Agenda packet — Poway City Council, July 19, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

AG EN DA Poway City Council
Council Chamber I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Pow ay, CA I 92064 July 19, 2022 I 7 p.m.

Thank you for participating in your local government and the City of Poway Council meetings.

Mee t ings I Regular City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.

Meetings I Regular City Council meetings are held in the Council Chambers located at 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064, the Council Chamber will be open to the public.

Public participation is encouraged in a number of ways as described below . Members of the public may attend the City Council meeting in person, watch the City Council meeting live online, or participate remotely via Zoom. Regular City Council meetings are broadcast live on Cox Communication Channel 24 and Spectrum Channel 19. Council meeting videos are archived and available for viewing on the City's website.

IN-PERSON SPEAKERS: Persons wishing to address the Council on matters not on the agenda may do so under Public Comment. Those wishing to speak on items on the agenda may do so when the item is being considered. Please submit a Speaker's Slip to the City Clerk prior to the meeting or the announcement of the item . All comments will be limited to three (3) minutes .

To Watch Live:
www .poway.org/councilmeetings
To Speak and Participate Remotely:

Go to: www .poway.org/meeting and join using
"Computer Audio"
If your electronic device has no microphone or
speakers:

Call: (877) 853 - 5247
Enter Meeting ID: 623 291 9830
Enter Participant ID provided on your computer
PLEASE NOTE: If you wish to participate, please
also read the Speakers section for detailed
instructions as it has changed.

REMOTE SPEAKERS: If viewing online or calling in via telephone, it is highly recommended to log in to the waiting room at least 15 to 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting. Persons wishing to address the Council on matters not on the agenda may do so under Public Comment. Those wishing to speak on items on the agenda may do so when the item is being considered. If you wish to Steve Vaus
Mayor
John Mullin
Deputy Mayor
Dave Grosch
Council member
Caylin Frank
Councilmember
Barry Leonard
Council member
speak and are joining the meeting online, please let the City Clerk know prior to the meeting or the announcement of the item by raising your hand digitally or by submitting a chat. If you are not using your computer's audio, please remember to enter your Participant ID on your computer screen when prompted on the phone. If you choose to call in without logging in on line and you wish to speak on an item, you may press *9 when the Mayor asks for speakers at the time that the item you wish to speak on is being considered. You may speak up to three (3) minutes. The Mayor may reduce this time if there are a large number of speakers . PLEASE NOTE: Comments submitted via email will be accepted until 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date and distributed to the City Council as well as be made available online after the meeting.

Technical Support I For more information on how to connect, visit www .poway.org/meetinghelp .

Agenda Materials I This agenda contains a brief summary of each item the Council will consider.

The Agenda and Agenda Packet is posted seven (7) days prior to regular City Council meetings and are available for viewing on the City's website at www.poway.org . Sign up at https://poway .org/list.asp x to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online. Items listed on the agenda with a"#" symbol are in preparation.

American Disabili t ies Act Titl e II I In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Title II. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk's office 858-668-4530 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

The City Council also sits as the City of Poway Planning Commission, Poway Housing Authority, Public Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAN CE:

MO MENT OF SILENCE:

PRESENTATIO N:

PUBLIC COMM ENT: In accordance with State law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take action on any issue not included on the agenda. You may speak up to three (3) minutes.

Speakers have one opportunity to address the Council under Public Comment.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar may be enacted in one motion by the Council with a Roll Call Vote without discussion unless a Councilmember , a member of the public, or City Manager requests that an item be removed fo r discussion.
2 of 4 Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 2022

1. Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances on this Agenda

2. Approval of the May 17, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

3. Adoption of Resolution to Continue the Existence of a Local Emergency Within the City of Poway Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Global Pandemic ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: None
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

4. Environmental Assessment, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 21-003, and Development Review (DR) 21- 002, a Request for a 20-Lot Single-Family Residential Subdivision and The Construction Of 20 Single-Family Dwelling Units at 13667 Twin Peaks Road
City Manager's Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council take public input, close the public hearing and adopt the Resolutions adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving TTM 21-003 and DR 21-002.

5. 2021 Weed and Nuisance Abatement Charges to be Collected on the County Tax Assessor's Roll for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
City Manager's Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council take public input, close the public hearing and adopt the Resolution approving the 2021 weed and nuisance abatement charges to be collected on the County tax assessor's roll for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

6. Resolution Renewing the Fire Protection Special Tax to be Collected on the Property Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 2022-23
City Manager's Recommendation : It is recommended the City Council take public input, close the public hearing and adopt the Resolution.

STAFF REPORTS:

7. Various Personnel Related Requests to Include Establishing a New Job Classification, Approving a CalPERS 180-day Waiting Period Exception to Hire a Retired Annuitant, and Adopting the Salary Schedule for the Poway Firefighters' Association Pursuant to the Current Six-Year Memorandum of Understanding
City Manager's Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) approve the resolution adopting the revised City of Poway Position Classification Plan and Non-Safety Salary Schedule, which include the new classification of Interpretive Services Coordinator; 2) approve the resolution waiving the 180-day waiting period to hire a retired annuitant pursuant to Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224; and 3) approve the resolution with the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Safety Salary Schedule in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Poway and the Poway Firefighters' Association. 3 of 4 Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 2022
WOR KSHOPS: None
COUN CI L-INITIAT ED ITEMS: None
COUNCI L COMM ITTEE REPORTS and ANN OUNC EMENTS: Pursuant to AB1 234 - (G.C. 53232(d)) CITY MANAGER ITEMS: None
CITY ATTORN EY ITEMS: (Including any publ ic repor t of any action taken in closed session) AD! OURNM ENT
State of California
County of San Diego
)
) ss.
)

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Poway, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that this notice of a Regular Meeting as called by the City Council of the City of Poway was posted and provided on July 12, 2022. Said meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m., July 19, 2022, in the Poway City Council Chambers, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California. Said notice was posted on the Bulletin Board at the entrance to City Hall. 4 of 4 Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 2022
AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

July 19, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk ~
(858) 668-4535 or [email protected]

CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Approval of the May 17, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Summary
The City Council Meeting Minutes submitted hereto for approval are:
• May 17, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The Poway City Council sits as the Poway Planning Commission, the Poway Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority, and the Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council approve the May 17, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.

Public Notification:

None.

Attachments:

A. May 17, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
Reviewed/ Approved By:

WendY serman
Assistant City Manager
1 of 7
Reviewed By:

Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
July 19, 2022, Item #2
NOTE: These draft meeting minutes are not official until approved by the City Council at the next scheduled meeting.

CITY OF POWAY

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

MINUTES
May 17, 2022
City Council Chambers
13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California
(Per Government Code 54953)
(Meeting Called to Order as City Council/City of Poway Planning Commission/Poway Housing Authority/Public Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency)

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Vaus called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Barry Leonard, Caylin Frank, Dave Grosch, John Mullin, Steve Vaus

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
City Manager Chris Hazeltine; Assistant City Manager Wendy Kaserman; City Attorney Alan Fenstermacher; City Clerk Carrie Gallagher; Development Services Director Bob Manis; Finance Director Aaron Beanan; Human Resources and Risk Management Director Jodene Dunphy; Director of Public Works Eric Heidemann; Fire Chief Jeff Chumbley; Captain Karla Menzies, Sheriff's Department.
(Note: Hereinafter the titles Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councilmember, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and Director of Finance shall be used to indicate Mayor/Chair, Deputy MayorNice Chair, Councilmember/Director, City Manager/Executive Director, Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive Director, City Attorney/Counsel, City Clerk/Secretary and Director of Finance/Finance Officer.)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Deputy Mayor Mullin led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Vaus led a moment of silence.

PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Vaus acknowledged Public Works Week.
2 of 7 July 19, 2022, Item #2
City of Poway - Minutes - May 17, 2022

PUBLIC COMMENT
Yuri Bohlen spoke regarding vehicular speeding and traffic safety on Metate Road and side streets; he requested extra law enforcement patrol.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motioned by Deputy Mayor Mullin, seconded by Councilmember Frank to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 through 9. Motion carried 5/0 by the following roll-call vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstained:

Absent:

Disqualified:

Leonard, Frank, Grosch, Mullin, Vaus
None
None
None
None

1. Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances on this Agenda

2. Approval of the April 5, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

3. Adoption of Resolution No. 22-021 entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, Finding and Declaring the Continued Existence of an Emergency within the City due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Global Pandemic"

4. Poway Housing Successor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020-21 Yuri Bohlen spoke regarding item #4 requesting an explanation on homeless prevention and rapid rehousing expenditures.

Development Services Director Bob Manis stated various programs for the homeless are allocated yearly through CDBG funding.

5. Award of Contract to Harbor Coating & Restoration for City Facilities Painting 2021-22; Bid No. 22-009

6. Award of Contract to GQ Builders, Inc. for City Facilities General Maintenance and Repair - Wood 2021-22; Bid No. 22-010

7. Adoption of Resolution No. 22-022 entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, Approving an Adjustment to EDCO Waste and Recycling Services' Rate Schedule and Rescinding Resolution No. 21-028"

8. Award of Contract to Hazard Construction ENGR, LLC. for the 2021-2022 Street Overlay Project; Bid No. 22-011

9. Acceptance of Public Improvements and Release of Project Securities for the Kirkham Way Mid-block Pedestrian Traffic Signal , STl20-003

ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
None.
3 of 7 July 19, 2022, Item #2
City of Poway - Minutes - May 17, 2022

ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

10. Appeal (APL) 22-001 - An Appeal of the Approval for Minor Development Review Application 21-023, a Single-Family Residence to be used as a Residential Care Facility (Sharp Mountainview Hospice), located at 16752 Espola Road
Mayor Vaus opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m.

Senior Planner Austin Silva presented the report along with a PowerPoint presentation. He provided the site plan (including driveway access), size of the property, location, surrounding land uses and zoning. He stated the home would be used as a hospice facility which would be operated by Sharp HealthCare. Mr. Silva added the hospice facility is considered a residential care facility defined by the State of California as facilities with six or fewer residents and is a permitted use in the RR-C zone, which must be treated the same as traditional single family homes regarding development standards and their review process. Mr. Silva described the building materials and stated the building was designed to be architecturally compatible with the surrounding residential development and noted, although not required, 23 parking spaces are included in the design.

Mr. Silva stated reasons cited for the appeal included: 1) the approval letter does not comply with the Poway Municipal Code (PMC) regarding the development review procedure; however there is no requirement to review in detail the scope of the review and the design was found to be in compliance with the PMC and the approval letter was consistent with past approval letters for Minor Development Review Applications (MDRAs) for single family homes; 2) inadequate notice provided to Green Valley residents to allow for input; however, there is no requirement in the PMC to provide nearby property owners notice regarding an MORA application submittal for new single family residences. Regardless, courtesy notices were mailed out to adjacent property owners notifying them of the pending approval of an MORA and the property owners rights to appeal, adjacent property owners were mailed notices for this project; 3) hospice facility is not complementary to and in harmony with the neighborhood, citing an increase in volume and nature of traffic; however, a traffic study was not required for this project. Regardless, the applicant voluntarily provided the traffic study which determined the hospice facility would generate eight more vehicle trips per day than a traditional single family home. Property access, driveway placement, parking, the transfer of patients and effect on property values were additional concerns raised by the appellant.

City Attorney Alan Fenstermacher outlined the legal constraints on the City, including state law which as a general matter preempts local land use and zoning control over residential care facilities as long as there are six beds or less. Mr. Fenstermacher explained the City Council must consider these types of uses to be the same as single family homes and cannot place any more requirements on the use that would not be required for a single-family home, including studies that would not be required for single family home. Mr. Fenstermacher provided many different examples of residential care facilities in which Health and Safety Code section 1250 specifically states, where the facilities are six beds or less, they must be considered a residential use, including facilities that provide medical supervision, 24-hour skilled nursing and supportive care, along with services for persons who have diagnosis of 4 of 7 July 19, 2022, Item #2
City of Poway - Minutes - May 17, 2022
terminal illness. Persons with terminal illness such as those that will be served by a hospice facility are considered to be disabled and are a protected class under state and federal law.

Mr. Fenstermacher also explained constraints on the City Council's ability to deny approval of the project from federal and state anti-discrimination law, including the Fair Housing Act, and the Federal Americans with Disability Act or the ADA. He noted examination of case law where a city has attempted to deny either a six bed or less facility or facility housing, within those protected classes, you would find many examples of cities losing. Finally, he stated if the Council finds this project complies with all regulations that would apply to any other single family home as far as the physical structure goes, this project needs to be approved.

Clark Libenson and Matt Jubenville presented on behalf of the appellants with the use of a PowerPoint. They reiterated the reasons for the appeal as cited in Mr. Silva's report and as previously provided in their material submitted to the City Council and included along with the agenda as additional material.

Suzi Johnson, VP of Advanced Illness, Palliative and Hospice, Sharp HospiceCare; Shannon Sarmiento, Associate Project Manager, Sharp HealthCare; and, Jeffrey Forrest, Counsel, Sheppard Mullin spoke on behalf of the applicants.

Public Comment:

Spoke in opposition to the Appeal of the Approval for Minor Development Review Application 21-023:

Joe Bellezo, Carol Lazier, Dee Ammon, Sherri Summers, Colleen Murphy, and Jane Kennedy Spoke in support of the Appeal of the Approval for Minor Development Review Application 21-023:

Barbara Neilsen, Ella Fox. Edward Michell, Darwin Wisdom, Charles Lee, Debbie Knuth, and Stanley Ginsberg (via teleconference).

Yuri Bohlen spoke regarding public noticing and whether Prop FF should be applied.

End of Public Comment.

Council discussion ensued on landscape, driveway access, pedestrian and horse trail safety, parking, traffic mitigation, noticing efforts, and Health and Safety laws.

Council discussed imposing a condition on the applicant to extend the horse trail on the east side of Valle Verde Road to be completed expeditiously.

Mayor Vaus closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.

Motioned by Councilmember Leonard, seconded by Deputy Mayor Mullin to adopt Resolution No. 22-023 entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, Denying an Appeal (APL) 22-001 of Minor Development Review Application (MDRA) 21-023 Assessor's Parcel Number 275-032-04" as amended to impose a condition on the applicant to: extend the horse trail on the east side of Valle Verde Road in an expeditious manner. Motion carried unanimously. 5 of 7 July 19, 2022, Item #2
City of Poway - Minutes - May 17, 2022
Mayor Vaus recessed the meeting at 9: 10 pm and reconvened at 9: 16 pm.

11. Resolution Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
Mayor Vaus opened the Public Hearing at 9: 15 p.m.

City Engineer Melody Rocco presented the item including a brief overview of the Road Repair and Accountability Act stating the City of Poway is projected to receive $1,115,480 in road maintenance and rehabilitation account funds in the next fiscal year. Prior to receiving an apportionment of the annual subject funds, the Senate Bill requires agencies to provide a list of projects proposed to be funded to the California Transportation Commission. The Resolution identifies the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Street Maintenance Project as the project proposed to be funded with the road maintenance and rehabilitation account funds.

Public Comment:

None.

Mayor Vaus closed the Public Hearing at 9: 17 p.m.

Council discussion ensued
Motioned by Mayor Vaus, seconded by Councilmember Frank to adopt Resolution No. 22-024 entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017." Motion carried unanimously.

STAFF REPORTS:

12. Award of Agreement with NMS Management, Inc. for Janitorial Services; RFP No. 22-020 Management Analyst Kelsey Stone presented the item. Ms. Stone provided the proposed agreement terms, annual cost for service, she explained the new performance based monthly invoicing in addition to providing an overview of the daily cleaning and janitorial services required at 30 City facilities and parks restrooms. She stated two separate agreements are in place for the proposed services and noted facing numerous challenges with both including missed and inadequate cleanings as well as lack of communication. Ms. Stone detailed the request for proposals process with the goal being increased efficiencies related to city staff time and oversight of the services.

Public Comment:

None.

At the request of Council, Management Analyst Kelsey Stone explained, although NMS Management, Inc was not the lowest bidder they were chosen as the best value. 6 of 7 July 19, 2022, Item #2
City of Poway - Minutes - May 17, 2022
Motioned by Mayor Vaus, seconded by Councilmember Grosch to award the agreement for janitorial services to NMS Management, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary documents. Motion carried unanimously.

WORKSHOPS
None.

COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS:

None.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS and ANNOUNCEMENTS: Pursuant to AB1234 - (G.C. 53232(d))
Councilmember Leonard reported on having attended a get together recognizing Kiwanis President Sharon Gruber, longtime community volunteer.

Deputy Mayor Mullin announced having attended First Aid and CPR training presented by Poway Neighborhood Emergency Corps (PNEC) and encouraged the public to consider taking the training.

Mayor Vaus spoke regarding a County of San Diego ballot initiative by which the proponents are seeking a half cent sales tax increase said to improve the roads and is intended to be given to SANDAG who has no intention of expanding roadways but rather contracting the roads by converting free lanes into toll lanes; noting plans within the SANDAG Regional Plan for a proposed Vehicle Mileage Travel charge (VMT) adding the half cent sales tax is the first of three tax increases needed by SANDAG to implement the Regional Plan.

CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.

CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS (Including any public report of any action taken in closed session) City Attorney Fenstermacher stated, no reportable action from the May 3, 2022, Regular Meeting Closed Session.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
7 of 7
Carrie Gallagher, CMC
City Clerk
City of Poway, California
July 19, 2022, Item #2
July 19, 2022, Item #3
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

CONTACT:

SUBJECT:
summary:

AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway
July 19, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jeff Chumbley, Fire Chief r
Jeff Chumbley, Fire Chief
(858) 668-4461 or Jchurnbley@poway,org

CITY COUNCIL
Resolution to Continue the Existence of a Local Emergency Within the City of Poway Due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Global Pandemic The Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic continues to impact economic and social segments of the U nlted States. Federal, state, and county directives, mandates and orders to manage COVID-19 have, and continue to, impact Poway residents, businesses and visitors. On March 18, 2020, the City Council approved a resolution proclaiming a local emergency. The adopted resolution requires the City Council to either continue the emergency action or declare the emergency ended at each regular meeting.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution continuing the Proclamation of Local Emergency. This action requires a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council.

Discuss;on:

The COVID-19 global pandemic continues to impact business1 education, healthcare, military, and social segments of the United States. Federal, state, and county directives, mandates, orders and guidelines have been issued to manage COVI D-19. Efforts continue to focus on re-opening the economy and relaxing restrictions. In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, and Its impact on Poway, the City Manager, serving as Director of Emergency Services for the City of Poway, proclaimed a local emergency on March 13, 2020. On March 18, 2020, the City Council approved Resolution No. 20-013 ratifying the City Managers Proclamation of Local Emergency. The City Council approved to continue the emergency action in 2020 dn April 7, April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 16, July 7, July 21, August 4, September 1, September 15, October 6, October 20, November 17, December 1, and December 1 S. In 2021, the City Council approved to continue the emergency action on January 19, February 2, February 16, March 2, March 16, April 6, April 20, May 4, May 18, June 1, June 15, July 20, August 3, August 17, September 7, October 5, October 19, November 2, November 16, and December

7. In 2022, the City Council approved to continue the emergency action on January 18, February 1, 1 of 5
July 19, 2022, Item #3
February 15, March 1, March 15, April 5, April 19, May 3, May 17, June 7 and June 21. The adopted resolution requires the City Council to either continue the emergency action or declare the emergency ended at each regular meeting. Continuing the local emergency, in addition to being consistent with the County of San Diego, also allows the City to continue to be eligible for federal, state, and county funding opportunities related to COVID-19 and tied to having a declaration of a local emergency in place.

Environmental Review:

This action is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Fiscal Impact:

As of June 30, 2022, City costs to respond to COVID-19 are estimated at $1,120,760. These costs specif1cally relate to FEMA eligible expenditures. The total fiscal impact is unknown at this time. Per the City Council adopted General Fund Reserve policy, the City maintains a General Fund Reserve of 45 percent of the budgeted annual General Fund operating expenditures, or $20,393,896 as of June 30, 2021. Within that 45 percent, $13,179,618 is set aside for Extreme Events/Public Safety. Staff believes some of the prior expenditures are recoverable under State and Federal Disaster programs. Amounts recovered under these programs will be used to replenish the General Fund reserve. Pursuant to the reserve policy, staff will return with a plan to replenish any General Fund reserves not replenished under a State or Federal Disaster program. Staff will recommend applicable budget adjustments prior to the completion of the current fiscal year.

In addition to using reserves to respond to COVID-19, as mentioned above, on April 20, 2020, the City Council approved $2,000,000 to fund the PEARL program for small businesses. The PEARL program's goal was to offer financial assistance to small businesses located in Poway by serving as a financial bridge to businesses while they were awaiting state and federal funding provided in response to the pandemic. Based on staffs review, 35 loans totaling $1,328,118 were approved and four loans totaling $148,000 have been repaid, The reserve fund will be replenished from the repayment of PEARL loans over a three-year period following the end of the local COVID-19 emergency. This period falls within the General Fund Reserve Policy's direction to fully replenish reserves within five years of use.

Public Notification:

None.

Attachments:

A. Resolution
B. Proclamation of Local Emergency
Reviewed/Approved By:

Assistant City Manager
2of5
Reviewed By:

Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
July 19, 2022, Item #3
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

POWAY, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DECLARING THE

CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY WITHIN THE
CITY DUE TO THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19} GLOBAL

PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic in the City of Poway, commencing on or about January 24, 2020 that creates a threat to public health and safety; WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630 and Poway Municipal Code (PMC) Section

2.12.060 empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency When the City is affected by a public calamity, and the City Council is not in session;
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, acting pursuant to Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 2.12.060, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency based on conditions of extreme peril to the health and safety of persons caused by the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic;
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council, acting pursuant to Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 2.12.065, ratified the existence of a local emergency within seven (7) days of a Proclamation of Local Emergency by the City Manager; WHEREAS, the City Council, acting pursuant to PMC section 2.12.065, approved extending the emergency declaration during regularly scheduled meetings in 2020 on April 7, April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 16, July 7, July 21, August 4, September 1, September 15, October 6, October 20, November 17, December 1, December 15, and in 2021 on January 19, February 2, February 16, March 2, March 16, April 6, April 20, May 4, May 18, June 1, June 15, July 20, August 3, August 17, September 7, October 5, October 19, November 2, November 16, December 7, and in 2022 on January 18, February 1, February 15, March 1, March 15, April 5, April 19, May 3, May 17, June 7 and June 21;
WHEREAS, Public Contract Code Section 20168 provides that the City Council may pass by four-fifths (4/5) vote, a resolution declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, or property; WHEREAS, upon adoption of such resolution, the City Manager may expend any sum required in the emergency and report the same to the City Couhcil in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050;
WHEREAS, if such expenditure is ordered, the City Council shall review the emergency action at each regular meeting, to determine if there is a need to continue the action or if the Proclamation of Local Emergency may be terminated; and
WHEREAS, such the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic constitute an emergency within the terms of Public Contract Code Sections 20168 and 22050 which requires that the City Manager be able to act quickly and without complying with the notice and bidding procedures of the Public Contract Code to safeguard life, health, or property. 3 of 5 ATTACHMENT A
July 19, 2022, Item #3
Resolution No. 22-

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway hereby finds and declares:

SECTION 1: An emergency continues to exist within the City as the result of t11e Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic; and
(a) The continuing threat of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic requires that the City be able to expend public money in order to safeguard life, health, or property;
(b) The City Manager, as the City's Personnel Officer, is authorized to take actions necessary to alter employee leave policies and ensure a safe and healthy workforce;
(c) The City Manager is authorized to safeguard life, health, or property without complying with notice or bidding procedures; and (d) Once such expenditure is made, the City Manager shall report the conditions to the City Council at each regular meeting, at which time the City Council shall either continue the emergency action or declare the emergency ended.

SECTION 2: This Proclamation of Local Emergency and all subsequent resolutions in connection herewith shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 19th day of July, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DI SQUALi FIED.

Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk
4 of S
July 19, 2022, Item #3

PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, section 2.12.060 of the Poway Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session;
WHEREAS, the City Manager, as Director of Emergency Services of the City of Poway, does hereby find that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within the City of Poway, caused by the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) commencing on January 24, 2020;
WHEREAS, that the City Council of the City of Poway Is not in session and cannot immediately be called into session; and
WHEREAS, this Proclamation of Local Emergency will be ratified by the City Council within seven days of being issued.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED by the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Poway, that a local emergency now exists throughout the City and that said local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council;
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by state law, ordinances, and resolutions of this City, and by the City of Poway Emergency Plan; and
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that a copy of this Proclamation of Local Emergency be forwarded to the State Director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services with a request that;

1. The State Director find the Proclamation of Local Emergency acceptable in accordance with provisions of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act; and

2. The State Director forward this Proclamation, and request for a State Proclamation and Presidential Declaration of Emergency, to the Governor of California for consideration and action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Poway this 13th day of March 2020.

Director of Emergency Services
S of 5 ATTACHMENT B
July 19, 2022, Item #4
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

CONTACT:

SUBJECT:

Summary:

AGENDA RE PO RT City of Poway
July 19, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Robert Manis, Director of Development Servicesf-,1
Austin Silva, Senior Planner /(:,
858-668-4658 or [email protected]

CITY COUNCIL
Environmental Assessment, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 21-003, and Development Review (DR) 21-002, a request for a 20-lot single-family residential subdivision and the construction of 20 single-family dwelling units at 13667 Twin Peaks Road
Cornerstone Communities (Applicant) is proposing to subdivide a 4.77-acre parcel into 20 lots and construct 20 single-family dwelling units. The subdivision would be accessed from an extension of Holly Oak Way. The project also includes the demolition of an existing single-family dwelling unit, the removal of onsite trees, and mass grading. The project is eligible for a density bonus per California State law by providing one affordable housing unit. The project site is located at 13667 Twin Peaks Road in the Residential Single-Family 4 (RS-4) zone. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required because of potential impacts to biological and cultural resources.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the Resolutions (Attachments A and B) adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving TTM 21- 003 and DR 21-002.

Discussion:

The Applicant is Cornerstone Communities, and the property owner is McKee Orchard, LLC. The project site is located on the south side of Twin Peaks Road between Midland Road and Budwin Lane intersections and is zoned RS-4. The Diroma Estates subdivision is located to the south and is also zoned RS-4. Living Way Church and a single-family residence at the end of Outlook Drive are west of the property. These properties are also zoned RS-4. Administrative offices and a bus fleet storage lot for the Poway Unified School District are located across Twin Peaks Road north of the site and are zoned Public Facility (PF). The Kent Hills subdivision is located to the east of the subject property and is zoned RS-4. A zoning and location map is included as Attachment C. The property lies within the Old Poway Specific Plan area. Although it is not within the mandatory Old Poway design area, Old 1 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Poway
architectural
design
features
are
encouraged
to
be
incorporated
into
the
subdivision
and
housing
tract
design.

The
project
site
is
a

4.77-acre
parcel
historically
used
for
farming
and
now
contains
a residence
constructed
in
the
late
1950's.

Mature
trees
surround
the
structure.

The
proposal
is
to
demolish
the
residence,
remove
the
trees,
and
create
a
20-lot
tract
subdivision
with
residences
ranging
from
3,001
square
feet
to
3,900
square
feet
of
living
area.

The
homes
feature
two
or
three
car
garages
with
additional
storage
area.

The
subdivision,
as
proposed,
would
be
accessed
from
an
extension
of
the
Holly
Oak
Way
cul-de-sac
as
shown
on
the
site
plan
(Attachment
D).

Tentative
Tract
Map
(TTM)
21-003
is
provided
as
Attachment
E.

The
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
would
be
a
continuation
of
a
public
street
maintained
by
the
City.

There
would
be
no
vehicular
access
from
Holly
Oak
Way
to
Twin
Peaks
Road.

Pedestrian
access
from
Holly
Oak
Way
to
Twin
Peaks
Road
would
be
provided
by
a
pedestrian
access
trail
between
lots
10 and
11 at
the
end
of
the
cul-de-sac.

The
Holly
Oak
Way
extension
would
include
39 street
trees
that
would
be
privately
maintained,
and
decorative
Old
Poway
streetlights
similar
to
the
existing
streetlights
on
Holly
Oak
Way.

A
six-foot-tall
slump
block
wall
would
be
built
along
the
rear
property
lines
of
lots
10 and
11 that
back
up
to
Twin
Peaks
Road
to
provide
noise
attenuation.

The
remainder
of
the
lots
will
have
vinyl
fencing
along
the
property
lines.

With
Diroma
Estates
(TTM99-01
),
the
subdivision
creating
Holly
Oak
Way,
the
approved
final
map
identifies
a future
easement
that
accommodates
an
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
to
the
north,
onto
the
subject
site.

The
Diroma
Estates
developer
was
required
to
record
deed
covenants
on
the
title
of
each
lot
to
advise
future
buyers
Holly
Oak
Way
may,
at
a future
date,
extend
northerly
to
Twin
Peaks
Road.

A
copy
of
the
deed
covenant,
dated
April
2,
2002,
is
provided
as
Attachment
F.

Staffs
understanding
is
this
deed
covenant
is
referenced
in
every preliminary
title
report
(PTR)
for
each
property
within
the
Holly
Oak
subdivision.

Although
the
subject
property
also
fronts
on
Twin
Peaks
Road,
access
to
the
site
from
Holly
Oak
Way
is
proposed
over
a Twin
Peaks
Road
entrance
for
multiple
traffic
related
reasons.

Twin
Peaks
Road
is
designated
as
a
major
arterial
street
in
the
City's
General
Plan.

Strategies
of
the
General
Plan
are
to
reduce
access
points
to
major
arterial
streets
to
provide
a
high
level
of
mobility
for
through
traffic.

Utilizing
the
easement
at
the
end
of
Holly
Oak
Way
supports
this
objective.

Additionally,
accessing
the
subdivision
through
Holly
Oak
Way
avoids
a
curve
with
limited
visibility
to
the
west
of
the
site
on
Twin
Peaks
Road.

If
access
was
to
be
provided
along
Twin
Peaks
Road,
a new
traffic
signal
would
most
likely
be
needed,
but
would
not
be
recommended
given
the
close
proximity
of
the
signalized
intersections
at
Midland
Road
and
Budwin
Lane.

The
applicant
had
a traffic
sight
distance
study
prepared
in
August
2021
by
Intersecting
Metrics
and
it
is
included
as
Attachment
G.

The
sight
distance
study
concluded
accessing
the
subdivision
from
Twin
Peaks
Road
is
not
recommended
due
to
sight
distance
limitations
for
both
left
and
right
turns
exiting
the
site
. Per
the
Intersecting
Metrics
Study,
even
with
the
removal
of
mature
street
trees
along
the
south
side
of
Twin
Peaks
Road,
a
new
intersection
onto
the
project
site
would
still
not
meet
the
minimum
corner
or
stopping
sight
distance
requirements,
due
to
the
horizontal
curves
in
the
roadway
to
the
west
of
the
property.

As
a
result,
the
traffic
study
consultant
recommends
the
proposed
subdivision
take
access
from
an
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way.

For
tract
developments,
the
Poway
Municipal
Code
requires
at
least
three
different
plans.

Each
plan
is
required
to
have
three
different
fa~ade
treatments.

To
provide
further
variety
in
the
tract,
one
of
the
plans
must
be
a single-story
plan.

The
proposed
development
consists
of
four
single-story
homes
and
16 two-story
residences.

Four
floor
plans
are
proposed,
each
with
two
architectural
schemes
and
four
different
color
scheme
options.

The
homes
feature
a
Craftsman
style,
consistent
with
the
Old
2 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Poway Specific Plan Architectural Standards and Design Guidelines. Architectural building features include cement tile roofs, overhanging eaves, wood accents, patterned windowpanes, and various combinations of board and batten, lap siding, stone, and brick. The exterior colors would be earth tones, including green, brown, and taupe shades. Floor plans and colored elevations of the homes are included as Attachment H.

The project includes one affordable housing unit at the very-low-income level which makes the project eligible for a density bonus pursuant to State law (Government Code Section 65915(b)(1 )(a)). The maximum density for the RS-4 zone is four dwelling units per acre, or 15.64 dwelling units based off the lot's gross acreage of 4.77 acres. By providing one very-low-income unit, the project is eligible for a 20 percent density increase. The 20 percent increase allows up to 20 units to be built. The dwelling designated as an affordable housing unit must be consistent in size and appearance with the other dwelling units in the development. All required affordable housing documents that restrict the income level for 55 years are required to be approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Affordable Housing Plan is included as Attachment I. The project, including the one affordable unit, will assist the City in meeting its regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).

State Density Bonus law also requires the City to grant certain concessions and waivers of development standards (when, as here, they are requested by the developer) with the inclusion of a very-low-income housing unit. If a City development standard would physically prevent the project from being constructed at the permitted density, a developer is legally entitled to propose the waiver or reduction of those standards. The Applicant is requesting three waivers. One of the waivers includes a reduction in the minimum lot size. The minimum lot size for the RS-4 zone is 10,000 square feet. The proposed lots range in size from 7,012 square feet to 13,445 square feet. A second waiver involves a reduction in the minimum lot width from 70 feet to 60 feet. The third waiver request is to allow a reduction for the minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to five (5) feet. The waivers are shown on the site plan incorporated by reference in the project resolution.

Pre-Development Conference
A Pre-Development Conference was held for this project on April 6, 2021. There were seven speakers from the public who spoke regarding the proposal. Comments from the public raised concerns over traffic safety of the neighborhood by taking access to the site from Holly Oak Way, the character of the adjacent neighborhoods being changed by allowing smaller lots with reduced setbacks, no single story homes proposed, preservation of trees, and more affordable units should be provided. The City Council also gave the Applicant feedback regarding the proposal. The City Council was interested in the traffic safety by taking access to the site from Twin Peaks and requested to see a more detailed traffic study.

Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on February 22, 2022· for this project in the City Council Chambers.

There were 22 people in attendance in addition to City staff, the developer, and the developer's consultants. The majority of the attendees spoke. Their comments included concerns about drainage, opposition to taking subdivision access from the Holly Oak Way cul-de-sac, and the developer's decision to utilize State Density Bonus Law.
3 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental Review:

As required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) was completed for the project, which determined the project may have a significant effect on the environment regarding biological and cultural resources. Mitigation measures, however, have been incorporated into the project to reduce all the potential impacts to a level less than significant. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared, and after analyzing all of the project's potential impacts, the MND concludes that with mitigation, all of the project's impacts -including impacts on biological and cultural resources -will be reduced to a less than significant level. This includes all traffic/transportation impacts, which the MND explains are less than significant and do not require any mitigation. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the MND and approve the project because there is no substantial evidence in the record that would support a fair argument the project will result in any significant impacts on the environment. Biological and cultural resources are discussed in more detail below.

Biological Resources
The project site has been historically disturbed by development and prior agricultural activities. No special status plants or animals were observed at the project site during a biological survey, and none are expected based on the disturbed nature of the project site. No active bird nests were observed on the project site during the general biological survey or during the focused nesting survey conducted for the project. Three inactive raptor nests were observed in the pine trees on site during the surveys. Raptors and potentially other bird species would likely utilize these nests for breeding in the future. Thus, the project would result in potentially significant impacts to migratory or nesting birds, and mitigation is required. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 from the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In summary, the 810-1 a requires tree removal occur outside of the bird nesting season. If tree removal must occur during the nesting season, a survey must be completed by a qualified biologist to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are present, a plan shall be prepared and implemented in conformance with state and federal law to ensure the take of birds or eggs, or disturbance of breeding activities, is avoided. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

There is a low potential for roosting bat species to occur in the structures and/or mature palm trees on the project site. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 b would reduce the impact roosting bats to a less than significant level. 810-1 b requires removal of trees and existing structures to be removed outside of the bat roosting season. If removal of trees and structures must occur during roosting season, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If a maternity roost is present, a 300-foot buffer shall be placed around the roost, and no work shall occur within the buffer until roosting season is over.

Cultural Resources
The project site is located within the boundary of the prehistoric Village of Paguai, and archaeological resources have been identified on the project site in the past, and recently during the archaeological survey conducted for the project. The site is presumed eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). A CRHR-eligible resource is present on the site and construction of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to known and unknown archaeological resources. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (b), City staff contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. The NAHC provided a 4 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
consultation
list
of
16 tribes.

On
April
19,
2022,
in
compliance
with
California
Public
Resources
Code
section
21080.3.1,
the
City
of
Poway,
as
Lead
Agency,
sent
a
letter
to
the
Tribal
Representatives
for
those
tribes
requesting
notification
of
the
proposed
project.

The
Barona
Band
of
Mission
Indians
and
La
Posta
Band
of
Mission
Indians
requested
a Native
American
Monitor/Consultant
be
present
during
earth
moving
activities.

The
project would
mitigate
for
potential
impacts
to
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
through
the
implementation
of
mitigation
measures
CUL-1
through
CUL-5
in
the
MMP.

Therefore,
less-than-significant
impacts
related
to
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
would
occur.

The
MND,
EIS,
and
MMP
are
included
as
Exhibits
1,
2,
and
3 of
Attachment
A
of
the
Agenda
Report.

Notice
of
the
availability
of
the
EIS
and
proposed
MND
for
public
review
and
comment
was
provided
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
CEQA.

As
of
the
writing
of
this
report,
three
comment
letters
were
received.

One
letter
was
received
from
the
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(CDFW)
requesting
that
a
mitigation
measure
be
included
to
1)
require
a
pre-construction
bat
acoustic
survey;
2)
revise
the
mitigation
measure
addressing
bird
nesting
surveys;
and
3)
recommend
native
tree
species
be
used
as
the
replacement
trees.

Two
comment
letters
came
from
neighbors
raising
concerns
over
biology
and
traffic.

The
EIS
was
revised
as
a result
of
the
comment
letter
received
from
CDFW.

The
revisions
are
shown
in
underline
and
strikeout
format
in
Exhibit
2 of
Attachment
A
of
the
Agenda
Report.

The
comments
letters
are
included
as
Exhibit
4 of
Attachment
A
of
the
Agenda
Report
and
the
responses
to
the
comment
letters
are
included
as
Exhibit
5 of
Attachment
A
of
the
Agenda
Report.

Any
additional
comments
received
will
be
provided
to
City
Council
prior
to
the
public
hearing
on
this
matter.

Fiscal
Impact:

Consistent
with
the
City
Council's
direction
from
the
February
8,
2020
Council
Meeting
in
which
Council
discussed
including
a
revenue
analysis
with
projected
projects
to
help
decision
making,
staff
conducted
a
revenue
analysis
for
this
project.

Staff
analyzed
the
potential
ongoing revenues,
such
as
property
tax
and
sales
tax,
and
excluded
one-time
revenues,
such
as
transfer
taxes.

The
data
supporting
staffs
analysis
came
from
a
variety
of
sources.

For
example,
the
developer's
agent
provided
unit
characteristic
information.

This
information
helped
support
the
property
and
sales
tax
analysis.

The
U.S.

Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(BLS)
Table
1203
provided
annual
expenditures
by
income
level
and
expenditure
type.

The
BLS
data
helped
support
the
sales
tax
analysis.

Sales
Tax
estimates
for
the
commercial
potion
were
created
with
the
support
of
published
information
from
the
City's
sales
tax
consultant,
HDL.

The
development
is
projected
to
contribute
approximately
$56,000
in
property
taxes
annually.

The
project
is
estimated
to
contribute
approximately
$13,000
in
sales
taxes
annually
as
a
result
of
purchases
made
by
the
project's
new
residents.

Based
on
staffs
analysis,
this
project
could
contribute
approximately
$69,000
in
new
revenue
annually
for
the
City
.

Public
Notification:

A
Notice
of
Public
Review
Period
for
the
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
and
a Notice
of
Public
Hearing
was
published
in
the
Poway News
Chieftain
on
Thursday,
May
26,
2022.

A
Notice
of
Public
Review
Period
for
the
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
was
mailed
to
property
owners
within
500
feet
of
the
subject
property
on
June
3,
2022.

A
Notice
of
Public
Hearing
was
mailed
to
property
owners
and
occupants
within
500
feet
of
the
subject
property
on
July
6,
2022.
5 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Attachments:

A. Resolution adopting MND
B. Resolution approving TTM21-003 and DR21-002
C. Zoning and Location Map
D. Site Plan
E. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 21-003
F. Holly Oak Way Extension Deed Covenant
G. Sight Distance Study (Intersecting Metrics, August 2021) H. Floor Plans and Colored Elevations
I. Affordable Housing Plan
Reviewed/ Approved By:

WendYserman
Assistant City Manager
6 of 132
Reviewed By:

Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
c~~
City Manager
July 19, 2022, Item #4
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

POWAY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 21-003 AND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-002
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 314-192-02
WHEREAS, a request for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 21-003) and Development Review (DR 21-002) was submitted by Cornerstone Communities to subdivide a 4. 77-acre parcel into 20 lots and construct 20 single-family dwelling units located at 13667 Twin Peaks Road, in the Residential Single-Family 4 (RS-4) zone; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to receive testimony from the public, both for and against, relative to this matter.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows:

SECTION 1: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), attached as Exhibit 1, and an Environmental Initial Study (EIS), attached as Exhibit 2, have been prepared for the project. The City Council has considered the EIS, MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, and public comments received on the EIS and MND. The subject EIS and MND documentation are fully incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a sighificant impact on the environment, that the mitigation measures contained in the EIS will mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level, and that the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council hereby adopts the MND and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 3.

SECTION 2: A Biological Report dated July 2021, was prepared for the project by Alden Environmental. The report indicates that no special status plants or animals were observed at the project site during a biological survey, and none are expected based on the disturbed nature of the project site. No active bird nests were observed on the project site during the general biological survey or during the focused nesting survey conducted for the project. Three inactive raptor nests were observed in the pine trees on site during the surveys. Raptors and potentially other bird species would likely utilize these nests for breeding in the future. Thus, the project would result in potentially significant impacts to migratory or nesting birds, and mitigation is required. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 a would reduce potentially significant impacts to migratory or nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measure BIO-1 a is included in Exhibit 3 of this resolution. There is a low potential for roosting bat species to occur in the structures and/or mature palm trees on the project site, and mitigation is required.

Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 b would reduce the impact roosting bats to a less than significant level. Mitigation measure BIO-1 bis included in Exhibit 3 of this resolution.

SECTION 3: According to the Prehistoric and Historic Resources Element of the Poway General Plan, the project site is located in an area with a high probability that archeological resources are present (Poway 2002). A Cultural Resources Technical Report was conducted for the project by ASM Affiliates, dated August 2021. The project site is located within the boundary of the prehistoric Village of Paguai. Archaeological resources have been identified on the project 7 of 132 ATTACHMENT A
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution No. 22-

Page 2 ends

site in the past and recently during the archaeological survey conducted for the project. Based on the known presence of the Village of Paguai on the project site, and the identification of a large number of artifacts on the project site, the presence of an intact subsurface deposit is possible.

This site is presumed eligible for listing in the CRHR. As such, a CRHR-eligible resource is present on the project site and implementation of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to known and unknown archaeological resources. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 are included in Exhibit 3 of this resolution.

SECTION 4: Notice of the availability of the EIS and proposed MND for public review and comment was provided pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Three comment letters were received. One letter was received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requesting that a mitigation measure be included to 1) require a pre-construction bat acoustic survey; 2) revise the mitigation measure addressing bird nesting surveys; and 3) recommend that native tree species be used as the replacement trees. Two comment letters came from neighbors raising concerns over biology and traffic. The comments letters are included as Exhibit 4 of this resolution and the responses to the comment letters are included as Exhibit 5 of this resolution.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 19th day of July, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk
8 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4

EXHIBIT
1 CITY
OF
POWAY

MITIGATED

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

1. Name
and
Address
of
Applicant:

Cornerstone
Communities
4635
Executive
Drive,
Suite
600,
San
Diego,
CA
92121

2. Project
Name
and
Brief
Description
of
Project:

A
request
for
a
20-lot
single-family
residential
subdivision
that
would
be
accessed
from
an
extension
of
the
existing
cul-de-sac
of
Holly
Oak
Way.

The
project
also
consists
of
the
demolition
of
an
existing
single-family
residence,
removal
of
trees
present
on
the
site,
mass
grading,
and
the
construction
of
20 single-family
dwelling
units.

The
project
includes
one
affordable
housing
unit
which
makes the
project
eligible
for
a
density
bonus
per
State
law.

Pursuant
to
State
density
bonus
law,
the
project
is
eligible
for
concessions
and
waivers
from
City
Development
Standards.

The
applicant
is
requesting
reduced
lot
sizes,
lot
widths
and
side
yard
setbacks.

3. In
accordance
with
Resolution
83-084
of
the
City
of
Poway,
implementing
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
of
1970,
the
City
of
Poway
City
Council
has
found
that
the
above
project
will
not
have
a
significant
effect
upon
the
environment
and
has
approved
a
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration.

An
Environmental
Impact
Report
will
not
be
required.

4. This
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
is
comprised
of
this
form
along
with
the
Environmental
Initial
Study
that
includes
the
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
and
the
approved
Mitigation
Monitoring
Program
containing
the
mitigation
measures
approved
for
this
project.

5. The
decision
of
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Poway
is
final.

Contact
Person:

Austin
Silva
---'--'~;;;.;.;;..;;_....;;;;...;.;;..;;..._,;;_
___________
_
Phone:
(858)
668-4658
Approved
by:
________________
Date:
______
_
Robert
J.

Manis,
Director
of
Development
Services
M
:\planning\forms\Environmental\mit
neg
dee
form.docx
9 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
A.

INTRODUCTION

EXHIBIT
2 CITY
OF
POWAY

ENVIRONMENTAL

INITIAL
STUDY
AND

CHECKLIST
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
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
for the
proposed
project.

PROJECT

INFORMATION

1. Project
Title:

McKee
Orchard
(TTM21-003/DR21-002)

2. Lead
Agency
Name
and
Address:

City
of
Poway,
Development
Services
13325
Civic
Center
Drive,
Poway,
CA
92064

3. Contact
Person
and
Phone
Number:

Austin
Silva,
858-668-4658

4. Project
Location:
13667
Twin
Peaks
Road,
located
on
the
south
side
of
Twin
Peaks
Road
between
the
Midland
Road
and
Budwin
Lane
intersections,
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
(APN)
314-192-02

5. Project
Sponsor's
Name
and
Address:

Jack
Robson,
Cornerstone
Communities
1241
Cave
Street,
Suite
200,
La
Jolla
CA
92037

6. General
Plan
Designation:

Residential
Single
Family-4
(RS-4)

7. Zoning:

Residential
Single
Family-4
(RS-4)

8. Description
of
Project:

The
proposed
project
would
consist
of
the
redevelopment
of
a

4. 77-acre
residential
parcel
at
13667
Twin
Peaks
Road
with
a
20-lot
single-family
residential
subdivision
that
would
be
accessed
from
an
extension
of
the
existing
cul-de-sac
of
Holly
Oak
Way.

The
project
would
require
the
demolition
of
an
existing
single-family
residence,
removal
of
44 mature
trees
present
on
the
site,
mass
grading,
and
the
construction
of
a
20-lot
subdivision
with
one-
and
two-story
residences
that
range
in
size
from
3,465
square
feet
{sO
to
3,900
sf.

The
residential
development
would
contain
one
affordable
housing
unit
by
applying
State
of
California
density
bonus
laws.

To
accommodate
the
additional
unit,
the
project
would
require
concessions
including
the
reduction
of
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
and
a
reduction
of
side
yard
setbacks.

The
minimum
lot
size
for
the
RS-4
zone
is
10,000
sf.

The
project
proposes
lots
ranging
from
7,012
sf
to
13,485
sf.

The
requested
side
yard
setback
reduction
would
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
10 feet
for
the
RS-4
zone
to
5 feet
for the
project.

Parking would
be
provided,
as
required
by
City
code,
with
two
garage
spaces
per
residence,
resulting
in
40 total
garage
spaces
provided
for
the
project.

The
proposed
development
would
include
four
single-story
residences
and
sixteen
two-story
residences.

The
development
would
include
four
plan
types
and
each
plan
would
feature
two
architectural
schemes
with
four
different
color
scheme
options.

Exterior
building
elevations
of
the
residences
would
be
Craftsman
style,
consistent
with
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
Architectural
Standards
and
Design
Guidelines.

The
exteriors
would
feature
cement
tile
roofs,
overhanging
eaves,
wood
accents,
patterned
windowpanes,
and
various
combinations
of
board
and
batten,
lap
siding,
stone,
and
brick.

The
exterior
colors
would
be
earth
tones,
including
green,
brown,
and
taupe
shades.

The
project
would
require
an
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
by
approximately
600
feet
to
provide
access
to
the
subdivision.

The
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
would
be
a
continuation
of
a
public
road,
maintained
by
the
City.

Public
utilities,
including
City
water
and
sewer
would
also
be
10 of
132
1 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
extended to the site. A six-foot-high1 concrete masonry unit {CMU) decorative block wall would be constructed along the rear property line of the homes that would back up to Twin Peaks Road and would provide noise attenuation. A pedestrian easement would extend from Holly Oak Way and connect to the pedestrian trail along Twin Peaks Road. The Holly Oak extension streetscape improvements would include new pedestrian sidewalks1 street trees1 and decorative Old Poway street lights consistent with the existing street lights on Holly Oak Way. The project includes 39 street trees along the extension of Holly Oak Way.

Project construction would require the excavation of 5,900 cubic yards {cy) of soil, with 7,000 cy of fill. Approximately 1,100 cy of soil would be imported to the site to accomplish grading of the site. Construction would occur in four phases of approximately five homes each over a period of several years.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include institutional uses and single family residential uses. The Diroma Estates subdivision is located off Midland Road to the south/southwest of the project site along Holly Oak Way and is also zoned RS-4. Living Way Church and a single-family residence at the end of Outlook Drive are located west of the project site; these properties are also zoned RS-4. Administrative offices, Poway adult school, and a bus fleet storage lot for the Poway Unified School District are located across Twin Peaks Road, north of the project site. St. Gabriel Catholic Church is located just east of the school district property.

The Kent Hills subdivision with access off Twin Peaks Road is located east of the project site along Kent Hill Way and is also zoned RS-4. Traffic signals operate along Twin Peaks Road at the intersections with Midland Road and Budwin Lane, while a stop sign controlled intersection occurs along Midland Road at the intersection with Holly Oak Way. The project site is surrounded by land within the Old Poway Specific Plan area.

Elevations on the project site range from approximately 550 to 560 feet above mean sea level.

The project site was historically used for farming and now contains a residence that was constructed in the late 1950s. The existing residence is surrounded by mature trees. The remainder of the parcel is vacant and has been disturbed by previous orchard activities. The project site contains developed, disturbed, and ornamental vegetation communities.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): _N_o_n_e ______________________ _

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? City staff contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project.

The NAHC provided a consultation list of 16 tribes. On April 19, 2022, in compliance with California Public Resources Code section 21080.3.11 the City of Poway, as Lead Agency, sent a letter to the Tribal Representatives notifying the tribes of the proposed project. Responses to the Assembly Bill {AB) 52 consultation notices were received, as discussed in this document (refer to the Tribal Cultural Resources impact discussion).

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2). Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 11 of132
2 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
Environmental
Factors
Potentially
Affected:

The
environmental
factors
checked
below
would
be
potentially affected
by
this
project,
involving
at
least
one
impact
that
is
a
"Potentially
Significant
Impact"
as
indicated
by
the
checklist
on
the
following
pages.

D
Aesthetics
[8J
Biological
Resource
D
Geology/Soils
D
Hydrology/Water
Quality
D
Population
and
Housing
D
Transportation
D
Utilities
and
Service
Systems
D
Agriculture/Forestry Resources
[8J
Cultural
Resources
D
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
D
Land
Use
and
Planning
D
Public
Services
[8J
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
□
Wildfire
Determination
(to
be
completed
by
the
Lead
Agency):

On
the
basis
of
this
initial
evaluation:

D
Air
Quality
D
Energy
D
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
D
Mineral
Resources
D
Noise
D
Recreation
[8J
Mandatory
Findings
of
Significance
D
I find
that
the
proposed
project
COULD
NOT
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment
and
a

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
will
be
prepared.
[8J
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.

MITIGATED

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
will
be
prepared.

D
I find
that
the
proposed
project
MAY
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
and
an

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
is
required.

D
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.

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
is
required,
but
it
must
analyze
only
the
effects
that
remain
to
be
addressed.

D
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.

City
of
Poway
Date
12 of
132
3 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
•
C.

EIS
AND

CHECKLIST
ISSUE I.

AESTHETICS.

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
IMPACT

MITIGATION INCORPORATED

LESS-THAN-
NO

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
Except
as
provided
in
Public
Resources
Code
section
21099,
would
the
project:
a.

Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
a
scenic
vista?
b.

Substantially
damage
scenic
resources,
including
but
not
limited
to
trees,
rock
outcroppings,
and
historic
buildings
within
a
state
scenic
highway?
c.

In
non-urbanized
areas,
substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
or
quality
of
public
views
of
the
site
and
its
surroundings?
(Public
views
are
those
that
are
experienced
from
publicly
accessible
vantage
point).

If
the
project
is
in
an
urbanized
area,
would
the
project
conflict
with
applicable
zoning
and
other
regulations
governing
scenic
quality?
d.

Create
a
new
source
of
substantial
light
or
glare
that
would
adversely
affect
day
or
nighttime
views
in
the
area?
II.

AGRICULTURAL
AND

FORESTRY
RESOURCES.

X
X
X
X
In
determining
whether
impacts
to
agricultural
resources
are
significant
environmental
effects,
lead
agencies
may
refer
to
the
California
Agricultural
Land
Evaluation
and
Site
Assessment
Model
(1997)
prepared
by
the
California
Department
of
Conservation
as
an
optional
model
to
use
in
assessing
impacts
on
agriculture
and
farmland.

In
determining
whether
impacts
to
forest
resources,
including
timberland,
are
significant
environmental
effects,
lead
agencies
may
refer
to
information
compiled
by
the
California
Department
of
Forestry
and
Fire
Protection
regarding
the
state's
inventory
of
forest
land,
including
the
Forest
and
Range
Assessment
Project
and
the
Forest
Legacy
Assessment
project;
and
forest
carbon
measurement
methodology
provided
in
Forest
Protocols
adopted
by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.

Would
the
project:
a.

Convert
prime
farmland,
unique
farmland,
or
farmland
of
statewide
importance
(farmland),
as
shown
on
the
maps
prepared
pursuant
to
the
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
contract? 13
of
132
X X
4 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

LESS-THAN-
NO
ISSUE

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT

MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT

INCORPORATED
C.

Conflict
with
existing
zoning
for,
or
cause
rezoning
of,
forest
land
(as
defined
in
Public
Resources
Code
section
12220(9)),
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
land
to
non-forest
X
land?
e.

Involve
other
changes
in
the
existing
environment
that,
due
to
their
location
or
nature,
could
result
in
conversion
of
X
farmland
to
non-agricultural
use
or
conversion
of
forest
land
to
non-forest
use?
Ill.

AIR
QUALITY.

Where
available,
the
significance
criteria
established
by
the
applicable
air
quality
management
district
or
air
pollution
control
district
may
be
relied
upon
to
make
the
following
determinations.

Would
the
project:
a.

Conflict
with
or
obstruct
implementation
X
of
the
applicable
air
quality
plan?
b.

Result
in
a
cumulatively
considerable
net
increase
of
any
criteria
pollutant
for
which
the
project
region
is
non-
X
attainment
under
an
applicable
federal
or
state
ambient
air
quality
standard?
C.

Expose
sensitive
receptors
to
X
substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
d.

Result
in
other
emissions
(such
as
those
leading
to
odors
adversely
X
affecting
a
substantial
number
of
people? 14
of
132
5 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
ISSUE
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
15 of 132

POTENTIALLY

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT UNLESS

IMPACT MITIGATION

INCORPORATED
X
X
6 LESS-THAN-NO

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT
X
X
X
X
July 19, 2022, Item #4
ISSUE V.

CULTURAL
RESOURCES.

Would
the
project:
a.

Cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
the
significance
of
a
historical
resource
pursuant
to
section
15064.5?
b.

Cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
the
significance
of
an
archaeological
resource
pursuant
to
section
15064.5?
C.

Disturb
any
human
remains,
including
those
interred
outside
of
dedicated
cemeteries?
VI.

ENERGY.

Would
the
project:
a.

Result
in
potentially
significant
environmental
impact
due
to
wasteful,
inefficient,
or
unnecessary
consumption
of
energy
resources,
during
project
construction
or
operation?
b.

Conflict
with
or
obstruct
a
state
or
local
plan
for
renewable
energy
or
energy
efficiency?
VII.

GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS.

Would
the
project:
a.

Directly
or
indirectly
cause
potential
substantial
adverse
effects,
including
the
risk
of
loss,
injury,
or
death
involving:
i.

Rupture
of
a
known
earthquake
fault,
as
delineated
on
the
most
recent
Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake
Fault
Zoning
Map
issued
by
the
State
Geologist
for
the
area
or
based
on
other
substantial
evidence
of
a
known
fault?
Refer
to
Division
of
Mines
and
Geology
Special
Publication

42. ii.

Strong
seismic
ground
shaking?
iii.

Seismic-related
ground
failure,
including
liquefaction?
iv.

Landslides?
16 of
132
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
IMPACT

MITIGATION INCORPORATED
X X X
7 LESS-THAN-
NO

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
X X
X
X X
X
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

LESS-THAN-
NO
ISSUE

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT

MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT

INCORPORATED
b.

Result
in
substantial
soil
erosion
or
the
X
loss
of
topsoil?
C.

Be
located
on
a
geologic
unit
or
soil
that
is
unstable,
or
that
would
become
unstable
as
a
result
of
the
project,
and
X
potentially
result
in
on-
or
off-site
landslide,
lateral
spreading,
subsidence
,
liquefaction
, or
collapse?
d.

Be
located
on
expansive
soil,
as
defined
in
Table
18-1-8
of
the
Uniform
Building
X
Code
(1994),
creating
substantial
direct
or
indirect
risk
to
life
or
property?
e.

Have
soils
incapable
of
adequately
supporting
the
use
of
septic
tanks
or
alternative
wastewater
disposal
systems
X
where
sewers
are
not
available
for
the
disposal
of
wastewater?
f.

Directly
or
indirectly
destroy
a
unique
paleontological
resource
or
site
or
X
unique
geologic
feature?
VIII.

GREENHOUSE
GAS
EMISSIONS.

Would
the
project:
a.

Generate
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
either
directly
or
indirectly,
that
may
X
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
environment?
b.

Conflict
with
an
applicable
plan
, policy,
or
regulation
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
X
reducing
the
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases?
XIX.

HAZARDS
AND

HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.

Would
the
project:
a.

Create
a
significant
hazard
to
the
public
or
the
environment
through
the
routine
X
transport,
use,
or
disposal
of
hazardous
materials?
17 of
132
8 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

LESS-THAN-
NO
ISSUE

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT

MITIGATION
IMPACT

INCORPORATED
b.

Create
a
significant
hazard
to
the
public
or
the
environment
through
reasonably
foreseeable
upset
and
accident
X
conditions
involving
the
release
of
hazardous
materials
into
the
envi
ran
ment?
C.

Emit
hazardous
emissions
or
handle
hazardous
or
acutely
hazardous
materials,
substances,
or
waste
within
X
one-quarter
mile
of
an
existing
or
proposed
school?
d.

Be
located
on
a
site
that
is
included
on
a
list
of
hazardous
materials
sites
compiled
pursuant
to
Government
Code
X
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
public
use
airport,
X
would
the
project
result
in
a
safety
hazard
or
excessive
noise
for
people
residing
or
working
within
the
project
area
f.

Impair
implementation
of,
or
physically
interfere
with,
an
adopted
emergency
X
response
plan
or
emergency
evacuation
plan?
g.

Expose
people
or
structures
either
directly
or
indirectly,
to
a
significant
risk
X
of
loss,
injury,
or
death
involving
wildland
fires?
X.

HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY.

Would
the
project:
a.

Violate
any
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge
requirements
or
X
otherwise
substantially
degrade
surface
or
ground
water
quality?
18 of
132
9 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist

POTENTIALLY

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

LESS-THAN-
NO
ISSUE

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT

MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT

INCORPORATED
b.

Substantially
decrease
groundwater
supplies
or
interfere
substantially
with
groundwater
recharge
such
that
the
X
project
may
impede
sustainable
groundwater
management
of
the
basin?
C.

Substantially
alter
the
existing
drainage
pattern
of
the
site
or
area,
including
through
the
alteration
of
the
course
of
a
stream
or
river,
or
through
the
addition
of
impervious
surfaces,
in
a
manner
that
would: i.

Result
in
substantial
erosion
or
X
siltation
on
or
off
site;
ii.

Substantially
increase
the
rate
or
amount
of
surface
runoff
in
a
matter
X
that
would
result
in
flooding
on
or
off
site;
iii.

Create
or
contribute
runoff
water
that
would
exceed
the
capacity
of
existing
or
planned
stormwater
X
drainage
systems
or
provide
substantial
additional
sources
of
polluted
runoff;
or
iv.

Impede
or
redirect
flood
flows?
X
d.

In
flood
hazard,
tsunami,
or
seiche
zones,
risk
release
of
pollutants
due
to
X
project
inundation?
e.

Conflict
with
or
obstruct
implementation
of
a
water
quality
control
plan
or
X
sustainable
groundwater
management
plan?
XI.

LAND
USE
AND
PLANNING.

Would
the
project:
a.

Physically
divide
an
established
X
community?
b.

Cause
a
significant
environmental
impact
due
to
a
conflict
with
any
land
use
plan,
policy,
or
regulation
adopted
X
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
or
mitigating
an
environmental
effect?
19 of
132
10 July 19, 2022, Item #4
ISSUE XII.

MINERAL
RESOURCES.

Would
the
project:
a.

Result
in
the
loss
of
availability
of
a
known
mineral
resource
that
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
a
local
general
plan,
specific
plan,
or
other
land
use
plan?
XIII.

NOISE.

Would
the
project:
a.

Generation
of
a
substantial
temporary
or
permanent
increase
in
ambient,
noise
levels
in
the
vicinity
of
the
project
in
excess
of
standards
established
in
the
local
general
plan
or
noise
ordinance,
or
applicable
standards
of
other
agencies?
b.

Generation
of,
excessive
groundborne
vibration
or
groundborne
noise
levels?
C.

For
a
project
located
within
the
vicinity
of
a
private
airstrip
or
an
airport
land
use
plan
or,
where
such a
plan
has
not
been
adopted,
within
two
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?
XIV.

POPULATION
AND
HOUSING.

Would
the
project:
a.

Induce
substantial
unplanned
population
growth
in
an
area
either
directly
(for
example,
by
proposing
new
homes
and
businesses)
or
indirectly
(for
example,
through
extension
of
roads
or
other
infrastructure)?
b.

Displace
substantial
numbers
of
existing
people
or
housing,
necessitating
the
construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere?
20 of
132
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
IMPACT

MITIGATION I NCO
RPO
RA
TED
11 LESS-THAN-
NO

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT
X X
X X
X X X
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
ISSUE XV.

PUBLIC
SERVICES.
a.

Would
the
project
result
in
substantial
adverse
physical
impacts
associated
with
the
provision
of
new
or
physically
altered
governmental
facilities,
need
for
new
or
physically
altered
governmental
facilities,
the
construction
of
which
could
cause
significant
environmental
impacts,
in
order
to
maintain
acceptable
service
ratios,
response
times,
or
other
performance
objectives
for
any
of
the
public
services:
i.

Fire
protection?
ii.

Police
protection?
iii.

Schools?
iv.

Parks?
V.

Other
public
facilities?
XVI.

RECREATION.
a.

Would
the
project
increase
the
use
of
existing
neighborhood
and
regional
parks
or
other
recreational
facilities
such
that
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
facilities
that
might
have
an
adverse
physical
effect
on
the
environment?
XVII.

TRANSPORTATION.

Would
the
project:
a.

Conflict
with
program
plan,
ordinance
or
policy
addressing
the
circulation
system,
including
transit,
roadway,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities?
b.

Would
the
project
conflict
or
be
inconsistent
with
CEQA
Guidelines
section
15064.3,
subdivision
(b)?
21 of
132

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS
IMPACT

MITIGATION INCORPORATED
12 LESS-THAN-
NO

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
IMPACT

X X X X
X
X
X
X X
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist

POTENTIALLY

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS-THAN-NO ISSUE SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT

INCORPORATED
C. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or X
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency X access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 2107 4 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of X historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1 (k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in Public Resources Code
section 5024.1 (c)? In applying the X
criteria set forth in Public Resource
Code section 5024.1 (c), the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
22 of 132
13 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
ISSUE
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
C. Result in the determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project, that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE

POTENTIALLY

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT UNLESS

IMPACT MITIGATION

INCORPORATED

LESS-THAN-NO

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT
X
X
X
X
X
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
23 of 132
X
X
14 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

LESS-THAN-
NO
ISSUE

SIGNIFICANT
UNLESS

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT

MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT

INCORPORATED
C.

Require
the
installation
or
maintenance
of
associated
infrastructure
(such
as
roads,
fuel
breaks,
emergency
water
sources,
power
lines,
or
other
utilities)
X
that
may
exacerbate
fire
risk
or
that
may
result
in
temporary
or
ongoing
impacts
to
the
environment?
d.

Expose
people
or
structures
to
significant
risks,
including
downslope
or
downstream
flooding
or
landslides,
as
a
X
result
of
runoff,
post-fire
slope
instability,
or
drainage
changes?
XXI.

MANDATORY

FINDINGS
OF

SIGNIFICANCE
a.

Does
the
project
have
the
potential
to
substantially
degrade
the
quality
of
the
environment,
substantially
reduce
the
habitat
of
a
fish
or
wildlife
species,
cause
a
fish
or
wildlife
population
to
drop
below
self-sustaining
levels,
threaten
to
eliminate
a
plant
or
animal
X
community,
substantially
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
that
will
cause
substantial
X
adverse
effects
on
human
beings
either
directly
or
indirectly?
24 of
132
15 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
D.

DISCUSSION
OF

ENVIRONMENTAL

EVALUATION
Refer
to
the
Environmental
Initial
Study
Checklist
Form
above
when
reading
the
following
evaluation.

AESTHETICS
25 of
132
a.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
City
does
not
specifically
designate
scenic
vistas.

However,
the
project
site
is
located
within
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan.

The
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
identifies
the
segment
of
Midland
Road
between
Hilleary
Road
and
Twin
Peaks
Road
as
a
scenic
roadway.

While
the
project
site
is
not
directly
adjacent
to
Midland
Road,
the
site
is
located
approximately
450
feet
east
of
Midland
Road
and
portions
of
the
project
site
would
be
briefly
visible
from
some
locations
along
the
designated
segment
of
Midland
Road.

The
project
site
would
include
a
vinyl
fence
along
the
western
portion
of
the
site.

This
fence
would
obstruct
views
of
much
of
the
development
from
Midland
Road.

The
rooftop
and
second
story
portions
of
the
residences
would
be
visible
above
the
fence.

The
project
would
include
four
single-story
residences
and
sixteen
two-story
residences.

The
development
would
include
four
plan
types,
and
each
plan
would
feature
two
architectural
schemes,
with
four
different
color
scheme
options.

Exterior
building
elevations
of
the
residences
would
be
Craftsman
style,
consistent
with
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan.

The
exteriors
would
feature
cement
tile
roofs,
overhanging
eaves,
wood
accents,
and
patterned
windowpanes,
with
various
combinations
of
board
and
batten,
lap
siding,
stone,
and
brick.

The
exterior
colors
would
be
earth
tones,
including
green,
brown,
and
taupe.

Street
lights
on
the
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
would
include
decorative
Old
Poway
street
lights,
consistent
with
the
existing
street
lights
on
Holly
Oak
Way.

The
proposed
residences
would
be
developed
consistent
with
the
architectural
standards
identified
in
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan,
would
be
consistent
with
surrounding
development,
and
would
maintain
the
character
of
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
area
. With
the
incorporation
of
architectural
design,
as
required
by
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan,
the
project
would
not
result
in
significant
visual
impacts
associated
with
the
nearby
scenic
roadway
portion
of
Midland
Road.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
b.

No
Impact.

The
project
site
is
not
located
within
or
adjacent
to
a
designated
state
scenic
highway.

The
nearest
designated
state
scenic
highway
is
a
portion
of
State
Route
52,
located
approximately
9 miles
south
of
the
project
site
(California
Department
of
Transportation
2022).

As
such,
no
impact
associated
with
scenic
resources
within
a
state
scenic
highway
would
occur.
c.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

See
response
I.a.

The
project
would
result
in
the
development
of
the
project
site
with
20 single-family
residences.

The
single-family
residential
use
would
be
consistent with
the
General
Plan
and
zoning
designations
for
the
site.

The
project
would
implement
the
architectural
standards
required
by
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
to
provide
a
development
that
is
visually
consistent
with
the
character
of
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
area.

Visual
changes
at
the
project
site
would
occur
as
a
result
of
the
project;
however,
with
the
exception
of
the
two
zoning
concessions
(reduction
in
minimum
lot
size
and
reduction
in
side
yard
setbacks)
provided
consistent
with
the
Poway
Municipal
Code
and
State
bonus
density
laws,
the
project
would
be
developed
consistent
with
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
and
zoning
requirements.

Therefore,
impacts
associated
with
visual
changes
to
the
project
site
would
be
less
than
significant.
d.

No
Impact.

The
project
would
result
in
minor
sources
of
new
lighting
associated
with
single-family
uses
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
City's
Municipal
Code
and
16 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan.

Proposed
lighting
would
be
similar
in
nature
to
the
lighting
in
the
surrounding
area.

No
impact
would
occur.

II.

AGRICULTURE
AND

FORESTRY

RESOURCES
a.

No
Impact.

The
project
site
is
designated
as
"Other
Land"
by
the
Farmland
Mapping
and
Monitoring
Program
(Department
of
Conservation
2022).

The
project
site
is
not
designated
as
Prime
Farmland,
Unique
Farmland,
or
Farmland
of
Statewide
Importance.

No
impact
associated
with
the
conversion
of
farmland
to
non-agricultural
use
would
occur.
b.

No
Impact.

The
project
site
was
farmed
from
the
late
1880s
until
1958
(ASM
Affiliates
2021
a).

However,
since
1958,
the
project
site
has
been
vacant
except
for
the
residence
located
in
the
southwest
portion
of
the
site.

The
project
site
is
zoned
for
single-family
residential
uses
(RS-4).

As
such,
the
project
would
not
conflict
with
existing
zoning
for
agricultural
use
or
a
Williamson
Act
contract.

No
impact
would
occur.
c.

No
Impact.

The
project
site
does
not
contain,
and
is
not
zoned
for,
forest
land,
timberland,
or
timberland
zoned
Timberland
Production.

No
impact
would
occur.
d.

No
Impact.

As
discussed
in
response
I1.c,
the
project
site
is
not
located
in
an
area
containing
forest
land.

As
such,
the
project
would
not
convert
forest
land
to
non
forest
use.

No
impact
would
occur.
e.

No
Impact.

The
project
would
not
result
in
impacts
to
agricultural
or
forest
lands,
nor
would
it introduce
elements
that
would
covert
agricultural
use
to
non-agricultural
use
or
forest
land
to
non-forest
land
use.

No
impact
would
occur.

Ill.

AIR

QUALITY
26 of
132
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
the
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
(RAQS)
(1994;
jointly
developed
by
the
APCD
and
the
San
Diego
Association
of
Governments
[SAN
DAG])
exists
for
the
San
Diego
area
and
provides
strategies
for
pollution
control
to
improve
air
quality
in
the
region.

Land
use
plans
and
build
out
projections
of
the
General
Plans
of
jurisdictions
within
the
San
Diego
area
were
considered
in
establishing
the
strategies
of
the
RAQS.

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
regional
emissions
projected
in
the
RAQS.

No
impact
would
occur.
b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

See
response
II.a
above.

Project
implementation
would
produce
temporary
pollutant
emissions
during
construction
and
long-term
operational
emissions.

Project
construction
activities
would
generate
combustion
17 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
emissions
from
the
operation
of
on-site
heavy
duty
construction
vehicles
and
motor
vehicles
transporting
the
construction
crew
and
necessary
construction
materials.

Exhaust
emissions
generated
by
construction
activities
would
generally
result
from
the
use
of
heavy-duty
construction
equipment
that
may
include
excavation
equipment,
forklift,
skip
loader,
and/or
dump
truck.

Total
daily
construction
emissions
are
a
function
of
the
level
of
equipment
activity,
length
of
construction
period,
number
of
pieces
and
types
of
equipment
in
use,
site
characteristics,
weather
conditions,
number
of
construction
personnel,
and
the
amount
of
materials
being
transported
on
or
off-site.

Fugitive
dust
emissions
generally
represent
30 percent
of
all
particulate
matter
and
are
generally
associated
with
land
clearing
and
grading
operations.

Standard
City
requirements
include
implementation
of
dust
control
measures
and
the
construction
activities
would
be
subject
to
SDAPCD
standards,
including
dust
control
measures.

Based
on
the
small
size
of
the
project,
construction
emissions
would
be
minor
and
temporary
in
nature,
and
impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.

Operational
air
pollutant
emissions
would
include
those
associated
with
stationary
sources,
energy
sources,
and
mobile
sources.

Stationary
sources
associated
with
the
project
would
come
from
landscape
equipment,
general
energy
use,
and
solid
waste.

Energy
emissions
would
come
from
electricity
and
natural
gas
use.

Mobile
source
emissions
would
be
generated
due
to
personal
vehicles
use
from
residents
(estimated
to
be
200
average
daily
trips
(ADT)).

Based
on
the
small
project
size,
project-related
long-term
operational
emissions
are
expected
to
be
minor
and
would
result
in
less-than-significant
impacts.
c.

No
Impact.

Sensitive
receptors
include
schools,
hospitals,
resident
care
facilities,
day
care
centers,
or
other
facilities
that
may
house
concentrations
of
individuals
with
health
conditions
that
would
be
adversely
impacted
by
changes
in
air
quality.

Adjacent
land
uses
include
residential
and
institutional
(consisting
of
a
church,
and
administrative
offices
and
a
bus
fleet
storage
lot
for
the
Poway
Unified
School
District
across
Twin
Peaks
Road).

Twin
Peaks
Middle
School
and
Terra
Bonita
Elementary
School
are
situated
more
than

0.25-mile
northeast
of
the
project
site.

Therefore,
the
project
site
does
not
have
adjacent
or
nearby
sensitive
receptors.

Based
on
the
small
project
size,
temporary
nature
of
the
construction
emissions,
and
minor
amount
of
operational
emissions,
and
the
project
would
not
result
in
the
exposure
of
sensitive
receptors
to
substantial
pollutants.

No
impact
would
occur.
d.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Odors
would
be
temporarily
generated
from
equipment
exhaust
emissions
during
construction
of
the
project.

Odors
produced
during
construction
would
be
attributable
to
concentrations
of
unburned
hydrocarbons
from
tailpipes
of
construction
equipment
and
architectural
coatings.

Such
odors
are
temporary,
localized
and
generally
occur
at
magnitudes
that
would
not
affect
a substantial
number
of
people.

No
sources
of
odor
would
be
associated
with
long
term
residential
use
of
the
site.

Therefore,
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
a
less
than
significant
odor
impact.

IV.

BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
27 of
132
a.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated.

The
project
site
has
been
historically
disturbed
by
development
and
prior
agricultural
activities.

No
special
status
plants
or
animals were
observed
at
the
project
site
during
a
biological
survey,
and
none
are
expected
based
on
the
disturbed
nature
of
the
project
site
(Alden
Environmental
2021
).

No
active
bird
nests
were
observed
on
the
project
site
during
the
general
biological
survey
or
during
the
focused
nesting
survey
conducted
18 July 19, 2022, Item #4
28 of 132
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
for the project. Three inactive raptor nests were observed in the pine trees on site during the surveys. Raptors and potentially other bird species would likely utilize these nests for breeding in the future. Thus, the project would result in potentially significant impacts to migratory or nesting birds, and mitigation is required. A low potential exists for roosting bat species to occur in the on-site structures and/or mature palm trees on the project site, mitiqation is required. Implementation of mitigation measure?. 810-1 a and 810-1 b would reduce potentially significant impacts to m~Gf--A-esting birdssensitive animal species to a less-than significant level.
810-1~: Removal of the trees on site shall occur outside of the breeding season for nesting birds, which generally runs from February 1 through September 15 (as early as January 1 for some raptors){.J;.ooruaryt---4-to September 15). If removal of the pine trees must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds or raptors protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 3 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation) and shall include the limits of disturbance and an additional 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) from the area of disturbance. The applicant shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to the City of Poway for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities.
1) If nesting bird behavior and active nests are not detected during the pre construction survey, no further mitigation is required. ~If nesting birds behavior is afe-detected, a mitigation plan fpfe- GGA-St™Gt-K}n survey} in conformance with applicable state and federal law (e.g., appropriate follow-up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction, noise barriers, and/or buffers f see items 3 and 4 below]~0--~e-t) shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs, or disturbance of breeding activities, is avoided. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The recommendations contained in the mitigation plan shall be implemented prior to and during construction, to the satisfaction of the City.
3) If an active nest is detected during the pre-construction survey or a follow up survey, a buffer shall be established between the nest and construction activities, and the nest shall be monitored on a daily basis by a qualified biologist to ensure that nesting activities are not interrupted.

The buffer shall be 100 feet for common avian species, 300 feet for listed or highly sensitive species, and 500 feet for raptors. The buffer shall be delineated with temporary fencing and shall remain in place as long as construction is occurring. No vegetation clearing or construction shall occur within the fenced buffer until the young have fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents, and are no longer being impacted by construction as determined by a qualified biologist. Reductions in a nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors as determined by a qualified biologist. 19 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
29 of
132
2-}-
If
nestiAg
birds
are
not
dete-Gtoo4u++ng
the
p~GP.stru~rvey,
no
fH~J:ler
mi#gation
is
required
.

J}-+f--~,9-
bi
rd
s
a re
d eteGt-00
-aHG
-GGP~:
on
a ct
i \q~-4Hr.i-n-g
tA-e-
breediAg-
season,
tAe--follmving
mitigation
measures-&P.all
be
implemented
prior
to
and
during
construction
:
a\
"'I"\
\/_Of"'IOt".ltil"\n
cle,,ring
sh
al'
l"\ccur
,,vj+
h
in
~or1
fee+
l"\f
an
~r-4-i"e
rap+or
/ I
iV
i~tttrrl
CCI
I
U
ii
Clii
V
O
I
CV
-ctbi.lV
t
I
nest
and
100
fee-t--Bf
an
active
nest-of
a
non
listed
bird
species
until
a
biologist
has
determined
that
the
young
have
fledged
~
th
at
the
nest--i-s-maGWJe.-~e-:,a~d
on
ed)
.
b)
Active
-A-e-st-s-
shall
be
rnoo
itored
on---a---0a-i-!.y.-t}a-s+s-
to
determine
the
effe.Gtiveness
of
t-he--avoidance
~e-ing
implemented
.

The
~st-~mooiror~
active
Re8t&--Hm4-aU--yooo9--ftave---f~
YP..W-t4e-
nest
is
dete-rrnined
inactive
.
c)
A
minimu~
betvveen
the
location
of
an
active
raptor
nest
and
the
nearest
coA-Struction
activity
shall
be
maintained
unti
l the
:fGHA9
have
fledged
from
the
nest
or
until
the
nest
is
ootermined
inactive
. For
nests
of
non
raptor
birds,
a
buffer
of
100
feet
shall
be
maintained
.
4)
While
no
specific
noise
thresholds
have
been
established
for
nesting
raptors
or
other
non-listed
bird
species,
construction
activities
that
are
expected
to
generate
noise
levels
above
the
ambient
noise
level
at
the
edge
of
an
established
nest
buffer
shall
be
measured
by
an
acoustician
technician.

T-he-a6
ctive
nest
§.
shall
also
be
monitored
on
a
daily
basis
by
a
qualified
biologist
to
determine
if
there
is
any
adverse
effect
on
the
breeding
behavior
of
the
particular
species
from
tfle.-
elevated
noise
levels.

If
it
is
determined
that
the
elevated
noise
level
is
having
an
effect
on
the
breeding
behavior
of
the
nesting
bird
species,
then
the
noise
generating
construction
activity
shall
be
suspended
in
the
vicinity
of
the
active
nest
buffer
until
such
time
as
the
young
have
fledged
, are
no
longer
being
fed
by
the
parents
,
and
are
no
longer
being
impacted
by
the
noise
as
determined
by
a
qualified
biologist-a-1+-G
-f the
young
birds
have
fledged
or
until
the
nest
is
determined
inactive
.
810-1
b:

Removal
of
the
trees
and
existing
structures
on
site
shal
l occur
outside
of
the
roosting
season
for
bats
(approximately
March
through
September)
. If
removal
must
occur
during
the
roosting
season,
a
qualified
biologist
with
expertise
and
experience
,conduct
ing
bat
surveys
shal
l
be
retained
by
the
applicant
as
a
qualified
bat
biologist.

A
pre-construction
survey
shall
be
conducted
by
the
qualified
bat
biologist
no
more
than
30 days
prior
to
the
removal
of
trees
and
existing
structures.

The
qualified
bat
biologist
shall
survey
all
trees
or
structures
that
provide
suitable
bat
roosting
habitat.

The
applicant
shall
submit
the
results
of
the
pre

construction
survey
to
the
City
of
Poway
for
review
and
approval
pr
ior
to
initiating
any
construction
activities
.

If
a
maternity
roost
is
determined
present,
a
300-foot
buffer
shall
be
placed
around
the
roost,
and
no
work
shall
occur
within
the
buffer
until
after
the
roosting
season
is
over
. Work
within
the
buffer
may
proceed
after
the
qualified
bat
biologist
is
able
to
verify
that
the
roost
is
no
longer
active
.
20 July 19, 2022, Item #4
30 of 132
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
If no bat roosts are detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitiqation is required.
b. No Impact. The project site is completely disturbed and supports non-sensitive developed, disturbed, and ornamental vegetation communities/land cover types (Alden Environmental 2021 ). The project site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. As such, the project would not result in adverse effects to such resources and no impact would occur. c. No Impact. No wetland or riparian vegetation communities were observed on the site during the biological survey conducted for the project (Alden Environmental 2021 ). There was no evidence of channels, basins, swales, streambeds, or other features that would suggest water conveyance and/or the presence of jurisdictional features observed during the biological survey. No impact to state or federally protected wetlands would occur.
d. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site contains pine trees with inactive raptor nests. While no birds were present during biological surveys for the project, the presence of the trees and inactive nests could support migratory or nesting birds, as discussed in response IV.a above. Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant impact on the movement of migratory wildlife species, such as migratory or nesting birds. Implementation of mitigation measure 810-1, as described above, would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
e. Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would comply with the City of Poway's Urban Forestry Ordinance. The project would include the removal of 46 private trees on the project site, including oak, pine, toyon, date palm, American beech, and California pepper trees. These trees are generally located in the southwestern portion of the project site, near the existing residence. Trees would be removed consistent with the requirements of Poway's Municipal Code section 12.32.150, Private Tree Removal Permit. The removed trees would be replaced consistent with the requirements of Poway Municipal Code section 12.32.170, Replacement of Trees. The removal of trees exceeding 8 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) would require replacement at a ratio of two 48-inch box specimen trees per one tree removed. Other trees would be replaced at a one-to-one ratio consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code. The project would require the replacement of six Coast Live Oak trees with 8-inch or greater DBH at a two-to-one ratio.

Additionally, 33 other trees that have 8-inch DBH or greater would require replacement at a two-to one ratio. Four Coast Live Oak trees and two other trees with DBH of less than 8 inches would be replaced at a one-to-one ratio. There are 11 trees along the northern project boundary, within the public right-of-way that would remain in place as part of the project. The removal of trees at the project site and the installation of replacement trees would be conducted consistent with the requirements of the City of Poway's Urban Forestry Ordinance. The replacement trees would be planted throughout the project site as street trees or private trees within front or rear yards. Impacts would be less than significant. f. No Impact. The project site is located within the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). The project site is mapped as disturbed habitat on Figure 1 (Vegetation Communities) of the Poway Subarea HCP/NCCP. The project site is not included within mapped preserve areas shown on Figure 3 of the Poway Subarea HCP/NCCP. This is due to the highly disturbed and developed nature of the project site and surrounding 21 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
properties.

Therefore,
implementation
of
the
project
would
not
conflict
with
the
provisions
of
an
adopted

HCP/NCCP
. No
impact
would
occur.

CULTURAL

RESOURCES
31 of
132
a.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated.

The
existing
residence
on
the
project
site,
which
was
constructed
between
1953
and
1958,
was
evaluated
for
eligibility
for
listing
in
the
California
Register
of
Historic
Resources
(CRHR),
as
a
City
of
Poway
historic
resource
or
Historic
Landmark,
and
as
a
historic
resource
under
CEQA.

As
part
of
the
evaluation,
an
on-site
survey
of
the
home
and
property,
archival
research,
and
a
review
of
building
records
were
conducted
(ASM
Affiliates
2021
b).

The
evaluation
determined
that
the
single-family
residence
at
the
project
site
is
not
eligible
for
listing
under
the
CRHR
and
the
City
of
Poway
criteria;
therefore,
the
residence
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
a
historical
resource
under
CEQA.

However,
the
project
site
is
located
within
the
boundary
of
the
prehistoric
Village
of
Paguai
(CA-SDl-4606),
as
discussed
further
in
response
V.b
below.

This
site
is
presumed
eligible
for
inclusion
in
the
CRHR
and
would
require
mitigation
measures
CUL-1
through
CUL-5,
as
discussed
below,
to
reduce
potentially
significant
impacts
to
a
less-than-significant
level.
b.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated.

The
project
site
is
located
within
the
boundary
of
the
prehistoric
Village
of
Paguai
(CA-SDl-4606),
and
archaeological
resources
have
been
identified
on
the
project
site
in
the
past,
and
recently
during
the
archaeological
survey
conducted
for
the
project
(ASM
Affiliates
2021
a).

A
total
of
35 cultural
resources
have
been
recorded
within
1-mile
of
the
project
site,
with
one
resource
(CA-SDl-4606)
covering
the
entire
project
site.

CA-SDl-4606
has
been
previously
recommended
eligible
for
listing
in
the
CRHR,
which
indicates
that
it
has
yielded,
or
has
the
potential
to
yield,
information
important
to
the
prehistory
or
history
of
a
local
area,
California,
or
the
nation
(CRHR
Criterion
4).

During
the
pedestrian
field
survey
conducted
as
part
of
the
archaeology
survey,
135
artifacts
were
recorded
on
the
surface
of
the
project
site,
including
59 pieces
of
brownware
potsherds,
67 pieces
of
debitage,
two
granitic
hand
stone
fragments,
two
volcanic
cores,
one
possible
polishing
stone,
and
four
retouched
flakes.

Artifacts
were
scattered
on
the
surface
primarily
along
the
eastern
half
of
the
project
site;
however,
several
of
the
artifacts
were
observed
in
the
animal
burrow
tailings
suggesting
a
possible
buried
component
of
the
project
site.

Based
on
the
known
presence
of CA-SDl-4606
on
the
project
site,
and
the
identification
of
a
large
number
of
artifacts
on
the
project
site,
the
presence
of
an
intact
subsurface
deposit
is
possible
. This
site
is
presumed
eligible
for
listing
in
the
CRHR.

As
such,
a
CRHR-eligible
resource
is
present
on
the
project
site
and
implementation
of
the
project
would
result
in
potentially
significant
impacts
to
known
and
unknown
archaeological
resources.

The
implementation
of
mitigation
measures
CUL-1
through
CUL-4
would
reduce
these
impacts
to
a
less-than-significant
level.

CUL-1:

A
treatment
plan
for
the
archaeological
data recovery
program
and
construction
monitoring
shall
be
prepared
by
a
qualified
archaeologist
prior
to
issuance
of
a
grading
permit.

The
treatment
plan
shall
identify
the
project
site
and
take
into
consideration
the
vertical
and
horizontal
extent
of
proposed
grading
and
ground
disturbing
activities
within
the
project
site.

The
plan
shall
describe
how
archaeological
data
would
be
scientifically
and
systematically
collected
from
the
project
site,
and
how
this
data
would
be
used
to
address
research
issues.
22 July 19, 2022, Item #4
32 of
132
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
CUL-2:

Prior
to
excavation
and
ground
disturbing
activities,
a
data
recovery
program
shall
be
completed
by
a
qualified
archaeologist.

The
data
recovery
phase
shall
focus
on
recovering
archaeological
data
sufficient
to
mitigate
the
destruction
of
CA-SDl-4606 within
the
project
site.

The
amount
of
excavation
and
the
locations
of
the
excavation
shall
be
determined
through
a
Ground
Penetrating
Radar
study
as
well
as
surface
observations.

Standard
hand
excavated
archaeological
1-x-1-m
test
units
can
be
used
during
this
phase,
although
these
may
be
expanded
if
features
are
discovered
or
to
cover
a
larger
part
of
the
project
site.

The
units
shall
be
excavated
by
hand
using
arbitrary
10-cm
levels
unless
cultural
stratigraphy
is
identified.

Hand
tools
potentially
including
shovels,
picks,
trowels,
brushes,
and
probes,
shall
be
used
in
the
excavation.

All
soils
shall
be
passed
through
1/8-inch
mesh
screen
(or
smaller
if
column
samples
are
taken
and
processed),
using
a
water-screening
technique
. Following
completion
of
excavation
, all
cultural
materials
shall
be
washed,
cataloged,
and
analyzed.

Technical
analyses
shall
include
lithic
artifact
analysis,
shellfish
analysis,
chronometric
studies,
faunal
studies,
and
other
analyses
as
needed
to
describe
the
cultural
materials
and
address
the
research
issues.

A
data
recovery
report
shall
be
prepared
and
submitted
to
the
City
of
Poway
for
approval.

CUL-3:

At
the
completion
of
the
data
recovery
program,
an
updated
State
of
California
Department
of
Parks
and
Recreation
523
site
form
shall
be
prepared
and
submitted
to
the
South
Coastal
Information
Center
(SCIC).

The
form
shall
provide
revised
site
boundaries,
as
determined
by
the
archaeological
investigations,
and
shall
include
a
description
of
the
artifacts
and
deposits
found
at
the
site.

CUL-4:

At
the
completion
of
the
data
recovery
program,
an
archaeological
resources
monitoring
program
shall
be
implemented
during
excavation
and
ground
disturbing
activities
and
include
the
following:
1)
Prior
to
issuance
of
a
grading
permit,
the
applicant
shall
provide
written
verification
that
a
qualified
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.
2)
The
qualified
archaeologist
shall
attend
the
pre-construction
meeting
with
the
contractors
and
City
staff
to
explain
and
coordinate
the
requirements
of
the
monitoring
program
.
3)
The
qualified
archaeologist
shall
direct
the
field
monitor
during
grading
of
all
areas
identified
for
development.
4)
Native
American
monitoring
will
be
required
during
grading,
unless
the
certified
archaeologist
determines
that
the
potential
for
cultural
resources
has
been
exhausted.

The
Native
American
monitors
shall
be
invited
to
participate
in
the
monitoring
program
and
will
be
directed
by
the
project
archaeologist.
5)
During
the
original
cutting
of
previously
undisturbed
deposits,
the
archaeological
monitor
and
Native
American
representative
shall
be
on
site,
as
determined
by
the
qualified
archaeologist,
to
perform
inspections
of
the
excavations.

Full-
or
part-time
inspections
may
be
needed
depending
upon
the
rate
of
excavation,
the
materials
excavated,
and
the
presence
and
abundance
of
artifacts
and
features.
23 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
33 of
132
6)
Isolates
and
clearly
non-significant
deposits
will
be
minimally
documented
in
the
field
so
the
monitored
grading
can
proceed.
7)
In
the
event
that
previously
unidentified
cultural
resources
are
discovered,
the
archaeologist
shall
have
the
authority
to
divert
or
temporarily
halt
ground-disturbance
operation
in
the
area
of
discovery
to
allow
for
the
evaluation
of
potentially
significant
cultural
resources.

The
archaeologist
shall
contact
the
City
of
Poway
at
the
time
of
discovery.

The
archaeologist,
in
consultation
with
the
City
of
Poway,
shall
determine
the
significance
of
the
discovered
resources.

The
City
of
Poway
must
concur
with
the
evaluation
before
construction
activities
will
be
allowed
to
resume
in
the
affected
area.
8)
Before
construction
activities
are
allowed
to
resume
in
the
location
of
any
discovered
significant
cultural
deposits,
the
artifacts
shall
be
recovered
and
features
recorded
using
professional
archaeological
methods.

The
archaeological
monitor(s)
shall
determine
the
amount
of
material
to
be
recovered
for
an
adequate
artifact
sample
for
analysis.
9)
All
cultural
material
collected
during
the
grading
monitoring
program
shall
be
processed
and
curated
according
to
the
current
professional
repository
standards.

The
collections
and
associated
records
shall
be
transferred,
including
title,
to
an
appropriate
curation
facility,
to
be
accompanied
by
payment
of
the
fees
necessary
for
permanent
curation.
10)
A
report
documenting
the
field
and
analysis
results
and
interpreting
the
artifact
and
research
data
within
the
research
context
shall
be
completed
and
submitted
to
the
City
of
Poway
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
building
permits.
c.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated.

See
response
V.b.

Mitigation
measure
CUL-5
would
reduce
potentially
significant
impacts
associated
with
the
discovery
of
human
remains
to
a
less-than-significant
level.

CUL-5:

If
human
remains
are
discovered,
they
shall
be
treated
with
respect.

If
human
remains
are
found
during
any
ground
disturbance
associated
with
project
development
activities,
including
the
archaeological
data
recovery
programs,
the
archaeological
monitor
and
the
construction
contractor
shall
comply
with
PRC
5097.98.

Details
of
this
law
are
summarized
below
for
this
project: 1)
The
discovery
location
shall
be
protected
and
secured
from
further
disturbance.
2)
The
construction
contractor
shall
contact
the
San
Diego
County
Medical
Examiner
to
identify
any
possible
human
remains.
3)
If
the
remains
are
determined
by
the
Medical
Examiner
or
an
authorized
representative
to
be
Native
American,
the
Medical
Examiner
shall
contact
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC).
4)
The
NAHC
shall
contact
the
Most
Likely
Descendant
(MLD).
5)
The
Project
proponent
shall
provide
the
MLD
with
access
to
the
discovery
location,
which
shall
have
been
protected
from
damage.
24 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
6)
The
M
LO
shall
make
a
recommendation
for
treatment
of
the
remains
within
48 hours.

Possible
options
for
treatment
include:
a)
Preservation
in
place
and
avoidance.
b)
Removal
by
a
qualified archaeologist.

The
location
of
reinterment
shall
be
protected
by
one
of
the
three
following
measures:
a)
Record
the
location
with
the
NAHC
or
the
SCIC.
b)
Utilize
an
open
space
or
conservation
zoning
designation
or
easement.
c)
Record
a
document
with
San
Diego
County.
8)
If
multiple
human
remains
are
found,
extended
discussions
shall
be
held
with
the
MLD.

If
agreement
on
the
treatment
of
these
remains
is
not
reached,
they
shall
be
reinterred
in
compliance
with
PRC
5097.98(e).

VI.

ENERGY
34 of
132
a.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Project
construction
would
result
in
temporary
energy
demands
for
electricity,
vehicle
fuel,
and
equipment
fuel.

Electricity
use
during
construction
would
vary
during
different
phases
of
construction;
however,
the
majority
of
energy
usage
would
be
associated
with
the
consumption
of
fossil
fuels
as
a
result
of
on-road
vehicles
for
worker
commutes,
materials
delivery,
and
the
operation
of
construction
equipment
and
vehicles.

The
project's
operational
energy
usage
would
be
minimized
through
compliance
with
the
California
Building
Code
Standards
(i.e.,
California
Code
of
Regulations
[CCR]
Title
24)
and
California
Green
Building
Standards
Code,
as
applicable
to
the
project.

Therefore,
the
project
would
not
result
in
the
wasteful,
inefficient,
or
unnecessary
consumption
of
energy
resources.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

To
minimize
its
energy
demand,
the
project
would
comply
with
CCR
Title
24 and
California
Green
Building
Code
Standards,
as
described
above
in
response
VI.a.

Because
the
project
would
integrate
design
features
to
comply
with
the
applicable
regulations
pertaining
to
energy
efficiency,
the
project
would
not
conflict
with
or
obstruct
a
state
or
local
plan
for
renewable
energy
or
energy
efficiency,
including
the
California
Energy
Commission's
Integrated
Energy
Policy
Report.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
25 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
VII.

GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
35 of
132
a.i.

No
Impact.

The
project
site
is
not
located
within
a
currently
designated
Alquist
Priolo
Earthquake
Fault
Zone.

No
known
active
faults
are
mapped
within
the
project
site.

The
nearest
active
fault
is
the
San
Diego
Section
of
the
Newport-Inglewood
Rose
Canyon
fault
zone,
located
approximately

15.8 miles
to
the
southwest.

The
nearest
active strand
of
the
Elsinore
fault
zone
lies
approximately
25 miles
to
the
northeast
of
the
project
site.

Based
on
the
geotechnical
analysis
conducted
for
the
project (NOVA
2020),
due
to
the
lack
of
known
active
faults
on
the
site,
the
potential
for
surface
rupture
at
the
site
is
considered
to
be
very
low.

Shallow
ground
rupture
due
to
shaking
from
distant
seismic
events
is
not
considered
a
significant
hazard.

As
such,
no
impact
would
occur.
a.ii.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Like
most
of
Southern
California,
the
project
site
is
located
within
a
seismically
active
area,
and
there
is
potential
for
strong
ground
motion due
to
seismic
activity
at
the
project
site
during
the
design
life
of
the
proposed
structures.

Based
on
the
site-specific
geotechnical
evaluation
(NOVA
2020),
the
project
site
may
be
subjected
to
a
Magnitude
7 seismic
event.

The
project
would
be
designed
to
comply
with
local
and
state
standards
for
seismic
and
geologic
conditions.

Compliance
with
these
standards,
including
construction
consistent
with
the
California
Building
Code
would
ensure
impacts
associated
with
strong
seismic
ground
shaking
would
be
less
than
significant.
a.
iii.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Potential
ground
movement
associated
with
earthquakes
include
liquefaction,
dry
sand
settlement,
and
lateral
spreading.

Liquefaction
refers
to
the
loss
of
soil
strength
during
a
seismic
event
and
is
often
observed
in
areas
that
include
geologically
younger
soils,
shallow
water
table,
and
cohesion
less
soils
of
loose
consistency.

Based
on
an
analysis
of
soil
borings
from
the
project
site,
the
dense
weathered
tonalite
at
the
project
site
would
be
resistant
to
liquefaction.

Due
to
the
limited
potential
for
liquefaction,
the
potential
for
lateral
spreading
is
identified
as
very
low
at
the
project
site.

Additionally,
the
worst-case
settlement
is
estimated
at

0.5 inch
of
settlement
at
the
ground
surface,
with
a
more
typical
settlement
estimate
at
about

0.2 inch
at
the
ground
surface.

As
identified
in
the
project
geotechnical
report
(NOVA
2020),
the
analysis
of
liquefaction,
settlement,
and
lateral
spreading
at
the
project
site
indicates
these
hazards
are
not
a
constraint
to
the
development
of
the
project
site
with
single-family
residences.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
a.iv.

No
Impact.

The
project
site
and
immediately surrounding
area
consists
of
level
ground.

As
such,
the
potential
for
landslide
hazards
at
the
project
site
are
considered
negligible
(NOVA
2020).

No
impact
associated
with
landslides
would
occur.
b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
project
would
be
required
to
comply
with
all
erosion
control
regulations,
including
implementation
of
standard
erosion
control
measures
in
accordance
with
the
City
Municipal
Code.

As
such,
the
project
would
not
result
in
substantial
soil
erosion
or
the
loss
of
topsoil.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
c.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Refer
to
responses
VII.a.iii
and
VII.a.iv.

Liquefaction,
settlement,
lateral
spreading,
and
landslides
are
not
identified
as
significant
hazards
for
the
project
site.

Additionally,
the
project
would
not
result
in
instability
associated
with
embankments,
based
on
the
existing
flat
nature
of
the
site
and
adjacent
areas
(NOVA
2020).

Additionally,
soils
at
the
project
site
are
not
26 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
potentially
hydro-collapsible
(NOVA
2020).

Impacts
associated
with
geologic
units
or
soils
that
are
unstable
would
be
less
than
significant.
d.

No
Impact.

The
cohesionless
("sandy")
alluvial
soils
and
sandy
weathered
granitic
rock
at
the
project
site
are
not
expansive
(NOVA
2020).

As
such,
no
impact
associated
with
expansive
soils
would
occur.
e.

No
Impact.

The
project
does
not
propose
the
use
of
septic
tanks
or
other
alternative
wastewater
disposal
systems.

As
such,
no
impact
associated
with
soils
adequate
for
supporting
alternative
wastewater
systems
would
occur.
f.

No
Impact.

Geologic
units
encountered
on
site
consist
of
Quaternary-aged
young
alluvial
flood-plain
deposits
from
tributaries
of
Rattlesnake
Creek
and
Cretaceous
aged
weathered
tonalite
(NOVA
2020).

No
fossils
are
known
from
Quaternary
alluvial
deposits
and
their
relative
youthfulness
would
suggest
that
none
would
probably
be
found
(Demere
and
Walsh
1993).

These
alluvial
deposits
are
assigned
a
low
paleontological
sensitivity.

Granitic-type
rocks
of
the
southern
California
batholith,
such
as
tonalite,
are
not
known
to
have
yielded
fossils,
owning
to
the
fact
that
plutonic
rocks
are
formed
by
crystallization
of
magmas
several
miles
below
ground
surface
(Demere
and
Walsh
1993).

These
rocks
are
classified
as
zero
sensitivity
for
paleontological
resources.

Based
on
the
designated
sensitivity
of
geologic
units
at
the
site,
which
range
from
zero
sensitivity
to
low
sensitivity,
the
project
is
not
expected
to
result
in
impacts
to
paleontological
resources.

No
impact
would
occur.

VIII.

GREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS
36 of
132
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."
The
California
Air
Pollution
Control
Officers
Association
(CAPCOA)
prepared
a
white
paper
(the
CAPCOA
white
paper)
that
provided
guidance
on
when
a
project
would
generate
GHG
emissions
that
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
environment.

In
that
document,
CAPCOA
proposed
a
quantitative
threshold
of
900
metric
tons
{MT)
of
carbon
dioxide
equivalent
(CO2e)
emissions
as
a
threshold
below
which
no
significant
impacts
on
the
environment
would
be
anticipated.

According
to
the
CAPCOA
white
paper,
900
MT
CO2e
represents
the
emission
that
would
be
generated
by
50 single-family
residences
annually.

Since
the
project
is
a
residential
development
of
20 residences,
and
a
net
of
19 new
residences
after
the
demolition
of
the
existing
residential
structure,
project
GHG
impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

See
response
VIII.a
above.

Emissions
associated
with
the
project
would
be
reduced
to
a
level
that
is
consistent
with
the
goals
of
AB
32 to
reduce
statewide
GHG
emissions
through
the
implementation
of
mobile
source
regulations,
CCR
Title
24 energy
efficiency
requirements,
and
renewable
portfolio
standards
adopted
by
the
State
of
California.

As
such,
GHG
impacts
associated
with
the
project
would
be
less
than
significant
27 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
IX.

HAZARDS
AND

HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
a.

No
Impact.

The
project
would
result
in
the
construction
of
20 single-family
residences.

No
transport,
storage,
or
use
of
hazard
materials
beyond
that
which
typically
occurs
with
a
single-family
home
would
occur.

No
impact
would
occur.
b.

No
Impact.

See
response
IX.a
above.

No
impact
would
occur.
c.

No
Impact.

See
response
IX.a
above.

No
impact
would
occur.
d.

No
Impact.

Based
on
a
review
of
the
California
Department
of
Toxic
Substances
Control
(DTSC)
EnviroStor
database,
neither
the
project
site
nor
directly
adjacent
properties
are
included
on
a
list
of
hazardous
materials
sites
compiled
pursuant
to
Government
Code
section
65962.5
(DTSC
2022).

Items
observed
on
the
project
site
that
could
be
potential
sources
of
contamination
include:
two
5-gallon
containers
of
hydraulic
oil;
minor
amounts
of
pesticides,
paints,
cleaning
chemicals,
and
other
chemicals;
a
well
and
associated
equipment;
small
containers
of
unidentified
substances;
and
waste
materials
(Ninyo
&
Moore
2020).

A
review
of
historical
resources,
a
search
of
the
environmental databases,
and
records
request
from
various
agencies
did
not
yield
evidence
of
known
contamination
(Ninyo
&
Moore
2020).

The
former
use
of
the
project
site
for
agricultural
uses
was
identified
as
a
recognized
environmental
condition,
based
on
the
potential
for
organochlorine
pesticide
use
and
arsenic
to
be
present
in
shallow
soil
at
elevated
levels;
however,
soil
sampling
and
testing
revealed
that
organochlorine
pesticides
and
arsenic
were
not
present
at
the
project
site
above
their
respective
laboratory
reporting
limits
or
human
health/background
screening
levels
(Ninyo
&
Moore
2021
).

Therefore,
no
impact
would
occur.
e.

No
Impact.

The
airports
closest
to
the
project
site
are
Marine
Corps
Air
Station
Miramar,
located
approximately
8 miles
southwest
of
the
site,
and
Ramona Airport,
located
approximately

7.5 miles
northeast
of
the
project
site.

The
project
site
is
not
located
within
the
Air
Installations
Compatible
Use
Zones
for
Marine
Corps
Air
Station
Miramar
(Marine
Corps
Air
Station
Miramar
2020)
or
within
the
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan
area
for
the
Ramona
Airport
(San
Diego
County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
2011
).

Thus,
the
project
would
not
result
in
a
safety
hazard
or
excessive
noise
associated
with
airports.

No
impact
would
occur.
f.

No
Impact.

The
project
would
not
impact
or
physically
interfere
with
an
adopted
emergency
response
or
evacuation
plan.

Operation
of
the
project
would
not
interfere
with
people's
ability
to
utilize
roadways
for
evacuation
purposes.

Accordingly,
no
impact
would
occur.
g.

No
Impact.

According
to
the
Very
High
Fire
Hazard
Severity
Zones
(VHFHSZ)
map
for
Poway
(CAL
FIRE
2009),
while
the
project
is
adjacent
to
land
within
the

VHFHSZ,
the
project
site
is
not
located
within
the
VHFHSZ.

As
such,
no
impact
associated
with
the
significant
risk
or
loss,
injury,
or
death
involving
a
wildfire
would
occur.

HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER

QUALITY
37 of
132
a.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
project
would
comply
with
all
storm
water
quality
regulations
or
waste
discharge
requirements
for
surface
water
quality,
as
governed
by
the
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board
(SWRCB),
the
County
of
San
Diego,
and
the
City
of
Poway.

The
project
would
require
a
grading
permit
and
28 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would be ensured as part of the project improvements plan review and building permit process. The project would incorporate infiltration trenches and trees wells for storm water treatment and hydromodification management plan controls (SB&O 2021 a) and would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. No Impact. The project does not propose construction activities that would directly affect groundwater, contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies, or interfere with groundwater recharge. Infiltration trenches and tree wells would capture runoff produced on site and assist in the replenishment of groundwater resources. No impact would occur.
c.i.-iv. Less-than-Significant Impact. The project has been designed such that there is no increase in the amount of storm water runoff beyond that which currently exists at the site. The project would incorporate infiltration trenches and trees wells for storm water treatment and hydromodification management plan controls. The storm water management facilities are required to be maintained throughout the life of the project as outlined in Poway Municipal Code section 16.104. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. No Impact. The project site is designated as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2012). The project site is located approximately 13 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, and as such, would not be subject to inundation from a tsunami. The project site is over 2.25 miles southwest of Lake Poway and, therefore, not located near a body of water that could generate a seiche (NOVA 2020). The project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and no impact associated with the risk of pollutant release due to project inundation would occur. e. Less-than-Significant Impact. See responses X.a and X.b above. Impacts would be less than significant.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
38 of 132
a. No Impact. The project site is located within a developed area, with residential uses adjacent to the east and southwest. A church is located adjacent to the west of the project site, and school district buildings are located to the north, across Twin Peaks Road. The construction of single-family residences on the site would be consistent with existing zoning and the existing surrounding uses. The project would occur on an infill location and not result in physically division of an established community.

No impact would occur.
b. No Impact. The project site is zoned for and designated by the Poway General Plan for residential uses. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the site, with the exception of the minimum lot size and side yard setback reductions requested as concessions to accommodate an affordable housing unit. The project has been designed to be consistent with architectural design standards identified in the Old Poway Specific Plan. As such, the project would not result significant environmental effects due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. No impact would occur. 29 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
XII.

MINERAL

RESOURCES
a.

No
Impact.

According
to
the
Poway
General
Plan,
the
only
known
valuable
mineral
resource,
as
recognized
by
the
California
Department
of
Conservation,
Division
of
Mines
and
Geology,
is
construction-quality
sand
and
gravel
located
in
the
South
Poway
area
of
the
city,
which
is
more
than
3 miles
south
of
the
site.

No
impact
would
occur.
b.

No
Impact.

See
response
XII.a
above.

No
impact
would
occur.

XIII.

NOISE
39 of
132
a.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Noise
from
the
project
would
be
that
typical
of
residential
uses
in
the
neighborhood
and
would
not
result
in
impacts
to
adjacent
uses.

During
project
construction,
temporary
or
periodic
increase
in
noise
levels
would
occur.

Per
City
standards,
the
noise
generating
construction
activities
are
limited
to
certain
times
of
the
day
and
days
of
the
week.

Compliance
with
City
requirements
related
to
construction
activities
would
ensure
that
temporary
increases
in
noise
levels
associated
with
construction
would
remain
less
than
significant. In
regard
to
permanent
increases
in
noise
levels,
the
primary
source
of
noise
in
the
project
vicinity
is
vehicular
traffic
on
Twin
Peaks
Road.

Existing
ADT
occurring
on
area
roadways
include
21,475
ADT
on
Twin
Peaks
Road
between
Midland
Road
and
Budwin
Lane,
and
4,753
ADT
on
Midland
Road
between
Twin
Peaks
Road
and
Holly
Oak
Way
(Intersection
Metrics
2021
a).

As
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Section
XVII,
the
project
would
generate
200
ADT.

A 3
dB
change
in
noise
levels
is
the
minimum
level
required
for
a perceptible
change
in
noise
levels
for
the
general
population.

In
order
to
increase
ambient
road
noise
by
3 dB,
a
project
would
have
to
double
the
amount
of
traffic
on
a
road.

The
project
would
introduce
a
small
increase
in
traffic
trips
to
area
roadways
but
would
not
result
in
doubling
of
traffic
on
these
roadways.

As
such,
the
project
would
not
result
in
a
discernable
permanent
increase
in
traffic
noise
and
impacts associated
with
the
project's
contribution
to
traffic
noise
increases
would
be
less
than
significant.

Based
on
sound
level
measurements
taken
as
part
of
the
project
noise
analysis
(dBF
Associates
2021
),
sound
levels
at
the
northern
project
property
line
were
measured
at
approximately
68 A-weighted
decibels
equivalent
continuous
sound
pressure
(dBA
Leq).

Existing
worst-case
exterior
noise
levels
at
the
proposed
residential parcels
would
range
from
below
60 dBA
community
noise
equivalent
level
(CNEL)
at
lots
1 and
20 (at
the
southern
edge
of
the
project
site)
to
approximately
72 dBA
CNEL
at
the
northern
edge
of
the
project
site,
on
proposed
lots
10 and

11. The
project
includes
the
construction
of
a
continuous
6-foot-high
CMU
wall
along
the
northern
property
boundary.

This
wall
would
provide
an
approximately
9 dBA
noise
reduction
from
Twin
Peaks
Road
traffic
noise.

With
the
wall,
future
exterior
noise
levels
at
all
project
outdoor
use
areas
would
be
below
65 dBA
CNEL.

As
such,
permanent
noise
impacts
to
future
residents
of
the
project
would
be
less
than
significant.
b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Project
grading
and
construction
activities
may
result
in
temporary
generation
of
groundborne
vibration
associated with
the
operation
of
construction
equipment.

The
generation
of
groundborne
vibration
associated
with
the
operation
of
construction
equipment
would
be
temporary,
during
the
construction
period
and
would
occur
in
different
locations
on
the
site.
30 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
Adjacent
residential
uses
would
be
subject
to
temporary
impacts
associated
with
groundborne
vibration.

However,
the
project
would
be
required
to
adhere
to
City
requirements
that
limit
construction
activities
to
certain
times
of
the
day
and
days
of
the
week.

Compliance
with
the
City
requirements related
to
construction
activities
would
ensure
that
groundborne
vibration
impacts
are
less
than
significant.
c.

No
Impact.

The
airports
closest
to
the
project
site
are
Marine
Corps
Air
Station
Miramar,
located
approximately
8 miles
southwest
of
the
site,
and
Ramona Airport,
located
approximately

7.5 miles
northeast
of
the
project
site.

The
project
site
is
not
located
within
the
noise
contours
for
Marine
Corps
Air
Station
Miramar
(Marine
Corps
Air
Station
Miramar
2020)
or
the
Ramona
Airport
(San
Diego
County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
2011
).

Thus,
the
project
would
not
result
in
the
exposure
of
people
working
or
residing
in
the
area
to
excessive aircraft
noise
levels
. No
impact
would
occur.

XIV.

POPULATION
AND

HOUSING
a.

No
Impact.

The
project
is
located
on
an
existing
lot
zoned
for
development
of
single-family
residential
uses.

The
project
would
not
induce
growth
directly
as
it
would
be
located
within
a
developed
portion
of
the
city,
serviced
by
existing
infrastructure
within
the
project
vicinity
. The
project
would
not
induce
substantial
population
growth
in
the
area
as
it would
be
situated
on
an
infill
location
surrounded
by
existing
development.

No
impact
would
occur.
b.

No
Impact.

One
existing
residence
would
be
removed
from
the
project
site.

The
project
would
not
result
in
displacement
of
a
substantial
number
of
people
or
housing
units
and
would
not
necessitate
the
construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere.

No
impact
would
occur.

XV.

PUBLIC

SERVICES
40 of
132
a.

Fire
Protection
-
Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
project
site
is
served
by
the
City
of
Poway
Fire
Department.

Stations
1 and
3 are
both
located
approximately

1.6 miles
from
the
project
site.

The
incremental
increase
in
potential
for
an
unexpected
emergency
call
to
this
project
can
be
accounted
for
as
the
site
is
already
included
in
the
Fire
Department
service
area
. No
new
or
upgraded
fire
protection
facilities
would
be
required
as
a
result
of
this
project
and
no
physical
impacts
resulting
from
construction
of
new
facilities
are
identified
. Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.

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
site
is
included
within
the
Sheriff's
service
area.

Any
specific
service
provided
that
should
be
an
(unexpected)
emergency
call
to
the
site
is
accounted
for.

No
new
or
upgraded
police
protection
facilities
would
be
required
as
a
result
of
the
project
and
no
physical
impacts
resulting
from
the
construction
of
new
facilities
would
occur.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.

Schools
-
Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
project
would
result
in
the
construction
of
20 new
homes.

Children
from
the
homes
would
be
accommodated
in
existing
schools
located
in
close
proximity
to
the
project
site
. The
RS-4
zoning
designation
for
the
site
allows
for
4 dwelling
units
per
acre,
or
15 units
for
the

3.91-
31 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
net-acre
site.

The
increase
in
5 units
is
expected
to
have
a
minimal
impact
on
the
Poway
School
District.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.

Parks
-
Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
project
would
not
result
in
the
need
for
new
or
physically
altered
park
facilities.

The
RS-4
zoning
designation
for
the
site
allows
for
4 dwelling
units
per
acre,
or
15 units
for
the

3.91-net-acre
site.

The
increase
in
5 units
is
expected
to
have
a
minimal
impact
on
the
City's
park
facilities.

Project
residents
would
be
able
to
utilize
existing
parks
in
the
project
area
(Aubrey
Park,
Silverset
Park,
Old
Poway
Park,
and
Railroad,
among
others).

The
addition
of
project
residents
would
result
in
a
less-than-significant
impact
to
parks.

Other
Public
Facilities
-
No
Impact.

The
project
would
not
result
in
the
need
for
new
or
physically
altered
public
facilities.

No
impact
would
occur.

XVI.

RECREATION a.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
project
would
result
in
the
construction
of
20 new
single-family
residences.

The
residents
associated
with
these
new
homes
would
utilize
existing
recreational
amenities
already
existing
in
the
city
and
project
vicinity.

The
additional
demand
created
by
residents
of
20 single-family
homes
would
not
increase
the
use
of
existing
neighborhood
or
regional
parks
in
such
a
manner
that
would
result
in
substantial
physical
deterioration
of
these
facilities.

As
such,
impacts
to
existing
recreational
facilities
would
be
less
than
significant.
b.

No
Impact.

The
project
does
not
include
the
construction
of
recreational
facilities,
nor
would
it
require
the
construction
or
expansion
of
recreational
facilities.

No
impact
would
occur.

XVII.

TRANSPORTATION
41 of
132
a.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

A
Traffic
Operations
Assessment
(Intersecting
Metrics
2021
a)
was
prepared
for
the
project.

The
estimated
ADT
associated
with
the
20 new
homes
is
200
daily
trips,
with
16 trips
occurring
in
the
a.m.
peak
hour
and
20 trips
occurring
within
the
p.m.
peak
hour.

The
addition
of
project
traffic
to
local
roads
would
not
result
in
significant
impacts
to
roadway
segments
in
the
project
area,
as
these
roadways
are
operating
well
below
design
capacity.

The
City's
Transportation
Element
contains
a
policy
prohibiting
development
that
would
result
in
levels
of
service
exceeding
D
during
the
two
highest
peak
hours
at
an
intersection
unless
no
feasible
alternatives
exist.

Intersections
within
the
project
traffic
study
area
(i.e.,
Midland
Road/Twin
Peaks
Road
and
Budwin
Lane/Twin
Peaks
Road)
are
anticipated
to
operate
as
acceptable
levels
of
service
(D
or
better
under
the
"no
project"
and
"with
project"
scenarios).

The
project
would
include
the
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
to
provide
local
access
to
the
site.

This
road
extension
would
be
designed
consistent
with
City
requirements,
and
would
include
pedestrian
sidewalks,
street
trees,
and
decorative
Old
Poway
street
lights
consistent
with
the
existing
street
lights on
Holly
Oak
Way.

The
addition
of
20 single-family
residences,
as
proposed
by
the
project,
would
not
conflict
with
a
program,
plan,
ordinance,
or
policy
addressing
the
circulation
system.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
proposed
project
would
not
be
in
conflict
or
be
inconsistent
with
CEQA
Guidelines
section
15064.3,
subdivision
(b).

The
City
has
not
adopted
guidelines
for
conducting
either
screening
level
or
full
vehicle
miles
traveled
(VMT)
analysis
in
accordance
with
Senate
Bill
7 43.

Therefore,
the
San
Diego
Region
Guidelines
prepared
by
the
Institute
for
Traffic
Engineers
(ITE)
were
32 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
utilized
to
determine
if
the
project
has
the
potential
for
VMT
impacts
(ITE
2019).

Based
on
the
ITE
guidelines,
a
project
that
is
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
designation
and
generates
less
than
1,000
ADT
would
not
require
a
VMT
analysis.

As
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
designation
for
the
site,
and
would
generate
200
ADT,
a
VMT
analysis
is
not
required.

Therefore,
impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
c.

No
Impact.

The
project
would
include
the
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
onto
the
project
site
to
provide
site
access.

Access
from
Twin
Peaks
Road
was
considered,
but
access
at
that
location
would
not
be
feasible
due
to
sight
distance
limitations
and
would
not
meet
minimum
corner
or
stopping
sight
distance
requirements
due
to
the
horizontal
curves
in
the
roadway
to
the
west
of
the
project
site
(Intersecting
Metrics
2021
b).

The
approved
final
map
for
the
adjacent
Diroma
Estates
identifies
a
future
easement
that
accommodates
the
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way,
as
proposed
for
the
project.

The
Holly
Oak
Way
extension
streetscape
would
be
designed
and
constructed
consistent
with
City
requirements
and
would
include
new
pedestrian
sidewalks,
street
trees,
and
decorative
Old
Poway
street
lights
consistent
with
the
existing
street
lights
on
Holly
Oak
Way.

Taking
access
to
the
proposed
subdivision from
Holly
Oak
Way
would
ensure
the
project
would
not
result
in
impacts
associated
with
increased
hazards
due
to
a
geometric
design
feature
by
accessing
the
site
from
subdivision
from
Twin
Peaks
Road.

No
impact
would
occur.
d.

No
Impact.

The
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
would
be
constructed
consistent
with
City
and
Fire
Department
requirements,
including
those
associated
with
emergency
access.

The
cul-de-sac
would
be
constructed
in
such
a
manner
as
to
provide
the
required
turning
radius
for
emergency
vehicles.

The
construction
of
the
project,
consistent
with
City
and
Fire
Department
requirements
related
to
emergency
access
would
ensure
that
no
impact
would
occur.

XVIII.

TRIBAL

CULTURAL

RESOURCES
42 of
132
a.i.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated.

See
response
V.b.

The
project
site
is
located
within
the
boundary
of
the
prehistoric
Village
of
Paguai
(CA-SDl-4606),
which
is
presumed
eligible
for
CRHR.

The
project
would
be
required
to
implement
mitigation
measures
CUL-1
through
CUL-5
to
reduce
potentially
significant
impacts
to
this
resource
to
a
less-than-significant
level.
a.ii.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated.

See
responses
V.b
and
V.c.

The
project
would
be
required
to
implement
mitigation
measures
CUL-1
through
CUL-5
to
reduce
potentially
significant
impacts
to
on-site
cultural
resources
to
a
less-than-significant
level.

In
accordance
with
Public
Resources
Code
section
21080.3.1
(b),
City
staff
contacted
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
to
request
a
consultation
list
of
tribes
that
are
traditionally
and
culturally
affiliated
with
the
geographic
area
of
the
project.

The
NAHC provided
a
consultation
list
of
16 tribes.

On
April
19,
2022,
in
compliance
with
California
Public
Resources
Code
section
21080.3.1,
the
City
of
Poway,
as
Lead
Agency,
sent
a
letter
to
the Tribal
Representatives
for
those
tribes
requesting
notification
of
the
proposed
project.

The
Barona
Band
of
Mission
Indians
and
La
Pasta
Band
of
Mission
Indians
requested
a
Native
American
Monitor/Consultant
be
present
during
earth
moving
activities.

The
project
would
mitigate
for
potential
impacts
to
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
through
the
implementation
of
mitigation
measures
CUL-1
through
CUL-5.

Therefore,
less-than-significant
impacts
related
to
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
would
occur.
33 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
XIX.

UTILITIES
AND

SERVICE

SYSTEMS
a.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
project
site
is
within
an
area
served
by
the
public
water
and
wastewater
systems.

The
project
site
is
designated
for
residential
uses
and
is
consistent
with
the
General
Plan.

Public
utility
infrastructure
would
be
extended
onto
the
site
and
constructed
to
serve
the
proposed
20 single-family
residences.

Water,
wastewater,
storm
water,
electric
power,
natural
gas,
and
electrical
infrastructure
would
be
connected
to
existing
infrastructure
in
the
project
area.

The
provision
of
public
utilities
to
the
project
site
would
not
require
or
result
in
the
relocation
or
construction
of
new
or
expanded
infrastructure.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
resulting
increase
in
water
use
associated
with
the
development
of
20 single-family
residences
would
be
considered
insignificant.

The
project
would
be
served
by
the
City
of
Poway,
which
has
sufficient
water
supply
available
to
serve
anticipated
demands
in
the
City
(City
of
Poway
2021).

As
such,
impacts
associated
with
water
supply
would
be
less
than
significant.
c.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

The
proposed
20 single-family
residences
would
result
in
an
insignificant
increase
in
wastewater
generation.

The
project
would
be
served
by
a
new
connection
to
the City's
wastewater
system.

The
City
of
San
Diego's
North
City
Water
Reclamation
Facility
has
adequate
capacity
to
treat
the
incremental
wastewater
generated
by
the
project.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
d.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

Construction
of
the
project
would
result
in
the
generation
of
solid
waste
associated
with
construction
activities,
including
waste
associated
with
demolition
of
the
existing
residence.

The
project
would
be
required
to
dispose
of
such
materials
according
to
a
Construction
Waste
Management Plan.

The
20 new
single-family
residences
would
result
in
the
incremental
generation
of
solid
waste,
which
would
be
handled
by
the
City's
contracted
waste
hauler,
similar
to
other
residential
uses
nearby.

The
solid
waste
generated
by
the
project
is
not
anticipated
to
significantly
impact
the
life
expectancy
of
the
landfill
that
serves
the
city.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
e.

No
Impact.

The
project
would
be
required
to
comply
with
and
meet
all
applicable
federal,
state,
and
local
statutes
and
regulations
regarding
solid
waste
collection
and
disposal.

The
contracted
waste
hauler
would
separate
waste
so
that
recyclable
waste
is
separated
from
landfill
trash
in
accordance
with
the
City's
waste
reduction
and
recycling
program.

No
impact
would
occur.

XX.

WILDFIRE
43 of
132
a.

No
Impact.

See
response
IX.f.

The
project
would
not
impair
an
adopted
emergency
response
plan
or
emergency
evacuation
plan
and
no
impact
would
occur.
b.

No
Impact.

See
response
IX.g.

The
project
site
is
not
located
within
the
VHFHSZ.

As
such,
no
impact
associated
with
the
exposure
of
pollutant
concentrations
for
a
wildfire
or
the
uncontrolled
spread
of
wildfire
on
project
occupants
would
occur.
c.

No
Impact.

The
project
would
include
the
extension
of
the
Holly
Oak
Way
cul-de
sac
and
would
include
the
extension
of
utilities
onto
the
project
site.

However,
this
roadway
extension
and
the
installation
of
utilities
would
not
exacerbate
fire
risks.

No
impact
would
occur.
34 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
d.

No
Impact.

The
project
site
is
relatively
flat,
and
the
proposed
residences
would
be
placed
on
building
pads
that
would
be
graded
per
an
approved
grading
plan
that
includes
verification
of
soil
compaction
and
installation
of
on-site
storm
water
treatment
facilities
based
on
site-
and
project-specific
conditions.

Therefore,
the
proposed
project
would
not
result
in
impacts
related
to
downslope
or
downstream
flooding
or
landslides
as
a
result
of
runoff,
post-fire
slope
instability,
or
drainage
changes.

No
impact
would
occur.

XX.I.

MANDATORY

FINDING
OF

SIGNIFICANCE
44 of
132
a.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated.

See
responses
IV
and
V.

The
project
would
have
potentially
significant
impacts
to
migratory
and
nesting
birds
and
to
archaeological
resources.

Mitigation
measures
810-1
and
CUL-1
through
CUL-5
would
reduce
these
impacts
to
a
less-than-significant
level.
b.

No
Impact.

The
project,
considered
cumulatively
with
past
and
future
projects,
will
not
result
in
significant
impacts.

The
project,
as
well
as
past
projects
and
future
projects
have
or
will
comply
with
the
land
use
and
density
limitations
of
the
City's
General
Plan.

Infrastructure
and
services
per
the
General
Plan
are
in
place
or
are
planned
and
will
be
provided
to
accommodate
future
growth.
c.

Less-than-Significant
Impact.

See
responses
I, Ill,
VI,
VII,
VIII,
IX,
and
XIII
above.

The
project
would
not
have
any
environmental
effects
that
will
cause
substantial
adverse
effects
on
human
beings
either
directly
or indirectly,
impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.
35 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental Initial Study and Checklist
E. REFERENCES
Alden Environmental, Inc.
2021 Existing Biological Resources on the McKee Orchard Parcel. July 15.

ASM Affiliates
2021 a Cultural Resources Technical Report for McKee Orchard Affordable Housing Project, City of Poway, San Diego County, California. August 20. 2021 b Draft Historical Resource Evaluation Report for 13667 Twin Peaks Road, Poway, San Diego County, California. October.

California Department of Conservation
2022 California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed April 1, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 2009 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5966/poway.pdf.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control
2022 EnviroStor Mapping database. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.

California Department of Transportation
2022 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed April 1, 2022. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c c8e8057116f1 aacaa.

City of Poway
2021
1996
1988
City of Poway Final Urban Water Management Plan. June.

Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Old Poway Specific Plan (SP 88-01 ).
dBF Associates
2021 Noise Analysis, McKee Orchard. August 17.

Demere, Thomas and Walsh, Steven
1993 Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego, California.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
2012 Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C1117G. May 16.

Intersecting Metrics
2021 a McKee Orchard Traffic Operations Assessment. June 7. 2021 b McKee Orchard-Twin Peaks Road Driveway-Sight Distance Study. May 5. 45 of 132
36 July 19, 2022, Item #4
Environmental
Initial
Study
and
Checklist
Institute
for
Traffic
Engineers
(ITE)
2019
Guidelines
for
Transportation
Impact
Studies
in
the
San
Diego
Region.

May.

Marine
Corps
Air
Station
Miramar,
California
2020
Air
Installations
Compatible
Use
Zones
Study
2020
Update.

June.

Ninyo
&
Moore
2021
Limited
Phase
II
Environmental
Site
Assessment,
McKee
Orchards
Property,
13667
Twin
Peaks
Road,
Poway,
California.

February

16. 2020
Limited
Phase
II
Environmental
Site
Assessment,
McKee
Orchards
Property,
13667
Twin
Peaks
Road
, Poway,
California.

November

11. NOVA
2020
Geotechnical
Investigation,
McKee
Orchards
Residential
Development,
13667
Twin
Peaks
Road,
Poway,
California.

November

13. San
Diego
County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
2011
SB&O,
Inc.
2021a 2021b
46 of
132
Ramona
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan.

December.

Priority
Development
Project
-
Stormwater
Quality
Management
Plan,
McKee
Orchard,
TTM
21-003/DR
21-002.

October

21. Preliminary
Drainage
Report
for
McKee
Orchard.

May

9. 37
July 19, 2022, Item #4

EXHIBIT
3 MITIGATION

MONITORING

PROGRAM
FOR
TTM21-003/DR21-002
Section
21081.6
of
the
Public
Resources
Code
requires
that
public
agencies
"adopt
a
reporting
or
monitoring
program
for
the
changes
which
it
has
adopted
or
made
a
condition
of
project
approval
in
order
to
mitigate
or
avoid
significant
effects
on
the
environment.

The
reporting
or
monitoring
program
shall
be
designated
to
ensure
compliance
during
project
implementation."
This
mitigation
monitoring
program
has
been
prepared
in
accordance
with
Section
21081.6
of
the
Public
Resources
Code.

Non-compliance
with
any
of
these
conditions,
as
identified
by
City
staff
or
a
designated
monitor,
shall
result
in
issuance
of
a
cease
and
desist
order
for
all
construction
activities.

The
order
shall
remain
in
effect
until
compliance
is
assured.

Non-compliance
situations,
which
may
occur
subsequent
to
project
construction,
will
be
addressed
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
may
be
subject
to
penalties
according
to
the
City
of
Poway
Municipal
Code.

When
phasing
of
development
has
been
established,
it
may
be
necessary
for
this
Monitoring
Program
to
be
amended,
with
City
approval.

Topic
Biology
47 of
132
Mitigation
Measure
BIO-1a:

Removal
of
the
trees
on
site
shall
occur
outside
of
the
breeding
season
for
nesting
birds,
which
generally
runs
from
February
1 through
September
15 (as
early
as
January
1 for
some
raptors).

If
removal
of
the
pine
trees
must
occur
during
the
breeding
season,
a
qualified
biologist
shall
conduct
a
pre
construction
survey
to
determine
the
presence
or
absence
of
nesting
birds
or
raptors
protected
under
the
Migratory
Bird
Treaty
Act
and
California
Fish
and
Game
Code.

The
pre
construction
survey
shall
be
conducted
within
3 calendar
days
prior
to
the
start
of
construction
activities
(including
removal
of
vegetation)
and
shall
include
the
limits
of
disturbance
and
an
additional
100
feet
(300
feet
for
raptors)
from
the
area
of
disturbance.

The
applicant
shall
submit
the
results
of
the
pre
construction
survey
to
the
City
of
Poway for
review
and
approval
prior
to
initiating
any
construction
activities.

Timing
Prior
to
Tree
Removal Permit Approval
Responsibility Applicant
July 19, 2022, Item #4
48 of
132
prior
to
initiating
any
construction
activities.
1)
If
nesting
bird
behavior
and
active
nests
are
not
detected
during
the
pre-construction
survey,
no
further
mitigation
is
required. 2)
If
nesting
bird
behavior
is
detected,
a
mitigation
plan
in
conformance
with
applicable
state
and
federal
law
(e.g.,
appropriate
follow-up
surveys,
monitoring
schedules,
construction
noise
barriers,
and/or
buffers
[see
items
3 and
4 below])
shall
be
prepared
and
include
proposed
measures
to
be
implemented
to
ensure
that
take
of
birds
or
eggs,
or
disturbance
of
breeding
activities,
is
avoided.

The
mitigation
plan
shall
be
submitted
to
the
City
for
review
and
approval.

The
recommendations
contained
in
the
mitigation
plan
shall
be
implemented
prior
to
and
during
construction,
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
City.
3)
If an
active
nest
is
detected
during
the
pre-construction
survey
or
a
follow-up
survey,
a
buffer
shall
be
established
between
the
nest
and
construction
activities,
and
the
nest
shall
be
monitored
on
a
daily
basis
by
a
qualified
biologist
to
ensure
that
nesting
activities
are
not
interrupted.

The
buffer
shall
be
100
feet
for
common
avian
species,
300
feet
for
listed
or
highly
sensitive
species,
and
500 feet
for
raptors.

The
buffer
shall
be
delineated
with
temporary
fencing
and
shall
remain
in
place
as
long
as
construction
is
occurrinQ.

No
July 19, 2022, Item #4
49 of 132
vegetation clearing or
construction shall occur within
the fenced buffer until the young
have fledged, are no longer
being fed by the parents, and are
no longer being impacted by
construction as determined by a
qualified biologist. Reductions in
a nest buffer distance may be
appropriate depending on the
avian species involved, ambient
levels of human activity,
screening vegetation, or possibly
other factors as determined by a
qualified biologist.
4) While no specific noise
thresholds have been
established for nesting raptors or
other non-listed bird species,
construction activities that are
expected to generate noise
levels above the ambient noise
level at the edge of an
established nest buffer shall be
measured by an acoustician
technician. Active nests shall
also be monitored on a daily
basis by a qualified biologist to
determine if there is any adverse
effect on the breeding behavior
of the particular species from
elevated noise levels. If it is
determined that elevated noise is
having an adverse effect on the
breeding behavior of the nesting
bird species, then the noise
generating construction activity
shall be suspended in the vicinity
of the active nest buffer until
such time as the young have
fledged, are no longer being fed
by the parents, and are no longer
being impacted by the noise as
determined by a qualified
biologist.
810-1 b: Removal of the trees and
existing structures on site shall
occur outside of the roosting
Prior to Tree
Removal Permit
Approval and
Applicant
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Cultural
Resources
50 of 132
season for bats (approximately
March through September). If
removal must occur during the
roosting season, a qualified
biologist with expertise and
experience conducting bat
surveys shall be retained by the
applicant as a qualified bat
biologist.

A pre-construction survey shall be
conducted by the qualified bat
biologist no more than 30 days
prior to the removal of trees and
existing structures. The qualified
bat biologist shall survey all trees
or structures that provide suitable
bat roosting habitat. The applicant
shall submit the results of the pre
construction survey to the City of
Poway for review and approval
prior to initiating any construction
activities. If a maternity roost is
determined present, a 300-foot
buffer shall be placed around the
roost, and no work shall occur
within the buffer until after the
roosting season is over. Work
within the buffer may proceed after
the qualified bat biologist is able to
verify that the roost is no longer
active.

If no bat roosts are detected
during the pre-construction
survey, no further mitigation is
required.

CUL-1: A treatment plan for the
archaeological data recovery
program and construction
monitoring shall be prepared by
a qualified archaeologist prior to
issuance of a grading permit.

The treatment plan shall identify
the project site and take into
consideration the vertical and
horizontal extent of proposed
grading and ground disturbing
activities within the project site.

Building Permit
Issuance for
Demolition of
Structures
Prior to grading
permit issuance
Applicant
July 19, 2022, Item #4
The
plan
shall
describe
how
archaeological
data
would
be
scientifically
and
systematically
collected
from
the
project
site,
and
how
this
data
would
be
used
to
address
research
issues. CUL-2:

Prior
to
excavation
and
Prior
to
grading
Applicant
ground
disturbing
activities,
a
permit
issuance
data
recovery
program
shall
be
completed
by
a
qualified
archaeologist.

The
data
recovery
phase
shall
focus
on
recovering
archaeological
data
sufficient
to
mitigate
the
destruction
of
CA-SOI-4606
within
the
project
site.

The
amount
of
excavation
and
the
locations
of
the
excavation
shall
be
determined
through
a
Ground
Penetrating
Radar
study
as
well
as
surface
observations.

Standard
hand-
excavated
archaeological
1-x-1-
m test
units
can
be
used
during
this
phase,
although
these
may
be
expanded
if features
are
discovered
or
to
cover
a
larger
part
of
the
project
site.

The
units
shall
be
excavated
by
hand
using
arbitrary
10-cm
levels
unless
cultural
stratigraphy
is
identified.

Hand
tools
potentially
including
shovels,
picks,
trowels,
brushes,
and
probes,
shall
be
used
in
the
excavation.

All
soils
shall
be
passed
through
1 /8-inch
mesh
screen
( or
smaller
if column
samples
are
taken
and
processed),
using
a
water-screening
technique.

Following
completion
of
excavation,
all
cultural
materials
shall
be
washed,
cataloged,
and
analyzed.

Technical
analyses
shall
include
lithic
artifact
analysis,
shellfish
analysis,
chronometric
studies,
faunal
studies,
and
other
analyses
as
51 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
needed to describe the cultural
materials and address the
research issues. A data
recovery report shall be
prepared and submitted to the
City of Poway for approval.

CUL-3: At the completion of the At Completion Applicant data recovery program, an of Data
updated State of California Recovery
Department of Parks and Program
Recreation 523 site form shall
be prepared and submitted to
the South Coastal Information
Center (SCIC). The form shall
provide revised site boundaries,
as determined by the
archaeological investigations,
and shall include a description
of the artifacts and deposits
found at the site.

CUL-4: At the completion of the
data recovery program, an
archaeological resources
monitoring program shall be
implemented during excavation
and ground disturbing activities
and include the following:
1) Prior to issuance of a grading Prior to Applicant
permit, the applicant shall Issuance of
provide written verification that Grading Permit
a qualified 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.
2) The qualified archaeologist Prior to Applicant
shall attend the pre-Issuance of
construction meeting with the Grading Permit
contractors and City staff to
explain and coordinate the
requirements of the monitoring
program.
52 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
3)
The
qualified
archaeologist
During
Grading
Applicant
shall
direct
the
field
monitor
during
grading
of
all
areas
identified
for
development.
4)
Native
American
monitoring
During
Grading
Applicant
will
be
required
during
grading,
unless
the
certified
archaeologist
determines that
the
potential
for
cultural
resources
has
been
exhausted.

The
Native
American
monitors
shall
be
invited
to
participate
in
the
monitoring
program
and
will
be
directed
by
the
project
archaeologist.
5)
During
the
original
cutting
of
During
Grading
Applicant
previously
undisturbed
deposits,
the
archaeological
monitor
and
Native
American
representative
shall
be
on
site,
as
determined
by
the
qualified
archaeologist,
to
perform
inspections
of
the
excavations.

Full-
or
part-time
inspections
may
be
needed
depending
upon
the
rate
of
excavation,
the
materials
excavated,
and
the
presence
and
abundance
of
artifacts
and
features.
6)
Isolates
and
clearly
non-
At
Instances
of
Applicant
significant
deposits
will
be
Discovery
of
minimally
documented
in
the
Cultural
field
so
the
monitored
grading
Resources
can
proceed.

During
Grading
7)
In
the
event
that
previously
At
Instances
of
Applicant
unidentified
cultural
resources
Discovery
of
are
discovered,
the
Cultural
archaeologist
shall
have
the
Resources
authority
to
divert
or
During
Grading
temporarily
halt
ground-
disturbance
operation
in
the
area
of
discovery
to
allow
for
the
evaluation
of
potentially
significant
cultural
resources.

The
archaeologist
shall
53 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
contact the City of Poway at
the time of discovery. The
archaeologist, in consultation
with the City of Poway, shall
determine the significance of
the discovered resources. The
City of Poway must concur
with the evaluation before
construction activities will be
allowed to resume in the
affected area.
8) Before construction activities At Instances of Applicant are allowed to resume in the Discovery of
location of any discovered Cultural
significant cultural deposits, Resources
the artifacts shall be recovered During Grading
and features recorded using
professional archaeological
methods. The archaeological
monitor(s) shall determine the
amount of material to be
recovered for an adequate
artifact sample for analysis.
9) All cultural material collected After Discovery Applicant during the grading monitoring of Cultural
program shall be processed Resources
and curated according to the
current professional repository
standards. The collections and
associated records shall be
transferred, including title, to
an appropriate curation facility,
to be accompanied by
payment of the fees necessary
for permanent curation.
10) A report documenting the field Prior to Applicant
and analysis results and Issuance of
interpreting the artifact and Building Permits
research data within the
research context shall be
completed and submitted to
the City of Poway prior to the
issuance of any building
permits.
54 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
CUL-5: If human remains are In the event Applicant
discovered, they shall be human remains
treated with respect. If human are discovered.
remains are found during any
ground disturbance associated
with project development
activities, including the
archaeological data recovery
programs, the archaeological
monitor and the construction
contractor shall comply with
PRC 5097.98. Details of this
law are summarized below for
this project:
1) The discovery location shall
be protected and secured
from further disturbance.
2) The construction contractor
shall contact the San Diego
County Medical Examiner to
identify any possible human
remains.
3) If the remains are determined
by the Medical Examiner or
an authorized representative
to be Native American, the
Medical Examiner shall
contact the Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC).
4) The NAHC shall contact the
Most Likely Descendant
(MLD).
5) The Project proponent shall
provide the M LO with access
to the discovery location,
which shall have been
protected from damage.
6)The MLD shall make a
recommendation for treatment
of the remains within 48
hours. Possible options for
treatment include:
55 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
a)
Preservation
in
place
and
avoidance. b)
Removal
by
a
qualified
archaeologist.

Analysis
by
an
osteologist
or
physical
anthropologist
may
or
may
not
be
possible
.
c)
Repatriation
of
the
remains
to
the
MLD
following
the
Native
American
Graves
Protection
and
Repatriation
Act
(NAGPRA)
process.
d)
Reburial
of
the
remains
on
the
property
.
6)
If
the
M
LD
does
not
make
a
recommendation
within
48 hours,
or
if the
recommendations
are
not
acceptable
to
the
project
proponent
following
extended
discussions
and
mediation,
the
project
proponent
shall
reinter
the
remains
and
burial
items
with
appropriate
dignity
on
the
property,
in
a
location
not
subject
to
further
subsurface
disturbance
. The
location
of
reinterment
shall
be
protected
by
one
of
the
three
following
measures:
a)
Record
the
location
with
the
NAHC
or
the
SCIC.
b)
Utilize
an
open
space
or
conservation
zoning
designation
or
easement.
c)
Record
a
document
with
San
Diego
County
.
8)
If
multiple
human
remains
are
found
, extended
discussions
shall
be
held
with
the
M
LD.

If
agreement
on
the
treatment
of
these
remains
is
not
reached,
they
shall
be
reinterred
in
compliance
with
PRC
5097.98(e).
56 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
DocuSign
Envelope
ID
: 9728AA69-3C
1 E-4045-9BE9-EDD518B82DD4

EXHIBIT
4 State
of
California
-
Natural
Resources
Agency

DEPARTMENT
OF
FISH
AND

WILDLIFE
South
Coast
Region
GA
VIN
NEWSOM.

Governor
3883
Ruffin
Road
San
Diego,
CA
92123
(858)
467-4201
www
.wildlife.ca.gov
June
15,
2022
Austin
Silva
Senior
Planner
City
of
Poway
·
13325
Civic
Center
Drive
Poway,
CA
92064
[email protected] Subject:

McKee
Orchard
(Project),
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
(MND),
SCH
#2022050573
Dear
Mr.

Silva:

Letter
A
The
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(CDFW)
has
reviewed
the
above-referenced
MND,
dated
May
26,
2022,
for
the
Project pursuant
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
CEQA
Guidelines.
1 Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
and
recommendations
regarding
those
activities
involved
in
the
Project
that
may
affect
California
fish
and
wildlife.

Likewise,
we
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
regarding
those
aspects
of
the
Project
that
CDFW,
by
law,
may
be
required
to
carry
out
or
approve
through
the
exercise
of
its
own
regulatory
authority
under
the
Fish
and
Game
Code.

CDFW's
Role
CDFW
is
California's
Trustee
Agency
for
fish
and
wildlife
resources
and
holds
those
resources
in
trust
by
statute
for
all
the
people
of
the
State
[Fish
&
G.

Code,§§
711.7,
subdivision
(a)
&
1802;
Pub.

Resources
Code,
§
21070
; California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
Guidelines,
§
15386,
subdivision
(a)].

CDFW,
in
its
trustee
capacity,
has
jurisdiction
over
the
conservation,
protection,
and
management
of
fish,
wildlife,
native
plants,
and
habitat
necessary
for
biologically
sustainable
populations
of
those
species
(Id.,
§
1802).

Similarly,
for
purposes
of
CEQA,
CDFW
is
charged
by
law
to
provide,
as
available,
biological
expertise
during
public
agency
environmental
review
efforts,
focusing
specifically
on
projects
and
related
activities
that have
the
A1
potential to
adversely
affect
state
fish
and
wildlife
resources.

A2
CDFW
is
also
submitting
comments
as
a
Responsible
Agency
under
CEQA.
(Pub.

Resources
Code,§
21069;
CEQA
Guidelines,§
15381.)
CDFW
may
need
to
exercise
regulatory
authority
as
provided
by
the
Fish
and
Game
Code,
including
lake
and
streambed
alteration
regulatory
authority
(Fish
&
G.

Code,
§
1600
et
seq.).

CDFW
also
administers
the
Natural
Community
Conservation
Planning
(NCCP)
program
(Fish
&
G.

Code,
§
2800
et
seq.

The
City
of
Poway
(City)
participates
in
the
NCCP
program
by
implementing
its
approved
Poway
Subarea
Habitat
1 CEQA
is
codified
in
the
California
Public
Resources
Code
in
section
21000
et
seq.

The
"CEQA
Guidelines"
are
found
in
Title
14 of
the
California
Code
of
Regulations,
commencing
with
section
1500.

Conserving
Ca{ifornia's
Wi{d{ife
Since
1870
57 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
DocuSign
Envelope
ID:
9728AA69-3C1
E-4045-9BE9-EDD518B82DD4
Austin
Silva
City
of
Poway
June
15,
2022
Page
2 of
6 Conservation
Plan
(HCP)
and
NCCP.

The
MND
for
the
proposed
Project
must
ensure
that
all
requirements
and
conditions
of
the

HCP/NCCP
are
met.

PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

SUMMARY
The
Project
proposes
to
develop
a

4. 77-acre
parcel
with
a
20-lot
single-family
residential
subdivision
as
well
as
an
extension
of
an
existing
cul-de-sac
of
Holly
Oak.

The
Project
would
include
the
demolition
of
an
existing
single-family
residence,
removal
of
44 mature
trees
present
onsite,
mass
grading,
and
the
construction
of
20 one
and
two-story
residences.

Construction
would
occur
in
four
phases
of
approximately
five
homes
each
over
a
period
of
several
years.

Surrounding
land
uses
include
institutional
uses
and
single-family
residential
uses.

To
the
south
of
the
property
is
Rattlesnake
Creek
and
to
the
north
of
the
Property
is
Twin
Peaks
Road.

Per
Alden
Environmental
Existing
Biological
Resources
on
the
McKee
Orchard
Parcel
(Alden
Environmental
2021
),
the
Project
site
has
been
historically
disturbed
by
development
and
prior
agricultural
activities.

The
trees
that
are
onsite
include
oak,
pine,
toyon,
date
palm,
American
beech,
and
pepper
tree.

No
special-status
species
of
plants
or
animals
were
observed
during
a
biological
survey.

No
active
bird
nests
were
observed
on
the
Project
site
during
the
general
biological
survey
or
during
the focused
nesting
survey
conducted
for
the
Project.

However,
three
inactive
raptor
nests
were
observed
in
the
pine
trees
during
the
surveys.

Project
location:

The
proposed
Project
is
located
at
13667
Twin
Peaks
Road
in
Poway,
California. COMMENTS
AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW
offers
the
following
comments
and
recommendations
to
assist
the
City
in
adequately
identifying
and/or
mitigating
the
Project's
significant,
or
potentially
significant,
direct,
and
indirect
impacts
on
fish
and
wildlife
(biological)
resources.

COMMENT
#1:

Bats
Per
the
Initial
Study
(IS),
page
20,
the
proposed
Project
includes
the
removal
of
44 mature
trees
that
are
located
onsite.

Bats
will
use
native
and
non-native
mature trees
for
day
and
night
roosts
as
well
as
maternity
roosts.

According
to
the
California Natural
Diversity
Database
(CNDDB),
three
species
of
bats
have
been
observed
on
and
near
the
Project
site,
pocketed
free-tailed
bat
(Nyctinomops
femorosaccus;
California
Species
of
Special
Concern
(SSC)),
Mexican
long
tongued
bat
( Choeronycteris
mexicana;
SSC),
and
western
yellow
bat
(Lasiurus
xanthinus;
SSC). Bats
could
be
negatively impacted
by
both
construction
activities
and
post-construction
design.

During
the
bat
maternity
season,
bats
are
known
to
form
colonial
maternity
roosts
where
multiple
pregnant
females
give
birth
to
flightless
pups
and
rear
the
young.

If
there
were
a
maternity
roost
present
in
the
trees,
impacts
to
that
roost
site
would
be
significant.

Clearing
of
vegetation
occupied
by
bats
would
result
in
direct
take
of
the
species.

Modifications
to
roost
sites
can
have
significant
impacts
on
bat
usability
of
a
roost
and
can
impact bat
fitness
and
survivability
(Johnston
et
al.
2004
).

Extra
noise
and
vibration
can
lead
to
the
disturbance
of
roosting
bats
which
may
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
animals.

Human
disturbance
can
also
lead
to
a
change
in
humidity,
temperatures,
or
the
approach
to
a
roost
that
could
force
the
58 of
132
J
A2 cont. A3 A4 AS
July 19, 2022, Item #4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9728AA69-3C1 E-4045-9BE9-EDD518B82DD4 Austin Silva
City of Poway
June 15, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

animals to change their mode of egress and/or ingress to a roost. Although temporary, such disturbance can lead to the abandonment of a maternity roost (Johnston et al. 2004).

Bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or harassment (Fish & G. Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1 ). Bats with a California SSC status meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines § 15065). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines § 15065).

Mitigation Measure #1: BI0-1 Pre-Construction Bat Acoustic Survey Because various bat species have the potential to occur within the Project area, CDFW recommends that the Project proponent conduct two sets of bat surveys prior to the initiation of the Project. The first survey should occur during the bat roosting season within all suitable habitat to determine presence/absence of bat species and analyze the potential significance of tree removal. The second (pre-construction) survey should be conducted no less than 30 days prior to tree removal, to ensure no bats are roosting (e.g., day, night, maternity roosts) within the trees at the time of removal.

CDFW recommends the following added language to the Biological Resources, BIO-1 mitigation section of the IS, to adequately survey and avoid Project impacts to bat species that may occur within the Project corridor:
"A qualified biologist with expertise and experience conducting bat surveys, shall be retained by the City as a Designated Bat Biologist. The Designated Bat Biologist conduct a bat survey within the Project area (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows) to identify potential habitat that could provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites. and any maternity roosts. especially within trees within the Project area. The survey shall occur during the roosting season (approximately March-September). using acoustic technology and emergence counts to maximize detection of bats on-site. Night roosts are typically utilized from the approach of sunset until sunrise.

Maternity colonies. composed of adult females and their young. typically occur from spring through fall. No more than 30 days prior to vegetation removal. the Designated Bat Biologist will conduct a pre-construction bat survey within all trees or structures that provide suitable bat roosting habitat. If a maternity roost is determined present within a tree to be removed, a 300- foot no work buffer shall be placed around the roost and no work shall occur within the buffer until after the roosting season is over. Work may proceed after a qualified biologist is able to verify that the roost is no longer active".

Comment #2: Nesting Raptors
Per the IS, page 19, no active bird nests were observed on the project site during the general biological survey on March 3, 2021, or during the focused nesting survey conducted on June 23, 2021. However, there were three inactive raptor nests observed in the pine trees on the Project site during the surveys (Alden Environmental 2021 ). There is the potential for raptors and other bird species to utilize these trees for breeding in the future. Nesting birds are protected per Fish and Game Code section 3503; therefore, to avoid impacts to sensitive species, these measures as written should establish clear bird breeding survey protocols and nest buffers for other nesting birds that may be impacted by Project activities. 59 of 132
AS
cont.

A6
A7
July 19, 2022, Item #4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9728M69-3C1 E-4045-9BE9-EDD518882DD4 Austin Silva
City of Poway
June 15, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

Mitigation Measure #2: Amendments to Raptor Breeding Season Timing and Buffers To reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW recommends that Project activities occur outside of the avian breeding season to adequately avoid impacts to all nesting that may occur within or adjacent to the Project area.

CDFW recommends changing the B10-1 nesting bird mitigation measure to the final MND that states;
810-1: Removal of the trees on site shall occur outside of the breeding season for nesting birds (February 1 to September 15), which generally runs from February 1 through September 15 (as early as January 1 for some raptors). If removal of the pine trees must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds or raptors protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 3 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation) and shall include the limits of disturbance and an additional 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) from the area of disturbance.

The applicant shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to the City of Poway for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities.

If an active nest is identified, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. For the given Project site, CDFW generally recommends a 100-foot buffer from common avian species, 300 feet for listed or highly sensitive, and 500 feet for raptors. The buffer should be delineated by temporary fencing and remain in effect as long as construction is occurring. No Project construction shall occur within the fenced nest zone until the young have fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents, have left the nest, and will no longer be impacted by the project. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors.

Comment #3: Planting Native Trees
The IS states the removal of trees exceeding 8 inched in diameter at breast heigh (DBH) would require replacement at a ratio of two 48-inch box tree specimen tress per one tree removed.

Other trees would be replaced at a one-to-one ratio consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code. These replacement trees would be planted throughout the Project site as street trees or private trees within front or rear yards. The IS does not state what type of trees will be planted as mitigation. CDFW recommends planting native trees throughout the Project site. 60 of 132
A7
cont.

AB
July 19, 2022, Item #4
DocuSign
Envelope
ID:
9728AA69-3C1
E-4045-9BE9-EDD518882OO4
Austin
Silva
City
of
Poway
June
15,
2022
Page
5 of
6 ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA
CEQA
requires
that
information
developed
in
environmental
impact
reports
and negative
declarations
be
incorporated
into
a
data
base
which
may
be
used
to
make
subsequent
or
supplemental
environmental
determinations.
(Pub.

Resources
Code,
§
21003,
subd.
(e).)
Accordingly,
please
report
any
special
status
species
and
natural
communities
detected
during
Project
surveys to
the
California
Natural
Diversity
Database
(CNDDB).

The
CNNDB
field
survey
form
can
be
found
at
the
following
link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data
. The
completed
form
can
be
mailed
electronically
to
CNDDB
at
the
following
email
address:

[email protected]
. The
types
of
information
reported
to
CNDDB
can
be
found
at
the
following
link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CN
D
DB/Plants-and-Animals
.

FILING
FEES
The
Project,
as
proposed,
would
have
an impact
on
fish
and/or
wildlife,
and
assessment
of
filing
fees
is
necessary.

Fees
are
payable
upon
filing
of
the
Notice
of
Determination
by
the
Lead
Agency
and
serve
to
help
defray
the
cost
of
environmental
review
by
CDFW.

Payment
of
the
fee
is
required
in
order
for
the
underlying
Project
approval
to
be
operative,
vested,
and
final.
(Cal.

Code
Regs,
tit.
14,
§
753.5;
Fish
&
G.

Code,
§
711.4;
Pub.

Resources
Code,
§
21089.)

CONCLUSION CDFW
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
MND
to
assist
the
City
in
identifying
and
mitigating
Project
impacts
on
biological
resources.

Questions
regarding
this
letter
or
further
coordination
should
be
directed
to
Emily
Gray,
Environmental
Scientist,
at
[email protected]
.

Sincerely, ln
DocuSigned
by
:

LE~!52~~
David
A.

Mayer
Environmental
Program
Manager
South
Coast
Region
ec:

CDFW
David
Mayer,
San
Diego
-
[email protected]
Karen
Drewe,
San
Diego
-
[email protected]
Emily
Gray,
San
Diego
-
[email protected]
Cindy
Hailey,
San
Diego
-
[email protected]
State
Clearinghouse,
Office
of
Planning
and
Research
-
[email protected]
Jonathan
Snyder,
USFWS
-
Jonathan
D
[email protected]
61 of
132
A9 A10 A11
July 19, 2022, Item #4
DocuSign
Envelope
ID:
9728M69-3C1
E-4045-9BE9-EDD518B82OD4
Austin
Silva
City
of
Poway
June
15,
2022
Page
6 of
6 REFERENCES Alden
Environmental,
Inc.
2021.

Existing
Biological
Resources
on
the
McKee
Orchard
Parcel.

July

15. California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
2022.

California
Natural
Diversity
Database
(CNDDB).

Available
from:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
.

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
2021.

CNDDB
-
Plants
and
Animals.

Available
from:
https://wildlife.ca
.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals
.

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
2022.

Special
Animal
List.

January
2022.

Available
from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=109406&inline.

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
2022.

State
and
Federally
Listed
Endangered
and
Threatened
Animals
of
California.

January
2022.

Available
from:
https://nrm
.dfg.ca
.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=109405&inline
.

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
2022.

State
and
Federally
Listed
Endangered,
Threatened,
and
Rare
Plants
of
California.

January
2022.

Available
from:
https://nrm
.dfg
. ca
.gov/File
Handler.
ashx?Docu
mentl
D=
109390&inline.

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
2021.

Submitting
Data
to
the
CNDDB.

Available
from:
https
://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data
.

California
Office
of
Planning
and
Research
(COPR).
2009
or
current
version.

CEQA:

California
Environmental
Quality
Act.

Statutes
and
Guidelines,
§
21081.6
and
CEQA
Guidelines,
§15097,
§15126.4(2).

Johnston
D.,
Tatarian
G.,
and
Pierson
E.
2004.

California
Bat
Mitigation
Techniques,
Solutions
and
Effectiveness.

Available
from:
http://www.wildliferesearchassoc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017 /OS/California
Bat
Mitiqat
ionCalTrans
2004-1.pdf
.
62 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
June
11,
2022
TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dear
Mr.

Manis,
Mr.

Bob
Manis,
Director
Development
Services,
City
of
Poway
Quoc
Vuong,
Property
Owner,
13620 Holly
Oak
Way,
Poway,
CA
92064

REQUEST
FOR

RECONSIDERATION
FROM
USING
HOLLY
OAK
WAY
AS
ACCESS
STREET.

PROJECT
NAME:

PROJECT#:

Mc
KEE

ORCHARD
TTM21-003/DR21-002
Letter
8 Oak
Way
in
the
city
of
Poway
and
I have
resided
at
this
location
since
2004.

I am
responding
to
your
Notice
Of
Public
81 My
name
is
Quoc
M.

Vuong,
my
house,
Lot
1 ofDiroma
Estate,
is
at
the
North-East
comer
of
Midland
Road
& Holly
]
Review
Period
For
A
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
(the
'Notice')
to
respectfully
request
your
office
to
reconsider
using
Holly
Oak
Way
as
an
access
street
for
the
proposed
Mc
Kee
Orchard
(the
'Project')
for
the
following
reasons:

Part
IV

BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Pages
18 &
19,
Part
IV,
a,
BI0-1
On
page
18 of
the
Notice,
city
staff
stated:
"IV.

BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
a.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated. The
project
site
has
been
historically
disturbed
by
development
and
prior
agricultural
activities.

No
special
status
plants
or
animals
were
observed
at
the
project
site
during
a biological
survey,
and
none
are
expected
based
on
the
disturbed
nature
of
the
project
site
(Alden
Environmental
2021).

No
active
bird
nests
were
observed
on
the
project
site
during
the
general
biological
survey
or
during
the
focused
nesting
survey
conducted
for
the
project.

Three
inactive
raptor
nests
were
observed
in
the
pine
trees
on
site
during
the
surveys
(my
emphasis).

Raptors
and
potentially
other
bird
species
would
likely
utilize
these
nests
for
breeding
in
the
future.

Thus,
the
project
would
result
in
potentially
significant
impacts
to
migratory
or
nesting
birds,
and
mitigation
is
required.

Implementation
of
mitigation
measure
BIO-I
would
reduce
potentially
significant
impacts
to
migratory
or
nesting
birds
to
a less-than-significant
level."
My
house
is
under
renovation
and
some
of
the
workers
told
me
recently
that
a hawk
just
flew
out
of
the
pine
trees,
and
swooped
low
by
my
backyard
to
grab
a pigeon
nesting
under
my
roof
porch.

This
fact
shows
that
migratory
birds
and
raptors
continue
to
use
the
old-growth
pine
trees
as
nesting
or
hunting
sites
and
that
some,
if
not
all,
of
the
pine
trees,
should
be
preserved.

Frequently
in
the
afternoon,
I have
been
able
to
observe
those
hawks
soaring
high
above
the
pine
trees
looking
for
their
next
meals.

It
will
be
a sad
thing
to
remove
all
of
the
old-growth
pine
trees.

On
page
19 of
the
Notice
city
Staff
stated:
"BIO-
I:

Removal
of
the
trees
on
site
shall
occur
outside
of
the
breeding
season
for
nesting
birds
(February
1 to
September
15).

If
removal
of
the
pine
trees
must
occur
during
the
breeding
season,
a
qualified
biologist
shall
conduct
a pre-construction
survey
to
determine
the
presence
or
absence
of
nesting
birds
or
raptors
protected
under
the
Migratory
Bird
Treaty
Act
and
California
Fish
and
Game
Code.

The
pre-construction
survey
shall
be
conducted
within
3 calendar
days
prior
to
the
start
of
construction
activities
(including
removal
of
vegetation)
and
shall
include
the
limits
of
disturbance
and
an
additional
100
feet
(300
feet
for
raptors)
from
the
area
of
disturbance.

The
applicant
shall
submit
the
results
of
the
pre-construction
survey
to
the
City
of
Poway
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
initiating
any
construction
activities
(my
emphasis)."
63 of
132
82 83
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Aren't we talking about the 'fox guarding the hen house?' If city staff allows the Project developer to conduct the pre-construction survey by a 'qualified biologist' of their choice, reasonably minded persons will surely conclude that the result of the survey would tend to favor the Project developer.

If this pre-construction survey is needed, then it should be conducted by city staff (a) not three (3) days before construction but at least a nesting season before construction and (b) with all expenses incurred to be borne by the Project Developer.

And city staff went on to state:
" 2) If nesting birds are not detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation is required. " Isn't further mitigation needed in subsequent nesting seasons to meet the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code? City staff appears to say that once the migratory birds are not found before the tree removal, they will never come back to nest in these pine trees in subsequent years. Of course, if the old-growth pine trees were removed, then it would not be possible for the migratory birds to come back to nest in the future because the very sites they were using to nest have now been removed!!!
Having lived in this house for almost twenty (20) years, I am convinced that better use of the land and to meet the intent and the spirit of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code would be to reverse the Project design with the larger lots being on the south side of the Project and to preserve a few of the old growth pine trees so that birds nesting or hunting would continue in the future. This would require an access street via Twins Peaks Road instead of Holly Oak Way.
64 of 132
83 cont.
84 85
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Why
is
an
access
street
via
Twin
Peaks
Road
might
be
possible
and
might
be
a better
choice?
II.

Part
XVII.

TRANSPORTATION
Page
31 of
the
Notice
From
this
Notice,
it
appears
that
the
Senior
Planner
for
the Project
has already
made
up
his
mind
to
use
Holly
Oak
Way
as
the
street
access
for
the
Project.

I respectfully
disagree
with
the
Senior
Planner
for
the
following reasons
:

Please
refer
to
the
attached
Google
map
of
the
Project
and
its
surroundings
and
the
two
attached
street
photos
.

1. On
the
North-West
comer
of
Midland
Road
&
Twin
Peaks
Road,
there
are
two
homes
built
around
2005
. Back
then,
the
builder
created
a dedicated
right-turn
exit
lane
for
the
property
owners
to
access
the
gated
entrance
from
Twin
Peaks
road
(westerly
direction)
. Exiting
their
properties
, they
may
only
make a
right
tum
(westerly)
onto
Twin
Peaks
Road.

Please
note
that
the
distance
between
the
intersection
of
Midland
&
Twin
Peaks
and
the
Project
lot
is
more
than
twice
the
distance
between
the
intersection
of
Midland
&
Twin
Peaks
and
the
dedicated
right
turn
exit
lane
for
the
two
properties
above-mentioned
.

If
this
exit
lane
is
possible
(being
so
close
to
the
intersection
of
Midland
Road
&
Twin
Peaks
Road)
and
there
has
not
been
any
traffic
accident
caused
by
the
construction
of
this
exit
lane
since
2005
, then
why
isn
't it possible
to
have
the
same
right
tum
exit
lane
for
the
Project?

2. Very
near
the
North-East
comer
of
Community
Road
&
Twin
Peaks
Road
(between
Community
Road
&
Midland
Road),
there
is
a street
named
Victoria
Estates
Lane
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'VEL')
running
north
South.

VEL
dead-ends
to
the
north,
it
intersects
with
Twin
Peaks Road
to
the
south and
there
is
a dedicated
left-tum
lane
for
cars
making
a left
tum
to
Twin
Peaks
Road
(easterly
direction)
. There
are
a total
of
eighteen
(18)
homes
bordering
VEL.

Sixteen
(16)
of
those
homes
must
use
VEL
daily
to
gain
access
to
Twin
Peaks
Road,
and
two
(2)
of
those
homes
have
their
driveways
directly
abutting
Twin
Peaks Road.

Again
, please
note
that
the
distance
between
the
intersection
of
Community
&
Twin
Peaks
&
VEL
is
nearly
equal
to
the
distance
between
the
intersection
of
Midland
&
Twin
Peaks
and
the
Project
lot.

If
the
eighteen
(18)
property
owners
on
VEL
have
no
problem
accessing
Twin
Peaks Road
between
a curved
portion
of
Community
Road
and
Midland
Road
(with
no
major
traffic
accidents
over
the
past
two
decades
at
this
location),
then
why
are
the
property
owners
on
the
Project
having
difficulty
accessing
Twin
Peaks
Road
with
a dedicated
left
turn
lane?

3. To
the
east
of
the
intersection
of
Midland
Road
&
Twin
Peaks
Road,
the
next
controlled
traffic
light
is
at
Budwin
Lane.

If
an
access
street
to
Twin
Peaks
Road
for
the
Project
is
created,
it will
place
the
access
street
pretty
much
at
the
midpoint
on
Twin
Peaks
Road
between
Midland
Road
&
Budwin
Lane.

This
is
extremely
similar
to
the
VEL
location
between
the
two
(2)
traffic
lights
at
Community
Road
&
Midland
Road.

4. Midland
Road
and
Holly
Oak
Way.

Unlike
Twin
Peaks
Road
with
two
traffic
lanes
in
each
direction,
Midland
Road
& Holly
Oak
Way
are
"One-Lane
only"
streets
in
each
direction
and
there
is
NO
possibility
for
future
enlargement.

This
"T'
intersection
is
NOT
controlled
by
a traffic
light.

There
is
a dedicated
left
turn
lane
in
a southerly
direction
on
Midland
Road
to
Holly
Oak
Way
and
a Stop Sign
at
Holly
Oak
to
Midland
Road.

Please
note
the
presence
of
a Bike
Lane
thus
an
increased
risk
of
traffic
accidents
during
rush
hours
.

On
page
31 of
the
Notice
city
staff
stated
:
" ...
(a)
The
estimated
ADT
associated
with
the
20 new
homes
is
200
daily
trips,
with
16 trips
occurring
in
the
a.m.
peak
hour
and
20 trips
occurring
within
the
p.m.
peak
hour."
How
did
city
staff
arrive
at
this
'estimated
ADT
with
the
twenty
(20)
new
homes?
Is
the
city
willing
to
explain
how
it
arrived at
this
estimation?
65 of
132
J
85 cont. 86 87 88 810 811
July 19, 2022, Item #4
But of utmost importance is whether city staff has taken into consideration the following facts to determine whether it is appropriate and safe to use Holly Oak Way as the access street for the Project:
(a).
(b).
(c).
(d).
(e).
(f).
(g).
(h).

CONCLUSION:

Service trucks traffic,
Delivery trucks traffic,
Increased traffic activities on Saturday due to the Farmers' Market at the Old Midland Park, Increase in traffic as a result of the increase in business activities at the Old Poway Market Place, Access to Midland Road to and from properties on the West side of Midland Road, Bicycle lane traffic on Midland Road (between Aubrey Street & Twin Peaks Road), SPEEDING traffic on Midland Road way above the posted 25 MPH speed limit, Recent fatal traffic accident at Midland Road & Somerset Street intersection.

The Project developer is relying on the State density bonus law to obtain reduced lot sizes and side yard setbacks in exchange for dedicating one (1) unit as an 'affordable unit'. The Project developer conducted and paid for all the necessary studies resulting in all very favorable results for the developer. At the last staff meeting late in 2021, there was already some inkling that the developer might even try to purchase this 'affordable' unit.

The Project developer claims to have conducted a study showing that accessing via Twins Peaks Road is not feasible and city staff tends to go along with the Project developer. Of course, if the Project developer pays for the study, they will always find compliant 'experts' to generate such supportive studies. Perhaps a more equitable solution is for city staff to require the Project developer to come up with a design with an access street via Twin Peaks.

Based on the above discussion in Parts I & II, it is NOT impossible to create an access street to Twin Peaks Road for the Project. A dedicated right tum lane easterly into the Project as well as a dedicated left tum lane to Twin Peaks Road westerly traffic is also possible or a "Right Tum Only" to easterly Twin Peaks Road traffic flow is also an option.

B12
B13
814
Part II, Item 4 shows the potential risk of traffic congestion and possible traffic accidents at the uncontrolled "T" J B 15 intersection of Midland Road and Holly Oak Way.

Unfortunately, at this time and for an unexplained reason, city staff is intent on using Holly Oak as the access street for J the Project. It appears that city staff relies on " CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) " to justify their B 16 decision rather than looking at the totality of the circumstances.

Sadly the Project developer will eventually sell all the homes, and make a hefty profit and they will be gone forever. The thirteen (13) existing homeowners on Holly Oak Way & Twin Gables Court and the new twenty (20) homeowners of the Project are the ones left holding the bag, facing traffic congestion each morning and late afternoon with ever-increasing traffic at the intersection of Holly Oak & Midland Road. When misery and frustration come knocking, B 17 what remedy will be available to the affected homeowners and the city of Poway? Once this decision is made, it is forever irreversible. I ask that you keep an open mind, exercise your civic duty in the best interest of Powayians, and may your decision reflect an equitable solution satisfactory to all parties concerned.

Respectfully submitted,
Quoc M. Vuong
Concerned Property Owner
66 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
67 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
68 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Fred
Zuill
<[email protected]>
Wednesday,
June
15,
2022
11 :06
PM
Austin
Silva
[email protected] Zuill
comments
about
McKee
Orchard
Environmental
Initial
Study
You
don't
often
get
ema
il from
[email protected].

Learn
why
this
is
important
To:

Austin
Silva,
Senior
Planner,
City
of
Poway
From:

Fred
&
Yukie
Zuill,
owners/residents
13636
Outlook
Rd,
Poway
Letter
C
(Our
property
borders
approx
4 new
neighbors
--
approx
200
feet
--
on
west
side
of
McKee
Orchard
development)
RE:

Comments
about
McKee
Orchard
(TTM21-003/DR21-002)

ENVIRONMENTAL

INITIAL
STUDY
AND

CHECKLIST
Date:
6/15/2022
We
are
putting
our
stream
of
thoughts
on
record
here.

Trying
to
be
mindful
of
the
checklist
style
of
the
report
while
being
realistic
about
our
limited
ability
to
communicate
the
things
on
our
mind
that
are
addressed
so
succinctly
in
the
report. Our
thoughts
are
not
professionally
prepared
--
we
are
simply
the
individual
property
owners
(residents)
that
will
likely
have
greatest
individual
impact
from
this
development
due
to
the
sheer
length
of
our
property
line
that
borders
the
development
--
longer
than
any
other
bordering
residents
--
and
the
number
(4
I think)
of
new
adjacent
neighbors
that
c1
we
will
border
and
will
interface
with
on
a continual
daily
basis
long
after
these
impacts
are
measured,
these
development
decisions
are
made,
and
these
houses
are
sold.

In
addition,
we
are
in
a
unique
position
to
observe
the
impact
of
things
like
that
grove
of
massive
trees
and
of
its
special
inhabitants
every
day
for
30+
years.

Not
to
mention
its
direct
impact
of
such
things
on
us.

So
here
are
the
topics
mentioned
in
the
Environmental
Impact
Study
Checklist
that
we
believe
should
be
considered
and
discussed
with
us
in
light
of
the
uniquely
extensive
impact
the
development
will
have
on
our
particular
residence
--
and
in
light
of
our
unique
position
to
observe
things
that
might
impact
others
and
the
environment.

1. Multiple
important
aspects
of
the
grove
of
large
trees:

Our
house
sits
in
the
extensive
shade
of
the
impressive grove
of
trees
that
are
slated
to
be
removed.

The
limbs
of
trees
in
the
grove
intertwine
with
trees
in
our
yard.

The
grove
is
perhaps
an
acre
of
almost
solid
trees
--
maybe
200
feet
by
200
feet.

And
the
western
200
foot
edge
of
that
grove
borders
our
200
foot
eastern
edge
of
property.

I can't
possibly
enumerate
the
aspects
of
impact
on
our
neighborhood
and
as
well
as
our
individual
quality
of
life
that
this
acre
of
trees
provides
...
but
I'll
throw
out
a few.

The
pine
trees
are
very,
very
tall.

And
there
are
quite
a few.

Those
tall,
tall
pines
are
a
big
portion
of
that
acre
of
trees.

The
shade
they
provide
is
massive.

Our
house
is
not
even
in
the
middle
of
that
grove,
but
we
have
never
needed
air
conditioning
in
30+
years
partly
because
of
that
grove
as
well
as
the
trees
on
our
property.

That
cooling
impacts
the
whole
neighborhood
--
but
especially
our
house.

I chose
shade
and
cooling
as
just
one
of
the
many
impactful
aspects
of
that
big
grove.

Unless
tempered
in
some
way
for
our
corner
of
the
McKee
Orchard
development
where
the
trees
have
a
long
history
of
actual
impact
to
existing
residents,
the
grove's
removal
will
be
a
grievous,
long
lasting
loss.
1 69
of
132
C2
July 19, 2022, Item #4
We
are
significantly
impacted
by
the
grove
--
more
than
any
other
residence.

That
impact
should
be
considered,
if
only
to
consider
whether
some
of
the
trees
in
the
grove
are
potentially
preserved
in
place
with
a
rework
of
the
house
placement
within
the
development
--
to
the
benefit
of
all
who
will
inhabit
the
neighborhood.

Or
whether
the
south-east
portion
of
our
yard
would
be
a good
location
for
transplant
or
replacement
of
any
of
these
grand
trees.

Please
request
a
discussion
at
least
which
includes
us,
the
city,
and
the
developer.

As
an
example
from
past
experience:

The
famous
"Kent
Sycamore"
(measured
as
the
largest
California
Sycamore
in
the
world
at
the
time
of
the
Holly
Oak
development),
was
in
my
yard
and
straddled
the
new Holly
Oak
development
to
the
south
...
and
that
tree
was
eventually
lost
because
the
planning/approval
process
didn't
take
a
breather
--
the
development
was
approved
before
the
impact
was
fully
considered.

And
even
though
the
tree
finally
measured
and
was
found
worthy
of
being
declared
and
preserved
as
a
Heritage
Tree,
it
was
too
late.

The
tug-a-war
began
and
the
tree
was
lost.

As
part
of
my
example
for
us
now,
I
remember
always
that
just
before
it
was
cut down
(shortly
before
he
passed
away),
ex
mayor
Mickey
Cafagna
came
to
C3
my
house
to
see
the
tree
one
last
time
and
to
apologize
personally.

He
admitted
and
apologized
that
the
city
"blew
it"
--
that
they
failed
to
fully
check
out
the
actual
impact
to
actual
people
and
actual
property
owners
and
actual
majestic
trees
and
actual
special
birds.

They
approved
the
plan
based
on
a checklist,
but
realized
that
if
any
one
of
the
city
council
members
would
have
just
come
out
to
see
the
actual
property
(and
the
Kent
Sycamore
tree
in
that
case),
BEFORE
plan
approval,
they
would
never
have
approved
it
without
appropriate
accommodation.

And
while
we
realize
this
grove
is
not
filled
with
native
heritage
trees
worth
individually
preserving
in
a strict
legal
sense,
the
historic
neighborhood
which
is
straddled
by
the
McKee
Orchard
and
by
us
on
Outlook
Rd
(which
includes
the
McKee
grove,
my
great
trees,
and
my
Torrey
Pines
on
Outlook
Rd)
has
a character
and
a
practical
"environmental
health"
that
will
be
impacted
. We're
practical
people.

Get
the
parties
together
--
here
and
in
person
--
to
explore
some
kind
of
win-win-win
situation. Now:
still
on
topic
of
the
1 acre
grove
of
impressive
trees,
we
are
the
people
most
aware
of
the
actual
continuous
presence
of
special
birds
(many
Red
Tail
Hawks
and
other
special
birds)
that
perch
in
those
trees
and
cry
out
to
each
other
every
single
day.

Yes
...
every
day
they
swoop
in,
perch,
and
screech
. Grand
birds
of
prey.

Some
years
they
nest
(as
noted
in
the
report).

There
are
many
hawks.

And
they
are
always
flying
in
and
out
of
the
grove
every
day.

The
report
didn't
do
justice
to
the
continuous
presence
--
the
number
that
actually
inhabit
and
make
use
of
that
grove
every
day.

It
is
awesome.

We
realize
that
if
true
about
the
actual
continuous
presence
of
these
great
birds,
this
may
only
C4
impact
the
"how"
and
"when"
of
the
tree
removal.

But
we
do
want
to
go
on
record
...
the
McKee
Orchard
grove
IS
continuously
inhabited,
used,
and
enjoyed
by
those
special
birds
--
the
Hawks
and
such.

Again,
perhaps
moving
a tree
or
two
of
ANY
of
the
wonderful
trees
in
the
grove
to
the
Zuill
yard
just
a few
feet
West
(or
providing
a
meaningful
replacement
in
our
yard),
will
provide
some
continuity
for
these
fine
creatures.

They
fly
from
our
massive
Torrey
Pines
on
Outlook
Rd,
to
our
Gigantic
Doug
Fir
and
Liquid
Ambers
in
our
yard
and
then
over
to
"The
Grove".

Perhaps
we
work
together
(city,
developer,
neighborhood)
to
preserve
a
piece
of
that
grove
for
their
benefit
and
the
Holly
Oak
and
Outlook
Rd
neighborhood.

Summary
on
the
wonderful
grove
of
trees
... the
above
paragraphs
might
seem
specific
about
shade
or
birds,
but
bottom
line
for
the
record
is
that
the
grove
is
amazing
and
has
a
massive
impact
beyond
what
can
be
conveyed
in
a
checklist.

And
that
we
(the
Zuills)
are
uniquely
impacted
and
also
uniquely
aware
of
the
broader
CS
community/environmental
impact
compared
to
all
other
bordering
properties
and
neighbors.

Therefore,
our
"general"
request
in
this
comment
is
that
the
city
bring
us
all
together
to
explore
the
most
neighborly
possibilities
related
to
preserving,
moving,
or
replacing
trees.

2. Trees
that
border
the
shared
200
foot
property
line
(my
side
but
close
to
the
line,
shared
roots,
overhanging
branches,
or
trunks
that
straddle
the
property
line):

Here
I'm
talking
about
trees
that
are
on
my
property
or
on
the
McKee
Orchard
property
but
which
hang
over both
properties
or
which
have
root
systems
that
straddle
both.

I have
multiple
trees
that
will
be
at
risk
if
not
treated
C6
appropriately
though
the
whole
process
--
including
the
ongoing
realities
once
new
neighbors
move
in
and
become
part
of
the
equation.

Initially,
we
need
to
consider
preservation
of
my
trees
roots
and
limbs
during
grading,
fencing,
pools,
landscaping,
and
such.

Also,
once
the
property
is
divided,
I will
need
to
deal
with
multiple
new
neighbors
to
2 70
of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
continuously
arbitrate
the
protection and
care
of
the
trees
that
share
the
space.

This
has
been
a continual
problem
with
the
Holly
Oak
development,
long
after
the
developer
is
gone.

Of
course,
the
Kent
Sycamore
is
the
most
grievous
example
--
neighbors
sued
the
city
at
some
point.

My
tree
was
eventually
condemned.
12 years
of
needless
battles
between
city
and
citizens;
between
neighbors
. Then
....

On
Outlook
Rd
(which
I own),
there
were
3 very
tall
Torrey
Pines.

Even
though
I warned
the
city
before
plan
approval,
the
houses
were
approved
to
be
built
too
close
to
those
C6
great
trees
which
straddle
the
property
line
between
me
and
my
new
neighbors.

Eventually,
15 years
later
--
without
cont.
any
discussion
with
me,
or
any
arbitration
or
compensation
--
one
of
those
great
100
foot
tall
Torrey
Pines
was
cut
down
by
a
neighbor
because
they
believed
it
was
affecting
their
foundation.

They
cut
it
down
without
my
involvement
--
a
grand
tree
that
sat
half
on
my
property.
2 others
remain,
shared
with
a different
neighbor
who
is
currently
more
accomodating.

Future
is
murky.

The
planning
of
this
development
needs
to
recognize
that
there
are
trees
that
are
on
my
property
yet
are
close
to
the
property
line
or
that
straddle
the
properties
in
some
form
and
should
be
considered
for
preservation.

This
needs
to
be
considered
as
part
of
the
impact,
whether
this
is
legally part
of
this
particular
report
or
belongs
in
another
phase
of
the
C7
dicussion
before
approval.

This
topic
of
"trees
on
the
edge"
needs
to
be
discussed
and
resolved
with
the
Zuills
in
the
loop
as
much
as
any
other
party
before
any
approval.

3. Fence
on
the
200
foot
of
western
edge
of
the
Southern
most
4 houses
of
McKee
development:

Of
course,
that's
the
200
feet
that
borders
my
yard.

The
impact
study
describes
that
a
"white
fence"
is
planned.

Seems
neighborly
and
wise
to
include
the
Zuills
in
a discussion.

Again,
the
fence
is
mentioned
in
this
impact
report,
so
I'm
treating
it
as
part
of
the
impact.

A
plastic
fence
sounds
like
something
affordable
for
the
developer
which
will
need
to
CB
be
maintained
by
the
future
owners
(when
developer
is
out
of
the
loop.)
For
me,
it
means
4 fences
--
once
with
each
different
neighbor.

Fences
which
eventually
need
to
be
mutually
maintained.

If
not
done
wisely,
my
experience
is
that
a
poor
fence
becomes
a source
of
friction
. For
the
developer
it
is
one fence
...
and
they
are
done
once
they
sell
the
houses
.

For
me
it
is
4 fences,
bordering
a variety
of
neighbors
that
I don't
yet
know.

This
"comment"
document
is
not
the
place
for
specific
proposals
or
suggestions,
but
the
city
should
should
again
bring
all
parties
together
to
discuss
this
important
"interface"
before
approving
the
developers
request.

The
city
represents
us
all
and
is
somewhat
of
an
arbitrator
as
it
sits
in
the
position
of
approving
plans.

There
are
things
on
my
list
to
consider
from
my
side
of
the
fence
--
things
which
can
be
handled
in
a way
that
comes
out
as
a
"win"
for
all
C9
parties.

Good
for
the
developer
and
good
for
all
the
future
neighbors.

Please,
city
planners,
bring
us
all
to
the
table
and
make
that
200
feet
of
fence
one
of
the
things
that
needs
to
be
hashed
out
in
a
healthy
way
for
all.

I leave
out
the
details
of
my
concerns
and
ideas
because
it's
best
if
we
all
sit down
and
explore
on
this
topic
with
collaborative
creativity
to
smooth
out
each
party's
needs
and
concerns
interactively.
(think
height,
material,
robustness,
privacy,
sound,
aesthetics,
etc.)

4. Drainage
We
had
terrible
flooding
when
the
Living
Way
Church
was
developed
according
to
drainage
plans
that
the
city
designed
and
insisted
on.

I knew
the
flooding
would
happen
if
we
followed
the
city
plan.

The
church
people
knew
the
flooding
would
happen
if they
followed
the
city
plan.

Before approval,
we
told
the
city
what
would
happen,
discussed
with
them,
tried
to
reason,
eventually
argued
with
the
city
engineer.

But
the
city
required
a certain
design
and
insisted
it
would
be
fine
--
we
had
no
choice.

After
the
grading
and
paving,
the
rain
came,
and
my
neighborhood
was
flooded
which
had
never
happened
before
--
and
so
every
rain
since.

For
20+
years.

We
monkey
with
it
continuously
to
make
it
bearable.

We're
not
going
through
the
same
thing
with
this
development.

Drainage
directly
affects
us
and
we
have
a
history
with
bad
plans
foisted
on
the
project.

Another
topic
that
the
city
must
bring
all
players
to
the
table
to
discuss
and
work
out
together
to
something
that
satisfies
all
before
approving.

C10
That's
it!
Sorry
for
the
"stream
of
consciousness"
style
--
this
isn't
my
wheelhouse
and
it's
all
I have
to
offer.

And
sorry
7 C11
that
I'm
not
tying
each
topic
to
a specifically
referenced
point
in
the
report.

I could
do
that
I suppose
once
we
sit down
3 71
of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
to
unwind
each
of
these
topics
together.

But
tonight
I have
to
get
back
to
my
work
--
so
sorry.

I appreciate
your
flex
and
I C
11 accomodation.
=.J
cont.

Best
regards,
Fred
&
Yukie
Zuill
Property
Owners
and
Residents
13636
Outlook
Rd
Poway,
CA
92064
858-472
-3309
fredyukie36@fredzuill
.com
fzuill.agile@gmail
.com
72 of
132
4 July 19, 2022, Item #4
EXHIBIT 5
McKee Orchard TM
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comment Letters
Letters of comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were received from the following agency and individuals (Table RTC-1) during the 30-day public review. A total of three comment letters/e-mails were received during the public review period. While responding to comments it was determined that minor revisions were needed to clarify the analysis. These changes to the text are indicated by strikeout (deleted) and underline (inserted) markings in the Final MND. Individual comments within each letter are bracketed and subsequently numbered in the margin of the comment letter. Bracketed/numbered comment letters are placed before the responses to the letter.

Letter
A
B
C
CDFW
A1
A2
A3
A4
AS
73 of 132
Table RTC-1
List of Commenting Agencies and Organizations
Commenter
Organizations
I California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Individuals
Quoc Vuong
Fred and Yukie Zuill
Comment noted; no response required.

Comment noted; no response required.

Page
RTC-1
RTC-1
RTC-1
The information in this comment is summarized from and consistent with the Draft MND.

Comment noted; refer to response to comments AS through A8 regarding the project's impacts on sensitive biological resources.

As noted in the biological technical memo, no evidence of bat activity was recorded during field observations. With regard to the three species noted in this comment:

The pocketed free-tailed bat is not expected to roost on the project site because its preferred roosts include cliffs, quarries, and rock outcrops (i.e., vertical features; Tremor et al. 2017, San Diego County Mammal Atlas); none of these habitats are present on site.

The Mexican long-tongued bat roosts in dimly lit areas of caves and cave-like structures (Tremor et al. 2017, San Diego County Mammal Atlas), which are not present on the project site. The species has also been observed in man-made structures such as wooden garages and maintenance buildings (Tremor et al. 2017, San Diego County Mammal Atlas), and the unoccupied residence and shed on site have a low potential to be used by bats to roost.

RTC-1
July 19, 2022, Item #4
The
western
yellow
bat
is
strongly
associated
with
native
groves
of
California
fan
palm,
particularly
where
there
is
spring-fed,
open,
surface
water.

It
roosts
in
the
"skirts"
of
dead
palm
fronds
and
prefers
tall
palms
where
there
is
new
leaf
growth
and
a full
range
of
"skirt"
lengths.

It
may
also
occur
in
developed
areas
potentially
using
planted
fan
palms
or
other
exotic
trees
where
artificial
water
sources
are
found
(Tremor
et
al.
2017,
San
Diego
County
Mammal
Atlas).

The
project
site
does
not
support
fan
palms
but
does
support
two
date
palms,
both
of
whose
dead
fronds
(skirts)
have
been
pruned
off.

However,
there
are
other
exotic
trees
on
site
and
water
sources
nearby
(e.g.,
swimming
pools).

Therefore,
the
western
yellow
bat
is
considered
to
have
a
low
potential
to
roost
on
the
project
site.

The
applicant
is
committed
to
avoiding
removal
of
trees
and
structures
on
site
during
the
bat
roosting
season
(approximately
March
through
September)
in
order
to
avoid
potential
impacts
to
daytime,
nighttime,
and
maternal
colony
roosting.

If
construction
was
to
occur
outside
that
season,
any
daytime
roosting
bats
would
be
expected
to
fly
away
to
avoid
the
construction
activity
resulting
in
a
less-than
significant
impact.

There
would
be
no
impacts
to
nighttime
roosting
bats
because
construction
activities
would
not
occur
at
night.

A6
If
construction
was
scheduled
to
occur
during
the
bat
roosting
season,
there
is
a
low
potential
impacts
could
arise.

Nonetheless,
mitigation
measure
BIO-1
of
the
EIS
related
to
sensitive
species
has
been
augmented
to
specify
avoidance
measures
related
to
roosting
bats
(BIO-1
b),
in
addition
to
nesting
raptors
(810-1
a),
as
follows:
74 of
132
BI0-1b:

Removal
of
the
trees
and
existing
structures
on
site
shall
occur
outside
of
the
roosting
season
for
bats
(approximately
March
through
September).

If
removal
must
occur
during
the
roosting
season,
a
qualified
biologist
with
expertise
and
experience
conducting
bat
surveys
shall
be
retained
by
the
applicant
as
a
qualified
bat
biologist.

A
pre-construction
survey
shall
be
conducted
by
the
qualified
bat
biologist
no
more
than
30 days
prior
to
the
removal
of
trees
and
existing
structures.

The
qualified
bat
biologist
shall
survey
all
trees
or
structures
that
provide
suitable
bat
roosting
habitat.

The
applicant
shall
submit
the
results
of
the
pre-construction
survey
to
the
City
of
Poway
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
initiating
any
construction
activities.

If
a
maternity
roost
is
determined
present,
a
300-foot
buffer
shall
be
placed
around
the
roost,
and
no
work
shall
occur
within
the
buffer
until
after
the
roosting
season
is
over.

Work
within
the
buffer
may
proceed
after
the
qualified
bat
biologist
is
able
to
verify
that
the
roost
is
no
longer
active.

If
no
bat
roosts
are
detected
during
the
pre-construction
survey,
no
further
mitigation
is
required.

RTC-2
July 19, 2022, Item #4
A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Ouoc
Vuong B1 B2 B3 B4
75 of
132
The
EIS
acknowledges
the
potential
for
significant
impacts
to
raptors
and
other
avian
species,
and
mitigation
BIO-1
a
is
directed
at
reducing
those
potential
impacts
to
less-than-significant
levels.

In
response
to
this
comment,
BIO-1
a has
been
clarified
to
incorporate
the
revised
breeding
season
dates,
and
the
construction
buffer
language
provided
in
the
comment.

As
discussed
in
the
EIS,
the
project
site
supports
non-sensitive
developed,
disturbed,
and
ornamental
vegetation
communities/land
cover
types,
and
does
not
contain
habitat
or
other
sensitive
natural communities.

None
of
the
trees
present
on
the
project
site
were
considered
habitat
or
identified
as
sensitive
plants.

The
project
would
plant
approximately
78 replacement
trees
in
the
20 residential
lots
and
adjacent
rights-of-way.

The
project
applicant
is
proposing
the
use
of
a
combination
of
native
trees
and
drought-tolerant
(i.e.,
low-water
usage)
non-native
trees
to
meet
the
City's
required
replacement
ratio.

The
removal
of
trees
at
the
project
site
and
the
installation
of
replacement
trees
would
be
conducted
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
City
of
Poway's
Urban
Forestry
Ordinance. No
sensitive
species
were
observed
on
the
project
site;
therefore,
a
CNDDB
field
survey
form
does
not
need
to
be
completed.

Comment
noted;
the
CDFW
filing
fee
will
be
paid
when
the
NOD
is
filed
with
the
County
Clerk.

Comment
noted;
no
response
required.

Comment
noted;
refer
to
response
to
comments
B6
through
B12
regarding
issues
related
to
project
site
access
from
Twin
Peaks
Road.

Comment
regarding
the
observation
of
a
hawk
and
the
presence
of
migratory
birds
and
raptors
in
the
area
is
noted.

The
EIS
acknowledges
the
presence
of
raptors
on
the
project
site,
consistent
with
commenter's
observations,
and
determines
that
project
impacts
would
be
less
than
significant
provided
mitigation
is
implemented.

The
mitigation
measures
included
in
the
EIS,
including
the
mitigation
measure
referenced
in
this
comment
(measure
BIO-1
), would
become
conditions
of
approval
for
the
project.

Monitoring
compliance
with
these
conditions
is
the
City's
responsibility
and
is
implemented
via
a
project-specific
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
(MMRP).

The
qualified
biologist
identified
in
mitigation
measure
BIO-1
would
work
with
City
staff
on
implementation
of
the
mitigation
requirements.

As
stated
in
the
mitigation
measure,
the
results
of
the
pre
construction
survey
would
be
submitted
to
the
City
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
the
initiation
of
construction
activities,
with
mitigation
to
be
implemented
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
City.

Compliance
with
California
Fish
and
Game
Code
requires
pre-construction
surveys
if trees
are
removed
during
the
breeding
season
for
nesting
birds;
however,
trees
can
be
removed
outside
of
the
breeding
season
with
no
significant
impacts
to
breeding
birds.

Once
the
on-site
trees
are
removed
(outside
of
the
breeding
season
for
nesting
birds
or
within
the
breeding
season,
with
the
required
pre
construction
surveys
and
appropriate
mitigation,
if
necessary),
there
is
no
further
RTC-3
July 19, 2022, Item #4
mitigation
required
by
the
Migratory
Bird
Treaty
Act
and
California
Fish
and
Game
Code.

Other
trees
are
available
in
the
project
vicinity,
including
a
large
stand
of
trees
associated
with
Rattlesnake
Creek
approximately
300
feet
south
of
the
project
site's
southern
boundary.
85 The
project
site
is
planned
and
zoned
for
single-family
residential
housing.

A
redesign
of
the
project
is
not
required
to
mitigate
for
the
project's
impacts
to
biological
resources,
as
demonstrated
in
the
EIS.

There
are
no
traffic/circulation
impacts
related
to
accessing
the
property
from
Holly
Oak
Way.

Access
via
Twin
Peaks
Road
is
discussed
further
in
response

86. 86
A
Sight
Distance
Study
(Intersecting Metrics
2021)
was
conducted
to
assess
the
potential
for
the
project
to
provide
its
main
access
point
via
a
driveway
on
Twin
Peaks
Road.

The
study
analyzed
corner
and
stopping
site
distance
assessments
according
to
the
Caltrans
Highway
Design
Manual.

The
results
of
the
study
indicate
that
a
project
driveway
on
Twin
Peaks
Road
is
not
recommended
due
to
sight
distance
limitations.

A
project
driveway
along
Twin
Peaks
Road
would
not
meet
the
minimum
corner
or
stopping
sight
distance
requirements,
due
to
the
horizontal
curves
in
the
roadway
to
the
west
of
the
project
site.

City
engineering
staff
reviewed
the
Site
Distance
Study
and
agreed
with
its
assessment.

It
should
be
noted
that
the
approved
final
map
for
Diroma
Estates
(TTM99-01
), the
subdivision
that
created
Holly
Oak
Way,
identifies a
future
easement
that
accommodates
an
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
to
the
north,
onto
the
project
site.

A
deed
of
covenant
on
the
title
of
each
lot
of
Diroma
Estates
advised
buyers
of
the
intent
to
extend
Holly
Oak
Way
in
the
future.
87 This
comment
refers
to
a
driveway
located
west
of
the
Midland
Road/Twin
Peaks
Road
intersection.

The
commenter
is
correct
that
the
project
boundary
is
farther
from
the
Midland
Road/Twin
Peaks
intersection
than
the
referenced
driveway.

The
driveway
the
commenter
is
referencing
is
located
approximately
460
feet
west
of
the
Midland
Road/Twin
Peaks
Road
intersection,
while
the
western
project
boundary
is
located
approximately
280
feet
east
of
the
Midland
Road/Twin
Peaks
Road
intersection.

As
discussed
previously
in
response
85,
a
Sight
Distance
Study
was
conducted
for
the
project
to
access
the
suitability
of
a
main
access
point
via
a
driveway
on
Twin
Peaks
Road.

A
number
of
factors
are
considered
in
a
Sight
Distance
Study,
including
the
horizontal
and
vertical
curvature
along
the
roadway,
and
the
presence
of
visual
obstructions
at
proposed
access
ways,
such
as
vegetation,
street
trees,
and
structures.

The
referenced
driveway
is
located
on
the
north
side
of
the
roadway
(on
the
opposite
side
of
the
roadway
from
any
access
that
could
occur
for
the
project
from
Twin
Peaks
Road)
and
is
located
west
of
the
curve
along
Twin
Peaks
Road,
and
as
such,
visual
obstructions
at
that
location
are
not
the
same
as
would
occur
along
Twin
Peaks
Road
at
the
project
frontage.

For
these
reasons,
even
though
an
access
off
of
Twin
Peaks
Road
may
be
appropriate
at
the
other
driveway
location,
the
same
conditions
do
not
exist
along
the
project
site's
frontage
with
Twin
Peaks
Road.

The
Sight
Distance
Study
prepared
for
the
project
analyzing
the
specific
location
of
proposed
access
to
the
project
site
from
Twin
Peaks
Road
demonstrates
the
lack
of
suitability
of
the
location
for
a
main
access
point
to
the
project
site.

In
addition,
alternative
access
to
another
public
street
is
available
for
the
project
site
as
identified
in
response
B6.

RTC-4
76 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
B8 The commenter indicates that Victoria Estates Lane is a similar distance from the Community Road/Twin Peaks intersection as the project site is from the Midland Road/Twin Peaks Road intersection. However, the distance between Victoria Estates Lane and the Community Road/Twin Peaks intersection (at a distance of approximately 500 feet) is longer than the distance between the project site is from the Midland Road/Twin Peaks Road intersection (at a distance of approximately 280 feet). As discussed above, a number of factors are considered when analyzing adequate sight distance, including the horizontal and vertical curvature along the roadway, and the presence of visual obstructions at proposed access ways, such as vegetation, street trees, and structures. The referenced driveway at Victoria Estates Lane is also on the north side of Twin Peaks Road, on the opposite side of the roadway from any Twin Peaks Road access that could occur for the project site. The Victoria Estates Lane driveway is also located west of the curve along Twin Peaks Road. Similar to the scenario described in response B7, the sight distance at the Victoria Estates Lane driveway is much better than would occur along Twin Peaks Road in the vicinity of the project due to differences in roadway configuration and differences in intervening visual obstructions. The Sight Distance Study prepared for the project analyzing the specific location of proposed access to the project site from Twin Peaks Road demonstrates the lack of suitability of the location for a main access point to the project site.

B9 For the reasons discussed in response B8, a proposed access point for the project off of Twin Peaks Road would not be similar to the existing access that occurs at Victoria Estates Lane, due to the differences in roadway configuration and visual obstructions specific for each location. Site distance issues identified at a proposed project access include the horizontal curvature of the roadway to the west of the project site and the presence of mature street trees along the roadway, which would obscure views of roadway from a proposed access point to the project site from Twin Peaks Road. In addition, alternative access to another public street is available for the project site as identified in response B6.

B10 This comment reports the existing roadway conditions along Holly Oak Way and Midland Road. As reported, Holly Oak Way is a two-lane road, with one lane in each direction. Midland Road also contains one travel lane in each direction, with a center turn lane along most of its length. As noted in the comment, there is a dedicated left turn lane in a southerly direction on Midland Road to Holly Oak Way.

The intersection of Midland Road and Holly Oak Way is controlled with a stop sign on Holly Oak Way, which would provide the necessary traffic control for future traffic conditions, with the project. The presence of a five-foot-wide Class II Bicycle Lanes on each side of Midland Road is noted. Bicyclists and motorists along area roadways are required to adhere to and obey all traffic laws. The project would add an estimated 16 trips to the Midland Road/Holly Oak Way intersection during the AM peak hour and 20 trips to the intersection during the PM peak hour. Less trips would be added during non-peak hour conditions. The presence of a bicycle , lane along Midland Road and the addition of project traffic to area roadways is not expected to lead to an increased risk of traffic accidents during rush hours to the Midland Road/Holly Oak Way intersection.

B11 Project trip generation was calculated in the project's Traffic Operations Assessment (Intersecting Metrics 2021 ). The project's anticipated trip generation RTC-5
77 of 132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
was
derived
from
the
San
Diego
Association
of
Governments'
SANDAG
(Not
So)
Brief
Guide
of
Vehicular
Traffic
Generation
Rates
for
the
San
Diego
Region,
April
2022.

The
trip
generation
rate
assigns
a trip
rate
of
10 daily
trips,
per
single-family
detached
dwelling
unit
(average
3-6
dwelling
units
per
acre).

The
indicated
trip
generation
rate
provided
by
the
SAN
DAG
(Not
So)
Brief
Guide
of
Vehicular
Traffic
Generation
Rates
for
the
San
Diego
Region
provides
traffic
generation
rates
and
general
trip
data
for
a
wide
variety
of
land
uses
and
is
considered
an
industry
standard.

B12
The
Traffic
Operations
Assessment
(Intersecting
Metrics
2021)
evaluates
the
project's
impacts
on
a
number
of
components,
including
daily
roadway
operations,
peak
hour
intersection
operations,
and
intersection
queueing.

As
discussed
in
the
EIS
and
based
on
the
analysis
contained
the
project's Traffic
Operations
Assessment,
the
addition
of
project
traffic
would
not
result
in
significant
impacts
to
roadway
segments
in
the
project
area,
as
these
roadways
are
operating
well
below
design
capacity.

The
SANDAG
trip
generation
rate
used
to
calculate
project
trips
factors
in
service
and
delivery
truck
traffic.

In
addition,
Midland
Road
between
Twin
Peaks
Road
and
Holly
Oak
Way
has
a
capacity
design
threshold
of
16,000
daily
trips
. Existing
daily
trips
along
this
segment
of
Midland
Road
is
4,753.

With
the
addition
of
project
traffic,
daily
trips
along
this
segment
of
Midland
Road
would
increase
to
4,953,
an
approximately

4.2 percent
increase
above
existing
conditions
and
well
below
the
capacity
of
the
road.

Therefore,
project
traffic
would
not
hinder
the
operations
of
Holly
Oak
Way
as
an
access
street
for
the
project.

Refer
to
comment
B1
O
regarding
bicycle
lane
traffic
on
Midland
Road.

Unlawful
activities,
such
as
speeding
and
traffic
collisions
are
outside
of
the
control
of
the
project
applicant.

The
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Road
would
be
designed
to
comply
with
City
and
Fire
Department
requirements,
to
ensure
the
extens
ion
would
meet
required
access
standards.

B13
This
comment
does
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
CEQA
document.

No
response
is
required.

B14
Comment
noted.

Please
refer
to
response
B6.

B15
Comment
noted.

Please
refer
to
response
B6.

B16
As
discussed
in
the
EIS,
the
project
impact
analysis
for
transportation
impacts
was
conducted
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
CEQA
Guidelines
section
15064.3,
subdivision
(b)
. Vehicle
miles
traveled
(VMT)
impacts
for
the
project
were
analyzed
using
the
San
Diego
Region
Guidelines
prepared
by
the
Institute
for
Traffic
Engineers
(ITE).

Based
on
the
ITE
guidelines,
a
project
that
is
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
designation
and
generates
less
than
1,000
ADT
would
not
require
a
VMT
analysis.

As
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
designation
for
the
site,
and
would
generate
200
ADT,
a VMT
analysis
is
not
required.

As
discussed
in
response
to
comment
B6,
project
access
via
Twin
Peaks
Road
would
not
meet
the
minimum
corner
or
stopping
sight
distance
requirements,
due
to
the
horizontal
curves
in
the
roadway
to
the
west
of
the
project
site.

City
engineering
staff
reviewed
and
agreed
with
the
assessment
that
Twin
Peaks
Road
does
not
provide
a viable
access
option
for
the
project.

Further,
as
also
discussed
in
response
to
comment
B6,
Holly
Oak
Way
has
been
planned
for
future
extension
to
the
project
site.

B17
This
comment
does
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
CEQA
document.

No
response
is
required.

RTC-6
78 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Fred
and
Yukie
Zuill
C1
Comments
noted.

C2
As
noted
in
the
comment,
the
project would
result
in
the
removal
of
trees
on
the
project
site,
adjacent
to
commenter's
property.

The
loss
of
shading
provided
by
the
trees
proposed
for
removal
is
not
considered
an
impact
under
CEQA.

C3
The
on-site
trees
would
be
removed
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
Poway's
Municipal
Code
section

12.32.150,
Private
Tree
Removal
Permit.

The
removed
trees
would
be
replaced
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
Poway
Municipal
Code
section

12.32.170,
Replacement
of
Trees.

The
removal
of
trees
exceeding
8 inches
diameter
at
breast
height
would
require
replacement
at
a
ratio
of
two
48-inch
box
specimen
trees
per
one
tree
removed.

Other
trees
would
be
replaced
at
a
one-to
one
ratio
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Municipal
Code.

Refer
to
response
to
comment
A8
for
additional
information
on
replacement
trees.

C4
Comment
regarding
the
observation
of
red
tail
hawks
is
noted.

The
EIS
acknowledges
the
presence
of
raptors
on
the
project
site,
consistent
with
commenter's
observations,
and
identifies
impacts
to
raptors
during
project
implementation.

As
discussed
in
the
EIS
and
in
responses
83 and
84 above,
the
project
would
implement
mitigation
to
reduce
potentially
significant
impacts
to
nesting
raptors
to
a
less
than
significant
level.

CS
As
noted,
the
project
would
require
removal
of
trees
adjacent
to
commenter's
property
to
implement
the
project;
although
not
a
CEQA
issue,
the
project
applicant
would
be
willing
to
discuss
the
effects
of
tree
removal
on
the
neighboring
properties
with
affected
parties.

C6
Comment
noted.

Please
refer
to
response
CS.

C7
Comment
noted.

Please
refer
to
response
CS.

C8
The
project
site
would
include
a vinyl
fence
along
the
western
portion
of
the
site,
between
the
proposed
residences
and
adjacent
uses
to
the
west.

An
existing
wooden
fence
is
currently
present
along
the
western
property
line,
which
would
remain
in
place,
with
the
new
fence
placed
adjacent
to
and
parallel
to
the
existing
fence.

Although
not
a
CEQA
issue,
the
project
applicant
is
willing
to
discuss
fencing
materials
with
neighboring
property
owners.

C9
Comment
noted.

Please
refer
to
response
C8.

C1
O
The
project
would
be
required
to
control
runoff
from
the
project
site
to
ensure
that
post-development
runoff
does
not
increase
beyond
levels
that
currently
exist
at
the
project
site;
however,
the
project
is
not
responsible
for
resolving
drainage
issues
from
other
properties,
outside
of
the
project
limits.

The
project
would
incorporate
infiltration
trenches
and
trees
wells
for
storm
water
treatment
and
hydromodification
management
plan
controls.

The
storm
water
management
facilities
are
required
to
be
maintained
throughout
the
life
of
the
project
as
outlined
in
section

16.104
of
the
Poway
Municipal
Code.

The
project
would
comply
with
all
storm
water
quality
regulations
and
waste
discharge
requirements
for
surface
water
quality,
as
governed
by
the
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board,
the
County
of
San
Diego,
and
the
City
of
Poway.

C11
Comment
noted.

RTC-7
79 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4

RESOLUTION
NO.
22-
A

RESOLUTION
OF
THE
CITY

COUNCIL
OF
THE
CITY
OF
POWAY,

CALIFORNIA,

APPROVING

TENTATIVE
TRACT
MAP
21-003
AND

DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW
21-002,

ALLOWING
FOR
A
20-LOT

SUBDIVISION
AND
THE

CONSTRUCTION
OF
20 SINGLE-FAMILY

DWELLING
UNITS
(ASSESSOR
PARCEL
NUMBER
314-192-02)

WHEREAS,
the
City
Council
considered
Tentative
Tract
Map
(TTM)
21-003
and
Development
Review
(DR)
21-002;
a
request
to
subdivide
a

4.77-acre
parcel
into
20 lots
and
construct
20 single-family
dwelling
units
located
at
13667
Twin
Peaks
Road
in
the
Residential
Single
Family
4 (RS-4)
zone;

WHEREAS,
on
July
19,
2022,
the
City
Council
held
a
duly
advertised
public
hearing
to
receive
testimony
from
the
public,
both
for
and
against,
relative
to
this
matter;
and

WHEREAS,
the
City
Council
has
read
and
considered
the
agenda
report
for
the
proposed
project,
including
the
attachments,
and
has
considered
all
other
evidence
presented
at
the
public
hearing.

NOW,

THEREFORE,
BE
IT

RESOLVED
by
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Poway
as
follows:

SECTION
1:

As
required
under
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA),
an
Environmental
Initial
Study
(EIS)
was
completed
for
the
project.

A
project
notification
letter
was
sent
to
the
tribal
representatives
which
are
traditionally and
culturally
affiliated with
the
geographic
area
within
the
City
of
Poway's
jurisdiction.

City
staff
engaged
in
and
concluded
consultation
with
two
tribes who
responded
to
the
letter.

The
EIS
determined
that
the
project
would
have
potentially
significant
impacts
to
migratory
nesting
birds,
roosting
bats,
and
archaeological
resources.

Mitigation
measures
BIO-1a,
810-1
b,
and
CUL-1
through
CUL-5
would
reduce
these
impacts
to
a
less-than-significant
level.

A
Notice
of
the
Availability
of
the
EIS
and
proposed
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
("MND")
for
public
review
and
comment
was
provided
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
CEQA.

The
City
Council
finds,
in
its
independent
judgment
and
based
on
a
review
of
the
entire
record
of
proceedings,
including
written
and
oral
comments
from
the
public,
that
no
substantial
evidence
supports
a
fair
argument
that
after
mitigation
imposed
in
the
MND,
the
project
could
result
in
a
significant
impact.

SECTION
2:

The
findings,
in
accordance
with
the
State
Subdivision
Map
Act
(Government
Code
Section
66410 et.
seq.)
for
TTM21-003,
are
made
as
follows:

That
the
proposed
subdivision
map
is
consistent
with
the
objectives,
policies, general
land
uses
and
programs
of
the
General
Plan
in
that
it
proposes
to
create
20 residential
lots
on
a
site
that
is
designated
for
residential
use.

The
density
of
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
designation
and
Poway
Municipal
Code
(PMC)
standards,
as
required
by
State
Density
Bonus
Law
(Section
65915
of
the
California
Government
Code).

The
project
includes
one
affordable
housing
unit
at
the
very-low-income
level
which
makes
the
project
eligible
for
a
density
bonus
pursuant
to
State
law
(Government
Code
Section
65915(b)(1)(a)).

The
maximum
density
for
the
RS-4
zone
is
four
dwelling
units
per
acre,
or

15.64 dwelling
units
based
off
the
lot's
gross
acreage
of

4. 77
acres.

By
providing
one
80 of
132

ATTACHMENT
B
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
2 very-low-income
unit,
the
project
is
eligible
for
a
20 percent
density
increase.

The
20 percent
increase
allows
up
to
20 units
to
be
built.

That
the
design
of
the
proposed
subdivision
is
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
in
that
the
approved
lot
sizes
and
configurations
adhere
to
the
development
standards
of
the
General
Plan
and
PMC,
except
as
allowed
by
State
Density
Bonus
Law
(Section
65915
of
the
California
Government
Code).

Per
adopted
State
Density
Bonus
requirements
(Gov.

Code§
65915
et
seq.),
the
City
is
required
to
grant
concessions
and/or
waivers
of
development
standards
because
the
Project
includes
five
percent
( one
unit)
of
the
base
density
units
for
very-low-income
households.

The
Applicant
is
requesting
three
waivers
and
are
as
follows:

1. Lot
size
-
The
minimum
lot
size
for
the
RS-4
zone
is
10,000
square
feet.

The
proposed
lots
range
in
size
from
7,012
square
feet
to
13,445
square
feet.

2. Lot
width
-
The
minimum
lot
width
for
the
RS-4
zone
is
70 feet.

The
proposed
lot
widths
are
60 feet.

3. Side
yard
setback-
The
minimum
side
yard
setback
for
the
RS-4
zone
is
10 feet.

The
proposed
side
yard
setbacks
are
five
feet.

That
the
site
is
physically
suitable
for
the
proposed
development
in
that
the
site
is
large
enough
to
provide
20 lots
by
applying
State
Density
Bonus
Law
and
with
the
granting
of
three
development
standard
waivers
as
discussed
in
Subsection
B
of
this
Section.

That
the
site
is
physically
suitable
for
the
proposed
density
of
development
in
that
by
providing
one
very-low-income
unit,
the
project
is
eligible
for
a 20
percent
density increase
pursuant
to
State
Density
Bonus
Law.

The
20 percent
increase
allows
up
to
20 units
to
be
built.

That
the
design
of
the
subdivision
is
not
contrary
to
the
policy
of
the
State
legislature
as
stated
in
Chapter
1,
commencing
with
Section
21000,
of
the
State
Public
Resources
Code,
and
will
not
likely
cause
substantial
environmental
damage
or
substantially
and
avoidably
injure
fish
or
wildlife
or
their
habitat
with
the
implementation
of
Mitigation
Measures
810-
1 a
and
810-1
b.

That
the
design
of
the
subdivision
is
not
likely
to
cause
serious
public
health
problems
in
that
City
water
and
sewer
services
are
available
to
the
site.

That
the
design
of
the
lot
division
will
not
conflict
with
easements,
acquired
by
the
public
at
large,
for
access
through
or
use
of,
property
within
the
proposed
subdivision
in
that
the
subdivision
can
occur
without
obstructing
or
otherwise
impacting
existing
or
new
easements. SECTION
3:

The
findings
for
DR
21-002,
in
accordance
with
the
Poway
Municipal
Code
(PMC)

17.52.010
Purpose
of
Development
Review,
are
made
as
follows:

The
project
has
been
designed
to
be
architecturally
compatible
with
surrounding
development
and
conforms
to
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
design
guidelines
by
utilizing
an
architectural
design
that
incorporates
earth
tone
colors,
natural
wood,
stone,
and
brick
finished
that
are
compatible
with
building
in
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
area
and
reflect
Poway's
rural
character.

Therefore,
the
project
respects
and
recognizes
the
81 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
3 interdependence
of
land
values
and
aesthetics
to
the
benefit
of
the
City.

The
project
has
been
designed
to
minimize
impacts
on
surrounding
development
by
utilizing
a
compatible
architectural
design
consistent
with
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan.

Therefore,
the
proposed
development
respects
the
public
concerns
for
the
aesthetics
of
development,
and
encourages
the
orderly
and
harmonious
appearance
of
structures
and
property
within
the
City.

The
granting
of
the
DR
would
not
be
materially
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
safety
or
welfare
within
the
community
since
the
proposed
development
will
complete
improvements
necessary
for
the
20-lot
subdivision.

The
design
and
improvements
of
the
proposed
development
are
consistent
with
all
elements
of
the
Poway
General
Plan
and
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
except
as
allowed
by
State
Density
Bonus
Law
(Section
65915
of
the
California
Government
Code).

The
homes
feature
a
Craftsman
style,
consistent
with
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
Architectural
Standards
and
Design
Guidelines.

Architectural
building
features
include
cement
tile
roofs,
overhanging
eaves,
wood
accents,
patterned
windowpanes,
and
various
combinations
of
board
and
batten,
lap
siding,
stone,
and
brick.

Additionally,
the
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way
would
include
Old
Poway
streetlights
similar
to
the
existing
streetlights
on
Holly
Oak
Way,
continuing
the
Old
Poway
Specific
Plan
streetscape
theme.

Per
adopted
State
Density
Bonus
requirements
(Gov.

Code§
65915
et
seq.),
the
City
is
required
to
grant
a
density
bonus
for
housing
developments
that
provide
a
minimum
of
five
percent
of
the
housing
units
as
affordable
to
very-low-income
households.

For
housing
developments
that
provide
five
percent
of
the
maximum
allowable
units,
a density
increase
of
20 percent
shall
be
granted.

The
project
includes
one
affordable
housing
unit
at
the
very-low-income
level
which
makes
the
project
eligible
for
a
density
bonus
pursuant
to
State
law
(Government
Code
Section
65915(b)(1
)(a)).

The
maximum
density
for
the
RS-4
zone
is
four
dwelling
units
per
acre,
or

15.64 dwelling
units
based
off
the
lot's
gross
acreage
of

4. 77
acres.

By
providing
one
very-low-income
unit,
the
project
is
eligible
for
a
20 percent
density
increase.

The
20 percent
increase
allows
up
to
20 units
to
be
built.

SECTION
4:

The
findings,
in
accordance
with
Government
Code
Section
66020
for
the
public
improvements
needed
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
development
to
protect
the
public
health,
safety
and
welfare,
are
made
as
follows:

The
design
and
improvements
of
the
proposed
development
are
consistent
with
all
elements
of
the
Poway
General
Plan,
as
well
as
City
Ordinances,
because
all
necessary
facilities
will
be
available
to
serve this
project.

The
construction
of
public
improvements
is
needed
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
development
to
protect
the
public
health,
safety
and
welfare
as
identified
below:
•
Sewer
line
•
Water
line
•
Street
improvements
•
Storm
drain
improvements
•
Landscaping
82 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
4 C.

In
accordance
with
the
Poway
General
Plan,
the
project
requires
the
payment
of
development
impact
fees,
which
are
assessed
on
a
pro-rata
basis
to
finance
public
infrastructure
improvements,
which
promote
a
safe
and
healthy
environment
for
the
residents
of
the
City.

SECTION
5:

The
City
Council
hereby
approves
TTM21-003
and
DR21-002,
as
shown
on
the
approved
plans
incorporated
herein
by
reference
and
stamped
as
"Exhibit
A"
dated
July
19,
2022
(Exhibit
A
hereinafter)
on
file
with
the
Development
Services
Department,
except
as
noted
herein
and
subject
to
the
following
conditions:

The
applicant
shall
defend,
indemnify,
and
hold
harmless
the
City,
its
agents,
officers,
and
employees
from
any
and
all
claims,
actions,
proceedings,
damages,
judgments,
or
costs,
including
reasonable
attorney's
fees,
collectively
the
"Claims"
against
the
City
or
its
agents,
officers,
or
employees,
relating
to
the
issuance
of
any
aspect
of
the
project
approval
set
forth
in
this
resolution,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
action
to
attack,
set
aside,
void,
challenge,
or
annul
this
development
approval
(including
but
not
limited
to
TTM21-003
&
DR21-002)
and
any
environmental
document
or
decision
made
pursuant
to
CEQA.

The
City
may elect
to
conduct
its
own
defense,
participate
in
its
own
defense
, or
obtain
independent
legal
counsel
in
defense
of
any
claim
related
to
this
indemnification.

In
the
event
of
such
election,
applicant
shall
pay
all
of
the
costs
related
thereto,
including
without
limitation
reasonable
attorney's
fees
and
costs.

In
the
event
of
a
disagreement
between
the
City
and
applicant
regarding
litigation
issues,
the
City
shall
have
the
authority
to
control
the
litigation
and
make
litigation-related
decisions,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
settlement
or
other
disposition
of
the
matter.

However,
the
applicant
shall
not
be
required
to
pay
or
perform
any
settlement
unless
such
settlement
is
approved
by
applicant.

Notwithstanding
the
foregoing,
no
indemnity
shall
be
required
for
claims
resulting
from
the
exclusive
gross
negligence
or
willful
misconduct
of
the
City.

This
approval
is
based
on
the
existing
site
conditions
and
proposed
project
details
represented
on
the
approved
plans
stamped
"Exhibit
A"
and
on
file
at
the
Development
Services
Department.

If actual
conditions
and
details
vary
from
representations
on
Exhibit
A,
the
approved
plans
must
be
changed
to
reflect
the
existing
site
conditions
and
proposed
project
details.

Any
substantial
changes
to
the
approved
plans
must
be
approved
by
the
Director
of
Development
Services
and
may
require
approval
of
the
City
Council
if
the
Director
of
Development
Services
finds
that
the
proposed
changes
do
not
substantially
conform
to
approved
plans.

This
matter
does
not
include
the
residential
housing
design
or
development
review
of
any
of
the
residential
lots,
which
would
be
subject
to
a
subsequent
minor
development
review
or
development
review
permit
approval.

Prior
to
issuance
of
any
permit,
the
applicant
shall
(1)
submit
in
writing
that
all
conditions
of
approval
have
been
read
and
understood;
and
(2)
the
property
owner
shall
execute
a
Covenant
Regarding
Real
Property
notarizing
and
recording
said
document.

In
order
for
the
City
to
prepare the
Covenant
the
applicant
must
first
submit
a
legal
description
of
the
subject
site.

The
conditions
for
the
project
shall remain
in
effect
for
the
life
of
the
subject
property,
and
shall
run
with
the
land
and
be
binding
upon
future
owners,
successors,
heirs,
and
transferees
of
the
current
property
owner.

The
developer
is
required
to
comply
with
the
Poway
Noise
Ordinance
(Chapter

8.08 PMC)
requirements
that
govern
construction
activity
and
noise
levels.

A
Construction
Noise
83 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
5 Management
Plan
(CNMP)
shall
be
prepared
and
submitted
to
the
City
of
Poway
Planning
Division
for
its
review
and
approval.

Prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
Building
Permit,
construction
plans
shall
also
include
a
note
indicating
compliance
with
the
CNMP
is
required.

The
CNMP
shall
be
prepared
or
reviewed
by
a
qualified
acoustician
(retained
at
the
project
applicant/owner
or
construction
contractor's
expense).

Prior
to
Final
Map
approval,
unless
other
timing
is
indicated,
the
following
conditions
shall
be
complied
with:

1. Within
thirty
(30)
days
after
tentative
map
approval,
the
applicant
shall
submit
in
writing
to
the City's
Senior
Planner
that
all
conditions
of
approval
have
been
read
and
understood.

2. This
approval
is
based
on
the
existing
site
conditions
represented
on
the
approved
tentative
map.

If
actual
conditions
vary
from
representations,
the
approved
tentative
map
must
be
changed
to
reflect
the
actual
conditions.

Any
substantial
changes
to
the
tentative
map
must
be
approved
by
the
Director
of
Development
Services
and
may
require
approval
of
the
City
Council.

3. The
final
map,
together
with
the
supporting
data
and
documentation,
shall
be
submitted
to
Engineering
Division
for
review
and
approval.

The
appropriate
map
checking
fee
shall
be
paid
by
the
applicant.

4. The
final
map
shall
conform
to
City
standards
and
procedures,
the
City
Subdivision
Ordinance,
the
latest
edition
of
the Subdivision
Map
Act,
and
the
Land
Surveyors'
Act,
and
all
other
applicable
laws,
regulations
and
ordinances.

5. The
applicant
shall
include
provisions
in
their
design
contract
with
their
design
consultants
that,
following
acceptance
by
the
City,
all
construction
drawings
or
technical
reports
accepted
by
the
City
(exclusive
of
architectural
building
plans)
shall
become
the
property
of
the
City.

Once
accepted,
these
plans
may
be
freely
used,
copied
or
distributed
by
the
City
to
the
public
or
other
agencies
as
the
City
may
deem
appropriate.

An
acknowledgement
of
this
requirement
from
the
design
consultant
shall
be
included
on
all
construction
drawings
at
the
time
of
plan
submittal.

6. A
new
20-foot
public
water
easement
and
a
public
pedestrian
and
trail
easement
shall
be
dedicated
from
the
new
terminus
of
Holly
Oak
Way,
and
a
21-foot
right
of
way
dedication
along
the
southerly
side
of
Twin
Peaks
Road
shall
be
dedicated
to
the
City
of
Poway
on
the
Final
Map.

7. A
mylar
copy
of
the
Final
Tract
map
shall
be
provided
to
the
City
within
3 months
of
its
recordation
or
prior
to
building
permit
issuance,
whichever
comes
first.

A
cash
deposit
to
the
City,
in
an
amount
equivalent
to
$100.00
per
sheet
of
the
Tract
Map,
for
the
mylar
reproduction
of
the
recorded
Tract
Map
shall
be
posted.

8. Within
30 days
after
City
Council
approval
of
the
Final
Tract
Map,
the
subdivider
shall
pay
the
City
the
sewer
connection
fee.

9. The
applicant
shall
pay
the
drainage
impact
development
fee
in
effect
at
the
time
of
subdivision.

10. The
project
requirements
for
fire
protection
specify
the
installation
of
two
or
more
fire
84 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
6 hydrants
and
expansion
of
the
public
water
system
necessary
to
support
the
installation
of
the
hydrants.

A
Water
System
Analysis
is
required
for
final
design
of
the
proposed
public
water
system
expansion.

Applicant
shall
pay
for
the
cost
of
preparing
the
analysis
prior
to
submittal
of
improvement
plans.
11 . A
Public
Improvement
plan
shall
be
submitted
per
Municipal
Code
requirements
to
the
Department
of
Development
Services,
Engineering
Division.

Improvement
design
should
be
100
percent complete
at
time
of
submittal
and
should
include
the
following
Public
Improvements: a.

A
new
public
pedestrian
access
and
trail
shall
be
provided
between
the
proposed
lots
10 and
11 north
to
Twin
Peaks
Road.
b.

Public
sewer
improvements
connecting
all
20 units
to
the
nearest
public
sewer
main
in
Holly
Oak
Way.
c.

Public
water
improvements
including
fire
hydrants
and
related
appurtenances
connecting
all
20 units
to
the
public
water
main
located
in
Holly
Oak
Way
and
Twin
Peaks
Road.
d.

Public
road,
sidewalk
and
street
light
improvements
for
the
extension
of
Holly
Oak
Way.

12. The
public
improvement
plan
shall
be
approved.

The
applicant
shall
enter
into
a Standard
Agreement
for
public
improvements
for
the
work
to
be
done
as
part
of
the
Public
Improvement
plan.

The
applicant
will
be
responsible
for
posting
securities
for
monumentation
and
public
improvements.
(Planning)
13 . The
public
improvement
plan
shall
include
improvements
shown
on
"Exhibit
A"
fronting
Holly
Oak
Way
and
shall
include
the
following:
a.

Decorative
streetlights
per
the
Old
Poway
street
light
detail.
b.

Street
trees
shall
be
provided
per
the
Landscape
and
Irrigation
Design
Manual.

A
minimum
of
one
fifteen-gallon
tree
shall
be
provided
per
every
30 lineal
feet
of
street
frontage.

Existing
trees
shall
be
considered
and
included
to
meet
this
requirement.

14. If
the
project
will
be
phased
, the
applicant
shall
be
responsible
for
presenting
a
phasing
plan
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Development
Services
Director
prior
to
sale,
lease,
or
financing.

Prior
to
Grading
Permit
issuance,
unless
other
timing
is
indicated,
the
following
conditions
shall
be
complied
with:

1. Submit
a
precise
grading
plan
for
the
development
prepared
on
a
City
of
Poway
standard
sheet
at
a
scale
of
1"
=
20',
unless
otherwise
approved
by
the
City
project
engineer.

Submittal
shall
be
made to
the
Department
of
Development
Services
Engineering
Division
for
review
and
approval.

The
grading
design
shall
be
100
percent
complete
at
the
time
of
submittal,
ready
for
approval
and
issuance
of
permit.

Incomplete
submittals
will
not
be
accepted.

All
technical
studies
as
required
by
Chapter
16 of
the
Poway Municipal
Code
shall
be
submitted.

2. A
drainage
study
addressing
the
impacts
of
the
100-year
storm
event
prepared
by
a
registered
Civil
Engineer
is
to
be
submitted
and
approved.

The
study
shall
evaluate
85 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
7 existing
and
proposed
hydrologic
and
hydraulic
conditions
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
City
project
engineer.

3. Water
Quality
Control
-
Design
and
Construction
The
project
shall
comply
with
the
City
and
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
stormwater
requirements.

The
project
is
considered
a
Priority
Development
Project
and
will
be
subject
to
all
City
and
State
requirements.

Two
copies
of
a
final
Storm
Water
Quality
Management
Plan
(SWQMP)
prepared
by
a
registered
Civil
Engineer
is
to
be
submitted
and
approved.

Once
the
final
SWQMP
is
approved;
a.

Provide
two copies
of
an
Operation
&
Maintenance
(O&M)
plan
in
accordance
with
Chapter

16.104
of
the
Poway
Municipal
Code,
and
a
signed
PDF
version.
b.

Property
owner
shall
execute
an
approved
Storm
Water
Management
Facilities
Maintenance
Agreement
accepting
responsibility
for
all
structural
BMP
maintenance,
repair
and
replacement
as
outlined
in
the
Operations
and
Maintenance
plan.

The
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
shall
be
binding
on
the
land
throughout
the
life
of
the
project
as
outlined
in
section

16.104
of
the
Poway
Municipal
Code.
c.

Property
owner
shall
record
covenants
on
Lots
1 and
20 stating
that
the
future
property
owners
of
these
lots
will
be
responsible
for
perpetual
maintenance
of
the
offsite
treatment
adjacent
to
their
parcels. The
covenants
will
include
language
that
if
the
trees
need
to
be
removed,
the
property
owner
will
participate
in
the
process
for
tree
replacement
or
alternative
treatment
options
and
share
any
related
costs.

Similar
language
will
also
be
included
in
the
Storm
Water
Management
Facilities
Maintenance
Agreement.

4. Water
Quality
Control
-
Construction
Storm
Water
Management
Compliance
Proof
of
coverage
under
the
General
Permit
for
Discharges
of
Storm
Water
Associated
with
Construction
Activity
(Construction
General
Permit,
2009-0009-DWQ,
as
amended
by
order
2010-0014)
shall
be
provided
to
the
City
along
with
a
copy
of
the
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(SWPPP).

5. Grading
securities
shall
be
posted
with
the
City
prior
to
grading
plan
approval
per
Chapter

16.46 of
the
Poway
Municipal
Code.

A
minimum
cash
security
of
$2,000
is
required
in
all
instances.

6. Any
private
improvements,
including
but
not
limited
to,
the
tree
wells
and
infiltration
trenches
proposed
in
the
right
of
way
for
stormwater
treatment
purposes
will
require
an
Encroachment
Agreement.

7. The
applicant
shall
pay
the
storm
water
pollution
inspection
fee
according
to
the
latest
adopted
master
fee
schedule.

8. Following
approval
of
the
grading
plans,
posting
of
securities
and
fees,
and
receipt
of
five
copies
of
the
approved
plans,
the
applicant
shall
attend
a
pre-construction
meeting
at
the
Department
of
Development
Services.

The
scheduling
request
shall
be
submitted
on
a
City
standard
form
available
from
the
City's
project
engineer.

The
applicant's
action
plan
that
identifies
measures
to
be
implemented
during
construction
to
address
erosion,
sediment
and
pollution
control
will
be
discussed.

Compliance
for
sediment
control
shall
be
provided
as
directed
by
the
project
inspector.
86 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
8 9.

Prior
to
start
of
any
work
within
a
City-held
easement
or
right-of-way,
a
Right-of-Way
Permit
shall
be
obtained
from
the
Engineering
Division
of
the
Development
Services
Department.

All
appropriate
fees
shall
be
paid
prior
to
permit
issuance.

10. Construction
staking
is
to
be
inspected
by
the
Engineering
Inspector
prior
to
any
clearing,
grubbing
or
grading.

As
a
minimum,
all
protected
areas
as
shown
on
the
approved
grading
plans
are
to
be
staked
under
the
direction
of
a
licensed
land
surveyor
or
licensed
civil
engineer
and
delineated
with
lathe
and
ribbon.

As
applicable,
provide
two
copies
of
a
written
certification,
signed
and
sealed
in
accordance
with
the
Business
and
Professions
Code,
by
the
engineer
of
record
stating
that
all
protected
areas
have
been
staked
in
accordance
with
the
approved
plans.
(Planning) 11.

A
Tree
Removal
Permit
shall
be
obtained
prior
to
the
removal
of
all
existing
trees.

12. Pursuant
to
mitigation
measure
810-1
a,
removal
of
the
trees
on
site
shall
occur
outside
of
the
breeding
season
for
nesting
birds,
which
generally
runs
from
February
1 to
September
15 (as
early
as
January
1 for
some
raptors).

If
removal
of
the
pine
trees
must
occur
during
the
breeding
season,
a
qualified
biologist
shall
conduct
a
pre-construction
survey
to
determine
the
presence
or
absence
of
nesting
birds
or
raptors
protected
under
the
Migratory
Bird
Treaty
Act
and
California
Fish
and
Game
Code.

The
applicant
shall
submit
the
results
of
the
pre-construction
survey
to
the
City
of
Poway
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
initiating
any
construction
activities.

If
an
active
nest
is
identified,
a
buffer
shall
be
established
between
the
construction
activities
and
the
nest
so
that
nesting
activities
are
not
interrupted.

For
the
given
Project
site,
a
100-foot
buffer
from
common
avian
species,
a
300-foot
buffer
for
listed
or
highly
sensitive
species,
and
a
500-foot
for
raptors,
shall
be
established
and
maintained.

The
buffer
shall
be
delineated
by
temporary
fencing
and
remain
in
effect
as
long
as
construction
is
occurring.

No
Project
construction
shall
occur
within
the
fenced
nest
zone
until
the
young
have
fledged,
are
no
longer
being
fled
by
the
parents,
have
left
the
nest,
and
will
no
longer
be
impacted
by
the
project.

Reductions
in
the
nest
buffer
distance
may
be
appropriate
depending
on
the
avian
species
involved,
ambient
levels
of
human
activity,
screening
vegetation,
or
possibly
other
factors.

13. Pursuant
to
mitigation
measure
810-1
b,
removal
of
the
trees
and
existing
structures
on
site
shall
occur
outside
of
the
roosting
season
for
bats
(approximately
March
through
September).

If
removal
must
occur
during
the
roosting
season,
a
qualified
biologist
with
expertise
and
experience
conducting
bat
surveys
shall
be
retained
by
the
applicant
as
a
qualified
bat
biologist.

A
pre-construction
survey
shall
be
conducted
by
the
qualified
bat
biologist
no
more
than
30 days
prior
to
the
removal
of
trees
and
existing
structures.

The
qualified
bat
biologist
shall
survey
all
trees
or
structures
that
provide
suitable
bat
roosting
habitat.

The
applicant
shall
submit
the
results
of
the
pre-construction
survey
to
the
City
of
Poway
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
initiating
any
construction
activities.

If
a
maternity
roost
is
determined
present,
a
300-foot
buffer
shall
be
placed
around
the
roost,
and
no
work
shall
occur
within
87 of
132
July 19, 2022, Item #4
Resolution No. 22-

Page 9 ends

Poway City CouncilJuly 19, 2022

Poway City Council
July 19, 2022