Item 13 - EA CUP 95-03 City of Poway AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. City Mana~.~[~~ ~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of PlanHing Services
DATE: March 14, 1995
SUBJECT: E 1 A and Conditional Use Permit 95-03 City of Poway,
App icant: Consideration of a 1 use permit for Arbolitos
Min park located south of Ted Williams Parkway and east of Pomerado Road
in he OS-RM zone.
ABSTRACT
Thi report introduces 1 Use Permit 95-03 which seeks approval of the concep
des gn and of the Arbolitos Minipark, the econd minipark to be considered
by he City Council since the adoption of the General P an Update which established the
min park design standards in 1993. Staff and the Rancho rbolitos neighborhood have been
wor lng together over the past several months to deve op a park plan that meets the
1 needs of the and the design stan ards of the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Issue a Negative Declaration is ~.
FISCAL IMPACT
$120,000 has been allocated in the City of Poway 1994-95 Capital I Budget to
the project.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 84 property owners
in the project area.
t is that the City Council issue a Negative and adopt the
Use Permit 95-03.
ACTION
1 of 23 NIAR 1 4 1995
AGENDA REPOR
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members~oJf~,e City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, City~anager~~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services
DATE: March 14, 1995
SUBJECT: 1 Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 95-03 City
Poway, Applicant: Consideration of a conditional use permit
for Arbolitos Minipark located on the southeast corner of the
of Pomerado Road and Ted Williams Parkway in the
OS-RM zone. The issuance of a Negative Declaration.(indicating.
no significant adverse 1 impacts ~) is
recommended.
BACKGROUND
The Community Services Department to receive requests for new
neighborhood parks. In order to evaluate these requests, staff prepared a map
depicting existing park and school facilitie and their service areas. These
areas were categorized as served by park facil ties, J and not served.
Neighborhoods considered served are located w thin a one-half mile radius of an
existing neighborhood park. Residents loca ed in to a school were
in that schools provide only a limited of
Those neighborhoods ~ not served were located
beyond the park and school service areas. While existing facilities cover a large
percentage of the City, there are neighborhoods that have been isolated by
topographic conditions, roadways and other natural or mad-made barriers. It was
determined that the size and scope of to meet the
1 needs of these isolated would best be met by the
minipark.
One of the isolated that approached City staff was the
Rancho Arbolitos/Glen Oak Road neighborhood. Th s neig borhood is bounded on the
orth by Ted Williams Parkway and Twin Peaks oad, t e east by existing single
amily homes, the west by Pomerado Road a d on he sou h by single family homes,
braxas High School and Glen Oak Road. Wile S lverla e and Silverset Parks are
ocated within or ' ' the Rancho rbolitos housing they are
ocated on the eastern side of the pro ect and not readily accessible by the
ACTION: See Summary Sheet
MAR 1 4 1995
2 of 23
Agenda Report
March 14, 1995
Page 2
people in this neighborhood without walking or driving a significant distance.
A distance that would be unsafe for young children to traverse by
Due to the lack of facilities in the area and the availability of
the existing undeveloped Arbolitos Open Space Park, the property owners within
this community actively perused the city to a 1 park
facility within large undeveloped area. Over the past six months the neighbors
have met with city staff to develop a park concept and financing plan.
FINDINGS
The proposed park site is ly one acre in size and is located in the
northeast corner of the Arbolitos Park. The 26-acre Arbolitos Park remains
undeveloped and is located on the southeast corner of Pomerado Road and Ted
Williams Parkway. Much of the southern section of Arbolitos Park has been
rendered undevelopable because of a landslide and slump material.
The proposed minipark site is to located on an existing terrace away from the
slide area. A drainage channel is located on the west end of the 26 acre park
parcel adjacent to Pomerado Road. The minipark park is located about 600 feet
east of the channel and 45 feet higher in elevation. The property was rough
raded in with the development of Adobe Ridge Road and the single
amily homes. On-site consists primarily of annual grasses, weeds,
histle, eucalyptus and pi'ne trees. This section of the park has been previously
isturb d in with the of Ted Williams Parkway and the
· - ancho rbolitos housing development. Portions of the park have also been burned
y wil fires, with the d guidelines established for a
minipar , this one-acre facility proposes a turfed area, shade , play
areas or different age roups, picnic ables, a reduced-size hard court, a
drinking fountain and ~ landscap ng. The extension of a walkway from
the proposed minipark si e to Glen Oak oad will be considered in a second
development phase of the m ni-park. Unique o the minipark design concept is that
there is no on-site parking or provided for this facility. The hours
of will be limited to the daylight hours.
As noted, staff has been working with the Rancho Arbolitos h group and
with adjacent property owners. The proposed park plan reflects numerous changes
in the design and types of park
The proposed minipark was presented n approved by the Parks and R
Advisory on January 18, 19 5. This however, expressed
concern with the access to the park rom Ted Williams Parkway with regard to
traffic and the lack of sidewalks, taff was also concerned with the park's
design as it related to compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). To
resolve these issues staff looked at the access problems and determined that
although there are no sidewalks on Ted Williams Parkway, there is a wide earth
path located behind the eucalyptus trees adjacent to the parkway. This path can
be safely and easily used to provide access along Ted Williams Parkway. A second
pathway to the south, near Abraxas School is also proposed for a later phase
when additional funds become available. This will provide a direct and improved
link for the people on Glen Oak Road. Given that the degree of slope on Ted
3 of 23 ~IAR 1~. 1995 I'~E~ 15
Agenda Report
March 14, 1995
Page 3
Williams Parkway exceeds the 12:1 ratio required for wheelchair accessibility,
of a sidewalk for ADA access purposes would be fruitless. Staff, is
therefore proposing the of a turn out along Ted Williams Parkway
where the internal park sidewalk joins the roadway. This turn out is to be signed
and striped for handicap vehicles only and is intended to be used primarily as
a drop off area. The turn out will also serve as an access point for
and vehicles.
In order to assist in the of the minipark, the will also
provide in-kind labor and funds to assist in the ~f the minipark.
. REVIEW
Staff conducted an on-si e visit of the project area and prepared and
1 initial study o determine the potential impacts that could occur
with the impl of he proposed project. The study indicated that due
to the location of the parce and the type of existing vegetation, no significant
impacts are and the issuance of a Negative Declaration is
recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
$120,000 has be allocated from the City of Poway 1994-95 Capital
Budget to construct the facility. The local residents have also volunteered in-
kind labor and funds.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Powax News and mailed to 84
property owners in the project area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration and approve
Conditional Use Permit 95-03 subject to conditions contained in the attached
resolution
JLB:RWQ:JDF:JHL:kls
Attachments:
A. roposed Resolution
B. 1 Initial Study
C. egative Declaration
D. roposed Arbolitos Minipark Plan
4 of 23 MAR 1~ 1995 I'~ 13 ~
RESOLUTION NO. P-
R OLU ION OF THE CITY OUNC
FE C TY OF POWAY, CAL FORN
APP OV G C DITIONAL USE PE MIT -03
ASSES' 'S ARCEL NUMBER 14-- 0-24
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 95-03 submitted by the City of
Poway approval for the design and of a minipark
located on A 21.65 acre site east of Road and south of Ted
Williams Parkway in the Open Space Resource Management (OS-RM) zone,
and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1995, the City Council held a duly
advertised public hearing to obtain both pro and con on the
above described item.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: 1 Fin
The City Council finds that this project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the t and hereby issues
a Negative Declaration.
Conditional Use Permit 95-03
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
in that parks are d in open space zones with the
approval of a conditional use permit
2. That the location, size and design and operating
ch stics of the proposed use will be compa ible
with and will not adversely affect or be mater ally
d 1 to adjacent uses, residents, build ngs,
, or natural hi~: that the use wi 1 be
located on vacant land and that ~ surrounding property
owners have direct input into the design and configuration
of the minipark.
3. That the scale, bulk, and density is consistent
with adjacent uses, in that the proposed park in only one
acre in size and has been design primarily to
the 1 uses of the Rancho Arbolitos subdivision
and th~ surrounding 'es.
4. That there are available public facilities, services and
utilities to serve the proposed use as public water and
street access is available to the site.
5 of 23 MAR 1 4 ~995 I'~i~ 1}
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
5. That there will not be a harmful effect upon desirable
neighborhood ch 'stics, in that the proposed park
was designed with direct input from the surrounding
property owners and will assist in meeting the
onal needs of the local
6. That the generation of traffic will not adversely impact
the surrounding streets and/or the City's Circulation
Element in that the park is designed for primarily
pedestrian access with no on-site parking facilities.
7. That the site is suitable for the type and of
use and development proposed in that the site will occupy
one of a acre vacant site and has been tailored
in size to accommodate the local 'onal needs.
8. That there will not be significant harmful effects upon
the 1 quality and natural , in that
the site has been ly disturbed and subject to fire
of the past years.
9. That there are no other relevant impacts of the proposed
use that cannot be mitigated.
10. That the impacts, as described above and he location of
the proposed park will not adversely affect the City of
Poway General Plan for future as well as present
development, in that the General Plan designates parks as
one of the conditional uses p in the open space
zone.
Section 3: Coun~ 3ecision:
The City Council hereby Conditional Use Permit 95-03
subject to the following conditions:
The use conditionally granted by this permit shall not be
conducted in such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable
use and enjoyment of surrounding residential and 'al
USES.
This conditional use permit shall be subject to annual review
for the first two years by the of Planning Services for
compliance with the conditions of approval and to address
that may have occurred during the past year. If the
permit is not in compliance with the conditions of approval, or
the Planning has . complaints, the
annual review shall be set for a public hearing before
the City Council, to consider modification or 'on of the
use permit.
6 of ~3 J~AR 14 1995
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
COHPLIANCE WITH THE IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES.
SITE ENT
1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site
plans on file in the Planning Services D and the
conditions contained herein.
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all
conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning
Services D prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all
of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City
Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. Prior to any use of the project site or business being
d thereof, all conditions of approval d herein
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning Services.
5. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform
Bui ding Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code,
Nat onal Electric Code, Uniform Fire Code, and all other
app icable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
bui ding permit issuance.
PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS
1. All two-way traffic aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide.
A minimum of 24 feet wide emergency access shall be provided,
maintained free and clear at all times during tion in
accordance with Safety Services Department req
2. A 12-foot wide smoothed earthen emergency vehicle access
roadway shall be provided north of the proposed park
imp . Access shall be from the turnout on Ted Williams
Parkway
LANDSCAPE IHPROVEMENTS
1. Complete landscape d shall be submitted to
and approved by the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of building permits. Plans shall be prepared in
accordance with City of Poway Guide to Requirements
(latest edition).
2. Existing on-site trees shall be retained possible and
shall be d in a horticulturally acceptable manner.
Dead, decaying, or potentially dangerous trees shall be
~AR141995 IT~ 13
7 of 23
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
for removal at the discretion of the Planning S rvices
Department during the review of the Master Plan of exist ng on-
site trees. Living trees which are approved for remova shall
be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis as required by the Panning
3. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The
trees shall be . d and allowed to retain a natural form.
Pruning should be d to the health of the trees
and to protect the public safety. . 1 or
pruning, including topping, is not d.
SIGNS
1. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed and
approved in conformance with the Sign Ordinance.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
GRADING
1. Grading of the subject shall be in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code, City Grading approved grading ''
plan and geotechnical report, and accepted grading practices.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
licensed by the State of California to perform such work and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
3. The final grading plan, prepared on a standard sheet of mylar,
shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and
services and shall be completed prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
4. A pre-blast survey of the surrounding property shall be
conducted to the satisfaction of the Director of Eng'
Services prior to any rock blasting. A blasting permit sba 1
be obtained from the Services prior
any rock blasting. Seismic Recordings shall be taken for a 1
blasting and blasting shall occur only at locations and leve s
approved by the of E Services.
5. All new slopes shall be a minimum of 2:1 (h 1 to
vertical).
6. A final on report shall be submitted and approved prior
to issuance of building permits.
8 of 23
Resolution No. P-
Page 5
7. Non-supervised or fill is specifically not
allowed. Rock disposal areas shall be graded in compliance with
City-approved soils investigations and dations and
grading plans.
8. Ero ion control, including but not limited to desiltation
bas ns, shall be installed and d from Oct. 15th to
Apr 1 15th. An erosion control plan shall be by the
rD ect civil and shall be submitted as part of the
ra lng plan. The developer shall make p to insure the
roper ma' of all erosion control devices throughout
heir intended life.
STREETS AND
1. All exterior street shall be d to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services prior to
issuance of building permits.
2. A 25-foot long handicap access with adequate tapers
shall be provided at the to the park. Street
imp that include, but are not limited to:
idewalks Cross gutter
Alley gutter
--×-- heelchair ramps --2-- Street paving
X urb and gutter Alley paving
X triping and signing
shall be d prior to use of the park to the
satisfaction of the of Engineering Services.
3. All damaged off-site public works facilities, including parkway
trees, shall be repaired and replaced prior to ion of
bonds and imp to the satisfaction of the of
E
4. Prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way or City-
held , a right-of-way permit shall be obtained from
the E and 'ate fees paid,
in addition to any permits required.
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL
1. I drains shall be required at 1 specified by
the of E Services and in with
standard engineering practices.
2. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing all surface
water originating within the project, and all surface waters
MARl~1995 I~ 13
9 of 23
Resolution No. P-
Page 6
that may flow onto the project from adjacent lands, shall be
required. Said drainage system shall include any and
structures as required by the Director of E g Services
to properly handle the drainage.
3. C flows across and/or sidewalks shall not
be d.
UTILITIES
1. Utility shall be provided to the specification of the
serving utility companies and the of Eng'
Services.
2. The City of Poway shall be 'ble for the relocation and
undergrounding of existing public utilities as required.
3. Existing telephone, gas, electric, water, sewer, and other
public utility lines and within and to
the shall be shown on the grading plans.
4. Any light fixtures shall use a clear, low
sodium vapor light source.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
State of California, this 14th day of March 1995.
Don Mayor
ATTEST
Marjor e K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
MAR 1 ~. 1995
0 of 23
CITY OF POWAY
__ INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DATE: Febru, 1995
APPLICANT:
PROJECT: Arbolit~
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Ted ~ tnd Pomerado Road
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1.Soils an~ ~MII the proposal have
significant impacts in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes
in geologic relationships? X
b. Disruptions, displ compaction, or
burial of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
Iervals? X
d. The d covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on- or
off-site conditions? - X
f. Changes in erosion, siltation, or
deposition? X
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? X
ATTACHMENI B
11 of 23 ~AR 14 1995 ITE
YES MAYBE NO
2. Will the proposal have significant impacts in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course in
direction of flowing streams, rivers, or
ephemeral stream channels? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any body of water?. X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter-
action of surface water quality? X
f. Alteration of groundwater ch X
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions, or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?.
Quality? X
Quantity? X
h. The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X
3. Will the proposal have significant impacts in:
a. Constant or periodic air from
mobile or indirect sources? X
Stationary sources? X
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or
interference with the attainment of appli-
cable air quality standards? X
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air I moisture
or temperature? X
12 of 23 MAR 14 1995 Iq"~..~ 15"
YES MAYBE NO
4. Flora. Will the proposal have significant
- results in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of endangered species of plants? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants? X
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of plants into an area? X
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production? X
5. Fauna. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Change in the ch of species,
including diversity, distribution, or
- numbers of any species of animals? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals? X
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species
of animals into an area, or result in a
barrier to the mitigation : of
animals? X
d. D of existing fish
or wildlife habitat? X
6. ~tion. [Will the proposal] have significant
results in:
a. [will the proposal] alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? X
b. [will the proposal] affect existing housing,
._ or create a demand for additional housing? X
~AR 1 ~ 1995 I~.~ 13
L3 o~ 23
YES MAYBE NO
7. Socio-Economic Factors, Witl the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Change in local or regional
characteristics, including
diversity, tax rate, and property values? X
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among
project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, taxpayers,
or project users? X
8. se and PI ~ Considerations. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? X
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any govern-
mental entities? X
c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing consumptive or ptive
opportunities? X
9. Tr Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
~? X
b~ Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street X
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems? X
e. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or I of people and/or
goods? X
f. Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail, mass transit,
or air traffic? X
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X
L4 of 23 MAR 1,~ 1995 li~ 13
YES MAYBE NO
10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant impacts in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeo-
logical, paleontological, and/or historical
X
11. Healt ~afet ~d Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? X
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? X
c. A risk of explosion of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident? X
d. An increase in the number of individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms
or the exposure of people to such organisms? X
e. Increase in existing noise levels? X
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? X
g. The creation of objectionable odors? X
h, An increase in light or glare? X
12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view? X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site? X
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential ' :lors? X
.5 of 23 ~AR 14 1995
YES MAYBE NO
13. Utilities and Public Services. Vt]Il the proposal
have significant need for new systems, or alter-
ations to the following:
a. Electric power?. X
b. Natural or packaged gas? X
c. C systems? X
d. Water supply? X
e. Wastewater facilities? X
f. Flood control X
g. Solid waste facilities? X
h. Fire I: X
i. Police protection? X
j. Schools? X
k. Parks or other ~ facilities? X
I. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities? X
m. Other ~ services? X
14. E~ and Scarce Resources. W~II the proposal
have significant impacts in:
a. Use of substantial or fuel or
energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy? X
c. An increase in the demand for development of
new sources of energy? X
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consump-
tion of 31e forms of energy, when
feasible renewable sources of energy ara
available? X
e. Substantial depletion of any 31e
or scarce natural X
16 of 23 ~AR 14 1995 I'£H~ 15 ,
YES MAYBE NO
15. Man nce.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
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 eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of the California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, ~' goals? (A short-
term impact on the :is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) X
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but y
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the ' effects of an
individual project are considerable when
viewed in with the effect of
past projects, and probable future
projects.) X
d. Does the project have Iai
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? X
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation
)
SEE ATI'ACHED PAGES
MAR141995 ITEM 1_3 ,
J7 o:~ 23
III. DETERMINATION
[~ On the basis of this initial
~ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the :, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the I, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
r---] i find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
I, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
SIGNATURE: o ~
18 of 23 MAR 14 1995
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The minipark is located on a 21 acre site located on the southeast corner of Pomerado Road and
Ted Williams Parkway and adjacent to a single family subdivision, a high school and two major
roadways. Th ~proximately 50 feet' from Pomerado Road. Only one acre
of the site will be developed for park purposes. The remaining acreage will be left vacant. The
park will include shade play ground areas, reduced size hardcourts, picnic tables,
benches and landscaping _
1. SOILS and GEOLOGY
Only minor grading is anticipated to construct the park facility at this time. Additional grading may
be required depending upon the type of soil and the degree of compaction. Grading practices
shall conform to the City of Poway Grading Ord' :1 acceptable standard practices. There
is a landslide area south of the park site, but it will not be affected by the proposed project.
2. HYDROLOGY
There is a large drainage channel located on the west boundary of the 21 acre site adjacent to
Pomerado Road. The minipark is located on the opposite side of the parcel and will have no
impact on the water quality or quantity within the drainage channel. Absorption rates will not
significantly change in that only a small half court sized basketball facility will be ~ :1 on
site. turf, landscaping and native vegetation will cover the remaining areas permitting normal
absorption rates and groundwater recharge.
3. AIR QUALITY
The proposed minipark is intended to serve the immediate neighborhood as a "walk to" facility.
As such, no significant number of additional veh [icipated that could significantly impact
the air quality of the area. There will be some additional pollution generated during the
of the park. However, this is considered short term impact and not considered
significant.
4/5. FLORA/FAUNA
The project site had been disturbed during th = the adjacent homes and roadway.
Native vegetation on the site consists of annual grasses, thistle, weeds, ecualyptus and pine
trees. The on-site vegetation is classified as "disturbed" on the City's vegetation maps. Various
portions of the 32 acre site has been burned on the past years. The site was noted to support
only common birds and animals endemic to residential areas. Species sited on the property
include a snowy egret, sparrows, cow birds, crows, and gophers. C ~ the park facility
will not significantly impact the local flora and fauna. Approximately 20 acres will remain
undeveloped and available for possible foraging or the growth of additional plant species.
MAR 14 1995
19 o~ 23
6. POPULATION
The project proposes the of a city minipark. This action is not considered growth
inducing and will not require the alteration, distribution or relocation of people or housing.
7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
The :ed with the and maintenance of the facility will be bom primarily
by the city. No new taxes or ! will be imposed.
8. LAND USE and PLANNING :
The project is in compliance with the policies, strategies and goals of the General Plan. Parks
are permitted in residential zones with the approval of a use permit.
9. TRANSPORTATION
Given that this facility is intended to primarily serve the local neighborhood as a '~'alk to" facility.
No significant new transportation or parking demands are anticipated. On-street parking will be
available on Glen Oak Road or at Abraxas High School for those located both inside or outside
the Rancho Arbolitos subdivision wishing to drive to the minipark.
10. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A research of cultural was conducted in association with the approval of the original
subdivision map. No noted at that time and none are anticipated given the past
grading disturbances.
11. HEAL AFE1 ::1 : FACTORS
The site is currently vacant. C of the park facility will attract people, activities and
associated noise to th ' ~ the levels beyond existing conditions. Approximately nine
single family h ( the proposed minipark. The homes are located approximately 300
feet north and 45 feet above the park site. The basketball court and other potentially high noise
generators have been relocated within the park as far as possible from these residents. Given
that here are no lights proposed, the hours of operation will be limited to the daylight hours.
12. AESTHETICS
There are a series of single family residents located to the north of the minipark site. Their view
of the is broken a six foot wood fence at the rear of the property line and as grove of eucalyptus
trees that have be. eh planted on the slope separating the uses. The only direct view of the
parkway will be from Pomerado Road and Ted Williams Parkway. Additional landscaping is
provided to screen the park and to provide shade for its visitors
~AR 14 1995 IT~;~Zl 13 ,
'.0 of 23
13. UTILITIES and PUBL,C SERVICES
Water for ddnking and irrigation will be the only utility connection required for the project. Impacts
- for these purposes are not considered significant. Police, fire protection services and
utilizing existing men and equipment.
14. ENERGY and SCARCE RESOURCES
No significant impacts on energy consumption is anticipated due to the construction and use of
the park project given the limited size of the project and required.
EAR 1 ,~ 1995
21 of 23
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: of Po'
P.O. Box 7 92064
2. Brief Description of Project: ,royal of a ( d
of a one acre mi 4thin a 21-acre C .~d site. rk will include
shade Jnd are 3afdc chic tables and benches and
landsca '
3. In with Resolution 83-084 of the city of Poway, implementing the
California E ~ Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway has determined
that the above project will not have a significant effect upon th L An
E Iai 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: James H ,n . Phon ~00
Approved by: Date:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
ATTACHMENT C
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive ~/~R ~- 4 1995
2 2 o ¢ 2 3 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
CITY OF POWAY IT~,M: C ~-o~
TITLE : ~ ~ J
23 of 23
I~R 1 4 1995 I~'F-..~ 13
March 7, 1995
Margorie Wahlsten
City Clerk
City of Poway f R E C E I V E D
P.O. Box 789 MAR 7
Poway, CA 92074-0789
~- CITY OF POWA¥
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-03
FOR RANCHO ARBOLrros PARK
Dear Ms. Wahlsten:
In regard to the subject Conditional Use Permit, the signatures on the attached list are
concerned residents who do not agree to the proposed "Pocket Park."
Instead, we would like the City of Poway to draw up a plan for a natural park; i.e., hiking
trails, safe access to the park from the neighborhoods immediately abutting the park, the
planting of trees and shrubs and the upgrade of existing facilities at Abraxas
High School.
In 1988, when we purchased our homes, we ~ by the City of Poway that this area
would remain as a "natural setting."
In this regard, we hereby request a 3 the scheduled Conditional Use Permit so
that the City of Poway and the residents of the immediate area can work together to plan a
park : .y feasible and one that will meet the needs of the wl~ '
Enclosed is our Petition and signatures we have acquired so far.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, it is greatly appreciated.
D. Kevin Bym~J
14375 Cres ~t~.9od'Avenue
Poway, CA 92064
(619)748-7214
Attachments C__~C_.~
MAR141995 ITEM 1
RANCHO PARK
WE HAVE AN TO HAVE A TYPE OF PARK THAT WE
ALL CAN ENJOY. THESE ARE A FEW OF THE
1. THE ABRAXAS COURT WILL BE
( ).
2. THE TENNIS COURT WILL BE &
WILL BE
3. THE LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD WILL BE
4. NEW SAND AND NET FOR VOLLEY BALL COURT.
5. HIKING TRAILS THE PARK FOR
JOGGING OR WALKING YOUR PET.
6. TREES AND SHRUBS WILL BE THE
ENTIRE AREA.
7. ACCESS TO THE PARK FROM FOUR TED &
8. TO HAVE A PARK THE ENTIRE IN
A NATURAL AS WELL AS BEING COST
TO
I~IAR 14 1995 ITEM
.............. ~AR.1A 1995 ITEM
~-~IERRILEE A. BO'YACK
Attorney at Law
14418 Crestwood Ave.
- Poway, CA 92064
(619) 748-6703 /- R E C E i V E D
March 14, 1995 [vlt3.~ j. ~ ~3~
Poway City Council CITY --~
City Hall ~ITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: Hearing on Conditional Use Permit for Rancho Arbolitos Park
Attached are twelve pages ofsig >port of the proposed pocket park plan for
Rancho Arbolitos Park. TI~ of 239 ~ residents over the age of
18. Th 3 asterisks in margin represem individuals who signed the
previous petition against the park unknowingly and who do want this park put in.
All of ~ )resent families in t~ .3' of Rancho Arbolitos Park who
are THRILLED with this park going in and urge a positive vote for the permit at today's
hearing.
Please approve our park!
7
Since~y?
errilee A. Boyack-' /
/
AUachments /
MAR 1 4 1995 ri'EM
PETITION GARDING RANCHO AR' -',ITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support the proposed Pocket Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City Council vote to approve this park plan. Some of
e undersigned individuals have inadvertently signed a previous petition and hereby repudiate
at signature and hereby state that their signature was obtained without their understanding that
at petition would be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffi,m as do all those
gned below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO,
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
~ ~ /
PAGE
M~R 14 1995
PETITION REGARDING RANCHO ARBOLITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support the proposed Pocket Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that Ge Poway City Council vote to approve this park plan. Some of
the undersigned individuals have inadvertently signed a previous petition and hereby repudiate
-hat signature and hereby state that their signature was obtained without their und g that
~aat r ' 'id be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffinn as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO~
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
/ Y PAGE ~ /
1995
PETITION O~,GARDING RANCHO ARnOLITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support :he proposed Pocket Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City Council vo:c to approve this park plan. Some of
the Undersigned individuals have inadver~nfly signed a previous peddon and hereby repudia:e
:hat signature and hereby state that their signature was obtained without their und g that
:hat petition would be a vote against :he current Pocket Park plan. They reaffirm as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO,
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
~AR 1 4 1995 IT~ 1} ~'
PETITION REC--~RDING RANCHO ARBOLITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support the proposed Poe .k. et Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City .Counol vote to appr. o. ve this park plan. S.o. me of
th~--~dersigned individuals ! ' ' ~ntly s~gned a previous petmon and hereby repudiate
tha, ~ig ~ hereby state that their signature was obtained without their undg that
that petition would be a vot. e against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffirm as do all those
signed below that they are m favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO~
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
','% . ( .
'c - 'Vt
PAGE "~
1995 ITEM
PETITION GARDING RANCHO AR. ~ITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support the proposed Pocket Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City Council vote to approve this park plan. Some of
the undersigned individuals have inadvertently signed a previous petition and hereby repudiate
that signature and hereby state that their signature was obtained without their und g that
that petition would be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffim~ as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO5
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
PAGE ,~
MAR 14 1995 ITEM 1~ ,'
PETITION REGARDING RANCHO ARBOLITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support the proposed Pocket Park devmopment plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City Council vo~ to approve this park plan. Some of
the undersigned individuals 1~, ' ' ~ntly signed a prewous potifion and hereby repudiate
~hat sig ~ hereby state that their signature was obtained without their undg that
nat petition would be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffirm as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO.
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
PAGE
PETITION O~GARDING RANCHO AR~C~LITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support the proposed Pocket Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City Council vote to approve tixis park plan. Some of
the Undersigned individuals have inadvertently signed a previous petition and hereby repudiate
that signature and hereby state that their signature was obtained without their und g that
that petition would be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffirm as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO,
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
~2"' ~/ ~ ~ /~,//~ f, ~/ '7~~/~s~
y.
.W:, ~" '_ ~ ' --
~.R141995 IT£M 1~,~
PETITION ---~ARDING RANCHO AR! ITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals suppor~ the proposed Pocket Park developmen, t plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that ~e Poway City Council vote to approve this park plan. Some ox
-'he undersigned individuals 1~ ~ntly signed a previous t :1 hereby repudiate
.nat sig :! hereby state that th ' was obtained without their understanding that
that petition would be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffirm as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO.
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
PETITION ,GARDING RANCHO AR LITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals support the proposed Pocket Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City Council vote to approve this park plan. Some of
the undersigned individuals have inadvertently signed a previous petition and hereby repudiate
that signature and hereby state that their signature was obtained without their understanding that
that petition would be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffhm as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO~
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
~- ~- ¢~" ,,Z~-z_ J_~.,~yw,~ ~ ~-~z'~7
'
,~. .
MAR141995 ITE~M !3
PETITION --"~ARDING RANCHO ARt '-,ITOS PARK
The undersigned individuals suppor~ the proposed Pocket Park development plan for Rancho
Arbolitos Park and request that the Poway City Council vote to approve this park plan. Some of
.~e un. dersigned individuals have inadvertently signed a pre .vious p~..tifion and hereby repudiate
at s]g ~ hereby state that their signature was obtained without their und ~ g that
that petition would be a vote against the current Pocket Park plan. They reaffirm as do all those
signed below that they are in favor of the proposed park plan for Rancho Arbolitos Park.
YES, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PARK PLAN FOR RANCHO ARBOLITO,
PARK AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
9/ ' ~ - ~ ¢<3. ) ,,,~ ~ ~
~/ /.,/ ¢'- i¥ .,-y_ t la A ":z/
~/~, ~7 I~r- ~ ~ ~1 o~ ~ . ~,
· ' /Z ·
PAGE/~
MAR 14 1995 ITEM 13
RANCHO ARBOLITOS PARK CENSUS
AGES TOTAL
0-5 41
6-10 49
Il-Up 118
Adults 260
· , L)o,,O / d:
SALVATORE A. CAFIERO, JR., EA, MBA
~ou.)~v AO~ R E C E I V E D
-- (619) 486-1~80 . Pager (619)
MAR 1 6 1995
~~ -/
~ ~ ~. of ~ c,~ o~ ~owA~
~..~ ........
~le~ ~o ~ep~nt T~y~ ~fore the [ntem~ '
, ' o~