Item 26 - Agreement between Fish & Game and City Interpretive Svs @ Blue Sky
~ --
(( Tho_' oc,~.. ~~.. ~,:~~~~~~ .~! :T_._.~
City Council unles> membecs of the Council, staff or public request it to be removed from the Consent Calendar and
discussed separately, If you wish to have this report pulled for discussion, please fill out a slip indicating the report number
and give. to the City Cierk prior to the beginning of the City Council meeting.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~
Robert L. Thomas, Director of Communit servic~
Patrick R. Foley, Principal Management Analyst
DATE: January 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Agreement Between California Department of Fish and Game and
City of Poway for Interpretive Services at Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve
BACKGROUND
The State Department of Fish and Game stopped providing interpretive services
at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve on December 31, 1994. From January 1, 1995
until June 30, 1995, interpretive services at Blue Sky will be provided by a
County employee who is funded by the City of Poway.
In order to ensure continuation of interpretive services at Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve, it is necessary to execute an agreement specifying the
responsibilities of the City and the State for the period of July 1, 1994
through June 30, 1995.
FINDINGS
An agreement specifying that the State will be responsible for providing
interpretive services at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve from July 1, 1994 through
December 31, 1994, and that the City shall provide interpretive services from
January 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995 is not yet complete.
" .
ACTION:
~ 2 of 3
JAN 3 1995 ITEM 2
-"'
- -
Agenda Report
January 3, 1995
Page 2
-
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient City and State funds have been allocated to cover the staffing and
related operational costs at Blue Sky for the period of July 1, 1994 through
June 30, 1995.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Additional notification sent to Patricia Wolf and Robert Copper.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council continue the Agreement Between
California Department of Fish and Game and City of Poway for Interpretive
Services at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve until January 17, 1995.
JLB:JDF:RLT
Attachment
Agreement
(C, lDATAIAGENDAllNTR'RET .AGR)
3 of 3 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 26
--.-
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY DISTRIßlJTED f)Û'~/v 30 / t¡f.;,
f'
TO: Hooombl. M.,." 000 M~"'n or"" CI., CooOOI Ð
- FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage£ ~~-;;-."....~
Robert L. Thomas, Director of Commu ty Service
Patrick R. Foley, Principal Managemen AnalYS~
DATE: January 3, 1995
SUBJECl': Agreement Between California Department of Fish and Game and City of Poway
for Interpretive Services at Blue Sky Ecological Reserve
ABSTRACT
It is recommended that the City Council continue the Agreement Between California
Department of Fish and Game and City of Poway for Interpretive Services at Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve until January 17,1995.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
- This item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient City and State funds have been allocated to cover the staffing and related
operational costs at Blue Sky for the period of July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Additional notification sent to Patricia Wolf and Robert Copper.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council continue the Agreement Between California
Department of Fish and Game and City of Poway for Interpretive Services at Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve until January 17, 1995.
ACTION
-
I
1 of 3 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 26
./)~ ~~ /Ý'yr-
¡RECEIVED"
January 3, 1995
\
City Council: JAN 3 199¿
\ ~ /", ?Ý-/7"
'\ CITY OF PO\VAY -
We strongly object to the Poway Valley Stock Farm receivi . < t'FhIro>.LlPöUa:Ðln8.
our concerns:
I) Flies - although Bob Siebenthaler has visited the Farm and assures me that flies are
not an issue we disagree, please see previous letter attached.
2) Noise and traffic - Prior to expansion, the Farm was a good neighbor and we had no
issues with their business. However, the Farm has not been a good neighbor since
expanding its operations. They had a loud party last year with no notification to
neighbors or the City. When you hire a band with loudspeakers in an outdoor area, we
would think notification would be appropriate.
3) Notification - Speaking of notification, we are under the assumption that a CUP
needs to be printed in the paper and neighbors need to be notified by mail. We neither
saw a notice in the Chieftain nor received anything in the mail. This is totally
inappropriate, and believe the process needs to be started over to ensure proper and legal
methods are followed.
4) Street condition - due to the large (and ifthe CUP is approved, even larger) number
of horses using the shoulder of the road in tront of the Farm to travel, the dirt has been
worn away and the street has some large depressions in it. When there is a lot of water
(rain or irrigation), water collects in the depression in the street and a great deal of mud
is formed. Driving through this in the winter is, well, yucky, and unnecessary.
5) Number of Animals - Due to a portion of the property being in the flood control plain,
and part of the property utilized by home(s), the number of horses requested on a per
acre basis is too many. If you were to visit the site, you would see that the horses are
already very close, and that there is really not much room for additional animals.
6) Additional residence - The CUP requests an additional residence, but isn't very
specific. We are leery of adding more housing in this area. Is it a single family
residence, or will it be (essentially) migrant housing for cheap labor? Will it just be a
trailer? If more property is used for housing, shouldn't that decrease the number of
horses allowed per acre, as a portion is unusable for horses?
/ JAN 3 1995 ITEM 10
..--.--.
-
7) Finally, we're concerned about the care of the animals. Many times we've driven by
to see horses standing in water (bad for feet) or still wearing horse blankets far into the
day, when it's WanD and blankets should be off. We have heard through the horse
community that an instructor who lives nearby and teaches at PVRA strongly
recommends that her students do NOT board at PVSF due to poor care, such as moldy
hay and poor sanitation.
We realize this person has a right to pursue their business interests, but as this business is
located in a residential area, they do need to recognize and adequately address the
concern of the community. Please feel free to call us if you would like to discuss this
further. You represent the voters of this area, so based on the above concerns, we
request that the CUP for Poway Valley Stock Farm be denied today.
Sincerely,
Steve & Pat Cook
14116 Donart Dr.
619-486-3044
JAN 3 1995 ITEM 10
;l
-
June 10, 1994
Bob Siebenthaler
City of Po way
Bob,
As you requested, this letter wi\l review the issues I have with the Poway Valley Stock
Farm, at 14433 Tierra Bonita Rd. I'd like to begin by stating that up until this year, we
have never had an issue with the farm, and have enjoyed them as neighbors.
However, with the warm weather this past winter and spring, flies have become a
considerable problem for us. We live up the hill past the cemetery, and the breeze blows
up the hill (naturally). Apparently the flies consider it a fun ride, and come to visit us on
quite a regular basis. We are getting both the large, slow, easy-to-kill horse flies, and
those little, zippy, drive-you-crazy kind. We have an older dog who needs to go in and
out of the house frequently, so the screen doors are open quite a bit. One evening when I
came home I killed 23 flies on the french doors.
We really don't mind horses as neighbors, but this fly situation is past annoying,
approaching irritating. We are even considering planting ground cover that is rumored to
repel flies.
Additionally, the stock farm held a party for their tenants (which is a wonderful idea).
Unfortunately, they played music quite loud for a long time, with the speakers pointed
right at us (which was not a wonderful idea). Noise travels a long way in the valley. No
notification was made to the neighbors.
Bob, please feel free to contact us if you need any further information. I hope this will
assist you in helping the stock farm be a profitable business and a good neighbor.
Sincerely,
Pat Cook
-3 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 10
,~
..
TE:STIMONY PRESENTED BEFORE THE POWAY CITY COUNCIL
IN OPPOSITION TO:
staff recommendation to approve development Review
94-07 and Variance 94-13, Shea Homes, Applicant.
PRESENTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING
BY:
Joseph O.K. Oiaz, Jr.
12820 Montauk street
Poway, California
January 3, 1995
Poway, San Diego County California
/-.:1 'l~- #11
--
,Good ovunJ.n<). My na.,J 10 Joe Diu~, and lilY ftllnL. and I have
rosidoù in "away, Cnl1Cornin nt 12620 Montnuk for nonriy two
døcadfJI.1.
'I'onight, 1 nm hare to briefly adùress tho latest attempt to
once agnin, go forth with a proposed project which will sig-
nificantiy chnngo in an nùvorse wny, the quu1ity nnd chnrncter
of our community. Several attempts have been made in the past
to soU, plow, fill, cut, negotiate and build in one of the
last truly open residentially surrounded open spnces in South
Poway.
Tonight, I join with my neighbors to once again voice my
opposition to the latest proposed project. We oppose the staff
recommendation for approval for the following reasons:
1. Staff has failed to recommend that a Trust Account or Bond,
of at least 15% of total gross value of the proposed Project
be established by the Applicant in the event all conditions,
wiavers, permits and variances which are being endorsed,
are not met, completed, faulty, prone to accident, natural
or man-made, as a result of the activity set forth by the
Project, and for any accidental direct or in-direct problem
caused to the immediate and surrounding community and resi-
dential properties as a result therein.
2. We are opposed to the Project in that a Nconsiderable amountN
of till dirt will be required to be placed in order to bring
the buildable portion of the property out of the 100 Year
Floodplain. The intensity of the dust and it's direct impact
on the health of many seniors living in the area and children
who attend the three nearest schools will be significant.
In reference to attempting to reducing the natural floodplain
many of us still remember the disaster caused by the last
major downpour and flooding and the City's inability to
cope with even that event.
3. We are opposed to the Project in that when the prior Ap-
plicant achieved approval for the pomerado Senior Village,
staff simply converted the approved EIR for that project
to the currently proposed. Two different and significantly
focused and directed projects.
4. We are opposed to the recommendation to approve the Project
based on a number of requests for variances, which include
but are not limited to the following issues:
a. Zoning codes variances and waivers:
b- No restrooms in a recreational area:
c. Insufficient off-street parking for proposed residents:
d. Significant traffic problems presently in the area and
the proposal to widen Metate:
c. Allowing ten of the lots to fall significantly below
zoning requirements:
d. Staff has "explored the affordability issue" yet, the
IIl.u-kel' in tho I ,IS t 24 months would argue differently.
5. We are opposed to Variance Request 94-07 because,
1. we do not believe the project is consistent with the
General Plan;
2. The proposed project will have an adverse aesthetic,
health, safety, or architecturally related impact ad-
joining properties, because building square footages,
rooflines, materials, and building materials are not
compatible with nearby developments;
3. The proposed project does not encourage the orderly
and harmonious appearance of structures and property
within the community and does not complement other
residenttial development in the vicinity;
4. The proposed project is not in compliance with all
Zoning Ordinances;
5. Current traffic conditions and proposed changes will
create significant safety risks;
6. We are opposed to Variance Request 94-13 because,
1. The project is not consistent with the general plan;
2. There are a number of serious circumstances applicable
to at least ten of the lots and granting variances will
be carrying out of unfair public policy to previous other
denied requests for like variance activity;
3. The granting of this variance constitues a special pri-
vilege to the Applicant not consistent with the limita-
tions placed upon other existing properties.
We conclude that to maintain the best use of the current site
as a open space surrounded by residential sites many in the
area for nearly four decades, reflects the best safe, fair,
effective, orderly and legal use of this site. Allowing for
the significant number of variances requested by Applicant,
clearly indicates an inappropriate Project with significant
negative and long lasting safety, traffic and quality of life
issues which niether the Applicant nor staff has effectively
addressed. Thank you.
##########################