Item 11 - EA ZOA 93-07
~RT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox. City Man~
INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quastier. Director of Piannlng Services
DATE: October 26. 1993
SUBJECT: Environmentai Assessment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-07
ABSTRACT
An ordinance of the City of Poway, California amending Chapter 17.44 of the Poway
Municipal Code regulating non-conforming uses, structures, screening and performance
standards.
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 Poway News Chieftain and notice was mailed to Mark
Gordon. GVCA Community Protection Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a negative declaration, give first reading to the
draft ordinance and set second reading for November 9, 1993.
ACTION
-
1 CF 13 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11: '
CITY OF POWAY
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services
TO:
iNiTIATED BY:
DATE:
October 26, 1993
SUBJECT:
Environmental Assessment and Zonina Ordinance Amendment
No. 93-07: An ordinance of the City of Poway, California
amending Chapter 17.44 of the Poway Municipal Code
regulating non-conforming uses, structures, screening and
performance standards.
BACKGROUND
Staff has been contacted by the Green Valley Civic Association (GVCA)
Community Protection Chairman who expressed concerns about non-conforming
commercial uses in residential areas. The GVCA made three specific
recommendations:
1. That expansions of buildings housing non-conforming commercial uses in
residential areas be limited to one single 10 percent expansion rather than a 10
percent expansion every five years as is currently permitted;
2. That signage for such uses be limited to a single 18-square foot ground sign
and a single 18-square foot wall sign;
3. That exterior lighting be limited to two low-intensity l:t. 50-watt) "house" lights
on the building plus motion-sensitive security lighting.
Staff has reviewed these proposals and recommends adoption of ordinance
amendments incorporating these ideas.
FINDINGS
Attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-07 would add a provision restricting
structures housing non-conforming commercial uses from having other than
residential type lighting and would delete the language "in any five year period"
from the code section dealing with additions.
The suggested sign ordinance provisions are incorporated in the amendments to
the sign ordinance proposed under Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-09 which will
also be considered at the October 26, 1993 City Council meeting.
2 OF 13 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11
Agenda Report
October 5, 1993
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The issuance of a negative declaration (indicating no significant adverse
environmental impacts anticipated) is recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and notice was mailed to
Mark Gordon.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a negative declaration, hold first
reading of the draft ordinance and set second reading for November 9, 1993.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Negative Declaration
C. Environmental Initial Study
D. Green Valley Response Letter
E:\CITY\PlANNINGIREPOFIT\ZOA9307,AGN
JLB:RWQ
3 OF 13
'OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11 I I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.44 OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULATiNG NON-CONFORMiNG USES, STRUCTURES,
SCREENiNG AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
(ZOA 93-07)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway finds that it is necessary from
time to time to amend the Poway Municipal Code to reflect changing conditions in the
community; and
WHEREAS, the existance of non-conforming commercial uses in a residential
area can have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary and proper for the City Council to adopt standards
to minimize the negative impacts of such uses on surrounding properties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that these proposed standards are consistent
with the Poway General Plan goals and policies, including the following; and
Goal I. It is the goal of the City of Poway to preserve Poway's unique
and desirable character as "the city in the country" and to maintain high
quality design and environmental standards in all new development and
redevelopment.
Goal II. It is the goal of the City of Poway to provide for an orderly
balance of both public and private land uses in convenient and
compatible locations throughout the city and ensure that all such uses
serve to protect and enhance the environment, character, and image of
the city.
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was conducted in accordance with
Section 65853, et seq, of the California Government Code and the California
Environmental Quality Act to consider this Zoning Ordinance amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Councii finds that proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and hereby issues a
negative declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT ORDAiNED that the City Council does hereby amend
the Poway Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 regarding Non-conforming Uses, Structures,
Screening and Performance Standards as shown below, with deletions lined-out and
additions highlighted:
It OF 13
OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11 I"
Ordinance No.
Page 2
..-IIiIIIiI"...MIDNi-t,".'"'*.--iliimQSr""*fifi!f'''''''--nt",",""ytr~.Wrr'-d--li("""'.
~
Section 17.44.090.B. in an "R" zone, a nonresidential use that is a permitted use or
a conditional use in the CO or CN zone may be continued and a minor conditional use
permit may be granted for expansion of the floor area or the site area occupied by the
use by not more than a total of ten percent iR BRY five '(ear f3erieEl.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30)
days after the date of its passage; and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days
after its passage, it shall be published once with the names and members
voting for and against the same in the Poway News Chieftain, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Poway.
Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Poway held the 26th day of October, 1993 and thereafter PASSED and ADOPTED at
a regular meeting of the said City Council held the day of , 1993 by
the following foil call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Don Higginson, Mayor
Marjorie K, Wahlsten, City Clerk
E:ICITYIPLANNINGIREPORT\ZOA9307.0RD
5 OF 13
OCT261993 ITEM 11 ' ,
(:ITY OF POWA11
DON HIGGINSON. Mayor
BOB EMERY. Deputy Mayor
B. TONY SNESKO. Councilmember
SUSAN CALLERY, Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmember
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: City of Poway
P.O. Box 789. Poway. CA 92064
Brief Description of Project: An ordinance reaulatina non-conformina uses.
structures. screenina and oerformance standards.
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:
James H. Lyon
Phone: (619) 748-6600
Approved by:
Date:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
6 OF 13
OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11, ,
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
@ Printed on Recycied Paper
cm OF PQolAY
INITIAL STUOY
ENVIRO~TAL CHECKLIST
DATE: IOr4..:'- 'i /993
FILING DATE:
APPLICANT:
iJf i/~:zr Zc* 93 -07
LOG NUMBER:
ay-aucl'L-
IMPACTS
PROJECT LOCATION:
I. ENVIRONMENTAL
(Exp1 anation of all "yes", "maybe" and some "no" answers are requl red on attached sheets)
ill
!:!mE.
!!Q..
1. Solls and Geolooy. Will the proposal have signlficant impacts In:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or burial of the so11?
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 wlnd or water erosion of soils, affecting
either on- or off-site conditions?
f. Changes in erosion, s1ltation, or deposition?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth-
quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or sim1lar hazards?
2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have signiflcant impacts in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course in direction of flowing streams,
r1vers, or ephemeral stream channels?
~
X
t/
/
V
v'"
/'
....1/
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
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 alteration of surface water
quality?
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
g. Change ln the quantity of groundwaters, elther through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interference with an aquifer?
Quality?
Quanti ty?
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?
Stationary sources?
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality andlor interference with the
attainment of applicable alr quality standards?
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting
air movement moisture or temperature?
V
-.JL
~
/
J.?
v/
~
-1L"
J.("
V
7
/""
-V
7 OF 13
OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11 !"
Project:
4. Flora. WIll the proposal have sIgnIfIcant results In:
a. Change In the characterIstIcs of specIes, IncludIng dIversIty,
dIstrIbutIon, or number of any 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?
d. ReductIon In the potentIal for agrIcultural productIon?
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, rare, or endangered
species of anImals?
c. IntroductIon of new or dIsruptIve speeles of anImals Into an area,
or result In a barrIer to the mIgration or movement of anImals?
d. DeterIoratIon or removal of exIstIng fIsh or wIldlIfe habItat?
6. PopulatIon. [WIll the proposal] have sIgnificant results In:
a. [WIll the proposal] alter the locatIon, dIstrIbutIon, densIty,
dIversIty, or growth rate of the human populatIon of an area?
b. [WIll the proposal] affect exIstIng housIng, or created a demand
for addltlona I housing?
7. Soclo-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 property values?
b. Will project costs be equItably dIstrIbuted among project benefIci-
arIes, I.e., buyers, taxpayers, or project users?
~.
Land Use and Planninq ConsIderatIons.
results 1n:
Will the proposal have sIgnifIcant
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 governmental entItIes?
c. An Impact upon the qualIty or quantIty of exIstIng consumptIve or
non-consumptIve recreatIonal opportunitIes?
9. TransportatIon. Will the proposal have sIgnIfIcant results In:
a. GeneratIon of substantIal addItIonal vehIcular movement?
b. Effects on existIng streets, or demand for new street constructIon?
c. Effects on existIng parkIng facilItIes, or demand for new parking?
d. SubstantIal Impact upon exIstIng transportatIon systems?
e. AlteratIons to present patterns of cIrculatIon or movement of
people and/or goods?
8 OF 13
f. AlteratIons to or effects on present and potentIal water-borne,
rail, mass transit, or air traffIc?
Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, blcyc11stsPCT261993
or pedestr1 ans?
9.
YES
~
ITEM ll! t
~
JL'
V
JL
V
4/
L
y
.J/
\..0
v
v
V
v'
-d
~
V
JL
V
..k
vi
V
J!
'roject:
~ 93-c:;..'>7
10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant impacts in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological,
and/or historical resources?
11. Health, Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have signif-
icant results 1n:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
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
pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms?
e. Increase in existing noise levels?
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous nofse levels?
g. The creation of objectionable odors?
h. Increase in light or glare?
12. Aesthetics. Will 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?
c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic
corri dors?
13. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have significant need
tor new systems, or alteratlons to the following:
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
c. Communications systems?
d. Water supply?
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
h. Fire protection?
i. Police protection?
j. School s?
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood
control facilities?
m. Other governmental services?
-3-
OCT261993 ITEM 11 ' ,
9 OF 13
Proj ect:
YES
MAYBE
NO
14. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant Impacts In:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy?
b. Substantial Increase in demand upon existing sources of energy?
c. An Increase In demand for development of new sources of energy?
d. An Increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms
of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available?
e. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable or scarce natural resource?
15. Mandatory Findings of Slqniflcance.
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 wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community.
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate Important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term. to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
Impact on the environmental Is one which occurs In a relatively
brief. definitive period of time while long-term Impacts will
endure well Into the future.)
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 effects of past projects, and
probable future projects.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
v
1L'
U
U
/'
a.
v
b.
v
c.
.L!
d.
J.L
(I.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions and "no" responses with asterisks, plus a discussion
of proposed mitigation measures and monitoring program.) See Attachment.
III. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial evaluation:
azJ
o
o
F/FORMX-X3
psn/2-6-90
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect of the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enVironment,
there will 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 DECLARATIDN WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a Significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT Is requl red.
DATE: f)1;;:1 i' 1973
/"
TITLE:
10 OF 13
OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11 ' I
~
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. SOILS and GEOLOGY
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment revises the text of the Poway Municipal Code to establish
criteria regulating the level of expansion, lighting and signage for non-conforming commercial uses in
residential zones. As such, application of the ordinance is restricted to new and existing single family
residences. Environmental issues associated with the construction of these homes have been or will
be previously discussed in association with its development application. The text amendment will
. therefore, have no direct impact on the environment.
2. HYDROLOGY
See Item #1
3. AIR QUALITY
See Item #1
4. FLORA
See Item #1
.J. FAUNA
See Item #1
6. POPULATION
See Item #1
7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
See Item #1
8. LAND USE and PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
See Item #1
9. TRANSPORTATION
See Item #1
10. CULTURAL RESOURCES
See Item #1
11 OF 13
OCT 2 61993 ITEM 11 !. I
GREEN VALLEY CIVIC ASSC -:IATlON
Scrvin~ All North poway Neighborhoods
February 21, 1992
Ms. Reba Wright-Quastler
Director of Planning Services
City of poway
P.O. Box 789
poway, CA 92064
Dear Reba.
In response to the City's invitation to residents to comment on the Poway Zoning Code in
connection with the update now underway, the GVCA has initiated, but not yet completed,
a comprehensive review of the code, However, you have requested that we submit now any
recommendations we can make at this time. Accordingly, this letter will present
recommendations which we heve determined to date. All have been approved by the GVCA
board.
1, Revise the code to limit the number of accessory 8Dartments (second dwellina unitsl
which can be built on rallldRotl.llnt. in Powav.
The current code places no limits on the number of second dwelling units which can be built
in Poway. To the extent that poway follows the direction of other desirable California
communities, the economic attraction of building second dwelling units will result ultimately
In the abrogating of Poway's land use plan and unplanned increase in demands on the City's
infrastructure.
We are aware that State law restricts the ability of local agencies to limit second dwelling
units, However, State code 66852.2 stlltes "areas may be designllt8d within the jurisdiction
of the local agency where second dwelling units may be permitted." I n other words, the use
of second dwelling units can be restricted to a specified zone (or zonGsl as has been done
in at least one other California city. Whether this or another method is adopted, we feel it
is essential that the code be revised to substantially limit the number of permitted second
dwelling units, There will be no better time to do this than at present when we have a City
Council which has demonstrated its recognition of the threat of second dwelling units to the
integrity of the City's General Plan.
2. AdoDt revised code restrIctions governina non-conformina commercial uses on DrODerties
zoned "residential".
12 OF 13
OCT 26 1993 ITEM 11 ' ,
Al Limit the Dermitted expansion to a single 10% expansion rather than a 10%
expansion every five years which is currently permitted. Under the existing code, over
a period of years, grandfathered non-conforming uses such as the two real estate
offices on Espola road in north Poway could be expanded to a size far beyond the
original size and beyond anything contemplated, thus creating a facility wholly
incompatible with surrounding residential uses.
B) limit adv.rtisina sian.a. to . sincl. 1 a-.cu_,. foot sian on thea land and 8 sinal.
lS-sQuare foot sian on the building. Currently, there is no sign ordinance specific to
non-conforming commercial uses on residential properties with the result that, by
default, the sign ordinance for "commercial" uses applies. We believe this is an
oversight which must be corrected to avoid creating serious incompatibilities in
residential neighborhoods. The sign size in the above proposal is consistent with the
size of the signs on the property currently occupied by the McMillin real estate office
at Espola and Valle Verde.
C) Limit exterior lightinG to two low-intensity (say 50-wattl "house" liahts on the
bulldina Dlus motion-sensitive security lighting, We believe the existing code fails to
recognize that lighting on commercial properties located in "Commercial" areas is not
acceptable for non-conforming commercial uses on "Residential" properties, The
recently expanded and remodeled Anne Winton real estate office at Martincoit and
Espola Roads provides an excellent example of the incompatibility problem created by
excessive lighting on a commercial building located in a residential neighborhood.
3. Write the codes for the new "Commercial Recreational" and newly-defined .ODen SDace-
Recreational" zones to Insure that hiaher intensity commercial recreational uses such as an
amusement Dark will not be Dermitted in the. OS-R" zones but that lower-intensity uses such
88 Golf courses and ridina stables will be oermltt.d.
4. StrAnothAn thA codA to aravAnt the eIRe.men! on .diRcAnt rAsldontial orooertie8 of
Darklna areas and other facilities associated with ar reaulred by commercial uses.
5. Add a code restriction to Drevent the Dlacement on zanes which Dermlt institutional uses
such as hosDlmls. any addi1jonal commercillll use lncludlna those which may be related but
not essential to the Dermitted activity.
The GVCA appreciates your consideration of these recommendations, If you have any
questions or concerns regarding their adoption, please contact me at 451-3507 or Ric
DuDeck at 673-1534. Mr. DuDeck is the member of my Community Protection Committee
who is responsible for the comprehensive review of the code currently underway in the
GVCA. We expect the GVCA will be submitting additional recommendations when our
review is complete,
Sincerely,
Community Protection Chairman
cc: Rlc DuDeck
13 OF 13
OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 11