Loading...
Item 8 - GPA 95-01A (2) - AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY .- TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ja~es L. Bowersox, City Man~^ INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager 'n'Jt ~ Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services DATE: June 20, 1995 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-D1A amending strategy I.F.4 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 95-01 A which would amend strategy I.F.4 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 environmenk31 impacts anticipated) is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL 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 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 Continue.d tOM 2;}995. 4-0. Counc;lmember Emery absent. YJ1o... I Marie Lofton, Depu'ty City Clerk E:\CITY\PLANNINGIREPORT\GPA!l501 A.SUM ATTACHMENT A JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 8 , 1 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6 ---"--'-'--- - ._----~--_.- Clrv 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 ManagerCi\i( Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~ DATE: June 20, 1995 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95-01A amending strategy I.F.4 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.E.!. 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 disCI ossion 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. JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 8 2 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6 - -- 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: 1U. 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 freestandi clock towers and as s ecified in the Old Powa S ecific Plan linatl1isaum I"ij~_. If any ~ddition to the existing ~o:erado Hosp~a(buiidjngis 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 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. JLB:JDF:RWQ:kls E:\CI'TY'PLANNING\REPORl'GPAll501 A_AGN Attachments: A) Draft Resolution B) Environmental Initial Study C) Negative Declaration JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 8 , 3 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6 -~---~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA AMENDING STRATEGY I.F.4 OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF POWAY (GPA 95-01A) 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 95-01 A 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 7 1995 ITEM 8 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6 4 of 11 - . CITY OF POWAY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: Y'Y1 ~ .2...2 ,qqr- APPLICANT: C:::r-: I ~ 7a-....",J- Fill NG DATE: d> LOG NUMBER: PROJECT: ~PA 'i:i-ol A PROJECT LOCATION: ~A.....;l" 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA S (Fact-based explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets.) ~~!:!Q.... 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have signifIcant Impacts In: a. Unstable ground conditions or In changes In geologic relationships? _ _____ V b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or burial of the sol I? _ _____ ~ 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 soils, affecting either on- or - off-site conditions? _ _____ .J::::: f. Changes In erosion, siltation, or deposition? . _ _____ ~ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar '" hazards? _ _____ ~ 2. HYdrOIOgr' Will the proposal have significant Impacts n: 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? _ _____ ~ c. Alterations to the course or flow of f I cod waters? _ _____ ....::::: 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? _ _____-.:::: JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 8 5 of 11 ATTACHMENT B JUN 201995 ITEM b ---,-~,_._----_.._.._..._,._._._.,.- ,-----_.- Environmental Study CheCKlist Page 2 YES ~ 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 aqu i fer? ,/ Qual ity? - - Quant I ty? -V - - h. The reduction In the amount of water otherwise V avai lable for public water supplies? - - - I. Exposure of people or property to water ...JL 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? - - L c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement moisture ~ 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? .,./ - - c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? V - - 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 V numbers of any species of animals? - - - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? V - - 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 or wlldl ife habitat? - J~ 1~ ITEM 8 I 6 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6 1 - Environmental Study Checklist 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? ../ - - 7. Socia-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- ..JL erty values? - - b. Will project costs be equitably distri- buted among project beneficiaries. I.e. t ~- buyers. taxpayers. or proJect users? - 8. Land Use and Plannln~ Considerations. Will the proposal have signlf cant reSUlts In: - a. A substantial alteration of the present or ./' planned land use of an area? - - b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern- L mental entities? - - - - c. An impact upon the quality or quantity Of existing consumptive or non-consumptive V recreational opportunities? - - 9. Transportation. Will 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 de.and for new parking? V - - d. Substantial Impact u~n 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 air traffic? - - - g. Increases In traffic hazards to motor ~ vehicles. biCYClists. or pedestrians? - - JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM e I 7 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM --- -------.--.-..----- Environmental Study Check I ist Page " 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 hea I th hazard? V - - - 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? c/ - - - - f. Exposure of people to potentiallY dangerous v' noise levels? - - g. The creation of objectionable odors? (,./ - - - h. An Increase In light or glare? V - - - - 12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results In: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? v - - - b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive v' site? - - - c. A conflict with the objective of designated V- 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? ...JC:: - - 8 of 11 JUN 211995 IT.;~ 8 JUN 0 1995 I t:. 6 Environmental Study Check I 1st Page 5 YES MAYBE ~ I. Pollee protection? ~ - - j. Schools? ./ - - - k. Parks or other recreational facilities? v' - - I. Maintenance of publ Ie 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. Substant I a I Increase In demand upon existing sources of energy? V - - 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 V- 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 wll I V endure we I I 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 v/ projects.) """"3tJN~5~ 8 JUN 1995 I t:.. 6 I 9 of 11 ----.--._--- ----~~- Environmental Study Check I 1st Page 6 d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either V 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 fu L..:.;h.-t ~ ~ ~ ~ ?j~ ~ ~--t. ~"--({ .,..f.<><'"\cJ .~ ~ it,'~ ~ """'f'~-to- 1 fr: ~r.oET.LMIN~ ~~ ~ k~,,_~~~. prrJZh-7: 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 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 IWPACT REPORT Is required. DA~E: ff1j 22 /99S- """'""".~ r~-te.., , TITLE: J)lft, ~~ - ~ FORllSIEIS.FRM '. JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 8 10 of 11 JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 6 - CITY OF Po WAY DON HIGGINSON, Mayor SUSAN CALLERY, Deputy Mayor -" BOB EMERY. Councilmember MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmember BmY REXFORD, Councilmember 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.FA 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 - ~ JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 8 .~ ATTACHMENT C JUN 2 0 1995 1"'''-'/1 ~ <- f:... City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive ---.;1 11 of 11 ~iling Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600. 695-1400 lAecyCI@C'. ")Elf - _._--,---~-_. -