Loading...
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