Loading...
Item 12 - EA ZOA 93-08 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 10: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ ~ INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ,~\,\j\\ DATE: October 26, 1993 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-08 ABSTRACT An ordinance of the City of Poway. California adopting Sections 17.10.170 of the Poway Municipal Code to allow mixed use development in commercial zones upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 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. RECOMMENDA TION 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 I 1 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12, CITY OF POW A Y 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 93-08: An ordinance of the City of Poway, California adopting Section 17.10.170 of the Poway Municipal Code to allow mixed use develoment in commercial zones upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit BACKGROUND The Housing Element which was adopted in 1991 includes a discussion of mixed use development and the Land Use Element indicates that "mixed-use projects incorporating housing with commercial uses may be appropriate" in the Commercial Office, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General and Commercial Community areas. The Action Program of the Housing Element requires that the Zoning Ordinance be revised to allow mixed use development in commercial zones. FINDINGS In compliance with the above described provisions of the General Plan, the attached ordinance amends the Zoning Ordinance to allow mixed use projects in the Commercial Office, Commercial General and Commercial Community zones upon approval of a conditional use permit. In addition, standards regarding parking, building height and joint planning of the entire development are established. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The issuance of a negative declaration (indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated) is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT None. 2 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12. Agenda Report October 26, 1993 Page 2 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. e:\city\planning\report\zoa9308.agn JLB:RWQ Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Negative Declaration C. Environmental Initial Study E:ICITYIPLANNINGIREPORn 3 OF 15 OCT 26 1993 ITEM 12;' I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL ZONES (ZOA 93-08) WHEREAS, the California Government Code requires that cities identify adequate sites for the provision of housing affordable to all income categories; and WHEREAS, incorporating residential uses into commercial areas can provide an opportunity for the development of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, encouraging housing in and near commercial areas provides an opportunity for residents to fulfill some of their shopping and commercial service needs without using their automobile thereby reducing traffic; and WHEREAS, encouraging housing in and near commercial areas provides an increased customer base for merchants and service providers; and WHEREAS. the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts and hereby issues a negative declaration. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY does hereby amend Chapter 17.10 of the Poway Municipal Code as follows, with deletions lined-out and additions highlighted: Section 17.10.090 Permitted and conditional uses--Pubiic.aM semipublic arrcff~st€FEftltfal uses. Public aM semipublic g@.~~Jltrmr~1 uses in commercial zones shall be as follows: ~ ~~~~ ~~~ _tf~~. ~.f"M'P.~~#.'fF,4Wf{1V4";w.sp.w%~"#PR~9~&'"R'~{f"f~{"'P"J("<<#"R.4;(VR'R~~,p~ 0%~~J~t~..;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;I;:;;;;_Ifk9~: %%. -C~~tf~ett$f.J~~~~~~g(~.n~ 76~ % ~ ~_I",Pt.iJ;;{//.~f;~,;?;PZ'if:/~~tt;:l"," 1m" ; '" d,,"%mJlJi wpimt);~~.YJ;QlJ)J!J2.. ":~pj.9/~1!JgDd 4 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12 '..;' I Ordinance No. Page 2 - 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 roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Don Higginson, Mayor Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk E:CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\lOA9308.0RD 5 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12, ~ITY OF POWAy 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 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway. CA 92064 2. Brief Description of Project: General Plan 93-03C amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan to incoroorate various amendments to the Housing Element in resoonse to HCD comments and to permit develooment of eight units per acre in the RS-7 (6-7 du/net acre) zone. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-05 amends the develooment standards for the RS-7 zone Zonina Ordinance Amendment 93-06 establishes a oermanent inclusionarv housina ordinance and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-08 permits mixed-use develooment in commerciai zones uoon approval of a Conditonai Use Permit. 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 pre-pared 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. Lvon Phone: (619) 748-6600 Approved by: Date: Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP 6 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12 City Haii Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789. Poway. California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400 @ Printed on Recyc:ed Paper DATE: APPLICANT: CITY OF POWAY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST October 1. 1993 City of Powav PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 93-03C and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-05,06 and 08 PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Soils and Geoloav. Will the proposal have YES MAYBE NO significant impacts in: a. 7 OF 16 b. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or burial of the soil? Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on- or off-site conditions? -2L -2L -2L c. -2L d. -2L e. f. Changes in erosion, siltation, or deposition? -2L g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? -2L OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12.' YES MAYBE NO 2. Hydrology. 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? - - -L c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ---X.. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? -L e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alter- action of surface water quality? -L f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? -L g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions, or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? -L Quantity? -L h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? - - -L i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? - - -L 3. Air Qualitv. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? -L Stationary sources? -L b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of appli- cable air quality standards? - - -L c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement moisture or temperature? - - -L 8 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12 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 characteristics 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 or movement of animals? - - ----X.. d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? - - -.L.. 6. Poculation. [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? - - -.L.. 9 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12 -,., YES MAYBE 1:::!.Q.. 7. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? ----L b. Will project costs be equitably distri- buted among project beneficiaries, I.e., buyers, taxpayers, or project users? x 8. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in: 9. 10 OF 15 a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ----L b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern- mental entities? ----L c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: ----L a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ----L b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? ----L- c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ----L d. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? ----L e. Alterations to present patterns of circu- lation or movement of people and/or goods? Alteration to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit, or air traffic? Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ _----L OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12,.! ----L f. ----L g. YES MAYBE 1::!Q... 10. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeo- logical, paleontological, and/or historical resources? - - ---2L 11. Health. Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposai have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people' to potential health hazards? ---2L c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? ---2L d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or parthenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? ---2L e. Increase in existing noise levels? ---2L f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? ---2L g. The creation of objectionable odors? ---2L h. An increase in light or glare? ---2L 12. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant resuits in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? - - ---2L b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? - - ---2L c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? - - ---2L 11 OF 15 ocr 2 61993 ITEM 12 YES MAYBE NO 13. Utilities and Public Services. Will 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. Communications systems? --X- d. Water supply? --X- e. Wastewater facilities? --X- f. Flood control structures? --X- g. Solid waste facilities? --X- h. Fire protection? --X- i. Police protection? --X- j. Schools? ~ k. Parks or other recreational facilities? --X- I. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? --X- m. Other governmental services? --X- 14. Enerav and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant impacts in: a. Use of substantial or excessive 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 non-renewable forms of energy, when feasibie renewable sources of energy are available? - - X e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resources? - - X 12 OF 16 OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12 15. Mandatory Findincs of Significance. YES MAYBE NO 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 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? -2L 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 will endure well into the future.) -2L 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.) -2L . - d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -2L _". DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Le., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures.) 13 OF 16 SEE ATTACHED PAGES OCT 2 6 1993 ITEM 12 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. SOILS and GEOLOGY - General Plan Amendment 93-03C proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to the reduce the minimum lot size in the RS-? zone from 6,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet and to extend the potential development density from? to 8 unitS per acre. Given that a development project proposed under the existing or revised land use designation is likely to encumber the entire site, the potential addition of one single famiiy lot per acre would not adversely impact soil or other geologic conditions. Hydrologic, biologic, socia-economic, cultural, health, safety, and nuisance factors, aesthetics, utilities and energy and scarce resources are not expected to be directly impacted as a result of the proposed text changes to the General Plan. These specific issues would be evaluated under the environmental review associated with a site specific project. The proposed corresponding zoning ordinance amendments provide only text changes and will not create any direct or secondary impacts on the environment. 2. HYDROLOGY See Item # 1 3. AIR QUALITY - The potential increase of one single famiiy lot within the RS-? zone, would add approximately ten vehicle trips per unit per day cumulatively impacting the air quality of the local air basin. With a very limited number of undeveloped parcels designated RS-? within the city and large enough to support a subdivision of five or more single family homes, the potential cumulative impact permitted by the proposed redesignation is not considered significant. The level of impact will be evaluated is association with a site specific project. 4. FLORA See Item # 1 5. FAUNA See Item # 1 6. POPULATION See Item # 1 7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS See Item # 1 8. LAND USE and PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - The proposed General Plan amendment and corresponding zoning ordinance amendments modify the existing Residential Single Family-?Iand use and zoning designations that require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and up to seven units per acre. The revision would reduce the minimum lot size to 4,500 square feet and increase the potential density to eight unit per acre. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-06 establishes an inclusionary housing ordinance and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-08 permits mixed-use development in the commercial zones. None of these applications represent a substantial alteration of the parameters of the existing land use, zoning designation or development standards. The other ordinance amendments respond to the needs and methods required to encourage affordable housing. Each of the applications proposes text amendments and have no direct environmental impact. As such, the impacts not considered significant. Environmental issues associated with the implementation of the amendments will be considered with a site specific project. OCT 26 1993 ITEM 12 14 OF 16 ,0. CULTURAL RESOURCES 11. HEALTH, SAFETY, and NUISANCE FACTORS 12. AESTHETICS 13. UTILITIES and PUBLIC SERVICES 14. ENERGY and SCARCE RESOURCES 15 OF 16 See Item # 1 See Item # 1 See Item # 1 See Item # 1 See Item # 1 OCT 2 61993 ITEM 12 III. ~ o o DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 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 DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE~// /ffJ' SIGNATU Hi OF Hi OCT 26 1993 ITEM 12' !