Item 7 - EA CUP 95-01 DR 95-01 City of Poway
- ~
AGENDA lLPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
- FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~ &.
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Pla ing Serv;ces~
DATE: February 28, 1995
SU8JECT: Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit 95-01 and Development
Review 95-01, City of Poway, Applicant
ABSTRACT
A request to construct a 4,000 square foot administration building at the Operations
Center/Berglund Water Treatment Plant Complex located at 14521 and 14445 lake Poway Road
within the Public Facilities Zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study has been completed on the project and it has been
determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. It is
recommended that a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures be adopted.
- FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated total improvement costs will be $8,319,000.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 36 property owners
in the project area. A neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday, February 15, 1995 to
discuss the project and answer questions. Notices of the neighborhood meeting were sent
to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 95-01 and
Development Reviewc95-01 subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed
resolution.
ACTION
-
e: \c i ty\pl anm ng\report\cup9501 . sum
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM Z ,\
1 of 22
- AG ENDA REPORr-
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James l, Bowersox, City Man~
IN ITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Managetr: j-
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan 'ng Services ~
Carol Rosas, Assistant Planner II
DATE: February 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment. Conditi ona 1 Use Permi t 95-01 and
Development Review 95-01. City of Poway. Aoolicant: A request
to construct a 4,000 square foot administration building at
the Operations Center/Berglund Water Treatment Plant Complex
located at 14521 and 14445 lake Poway Road within the Public
Facilities zone. The project also involves various upgrades
to the Bergl und Water Treatment Pl ant, including the
'/'",0"""'." - ~
t' . t-
1 l
I
~ ~
.
. ...
... .
.
~ -: .............
" I
.
- .
,~-'"::"'=~ ~.- . -
1>:
,~
I
, I
r' I
L
- --
Agenda Report
- February 28, 1995
Page 2
According to Section 17.22.020 of the Municipal Code a conditional use permit
approva 1 i s requi red for the development of publ i c facil iti es and water treatment
facilities within the Public Facilities zone.
FINDINGS
New Public Services Administration Buildinq
Conditional Use Permit 95-01 and Development Review 95-01 includes a proposal to
construct a 4,000 square foot Public Services administration building on the
existing paved pad located immediately west of the Water Treatment Plant
cl earwell along lake Poway Road. The proposed building will be modern i n
appearance and have a rounded roofl ine which will help integrate it into the
sloped setting. The exterior of the building will be finished so that it will
complement the exterior of other City buildings within the complex.
The Berqlund Water Treatment Plant
The Berglund Water Treatment facility was originally constructed in 1972 with
- subsequent expansi on and upgrades in the mid-1970's. The Plant has not received
any significant capital improvements since the clearwell cover was fabricated and
installed ten years ago. The mechanical and electronic components of the plant
have received little more than operator maintenance and repair for nearly 20
years. To comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule and Safe Drinking Water
Act, and to insure un interrupted adequate supply of potable water to Poway
cit i zens and busi nesses, the Council authori zed an improvement program to upgrade
the Plant to current reliability standards.
The City proposes to replace the hardinge filters currently being used at the
Treatment Pl ant with convent i ona 1 mi xed medi a fi lters. The hardinge filters
provide 12 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity to the total plant treatment
capacity of 24 MGD. The remaining capacity is delivered by conventional mixed
media filters.
In additi on 1!E'8he Pl ant upgrades 1 i sted in the prev i ous secti on, the Water
Treatment Plant improvement program also includes the construction of a
conta i nment system for the chemi ca 1 storage tanks and upgrad i ng the d i stri but i on
system control system. Construction of the Treatment Plant upgrades are
scheduled to begin in May 1995 and will last approximately 14 - 16 months.
Temporary contractor laydown and parking areas have been identified on site.
A condition of approval for the project requires that additional landscaping be
installed to enhance and screen the facilities. Capital Improvement Program
funds have been budgeted and approved for the landscaping project.
-
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 7 -1'-\
3 of 22
Agenda Report
February 28, 1995
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study has been completed on the project(attached) and
it has been determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. It is recommended that a Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures be adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated total improvement costs will be $8,319,000. Funding for the Water
Treatment improvement program has previously been reviewed and approved by the
Counc i 1. Fundi ng sources are Redevelopment Agency Funds (1993 Bonds), Water Fund
Reserves, Sewer Fund Reserves, Pilot Plant Study funds and Revenue Bonds.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public noti ce was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 36
property owners i n the project area. A nei ghborhood meet i ng was he 1 d on
Wednesday, February 15, 1995 to discuss the project and answer questions.
Notices of the neighborhood meeting were sent to all property owners within 500
feet of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 95-01 and
Development Review 95-01 subject to the conditions contained in the attached
proposed resolution.
JlB:RWQ:CMR:kls
Attachments:
A. Proposed Reso 1 uti on
B. Initial Study
C. Negative Declaration
D. Zoning Map
E. sePl an
F. Administration Bldg. Site Plan
G. Elevations-Control Building
H. Elevations-Administrative Building
rEB 28 1995 1T;:¡~1 7 ~H
4 of 22
-
RESOLUTION NO. P-
- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-01 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-01
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 278-431-36,37
WHEREAS, Condit i ona 1 Use Permit 95-01 and Development Revi ew 95-01,
submitted by the City of Poway, App 1 i cant for the purpose of construct i ng a 4,000
square foot administration building at the Operations Center/Berglund Water
Treatment Plant complex located at 14521 and 14445 lake Poway Road. The project
a 1 so i nvo 1 ves vari ous upgrades to the Water Treatment Pl ant, i ncl udi ng the
construction of a 1200 square foot addition onto the control building, the
addition of a water storage tank and the replacement of existing chemical storage
tanks, water filters and the clearwell cover.
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered said report and has
considered other evidence presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does heréby resolve as follows:
Ç,,~!v."--.1. [,...; >.",. I
;to ----.,v 1"...- l' ,
. ,
..~ '\\'~
r ....~~ I f-'---r---'
~f ~ :
'*- . '--
.T. , .
I i
" I
~-
I
t:s: . ;\ .
. . ,. " .
I
-- I
,
,
,
'¡,;..c .. , ,
~
.. 1
.
~ i
.l.
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
5. That there will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood
characteristics, in that the upgrades and development are located on
a previously graded and developed site and along an access road that
servi ces other semi -publ i c uses and does not serve any s i ngl e-famil y
homes.
6. That the generation of traffic will not adversely impact surrounding
streets and/or the City's Circulation Element, in that the new
administration building development will provide approximately 15
additional parking spaces.
7. That the site is suitable for the type and intensity of the use, in
that a majority of the project involves upgrades or replacement of
existing facilities. There is adequate area within the complex to
easily accommodate the additional structural development.
8. That there wi 11 not be significant harmful effects upon
environmental quality and natural resources, in that the areas
slated for development have been previ ous ly di sturbed or developed.
9. That there are no other relevant negati ve impacts of the development
that cannot be mitigated, in that additional landscaping will be
installed to help enhance and screen the site and facilities.
Section 3: Citv Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves CUP 95-01 and DR 95-01 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The use conditi ona lly granted by th is permit shall not be conducted
i n such a manner as to interfere wi th the reasonable use and
enjoyment of surrounding residential and open space uses.
2. This conditional use permit shall be subject to annual review by the
Di rector of Pl anni ng Servi ces for comp 1 i ance with the conditi ons of
approval and to address concerns that may have occurred during the
~ear. If the permit is not in compl iance with the conditions
~ proval, or the Planning Services Department has received
complaints, the required annual review shall be set for a public
hearing before the City Counci 1, to consider modification or
revocat i on of the use permit.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on fi 1 e
in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein.
FEB 28 í995 ITEM 7 , ~
6 of 22
"-
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
--
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of
approval shall be submitted to the Planning Services Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of
the Zoni ng Ordi nance and all other app 1 i cab 1 e City Ordi nances i n effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
4. A grading plan for the development of the property shall be submitted to
the City's Engineering Services Department for review and approval prior
to issuance of a grading permit and start of grading operation unless
grading involves earthwork movement of less than 50 cubic yards.
5. A ri ght-of-way permit shall be obtained from the City's Engi neeri ng
Services Department for any work to be done within the publ ic street
right-of-way or any City-held easement.
6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
architecturally integrated, screened from vi ew and sound buffered from
adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Services
Department.
7. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform ~umbing Code, National Electric Code,
-- Uniform Fi re Code, and all other appl i cab 1 e codes and ordi nances i n effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
8. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access
road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast with their
background color.
9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not
issued for this project within two years from the date of project
approval.
10. All parking lot landscaping shall include a minimum of one 15 gallon size
tree for every three spaces. For parking lot islands, a minimum 12 inch
wide walk adjacent to parking stalls shall be provided and be separated
from v~ar areas by a six inch high, six inch wide portland concrete
cement cur.
11. All two-way traffic aisles shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide. A minimum
of 24 feet wide emergency access shall be provided, maintained free and
clear at all times during construction in accordance with Safety Services
Department requirements.
12. All parki ng spaces shall be double stri ped.
--
FEB 2 B 1995 HEM 7 ,I
7 of 22
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
13. Complete 1 andscape construction documents shall be submitted to and
approved by the Pl ann i ng Servi ces Department. Plans shall be prepared in
accordance with City of Poway Guide to Landscape Requirements (latest
edition).
14. Both buildings will be required to install an approved fi re spri nkl er
system meeting P.M.C. requirements. The entire system is to be monitored
by a central monitoring company. System post indicator valves with tamper
switches, also monitored, are to be located by the City Fi re Marshal pri or
to installation.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 28th day of February 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
«I<
FES 2 8 1995 ITEM 7 . r1
of 22
-
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
- "", ~~
APPL I CANT: ." ¡
""" "", . ,...."" füpqs-o\: iJ{Lq<;-o¡
PROJECT: vJ¿¡t1=.r-""T" ín:rh\s-.~¡{l(\t t,v: fW\~\Òr"\ f; . f'1~bl"('>$,e(y~ {:U;ttLij
PROJECT LOCATlON:-1t1lt. fvl,Ù~ ~\ {¡L/t.¡ '1<: f NS). ')
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Fact-based explanations of all answers are reQuired on attached sheets.)
- YES MAYBE ~
(
1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have
significant Impacts In:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in /
geologic relationships? --- -----
b. Disruptions. displacements, compaction. or /
burial of the soi I? --- ----- .JL..
c. Change in topography or ground surface /
contour i nterva I s? --- ----- J::::...
d, The destruction. covering. or modification
of any uniQue geologic or physical . /
- features? --- ----- L
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of sol Is. affecting either on- or /
off-site conditions? --- ----- L
1. Changes in erosion. si Itation. or . /
depos i t ion? --- ----- .k:-
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthQuakes. lands I ides,
mudslides. ground fai lure. or similar /
hazards? --- ----- V
2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant
Impacts In:
a. Chan~l. In currents. or the course in
dir~ of flowing streams, rivers, or /
ephemeral stream channels? --- ----- ~
b. Changes in absorption rates. drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of /
surface water runoff? --- ----- v'
c. Alterations to the course or flow of /
flood waters? --- ----- --L
d. Change In the amount of surface water in /
any body of water? --- ----- v
- e. Discharge Into surface waters, or any alter- /
action of surface water Quality? --- ----- V
ATTACHMENT 8 -
FES 28 1995 II EM 7 - Ii
) of 22
Environmental Study Chc ,I i st
Page 2
YES MAYBE NO
f. Alteration of groundwater /
characteristics? - -
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters.
either through direct additions. or wlth-
drawals. or through interference with an
aquifer? ,/
Qual ity? - -
Quantity? - - 7
h. The reduction In the amount of water otherwise
avai lable for publ ic water suppl ies? - - L
i. Exposure of people or property to water - ( L
related hazards such as flooding or seiches?
3. Air Qual ity. Wi II the proposal have significant
Impacts In:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from 4-
mobi Ie or indirect sources? - -
Stationary sources? - -
b. Deterioration of ambient air qual ity and/or
interference with the attainment of appll- L
cable air quality standards? - -
c. Alteration of local or regional cl imatlc
conditions. affecting air movement moisture /
or temperature? - -
4. Flora. Wi II the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species.
including diversity. distribution, or number vi
of endangered species of plants? - -
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique. J
rare, or endangered species of plants? - -
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species ,/
of plants into an area? - - -
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural /
pr°'W°n? - - -
5. Fauna. Wi II the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change In the characteristics of species.
Including diversity. distribution, or /
numbers of any species of animals? - -
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique. ~
rare, or endangered species of animals? - -
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of animals into an area. or result in a
barrier to the mitigation or movement of ,/
animals? - - -
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish --~7
or wildlife habitat?
10 of 22 fEB 2 8 1995 'iEM - "
-
Environmental Study Che~~. ist
Page 3
- YES ~ t!2...-
6. Population, [Will the proposal] have significant
results In:
a. [Will the proposal] alter the location, distri-
bution, density. diversity, or growth rate of L
the human population of an area? --- -----
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, /
or create a demand for additional housing? --- ----- ~
7. Soclo-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have
significant results In:
a. Change In local or regional soclo-economlc (
characteristics. Including economic or
commercial diversity. tax rate. and prop- /
erty va lues? --- ----- ....Ii.
b. WI II project costs be equitably distri-
buted among project beneficiaries, I.e., /
buyers, taxpayers. or project users? ~ ----- ---
8. Land Use and Plannin~ Considerations, Will the
proposal have significant results In:
a, A substantial alteration of the present or /
planned land use of an area? --- ----- ~
- b. A confl ict with any designations, objectives.
policies. or adopted plans of any govern- /
menta I ent I ties? --- ----- V
c. An Impact upon the qual ity or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive /
recreational opportunities? --- ----- v
9, Transportation, WI II the proposal have significant
results In:
a, Generation of substantial additional vehicular , /
movement? --- ----- ~
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for /
new street construct Ion? --- ----- ---
c. Eff~on existing parking facilities, or /
dem""or new park I ng? --- ----- ---
d, Substantial Impact upon existing transpor- /
tat ion systems? --- ----- ---
e, Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people and/or /
goods? --- ----- L..
f, Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne. ral I, mass transit, /
or air traffic? --- -----
g, Increases In traffic hazards to motor /
vehicles. bicycl ists, or pedestrians? --- ----- ---
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 7 , J
11 of 22
Environmental Study Ch__~1 ist
Page 4
YES MAYBE NO
10, Cultural ,Resources. Wi II the proposa I have
significant Impacts In:
a. A disturbance to the Integrity of archaeo-
logical, paleontological, and/or historical /
resources? - -
11. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Wi II the
proposal have significant results In:
a, Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? - - L
b. Exposure of people to potential health ./
hazards? - -
c, A risK of explosion or release of hazardous
substances In the event of an accident? - ~ -
d. An Increase In the number of Individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms /
or the exposure of people to such organisms? - -
e, Increase in existing noise levels? ~
- -
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? - - L
g, The creation of objectionable odors? - - J
h. An increase in light or glare? - ..L
-
12, Aesthetics, Wi II the proposal have significant
results In:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic /
vista or view? - - -
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site? - -L -
c. A confl ict with the objective of designated -L
or potential scenic corridors? - -
13. Uti Iities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have slgn~nt need for new systems, or alter-
ations to . following:
a. Electric power? - V
-
b. Natural or pacKaged gas? ./
- - -
c. Communications systems? - _ ./
d. Water supply? - V
-
e, Wastewater facilities? ./
- - -
f. F lcod contro I st ructures? V
- - -
g, Solid waste facilities? V
- -
h, Fire protection? - - L
2 of 22 FEe 28 1995 ITEM 7 ~ II
- -
Environmental Study Chec~, 1st
Page 5
-
Yê MAYBE ~
I. Police protection? - - vi
j, Schools? - - .L
k, Parks or other recreational facilities? - I
-
I, Maintenance of public faci Iitles, Including L
roads and flood control facilities? - -
m, Other governmental services? - - /
14. Energy and Scarce Resources, Wi II the proposal
have significant Impacts In: (
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or -L
energy.? - -
b, Substant i a I increase in demand upon existing ./
sources of energy? - -
c, An Increase In the demand for development of .L
new sources of energy? - -
d. An Increase or perpetuation of the con sump-
tlon of non-renewable forms of energy, when
feasible renewable sources of energy are V
available? - -
-
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable J
or scarce natural resources? - -
15. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the qual ity of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wlldl ife species, cause a fish or wi Id-
life population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or el iminate
important examples of the major periods -Yi
- of the California history or prehistory? - -
b. Doe~ project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term Impact on the environment Is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts wi II -L
endure we II into the future,) - -
c. Does the project have Impacts which are
individually I imlted, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
- Individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effect of
past projects, and probable future -11
projects.) - -
rEa 2 8 1995 IïEM- 7 -. I
l3 of 22
Environmental Study CI k list
Page 6
d, Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either L
directly or Indirectly? - -
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(I.e.. Of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discuss i on of
proposed mitigation measures,)
III.DETERMINATION -
On the basis of this initial evaluation: (
D I find the proposed,project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi II be prepared.
czf I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there wi II not be a significant effect
In this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION Will BE PREPARED,
D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE: zl i !qrs SIGNATURE: f)jJrJt'7rl. fi:JøwJ-
m1) ist!ìt/l f phnnU( Jt
TITLE:
FORMSIEIS,FRM
-
~
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 7 ."!
14 of 22
-
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
To comply with State Department of Health Services mandates the City of Poway
proposes to replace the hardinge filters currently in use at the Les Berglund Water
Treatment Plant with conventional mixed media filters. Other proposed upgrades
within the Operations Center/Berglund Water Treatment Plant complex on Lake Po way
Road include the construction of a new 4,000 square foot Public Services
administration building and a 1200 square foot addition to the water treatment plant
control building, existing modular buildings will be removed, a wash water tank will
be added, existing chemical storage tanks are to be replaced and a containment
system for the new chemical storage tanks will be created.
Overall the project should not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
The proposal will however result in a change in the appearance of the area, the
efficiency of existing water facilities should impròve and the potential for health
hazards should decrease.
11. Health. Safetv. and Nuisance Factors.
As previously mentioned, the project involves the replacement of hardinge
- filters with more conventional mixed media filters. The mixed media filters
have the same processing capacity of 12 million gallons per day yet provide
better quality water through a more effective filtering treatment.
At different stages of the water treatment process, various chemicals as alum,
caustic soda, potassium promanganate, carbon, ammonia and chlorine are
added to purify and sanitize the water. These chemicals have been used in the
treatment process at the plant for several years without the occurrence of a
hazardous mishap. Of the chemicals used in the treatment process, the
chlorine presents the most serious health hazard in the event of an accidental
release. The City proposes to upgrade the chlorinator room and the area where
the chlorine is stored with the construction of a vaccum equipped double
walled Rete chamber. The City will also be constructing a containment
area an . em around the replaced chemical storage tanks. This project will
therefore decrease the potential for health impacts or hazards.
12. Aesthetics
The proposal will change the appearance of the site in that a new 30 foot high
210,000 gallon water tank is to be added near a similar existing tank on the
easterly boundary of the project site and two 23 feet high chemical storage
tanks will be added to replace two existing 15 foot high chemical storage tanks
- located along the southerly portion of the lot. The project will also involve the
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 7 ; I
15 of 22
CUP 95-01
Environmental Evaluation
Page 2
construction of a 1200 square foot addition to the water treatment plant
control building which has been designed to resemble the existing building. A
future phase project will be the construction of a new 4,000 square foot Public
Services administration building. While the project will change the appearance
of the site it is not thought that the proposal will result in an aethetically
offensive site. The project areas are effectively screened by the topography
from residential development to the south. Existing buildings and eucalyptus
trees located along Lake Poway Road will provide some screening of the site
from the north.
Mitiaation - A condition of approval for the project requires the preparation of
a landscape plan. Landscaping shall be installed to enhance and screen the
site from adjacent residential development and Lake Poway Park users.
«~
FEa 28 í995 ITEM 7 ,I
16 of 22
DON ffiCCINSON, Mayor CITY OF POW A '\l:
SUSAN CAU:ERY, Deputy Mayor
M'CIŒY CAFAGNA, C>uocilmembu
ROBERT EMERY. C>uDdlmcmbu
BEITY REXFORD, 0>uDdImember
~
CITY OF POWA Y
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: City of Poway. P.O. Box 789 Poway CA 92074-
0789
2. Brief Description of Project: A reQuest to construct a 4000 SQuare foot
administration buildinG at the Operations Center/BerGlund Water Treatment Plant
Complex located at 14521 and 14445 Lake Powav Road within the Public Facilities
zone. The proiect also involves various uPGrades to the Beralund Water Treatment
Plant includinG the construction of a 1 200 SQuare foot addition to the control
buildinG the addition of a water storace tank and the replacement of existinG
chemical storace tanks water filters and the clearwell cover.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway has determined that
- the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Poway are on
file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of Poway.
5. This decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Carol Rosas Phone: 1619) 679-4290
Approved by: - Date:
Reba 'ft"lt-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
ATTACHMENT C
City HaiL Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive FEB 28 1995 ITEM 7 -
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-14.90
.7 of 22
~
- ----------- -------
-- '--~
BLUE SKY RANCH ECOLOGiCAl RESERVE
/~ ------- ------ --- ---
/ OS-AM c¡
29
1-
I
CUP 95-01 & DR 95-01
CITY OF POW A Y ITEM:
~ SCALE, TITLE: ZONING MAP
NONE D
ATTACHMENT:
FES 28 1995 ITEM- 7 "
_8 of 22
- -
.-
~,~
^oco.v~"'-"'~
..~,
.c. ~
,;.c, -,- - --
-
."
ITEM : CUP 95-01 & DR 95-01
- ~ TITLE ; OVERALL SITE PLAN
A TT ACHMENT : E
19 of 22 FEB 2 ß 1995 ITEM- 7 -.,1
e Ii:=' F'I-,.6-, ....
I'. "-,,,'
-
«.
CITY OF PO WAY ITEM: CUP 95-01 & DR 95-01
ADMINISTRATION BLDG,
@ SCALE, TITLE: PARTIAL SITE PLAN
NONE ATTACHMENT: F
-
FEB 28 1995 HEM 7 '.1
20 of 22
~ ~
0-
- ¡
!
: i i[JD, '00' [J
~ ~~ ru::-AnON
:?; ,~ c-,{;\3
~ V ~V ~
~"". ~"" -, .
.: / \
I
i
'01
, I
I', ,:
I "
@ EAST El.£VAnON
ø
I
SOUTH El.£VAnQN \- ,,'
CITY OF POW A Y ITEM: CUP 95-01 & DR 95-01
CONTROL BLDG
TITLE: ELEVATIONS
~ SCALE, noo" ATTACHMENT ,- ,
21 of 22 FEB 281995 lîEM- 7 .-=
-....
.----.:..---------- - ----
- -~~--""-\-5'V,ATION
~
\
\'
I
.....
CUP 95-01 & DR 95-01
ITEM:
ADMINISTRATION BLDG,
TITLE: ELEVATIONS
A TT ACHMENT : H
22 of 22 FEB 28 1995 r;¿:'J1 7
- -
To: ,. Mayor Higginson & the Poway City Council
Date: January 27, 1995
Subject: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
1) We purchased our homes here because we wanted to live in a neighborhood with large
lots and single family homes.
2) We want our neighborhood to remain single family homes and we are opposed to any
type of CUP or Variance that makes allowances in our neighborhood for multiple units
whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
3) We expect our elected officials to uphold the existing plan for our neighborhood. We,
the undersigned, urge you to vote AGAINST CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10.
12ß41 u,Us.a:v eci