Item 4 - Public Notice Given for TTM 94-02 & DR 94-07 Keyes Development Shea Homes AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Mayor and .tubers of the City ~j~.ncil
FRO~: James L. Bowersox, City Mana)~q'
-- INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manaoe~9)~ r/) Stephen M. Eckis, City Attorney
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk--F~_~q~
DATE: .February 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Public Notice Given for Tentative Tract Map 94-02 & Development Review
94-07: Keyes Development/Shea Homes
ABSTRACT
On January 17, 1995, Variance 94-13 and Development Review 94-07 was on the City
Council agenda as a Continued Public Hearing. Speakers alleged that they did not
receive the Notice of Public Hearing sent for the June 21, 1994 hearing on Tentative
Tract Map 94-02, a 62 lot subdivision of the same property. The City Council continuer
this matter to February 14, 1995 and requested staff report on the issues raised by the
public speakers. The discussion in the attached report of the procedures followed
demonstrate that the city complied with the law in giving notice of the hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
None necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
This report was sent to all the speakers from the January 17, 1995 hearing, Item 4.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council find that the notice given was not defective.
ACTION
1 of 39 FEB 14 1995 ITEM
CITY OF POWAY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members o~,he City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~¥~)
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~t~
Stephen M. Eckis, City Attorney
U
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk~q~
DATE: February 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Public Notice Given for Tentative Tract Map 94-02 & Development
Review 94-07: Keyes Development/Shea Homes
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 1995, five speakers, including Mr. Joe Diaz, stated they had
not received the Notice of Public Hearing mailed for the June 21, 1994 hearing
regarding Tentative Tract Map 94-02. Mr. Diaz presented copies of material he
received from the City Clerk's Office to show his name was not on the mailing
list. The City Council continued the hearing on the Variance and Development
Review to this meeting in order for staff to:
1) clarify the standard procedures used for giving legal notice;
2) describe the noticing process that was used for TTM 94-02; and
3) clarify the materials that Mr. Diaz distributed to the City Council.
Following is a discussion of each of the issues referred to staff:
1. PROCEDURES USED FOR GIVING LEGAL NOTICE:
State law requires that notice be given to property owners within a 300
foot radius of the subject property. (Government Code Section 66451.3
and 65091). Early in the City's history, the City Council determined
that since Poway has so many areas of large lots, 500 foot notice would
be more appropriate. Attachment 1 is the submittal requirements given
to an applicant that explains, among other things, the list they shall
provide for mailing notices of public hearing. In accordance with State
law, the list shall be obtained from the latest equalized assessment
roll issued by the San Diego County Assessor.
When the list is received, Planning Services Department staff checks for
accuracy. Prior to January, 1993, the remainder of the tasks were
performed by the City Clerk's Department. Since January 1993, the
2 of 39 FEB 4 1995 ITEM
Page 2
-- TTM 92-02 Notice
February 14, 1995
Planning Services Department staff photocopies the labels, puts the
labels on the envelopes, places the public hearing notice in the
envelope and puts the envelopes in the City's outgoing mail. The City
Clerk's office is provided a copy of the labels, a copy of the notice,
and a notation of how many notices were mailed on what date for the
official file.
In fiscal year 1989-90, 21,240 notices were mailed for 177 public
hearings. In 1990-91, 7,032 were mailed for 100 public hearings. In
1991-92 6,121 notices were mailed for 89 public hearings, and from July,
1992 to January, 1993, 8,178 notices were mailed for 87 public hearings.
The envelope used since 1987 to mail notices of public hearing is shown
as Attachment 2. Councilmember Linda Brannon expressed concern at that
time that the notices could be mistaken for "junk mail" and subsequently
the City Council directed staff to devise a method to make them more
distinguishable. The subject envelope was printed in an effort to make
citizens aware of what they were receiving in the mail.
Notices are mailed with first-class postage at the Poway Post Office.
If a notice is returned as undeliverable, staff checks the most recent
assessor's records to determine if there is a new owner since the "last
equalized tax records." If we find a new name and there is sufficient
time before the hearing, a notice is sent again to the new owner. If
there is no new owner listed, a notice is mailed to "resident" at the
same address. These measures are not required, but have been routinely
done for several years in an effort to fully notify the citizenry.
As required by law, the public notice is also published in the legal
advertising section of the Powa¥ News-Chieftain.
2. NOTICING PROCESS FOR TTM 94-02:
The applicant, Doug Keyes, submitted the labels for mailing notices.
The planner, Marijo VanDyke, checked them for accuracy. The
department's Administrative Secretary, Karen Stygar, put the labels on
the envelopes. On June 7, 1994, 139 notices were put in the City's
outgoing mail for TTM 94-02. The public hearing was scheduled for June
21, 1994. The list of labels used is Attachment 3.
The Poway Post Office gave us their route numbers for each address in
the immediate area and they are noted on this copy of the labels. Four
different routes are involved. Mr. Stampfl stated he received his
notice. He is on Route 6442 which had 3 addresses on the list. 39
notices were mailed elsewhere in Poway or out of the area. Two of these
were returned and are Attachments 4 and 5. The public notice that was
mailed is Attachment 6.
3 of 39 FEB 1 A 1995 ITEM
Page 3
TTM 94-02 Notice
February 14, 1995
The legal notice was published in the Powa¥ News Chieftain on June 9.
The Proof of Publication is Attachment 7.
Staff looked at other mail that left City Hall on June 7, 1994 to
determine if other mailings were received. The Planning Department
mailed notices on two other public hearings scheduled for June 21, t995.
Five notices were mailed for Conditional Use Permit 94-05, Ford Finishes
of California paint warehouse at 12185 Dearborn Place. None of these
notices were returned and staff noted no calls received as a result of
the notice. Twenty-five notices were mailed for Minor Conditional Use
Permit 94-02, Stix Family Billiards at 12222 Poway Road. None of the
notices were returned. Planning staff noted two calls received as a
result of the mailed notice. Their log is Attachment 8. The City Clerk
received one call from a tenant in the shopping center who had received
a notice.
In addition, several City departments checked their chrono files for
letters mailed on June 7, 1994 that could be cited as having been
received. The City Manager's Office, Engineering Services Department
and Public Services Department have such documented correspondence.
3. MATERIALS MR. DIAZ DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
At the January 17, 1994 meeting, Mr. Diaz distributed a copy of the
notice of public hearing from the City Clerk's file. It had a notation
on the top in the Deputy City Clerk's handwriting, "Mailed 6-7-94 to 139
residents." Attached to the notice was the vicinity map and 3 pages of
names and addresses in a 3-column label format. In an unknown
handwriting on the bottom of the first page it was noted, "Keyes EIR
3/22/90."
Mr. Diaz stated he had talked to the City Clerk's office on January 4,
1995, following the January 3, 1995 City Council meeting when DR 94-07
was originally heard, and requested very specific information on a
mailing list and this list was what his wife had been given by the City
Clerk's Office in response to the specific request.
The City Clerk was on vacation the week of January 3-6, 1995. Liz Dean,
Secretary II, took a call from Mr. Diaz on the morning of January 4,
1995. He asked about how we notify citizens about meetings because he
and others had not received notice of the meeting that approved the 62
home project. She transferred his call to Marie Lofton, Deputy City
Clerk. Mr. Diaz stated he wanted copies of notices mailed and mailing
lists for the subject development and would send his wife in. Mrs.
Lofton asked if he was referring to the Tentative Map or the Variance
and Development Review. He said he wanted everything. Mrs. Lofton
explained our standard procedure of pulling files and asking the
customer to paper clip pages they wanted copied. He said that was fine
and the phone connection was lost at that point. (Mr. Diaz stated in the
4 of 39 FEB lA 1995 ITEM
Page 4
-- TTM 94-02 Notice
February 14, 1995
January 17, 1995 meeting he had been calling from his mobile phone from
Los Angeles.)
Mrs. Dean checked our planning case file index for this property and
pulled files on General Plan Amendment/Zone change 89-04B; General Plan
Amendment/Zone Change 90-02A; General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 90-03A;
Tentative Parcel Map 91-01, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 92-01B;
Tentative Tract Map 94-02; and Variance 94-13/Development Review 94-07.
Mrs. Diaz clipped pages in these files and was told she would have to
come back on Thursday, January 5 to pick the material up. Mrs. Diaz was
also directed to the Planning Services Department to find out if any of
the notices for the latest mailing had been returned.
Mr. Diaz called on Wednesday afternoon to ask if his wife had received
the copies he wanted. He was told she had been in and clipped pages but
the copies would not be ready until Thursday. Mrs. Dean called and
spoke to Mrs. Diaz on the morning of Thursday, January 5 to tell her the
copies were ready. Mr. Diaz came in between noon and 1 p.m. and paid
$7.80 for his copies which, at our copy cost, was 74 pages of material.
The receipt is Attachment 9.
In going back through the files that Mrs. Diaz looked at, it was
determined that the list Mr. Diaz distributed was from the General Plan
Amendment 90-02A file. He distributed 3 pages of a 5 page list. His
name was on one of the two pages he did not distribute. In going
through the bulk of material, Mr. Diaz evidently mixed the lists and
attached those three pages from the 1990 General Plan hearing to the
June 21, 1994 tentative map hearing notice.
At the January 17, 1995 meeting, Council also asked the City Attorney whether
reconsideration of the tentative map was possible. The City Attorney advised
that the neighbors no longer had the right to compel reconsideration through
the court process because the time within which to bring a lawsuit had
expired. However, the City Attorney advised the City Council that they could,
on their own motion, conduct another hearing on the tentative map if they were
persuaded that persons entitled to notice had been denied their due process
rights as the result of defective notice of the public hearing on the map.
The City Attorney has expanded on this in a supplemental report with a
recommendation to take no action on the request to reconsider Tentative Tract
Map 94-02. (Attachment 10)
FINDINGS
The City Council has historically been cognizant of the need for citizen
involvement and has taken action to exceed the legal requirements in the width
of the circle drawn around a property for notice, directed staff to use
envelopes that clearly identify their purpose, and added a special section to
all agenda staff reports to identify who has received notice of an item.
5 of 39 FEB 1 J- 1995 ITEM
Page 5
TTM 94-02 Notice
February 14, 1995
The investigation of the notice given for the hearing on Tentative Tract Map
94-02 establishes that all requirements of state law and local ordinance,
policies and procedures were fully satisfied. When notice was given for the
June 21, 1994 public hearing on TTM 94-02, the procedure followed and the
notice given conform precisely to the manner in which the City has given
notice of hundreds of public hearings to thousands of property owners over the
years. Nothing distinguishes the notice given in this case from the notice
given for any other public hearing. The law does not require that notice
actually be received or that the City prove that the notice was actually
received. Such a requirement would impose a burden of proof on the city which
it could never satisfy. It is virtually impossible to prove actual receipt of
every notice given to a public hearing. Further, the fact that one or more
persons entitled to notice may not have received notice does not prohibit the
City from taking action, provided that the notice was placed in the mail in
accordance with all requirements. If it were otherwise, the failure of even
one property owner to receive notice could delay or prohibit action being
taken on a matter.
There are sound public policy reasons why state law requires only the
placement of notice in the mail and not proof of actual receipt of that
notice. Public agency decisions must have finality. Once a decision is made,
not only the public agency, but property owners, lenders, members of the
general public, and others rely on the decision. The later actions of all of
these interested persons are based upon the public agency decision. Once the
applicable statute of limitations for legal attack upon the decision expires,
the decision may be treated as final by all interested persons. If public
agency decisions were routinely subject to reconsideration months or years
later when it is alleged that one or more persons entitled to notice did not
actually receive notice, no decision would have finality. Sound public policy
'demands that public decisions become final so that the public agency, affected
property owners, and the public generally can rely upon the decision and
proceed accordingly. To adopt a practice of reconsidering final decision on
the basis of belated allegations of notice not actually received would violate
the public policy favoring the finality of decisions.
Staff has not undertaken to determine which persons or how many persons
entitled to notice of the public hearing for TTM 94-02 now believe that they
did not receive notice. There is no way to prove that those persons did or
did not actually receive notice. The possibilities are several. Those
persons may have received notice and not known it. Those persons may have
received notice and have now forgotten that notice was received. They may
have been on vacation or otherwise away from their residences when the notices
were delivered. It is also possible that, in fact, the notice was not
delivered to the residence. For all of these reasons, the inquiry must focus
on whether or not the notice was prepared and placed in the U.S. Mail as
required by law. The staff investigation reveals that the notices were placed
in the mail. The fact that some persons appeared at the hearing in response
to the notice and that other notices were returned establishes that the
notices were delivered to the neighborhood.
6 of 39 FEB lA 1995 ITEM
Page 6
-- TTM 94-02 Notice
February 14, 1995
FISCAL IMPACT
None
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
None required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ANO CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of this report was sent to all speakers from the January 17, 1995
hearing, Item 4 (Richard Ludwig, John Johnston, William Parmley, Ronald
Stampfl, Joe Diaz, Ann Radosevich, Russ Haley of Shea Homes} and to Douglas
Keyes.
RECOMMENOATION
It is recommended that the City Council find that the notice for the public
hearing for Tentative Tract Map 94-02 was not defective.
JLB:JDF:SME:MKW:mw
Attachments: 1. Submittal requirements from Planning Department for applicants.
2. Copy of envelope used for mailing notices of public hearing.
3. Copy of mailing list used for TTM 94-02 June 21. 1994 public
hearing with notation of Post Office route numbers.
4. Notice #1 sent to Nature Conservancy which was returned.
5. Notice #2 sent to Nature Conservancy which was returned.
6. Notice of Public Hearing for TTM 94-02.
7. Proof of Publication for TTM 94-02.
8. Planning Services Department log on TTM 94-02.
9. Receipt of payment for copies given to Mr. Diaz.
10. Supplemental report from City Attorney Eckis regarding rehearing
of Tentative Tract Map 94-02.
7 of 39 FEB 14 1995 ITEM
SuBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
GONDITIONAI ,' use
PERMIT
After the certification of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report
or the issuance of a Negative Declaration, applications for a
Conditional Use Permit may be considered complete* if all of the
following submittal requirements hay% been met in addition to any
additional information requested.
*Sewer capacity must be available for a project to be deemed
complete per Ordinance No. 304, adopted November 14, 1989. At
the time the application is otherwise deemed complete by the
Planning Services Department, a Statement of Sewer
Availability should be requested from the Public Services
Department. If no capacity is available for the project, the
project will be placed on a waiting list. (See page 2,
Specific Information, No. 9.)
I. STANDARD FILING REQUIREHENTS
A. SPECIFIC INFORgiATION
The following specific information and materiB1 shall
accompany a Uniform Application at time of submittal. If
this application is being submitted concurrently.with a
Development Review Application, do not duplicate
requirements. If unsure, contact the Planning Services
Department.
1. Four (4) sets of blueline plans which shall include a
detailed site plan, illustrative site plan, floor plan,
conceptual grading plan, natural features map, and
illustrative building elevations. These plans shall
include the information specified under General
Requirements. (NOTE: 18 sets of plans will be required
when the project is declared complete.)
2. One (1) set of colored plans mounted on foam boards,
which shall include an illustrative site plan,
illustrative building elevations, and any necessary
cross-sections.
3. One (1) 8 1/2" X 11" reduction for each sheet in the set
and one 8 1/2" X 11" photograph of each of the foam
boards.
4. An 8 1/2" X 11" building materials sample board.
5. Part I of the Initial Study (Environmental Assessment).
6. Payment of Application Fees (fees are no~ refundable).
~ City Hall L~at~l.a~, 133~5 Civic Center Drive
ldt'e~: ILO, Box 789, P~v ~ ~ ~064 ' (619) 748-66C~f619) 695-1
8 of 39 ATTACPP 1
-- Condl%ional Uss Permit
Submittal Requirements
Page 2
7. Evidence of legal parcel (either a copy of the recorded
map, certificate of compliance, or Grant Deed recorded
prior to February, 1972).and a preliminary title report.
8. A preliminary title report shall be filed with the City
9. If sewer capacity was reserved with a prior tentative or
final map, conditional use permit, development review,
minor development review, variance, or building permit,
a copy of the Letter of Availability of city sewer
capacity must be submitted.
NOTE: These requirements do not apply to developments
that will use septic systems.
B. PLAN PREPARATION
a. All plans shall be drawn on uniform size sheets no
greater than 30" X 42".
b. All plans shall be drawn to an engineering scale
not to exceed 1" = 20', with a north arrow oriented
to the top of sheet.
c. All plans shall be stapled together along the left
margin, into sets, and shall be folded to
approximately an 8 1/2" X 11" format.
d. All plans must be clear, legible, and scaled
accurately.
C. PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS
1. Property ownership list - two (2) sets of typed, self
adhesive address sheet labels, (Avery or similar)
listing the names, address, Assessor,s Parcel Number of
all property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the subject property (See example
provided).
2. The list shall be obtained from the latest equalized
assessment roll issued by the San Diego County
Assessor.
3. Radius map drawn on the Assessor's Parcel Maps, and
-- spliced together (where necessary) into an 8 1/2" X 11"
format, indicating the subject
property showing all adjacent properties (see example
provided).
9 of 39 FEB 14 1995 ITEM
Conditional Uso Parmit
Submittal Raqulromontz
Page 3
II. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Following is a description of the plans and information that
may be needed to process a project and the amount of detail
such a plan should contain.
A. Detailed Site Plan shall include the following:
-Name and address of: Applicant
Engineer and/or Architect
-Property lines and lot dimensions -Assessor Parcel Number(s) -Dimensioned locations of:
Access, both pedestrian and vehicular, showing service
areas and points of ingress and egress.
Off-street parking and loading areas showing location,
number and typical dimensions of spaces, and wheel
stops placement.
Internal circulation pattern.
-Distances between buildings and/or structures. -Building setbacks (front, rear, sides). -Location, height, and materials of walls and fences
(sections if required).
-All driveways to scale on adjacent and across the
street properties for a distlance of 100 feet
beyond the limits of subject site.
-Existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and existing paving
widths within 100 feet on adjacent and across the
street properties.
-Typical street section. -Any existing median islands within 100 feet of the
subject site.
-Nearest cross streets on both sides with plus or minus
distances from subject site.
-Location of all buildings within 100 feet of adjacent
properties.
-Existing sewers or nearest methods of sewering. -Across-the-street properties - any existing drainage
courses or storm drains.
-The expected uses of the site.
-A vicinity map showing closest major cross streets,
zoning and existing land use.
-Existing and nearest fire hydrants. -Distances from all sides of proposed building(s) to any
building off sito within 150'.
10 of 39 FEB 14 1995 ITEM 4 Pd
Conditional Use Pormit
Submittal Requirements
Page 4
B. Illustrative Site Plan
Such a plan should include a graphic scale and north arrow,
all proposed and existing improvements, landscape concepts
such as earth mounding and meandering walkways, walls,
groundcover, trees, shrubs, shadows, paving and other
elements as may be necessary to illustrate the site plan.
(Dimensions shall be excluded from this plan).
C. Conceptual Grading Plan
-Natural areas to be preserved.
-Proposed cut and fill areas in contrasting colors
-Existing and proposed contours within 100 feet of
project boundaries.
-Proposed drainage and flood control facilities.
-Erosion control measures (e.g. - slope landscaping).
-Natural drainage.
-Elevations and finished contours.
-Location of retaining walls, drainage channels and
existing structures.
-Location, elevation and size of proposed building pads.
D. Illustrative Building Elevations
Illustrative building elevations showing all sides of
existing and proposed buildings and structures.
Illustrative building elevations means architectural
elevations showing typical materials to be used, trees,
landscaping and shadows to give the elevations graphic
dimensions.
E. Natural Features Map
-Location of all slope banks, ridgelines, natural
drainage courses, rock outcroppings and existing
vegetation worthy of consideration for
preservation.
-Any existing landslides and geologic hazards.
THE DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IS FINAL
Forms\Cup
11 of 39 FEB 1,1 1995 ITEM
EXAMPLE "
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP LIST.
317-110-33 317-111-16
Union Steel Company Olson, Roger
P.O. Box 58, Tax Department 17876 Gate Drive
Oakland, CA 94604 Poway, CA 92064
317-110-16 317-111-15
Dean, Stephen & Kristen Miller Invest~ntC~y
12364 Gate Drive 10437 Broadway Street
Pcway, CA 92064 E1 Cajon, CA 92031
317-110-59 317-111-14
Kellogg, Mark L. & Susan Howell, Michael & [aura G.
12366Gate Drive 4465 Sixth Avenue
Poway, CA 92064 Santa Ana, CA 98504
317-110-58 317-110-70
Western Mortgage Co~y Graham, Robert & Elizabeth
10469.Santa Monioa Blvd. 17888 Gate Drive
iOsAngeles, CA 90003 Poway, CA 92064:
317-110-37 317r110-62
Jones, Marcus G. & Kathy Foote, William D. & Irma
12370 Gate Drive 17900 Gate Drive
Poway, CA 92064 Boway, CA 92064
317-110-45 317-110-69
Smith, Ronald & Sue Walker, Marcus
12888 Gate Drive 18010 Gate Drive
Poway, CA 92064 Poway, CA 92064
317-110-56 317-110-71
Roberts, John & Virginia Jones, Ihcn~s C. & Garole S.
12902 Gate Drive 18550 Gate Drive
Poway, CA 92064 Poway, CA '92064
YEB A 1995 ITEM
12 of 39
EXAMP
RADIUS MAP --
PROJECT SITE
500' RADIUS
Q O-90 AC.
~,.
I.O9~C.
13 of 39 ......... ' ', FEEt 14 1995 ITEM
14 of 39 AI-I'ACHI"ENT 2 FEB 1,1 ]995 I'TEM
317-200-05-00
Prepared for: ~)~ J~'/ Richard L Field
RequeSted by: 12252 Boulder Po-int Dr
Rep: Poway Ca 92064-5311
317-200-07-00 317-200-08-00
Ted L Tyler Roger B Souders
12255 Boulder Point Dr-
12728 Pomerado Rd ~;~
Poway Ca 92064-5311
Poway Ca 92064-5322
317-200-10-00 317-200-11-00
Louis C, Juarez John H Tablet
12340 Boulder View Dr ~ 12328 Boulder View Dr
Poway Ca 92064-5316 Poway Ca 92064-5316
317-200-21-00 317-222-10-00
John Housley
Conservancy The ~ature
12327 Boulder View Dr Gvo~ 1800 N Kent St ~800
Poway Ca 92064-5315 Arlington Va 22209-2104
317-301-02-00 317-301-03-00
Mansour Riazati Manuchehr Riazati
12407 Metate Ln ~ff 12413 Metate Ln
Poway Ca 92064-6017 Poway, Ca 92064
317-301-05-00 317-301-06-00
Ronatd E Ward William J Morrissey
12425 Metate Ln
12707 CJlma Ct
Poway Ca 92064-6017 San Diego Ca 92128-2304
317- 301-08-00 317-301-09-00
George ~ Elias Vernon L Schweitzer
12443 ~etate ~n ~Hn 12449 Metate Ln
Poway Ca 92064-6017 Poway Ca 92064-6017
317-301-11-0~ 317-301-12-00
Martir Keck Dorothy Puehlhorn
12461 Metate cn ~m( 12440 Buckskin Trl
Poway Ca 92064-5017 Poway Ca 92064-6010
317-301-14-00 317-301-15-00
Yolanoa Ortiz Steohen J Botts
12~28 Buc~sK~- ~-~ ~ml 12422 Buckskin Trl
Poway Ca ~92064-6010 Pow~y Ca 92064-6010
.-,
ITEM m
317-314-01-00 317-200-09-00-
Douglas Phillip S~nith " Ronald E Roney
12447 Buckskin Trl ~H 12710 Pomerado Rd
Poway Ca 92064-6040 Poway Ca 92064-5322
317-323-01-00 317-200-12-00
Melva C Rule Wallace S Gabriel
633 Leucadia Blvd 12249 Boulder Point Dr
Encinitas Ca 92024-2333 Poway Ca 92064-5311
317-323-04-00 317-301-01-00
William J Deberry - Odle W Kelly
16563 Corte Paulina 12401 Metate Ln
Poway Ca 92064-1934 Poway Ca 92064-6017
317-301-04-00
Loretta C & Walker
12419 Metate Ln
Poway, Ca 92064
317-324-02-00 317-301-07-00
Ruth H Mangel ' Robert C 0 Connor
12634 Mustang Dr 6HR 13056 Poway Rd
Poway Ga 92064-6030 [~ Poway Ca 92064-4520
317-324-13-00 ~j 317-301-10-00
William C Rearick Patricia A Degen
12339 Buckskin Trl ~,~u 12455 Metate Ln
Poway Ca 92064-6007 ~ Poway Ca 92064-6017
3i7-341-24-00 ~.~! 317-301-13-00
Andrew M Jones Vrej 0 Sarkissian
Psc 477 Box 799 12434 Buckskin Trl
Fpo Ap 96306 ,.~ Poway Ca 92064-6010
317-341-28-00 '~ 317-301-16-00
Gabriel A Sanchez Steven L Hanson
12636 Metate Ln ~1~ 4447 Rockcrest Dr
Poway Ca 92064-6022 Fairfax Va 22032-1821
Juventino Solis ....
12845 Montauk St
Poway Ca 92064-6042
Carter K Mckenzie ~l
Poway Ca 92064-6033
317-343-22-00
Albert Jackson
12623 Soule St ~ll
Poway Ca 92064-6032
317-343-25-00 / 317-301-19-00
George L Krekelberg ~11 Harry R Seaboldt
12833 Hontauk St i 12356 Buckskin Tr'l
Poway Ca 92064-6041
~ Poway Ca 92064-6008
317-343-28-00 317-302-01-00
Howard D Christian b~$ Jacqueline B Huller
12614 Tustin St 12435 Buckskin Trl
Poway Ca 92064-6037 Poway Ca 92064-6040
317-345-02-00 317-303-01-00
William 0 Simpson ~HI( Richard Riemer
12808 Montauk St - 12405 Buckskin Trail
Poway Ca 92064-6026 ii Poway, Ca 92064
317-345-05-00 ~ 317-303-04-00
John L Johnston b4~l Luis Briceno
12826 Montauk St 12423 Buckskin Trl
Poway Ca 92064-6026 C Poway Ca 92064-6009
317-345-08-00 (i. 317-311-02-00
Peter M Radosevich Charles Wingle
12844 Montauk St bgll 12446 Buckskin ?rl
Poway, Ca 92064 Poway Ca. 92064-6010
317-500-13-00 317-312-03-00
Harmon Family Trust 07-02- Alfred D, Wade
12624 Oak Knoll Rd ~0% 12517 Metate Ln
Poway Ca 92064-5513 Poway Ca 92064-6019
317-501-03-00 <~ 317-312-06-00
Charles T Fish '~ Charles Goeltzenleuchter
16691 Nw Norwalk Dr 12535 Metate Ln
Beaverton Or 97006-5280 ~ Poway Ca 92064-6019
317-312-09-00
Albert L Leisy
12710 Montauk St
Poway Ca 92064-6047
317-501-09-00 317-312-12-00
John N Thomson Komeno Sakamoto
3824 Mount Ainsworth Ave 12532 Buckskin Trl
San Diego Ca 92111-3217 Poway Ca 92064-6012
317-540-69-00 317-312-15-00
Radelow &Luce Nielsen Daniel L Mc Carville
645 Ash St 12514 Buckskin Trl %q\%
San Diego Ca 92101 ,, Poway Ca 92064-6012
317-550-02-00 317-313-01-00
John P Bertran Gin C Cababa
5934 Caminito Elegante 6906 Stillmeadow Or
~14 i Charlotte Nc 28277-9137
San Diego Ca 92108-2617
317-550-11-00 317-313-04-00
Oak Knoll Ltd The Herbert [ Zimmerman
16310 Woodson View Rd 870 Emily Ct
Poway Ca 92064-1739 ~?~_ / Upland Ca 91786-2239
..
C~ poway Ca .q2064-6032 Po~ay Ca .~206J-6032
G 317-343-26-00 317-343-27-00~
Linda M Dumin Mark D Koehn
12827 Montauk St ~l/ 12608 Tustin St
.C Poway Ca 92064-6041 Poway Ca 92064-6037
~ 317-343-29-00 317-345-01-00
Steward Family Trust 08-27 William E Parmley bH~
12620 Tustin St ~HII 12546 Metate Ln
'C~ Poway ca 92064-6037 Poway ca 92064-6020
~2~ 317-345-03-00 - 317-345-04-00
~ Michael Dilley Jose S Diaz
12814 Montauk St 6qll 12820 Montauk St
k.~' Poway Ca 92064-6026 Poway Ca 92064-6026
.~! 317-345-06-00 317-345-07-00
Betty I & Kausch Jimmy Duran
12832 Montauk St ~Mlt 12838 Montauk
Poway, Ca 92064 Poway, Ca 92064
317-500-11-00 317-500-12-00
Harmon Family Trust 07-02- Harmon Family Trust 02-02-
12624 Oak Knoll Rd (:~o% 12624 Oak Knoll Rd
Poway Ca 92064-5513 Poway Ca 92064-5513
317-50t-01-00 317-501-02-00
Edward K Harmon Harmon Family Trust 07-02-
12624 Oak Knoll Rd ~u~<~ 12624 Oak Knoll Rd
Poway Ca 92064-5513 Poway Ca 92064-5513
G 317-501-04-00 *SEARCH COMPLETE
Constance J Messina b~o~ RECORDS READ: 42
12643 Oak Knoll Rd RECORDS RETURNED: 42
~'" Poway Ca 92064-5512 LAST APN: 317-501-04-00
(c) TRW REDI 1988 - 1993
k.. 317-501-07-00
:i Prepared for: Harrison S Miller
i Requested by: 4546 Robbins St
~i ~.'' Rep,, San Diego Ca 92122
; ~ 317-540-24-00 317-540-26-00
Hammerhead Venture L~d Savings Ban Girard
'~ 4688 Oregon St 12455 59 Poway Rd
San Diego Ca 92116-3055 Poway, Ca 92064
~ 317-540-71-00 317-550-01-00
Joseph N Beecroft John P Bertran
6286 Lambda Dr 5934 Caminito Elegante
C~ San Diego Ca 92120-4606 #14
San Diego Ca 92108-2617
..,'~ C, 317-550-04-00 317-550-05-00
Investors Hollydale Oak Knoll Villas Ltd
Po Box 8-2027 Po Box 27976
C.~ San Diego Ca 92138 San Diego Ca 92198-1976
· :~., ~,~ _ ~ -'"'
:.~
: ~, ~--/// _ /o
18 of 39 :.~ ~i:',~'~, FEB 11 199 ITEM
'C
12410 Buckskin Trl ~ 14546 Poway Mesa Ct
2203 Johnston Rd 12344 Buckskin Trl
O.! Escondido Ca 92029-4006 Poway Ca 92064~6008
i 317-302-02-00 317-302-03-00
i Thomas G Taylor Matthew Welsh
:: i 12441 Buckskin Trl ~\\ 12659 Arabian Way
O! Poway Ca 92064-6040 Poway Ca 92064-6003
O 317-303-02-00 317-303-03-00
· .. Valerie & Hoskins Sidney L Cross
12411 Buckskin Tr G~\\ 12417 Buckskin Trl ~qil
Poway, Ca 92064 Poway Ca 92064-6009
317-303-05-00 317-311-01-00
~ Bruce E Smith Adolfo Ochoa
8885 Rio San Diego Dr' 12467 Me\ate Ln
C ~252 Poway Ca 92064-6017
Sam Diego Ca 92108-1687
~.. 317-312-01-00 317-312-02-00
12505 Metate Ln ~i~ 12511 Metate Ln
Poway, Ca 92064 Poway Ca 92064-6019
317-312-04-00 317-312-05-00
i Ricky R Horning ~ql~ Richard A Waller
. : 12523 Me\ate Ln 12529 Metate Ln
i Poway Ca 92064-6019 Poway Ca 92064-6019
317-312-07-00 317-312-08-00
i Donald E Samson b~l~ Luis J Martinez
12541 Me\ate Ln 12716 Mort\auk St
Poway Ca 92064-6019 Poway, Ca 92064-6047
317-312-10-00 317-312-11-00
Kottayil Varughese bq\~ Jesse E Bailey
12544 Buckskin Trl
8080 La Mesa Blvd ~116
317-312-13-00 317-312-14-00
Michael A Stoneman ~ll Lillian L Hough
12526 Buckskin Trl
12520 Buckskin Trl
Poway Ca 92064-6012 Poway Ca 92064-6012
317-312-16-00 317-312-17-00
Peter B Stark Richard H Bedard
1306 Scenic Dr 12502 Buckskin TEl
Escondido, Ca 92029-3106 Poway, Ca 92064-6012
317-313-02-00 317-313-03-00
Frank G Draper Anthony J Armstrong
11301 Creek Rd 12515 Buckskin Trl
~ i Poway Ca 92064-6111 Poway Ca 92064-6011
. .;~;~.~
19 of 39 ~ '~ i ! ~ ,, FEB li 19~,~ ITEM~,
~2527 Bucks~iq
PO~ay, Ca 92064 Po~ay, Ca 92064-6011
317-313-08-00 317-313-09-00
Cecil Bollinger ~q\\ Nicholas Chi-Kwan Ling
12543 Buckskin Trl 5324 Bloch St
Poway Ca 92064-6011 San Diego Ca 92122-4008
317-321-01-00 317-321-02-00
Jack R Beauvais ~Mii Kurt Schmidt
12639 Mustang Dr 12648 Arabian Way
Poway Ca 92064,-6029 Poway Ca 92064-6004
317-323-02-00 317-323-03-00
Taylor James B Family Trus Michael R Schold
12332 Buckskin Trl ~U 12326 Buckskin Trl
~oway Ca 92064-6008 Poway Ca 92064-6008
*SEARCH COMPLETE
RECORDS READ: 74
RECORDS RETURNED: 74
LAST APN: 317-323-04-00
(c) TRW REDI 1988 - 1993
917-324-01-00
Prepared for: Jean C Sheehan
Requested by: 12345 Buckskin Trl
Rep: Poway Ca 92064-6007
317-324-03-00 317-324-12-00
Barry L Vinson
12628 Mustang Dr ~qll Danny R Ramage
12327 Buckskin Trl
Poway Ca 92064-6030 Poway Ca 92064-6007
317-341-22-00 317-341-23-00
Dorothy R George ~1 Lee E Williams
12621 Tustin St 12615 Tustin St
Poway Ca 92064-6036 Poway Ca 92064-6036
317-341-25-00
Judith Morris ~ql[ 317-341-27-00
Valerie L Chelseth ~
12809 Montauk St 12624 Metate Ln
Poway, Ca 92064-6025 Poway Ca 92064-6022
317-341-29-00 317-341-32-00
Lorraine L Banister ~q\~ Jimmy O Dutton
12642 Metate Ln 12612 Metate Ln
Poway Ca 92064-6022 Poway Ca 92064-6022
317-342-12-00 317-342-13-00
Michael J Struck Raymond E Williamson
12604 Soule St ~/~ I 12610 Soule St
Poway Ca 92064-6033 Poway Ca 92064-6033
317-342-15-00 317-343-21-00
George A Salomone
12622 Soule St ~\/ Kyoko Y Petty
12629 Soule St
Poway Ca 92064-6033 Poway Ca 92064-6032
6120 .rryhill Or I~l) 6u~ 82027
PO BOX 82027 12547 Oak Knoll Rd #15
San Diego Ca 92138 Poway Ca 92064-5482
317-800-17-00 317'800-18-00
1800 H Kent St #800 1800 N Kent St 1t800
Arlington Va 22209-2104 Arlington Va 22209-2104
317-800-20-00 '317-800-21-00
1800 N Kent St #800. [800 N Kent St #800
Arlington Va 22209-210d Arlingto~l Va 22209.-2104
'SEARCH COMPLETE
RECORDS READ: 23
RECORDS RETURNED: 23
LAST APN: 317-800-29-00
(c) TRW REDI 1988 - 1993
317-550-19-00
Po Box 82027
" San Diego Ca 92138
317-800-16-00
Conservancy The Nature
1800 N Kent St ~800
Arlington Va 22209-2104
]17-800-19-00
~ 1800 N Ken[ St #800
· Arlington Va 22209-2104
-- ..... 317-800-29.-00
18110 N Kent SL tt800
Arlington Va 22209-2104
21 of 39
.... ~ .... ~ ............... ** %~ ICl ~1~
22 of 39 A~ACHr~W q
FEB 1 4 1995
A1-FACH~'~,rl' 5
23 of 39
.... FEB 1 4:1995
N HIGGiNSON,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Poway will hold a
Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway,
California 92064 on Tuesday, June 21, 1994 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as possible
thereafter to consider the following item:
Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map 94-02, Douglas Keyes,
Applicant: A request to subdivide 9.22 net acres into 65 single-family
lots on the property located at the northeast corner of Pomerado Road and
Metate Lane in the RS-7 zone.
The previously certified Final EIR for the Poway Seniors Village
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
development.
ANY INTER£STED PERSON may review the staff report and the plans for this project
at the City of Poway Planning Services, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway,
California. Additional information is available from Marijo Van Dyke, staff
planner on this project by telephone at (619) 679-4294.
If you wish to express concerns in favor or against the above, you may appear in
person at the above described meeting or submit your concerns in writing to the
City Clerk, City of Poway.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK at the meeting, please fill out one of the speaker's slips
which are located at the back of the Council Chambers, to the right of the door
as you enter. Use a green slip if you are in favor of staff's recommendation or
a red slip if you are opposed. The agenda, which gives the order of the meeting,
is also located there. You must give the speaker's slip to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting or prior to the subject item in order to be called to the podium
to speak.
If you challenge the matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to the
public hearing.
If you have special needs requiring assistance at the meeting, please call the
City Clerk at 679-4236 24 hours prior to the meeting so that accommodation can
be arranged.
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
M City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive ~/
24 of 39 Address: P.O. Box 789, Powa., c'~t;~.~..~. 0'>n74_0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
,. .... A1-FACIIr-~T 6 FEB lJ~ 1995 [[EM /+/~rl
Vicinity Map
Knoll
Site
Metate Lane
TTM 94-02
25 of 39
FEB 1 4 1995 I'T~J
PROOF OF PUBLIGATION This space Is for the County
(2015.5 C.C.P.) ?ling
STA~ OF CA~OR~, ~ ~'~
Co~y of S~ Diego: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Proof o~ publication o~
I ~ a ci~en of ~e U~ted S~tes ~d a ~ - ~ ~ ~ o
resident of ~e Co~ ~ores~d; I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
over ~e age of eighteen years, ~d not a ~'n ~ ~
pa~y ~o or ~terested ~ the above-
enC~ed matter. I ~ ~e p~cipal clerk
of thep~terof ~e PowayNews~e~- ~ < ~ = ~ ~la ~s ~
t~n, anewspaperofg~ner~c~c~on, z~ ~.~.~ ~= =~ = ~ ~
prated and pub~hed Thusly ~ the Ci- - = ~ ~ ~ K ~ _ ~ _ ~ = ~. _ ~ ~ ~
ty of Poway, Cowry or. Diego, and ~= _ . _ ~ o_ff ==~.-~-
w~ch newspaper ~s been adjudg~ a _=~=~o . =_=~o~
newspaper of general c~c~on by ~e ~ !~'~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ -- ! m ~ a - ~
Supe~or Cou~ of the Co~ of San ~_~ ~
Diego, State of C~om~, ~der~edate m. = ~ ~ _. , -~ = --.~ ~- ~ -
of Feb. ~, 1~2, Case Nmber ~9; ~m~4a a~ =~ , ~>~a~ a;-~-a'~
· at ~e notice, of w~ch ~e ~ed ~ a
pmtedcopy(set~enotsm~er~ l'~a'm~P ~a~2P+ · /
nonp~e~), has been pub~hed ~ each "=-' - -~ ~ ....
regular and entire issue of sad ~= =i~- ~=.~! =~ ~/~
· ereof on the foHo~g dat~, t~t: ~'~ ~.~ m'~ ~14
an ~ ~e ye~ 19~ ~00
I c~y (or declare) ~d~ ~ or ~=-
PeG~t~eforego~gM~e~d~r- ~Mn'~'~ .~==z 2
Dateda 9C. ~ ~ '=~'
' ' , '.~ Y ,I
,
POWAY NEWS
CHIE~A~
P.O. Box
26 of 39 ~OWAY, Cl~O~ 92~4 A~AC~'~ 7 FEB 1 4 1995
748-~11 or 271-14~
MCUP' 94-02
' DATE TIldE G~A~F ' ACTIVITy CO~i~T~
(hours) INVOLVED
27 of 39 A~ACH~ff 8
28 of 39 " '--'~
~ A1-FACHPENT 9 FEB lA 1995
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Stephen M. Eckis, City Attor~
DATE: February 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Public Notice Given for Tentative Tract Map 94-02 and
Development Review 94-07: Keyes DeveloDment/Shea Homes
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting of January 17, 1995 on Development Review 94-07, it
was requested by neighbors of the project that the City Council reconsider its approval of
Tentative Tract Map 94-02. Final approval was given to that tentative tract map on July 12,
1994. The statute of limitations to challenge that approval expired on or about October 10,
1994. Notwithstanding the expiration of that statute of limitations, some neighbors to the
project asserted that they were entitled to reconsideration because they had not actually
received notice of the public hearing.
The City Council asked the City Attorney whether or not reconsideration was
possible. The City Attorney advised that the neighbors no longer had the right to compel
reconsideration through the court process because the time within which to bring a lawsuit
had expired. However, the City Attorney advised the City Council that they could, on their
own motion, conduct another hearing on the tentative map if they were persuaded that
persons entitled to notice had been denied their due process rights as the result of defective
notice of the public hearing on the map.
The action taken by the City Council on lanuary 17 was not to order reconsideration
of the tentative map. Instead, with the consent of the developer, the City Council continued
the public hearing on the Development Review and directed the City staff to investigate the
notice given for the tentative map hearing last year and report the results to the City Council.
The results of that investigation are set forth in the companion report on this item. The
investigation concludes that notice was given in accordance with state law, local ordinance
and local policy. The evidence supports the conclusion that the notices were mailed and
received. The Post Office returned notices it was unable to deliver and some residents
responded to the notices by appearing at the 1994 hearings.
Since the January 17, 1995 hearing, attorneys for the property owner and attorneys
for the project developer have submitted letters to the City Attorney which discuss the law
ACTION:
29 of 39 A1-FACHi'"I~IT 10 FEB 1 4 1~5 17~?v'~ ~l't~Jrl
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT
February 14, 1995
Page Two
applicable to notice requirements and the limitations upon reconsideration of tentative maps.
Copies of those letters are attached to this supplemental report. It remains the City
Attorney's opinion that Tentative Tract Map 94-02 could he reheard if the facts established
that the City deprived the neighbors of constitutional due process by falling to comply with
state law noticing requirements. The facts as disclosed by the staff's investigation since the
last hearing establish that the notice was not defective and that the City did not deprive the
property owners of their due process rights. The City Attorney therefore concludes that no
legal grounds exist upon which to reconsider or rehear TTM 94-02.
In the event that the City Council wishes to discuss further the rights and liabilities of
the City, the City Council may do so in closed session. A closed session is authorized by
Government Code § 54956.9fo)(1). The letter to the City Attorney dated January 25, 1995
from Latham & Watldns constitutes a statement threatening litigation made by a person
outside an open and public meeting, sufficient under Government Code § 54956.9(b)(2)(E) to
justify a closed session.
FINDINGS:
The facts do not establish that notice given for the public hearing on Tentative Tract
Map 94-02 was defective. In the absence of defective notice, ~ 94-02 cannot be
reconsidered.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
None required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE:
A copy of this report was sent to all Sl~eakers from the Ianuary 17, 1995 hearing.
Item 4 (Richard Ludwig, John Johnston, William Parmley, Ronald Stampfl, Joe Diaz, Ann
Radosevich, Russ Haley of Shea Homes) and to Douglas Keyes.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council take no action on the request to reconsider
Tentative Tract Map 94-02.
Attachments: 2
30 of 39 FEB 1 4 '[995 J~ ~./~'~
dmlu~y 26, 19~5
Via Tel~=ool~r/IJ.8, Mall
rmv
P~y, C~oml~ 920~
O~
D~elapm~ R~w ~pl~Dn f.r ~
W= unde~d ~ ~ d~,;~ 17, lg~ ~e ~ ~un~
De~o~ R~ ~pll~on u~ F~m~ 14, due to
~ at ~ pubEo n~oe ~r ~e ~a m~ (~pr~ by ~ 0~ Go.oil ~ ~e eummer
R~on~ld~ ~e Pmj~'l t~e m~; ~ d~s~ of ~ ProJ~ ~d ~e pubb
Jud~clm d~o~, ~e ~ovemm~,D~a ~d ~e Po~ M~dp~ Dada (N~ ~pr~g~
~. v. C~n~ ~ ~ ~e [1984] 1~0 C~p,3d
~lngly, ~y a~n by ~e P~ C~ Co~dl which ~s~
We ~ hope~l ~d ~nfld~ ~ ~a C~ C~n~ ~III ~pred~e
~o~ when R ao~ld~ ~e Dw~opme~ R~ ~pll~on
Mu~p~ Co~ ~d~ 17.~[010 at ~e~ p~d~ ~e
~n*ld~ ~e 'lmp~ up~ ~UN ~peM, endro~e~ Gound~, e~n~o ~ll~ ~d
wl~ good ~ ~lgn :md nM ~ampt to ~d
31 of 39 FEB 1 ~ 1995
Stephen M. Ec=k~e
Cliy Att,~mey
City of Poway
~ you far yo~ oensld~mlla~ of thla le~er. 8hould you or ~ m~bar ~ ~ ~
~h~ R. ~1
CRG/mq
Nlen D, H~e, ~.
32 of 39 FEB 1 A 1395 IF~'~?~] A,~.I
8tephen M. Eckla, Eaq,
City Attorney
City of ?oway
P. O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074
Re: Powav City Cotmetl Auoroval of Powav Land C~ml~any's Te~tat[ve
De~ 8~eve:
We represent Poway Lmld Company ("PLC"), thc owner of property located
at t)omemdo RoM and Metate Lane on which 8hca Homes ('8hca") proposes to build the
Poway Oaks Rubclivision~ On $ui¥ 12, 1994 - more tbim six months ago -. the Poway City
Council ("City Council") in a 4.1 decision foUowed the recommendation of~ City of
Poway's ("City") Director of Planning Services and approved PLC's tentative map for this
project.
That approval was made at a properly noticed public hearing, w~s ba~ed on
an exl'mustive analysis Of flit relevant information, and was reached only after thc City staff
and City Council determined that PLC's ten/ative map is consistent with the general plan
and meets all other relevant requirements, Indeed, far from concurring with belated
opposition to thc project's density, the City staff and City Council not only found that thc
site "is physically suitable for the type of develot~ment propo~x[," but that the lot sizes and
configurations cortform to the relevant zoning stanclarcLi, and also that the proposed density
of seve~ lot~ to It~ acre is actually less than thc eight-lot~-to-aa-ac~e density allowed at the
site. See Resolution No. P-94-31 (approving PLC's tentative map). The staff and City
33 of 39 FEB 14 1995
Stophen M. Bclds
.l'anua~ 25, 1995
Page 2
Council also expressly a/dressed dr~i.~ge and flood con~rol, building in conditions to
ensure against the flooding dangers which project opponents allege exist Id.
Now, n~nlks after the d¢~I~in~ for challenging the approval dec/don has
passed, and without a shred of new evidence or fact that would create a basis for any
reconsideration in any evenk opponents of thc project are attempting to preesure the City
Council to defy both ~amtory and common law s,~t reconsider its earlier tontative maI)
approval. The suggestion that such reconsideration is pess~le can be based only on a
fimdamental mls,-~d_~_slanding of the law as weil as ~ relevant fa~s.
We are, not stu'prisi~ly, lroubled at any suggestion of recomideratiun at this
late dale, Indeed, ~ven the possibility of' reconstder, tlon has harmed PLC, causing Shea to
recarialder moving forward on the project until the matter is resolved. Any misguided
attempl by the City Council to reconsider PLC's tenlalive map approval ~ expose the
City to damages for PLC's t~Itirig financial losses - lnssas which the legislature and
co~,s have jealously guarded againa in upholdi~ the relevant s~a.~_._, of limkal~on~' ' ' on
tentative m~p decisions time and time ag~ Such an unpleasant scena_do thanlc~ly can be
avoided simply by adh~Hug to the applicable law.
1. Thc City Clerk ?rovided_Adequate
Tbo project opponents' suggestion that neighboring landowners received
inadequate notice and that this somehow allows reconslderatlon of PLC's t~ntativ¢ map
approval is meritlcsa The City clerk gave notice not only by newspape~ publication
also by mail, to all persons shown on the last eqtt,~Ii',ed assessment roll as owning real
property wit~i~ $00 feet of PLC's property, This is e'/.actly what local law requires, see
Poway Municipal Code § 16.10.020((A)-(B), ~_.~ exceeds state requirements. S~ Gov't
Code § 65091(a)(3) (requiring mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet of subject
properV).
2. !-.,/_~uate Notic~ Is Not C. rrounds For Reco~der~ion Of The City
Council's Avvroval Of PLC's Tm~a~iv~ Map..
The use of thc eq~llw.d assessment roll for no~ce purposes call~ot be
questioned. Where, as here, the legislature has provid~ that property owners entitled to
notice may bo identified from such a list, such provision "re/l~ a legislative
deterr~i-,,tion that the roi1 is an adequate source for the p?~-ficular purpose." Pl.a~_emler v.
CiW of Sa.'l .10se, 101 Cai, App, ~d ~42, 856
Bven ii' notice was h~.&4-.~e (which it was not), the result would be the
same. As the City code expressly provide~, faille of som~ neighboring propma'y owners to
r~ceivc actual notice does ~or affect the validity of the City Council's approval of PLC's
34 of 39 FFB 1 4 1995
S~c-phen M, E~kle
January 25, 199~
Pag~ 3
tentative map. See Poway Mun/cipal Code § 16.10.020(D) (~[f]ailum to receive notice as
set out in this chapter ~AII not affect the v~didity of any action taken pursuant to the
procexltu'~ set forth in this division").
In fact, the California Le.._is!ature is so adamant about thN pohlt thai it has
expressly at~rmcd the rule tha~ publio notice requirements nr~ fulfilled where, as here, thc
public agency m.t-~s a good faith effort to follow tha procedures prescribed by law for
giving notice, emphasi:dn~ tbs::
[I]nsofar aa Ia case] r~%v also ral~e procedural uncoaaintiea about the
manner in which public notice requirements must be met generally,
thc Legislature hereby af~ms the genetnfl principal that statutory
r~gutrermnts for ,tmblte no,ice are fuIflll~d Or th~ publtc agency
remx~on~ble for glving the notice malc~s a good fa#h effort to follow
the procedures ~r~scrtbed by law for giving th~ notice, and that, in
such ¢lrcumstance~, failure of any person to receive such notice shall
not ~ect the valldiO~ of any action subsequently taken by such
agency.
~ 1980 Cal. S~at., eh. 131 § 4, at 304 (eml~hanis add~d);
~Wa~er A~'n v. County of gan IB~*~!qO~ 150 Cal. App. 3d 740, 746 (1984} (explaining
]¢gislalure'a reafflrmactce of adequato notice); Gov'~ Code § 65093 (failure m receive notice
is not grounds for invalidating action taken by
3. Tho Proiec~ Q~mne~ .4.fa. Tim--Barred F~m
Reconsideration Or Review Of The City Co~r~O!'s A~oro~.al Decisio~
B~ At Least Three Stam_.te$ of
There are thr~ relevant deacllJaes for requc~ing reconsideration or review of
a tentative map decision: (1) a motion for reconsiclemtion by a City Council member
be brought al the same meeting as that at which the motion to be reconsidered was brought
(Poway Murficipal Code § 2.18,140); (2) a request for reconsideeation based on new and
different evidence must be brought by an adv~¢ly affected parly w~hln I0 days (Poway
Municipal Code § 16,I0.060; Oov't Code § 66482.$(d)); and (3) it request for court review
of an agency's tentaliw map decision must be brought within 90 days (Gov't Code
§ 66499.37). F~ch of these deadlines bas long since passed.
a. Ihe Time For lV~{~g ^ City Cotuloi| l~otion.
Rr~consideration Has Passed
No motion for reconsideration w~s made at tiaa meeting al which ~e action
approving PLC's tentative map was taken. As ii result, no such motion can now be made.
35 of 39 FEB 1 6 1~95 "-~-~
Stephen M. ~
.}'auuaxy 25, 1995
Page 4
See Poway Municipal Code § 2.18,140 (motion for reconsid~aiion proper only if made at
the meeting at which such action was taken).
b. The Time For An Adversely ~tf .~,ed Party To
Rshearln~ Or Reconsideration Has Pa~J
No one made a written requem for reconsideration wi~'~u 10 days of Ge City
Council's tenlafive map approval; hence, under the City's own relF~l~tio~s as well a~ state
law, any such requcs~ is ti~e-bsrr~ A~ those reg~l~_~0z expressly provide, the City
Council's approval of a tentative map may be reco~idered ool¥ (1) if there is Mw
differ~ evidence not available a~ the previous hearing, and (2) any such request is filed
wi~, 10 calendar clays of thc action which is the subjecl of the ~XlUeSt. ~ee Pow-ay
Municipal Code § 16.10.0~0. State law is the same. See Ocv't Code § 66452.5(d) (Wes~
Supp, 199~) (any appeal from the advisory ag~wy's action on a tentative map "shall be
filed.., wi~i- I0 days aRer the action of the advisor/agency.., which is the subje~ of
c. Tbe Tin~ For. Seeld~! A~Iicial Review Of Tbe City Council',~
A_m~oval Of PLC's Map Has
The opponeng to the Poway Oaks Subdivision not only are too la~ to seek
City Cot~cil review Of the tentalive ~ decision, but also are time-ban-ed from requesiing
court review of the City Council's actiom. 'lo protect not only the interests of developers
but o~' the public as well, the legislature ha~ provided that all requests to review decisions
regarding a subdivision must be brought "within 90 days sider thc dal~ of such decisior~
Thereafter all persons are barred fi'om any such action or proceeding .... , .~q G-ov't
Code § 66499.37.
A~ the state Supreme Court explained only a few momhs sgo,
le4~islaive intent is clear. Section 66499.37 was enacted to enswe that an~ challenge to
local legislative or administrative acts or decisions taken pt~su~ to ordinances enacted
,,d~ the m,*bority of the Subdivision Map Act will be 'oroughi promptly.' Se~ Hens~er ¥.
~ It Cal. 4th 1, ? (1994) (recognizing that th~ p'i~pose of stao.~t~ crea~g
relatively short limitation periods for land use actions is to permit aui promote sound fiscal
plauning by sta~e and local government entities); see ~ .C~rjffis v. Mono County, 163 Cal.
App. 3d 414, 421 (198~) (plai~iff berred by 90-day limlt~tion~ of Section 6649937 from
attacking extension of tentative m*? granted by commission); god~limt v. City of
Monica, 142 Cal. App. 3d 501,506 (1933) (proc~di~gs ch.all~ging the validity of
conditions imposed on t~ntative map brought more th~n two years after approval was
barred).
36 of 39
FEB 1 4 1995
Page 5
This relai/ve]~ sh,~-t Limitations period is designed to allow clevelopere to
oom~n{c funds "without fear of waste" once the 90 days bas passel. The rule is not
des/gned solely for developers, however. As one appetlate court c'xpl,{-~d, "[w]~ b~liev¢
developers ~r~ not the only p~opl¢ who stand to ben,fit from ~ rule requiring the
expadltiou~ litigation of exten~ionz [~usi approvals] of tenta~ve m~os. Development costs
are ustmlly ultimately reflected in ho~sing costs, so ~h~,_ those who'buy hom~ pay at least a
sha~ of ilmreased costs of d~velopment' caused by tm-dy litigation of tentsti~e map
approvals." ~iffis v. County nf Mono. 163 Cal. App. 3d 414, 4112 (1995).
For this and otlzr reasons, "courts bare mot hesitated to apply section
66499.37 so aa to require litigants to file ~It~ cl~llen~ng subdivision decision~ at thc
e~lie~t reasonable opportunity.' M. a~ 425 n. 10. ~. ~ fi. irk v. County of San l.~
Obi ~s~O, 156 Cal. App. 3d 453, 4~0-61 (1984) 0cction (~549937 begsn running when board
donied certificate of compli~,¢e in 1979, herring I~ suit brought when identical certificaie
was ~ou~ht and refused); C~mo v, B& of gno~-~'vi~,~ 123 C~. App. td 334, 359 (1981)
(limitations runs from tentaiive map approval, and such approval cannot be challenged upon
approvfl of final map).
- As the courts kavc ~co?i?ed, th~ "clear Im~.~gc" of s~ction 66499.37
'manifems a legislative purpose th,, a &c~on ~h as that of the City, approvin~ s
subdivi~ioil lllap.., shall b~ judicially al~ked with [the llmi~alioll period o.¢ section
66499.37], or nih at all~ _T. tmb~rrld~e Ent~ror[~.n~ Inc. v. City ofSar~ l~0s, ~6 Cal. App.
3d 873, 886 (1978) (holding thai s~tion 66499.37 ran from d~to of tentaiiv¢ map approval,
not date school impact fees were paid) (emphasis in ori6~-l).
4. The City C~tmcil Must Approve I>LC's .Fimsl Ma~ to LonaAs I]
Substantially Comoli¢i. Wi~ The T~tve M~_-
Ev:n ff the opposition could prevail on notic~ issue~ (whioh it cmmot) and
even if it were not time-barred from seulci~g reconsideration (which k is), im a~ertiom
could not prevent the City Coum:/1 from approvin~ PLC's final nmp so long as that map
substan~ally complies with the approved tentalive map, as approval of a substantially
conforming ~ map is mlni,,i~-isl only. ~. Poway Munioip~l Code ~ 16.12.030(C) ("If
the final map conforms to all of the applicable prov/~ions of the Subdivision Map Act ~nd
the requirements of all City or~i~n,~-~s applicable st the time the tentative subdivision . . .
map was approved .... the City Council .s.h~ll apo~ove the !!~1l"); s~e also Oov't Code
§ § 66473, 66474.1 (agency cannot deny approwal off'mai map so long ss map is in
substsn~al compliance with p~eviously approved tentative map).
This issue was laid to rest by the California Supreme Court in Youn~blood v.
l~ard o~ Su!~rvisors, 22 Cal. 3d 644 (1978), in which it Iffrfimmcd timt approvfl of a final
37 of 39
FEB 1 4 1995
Stepb.~n IvL ~
January 25, 1995
P~e 6
map ]s "administrative, tministerial and mandatory" so long ~ ~e f~ ~p ~mph~
· ~ ~te ~d lo~ la~ ~d ~c co~ifio~ to ~c ~t~c ~p.
~ ~ Co~ ~l~i~:
for appmv~ ~ ~e ~ci~ ~ ~ ~ ~dy ~o~d d~de ~hcr
to ~ ~e p~po~ ~b~v~io~ ~ ~c ~gve ~p ~
a~v~ ~ d~clo~ o~ m~ e~nd sub~ ~ to comply
~t in ~c coition of ~p~cn~ ~t ~ ~c
~o~ ~b~on .... ~uc~y it ~ o~y f~ ~ ~c
d~clo~ ~ ~ ~e p~o ~tcr~a ~ r~q~ ~o ~ov~g ~y ~
~ow ~e ~o~ ~on ~ i~ ~ on ~ ~6~ ~p.
p~o~y ~provcd tc~vc
217 (2d ~. 1990 & Su~. 1~3) (~n ~go~ ap~v~ of a ~ve ~p, ~e o~
h~ ~ ~or~ble ~t W ~uke ~o~ ~d r~r~on of i~ ~sl ~p u~n
sa~ of ~ co~o~ of ~ t~ve ~p); ~ L Lon~ Lon~'s Cgifomia
~ ~ 6.~[4], a 627 (2d ~ 1987 & $app. I~4) {a~ov~ of fi~ map is ~ act).
PLC's ~ ~ a ~ m~ is b~ on ~m~; it does not ~p~d on
~o. v. Sou~ Co~ ~ ~. 17 ~. 3d 7~5 (19~6) ~fore ~ ~pposlte,
El P~o v. P~t ~n~ ~a~l Bd., 110 ~. App. 3d 915, 9~4-2~ (19i0) (~sh-
~e).
S. The O~v ~ I~ ~ ~o~ Rel~e 8~v To D~i~ Not
D~. T~e ~ ~e ~ ~s..Bel~lv ~i~ B~ ~oiect
~e CiW ~cH ~ptov~ ~C's ~five su~b~on ~p at a duly noti~d
p~c h~g 1~ ~y. No one mov~ Mr teco~d~afi~ of ~t ~prov~ at ~t h~g.
No one ~qu~ ~con~d~on b~ om pr~o~ly ~av~labM new eM~ce ~thln 10
~ys of ~t appzov~. No one ~ught ju~eial r~view of ~ app~v~ ~ 90 da~. As
~ ~ere ~ no ~s on ~ch to r~id~ appro~ of PLC's ~n~ve ~p ~
long ~ ~e final ~p s~nH~y complies ~ ~ t~m~ ~p, appro~ of ~
e FEB 1 4 1995
38 of 39
Stephen M. Eclds
January 25, 1995
Pa~e 7
map will be no more thsn a mon-~onary mini~p..I'il~ l~ct. ~ a re~ ~ at ~e
propo~ ~velopment h no lo~ ~ t~. ln~e~ ~ o~y re.ins i~ ae ~o~
~vi&d for by ~ ~'~ Devel~t Review ~o~d~ s~h ~ l~g, pro~s~
1~ of ~ys, ~chit~ ~d~fiom ~ ~e
~ ~e ~ovc ~-kes cle~, ~ ~j~ oppon~' ~o~ ~ m~fl~ If
· e Ci~ neve~e~ ~ ~ ~ by ~op~ly r~mide~ i~ ~prov~ of PLC's
~mfiw ~p, it ~s~ly ~ e~o~ i~ff ~ ~e d~es w~ch P~ ~ ~ ~ a
r~t We ~ ho~ ~ ~d~t ~ ~ CiF ~ ~ avoid ~h a reset md
~ a~de by ~e law ~d r~ ~ r~i~ PLC'S ~n~w ~ when it m~ on
~dcred m ~s ~e of ~ p~s, i,e.. ~se ~ocia~ wi& good ~ desi~.
~an~ you for yo~ co~i~r~on of &i~ 1~. Shoed you or ~y memb~
of Ci~ s~ ~ve my qu~o~, or ~ ~ &~ms &i~ m~, pl~ do ~t h~i~e to
39 of 39 FEB 14 1995
TO THE POWAY CITY COUNCIL: REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 62 SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES ON LESS THAN TEN ACRES OF LAND.
MY NAME IS BARBARA ANN GROPPE DIAZ, MY FAMILY AND I HAVE RESIDED ON THE 12,000
BLOCK OF MONTAUK STREET FORiNEARLY ~ DECADES. TONGIHL I AM HERE JOINING
WITH MY NEIGHBORS WHO ALSO HAVE LIVED IN THE SAME NEGHBORHOOD SOME FOR
WELL OVER THREE DECADES, TO SHARE OUR COMMENTS WITH YOU.
SEVERAL DAYS AGO, WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF POWAY, AN EXTENSIVE DOCUMENT
WHICH ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS MANY OF THE CONCERNS WHICH WERE SHARED WITH YOU
THREE WEEKS AGO.
FIRST OF ALL, LET ME STATE THAT IT WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO CAUSE CITY STAFF
ADDITIONAL WORK BY TRYING TO EXPLAIN HOW PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OR MAILINGS OF
PUBLIC NOTICES ARE CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF POWAY.
IT WAS ALSO NOT OUR INTENT TO PAINT A PICTURE OF NEGLIGENCE OR FAILURE ON
THE PART OF ANYONE OR ANYTHING RELATING TO THE FACT THAT OVER ONE HUNDRED
FAMILIES WERE NOT AWARE OF THE JUNE HEARING.
IT IS CLEAR, FROM THE DOCUMENTS i?RECEIiVED FROM THE CITY OF POWAY SEVE~L
DAYS AGO, THAT THE CITY DOES INDEED HAVE A PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING MAILINGS.
IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THAT COMMUNICATION, THAT THE CITY IS SAYING, YOU MUST
TRUST US THAT A MAILING WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN MAILED BECAUSE INDEED, WE
HAVE SUCH A PROCESS IN PLACE.
WE ARE VERY REASONABLE PEOPLE. FOR THE MOST PART, WE ARE ALL EDUCATED. IN-
VOLVED WITH OUR COMMUNITIES, INFORMED, SUPPORTIVE OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF POWAY. SUCH BEING THE CASE, WE DO NOT REMEMBER A TIME
WHEN A PROPOSED PROJECT WITH A POTENTIAL FOR A NEGATIVE IMPACT, DID NOT
RESULT IN STANDING ROOM ONLY CROWDS IN THIS COUNCIL HALL.
GIVEN THAT WE ARE ALL REASONABLE, WELL INFO,lED, CONCERNED AND CIVIC MINDED
RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY, WE CONTINUE TO BE AT LOSS TO EXPLAIN HOW DID IT
COME TO PASS THAT NEARLY 140 FAMILIES WERE NOT AWARE OF THE CRUCIAL JUNE
HEARING,
(1) ~&
IS'IT REASONABLE TO BELI. E AS CITY STAFF SUGGESTS ',..MT QUITE POSSIBLY ALL
140 FAMILIES MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON VACATION ON THAT SAME NIGHT IN JUNE,
WE THINK NOT,
IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE AS CITY STAFF SUGGESTS THAT QUITE POSSIBLY ALL
140 FAMILIES THREW THE NOTICES OUT THINKING IT WAS JUNK MAIL,
WE THINK NOT,
IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE AS CITY STAFF SUGGESTS THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN
DOCUMENT A PROCESS FOR PREPARING AND MAILING NOTICES WHICH, BY THEIR OWN
STATEMENTS NUMBER IN THE THOUSANDS PER YEAR, IT HAS NOT FA~.LED ONCE,
WE THINK NOT,
WE ARE REASONABLE PEOPLE WITH REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS, WE ARE NOT HERE
TO MIS-REPRESENT WHAT IS NOT FACT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT OVER 130 FAMILIES
WERE NOT HERE IN JUNE BECAUSE OVER 130 FAMILIES DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE
MEETING HERE IN JUNE,
WE ARE RESIDENTS OF POWAY WITH OUR OWN FAMILIES AND CAREERS.
WE ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL CITY PLANNERS,
WE ARE NOT LAWYERS,
WE ARE NOT A PAID LOBBY REPRESENTING ANYONEOR ANYTHING,
IN ORDER TO HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW NEARLY 130 FAMILIES COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN NOTIFIED OF CRUCIAL HEARINGS ON THE MATTER, WE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED
ALL COPIES OF MAILING NOTICES AND ALL COPIES OF MAILING LABELS USED TO MAIL
THOSE NOTICES, WE DEPENDED AND USED THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS CREATED~ USED
AND PROCESSED BY CITY STAFF, WE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE AND THEREFORE, WE ARE
STILL AT LOSS AS TO HOW~ WHEN, WHY WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE HEARINGS,
IN THE PACKAGE OF DOCUMENTATION SENT TO US BY THE CITY OF POWAY SEVERAL DAYS
AGO, WE NOTICED THAT IT INCLUDED COPIES OF TWO LETTERS SENT BY LAWYERS FOR
THE PROJECT APPLICANT, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THEY THREATEN POTENTIAL ACTION
SHOULD THE PROJECT BE DELAYED, WE FIND IT INTERESTING THAT IN THE CONTENTS
OF THE LETTERS, COUNSEL CITES A NUMBER OF RULINGS AND CASE LAW REGARDING THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE ETC,
(2)
WE'ALSO FIND IT INTERESI..,G THAT COUNSEL HAS NOT MEN,iONED THE NUMBER OF
CASES PAST AND PENDING OF COMMUNITIES AND RESIDENTS WHO HAVE LAUNCHED VBRY
SUBSTANTIAL AND SUCCESSFUL ACTION WHERE PROJECTS WERE ALLOWED IN AREAS
OF KNOWN NEGATIVE NATURAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS FLOOD PLAINS, ETC,
IN FACT, IN COPIES WHICH I WILL LEAVE WITH YOU TONIGHT, IN AN ARTICLE
CARRIED BY THE UNION TRIBUNE ON JANUARY 23, 1995, THE SENATE DURING PUBLIC
HEARINGS RAISED THE ISSUES, WHICH THE LAWYERS HAVE NOT AND I QUOTE:
"IT'S NOT A RESPONSE TO GO TELL SOMEONE WHO'S LOST EVERYTHING, "WELL
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE STAYED IN A FLOOD PLAIN," HE SAID, "WHO ALLOWED THEM
TO BUILD THERE? WAS THERE A CITY COUNCIL THAT APPROVED THIS? AND WHAT
ABOUT THE BUILDER THAT MADE MONEY? ~ END QUOTE,'
THESE COMMENTS WERE MADE IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC SESSION IN SACRAMENTO
REGARDING THE RECENT FLOODING WHERE NEARLY 400 FAMILIES LOST THEIR HOMES,
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE LETTERS
FROM THE LA~fKERS FOR THE APPLICANT,
THERE ARE THREE SIGNIFICANT REASONS WHY THE CITY COUNCIL OUR CITY CO.UNCIL
SHOULD RErCONSIDER THE MATTER AND RE-SCHEDULE A FULL AND COMPLETE PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE PROJECT:
(1) THE LAWYERS STATE THAT APPROVAL WAS GIVEN AT A "PROPERLY NOTICED
PUBLIC H~RING" ,
THIS IS A FACT THAT THEY CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE, PROVE OR INDEPENDENTLY
COLABORATE, THEY POINT TO THE EVIDENCE OF PROPER NOTICE THE FACT THAT
TWO, I REPEAT TWO INDIVIDUALS SHOWED UP TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL,
ONE OF THEM WAS MR, RONALD STAMPFL,
(2) WHICH BRINGS US TO THE SECOND SIGNIFICANT ISSUE AS TO WHY THE COUNCIL
IS ASKED TO RE-CONSIDER THE ENTIRE MATTER, THE LAWYERS HAVE TOLD YOU
THAT IN ADDITION TO PROPER NOTIFICATION, THE COUNCIL CANNOT RE-HEAR
THE MATTER BECAUSE ALL ARGUMENTS HAVE TO BE"TIMELY" AND PRESENTED
WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE HEARING,'
(3)
VERY WELL, LET US ASSu.,IE FOR THE MOMENT, THAT INuLED SOME FORM OF
PROPER NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND AS A RESULT, ONLY TWO INDIVIDUALS ATTENDED
THE CRUCIAL JUNE MEETING.
ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WAS MR. STAMPFL.
AT THAT HEARING, Ill A TIMELY I.IANNER, IN TESTIMONY WHICH WAS TAPED,
MR. RONALD STAMPFL OUTLINED THE ISSUES WHY THERE IS OPPOSITION TO
THE PROJECT: DENSITY, FLOODING, TRAFFIC SAFETY ECONOMIC IMPACT TO
THE IMMEDIATE CO~,IUNITY AND THE DEPRESSED CONDITION OF THE HOUSING
MARKET.
UNDER CHAPTER 17.50 OF THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO VARIANCES UNDER
SECTION 17.50.040 IT CLEARLY STATES THAT IN ADDITION TO PUBLIC
COMMENT, EACH ISSUE RELATING TO VARIANCE REQUESTS MUST BE ADDRESSED.
THIS HAS CLEARLY NOT BEEN THE CASE. OTHERWISE NONE OF US WOULD BE
HERE TONIGHT.
AT THAT JUNE PUBLIC HEARING, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, ONE OF US
DID SHOW UP, EVERY SINGLE ISSUE RAISED WITH YOU THEN, REMAINS THE
SAME TONIGHT AND AS YET UN-ADDRESSED.
(3) THE THIRD ISSUE BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT IS THE FACT THAT SIMPLY
CONVERTING OR MOVING ~N ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW FROM A SENIOR
PROJECT TO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROJECT SUCH AS THE HIGH DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY PROJECT WITH SIGNIFICANT VARIANCES DOES NOT MAKE IT
CORRECT OR LEGAL.
IF THAT WAS THE CASE AND THE STANDARD METHOD OF OPERATION, ANY
APPLICANT FOR ANY PROJECT WOULD SIMPLY FILE AN INITIAL EIR AND
SHOULD WIM OR CONDITIONS CHANGE, SIMPLY SLIP IT OR CONVERT IT TO
SOMETHING COMPLETLY DIFFERENT OR AS IN THE PRESENT CASE TOTALLY
OUT OF CHARACTER AND COMPATABILITY WITH OUR:~COMMUNITY.
FINALLY, WE ARE CONCERN THAT SOMEONE HAS PURCHASED A PARCEL OF LAND
IN RECENT YEARS NEXT TO A COMMI]N~TY OF HOMES AND RESIDENTS WHO HAVE
BEEN THERE FOR MANY DECADES,
(4)
NOW, BECAUSE OF L~ONOMIC CONDITIONS, THERE lo A TEMPTATION TO
GO FORWARD AND CONSIDER APPROVING A PROJECT WHICH FACES MANY,
MANY ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL RISKS. THIS AT TIMEj WHEN MANY HOMES
IN THE SURROUNDING AREA HAVE GONE UNSOLD WITH SOME SITTING OUT
THERE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF WITHOUT EVEN AN OFFER.
THIS AT A TIME, WHEN ONE CAN GO FROM HIGHWAY 15 AND POWAY ROAD
EAST AND COUNT AT LEAST 400 FOR SALE, FOR LEASE OR RENT SIGNS
IN FRONT OF MANY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND LOTS. AT LEAST FOUR
SHOPPING CENTERS CURRENTLY REMAIN NEARLY HALF EMPTY AND HAVE BEEN
SO FOR A LONG TIME. WHO WILL TELL THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THIS
PROJECT OF THE FACT THAT IT SITS ON A FLOOD PLAIN, OF THE CURRENT
HOUSING SITUATION AND THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING NEIGHBORNOOD.
YOU CAN REST ASSURE, THAT ALL OF US WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE IN JUNE
HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT THE HEARING,
YOU CAN REST ASSURE THAT THE ISSUES WHICH MR STAMPFEL RAISED THEN,
ARE AS VALID TONIGHT, WE ARE THEREFORE ASKING YOU, OUR CITY COUNCIL
TO RE-OPEN THE HEARING, RE-SCHEDULE A HEARING, AND YOU CAN BE
ASSURED THAT THE CITY NOR US WILL NEED TO DEPEND ON MAILINGS TO
BRING US TOGETHER AGAIN, WE NOW KNOW, THE WORD IS REALLY OUT,
YOU ARE OUR CITY COUNCIL, CITY STAFF INCLUDING THE CITY ATTORNEY
IS THE TAXPAYERS' ATTORNEY THE PEOPLES' ATTORNEY, THERE IS A FAIR
AND EQUITABLE SOLUTION, GOOD GOVERNMENT IS BASED ON OPEN AND FAIR
PUBLIC POLICY INVOLVING BOTH CITIZENS AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS, INFORMED
ACCURATE AND TIMELV PARTiCIPATIUN IS CRUCIAL, OTHERWISE ONE RISKS
HAVING GOVERNMENT BY DEFAULT, VESTED POWER AND AGENDAS WHICH IN
THE FUTURE WILL CHALLENGE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL POWAY RESIDENTS,
THANK YOU,