Item 6 - GPA 95-01A Amending General Plan to Exempt Structures in SPSP from 35' Restriction
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ja~es L Bowersox, City Man~ 1\
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager cn-i-t" ~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services
DATE: June 20, 1995
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-01 A amending strategy I.FA of the General Plan to
allow structures in the South Poway Community Plan area to exceed 35 feet in
height.
ABSTRACT
The report proposes General Plan Amendment 95-01A which would amend strategy I.FA of the
General Plan to exempt the South Poway Community Plan from the 35' height restriction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The issuance of a Negative Declaration (indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts
anticipated) is recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Po way News Chieftain and mailed to 724 property owners in the
project area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council close the public hearing, issue a Negative Declaration,
take tentative action approving the proposed amendment and continue the item to June 27, 1995
for final action in conjunction with GPA 95-01 B.
ACTION
E:\CITY\PLANNINGIREPORTlGPA9501!-.SU M
1 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM b
--.. --".-.-
.;ITY OF POWAY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ "
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager'i;~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~
DATE: June 20, 1995
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-01A amending strategy I.FA of the
General Plan to allow structures in the South Poway Community Plan
to exceed 35 feet in height.
BACKGROUND
In recent years there have been several inquiries from industrial uses that require
buildings higher than 35' in order to accommodate automated warehousing and inventory
retrieval systems. The General Plan currently prohibits buildings over 35' as follows:
I.FA. Structures shall be no higher than two stories or 35 feet, whichever
is less. Exceptions may be made for architectural projections such as
church steeples and freestanding clock towers and as specified in the Old
poway Specific Plan. If any addition to the existing Pomerado Hospital
building is constructed, the expansion may be the same overall height from
grade as the existing structure, if it is attached or connected to the existing
structure.
FINDINGS
In order to accommodate proposed industrial uses whose equipment dictates a building
over 35' in height, amendment SPA 84-01Y to the South poway Community Plan would
allow industrial buildings up to 45' in height as long as those buildings are not adjacent
to downhill slopes along the perimeter of the business park. In addition, it is
recommended that any 45' building element be setback an additional ten feet from the
required front yard setback.
During the discussion of the initiation of this amendment on June 6, 1995, the City Council
expressed concerns about the amendment to allow 45 foot high buildings. Additional
criteria and clarifications were requested as follows:
1. The amendment would apply solely to industrial buildings within the South poway
Business Park.
2. The City Council would retain discretion to deny requests for buildings over 35 feet in
height on a case-by-case basis for development review applications.
2 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM (;, ;,,~
Agenda Report
June 20, 1995
Page 2
3. The 45 foot height would only be considered for particular industrial uses that
demonstrated a need for a building of more than 35 feet due to reasons such as
automated warehousing, inventory retrieval or bridge cranes.
4. The buildings would be subject to screening and architectural enhancements.
The Specific Plan cannot be adopted as recommended until and unless the General Plan
is amended to eliminate the 35' height limitation within the South Poway Community Plan
area. The following amendment is recommended:
I.F.4. Structures shall be no higher than two stories or 35 feet, whichever is less.
Exceptions may be made for architectural projections such as church steeples and
freestanding dock towers and as specified in the Old poway Specific Planai:iQjt~SQUlft
Ir;QRiitt.aq_t.. If any addition to the existing Pomerado Hospiiiif'bLiiidlng'fs
;,,;:;:;:;~:;:;:; ;.;::':v, " ,,;;;X;:;.;.;.:<o;<<.;:;; .;.:.;.,...:>:->>:-. '';'' /
constructed, the expansion may be the same overall height from grade as the existing
structure, if it is attached or connected to the existing structure.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study has been completed in order to assess potential
environmental impacts associated with this specific plan amendment and it has been
determined that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated. The
issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the poway News Chieftain and mailed to 724 property
owners in the project area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council close the public hearing, issue a Negative
Dedaration, take tentative action approving the proposed amendment and continue the
item to June 27, 1995 for final action in conjunction with GPA 95-01 B.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:kls
E:ICIT'l\PLANNINGIREPORT\GPA9501 A.AGN
Attachments:
A) Draft Resolution
B) Environmental Initial Study
C) Negative Declaration
3 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM b ~11l'
-..-
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING STRATEGY I.FA
OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF POWAY
(GPA 95-01 A)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway recognizes that the need may
arise to amend the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 65350, et seq., of the California Government Code describes
the procedures for amending General Plans; and
WHEREAS, the City of Poway has initiated a General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-
01A for a modification to Strategy I.FA to allow the South Poway Community Plan to permit
structures exceeding 35' in height; and
WHEREAS, the City of Poway held a properly noticed public hearing in accordance
with the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act to
consider that request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that proposed General Plan Amendment 95-01A
will not have significant adverse impacts on the environment and hereby issues a Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the proposed amendment would
further the City's ability to attract businesses to the South Poway Business Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby amend
strategy I.FA of the City of Poway General Plan to read as follows:
I.FA. Structures shall be no higher than two stories or 35 feet, whichever is
less. Exceptions may be made for architectural projections such as church
steeples and freestanding clock towers and as specified in the Old Poway
Specific Plan and the South Poway Community Plan. If any addition to the
existing Pomerado Hospital building is constructed, the expansion may be
the same overall height from grade as the existing structure, if it is attached
or connected to the existing structure.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 27th day of June, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM b ;; 1'1
4 of 11
.
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAL STUDY
ENV I ROI&CENT AL CHECKl. 1ST
DATE: ~ .J...2 I ,<:H;-
APPLICANT: C::r: ~ ?cr-....uJ-
FILING DATE: ~ LOG NUlABER:
PROJECT: c;"PA '1S--01 A
PROJECT LOCATION: ~A'~ J.~
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA S
(Fact-based explanations of al I answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES ~ NO
1. Sol Is and Geology. Wi II the proposal have
significant Impacts In:
a. Unstable ground conditions or In changes In
geologic relationships? ___ _____ v/
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or
bur la I of the soil? ___ _____ ~
c. Change In topography or ground surface /
contour intervals? ___ _____ ~
d. The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical . /
features? ___ _____ ~
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of sol Is, affecting either on- or
off-site conditions? ___ _____ ~
f.. Changes In erosion, si Itat ion, or
depos i t Ion? . ___ _____ v
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudsl ides, ground fal lure, or similar ./
hazards? ___ _____ ~
2. Hydrology. WII I the proposal have significant
Impacts In:
a. Changes In currents, or the course In
direction 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? _____ ~
d. .Change In the amount of surface water In /
any body of water? ___ _____ ~
e. Discharge Into surface waters, or any alter-
action of surface water quality? ___ _____ ....:::::
5 of 11 ATTACHMENT B JUN 201995 ITEM6"',
"-------~-,-,_.,
..'--..----.-------..
Environmental Study Che~KI ist
Page 2
YES MAYBE NO
1. Alteration of groundwater V
characteristics? - -
g. Change In the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions, or with-
drawals, or through Interference with an
aquifer? ,/
Quality?
Quant I ty? - - ;:7
- -
h. The reduction In the amount of water otherwise "./'
available for public water supplies? - - -
i. Exposure of people or property to water - - ~
related hazards such as flooding or seiches?
3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant
Impacts In:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from
mobile or Indirect sources? V
Stationary sources? - - :7"
- -
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or
Interference with the attainment of appl i-
cable air quality standards? - - .J.::::::
c. AI terat Ion of local or regional climatic
conditions. affecting air movement moisture ...JL"
or temperature? - -
4. Flora. WII I the proposal have significant
results In:
a. Change In the characteristics of species,
Including diversity, distribution, or number V-
of endangered species of plants? - -
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants? v
- -
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species V
of plants Into an area? - -
d. Reduction In the potential for agricultural
production? v
- -
5. Fauna. Will 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, v
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 V
animals? - - -
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish v"'
or wlldl.lfe habitat? - -
6 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6 11
Environmental Study Check I 1st
Page 3
YES MAYBE NO
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? V
- -
7. Socio-Economlc 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 values? - -
b. WI II project costs be equitably distri-
buted among project beneficiaries, i.e. r V
buyers, taxpayers, or project users? - -
.8. Land Use and Plannln9 Considerations. Will the
proposal have sIgnificant results In:
a. A substantial alteration of the present or v"
planned land use of an area? - -
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any govern- L
mental entitles?
- -
c. An Impact upon the Quality or Quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive V
recreational opportunities? - -
9. Transportation. WII I the proposal have significant
results In:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular V"
movement?
- -
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction? v
- -
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or V
demand for new parking? - -
d. Substantial Impact uP9n existing transpor- V
tat Ion systems? - - -
e. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people and/or ./
goods? - - -
f. Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail. mass transit, ./'
or a I r traff Ic? - - -
g. Increases In traffic hazards to motor -L'
vehicles, biCYClists, or pedestrians? - -
-
7 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6
.----.. - .-.._._---_.._~~~~------~-_.._.__.. ....--.--.---
Environmental Study Check I ist
Page 4
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 .,/
resources?
- -
11. Health, Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results In:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential V
health hazard?
- -
b. Exposure of people to potential health V
hazards?
- - -
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances In the event of an accident? v
- -
d. An Increase In the number of Individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms V-
or the exposure of people to such organisms? - -
e. Increase In existing noise levels? V
- - -
1. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous V
noise levels? - -
g. The creation of objectionable odors? t./
- -
h. An Increase In light or glare? V
- - -
12. Aesthetics. WII I the proposal have significant
results In:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic v
vista or view?
- - -
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive v
sl te?
- - -
c. A conflict with the objective of designated .........-
or potential scenic corridors? - - -
13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have significant need for new systems, or alter-
ations to the following:
a. Electric power? ,/
- - -
b. Natural or packaged gas? V-
- - -
c. Communications systems? V
- -
d. Water supply? V
- -
e. Wastewater facilities? V
- -
f. Flood control structures? ./"
- - -
g. Solid waste facilities? - - L
h. Fire protection? - - ~
-
8 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6
- -
Environmental Study Check I 1st
Page 5
YES ~ NO
I. Police protection? ...L.
- -
j. Schools? ./
- - -
k. Parks or other recreational facilities? /
- -
I. Maintenance of public facilities, Including ./
roads and flood control facilities?
- - -
m. Other governmental services? V
- -
14. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have significant Impacts In:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or
energy? V
- -
b. Substantial Increase In demand upon existing
sources of energy? ..........
- -
c. An Increase In the demand for development of
new sources of energy? V
- -
d. An Increase or perpetuation of the consump-
tion of non-renewable forms of energy, when
feasible renewable sources of energy are V
available? - - -
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
or scarce natural resources? V
- - -
15. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wlld-
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? - - -
b. Does the 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 I I V
endure we II Into the future.)
- -
c. Does the project have Impacts which are
Individually limited. 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 ~
projects.) - -
JUN 2 0 1995 ITi=M 6 I
9 of 11
~-----,~ _._._._--~--..._-_......,,--_.._-_.__.,,_.._--
Environmental Study ChecK I 1st
Page 6
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which wi I I cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either ~
directly or Indirectly? - -
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(I.e. , of affirmative answers to the above quest Ions plus a discussion of
proposed mitigation measures.)
~.J. 1 ~ ~lc.:-t ~ ~ T4 ~ 7).<-- ~
/'r'-O-t . ~,..:~ ""'f'''''<-~ .~ ,( i&.'~ 7).wL "hf'~-t;;, ( fr:;
r:r.:,ET~IiI'NcfoN'- ~ ~ k ~ d-7? tf;..). p~-t
o...-:iL ~~.
On the basis of this Initial evaluation: ~
W I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi I I be prepared.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there wll I 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: filj 22 1915" SIGNATURE: ~ t~~~~
I
TI TL E : ;P'u.,~~
FORMS\EIS.FRM
10 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 IT~M 6
.
-
(;N HIGGINSON, Mayor CITY OF Po WAY
_ SUSAN CALLERY. Deputy Mayor
BOB EMERY, Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmcmber
BETrY REXFORD. Councilmembcr
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Citv of Powav. 13325 Civic Center Drive. Powav.
CA 92064
2. Brief Description of Project: General Plan Amendment 95-01 A amendina strateav
I.F.4 of the General Plan to allow structures in the South Powav Communitv Plan
area to exceed 35 feet in heiaht.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
California 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: Steve Streeter Phone: (619) 679-4290
Approved by: Date:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
"'
ATTACHMENT C JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive 11 of 11 ~iling Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
I Recycled Paper
---~----- ----
._-~