Loading...
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