Res 04-089
RESOLUTION NO. 04- 089
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY
ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE
2004 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PAGUAY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of poway ("City Council") has adopted,
by Ordinance No. 117 on December 13, 1983, the Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the
Paguay Redevelopment Project ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted amendments to the Plan by Ordinance
No. 415 on June 15, 1993, Ordinance No. 439 on December 13, 1994, Ordinance No.
593 on December 2,2003, and Ordinance No. 605 on August 17, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Poway Redevelopment
Agency ("Agency") a proposed amendment to the Plan ("2004 Amendment"), a copy of
which is on file at the office of the City Clerk, together with the Agency's Report to City
Council including the reasons for the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2004, the Agency and City Council held a joint
public hearing, duly noticed and held in accordance with applicable law, on the proposed
2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, at or prior to the time of the joint public hearing, the City Council
received one written objection to the adoption of the 2004 Amendment, which written
objection was contained in a letter dated September 28, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Law requires that prior to the adoption of a redevelopment plan
amendment that the City Council respond in writing to any written objections received by
adopting written responses to the written objections; and
WHEREAS, following the closure of the September 28, 2004, joint public hearing of
the Agency and City Council, the proposed approval of the Negative Declaration prepared
in connection with the 2004 Amendment and the proposed adoption of the 2004
Amendment were continued to the October 12, 2004, Agency and City Council meetings,
to permit the preparation of written responses to the written objections, and comments
made by the public at the public hearing, and to allow the City Council to first consider and
evaluate the written objections and to consider the adoption of written responses to the
written objections and public comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed, evaluated, and fully considered the
Report to City Council prepared by the Agency in connection with the 2004 Amendment
and submitted to the City Council and all other oral and written staff reports and
information presented, all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the 2004
Amendment, and all objections to the adoption of the 2004 Amendment, including the
written objections; and
WHEREAS, written responses to the written objections and public comments
received to the 2004 Amendment have been prepared and have been fully reviewed,
evaluated, and considered by the City Council.
Resolution No. 04.089
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Poway has reviewed, evaluated, and
fully considered the written objections and other public comments to the 2004 Amendment
received at or prior to the joint public hearing, which objections are set forth in Exhibit "A"
hereto, and the City Council hereby finds and determines that such objections are without
merit and are hereby overruled for the reasons set forth in the written responses to these
written objections and other public comments also set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto. The
written responses included in Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted as the written findings of the
City Council in response to the written objections and other public comments received. All
oral and written objections to the 2004 Amendment received at or prior to the joint public
hearing are hereby overruled.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit, by pre-paid First Class
Mail, a certified copy of this Resolution, including Exhibit "A," to each person who has
submitted a written objection or provided comments at the public hearing, at their
respective addresses.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of
at a regular meeting this 12th day of October, 2004.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
I, Jeanne Bunch, Interim City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 04-089 was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Poway at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of October 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: GOLDBY, HIGGINSON, REXFORD,CAFAGNA
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: EMERY
Jea e Bunch, Interim City Clerk
Cit of Poway
Resolution No. 04-089
Page 3
EXHIBIT "A"
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE PAGUAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
1. Written Objection from Anna M. Pinto, dated September 28,2004
This letter objects to extension of the Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain
authority. The letter references that that the Agency does not have nor is it
proposed to have eminent domain authority on residential zoned and developed
properties. The letter suggests that the Redevelopment Agency has already
decided where eminent domain will be used for purchasing properties or
condemning properties to move forward with improvement projects that only the
City and special interest groups feel necessary to support. Reference is also
made to the purchase of properties for the girls' softball fields near Aubrey and
Midland.
ReSDonse to written comment:
Mrs. Pinto correctly states that the Agency does not have the authority to acquire
residential zoned and developed properties. The 2004 Plan Amendment would
not expand the existing eminent domain authority; rather the Plan Amendment
would only extend the existing authority for an additional twelve years. While it is
suggested that the Redevelopment Agency has already decided on future
properties, the Agency has not taken any steps toward acquisition of real
property by eminent domain under its existing authority. Prior to any proposed
use of eminent domain, the Agency would be required by Law to make an offer to
the property owner, based upon the appraised value of the property, negotiate
with the property owner, conduct a hearing, and adopt a resolution of necessity
by a four-fifths vote of the Agency Board, in accordance with the requirements of
California law.
The author objects to the eminent domain extension; however, her property is
residential property and is not subject to eminent domain action by the
Redevelopment Agency.
Resolution No. 04- 089
Page 4
2. Speaker- Carol Funk, 11319 Creek Road, Poway
Mrs. Funk inquired about her personal residence, referenced as open space.
ResDonse to Mrs. Funk:
The actual zoning designation of Mrs. Funk's property is "Open Space - 1
Dwelling Unit." This is a land use designation intended as an area for very low-
density, single-family residential development. The eminent domain exemption is
for "residentially-zoned and developed properties." Because the zoning
authorizes residential uses and the residential unit has been developed, Mrs.
Funk is not subject to eminent domain at her property on Creek Road and will be
advised of this determination in writing.
3. Speaker - Mr. East, 16067 Highland Valley East
Mr. East inquired if this action will have any impact on properties along
Rattlesnake Creek.
ResDonse to Mr. East:
Mr. East was advised that the proposed 2004 Redevelopment Plan Amendment
has no impact on residential zoned and used property.