological Report on file with the
City. The mitigation requirement will be
achieved by recordation of a Biological
Conversation Easement (BCE) over
approximately 6.4 acres of remaining habitat
on the site, which is in the Mitigation Area. A
legal description and plat of the BCE area
shall be prepared and stamped by the project
engineer and submitted to the Planning and
Engineering Divisions for review. Easement
review fees are required and are the
responsibility of the applicant. The BCE shall
be approved by the City Attorney, and shall be
notarized and recorded with the County of San
Diego. In compliance with the HCP, the City
shall subsequently re -zone the mitigation land
to Open Space- Resource Management to
ensure its permanent preservation. The BCE
limits shall be shown on the grading plan and
on the Final Map. The applicant shall be
responsible for installing City- issued signs to
be posted on the site identifying the limits of
the BCE upon establishment of the BCE. The
balance of the mitigation requirement shall be
satisfied by recordation of a BCE on other
ro ert that is within the Mitigation Area or by
6/01
payment of the established "in lieu" City fee in
effect at the time of payment. It is
acknowledged that the applicant intends to
pursue annexation of the portion of the project
site which is east of Millards Road into the
Mitigation Area. In this case, and provided the
annexation is approved by the City and the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, mitigation
may occur by recordation of a BCE on that
portion of the site.
2. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading
Permit or Administrative Clearing Permit,
whichever occurs first, if the portion of the site
east of Millards Road is annexed into the
Mitigation Area the applicant shall record an
Open Space Easement (OSE) over remaining
habitat on the site which is south/ southeast of
Millards Road. Recordation of the OSE shall
not preclude this area from further
encumbrance with a BCE for project mitigation
or for mitigation for other projects if the area is
annexed into the Mitigation Area. A legal
description and plat of the OSE area shall be
prepared and stamped by the project
engineer, and submitted to the Planning and
Engineering Divisions for review. Easement
review fees are required and are the
responsibility of the applicant. The OSE shall
be approved by the City Attorney, and shall be
notarized and recorded with the County of San
Diego.
3. In accordance with Condition H of the
Poway HCP Incidental Take Permit, a take of
active California gnatcatcher nests, which
includes harassment of the bird due to grading
noise and vibrations from February 15 through
July 1, is not permitted. Therefore, grading
and removal of habitat during this time frame
will only be permitted subject to the following
conditions having been met to the satisfaction
of the Director of Development Services.
The applicant is hereby advised that, during
grading, if active nests are found within 500
feet of the grading, the grading activity shall be
stopped until such time as mitigation
measures, to the satisfaction of the City and
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS, are implemented. There is no
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 36
6/01
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
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 37
6/01
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 38
6/01
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 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.
Cultural
1. A qualified archeologist shall be present at
As specified
Applicant/
Resources
the subject site to monitor any ground
in Mitigation
Property Owner
disturbing activities, including, but not limited
Measure
to, proposed grading or excavation for
driveway, building pad, accessory structures
utility trenching or construction of storm water
improvements. The purpose of the monitoring
is to ensure that if buried cultural materials are
present, they will be handled in a timely and
proper manner. Prior to issuance of a Grading
Permit, the applicant shall provide written
verification that a certified archaeologist has
6/01
been retained to implement the monitoring
program. This verification shall be presented
in a letter from the project archaeologist to the
City of Poway — Planning Division.
2. In the event that previously unidentified
cultural resources are discovered, the
archaeologist shall have the authority to divert
or temporarily halt ground disturbance
operations in the area of discovery to allow for
the evaluation of potentially significant cultural
resources. The archaeologist shall contact the
City of Poway at the time of discovery. The
archaeologist, in consultation with the City of
Poway, shall determine the significance of the
discovered resources. The City of Poway
must concur with the evaluation before
construction activities will be allowed to
resume in the affected area. For significant
cultural resources, a Research Design and
Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts
shall be prepared by the consulting
archaeologist and approved by the City of
Poway before being carried out using
professional archaeological methods. If any
human bones are discovered, the County
Coroner and the City of Poway shall be
contacted. In the event that the remains are
determined to be of Native American origin,
the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by
the Native American Heritage Commission
shall be contacted in order to determine
proper treatment and disposition of the
remains.
Before construction activities are allowed to
resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall
be recovered and features recorded using
professional archeological methods for an
adequate artifact sample for analysis.
All cultural material collected during the
grading monitoring program shall be
processed and curated according to the
current professional repository standards. The
collections and associated records shall be
transferred, including title, to an appropriate
curation facility, to be accompanied by
payment of the fees necessary for permanent
curation.
A report documenting the field and ana
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 39
6/01
Resolution No. P -15 -02
Page 40
6/01
results, and interpreting the artifact and
research data within the research context shall
be completed and submitted to the satisfaction
of the City of Poway prior to the issuance of
any Building Permits. The report shall include
the required archaeological forms.
3. A qualified professional shall be present at
the subject site to monitor any ground
disturbing activities, including, but not limited
to, proposed grading or excavation for
driveway, building pad, accessory structures
utility trenching or construction of storm water
improvements. The purpose of the monitoring
is to ensure that if buried paleontological
resources are present, they will be handled in
a timely and proper manner. Prior to issuance
of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall
provide written verification that a qualified
professional has been retained to implement
the monitoring program. This verification shall
be presented in a letter from the project
archaeologist to the City of Poway — Planning
Division.
6/01