The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 6 - Joint EA and IS Proposed Negative Declaration Associated General Plan Ammnd 95-02 /-~~ 1?-/c-9s--- TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Member of the Redevelopment Agency _. James L Bowersox, City Manager/Executive D~ FROM: INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive Directo Reba Wright.Quastler, Director of Planning Services f;vJ ~ DATE: August 15, 1995 SUBJECT: Joint Environmental Assessment lEA) and Initial StudY IISVProDosed Neoative Declaration. Associated General Plan Amendment 95-02. Associated Zoninc Ordinar>ce Amendment 9i 01. Associated Gradinc Ordinance Amendment. and Associated Powav RedeveloDment Acencv Resolution of ADorova" All Concemino the ProDosed City of Powav Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan IPowav Subarea HCP) pr~~~ and Comoanion Imolementinc Aoreement (fA). ADDlicant. City of Powav/Powav Redevel ent Aoencv. ABSTRACT This report involves the consideration of the proposed City of poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan, which has been prepared in order to obtain a permit under Section 10a of the Endangered Species Act for the construction of the Scripps poway Parkway extension and to provide a voluntary option for permitting of private projects. - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The issuance of a negative declaration is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact would occur with the adoption of the proposed HCP, the companion IA, and the associated approval actions. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE The public notice of this agenda item was published in the Poway News Chieftain. It has also been mailed to owners of property located within the boundary of the Resource Conservation Area (RCA) of the HCP, and to owners of property located within a 500-foot radius of the RCA. A copy was also sent to David Lawhead of CDFG, John Lovio of USFWS and Ron Remple, Environmental Services Division. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency consider the environmental assessment documents including the responses to comments thereto; consider the proposed poway Subarea HCP/NCCP, the IA, and the associated approval actions; take public testimony; close the public hearing; and, take the following actions. 1. Issue the attached proposed Negative Declaration. - 2. Adopt the attached proposed resolutions as appropriate. II 3. Hold first reading on the attached proposed ordinances and set second reading and adoption for August 22, 1995. 1 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b ..1 .. .__...._~.._-._---~.__._-~._---_._--,~"-- ---.- -~------ - .- - AGENDA REPOR:r CITY OF POW A Y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency FROM: Ja.... L Bowe_ Cily Maoag"/ExeoutJ,. D~ INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/ Assistant Executive Director r Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services R,~ Jim Nessel, Senior Planner DATE: August 15, 1995 SUBJECT: Joint Environmental Assessment (EA) and Initial Study (IS)/Prooosed Neoative Declaration. Associated General Plan Amendment 95-02. Associated Zonino Ordinance Amendment 95-01. Associated Gradino Ordinance Amendment. and Associated Powav Redevelooment Aoencv Resolution of Aooroval: All Concernino the Prooosed City of Powav Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Powav Subarea HCP) Proiect and Comoanion Imolementino Aoreement (IA)' Aoolicant: City of Powav/Powav Redevelooment Aoencv. ABSTRACT This report presents the City of poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (poway Subarea HCP) which has been prepared to fulfill the environmental mitigation requirements for the eastward extension of the Scripps Poway Parkway and to obtain authorization for the incidental take of the California gnatcatcher and other covered species specified in the plan under section 10a of the Endangered Species Act for the Parkway extension and other public projects. Private property owners may voluntarily chose to have their property included and may also take advantage of this permit rather than seeking individual authorization from federal and state agencies as is their only alternative currently. ACTION: I AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b 'Ii 2 of 77 - August 15, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND In response to the increasing number of listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the accompanying delays and costs, a group of property owners in Southern California formed an organization known as the Alliance for Habitat Conservation which proposed an approach to provide more certainty for the development of private property. This effort led to the adoption of the Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) legislation in California which provides for a more coordinated and proactive approach to habitat planning. Because this legislation was in place and planning efforts were underway, when the federal government listed the California gnatcatcher as a threatened species, it did so under a .special rule. provision of the ESA which ties the permit process under the federal legislation to the California NCCP program. Under the ESA any project, public or private, requires a Habitat Conservation Plan, as well as dedication of mitigation land, in order to obtain a permit for the removal of the habitat of any threatened or endangered species. This permitting process is often complex and expensive. On an interim basis, while planning efforts are under way, permits for the removal of no more than 5% of the coastal sage scrub (the habitat of the California gnatcatcher) can be granted under section 4d of the ESA; however, there are limitations on the amount, location and quality of habitat that can be removed under this interim permitting authority. The City of Poway, the poway Redevelopment Agency, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Co-Lead Agencies, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (Trustee Agency), have prepared a joint Environmental Assessment (EA) and Initial Study (IS)/proposed Negative Declaration document for the proposed Poway Subarea HCP Project, the companion Implementing Agreement (IA), and the associated approval actions noted above in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality AI::t (CEQA), respectively. The proposed Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA have been completed according to relevant federal and state laws and guidelines and would, if adopted, permit the development of public property and provide private property owners who wish to clear or develop their property the opportunity to choose to voluntarily develop under the master permit of the Poway Subarea HCP rather than obtaining their own individual permit from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In its role as Environmental Assessment, the joint environmental document evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed master permit and provides specific measures to mitigate identified impacts to a level of less than significant. The document also serves as evaluation, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, of the impacts of adoption of the proposed plan. City staff is recommending the issuance of a Negative Declaration, indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated by the approval of the Project, the companion IA and the associated approval actions. AUG 1 5 1995 ITEMb 3 of 77 .~_._-._._--- _.~--" August 15, 1995 Page 3 FINDINGS The plan designates a "Resource Conservation Area" (RCA) within which biological resources would be protected while compatible development of public and private projects would continue to be permitted. The RCA includes approximately 13,300 acres of which 4,200 acres are publicly owned or within existing open space easements. An additional 2,100 acres have slopes over 45% where, under the General Plan, no grading or development is permitted and for which no development acreage credit is given under existing general plan provisions and ordinances. Virtually all of the privately owned land in the RCA is designated for rural residential (RR-A, S, and C) use where subdivision potential is determined by the slope of the property and the availability, or lack of availability, of city water. The HCP provides for the full subdivision potential of every property under the existing general plan including the full potential if city water were to be made available throughout the planning area. In addition to allowing full current development density, the HCP provides for the clearing of up to 2 acres per parcel for the development of uses permitted by the zoning development code and general plan. If a parcel could be subdivided, the number of acres which can be cleared will exceed 2 acres. For example, if a parcel could be divided into four parcels, the acreage which can be cleared is 2 acres per potential lot, or 8 acres. While additional clearing would only be allowed under unusual circumstances, properties within the RCA will gain an additional potential "use" in that the habitat can be sold to developers outside of the RCA for mitigation purposes, either as an easement or "in fee". Any available state or federal funds for habitat will be spent on acquiring properties within the RCA. Upon adoption of the HCP actions, the City will be issued permits from the federal and state agencies which will allow for the ''take'' of 43 species covered by the HCP and companion lA, and located within the jurisdiction of Poway. If the regional Multiple Species Conservation Plan is fully adopted, the list of covered species will expand to 87. These permits will remain in effect for 50 years, providing certainty and regulatory relief for public and private projects throughout the city. The HCP and IA fulfill a required mitigation measure for the Scripps Poway Parkway extension to State Route 67 and the master permit will allow for the removal of habitat in conjunction with that project. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Grading Ordinance incorporate by reference the HCP and companion IA into those City documents, and are required as implementation for the plan. The Poway Redevelopment Agency resolution approves the HCP and companion IA documents, and requires Redevelopment Agency projects to conform to the requirements contained within those documents. A separate City Council resolution approving the IA is also attached. 4 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 - August 15, 1995 Page 4 If a private property owner wishes to voluntarily take advantage of the permits authorized by the HCP and companion IA documents, the property owner must notify the City in writing of this desire and agree to abide by the terms and requirements of the HCP and its companion documents and agreements. This plan does not prevent a private property owner from dealing directly with the State and Federal Agencies as is now the case. The Poway Subarea HCP was prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. (Consultant) with extensive coordination and consultation among City staff and designated representatives of the wildlife agencies, and in compliance with existing state and federal laws concerning the conservation of natural communities and sensitive plant and wildlife species. The following paragraphs discuss the key sections of the Plan and its important features. Section 1.0 - Introduction The HCP is a multi habitat and multi species plan that is designed to conserve and protect 43 plant and animal species (Covered Species) over the duration of the 50 year permits obtained with the approval of the HCP and companion IA The California gnatcatcher, which resides in coastal sage scrub habitat, was listed as a federally threatened species in March 1993. Potential exists for additional plant and animal species native to poway to be listed as threatened or endangered in the future. Preparation and implementation of the citywide HCP is necessary to allow for the incidental take of listed species by public and voluntarily by private projects as anticipated by the Poway General Plan and Paguay Redevelopment Plan unless a private property owner chooses to voluntarily obtain individual permits from the state and federal agencies. The Subarea HCP fulfills requirements pursuant to Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Sections 2081 and 2835 of the State Fish and Game Code and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the State of California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Ad of 1991. It is also consistent with regional and subregional planning efforts within San Diego County pursuant to the NCCP Act. Colledively, these laws and planning efforts require protection and management of sufficient, interconnected habitat areas to support listed species-or ''target'' species that serve as indicators of ecosystem health-in exchange for allowing limited ''take'' of the species or its habitat. Incidental take may occur during otherwise lawful endeavors, such as the ultimate development allowed under the adopted General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. Section 1.2 - Relationshio to Subreaional Plannina Efforts Under contrad with the City of San Diego, the Consultant prepared the subregional public review draft MSCP (Multiple Species Conservation Program). The MSCP includes all jurisdidions within the metropolitan sewer service area (Metro) and portions of the County including the unincorporated area covered by the Poway sphere-of-influence and General Plan planning area. 5 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 I ~ -----_. -- -..-----.-- August 15, 1995 Page 5 The MSCP is a required biological resource impact mitigation measure for the proposed Metro wastewater system upgrade project, which will accommodate the planned growth and development within Metro service areaIMSCP subregion. Since sensitive species and habitat would be displaced as a result, a subregional plan is necessary to mitigate the direct and indirect biological impacts of the subject upgrade. The City presently has an agreement with Metro for 5 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater treatment. Ultimately, the poway General Plan anticipates the need for 7 -8 MGD of treatment capacity in Metro at buildout. The buildout of Poway is therefore considered an indirect impact of the Metro upgrade. The subregional MSCP covers 87 species of concern. As other jurisdictions in the MSCP planning area adopt individual subarea HCPINCCP plans which provide additional habitat protection for other species of concern in the area, the list of species covered by the Incidental TakelManagement Authorization Permit issued to Poway in conjunction with the HCP will automatically expand to include the additional species for which protection has been provided. The Poway HCP overlaps both the MSCP subregion and the adjacent North county city's subregional Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), since the City's remaining habitat represents a vital linkage between the two subregional planning areas. These subregional planning efforts have been ongoing since 1992 and are also being undertaken to comply with the existing state and federal habitat and species conservation laws. The Poway HCP is consistent with and further refines these subregional (framework) programs at the subarealjurisdictional planning level. Section 1.3 - Relationshio to the Powav General Plan Paauav Redevelooment Plan and powav Municioal Code The Poway HCP Plan incorporates the existing relevant regulations, development requirements, and environmental mitigation measures found in these adopted City documents, including the zoning and grading ordinances. The Plan contains implementing conservation objectives, special development requirements and guidelines that are consistent with the purpose and intent of these documents and state and federal law. The HCP and its companion Implementing Agreement will be incorporated by reference into the City documents with the approval of the attached resolutions and ordinances. In addition, The HCP and IA implement the relevant biological mitigation measures contained in the certified final environmental impact reports for the 1991 General Plan Update, the 1993 paguay Redevelopment Plan Amendment, and the Scripps Poway Parkway Extension Project (February, 1994). 6 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM " - August 15, 1995 Page 6 Section 1.5 - Plan Approval. Subseauent Local Public and Private Proiect Approval. and Amendments to the ~ The HCP has been reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG. Upon completion of the implementing documents, these resource agencies will issue to the City of poway appropriate authorizations and permits allowing "take" of listed species and authorization for other species that may be listed in the future. Consequently, incidental take of the gnatcatcher or its habitat (coastal sage scrub) by activities allowed under the HCP will not be considered a violation of the federal ESA Although the poway Subarea HCP is designed to fulfill the requirements of the MSCP and MHCP, approval of the Poway plan by the wildlife agencies is not dependent upon approval of these or any other subregional plans. Local Proiect Approval Once the master pennit is issued to the City, a private property owner may voluntarily opt to satisfy the requirements of federal and state environmental laws by applying for coverage under the Poway master "1 Oa" pennil The City will process projects through the normal environmental review (CEOA) and development application approval process. Established local public hearing notification requirements will continue to apply. Once the City detennines that a project plan meets the requirements of the HCP, the Planning Services Department will prepare a check sheet on plan compliance. Project check sheets will be compiled yearly and submitted with an annual report to the wildlife agencies which will summarize the City's compliance with the HCP and its progress in implementing the plan. In the alternative, a private property owner may choose to obtain their own endangered species penn its directly from the state and federal agencies. Once pennits or waivers are obtained, the City will process local land use approvals for the project under the City general plan and zoning ordinances, and will not apply the HCP to the project. Amendments to the Plan The HCP can be amended or revised at the mutual agreement of the City and the wildlife agencies. The HCP recognizes that an "adaptive management" approach is necessary for implementing such a complex land management plan. At the request of property owners, the Resource Conservation Area (RCA) boundary may be revised to include properties that are currently excluded, so long as they contribute to the overall biological value of the preserve. For example, if a parcel contiguous to the existing RCA is found to support high quality habitat or covered species, the property owner may request that the property be added to the RCA in order to qualify for onsite, rather than oftsite, mitigation. 7 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM.6 -..---- --~-"-- ~------_._---- August 15, 1995 Page 7 Potential Effects of Prooosed HCP and Comoanion IA on Public and Private Develooment Proiects The HCP and companion IA were prepared to specifically recognize and accommodate the planned development of land under both public and private ownership, as anticipated by the City's General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. The proposed HCP is consistent with the existing goals, policies and strategies of the General Plan relevant to natural resources. The right to develop land with a public project or a private project is not precluded by the HCP and companion IA. The mitigation of significant biological impacts imposed by such projects pursuant to CEQA and the City's CEQA Implementation procedures does not change. The HCP will guide sensitive and compatible rural residential development of all public property and that private property voluntarily placed under the HCP through the application of the "specific development requirements" found in Section 7.3.2 of the HCP. These requirements include limitations of habitat removal and disturbance, requirements for habitat preservation, and guidelines for the location of the development. The specific development requirements also address other zoned lands within the RCA, including OS- RM public land and the existing PC lands. The "general development requirements" found in Section 7.3.1 of the HCP incorporate existing relevant City regulations, and apply to all parcels of land in the City that contain native or natural vegetation and wildlife. Regarding land within the RCA, these requirements would apply to parcels zoned OS-R, RS-2, RS-7, CG, MHP, PRO, and HC. Mitiaation Comoensation and Mitigation Ratios The existing mitigation compensation and mitigation ratio requirements of the City will be modified with the adoption of the HCP/IA, to be more flexible and beneficial to project proponents. As discussed in Section 7.0 of the HCP, public and private projects will be considered on a case-bY-alse basis to determine the appropriate biological mitigation. Such mitigation may be fulfilled onsite or offsite within the RCA. In addition, out-of-kind habitat compensation within the RCA , and a mitigation in-lieu fee may be considered as appropriate. Relationship to the Endanaered Soecies Act The provisions of the HCP and companion IA comply with the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Ad of 1973 (ESA). On June 29,1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 1973 ESA allows the Interior Department to protect sensitive habitats even if they exist on private land. Table 1-1 of the HCP lists the 43 species for which federal and state permits and management authorizations are requested with the adoption of the Poway Subarea HCP and the signing of the companion Implementing Agreement. This table indicates the habitat upon which the species rely for survival. As noted, the majority of the species utilize the coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats which are the primary habitats in Poway and naturally coexist as a vegetation mosaic. 8 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b I August 15, 1995 Page 8 Benefits of the Prooosed HCP and Comoanion IA The important benefits of the HCP and IA are summarized as follows: - The Plan will result in 50-year permits from USFWS and CDFG which will be administered by the City, and which will authorize the removal of habitat for public and private development projects that are anticipated by the City's General Plan and Redevelopment Plan, and that comply with the requirements of the HCP and IA . Private property owners will participate only on a voluntary basis. - The Plan covers and protects species that may be listed as threatened or endangered in the future. Therefore, the processing of specific projects within the City that impact covered species could be significantly expedited through the Plan. Powav Subarea HCP Graohics For discussion purposes, the HCP document (Volume 1: Plan) includes the following three colored maps located in the pocket envelop at the end of the document. A larger version of these maps will be provided at the public hearing. An additional, simplified map will be provided which depicts streets, property lines, and zoning, and which differentiates private land from public land, open space easements, and 45 % and above slopes within the RCA. - MAP 1: Veoetation Communities This map depicts the proposed Resource Conservation kea boundary that contains the various remaining native vegetation communities that are substantially intact. As indicated in Table 2-1 of the HCP, the predominant vegetation communities within the RCA include coastal sage scrub/CSS and disturbed CSS (6,080 acres) and Chaparral (4,616 acres). - MAP 2: Preserve Analysis This map depicts the projected level of preservation under existing City, State, and Federal regulations, and the proposed special development requirements (general and specific) assuming City water extension to all rural residential areas. - MAP 3: Preserve Design This map depicts the areas where habitat acquisition/preservation and development should be focused, to the greatest extent practicable and feasible. The Biological Core and Linkage kea (BCLA, magenta colored line) represents the general boundary within which habitat preservation should be focused. This line will fluctuate as project-specific biological survey data is obtained in connection with public and private development applications. The Proposed Resource Protection keas (PRPA) depicted by numbers one through 18 indicate areas prioritized for habitat acquisition, should they be available for purchase. The PRPA's are discussed Section 5.5 of the HCP. AUG 1 5 1995 ITEMb ~ 9 of 77 _._-,-~---_...._- August 15, 1995 Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental assessment documents have been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Poway CECA Implementation Procedures. In accordance with the time limits mandated by State Law (CEQA), a properly advertised and noticed 30-day public review and comment period for the draft environmental assessment documents began on June 21,1995 and ended on July 21,1995. For NEPA compliance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a separate Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Project documents in the Federal Register for a concurrent 3O-day comment period. The environmental assessment addresses the following issue areas under the listed project alternatives, as required by NEPA Attachment G describes the alternatives including the proposed action, and the cumulative impact analysis of the alternatives. Issue Areas Proiect Alternatives - Biology 1. Proposed Action - HCP/NCCP - Land Use 2. Modified RCA Alternative - Public Services 3. 100 % Preservation of RCA Alternative - Housing and Population 4. No Action Alternative - Geology and Soils - Hydrology - Cultural Resources - Aesthetics - Transportation - Air Quality - Noise - Health and Safety CORRESPONDENCE Staff sent mailed notice of the public review period, the July 6, 1995 public information meeting, and the August 15, 1995 public hearing to 2,384 property owners (1,007 owners within the RCA and 1,377 owners within a 500 foot radius of the RCA). Thirty-three individuals attended the public infonnation meeting and the public review period generated a total of 13 comment letters. Written comments received during the review period along with the "responses to comments" are included as Attachment F. The public notice of this agenda item was published in the Poway News Chieftain. A copy was also sent to David Lawhead of CDFG, John Lovio of USFWS and Ron Remple, Environmental Services Division. 10 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 -.. - - August 15, 1995 Page 10 FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact would occur with the adoption of the proposed HCP and IA. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City CouncillRedevelopment Agency: (1) consider and approve the draft negative declaration; (2) adopt the revised draft resolution approving General Plan Amendment GPA 95-{)2; (3) give first reading to the revised draft ordinances amending the grading and zoning ordinances and continue them to August 22, 1995 for second reading; (4) adopt draft resolution adopting the Poway Subarea HCP and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Implementing AgreemenUCalifomia Endangered Species Act Memorandum of Understanding; and (5) adopt draft Redevelopment Agency resolution adopting the Poway Subarea HCP. JLB:JDF:RWQ:JRN:kls E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORnHCP.AGN ATTACHMENTS: A. Revised Draft Resolution approving GPA 95-02 B. Revised Draft Ordinance amending the grading ordinance C. Revised Draft Ordinance amending the zoning ordinance D. Draft Resolution adopting the Poway Subarea HCP E. Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution adopting the Poway Subarea HCP F. Comment letters received and responses 11 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 'ill" -------------------------------------.---.--- --------- -------_.._--~.._~-_._-_._--_..__._-_._- -- -- ----- -- --- ------ -- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, GPA 95-02 AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-058 AND RESOLUTION P-90-89 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway recognizes that the need may arise to amend the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 65350, et seq., of the California Government Code describes the procedures for amending General Plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter "City"), as the applicant, has prepared the proposed City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation PlanlNatural Community Conservation Plan (hereinafter "poway Subarea HCP") and the companion Implementing Agreement (hereinafter "IA") documents; and WHEREAS, the subject proposed documents have been completed to comply with the requirements of the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991, the NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines (NCCP Guidelines) as adopted in November 1993 by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Federal Endangered SpeCies Act Section 4 (d) Special Rule for the "threatened" California gnatcatcher which is incorporated into the NCCP Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the subject proposed documents have also been completed to satisfy the approved regional biological impact mitigation measure identified in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 93091118) for the approved Scripps Poway Parkway Extension project, which requires the preparation and adoption of a City- wide subarea habitat conservation plan; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02, will eaarat tRe rareraesea Pe'.vay SlIsarea HCP aRa the SElmraaRiaR I,A. aaSl:ImaRt aRa amend the relevant elements of the Poway General Plan to incorporate .e9Hit~tII12!BR.a.l!XiiM9,!fl,Uli~i by reference ~11B~91!11"BUI"Ql!Q~; and . .. ...,......... _... - _~ >>. <10,>< WHEREAS, upon approval of the subject documents by the City, USFWS and CDFG, the City will receive long-term permits from these agencies which allow for the incidental "take" of Federal- and State-listed plant species, wildlife species, and their habitats; and AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 l:4 ATTACHMENT A 12 of 77 . - - Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, such long-term permits will apply toliff public ptl:)J_ and fa private develo ment ro'ects tlSUmF'l_~~ffi6dSe aRtisi'alea e 'tRe'pe;xa', GeR81:al PlaR P P I ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Plj,,,,,,=,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,"""""""'" I'l ~ ~ aAa Paeblay ReaeveleJ3A'1eAt PlaA, where such projects comply with the requirements of the subject documents, including the Compensation Mitigation Strategy, Mitigation Ratios, and Special Development Requirements; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995 a duly advertised public hearing was conducted by the Poway City CouncillPoway Redevelopment Agency in accordance with Section 65853, et seq., of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consider the Initial StudylProposed Mili!ilatoa Negative Declaration, the poway Subarea HCP, the companion lA, and associated approval actions including GPA 95-02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Poway by adoption of this resolution, does hereby approve the following actions: 1. The City Council finds that the approval of General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02 will not have significant adverse environmental impact and hereby issues a Mitieatea Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. 2. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02, wRieA aaeJ3ts tAe City at Pa>.vsy Sblearea HaBitat CeAseF\'atieR PlaA (Pe',';ey Suearea Hep) aAa seA'll'laAieR IA'lI'lleA'leRtiRe A!ilreeA'leRt (1.'\) aeSblA'leRts as if in fblll ferse aRa effest; ane, which amends the relevant elements of the Poway General Plan to incorporate by reference the requirements of SblsR aesblA'leAls .jl'j!0jqttgRl1ill~Gptif'\11IIJmtl ~~!!I!jl~!!:e.A1iPllmI1l~$t~1_I~mRiQj9i1JJ1.l1t!."~~l~1 3. The Resource Conservation Area as defined in the Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents is hereby established. 4. The following resolutions of the City Council are hereby rescinded and replaced with the related requirements of the poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents. . Resolution No. 94-058, which established a policy concerning removal of coastal sage scrub pursuant to the interim strategy of the NCCP Guidelines. . Resolution No. P-90-89, which adopted an interim replacement standard as mitigation for coastal sage scrub impacts for the California gnatcatcher, and established a mitigation fund. Monies contained in the previously established mitigation fund shall be transferred to the Resource Conservation Area Acquisition Fund Account, as established with the adoption of the poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents. i3 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEllb --~-- -----..---------...- Resolution No. Page 3 5. In accordance with the adopted Implementing Agreement, the City hereby initiates the establishment of a permanent biological open space conservation easement over the lands acquired by the City as compensation mitigation for the approved Scripps Poway Parkway Extension (SPPE) Project, and also over the "cornerstone" lands that are owned by the City and designated Open Space-Resource Management (OS-RM), as described in the adopted Poway Subarea HCP. All habitat disturbance wHAiR 9!l the subject cornerstone lands shall be consistent with the compensation mitigation strategy, mitigation ratios, and special development requirements provided in the adopted Poway Subarea HCP. The City shall execute the above described conservation easements in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game providing for the perpetual conservation of the subject SPPE compensation mitigation lands and City-owned OS-RM cornerstone lands for the protection of natural biological resources, including the Covered Species, pursuant to and consistent with the Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA The conservation easement language for City-owned cornerstone lands shall allow for uses consistent with the current OS-RM land use and zoning designation, as defined in an Exhibit to the IA 6. The Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents are hereby incorporated by reference into the Poway General Plan by text changes under existing Goals, Policies and Strategies, as indicated below. Where new language amends a General Plan strategy, such amendment language shall apply to the same strategies found throughout the General Plan to maintain General Plan internal consistency. CA.) Land Use Element - 1. Goal I., Policy B - Subdivision Design. Strateav No. 18 shall be amended bv the addition of the followina lanauaae: i~__;ilIlltlili!!!m~'~!!:t~~~!~~~~T~~ cirthead6pled Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and companion Implementing Agreement documents, including the Compensation Mitigation Strategy, Mitigation Ratios, and Special Development Requirements. 2. Goal!., Policy C - Site Design. Strateav 23 shall be amended bv the addition of the followina lanauaae: ijiEi~~~~lilillf{IIIII,,~,~g~~~~!~!!I~~!t\~~!'!l Development Requirements of the adopted Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and companion Implementing Agreement documents to the greatest extent practicable and feasible, to ensure the proper siting of AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b . 14 of 77 - ,- - Resolution No. Page 4 development and to protect and preserve important biological resources within the Resource Conservation Area, as defined in the subject Plan and companion Agreement. 3. Goal I., Policy D - Grading. StrateQv 2 shall be amended bv the addition of the fQJjowina lanauaae: Habitat removal associated with grading and clearing rI-I''JJliRRf;Q~~~ !I!!^"'~tlf"""]~-lr'"T'lmafd~lMaff'~m_ . """'atj""Ir "'f '. . .'. r. <tllth .. lfi. ..... .,lk"G! ~. ~ i'L::" ..' a . .':" .... <c:.:jdt!gQjjI,>>trt\i "'1 ccimply'Ii"tfie greatesteXfent'practIca6re"andleasf6Ie-.;'i't11'theSpeclal Development Requirements of the adopted Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan, companion Implementing Agreement. l'i1;,vA'l\rligg ~_ shall comply with the relevant requirements of the ClltS Grading rdi'nance (Title 16, Land Use Regulations Code, of the Poway Municipal Code). 1. Cesll., Peliey H '.\f.alls ana Fensing. Stretee', 8 shell! Be sease ts reaa as fells'NS: i. Tl:le plaseR'leAt ef #eAsing en p~l:llie aAeI private pFl~perties shall eaR'lply ',;AtA the "ManageAleAt ReeaFAFReAaatioAs ana .\etieAS" far eefAeFstene aRa ReR eemeFSlaAe laRels as ielentifiael in the aelapleel Paway S~l:larea Hsl:lital CeAseFVstiaA PISA SAeI geR'lpaniaA IR'I~leR'leAliAg !\greeR'leAI eleS~R'leAts. 5. Goal I., Policy I - Lighting. Strateav 7 shall be added to read as follows: 7. The placement of lighting on public and private properties shall comply with the ''Management Recommendations and Actions" for cornerstone and norK:Omerstone lands as identified in the adopted poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and companion Implementing Agreement documents. i. Ceslll., Pelisy 8 Disml:lbltiaA at laAeI Yses. Strateav 8 Elhalll:la aR'leneleell:l'l the aefsitieA af tRe felle':.~iAe lansbl61se: LaAa bless \-:ithiA tRe Nral resiefeRtiGlI Elesi~AatieRS SRet other laRa !,;JSB ElesignatisAS iA tAe Ressl;JFee CSAsarvatien .^:ea, as eio~Aea in the :J8optad Pe\'JaY Sl:Il:lsFea Hal:litat CeAseFValian Plan ana seR'lpaAiaA IR'lpleR'l6Ating .^.greeR'leAI elael-JR'leAts shall eeR'lply wilh the reEj~ireR'lenls af El~sh Elest;Jments, iRelt;Jain€l the LaRa Use aRa Management, Caml3eAsotioA Miligatian StFStegy, MitifJatiaA Raties, anel Speeial Os':elef;)ment ReEjl-JireR'leAts theFeaf. (B.) Public Facilities Element. 15 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ------------- Resolution No. Page 5 1. Goal IX., Policy A - City Water System. Strateov 6 shall be amended bv the addition of the followino lanouaoe: The extension of the City water system into the "rural residential" areas of the Resource Conservation Area, as defined in the adopted Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and companion Implementing Agreement documents, shall be cooperatively planned among the City, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and involved residents and property owners to achieve the conservation objectives and requirements of the subject Plan and companion Agreement. (C.) TransDortation Element - 1. Goal XII., Policy A - Planning. Strateov 9 shall be added to read as follows: 9. The development of public streets, 1'll:J13lie aAa I'lri'/ate resiaeAtial reaas aRa easemeRts, scenic roadways, trails and pedestrian routes shall comply with the adopted Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and companion Implementing Agreement and the requirements thereof, including the Land Use and Management, Compensation Mitigation Strategy, Mitigation Ratios, and Special Development Requirements. Compliance shall also be required for regional transportation improvements and other land use development undertaken by other public agencies and surrounding jurisdictions. (D.) Natural Resources Element. 1. The Biological Resources section of the Natural Resources Element (current pages 16 through 25 up to OPEN SPACE, and pages 53-55), including text, tables, Policy C, and strategies shall be rel'llaeeal9:aw!!l1Z with the adopted Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and companion Implementing Agreement documents. These documents shall be fully incorporated by reference as a separately-bound appendix, including the Final Joint NEPAlCEQA document. The followino brief introduction shall be included after the existino headino of Biol09ical Resources: On August 15, 1995 the City of PowaylPoway Redevelopment Agency (City) adopted the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) and the companion Implementing Agreement (IA) documents. The subject documents were adapted to comply with the requirements of the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991, the NCCP Process and 16 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEllb . - Resolution No. Page 6 Conservation Guidelines (NCCP Guidelines) as adopted in November 1993 by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the USFWS Federal Endangered Species Act Section 4 (d) Special Rule for the "threatened" California gnatcatcher which is incorporated into the NCCP Guidelines. The City has received long-term permits from USFWS and CDFG which allow for the incidental "take" of Federal- and State-listed plant species, wildlife species, and their habitats. Such long-term permits will apply to IP ublic PJr"'Cti and to rivate develo ment ro'ects "'fiifielnr~;12'Ir";"rT;;,.;t""'; IlIlliII1111,IIII-'WIIWfillllllm'. aAtrGrt7iateEf'by't~e<<'Pe'\:Je},x'C'eA'erarplQR aAa~ Pa'i~ay"'ReGfe\~ele~'FAeAf(')'leiA,' wRer:e S\:IsA Ilr:ejeels samllly 'uith the r-eEl\:lir-emeAts ef the s\:lejeel eleS\:ImeAts, including the Compensation Mitigation Strategy, Mitigation Ratios, and Special Development Requirements. These documents, including the approved environmental review (NEPAlCEQA) documents are separately-bound as an appendix to the Natural Resources Element. 2. Goal XII., Policy A - Planning. Strateov 4 shall be amended bv the addition of the followina lanauaae: The City shall encourage the neighboring County of San Diego and City of San Diego jurisdictions to cooperatively develop and adopt subregional and subarea habitat conservation plans which are consistent with and foster the implementation of the adopted City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and companion Implementing Agreement documents. It~lll.illl!li~rn:mm~at9l.iQ~tirn!lRl~Qit9im!B~llr~miml!tfl! APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, this 15th day of August, 1995. Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K Wahlsten, City Clerk 17 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ___.._____________________n___ _________ --- ---...----------------------------------. ---------- ---------------------------..-..---- ~"''''., . .. . '" .. '," ,...:.....w~.......:.w..~. .~.'.m;:~.'^w...w.:.w.~~: .:".:: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 16 (LAND USE REGULATIONS CODE) OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADING, CLEARING, AND GRUBBING WHEREAS, the City Council periodically finds it necessary to amend Title 16 (Land Use Regulations Code) of its Municipal Code in response to changing conditions within the City; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the City Council adopted a resolution approving General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02 and adopted an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment, ZOA 95-01, which adopted the City of poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) and the companion Implementing Agreement (IA) documents, and amended relevant elements and sections of the General Plan and Zoning Development Code to incorporate by reference the subject documents and the requirements thereof, including the Compensation Mitigation Strategy, Mitigation Ratios, and Special Development Requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Land Use Regulations Code of the poway Municipal Code should be amended to incorporate by reference the Poway Subarea HCP, the companion lA, and the requirements thereof to maintain consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Development Code; and as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was conducted in accordance with Section 65853, et seq., of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consider the proposed amendments and to provide interested parties the opportunity to address such. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Poway the following: Section 1: The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Land Use Regulations Code of the Poway Municipal Code will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and hereby issues a Mitigates Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. 18 of 77 A TT ACHMENT B AUG 15 1995 ITEM " . - Ordinance No. Page 2 Section 2: As adopted by the City Council resolution approving General Plan Amendment, GPA 9~2, the City of poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) and companion Implementing Agreement (IA) describe implementing requirements that apply to ~1l public t~ and Il~E~ private development projects within the City if!1tlh;'II:ml.I~:111JjZ.i!1:'tKIlrS.Jlfil4m~~jRQ;g~!ti'lil Such requirements include, but are not limited to, a compensation mitigation strategy, mitigation ratios, and special development requirements. These requirements will apply to any ~lland use activity that impacts sensitive plant species, wildlife species, and assOCIated natural habitats both inside and outside the established Resource Conservation Area of the adopted Poway Subarea HCP. All permit applications reviewed by the City related to allee'.'atieR, !ilraEliR!iI, clearing, BR 6R'R R BB'R aREI steel T ;1r_31lr""'^~F6l!laffa_lebllaCt$r!leti$lr'e 1:1, ..I!iI,!il1:I1 .!iI,. .. ~IIR!iI'B,~A~'jlllt.'''i''''',k''i!1"";,;,,,;'','.j,,'J1'''''j,j,%,,,,,.,,,lJY,,,,, ~_~~I_J~~!p!I;a9Ifir:;Shan~lth'...,.coml '<"C'" , ''"'"''''' '~"rt" . " -%. ., b' '.". \!l! ' "". ,.,'"~. . ,Sf P y with ifie adop ect'oway 'Su area 'Cf5 ar( compariic5nlA Pl!:S~~lf<l.~@ ..I'!~~?!~!!!f!1!'!!!7~~.Q~.jS!l~iifjlil~R9 Section 3: Amendments to the certain sections of Title 16 (Land Use Regulations Code) of the Poway Municipal Code as identified below are hereby established and shall read as follows: 1. CHAPTER 16.41. - DEFINITIONS The definition of "Implementing Agreement" shall be added as new Section 16.41.445 to read as follows: 16.41.445 Imolementina Aareement IIAt 'Implementing Agreement (IA)" means the legally binding agreement that specifies the responsibilities and obligations of the City of poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency (City) to implement the adopted City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (poway Subarea HCP), as fully executed by the City, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game. The definition of "Poway Subarea HCP" shall be added as new Section 16.41.755 to read as follows: 16.41.755 Powav Subarea HCP. "Poway Subarea HCP" means the City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. 19 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEMb } Ordinance No. Page 3 2. Section 16.43.010 Environmental Review Paragraph A. of this section shall be amended to read as follows: 16.43010 Environmental review. A. Prior to the issuance of any permit under this division, the City Engineer shall refer the permit application to the Planning Services Department for review and determination whether the proposed grading and/or clearing could have a significant effect upon the environment or verification that the City Council, a commission or City officer having final authority for project approval has adopted an environmental impact report or other environmental clearance which considered the proposed grading and/or clearing or has determined that the project, which included the proposed grading and/or clearing, would not have a significant effect upon the environment. 1_~flrli.!1rTIe~ml~i;9tffJ@lJtmll({f.tl~.1<<Wl.lrilt~~~~~ ..:w ....~. "" .dl'%"~'ttrl '~~lfr,,',.I""'~r.'~VII"I.'''~''Uali!i . @ '. 09" ..' ..i. '. . Q:PmlilQ \ " g\'<<I "m:pa ";'HI ..!i!IVfli.p anw . '. '. elJ.l'WI" "". ,. .' .', .$., .:::~, '. ',' ,:';..,;., "~';"wM',:,;'. ~''''';''::~''''::'';'' '.;:^,,~"A .::: ..,....,.;.;.;;:. '.':>''; ...;...;..,.;....,;.<..;,;.. ............. ".; ;.;,;...,....;.:.,....;....;.;.,,;. Section 4: The City Council of the City of Poway hereby finds that these amendments are consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Development Code, and the intent and purpose of the Land Use Regulations Code. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage; and the City Clerk of the City of Poway is hereby authorized to use summary publication procedures pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 utilizing the Poway News-Chieftain, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Poway. 20 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 - Ordinance No. Page 4 Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of poway held the 15th day of August, 1995, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the day of , 1995, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K Wahlsten, City Clerk E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORTIHCPGRD.ORD 21 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b -...------. ,..~--- IEI3.m~~m; ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ZOA 95-01 WHEREAS, the City Council periodically finds it necessary to amend Title 17 (Zoning Development Code) of its Municipal Code in response to changing conditions within the City; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the City Council adopted a resolution approving General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02 which adopted the City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) and the companion Implementing Agreement (IA) documents, and amended relevant Elements of the General Plan to incorporate by reference the subject documents and the requirements thereof, including the Compensation Mitigation Strategy, Mitigation Ratios, and Special Development Requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Zoning Development Code of the Poway Comprehensive Plan should also be amended to maintain consistency with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was conducted in accordance with Section 65853, et seq., of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA) to consider the proposed amendments and to provide interested parties the opportunity to address such. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Poway the following: Section 1: The City Council finds that proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment, ZOA 95-01 will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and hereby issues a MitililaleEl Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. Section 2: As adopted by the City Council resolution approving General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02, the City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) and companion Implementing Agreement (IA) describe implementing requirements that apply to ~!! public ptPigqfi! and tQ'.~ private development projects within the City it\t!I,~!YIHiln:m~liltf;J!fj9,I!I~nm!;~i~~~n~9~m~Q1;~Sgmi.l;I{j. ATTACHMENT C AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 l 22 of 77 - Ordinance No. Page 2 Such requirements include, but are not limited to, a compensation mitigation strategy, mitigation ratios, and special development requirements. These requirements will apply to any ~jdevelopment project that impacts sensitive plant species, wildlife species, and"assoClated natural habitats both inside and outside the established Resource Conservation Area bftffilallpp\i6ISaw.S:yiIQllltg:1SeE. ."JllaAs ~se aAs Z8RiAg ~esigRatieRs af the CeA:e.Fai:~~rlaFtanErZeAlAit3evefe~FR~fiAt Csss Bfa neret=ly s~Bjeet te s~eR reEl~ireA'leAts. Section 3: Amendments to the certain sections of Title 17 (Zoning Development Code) of the poway Municipal Code as identified below are hereby established and shall read as follows: All public.EII and private development projects within the jurisdiction of the City that have the potential to adversely impact sensitive plant species, wildlife - eonservatlon0pian, .,"".the companion Implementing Agreement, and the requirements thereof induding the Compensation Mitigation Strategy, Mitigation Ratios, and Special Development Requirements. The following sections shall be amended to include this language: Residential Zones: Section 17.08.180, Property development standards - Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (U.). Commercial zones: Section 17.10.140, Property development standards - Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (K.). MHP Mobile Home Park Zone: Section 17.16.050, Property development standards- Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (0.). PRO Planned Residential Develooment Zone: Section 17.18.040, Property development standards - Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (L.). PC Planned Community Zone: Section 17.20.040, Property development standards- Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (C.). 23 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 J -_._-- -- Ordinance No. Page 3 HC Hosoital Camous Zone: Section 17.21.050, Property development standards - General requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (W.). PF Public Facility Zone: Section 17.22.070, Property development standards - Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (J.). OS-R Ooen Soace-Recreation Zone: Section 17.23.070. Property development standards - Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (L.). OS-RM Ooen Soace-Resource Management Zone: Section 17.24.070, Property development standards - Special requirements. Add amendment language as new requirement (B.). Section 4: The City Council of the City of poway hereby finds that these amendments are consistent with the General Plan and the intent and purpose of the Zoning Development Code. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage; and the City Clerk of the City of Poway is hereby authorized to use summary publication procedures pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 utilizing 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 15th day of August, 1995, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the day of , 1995, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk A:\HCPZOA.ORD AUG 1 5 1995 ITEMb . 24 of 77 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE CITY OF POWAY SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT/ CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the City of Poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency (City), as the applicant and co-Iead agency with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) , has prepared the proposed City of poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) and companion Implementing Agreement (IA)/California Endangered Species Act Memorandum of Understanding documents in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and WHEREAS, the subject proposed documents have been completed to comply with the requirements of the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Ad. of 1991, the NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines (NCCP Guidelines) as adopted in November 1993 by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Endangered Species Ad. (CESA), and the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) including the Special Rule for the California gnatcatcher which was issued under Section 4( d) of the ESA; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the Poway City Council/Poway Redevelopment Agency held a duly advertised public hearing in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consider the Joint Environmental Assessment and Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration documents, the proposed Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents, and associated approval actions including General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02 and ordinances amending the City's grading and zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council issued the Negative Declaration in accordance with the CECA Guidelines and adopted a resolution approving GPA 95-02, which adopted the proposed Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents, and amended the relevant Elements of the poway General Plan to incorporate by reference such documents and the requirements thereof; and WHEREAS, the City, USFWS and CDFG agree that adoption of the HCP and execution of the companion IA will provide a private property owner with the option to rely upon the City's Incidental Take/Management +aka ~Jl19;g[t~~B.q Permit; and ATTACHMENT D ~UG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 14 25 of 77 -..-.....- ---_._-~-~-- Resolution No Page 2 WHEREAS, the Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA provide reasonable economic use to owners of private property who choose to rely upon the City's Incidental Take/Management +aka Auth'6t'ttatT6ft Permit in that development may proceed in .,.,................,.................,..w.......".......,..;.... accordance with the General'Plaii'16ngwith the protection and preservation of sensitive habitats; and WHEREAS, the Poway Subarea HCP has been prepared in compliance with the ESA and the CESA and may be amended or revised at the mutual agreement of the City and the wildlife agencies as may be appropriate because of changes to those laws; and WHEREAS, the companion Implementing Agreement (IA) document must be signed by the Mayor of the City of Poway and by the USFWS and CDFG (Wildlife Agencies) in order for the IA and the Poway Subarea HCP to become effective and for the related "take permits and management authorizations" to be issued to the City by the wildlife agencies; and WHEREAS, the Poway Redevelopment Agency has determined that Agency approval of said documents and compliance with the requirements thereof by all Agency redevelopment projects is necessary and appropriate in order to be consistent with the Poway General Plan, as amended by City Council approval of GPA 95-02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City. of poway by adoption of this resolution, does hereby: 1. find that the approval of the Poway Subarea HCP and the companion IA will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and hereby issues a Mitiiatea Negative Declaration pursuant to CECA. 2. adopt the proposed Poway Subarea HCP including the changes shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. 3. authorize the Mayor to execute the Implementing AgreemenUCalifornia Endangered Species Act Memorandum of Understanding including the changes shown in Exhibit B attached hereto. 4. find that all projects undertaken by the City shall comply with the requirements of the Poway Subarea HCP and the companion IA as approved herein, and as approved in accordance with the City Council resolution adopting General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02. 5. find that the HCP will provide private property owners who require a permit under the ESA and CESA with the option of relying upon the City'S permit issued in AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6ioi. 26 of 77 - - Resolution No Page 3 conjunction with the HCP and its IA if the owner ~tim:li!Y agrees to be bound by the terms of the HCP. ef'W1!ftd;thiltHfimlj(~~rttfirtiititkfel'mSA1~Rrfti~..I ~A:':~"""":""""""":,w:"""""""<':w:i::"'"..:...:..:;::"::::.....:....~'* ",":',:w:'.':::; '$;**:x:~::::::.-::::::w~~:W!::<--:::$t.:- '. .". .,... ." ~'" .,. -::: ial~flllJsI1ae;ln:effe:'; . . . . .. . ;;;;;:;x.;.:' '$ ~:;:-x..;::: . ""'*~;,:w.~.;.$'~":::"'~ . . __.<"..." _ _ __<'__'...A."'<<',_,', ....... ,'. .,........ 1.~j~mIQOr~l'E!mt.~JDiE,'....ll. . APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City Of Poway, State of California, this 15th day of August, 1995. Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K Wahlsten, City Clerk A:\HCPIA.RES 27 of 77 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT POWAY SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/ NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN The following changes to the Draft poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan are made. References are to pages as numbered in the June 1995 Public Review Draft. Paoe 1-1. oaraoraoh 1. beoinnino on line 6 ...Preparation and implementation of this citywide HCP is necessary to allow for the incidental take of listed species by pubIiCi._ and .11 private projects .m\t~!*;PPQn ~!l'!~J~!!f~'fl'!!!!'!t~p~ as eRtiei~ateabytRe'Pe;j/ay Paoe 1-4 oaraoraoh 4. beoinnino on line 5 ...E~eeial ete'.~elC)J3FReRt feEll;JiremeAts '::ithin the ReA will imit ae'JeISJ3meRt ana ather aGtivities ie tAesa aeemea eeFAJ9atiala ,,,itA J3reserve fl;JRetieA.... Paoe 1-8. oaraoraoh 3. beoinnino on line 3 All bl" l!~ d ~J . t ~~,!frOOnllB1tm1t.__em=eo,Slf,r' ... pu IC <.. ~ .an .pnvae. ...... .C,..... :,: ,.. I. . Hl:..<U,... WItfi1ttiilS~I_ wlITbe required'l'obe con~!sfentwrth'theSubareawACP... ... ,. ,,,?4! ~,::;;;;;:;:;;;::~:i'~:;:.;;~~~ . < Paoe 1-11. oaraoraoh 3. beoinning on line 1 Approval of the Subarea HCP by the City of Poway will PI~ will result iR a General Plan amendment... Paoe 1-12. oaraoraoh 3. beoinnino on line 1 CRee ell eFfRits eRa a FEleFl'leAts eFEl eeteiReet Dla~dl'6fitltltiHGRgaetliiii the Cit f3 €I I ~. ".,' .... . ...........::::::! :::2"<<::::':::;:"" '::;;>,;,:::y;:;>>X:;.<';xz~<"'m::;:::::.>;:;'::::"':'~:;:,:::.' Y will process public and private project approvalsln the Customary manner: lncorporating the Poway Subarea HCP into their normal project review and approval and CEQA - YVildl.if$S$tvlQlill Established local publiC heanng requirements Will apply.... .;.;.;.;.:...-:.:.;.:o}:-:.>>~.w.-:..,:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:-,..>>>>;.:.;.;.;.;.:-; Paoe 5-21. oaraoraoh 3 beginnino on line 7 ...The Poway Subarea HCP creates a resource conservation e'/erlay lAst will furlt-1er restriet lanG l::IS9 aRe FRana€JeFFu3nt aeti'/itios SA parecls 'lIithin IRS ReA via implemeAtation of ~i~~~i!II'it.llili.t\;iiil~i,~!~~~ ensure.... Z8 of 77 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 ',JIl ~ Exhibit A Page 2 N~wn~g:_{Jm:€~"'i'atiOfis """"N.W..W_.. . "'" '._ 'm"_. ._.J~'L.."_"""." ~[~ mB.~_.J.lltlll_~;1t~f,~d;IBi1nl~1:1ttqli..{gm.,g~ mfld,,",'~$!%$!I~W.Q1~~@r"""ili1tt""'!1Y*'f.'UllC<<""!lOQn "",\:~\%"~. .;1".4Jit_,. ~t.';'.,"""9Qt,,,;;,*~~q9_!llL'i'~~12!tLj&ftt&";,J.~;)'~i!Wi;'" "~~".II'W'I'."_~rw"lrw'*""""M1""ln Rf"".'$,.!wi;.' . lw ..:",li.~-m ,tlltllil'" <;,"" ...li,~ml~JMt' j,~i\9I;!RP"li'>J~ '""Ii~r~'^~'i" '15 itS$!.. "sf.$!.,..tJftatli.rf'~^'beS'ifm''lr>>'B''.b' - I:f I'"All" " . ........~%..WM .. ..."litt!W T "'f~tt.,.fI_@"ea'"' ~ ::... ...~:.. ,.'. .. ".;. ..0 . ..w".... '"-"NO.."'......"^'" 29 of 77 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6iJ1lli Exhibit A Page 3 ~.""'~1J~~ '-,-':':" :"::: :}.:"-:',:.::;:,'-', - -'. ",: '::,-- - - : '. -.,.', . ,"' ..", '. '.? ::;-: - - . ,. .;:: '.'... '.:'. '... . . .....-, - ..., .. . ... - . "" 'UN' , ........ .'. .W ., A.... N ........, Paoe 7-3. caraorach 4 beoinnino on line 1 Th~ special develop~~nt requirements apply to public BJ;...a~,,~;pri;::,ated~~:I~p~~~t projects located within the boundary of the RCA Wfjlbfkte.f)l;~bfj;j;tmfhM_nelalmtal makliimlll!....'a~m<.....~o/.."{ ...'iirttlb.. ^'^'n5~'. f'ftblt',;or outside the'ReA"'lftareas'supp6rilng""'naliVEi ;,.""""";:.."<'.~..ll..:"',;;f.,,~. .......:-.. .. .. .. __ _ ,'., :" _' , '.,.: vegetation:--~'. .. .... Paoe 7-9. caraorach 1. beoinnino on line 1 The following specific requirements shall apply to parcels of land located within the iiiil~1I1118_'lllrulllll__1 Paoe 7-18. caraQrach 4. beoinnino on line 1 2. IA'lllests te all AeA wetleAa Ralilitels '/Jill reEll;liFe aA iA Iiel;l fee (el:<rrently set at $12,009 Iler aere). TRia fee aA'lel;lnt A'lay Iile real:lesa lily tRe City Iilasell en the Ilrefsssienal elliAisA ef a Ell:lalifiea Iilielegist, \'lAere either aistuFBea er law Ell:lslity Ralilitats are iA'lllaetea. IA ne ease will tRe fee Iler aere af iA'll3aet Be less tRan $8,609. An ellaitienal, eRe tiA'le eaA'liRistFati\'e fee af $1,200 Iler sere sf Raeitat impaGt \\'i11 sa Aesesssl)' ta sa'/er easts rslateEt te FRBAB€)eFRSAt aAa maintenanS9 _;.~ii;;;~~1l~~~Et~1!~RII!!iii~~lr'I~I,@!~aL~~~1~~~~lit~ Mac 3: Preserve Design Various modifications to the Preserve Design map are also adopted as shown in the Preserve Design map dated August 15, 1995. 30 of 77 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 .. - EXHIBIT B PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT! CESA MOU The following changes to the draft Implementing AgreemenUCESA MOU are shown with reference to pages as numbered in the June 1995 draft included in Volume 2: Appendices of the Public Review Draft of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Paoe 7. end of oaraoraoh 4 ...the poway General Plan and paguay Redevelopment Plan. ~f.~m~fq!JnI1J! Bflmiji'..r.~lr~\i1?I!lffllll~.1J_J.jt6~ ~_~~t.. :"",' :..; ,'B~\(:* ': "':'-~' ",.{ " ..x:_ ':', :m!.ltfj-"1~:"':"'~ <~:f. ':'::::mT:~::'~ ": /" ::: :':: ":J., *'} ;.': ~".x: ':~~~d Ild~t~llfm*I,A~1 . re.......q .... .... .Q,~. Paoe 11. oaraoraoh 4 A ImplementationoI the PSHCP'lfm~$die8ti61t'tdf~~~tt&ti.lllSJ(~il.. ~lRBlQ_ fulfills the reglona . 6io'lo'Qic8iresourcern;paamH!Qaflon Ideiit1fied for the approved Scripps Poway Parkway Extension Project, and that additional mitigation is not required for impacts to Covered Species. Paoe 12. oaraoraoh 2 A CDFG agrees that implementation of the PSHCP, Iilqg&_~im..p~ef9@1r$!,! ~$emelil!.C';'1maTaE1fdtriitF_ fulfills the re ronal biofO'''icaT'resource'rm''act :;;:::;:;:r::;::~:::;~::;~::;:;::M<<::::;;;''ii::;.j;J.t<~:::-'EK:f:~':' . "':;::"$..;:;=X m:::::x~:::::.B:~~<:~;t:<::::;,.~::~.;:;~::-. 9 9 P mitigation Identl I for fhe approved ScrippS Poway Parkway Extension Project, and that additional mitigation is not required for impacts to Covered Species. Paoe 12. oaraoraoh 6 E. CDFG shall consider adherence to the terms of this Agreement, the Plan, and the Management Authorization to be compliance with the provisions of the CESA, the NCCP Act and QI,~! CESA Paoe 18. oaraoraoh 2. beoinnino on line 1 0 ...be submitted to amg USFWS under the Plan;... A\HCPIAEXB 31 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE CITY OF POWAY SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND COMPANION IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of poway/poway Redevelopment Agency (City), as the applicant, has prepared the proposed City of poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) and companion Implementing Agreement (IA) documents, and WHEREAS, the subject proposed documents have been completed to comply with the requirements of the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Ad. of 1991, the NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines (NCCP Guidelines). as adopted in November, 1993 by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and the USFWS Federal Endangered Species Act Section 4 (d) Special Rule for the "threatened" California gnatcatcher which is incorporated into the NCCP Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the subject documents have also been completed to satisfy the approved regional biological impact mitigation measure identified in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 93091118) for the approved Scripps Poway Parkway Extension project, which requires the preparation and adoption of a City- wide subarea habitat conservation plan; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the Poway City Council/Poway Redevelopment Agency held a duly advertised public hearing in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consider the Initial Study/Proposed Mitif:latea Negative Declaration, the proposed Poway Subarea HCP, the companion IA, and associated approval actions including General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council issued the Mitif:lateel Negative Declaration in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and adopted a resolution approving GPA 95-02, which adopted the proposed Poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents, and amended the relevant Elements of the Poway General Plan to incorporate by reference such documents and the requirements thereof; and WHEREAS, the Poway Redevelopment Agency has determined that Agency approval of said documents and compliance with the requirements thereof by all Agency redevelopment projects is necessary and appropriate in order to be consistent with the Poway General Plan, as amended by City Council approval of GPA 95-02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of poway by adoption of this resolution, does hereby approve the following actions: 3Z of 77 A TT ACHMENT E AUG 1 5 1995 ITEMb -4 - Resolution No. Page 2 1. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the approval of the Poway Subarea HCP and the companion IA will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and hereby issues a Mitigatea Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. 2. The proposed Poway Subarea HCP, the companion lA, and the requirements thereof, are hereby adopted as if in full force and effect. 3. The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that all projects undertaken by the Agency shall comply with the requirements of the Poway Subarea HCP and the companion IA as approved herein, and as approved in accordance with the City Council resolution adopting General Plan Amendment, GPA 95-02. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City Of Poway, State of California, this 15th day of August, 1995. Don Higginson, Chairman ATTEST: - Marjorie K Wahlsten, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )55. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, Ma~orie K Wahlsten, City Cieri< of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the penalty of pe~ury, that the foregoing Resolution, No. , was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 1995, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Marjorie K Wahlsten, City Clerk City of Poway 33 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 I LETTERS OF COMMENT RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Attachment F 34 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ~.._-_.~ --------~------ ---.."-.-- - - ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE CfflIial'tJi 101M Prol<CIion of Coos"" Sog< Scrvb and 01"'" ThrmtzMJ'l Ealsystmrs Dan Silver. Coordinator 8424A Santa Monica Blvd. ##592 Los Angeles. CA 90069-4210 TEL/FAX 213-654-1456 . ... July 17, 1995 Jim Nessel, Senior Planner Gail Kobetich Planning Services Dept. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 13325 Civic Center Dr. 2730 Loker Ave. West Poway, CA 92064 Carl.sbad, CA 92008 RE: Public Review Draft Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation PlanINatural Community Conservation Plan and Public Review Draft Environmental Assessment and Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration fOr the Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit to the City of Powayfor the CaJifVmia Gnarcatcher Dear Mr. Nessel and Mr. Kobetich: The Endangered Habitats League is an organization of Southern California conservation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and cooperative conflict resolution. As you know, we serve on the Working Group for the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The following joint comments are submitted for the two documents referenced above. INTRODUCFlON We recognize the significant, good faith effort being made to maintain viable habitat for the gnatcatcher and other s~ies. Poway is, in fact, playing a leadership role among the jurisdictions. The League also recognIZeS the dilemmas faced by local government when acquisition funds are not immediately available. These considerations cannot in themselves, however, overcome the deficiencies in the proposed plan and its environmental documents. The central problem of the Poway HCPINCCP is that even though it is fundamentally a "soft-line" plan to be implemented over time, the City is nevertheless seeking assurances more applicable to "hard-line" plans. Only if the biological values in the at-risk Resource Conservation Areas remain intact can the potential benefits of the plan be rpali7P.ll Thus, the failure to include adequate interim controls is the key feature needing improvement. '. COMMENTS 1. Imoacts to biological resources are not adeouateiy disclosed. In the HCP/NCCP document (Section 5.5.1 and Table 5-4), there is a brief but important exposition of the impacts which will occur under existing zoning as development proceeds in the Proposed Resource Preservation Areas (PRPAs) or future Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs). - Here are identified many "Medium Risk" and "High Risk" PRPAs in which allowed development and roadways are expected to cause severe fragmentation of core habitat and the severance of vital linkages. For example, PRPA #4 is zoned for development which would, according to the 35 of 77 I AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 .1 ~-----~..- ..--.... ----- ---.. --._------ _. document, "sever this already constrained linkage,' and PRPA #133, a core gnatcatcher area, would be "moderately to heavily fragmented by rura1 residential housing.' In the Environmental Assessment and Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (EA and 1 IAIMND), this series of potential impacts is essentially ignored and remains undisclosed. If it is assumed that the 2-acre pad restrictions will automatically obviate these impacts, that assumption is not backed up by a specific analysis of each at-risk PRPA, and is indeed contradicred by the CD recitation of risks and impacts found in Section 5.5.1. Therefore, the conclusions (Table 4-5) that the proposed action "would consolidate an interconnected preserve sufficient to sustain. . . ecological communities" and that losses "would be largely restricted to already disturbed or fragmented habitats" are superficial and unsupported. The fragmentation and edge effects of ......&tal roads and housing development within RCAs are generally inadequately disclosed. Conversely, no arguments have been presented which CD might justify the inclusion of low density development within core preserves. The repeated use of percent preservation figures based upon 2-acre development pads misinforms the reader by minimizing the acknowledged importance of fragmentation and configuration in reserve design. Also, the adverse effects of not employing prescribed bums in fire-dependent systems are ] CD inadequately disclosed, including the increased susceptibility of both biological resources and 3 structures to the inevitable catastrophic fires which will result (Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.3.2.1). 2. Impacts to biological resources are not adeqmlt"ly mitil!ated. As noted above, the EA and INMND fails to adequately consider the potential adverse 1 impacts of allowed development and roads in the future Resource Conservation Areas - impacts which are acknowledged in the HCPINCCP document. As Section 5.5.1 indicates, these effects are clearly significant. Thus, after the impacts to each PRPA from currently allowed development CD are analyzed individually and cumulatively, mitigation should formulated, if possible. If the EA 4 and IAIMND means to say that all these impacts to the at-risk resources are adequately mitigated by the 2-acre pad restrictions, then this analysis has not been performed for each PRPA. Given the likelihood of significant unmitigated impacts, reliance upon an environmental assessment and mitigated negative declaration is implausible, and an EIRlEIS should be prepared. If the response to this comment is that the acquisition program provides adequate mitigation, a problem arises: There is no assurance that mitigation monies will be available for CD timely purchase, nor that the sellers will be willing. While we compliment the excellent prioritization analysis, a voluntary program with speculative funding is inadequate mitigation for impacts which may, as the HCPINCCP acknowledges, cut off crucial linkages and severely fragment core gnatcatcher habitat Additionally, without a trapping program for feral animals within RCAs (Section 6.3.2.1), J0 it will be impossible to mitigate the negative impacts of introduced predators. Also, without guaranteed aeri.al surveys, compliance with the2-acre limits cannot be monitored (Section 6.5.2). JCD At this time, there is no assurance that a future regional plan will provide such surveys. Regarding mitigation ratios, the system being proposed appears sound. In particular, the ] 0 requirement to mitigate for chaparral and non-nalive grassland accurately recognizes the biological 8 value of these vital habitats, for example, for foraging raptors. This is a very important precedent. 3. Poor rationale is l!iven for the reiection of allfmatives. Regarding Alternative 3, some of the reasons for rejection are not logical. If Alternative 310 is basically the proposed action accomplished quickly rather than gradually, then why is only 2 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 36 of 77 6 ~----- ._.~--- ------~------------ - Alternative 3 in conflict with the long-range goals of the Poway General Plan and redevelopment goals of the Paguay Redevelopment Plan (Section 4.4.2)1 Similarly, why is planned economic CD development within Poway only unaccommodated by Alternative 3 (Section 5.2.3)1 Also, the judgement (Section 4.4.1) that it would be "unclear" as to whether Alternative 3 - which would eliminate the fragmentation and loss of connectivity likely under the proposed action - was "significantly better" biologically than the proposed action seems unsupportable and self-serving. 4. The ranee of alternatives is inadequate. No alternative incorporating true interim controls on development within the future RCAs l was considered. Such as alternative is not a minor variation; it is an essential and significantly I different option to analyze. Throughout the history of the MSCP, it has been acknowledged that when immediate hard-line are not adopted, interim controls will be needed to avoid impacts prejudicial to successful reserve completion. In this regard, the proposed action is not a hard-line @ plan, and as noted above, the HCPINCCP (Section 5.5.1) identifies potential impacts so serious 10 that preserve viability may be precluded due to fmgmentation of key habitat and loss of connectivity. Many of these impacts - which are allowed under existing wning - are likely to occur, as demonstrated by the risk analysis performed. If it presumed that the 2-acre pad restrictions and acquisition program will alone or in combination provide sufficient protection in each at-risk PRPA, then this has hardly been demonstrated. Thus, an adequate range of alternatives must include interim controls in the RCAs so that if the mitigation or other funding sources do not materialize in time, the damages detailed in Section 5.5.1 will not occur. Strong consideration should be given to IT/ilintaining the current ordiT/ilnce ] @ implementing the 4(d) rule within ReAs, as it ensures that high value coastal sage scrub habitat 11 """ """","wry = p"""",,. """ = ""'" -.. _, _ u ~ll. F~ ~p'" well. ] defined "safety nets" for ecological functions, contiguity, and connectivity could be integrated by Poway into the CEQA process, and acquisition would be triggered if and when prejudicial @ development were to occur. If such interim controls are not instituted, then there is the risk of applying a standard to Poway different than to other jurisdictions with "soft-lines." In addition, there should be explicit acknowledgement of the potential to use eminent J@ domain in difficult cases, or friendly condemnation. 5. Section 100a) standards are not met. Our basic assessment is that while the preserve may be sound conceptually, interim J@ protection sufficient to assure successful implementation within the future RCAs is lacking. In addition, there is not enough data and analysis to support the IO(a) standards. For example, for species-specific data, Table 8-2 is expected to suffice, even though the statements in the last column are by-and-large conclusory. There should either be a detailed and coherent rationale give @ for each species or a sufficient habitat-based analysis. Section 8.1 is simply an overview, and it 15 repeats the misleading percent preservation figures which do not reflect the fragmentation and roads associated with scattered development An improved habitat-based analysis would, for example, assess the adequacy of each l.inkage and the size and configuration of each habitat block relative to the needs of a representative range of aquatic, avian, and terrestrial species. Several elements of the lO(a) standard are unmet at this time for the gnatcatcher and other @ species: I) The likelihood of survival and recovery will have to be re-evaluated after adequate J 1& disclosure and mitigation of fmgmentation and connectivity impacts. 2) Until the feasibility of J@ more effective interim controls is explored, it is inaccurate to state that impacts have been reduced and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. 3) Funding to adequately mitigate likely impacts}1D - including those identified in the risk assessment section of the HCPINCCP - is not assured. 3 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 37 of 77 .-. . ~_._-.--~--_. --------,"------ --~-_._----_.-"", ..- -~- ----. . - CONCLUSION Despite these substantial criticisms, we applaud the initiative of the City and recognize the quality of the underlying biological analysis. Our hope is that the eventual achievement of reserve goals - especially the preservation of the at-risk RCAs and linkages - can be made more certain in an improved proposaL Thank you for considering our views, and we would be happy to work with you on resolving these issues. With best regards, 4:.~ Dan Silver, Coordinator ex: Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Interes~ parties 4 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM .6 38 of 77 Calitorl1i~ Native plant Societ;'9- San Diego Chapter P.O. Box 1390 SanDiego, CA 92112 Jim Nessel July 20,1995 Senior Planner Planning Services Department P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074-0789 Re: Draft poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Nat~al Community Conservation Plan Dear Mr. Nessel, The San Diego Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has reviewed the draft poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan and associated documents. We had some difficulty in following plan effects on individual species and in overlaying preserve design with habitat. Since MSCP draft documents are included by reference, we have used this infonnation for our review. Please overlay the preserve design on the vegetation communities ]CI> map (maps 1 and 3). An overlay of the general design would help 1 us to determine if the boundaries are adequate. Doe, 'he ei'y have .ensi,ive epeeie. map. expanded from draf' MSCP] documents and can these maps be presented for review? We request (!) this infonnation in light of infonnation presented in Table 4-4 (page 4-16) titled "Estimated Preservation of Recorded Sensitive Species Locations By Alternative". We are concerned about] the accuracy of reported observations of Orcutt's brodiaea, (0), (!) Encinitas baccharis (4), Heart-leaved pitcher sage, San Diego thornmint (2), Del Mar manzanita, Variegated dudleya (0), and Lakeside ceanothus. We are also interested in understanding] preserve design in relation to non-target sensitive species. This (!) would include: Adolphia, Engelmann oak, and San Diego sagewort. Please present specific data on the above listed species. Is the CC7 vernal pool located in Poways's sphere of influence? ]0 Why is only 12% of freshwater marsh habitat included in the J CD proposed preserve design? How does this qualify as no net loss of wetlands? ,.. 1 AUG 15 1995 ITEM .6 39 of 77 G~ Dedicated to tbe preservation of California native flora -...-.. .. ---- Calif-oJ Ylia Native P{artt Societ~ We are sorry for the brevity of our comments but the short review periOd limited our input. We would like to thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the draft documents. We ask for the opportunity to review the final environmental impact report prior to its consideration for certification to ensure that our comments are adequately addressed. When this document is available, please contact me at 421-5767. Sincerely, ~~ Cindy urrascano San Diego Chapter of CNPS cc: USF&W Carlsbad Office Bill Tippets CDF&G NCCP Jim Dice CDF&G Region 5 Ecologist Ray Butler CNPS Conservation Vice-President ~ 2 ~UG 151995 IT~M 6 40 of 77 i;} Dedicated to the preservation of Cali ornia native ora Palomar Audubon Society P.O. Box 2483 Escondldo. CA 92033 JUly 20, 1995 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad CA 92008 Hr. Gail C. Kobetich Field Supervisor RE: Bnvironaental Assess_nt (EA) and Initial study/Hi tiqated Neqative Declaration for the Issuance of an Incidental Take Per.it and Hanaqe_nt Authorization to the City of poway for the california Gnatcatcber The Palomar Audubon Society, a Chapter of the National Audubon Society, has reviewed the subject document and its companion document, poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Batural Co.-unity Conservation Plan, and find the proposed action acceptable in concept. The area of exception to complete acceptance is that of "Adaption of the Subarea HCP as currently written, " .. . Tha Pal,." Audub,o SUciaty flods that whila tha Subma HCP is1 generally acceptable, there is one specific area that needs to be corrected before approval of the EA is made. This one area is in the frequently used term, "To the extent feasible and practical, development " This one term will give the City andlor .. . . developers an opportunity to ignore the plan at any time it is in their interest to do so. We have seen an example of this thinking in the recent DEIR for the (I) poway Entertainment Center (SCH .95021039). In this DEIR, the almost total destruction of and narrowing to approximately 1/3 of it. width of tha REGIONAL WILDLIPE CDEElOOE was ,ustifiad by thaJ statement that it would be allowed by the poway Subarea HCP. It is obvious that the phrase, "To the extent feasible and ...", was the out that would allow the development to proceed. It is the position of the Palomar Audubon Society that the EA should not be approved or implemented until this major problem with the EAts re.ferenced document is corrected. cc: '::I~1II ".Z ._r Bill Tippets, CDF&G AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 , 41 of 77 ._._-~._--_...._---,----- ~---'---------------'~-~-'---"'-'--"'-"-----"-- .- ~ j--pex SANREX co.. L"'~ ~ an SUOACHO SANYO BLDG. _ d KANDA SUDACHO CHIYODA-KU TOKYO 101 .JAPAN TEL 03-3257-3730 FAX 03-3257-3gee VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL July 21. 1995 Mr. James R.Nessel. Senior Planner Cit\! ,~f Poway Department of ?lannin~ Servic~s Clty of Poway 13325 Civic C~nte~ Dr. ?c1way. CA Re: .JoInt Environmental Assessment lEAl and Initial Study (ISI/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Issuan~e ,)f an Incidental Take Permit and Management Authorizatlon to the City of Poway for ~he California Gnatcatcher Dear Mr. Nesse 1 : In connection wlth the above referenced subject. as an aff~cted landowner we wish to commen~ as follow:: Whi le we rio 'lot 0::- lect the P,)wav Suba:-ea HCP '~onceDt in <Jen'=l""a 1.] WE- OD. :ect to the S~nrex pre'pe,ty. beinG exclude':: fl-'JIT, the Prc,p:=:ed CD ~e5el-vePr~~~ctlon Area (P~FA) designatlon as a tal-0e~ fc'~' acq~:sitlon as p~jlic open space. Dlle to its Slze rover 81JO ~cres locatlOn ~nd bl,~i0a:~~1 biodi\fersity. the Sanrex proper~y has been s~nsidel-~d _"_ an imD0r~an~ po~ential mitig~tion Sl~e Slnce early 1993 whe~ ~ne ?:!:.'~-r:.c5ec. a.lignm€~ts fC'l- the Scrlpps P,:,way Parkway rSFP) E>:tE'ns:.-:,~ P~~.:'.1ect W2rt? rA'viewed. E'./ldenc-= e.f this is found in ()GJEN's [:~--5ft Envi~-onmental Repor"1: pl~epal-,=,d fo~ that project by refererl'>= t~ th.:: Sanrex land ("Onsite land") as a recommended mltig.~ti("\n site. Tnis. a.dded. to the fa.ct that the road would divlde ou!"" ~Rnt ~n~.) ~wo non-~ontigu0us parcels - afferting Its 1evel(.pment ;J(i":.':?n<:ial - caused :J.S to shi~t our efforts from deve~.:.pn~-:-:.t to: nati~at pr~servat2on. ('L)nsequen"l:l:/. w~ entered 1n"l:':1 d ,:ontractual ,~gr~emen~_ with Th~ Envll-:,nmenta.l Trust to man,sge the rl-0p€'1~ty as '3. preser"e an,j ~,=' ha'v'E' :r: qua:If:"':".i by the Calif0rnia De~'ar'tment or Flsn and I;,::.me and :he i)~ Fish and WildlIfe Service f:'l~ mitigatlon. ho~ing It w0uld Incr.?ase 011r ~hanc~s __ ~B:no selected as a mitig~~i')n site f.)~ :he SPF pr0jec~. Inst~a~. pal-~els to the e~8: of -llr iand Wl:~ ~0W be ll~~d ~~r ~hat pur?o~~. 42 of 77 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 - ~ j--psi'l.. SANREX CO.. LTD. ~~"'..Jl' an SUOACHO SANYO BLDG. 2-8 KANOA SUDACHO CHIYODA-KU TOKYO 101 JAPAN ~.....- TEL. 03-32!57-3730 FAX 03-3257-3966 Mr. James R. Nessel ,July 21. 1995 Page 2 Whi Ie the property is currently pr.Jtected by vir-tue of becng administered as a land bank. It is not 100% protected :.lntil open space easements are recorded over it. We have always conside,ed governmental agencies. and partlcularly the City of Poway ,E vl?ry lmportant potential buyers of this property. In faCe. we strongly believe now is the right time for the City cO acqu:c-e the Sanrex property for preservation purposes and these arl? the reasons: 1. Acquisition of the Sanrex property. most of WhlCh is in thl? County of San Diego's jurisdictlon would allow "he Clty of Poway to create a greenbelt between its citv limlts and the unincorporated areas. An eventual annexation of the sphl?re of influence 1S consistent wlth the City" Poway General Plan's goals. Preservation of that arl?a is also consisten with the Poway Subarea HabItat Consl?rvation Plan. 2. By havlng used the mitigatIon cred:ts I")f publ:~>:-~y 0wt1-=-d lands under City ownership and those of the oarcels ~cqlJired during the acquisition process fG~ the SF? th~ ~ity wllJ have to start "land b,"lnking" agaln. The Ci r.y has already a('q!.lll~71:i I)wnershir:- .)f some S,:tnJ:-':o:-: La;:'.: to ~;-:e S,:,uth of the Parkwa:,,: i other than for r,~.,,::':: l"!g1-,c: ~Ir '''0;.'1 or slope/drainage easemer,ts ). Acqulciti,:.n " the l-emalnlng land to the north of th<;, Parkwcy :IS w<;,ll iI', :.l'der to c0nse,lidate It as a ',;ornerstone". especially ~"'..;:;::'l7 ":~~5.~ !s an important junction of regional COI-YldG2.S. 3. The Sam'ex property is irnmedlately adjacent t- two FRPAs. Nc.. 13a and No. 16 which have high acqui8ltl':,n orior: t :~8 .~8 v~ry imp,"):r'tant sage scrub and l! nY-9.g:? The Sanrex land ie part of that core. 4. We ~re 3~:11 wllling t~ c0operat~ with the (ltY'2 ~ff(':r~e ~0 ~caui:r~ seneitive habitat ~ands for p2"eServatlon ,:tnd ~av~ a.lrt7ady submi t+:E"''i _ ;~r-,)pr)sal for accru::.s:: :r:'n -;r __ cur land. 43 of 77 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 I e jiin~-ex SANREX co.. L SUDACHO SANYO BLDG. 2-8 KANDA SUDACHO CHIYQOA-KU TOKYO tOl JAPAN TEL 03-3257-3730 FAX 03-3257-3966 Mr. James R. Nessel Julv 21. 1995 Page 3 I~ sununary. we strongly beli,,'/e t:hat landowner particIpation in habIt.'l.t prese;Rva t i on efforts should be encouraged. In a Sl tuat::,:,r. such as ours. In ',;hich we W01-j, wi th the 9reserve system and not agair.st it. we should be gIven priority at the time of acquIsItion rather than being taken for granted. We n0tB. however. that the He? rec0gnlzes t:he PR?As as a pre 1 imi nary llS~ ,and that: there is ro,=,m for fle:<ibi I ity. ::xcept for the concel-n expressed above. we SUppr)r-: the Powav Subar2a He? - Pr0pos'?d Act i r)n Resource Conservatio!1 Area (RCi-.i Alternative. _. 1 ::llnc.::-:--e..y. SANEEX C'~). . :"'~D. ')".l"?~-~:ea.= 1=1'" Departml?nt AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM .6 I 44 of 77 - - JOHN R. HILSABECK. M.D.. F.A.C.S. 11611 S.W. SKYUNE DRIVE SANTA ANA. CAUFORNlA 92705 TEL/FAX; (714) 544.5183 DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY 20 July 1995 Mr. Gail Kobetich, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. James Nessel, Senior Planner Planning Services Department, City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 As trustee of the Hilsabeck Marital Deduction Trust, the Hilsabeck Family Trust, and the Hilsabeck Survivor Trust, I strongly and unequivocally protest the proposal of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the City of Poway, and the Poway Redevelopment Agency as Co-Lead Agencies, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (Trustee Agency), as contained in the Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability for Public Review mailed to us, by MaIjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of Poway, and, according to the City Clerk's notice, published in the Poway News Chieftain on June 8, 1995. The above notice states that there will be a public hearing of this proposal, the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan, by the City of Poway/Poway Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday, August 15, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. On July 7, 1995, an informational meeting was held for private landowners included in or affected by the above proposal. The Director of Planning announced that on August IS, after a public hearing, the proposal will immediatelv be considered bv the Citv Council of the Citv of Powav and the Redevelooment A2encv. for adootion and imolementation. and voted on. that evenin2. O<h<<..... .., "'" -. of """ """01 to ~.........'" "" 'my 7" ;"'''''''''00", 1 meeting, and the notice of public hearing noted above for August 15th, 1995, we had never received any notice that you or any other agency, or the City of Poway, were developing such a CD proposal. According to the Poway Director of Planning, the proposal was the result of three vears' I work by U.S. Fish and Game Service, the City of Poway, the Poway Redevelopment Agency, J and the California Department of Fish and Game. Why were we property owners not so informed? It seems apparent that we were allowed to learn of this plan only when it effectively became a "done deal." '. According to the planning director, the city is entering into this agreement with your agency "to mitigate adverse impacts to biological resources from building the Scripps Parkway Extension CD (County SA 780) and implementing the Poway General Plan and Paguay Redevelopment Plan (See Section 1.3)." The HCP encompasses 13,300 acres (21 sq. miles), of which 6,608 acres are privately owned, and an additional 1,660 acres of privatety owned land which cannot be built on 1 45 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM .6 --_._,-~- --~-_._~ ----.-.-.----- because it has a slope greater than 4S degrees or becl111se of open space msements. Thus, the total I CD private lands included in the proposal amount to 8.268 acres (almost 13l1l1. miles). It appeared that J 2 the City of Poway and the Poway Redevelopment Agency were establishing a land mitigation bank of private lands which they could draw on. In rebuttal, Senior Planner James Nessel stated that the city bad already purchased the mitigation lands needed for the Oso Scripps Parkway to proceed. The obvious question in everyone's mind was whether, in light of this information, the HCP was necessary or could be defended. Why could not the parkway development proceed without the HCP? Did the U.S. Fish CD and Wildlife Service require the HCP in addition to the city's purchase oCthe necessary mitigation -, If M HCP wu ""' req".... 10 """"" wilh ... a...."" wby'" ... "ly pm=d wilh J the HC?? The planning director answered only that this procedure would "help" citizens, developers and builders in obtaining pennits more quickly and at less expense than if the citizens were to go through the normal procedures required by these two agencies. Where did the funding come from to support this study and this proposal which powerfully] CD affects our properties? Placing this 13 sq. miles of private land in the proposed Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation PlanlNatura1 Community Conservation Plan for ~ years is a violation of our property rights. It is an unfair elttraction of land from us, requiring that our land be given away in exchange for permission to disturb habitat, and appears to be in clear violation of our CD Constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case Dolan v. City of Tigard, stated, "We see no reason why the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amend1ne1ll, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the First Amend1nent or Fourth Amendment, should be relegated to the status of a poor rekltion in these comparable circumstances. .. According to the planning director at the meeting, and confirmed in the Public Review Draft "1 of the HCP, only two acres of each parcel can be cleared. This must include the dwelling, the access road, fencing, utilities, and septic tank lines, among others. The remainder must remain CD ",m;= ""....... Ii...""" oc ""'" ...."" ........ "" f~ """"" ... pori"'-. ~ roc j I humans only with special permission. This means for us that on each of the nine parcels which make up the 400 acres we have owned since 1967 (before Poway became a city), the dwelling itself will be on two acres or less, depending on how much land will be needed for access roads and other "improvements" such as wells. The proposal stipulates "clustering" of dwellings. The planning director made a big point of ] CD this at the meeting, but left unanswered many questions. How will the nine two-acre parcels be 1 cl"",,",,' Sido-by.."", I. ... f_ of. ...., Tho "."...r .... .. _. di"""" -= ~, ] on the responsibility of the city, the redevelopment agency, the federal government (the Department of the Interior) to pay the taxes, the water district assessments, the lighting and landscaping CD assessments, and the liability on the unused 383 acres. Must the perimeter fence be taken down? It was fenced by Mrs. Post, who owned the ranch, lived and fanned there beginning in the 19208. Such concerns are not addressed. Because of such short notice, the planning director was requested to ask the city council to postpone the public hearing until the private property owners had an opportunity to read and assess the implications and legality of the proposa1. The director responded that-in her opinion, there was not enough evidence for her to make that request to the council, and she refused. CD On receipt of the notices I called the planning department, where the HCP was available for public review sometime after June 21,1995, and where it could also be purchased. On finding the proposa1 consisted of three volumes, I realized that the only way I could read it would be to buy it, which I did. It would have been impossible for citizens to read and assess these volumes on site in 2 46 of 77 AUG 15 1995 ITEM .6 , the planning department. The publication rivals the Clinton Health Plan in sheer size and complexity, and I am still working my way through the 514 pages. The Clinton Health Plan consisted of 1320 pages and approximately 290.000 words. while this proposal. although it has CD only 514 pages. contains approximately 190.000 words. Although I have not finished reading it. I have already discovered enough important infonnation which was either purposely or inadvertently not revealed to the attendees at the meeting, that it is imperative that this entire matter be put on hold The citizens must have time to become better informed. and the vote on the proposal must be postponed. Of the three alternatives examined. according to the draft, the best alternative would be to ] @ purchase all the private lands included in the HCP. However, Poway doesn't have the money to do 10 this. Therefore. this is actuaIly not an alternative. A second alternative is to tie up the land. to use mitigation fees to purchase and preserve land within the HCP and to operate mitigation banks: uThe City or a selected land conservancy shall assemble or purchase land to be used as a mitigation bank and broker trades of land and agreements for public or private entities to receive mitigation credit in exchange for purchase of lands in a mitigation bank. The mitigation banks win exist within tire RCA and preferably within PRPAs." (HCP. Vol. 1. Sec.7.6.4 In-Lieu Fee Scbedule. p. 7-19.) The third alternative is to continue as is. UU1Uler the No Action Alternative, the Subarea HCP would not be adopted and no 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be issued. This assumes that development and planning activities would continue according to aistingfederal, state, and local development requirements, but that endangered species permit mtJIUlgement authorization jor take in the subarea would not be issued. Without issuance of permits, public and private projects. including the Scripps Poway Parkway extension project, would have to obtain individual permits as required by state and federal ESAs. The cornerstone lands would, however, be maintained as biological open space since these lands are already publicly owned and zoned as OS-RM." (HCP, Vol. 3, Sec. 2.1.4, No Adion Alternative. p. 2-9.) We believe that the only viable choice is the third alternative. to continue as is. This will protect the property rights of private landowners. Of grave concern, if alternative two is adopted, is that in Sec. 8.2.3 of Vol. 1 of the HCP. there is no assurance in Section C that additional funding from state and federal sources will become a reality. The HCP. in that case. must rely Uon new and existing regulatory mechanisms that require linle funding is expected to sufficiently protect biological resources until sufficient funding is available jor acquisition and maintenance of preserve lands." (HCP. Vol. 1. Sec. 8. p. 8-11.) To sum up: We are totally against adoption and implementation or the HCP proposal. :ke7~~ v- John R. Hilsab!lck. M.D. Trustee, Hilsabeck Marital Deduction Trust Hilsabeck Family Trust Hilsabeck Survivor Trust 3 47 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 i ----" ~-_._._-_.__._-- - Behavioral Health Consultants J2307 oa Knoll RtMd . Suite B . ,.o~ 0IifDmi.1 !12064 . (6J!1) 748-5%3 Mr. Jim Nessel, Senior Planner City of poway copies to Bill Bowersox, city Manager Mayor Don Higginson City Council Members July 20,1995 Dear Mr.. Nessel, Thank you for discussing the matter of the Habitat Conservatiun Plan (HCP) wilh me on rhe telephone recently. Frorn what I can tell, you have done an excellent job of bringing togerher the concerns of the various state and federal agencies on behalf of the environment in our beautiful city. As a resident of an 8 acre ranch in High Valley, it is clear to me that further development would destroy the little bit of natural habitat that is left. Once the green old growth is removed, wild grasses start to grow that are difficult to control without frequent cutting back to prevent fire hazards. Although most of my land was planted in avocado trees twenty years ago, I wish it had just been left alone. I have huge water bills just to keep the trees alive. Expenses related to producing fruit are triple what I can possibly recoup in a gQod market year. Currently, like many others, I am allowing the natural growth to return by cutting down as many avocado trees as possible. I strongly support your plan for the HCP and hope you will continue your efforts to keep our green belts in their present state. This will help to make Poway an attractive community for future generations and boost current land values, increasing the tax base. We need to keep our eyes on the future as southern California becomes ever more populated and urban. Ulod developments like we see along Scripps Poway Parkway are an eyesore and in the long run a poor investment for individuals and communities. Thank you for your efforts! Sincerely, ~ Dr. Dorothea Hover, Ed. D., RN 48 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM .6 ~ - _. 12729 Stone Cmyon Road Poway, CA 92064 July 17, 1995 Mr James Nessel Project PllIIIDer Dept ofPIIIIIft;ng Services City of Po way City Hall, Poway, CA 92064 Dear Mr Nessel, We appreciale the iDleut 8Dd effort of the City ofPoway in moviDg towards establishing the Habitat Conservation Area. Given the cOlllltnlinlB placed on the City by federal and state legislation, we feel that your actions will serve to UBist IlIIlIownen affected by that legislation. We have bad an opportunity to review the Conservation PIID, includiD.g Maps 2 8Dd 3, delineatiug a biological core 8Dd liDkage area (BCLA). It 888IDB that the maps include part of our land that bas no habitat wbalBoever 8Dd is clearly separated from my habitat by substantial differences in elevation. Further, the Plan is in error in the current zonins of our 18&1d which is Residential Ccmdominimn (R-C), a Dr higher density than that on which the Plan was based, RS - 2. The APN s of our land are 317-232 -OS, - 08, -09, -16, -17, -31 and 317-242-03, -OS. The purpose of the PIID, as we IIDderstaod it, is to preserve important biological areas CD which, in our vicinity, exiBlll only below our south-west bolllldary, in particular the coast live oak riparian forest associaled with Beeler Creek Our development pl8DB will be required to UDdergo separate site specific environmental rn'iew and will be prepared in compliance with the Habitat Preservation Plan. Auy portion of our land that fiIlls within the elevation and is contiguous with the live oak habitat of Beeler Creek would be set aside. It is clear, however, that our land should not be included within the RCA which, in this area, should follow the line of tile live oak: habitat in Beeler Creek For the above reasons, we request that the Plan be corrected and that the BCLA area include only the habitat area of the Beeler Creek coast live oak forest st our south-west bolllldary.md exclude our lands that are separated 8Dd have no habitat. We thank you for your consideration. Yours ven'truly, __ .04~ f A. AvilDlo & N. Rothwell. 49 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 .. -.- LOUISE & DOUGLAS BERND STARUNE RANCH 2135 Robertson Sf Ramnona. ~. ~2579 - Telephone (619) 78~520 Fax (619) 788-1514 July 19, 1995 Mr. Jim Nessel Senior Planner City Hall, 13325 Civic Center DR. P.O. Box 789, Poway, Calif. 92074-0789 Mr. 1. Nessel, I am defiantly against the Habitat Conservation plan,proposed by The City of Po way. Especially when it includes privately owned land I can understand the concern for the environment, and fm not apposed to sitting aside land, what I am apposed to is the confiscation of privately owned land without considering the rights of us land owners, or fair and just compensation! My husband and I purchased our property over twenty years ago, knowing that as our family grew so would our investment. and when the time came, we could build our retirement home. As Voters and Tax payers, I feel our Rights are being Violated. Some of the land owners have already built home on their property and are now being told that they no longer have the right to use their property. Whether or not the land has a house on it or it remains raw land, the point is, it is privately owned. I understand that this study of the environment has been going on for three years. We were never infonned of the study, until now,and were only given thirty days in which to reply. Not once were we asked permission by anyone to trespass on our land, nor were we made any kind of offer to purchase our land We were told only that the City of Po way, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Calif. Department ofFish andGame ,planed to sit aside our land for the environmentally sincative plant and wildlife. I think that is a travesty of justice. Can it be that we the voters of this United States, have less right than the creatures that crawl, slither, or fly over our property? I certainly hope not. Sincerely, c/ dnu"" .7K. ~-i.K Louise M. Bernd AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b .J 50 of 77 - - ..,r-.;L. H~;HHI'" PHONE: NG. : bl~ 4S~:1"79~' ..:: "::.::..::::: '::'4: -2-:::'M ;:.: ~ FAX MESSAGE TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS CITY OF POWAY FAX 7481455 "COPY" --. TO: City of Poway, Planning Services Depl. 7/24/95 Jim Nessel. Senior Planner FAX 6797438 FROM: Sandy Arsham, 956 Maple 51., Ramona 92065 HE: Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan - APN2782002000 ..-.-----------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------_.- -.----------- Having attended the informational meeting earlier this month. I have many concerns regarding the above proposal. Although my husband and I support habitat con$ervation efforts. giving 80% of our land over to the cause seems a bit extrenle Our property IS 10 acres with a pad. mostly slope, and an existing well. It I~ " the J edge of the future conservation area. A paved track, Quail Run. is on one edge. It was CD purchased in 1986, with no restrictions on its use reported to us at the time We learned of the conservation plan only this month. We have now been tOIO that our future pad will probably be clustered with others, that we cannot plant a grove of trees. eD that we may not clear an adequate firebreak, and we can use only 2 acres .,!though we will continue to pay for all of it. Ironically, the same week we received notification that we will be part of a Poway assessment district proposed to pay for new road maintenance. I need assurances from the City that my property value is not being eroded by these ]<D regulations If selling it for mitigation purposes is its only use at thiS point. you shoul1 make me a fair offer and buy il. I object to the property being included in the HCP without such an offer. Please feel free to contact me to discuss the matter at 789-8915. ~D't.:.!~qll.Qst thaI the matter be taken from the Citv Council agenda until such time as t.lliU:oncerns. )1 the small prooertv owners have been addressed. 51 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 I - -- - ------" -.J\:) ;Oft.) ~H^ .\.U. b.~l,j.~b:::~ P. 03 ~.~ .~i)~~f~~~~"~:'~"" ~ 7!l..r/,r '~. ,\ "'" "'>;~' ~~(\L.1-)'<f-1S ' 'I'. ',(, <,'... ...:,' ..., . ~. " ) ,". t.... , . " ~~~ ~~~ ~ July 20, 1995 Bill and Sheila Cockerell Post Offi~. Sox 14~O Pcway, CA. 92074 Mr. Cail C. I<obetich Field Su~erviscr US Fish and Wildlife 5ervic~ 2730 Lokar Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Kobetich: Wa are writing this to voice our oPPOsition to the Poway Subbr~a Habitat Conservation Plan developed between your depal'tmen t &r.d the City of Poway. When we attended the. informational meetini held in the City c,r Poway we were surprised to learn that your orsanization and the City of Poway have been working on this ~lan for th~ ~aat three Years. Sinc~ the imp~ementation of this plan drastically affe~ts us and othar land owners in the City of Poway Wo!r are concerned that we were never consulted about same, durin. this thre,e year CD period. The Poway Subarea Habitat Consel'vation Plan is contained in tr.rea volumes, and contains almost as many words as the Clinton Heelth Care Plan, yet we most affected by this ~lan were aive litt.:e more than a month to read, digest and or;anize our actions. We feel at an unfair advantage, and demand more time before this is voted upon. This plan takes away trom us Virtually all our rights as -:,,,ni7rs of property, yet it offers no compensation to us. We al'd the owners of 32.65 acres of land in north Poway. Six years .!liO we buil t our home on this land. Under this plan not only would b~ CD deprived of our riehtl to d~velop our land by addine trees and landscapins or perhaps the addition of a barn, aviary, fish pond, or tennis court, we are even deprived of our riehts to w.!llk c.n our land. Thil:l plan calls for the outrieht taking of our land which is private property and is a blatant violation of OUr basic ,:onsti tutional rights. Cordially yours, ~ ~,.~ r }-" t;t:'J I J.II6IJJt/t.t ( i;,r.. , _. ~ JI1 _I: .~~) JL~h199) , , tll Cockerell AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 7./0 'Is I 52 of 77 ....4.~!~~ \~:~,,, ''''':'':'I('C ,....." . -. -. - .-. ......'-, r. U"'I . ~:":!:""~~."',' ~,~:_.. ~%4 7/~s; t~IW'" ('o.M~ *'" ......, . July 19, 1995 ~~l\ l.. 7- , -'", ~u~~~ Ron and Carol Baker ~w~ .lOr 3344 Lakeview Dr. Spring Valley, CA 91977 (619) 698-9165 Mr. Gail C. Kobetich Field Supervisor US. Fish and Wildlife SerVice 2730 Lokar Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Kobetich, This writing submitted on behalf of my husband, a self-employed painting contractor and myself, an elementary school teacher as private property owners within the City of Poway, is our response to the proposed Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan developed between your department, the City of poway and the CalifornIa Department of Fish and Game. According to information shared at a public informational meeting by the senior planner from the City of Poway to the private land owners effected by this issue, your department and the City of poway have been negotiating and developing this plan over the past three years. At no time were we, the priva"land OW""n, privy to 'ny of~", """'''''lion negoti'tion during ] this three year period With the City 0 Poway, We, the land owners, were SE'nt CD three, one-page Informational sheets less than two months ago and are being 1 strong-armed by the City of Poway to accept this proposal before an August 15, 1995 deadline. The public informational meeting highlighted another issue Which appears from a 5th Amendment Constitutional perspective to be highly illegal and a misuse of governmental power. The senior planner stated that the City of Poway purchased mitigated land, land which according to your definition is located in highly sensitive conservation areas, for an extension of the Scripps I Poway Parkway Extension Project, and in an effort to proceed with the 10 extension tra~d and condemned our property for this transaction. In the process of condemnation, the City of Poway forgot the concept of eminent domain and one clause in the amendment which states that private property shall not "be taken for public: use without just compensation." Under continued questioning, the planner refused to pay just compensation to any of the private land Owners for the taking of our land and skirted the issue of reducing oW' property tax if implemented. ClhJ F~ CP~ ~r-( ~'~kV ;.U I 'c ~J:. . I ~rl 53 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM .b JUL~ ~ 1995 7. ~ ~s - ---- ; <,-'.. >::.',\;'f: ~'\':~;:'~'\_~ ~~~~~ ' "\~r ,~ ' ' ~"{~'.~,,.< , Page 2 Another Important and questionable issue Is the determination of how the minimal land usage under the Section 10 permit by the City of Poway was formulated and forced upon the private land owners. According to this token gesture, only two acres -no matter what the size of land holding-can be developed and only one residential unit can be constructed on the property. CD In other words, our twenty acre parcel Is reduced to two acre usage (development areas not the choice of the property owner but of the City of pow.y) with 'ond......llon of the ....alnlng 18...... That "'mpules to only J 10% property usage while property owners with a total of two acres have 100% usage of their property. How can this be justified as common sense and equality of property right? " As a teacher, I no longer hold to the belief that our country Is based upon the Constitution and democracy, that is left to the interpretation of governmental agencies and power-hungry individuals who wield power with no immunity. Conservation history of the late 1800's and early 1900's held to the belief that the outright "taking" of private property is not only dishonorable but a blatant violation of basic Constitutional rights. John Muir, Genoral Grant and Stephen Mather, preservationists of Sequoia Park, had a vision but acquired private land through legitimate channels. The private owner of 160 acres in the middle of Sequoia Park was not forcibly coerced by these honorable men into relinquishing the land and losing basic property rights. The proposed Poway plan does not mirror the integrity of past conservationist theory, If you as a conservationist hold to the original beliefs of your predecessors then reconsideration of the plan is in order. Respectfully, ~&,f'~ Carol Baker A disillusioned countryman C.c. "- 54 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ", 'l.. ''''~j ,., ~\":'\'" .... - - ~;,..; ."~' ~..'~'\':\ .,' 1 \..' /-18-95 .;t:,., '~ai J C. Kobet lct'l United States Department of the Interior .' Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad. California 92008 Dear Ms. Kobet I Ch, I would llIee to SUbmit the following comments in response to the "Environmental Assessment and Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for the Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit and Management Authorization to the City of Poway for the California Gnatcatcher" and- "poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Hereafter referred to as ""the project""; o As this is a very complex Issue that deals with potential absuSive governmental regulatlons and potential violations of the United States Constitution Firth Amendment Rights the ( pub 1 i c should have more that thirty days to respond to "the project". Please extend the comment period to 21 September 1995. o The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is presently under Congressiona I review. "the project" should be put on hold until Congress mak,es Its decisions and changes. For instance if the ESA is changed such that habitat modification Is not Considered a take, then a fundamental basis for "the project" is removed. The corresponding Changes required for "the project" would be a shameful waste of taxpayers dollars that could be saved by putting "the project- on hold. o As the public becomes aware of the MSCP there has been an increasing outcry that the MSCP is fraught with problems. I I believe'that YOu,have heard many of these yourself. The County -.Q Board of Supervisors supports a "Deal Plan" that seeks to remove :I private property from the Focused Planning Areas of the MSCP. ~ The supervisors and others seek significant change to the MSCP I believe that since the MSCP is In 8 state of flux and that "the In ~ project" is based upon the MSCP that your organlzat10n and tr.> poway should delay "the project- until the MSCP is approved. .... CD See enclosures'~ (Deal Points and Letter from Michael Beck). ~ ,. ~ 55 of 77 Please Incorporate these Items as comments to "the proJect". "'" llU. ~1:l~JI:lOL~ r, UI . '! ~ .,- ';.r ... 1:- ... '\::':".~ :.. .'\' - - -- . na,I i.W* ~ "the project" Is Missing an Initial StUdy Checklist , Th~ should be corrected. o The Environmental assessment part of "the project" refers to Table I-I I.e. Page 2-12 "Transportatlon Improvements are prOjected to Occur In Poway as listed In Table I-I." Page 4-16 I "As discussed above, the MOdified RCA Alternative would not provide the Implementing document needed to acquire endangered species permits for the public Infrastructure Improvements lIsted in Table I_I. Page 3-13 "As Indicated In Table I-I, improvements to a municipal golf course and development of a linear park are planned within the RCA" Yfi.. Table l.::l..dop.s OOt discl/ss the~e items whatsoev~r arut. is a tahle .thaLlim Species This mlJ~t he....corrected arut..tbJt.correction~ UO!...2YL1Q a.u..reSDondee~ nrior: 1!L:the-~ approval. o Until the Federal Government guarantees that additional endangered species Will not be added, Impacting "the prOject", or fUnding guaranteed up front "the project" should not proceed o There is no economic justification for "the project" and it represents a tremendous waste of taxpayers dollars. The economic rational for the MSCP Is based on false and misguided assUmptions. - o It is my belief that if "the project" is approved as it stands that it will engender much litigation. Please consider our taxpayers dollars and delay the project untll the expressed concerns of the pUblic are considered and proper change Incorporated. o It is my organizations belief that this project represents a very sophisticated attempt to denigrate property owners Fifth -Q Amendment Rights, Is representativl! of bad government and Should ll~t proceed without the vote of the general voting public. a "the project" and'MSCP should be cancelled unless all privately ~ held lands are Pulled out and landowners partiCipate only on a ...., Willing basis. The NCCP 15 a VOluntary program and Is a basis ~ for the MSCP and "the project". Yet the MSCP and "the project" It:I are Ifterally being forced down peoples throats. Th1s must stop! .... ~ = Cit1zens for Pr1vate Property Rights y~?n;/~~ P.O. Box 441 . r J of 77 Santa Ysabel. CA 92070 (61 g) 789-5R7A - -_._.--~_._-_..- JrJl ~ RECEIVED U ~ ("4'~-<...v JUl - 5 1995 625 Wilson Rd. ~,..-... 'i Atlanta, GA 30318 CITY OF POWAY July I, 1995 CITY MANAGERS OFFICE Poway City Council PO Box 789 Poway, CA 92074-0789 Re: Parcel number 322-041-11-00, on Crestline Dr. Joint EA and Initial StudvlProposed Mitivation Declaration Associated Amendment 95-01. Associated Gradinl1 Ordinance Amendment Associated Poway Redevelopment A~encv Resolution of Approval' Proposed City ofPowav Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan(J>owav Subarea HCP) Proiect and Companion Implementinl: A~reementlMana~ement Authori711tion (I AlMA) Applicant City ofPowavlPoway Redevelopment A~ency Sirs: Although you indicate my property is not impacted by the referenced issue and the fact that I cannot attend the proposed hearing on August 15, 1995 on the referenced subject, please note my formal objections as a property owner in the City of Poway to specific issues raised in the proposal that may impact my property: I formally object to any element of the proposed changes in ordinances and/or agreements with Local, County, State or Fede~a1 authorities or agencies that applies conditions that restrict or prevent development of single family housing on my private property. I object to any regulation, agreement or law that applies restrictions to development of a private, single family residence on the referenced parcel that is to be applied after the purchase date of the property, or after the ddate on which any activity to develop or build has begun (such activities including, but are not restricted to, seeking building/grading permits, conducting archjt~tural studies, improving the land, performing percolation studies and offering the land for sale to private parties for such purposes), as this represents effectively an official "taking" of my property withhout compensation, limits of my rights as a property owner after the fact, and causes me uncompensated financial hann by the government through no action of my own. In adddition to the objections noted above, I further object to any regulation, agreement or law that prevents the effective use of land, including clearing of vegetation, if that regulation, agreement or law prevents clearing at least 33% of the total acreage of the property for use as a construction and living site for a single unit, family dwelling. Regards, Henry Paris 57 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 - ~--"~- --~-_._,-- Dan Silver Endangered Habitats League July 17, 1995 1. The analysis of potential development and fragmentation within the Resource Conservation Area (RCA) presented in the HCPfNCCP was based on the potential buildout analysis (Section 4.4 and Map 2). This analysis was performed to understand the maximum potential development and fragmentation that could occur, assuming the following 1) maximum buildout under the general plan provided that 2) city water is extended into all rural residential areas (which would increase allowable housing density) and 3) without considering the siting controls of the HCP's specific development requirements, (which were designed to reduce fragmentation). For these reasons, the analysis overestimates the actual potential for development and fragmentation throughout most of the RCA The provisions of the special development requirements (Section 7.3) further reduce this potential (see response to next comment). The EAIIAIMND impact analysis for the preferred alternative was based on the most likely scenario for development and fragmentation that would unfold given implementation of the HCP and all of its provisions. Although the same (under- estimated) percent preservation figures are utilized in this analysis as in the potential buildout analysis, this analysis presumes that proper implementation of the HCPfNCCP will guide development away from areas of high resource value and will minimize internal fragmentation, hence resulting in an "interconnected preserve sufficient to sustain . ecological communities," and that losses "would be largely restricted to already disturbed or fragmented habitats." Although there are no assurances that all PRP As will be purchased before any development occurs in them, guidelines of the special development requirements will ensure habitat connectivity to the extent practicable and feasible, so long as the HCPfNCCP is functioning properly. Although some fragmentation will probably still occur, substantial fragmentation is contrary to the goals of the HCPfNCCP and would indicate that the HCPfNCCP is not functioning properly and would be grounds for revocation of the Section 10(a) permit, the CESA/NCCP MOV, and the prelisting agreements. The discussion of impacts of the preferred alternative in the EAIIAIMND will be expanded to clarifY these points, particularly the potential for fragmentation within the preserve and the controls to minimize this fragmentation. 2. The Poway HCP and MSCP public review draft indicate that low density residential is a conditionally compatible use based on case-by-case review and biological survey 58 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 recommendations Although it is not desirable from a conservation perspective to include development within core preserves, it is also infeasible to remove all development potential on private property without just compensation to landowners. The plan accommodates both private property rights and conservation objectives to the degree feasible and practicable. 3. Section 6.2.2.1 of the RCP/NCCP discusses the fact that prescribed burning would be biologically preferred as a fuel management tool but is not currently possible in Poway due to economic, safety, and persoMel training constraints. Fire management issues in preserve areas are currently being discussed between local fire management agencies (through the San Diego County Fire Association) and wildlife agencies in the MSCP study area. 4. Potential impacts within biological core and linkage areas are likely to be far less severe than the maximum buildout analysis indicates (see response I). Furthermore, they are mitigated by the special development requirements, which require project-specific biological resource surveys, careful siting of development to minimize impacts, onsite and off site mitigation compensation (at adequate ratios), and other restrictions and guidelines designed to ensure the continued integrity of core and linkage areas. Any project that is proposed in the RCA will require a biological survey report that shall address "compatibility of the action with the objectives, strategies, and requirements of the . . . RCP" These project-specific biological reports will provide the specific information required for the PRP A-specific analysis requested in the comment. Existing information is insufficient to prepare the analysis at this time. The required biological survey reports shall also include recommendations for "mitigating, preserving, monitoring, and managing resources in the context of the. . . RCP." Adherence to the recommended mitigation measures shall be required for permit issuance. The special development requirements also require that, to the extent feasible and practical, development be sited to avoid impacts to biological resources and to maintain functional habitat linkages and movement corridors. They set minimum width provisions for wildlife movement corridors and habitat linkages that must be adhered to by project design, and encourage clustering to avoid uMecessary fragmentation of habitat. 5. The compensation mitigation and acquisition program is only one portion of the overall mitigation program of the RCP. The special development requirements contain numerous onsite and off site mitigation measures to minimize and compensate for impacts to biological resources in the preserve area. (See also response 4.) 59 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ___ _____u____.....___ ---~_._.~_._~-~----_.."----_._------,,_.__.,-_._,_._. - ------------------ 6. The City of Poway does not have funding for a wide-spread trapping program for feral animals, and trapping of free-ranging house cats or dogs would be politically undesirable in rural residential areas. There likely will be some impacts caused by feral animals; however, the preserve design will allow for continued use of the preserve area by coyotes and other large predators that will discourage and minimize use of open space preserve areas by house pets. 7. The City has 200' scale aerial photographs (dated December 1990) as a reference as well as current vegetation data which shows disturbed vegetation. Guaranteed aerial surveys are not necessary to monitor compliance. Monitoring will be accomplished through the City's existing code enforcement process, mitigation monitoring, and ongoing project review, which may well be supplemented by aerial surveys for the subregional MSCP monitoring program. 8. Comment noted. The Poway Subarea HCP is a multiple habitat conservation plan in keeping with the MSCP and MHCP objectives, and therefore implicitly recognizes the biological importance of all natural habitats in the area. Poway's initial Focus Planning Area boundary for the HCP is based on the multi-habitat preserve alternative. 9. Alternative 3 is not the proposed action accomplished quickly. The proposed action targets the most biologically important and at-risk areas (pRPAs) for acquisition, while allowing limited development to occur in less critical portions of the RCA pursuant to the special development requirements. Alternative 3 would prohibit all development within the RCA (not just within PRPAs), which is in conflict with the Poway General Plan and the Paguay Redevelopment Plan. Furthermore, since funding to purchase all private lands within the RCA is highly unlikely to materialize quickly, this alternative would be accomplished more slowly than the proposed action; and in the interim, this action would constitute a "taking" of all private property rights from landowners in the affected area. Finally, since essentially all available funds for this alternative would need to be channeled into land purchase, little or no funding would be available for preserve management and monitoring. For these reasons, it is unclear whether Alternative 3 would better accomplish conservation goals than the more balanced, proposed action. 60 of 17 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b . - 10. The special development requirements and implementing provisions of the RCP take the role of the interim controls suggested by the comment. The RCP/NCCP is a combination "hard-line" and "soft-line" plan that adequately addresses the need for controls in the soft line areas (see response 4). II. The approved HCP/NCCP and accompanying IA will replace the current City resolution GP A 95-02 implementing the special 4( d) rule for the listing of the gnatcatcher. The special development requirements and implementing provisions of the RCP effectively take over the role of the current 4( d) rule ordinance by emphasizing connectivity and preservation of high value coastal sage scrub. 12. The "safety nets" mentioned in the comment are incorporated into the RCP via the special development requirements, which ensure that ecological functions, contiguity, and connectivity be considered as part of the routine pennit review and CEQA review process of the City of Poway. This also includes the requirement for project-specific biological surveys and recommendations. Acquisition will be pursued in the event that development prejudicial to the biological objectives of the RCP is proposed and that no other resolution to the conflict seems possible. 13. The City of Poway wishes to avoid any use of eminent domain. The special development requirements, mitigation compensation and ratios, along with compliance with the provisions of the IA, would eliminate the need for eminent domain. 14. See responses 4, 10, 11 and 12. 15. The NCCP, MSCP, and Poway Subarea RCPINCCP are all ecosystem- and habitat-based approaches which recognize that copious, species-specific data are not currently available and cannot be made available quickly. One premise of these conservation plans is that it is better to achieve a sufficiently large and interconnected preserve soon than to wait until we have all the answers and none of the habitats. Specific information on the adequacy of each linkage and habitat area to assess value for every species is neither available nor necessary to achieve the conservation goals of the' RCPINCCP. More detailed 61 of 77 AUG 15 1995 na:.M 6 information will become available from the biological resources survey reports required as part of the permitting process for each project in the RCA and from the ongoing monitoring program implemented as part of the MSCP. 16. See response I. 17. See responses 1,4, 5, 10, II, and 12. 18. Section 10(a) standards require that adequate funding be assured to implement the HCP. Implementing the HCP and realizing its biological objectives do not require that all land within the RCA or PRP As be purchased. Acquisition is only one of many implementing measures used to achieve plan objectives (see responses I, 4, 5, 12). The plan will be implemented primarily using existing City staff, according to procedures and processes already largely in place, using the Poway general fund, and requiring little additional funding. Section 6.5.4 of the HCP/NCCP provides a preliminary analysis of compensation mitigation available for PRP A acquisition; this analysis suggests that sufficient funding is available for the acquisition program portion of the HCP/NCCP. See Section 7.1 of the Implementing Agreement for an overview of the specific funding mechanisms. 62 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 Cindy Burrascano California Native Plant Society July 20, 1995 1. Due to the complexity of the maps, additional overlays would make them too difficult to read. The two maps can be fairly readily compared side by side, or can be overlayed on a light table or window for a more precise comparison. 2. The Poway sensitive species database is the same as the MSCP database for Poway, and is the best available to our knowledge. 3. If specific plant species infonnation is incorrect in the database, the City would appreciate mapped infonnation. Biological surveys required by the pennit review process of the HCP will be used to update and verify specific biological infonnation. 4. Specific infonnation on non-target species is not available for Poway, beyond what is available in the MSCP database. No specific surveys were perfonned as part of the HCP/NCCP. 5. The southwestern portion of the City of Poway contains a few vernal pools on small habitat fragments. These fragments were excluded from the focused planning area (FP A) and RCA due to their size, isolation, degree of disturbance, and lack of sensitive species. None of the vernal pools remaining in Poway are known to support listed plant species. 6. The estimated level of preservation is underestimated for some vegetation communities in Table 8-1 of the HCP/NCCP and Table 4-3 of the EAlIAIMND. This is particularly true for wetlands types, because the "no net loss" policy was not included as an assumption in the maximum potential buildout calculations. These calculations assumed 1) that all habitat would be protected on cornerstones; 2) that habitats in the balance of the RCA not removed after maximum potential buildout would be protected; and 3) that no habitat would be protected outside of the RCA. Freshwater marsh and some other wetlands types in Poway are represented by small remnant fragments outside of the RCA, in already 63 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 >'l urbanized areas. Thus, they contribute little to the preserve system or to the calculated level of habitat preservation. Nevertheless, wetlands habitats both inside and outside of the ReA are protected by existing state and federal wetlands protection (no net loss). The calculated levels of protection under the Poway Subarea HCPINCCP therefore underestimate the actual level of protection provided wetlands under existing state and federal guidelines. 64 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ... - EA Littlefield Palomar Audubon Society July 20, 1995 1. The clause, "to the extent feasible and practical" is included in some of the special development requirements to allow City planning staff and the resources agencies some flexibility in solving case-by-case development situations. In some cases it may not be possible or desirable to adhere to all requirements. For example, avoiding placement of development in sensitive habitat may conflict with attempts to site it adjacent to existing development or roads. In such cases, siting a pad within sensitive habitat may achieve overall preserve goals better than siting it elsewhere. Also, many natural constraints exist in this area of Poway including steep slopes, rock outcrops, protected hilltops and ridgelines, wildland fire hazards, unstable soils, geologic hazards, soils formations, etc. that must be considered. The plan includes sufficient safety nets to ensure that this flexibility is not abused. The lA provides assurances that certain acreage and overall plan design criteria will be met for the preserve system. Although individual developments may sometimes deviate from precise guidelines, the overall thresholds must be maintained for the plan area. 60, of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 --~-- -- -~ - - Alfonso Moya SANREX Co., LTD. July 21, 1995 The plan will be revised to include as a new PRP A that portion of the Sanrex property located within the City of Poway. However, another portion of the property is within Poway's sphere of influence but in County of San Diego jurisdiction. The HCP therefore does not apply to that portion. Nevertheless, pursuant to provisions of the IA, land in Poway's sphere of influence that later becomes annexed to the City will automatically become included in the HCP, at which time the land would be reviewed for inclusion as a PRP A. Prior to the annexation of the sphere area, the City will strongly encourage the County of San Diego to include the unincorporated portion of the Sanrex property within the Poway sphere as the County subarea plans are prepared. The HCP text will be revised to encourage mitigation purchases in the portion of the Sanrex property currently outside of Poway for projects that impact habitat outside of the HCP area, because conservation of the entire Sanrex property would benefit regional conservation efforts, including the Poway Subarea HCP. 06 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 - Dr. Dorothea Hover, Ed.D, RN July 20, 1995 Thank you for your support. 67 ~f 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 -.I John R. Hilsabeck, M.D., FAC.S. July 20, 1995 I. The California Government Code requires the City to notifY owners and seek their input after a draft of a plan is available for public review and set for a public hearing. The noticing was conducted per the state law. 2. The Poway Subarea HCP/NCCP would provide mitigation for all public and private projects allowed within the City's jurisdiction. The Subarea HCP/NCCP does not establish a land bank; however, banks may be established by individual property owners as desired. 3. The required mitigation for the Scripps-Poway Parkway extension was to purchase mitigation lands and to prepare the subject Subarea HCP/NCCP, which would mitigate the regional coastal sage scrub impacts from constructing the parkway extension. Adoption of a Subarea HCP/NCCP will enable the City to obtain an Endangered Species Act Section lO(a) permit for the Scripps-Poway Parkway. In addition, the HCP/NCCP will mitigate for the public projects listed in Table 2-1 of the EA (page 2-4) as well as private projects permitted under the General Plan and existing zoning. Thus, individual Section 10(a) permits and HCP/NCCPs will not be required for each public or private project that might impact listed species. 4. The preparation of the Subarea HCP/NCCP was funded by the capital improvements budget for Scripps-Poway Parkway since the HCP/NCCP will enable the City to obtain an Endangered Species Act Section lO(a) permit and a Section 208112835 Management Authorization for the Scripps-Poway Parkway project. 5. Property value is based primarily on the current entitlements under the zone. The Poway HCP does not change the existing zoning on a property nor change the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on a parcel. Development in Poway is already limited by regulations contained in the grading ordinance, zoning code, hillside development guidelines, and Proposition FF. Development is also already limited by federal and state endangered species law and regulations. Land use regulation (including habitat preservation) has been upheld by the U. S Supreme Court. 68 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ".ill 6. As stated on page 7-9 of the Subarea HCP/NCCP (Section 7.3.2, Specific Development Requirements), the amount of habitat disturbance on a legal lot shall not exceed 2 acres. The number of legal lots on a parcel is dependant on parcel size, zoning, and average slope, per the City's General Plan slope-density formula (shown in Figure 4-2 of the HCP/NCCP). For example, if a parcel is 100 acres, is zoned RR-A, has an average slope of 10 percent, and is not served by the City's water system (i.e., on septic), a maximum of five legal lots (dwelling units in the case of a residential zone) would be allowed under the General Plan and zoning. Therefore, a maximum of 10 acres of habitat disturbance would be allowed under the Subarea HCP/NCCP on the 100-acre parcel (5 lots at 2 acres each) Human access is not restricted by the Subarea HCP/NCCP. Existing improvements (e.g., fences) shall not be removed or otherwise affected without owner consent. 7. Clustering of units will be acheived on a project-by-project basis dependant upon location of existing roadways or easements, the location of sensitive habitat to be avoided, and other constraints. This would occur as part of the discretionary or building permit process. Also, the specific development requirements proposed in the Subarea HCP/NCCP contains guidelines for clustering, as well as the lot averaging provisions in the Zoning Development Code for Rural Residential zoned lands. 8. Existing fences and other improvements are not required to be removed. 9. The City has complied with CEQA and the provisions of the California Government Code regarding advertising and public notice requirements. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive public testimony and comment of the environmental document and Subarea HCP/NCCP. The City sent out about 2,380 notices regarding the public information meeting on July 6th. Approximately 30 people attended this meeting, and 13 public comment letters were received on the EA and Subarea HCP/NCCP. The 30-day public review period is provided by CEQA, Section 21091. The Poway Subarea HCP/NCCP is not a substantial departure from the City's current regulations contained in the General Plan, Paguay Redevelopment Plan, zoning code, and grading ordinance. 69 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 . , -------------- -- -- 10. The status quo (to continue as is) would not meet the City's objective to obtain a Section ID(a) pennit for the construction of the Scripps-Poway Parkway project and for future public and private projects in the City. In addition, the status quo would not be in compliance with the NCCP and the region's committment to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act while maintaining local control over development and pennits. Finally, the status quo would require each property owner to undertake the often lengthy and expensive Section ID(a) pennitting process for a project that may result in "take" of listed species or their habitat. The HCPINCCP alternative replaces this requirement by giving the City local authority to allow take, so long as the proposed project substantially complies with the HCPINCCP guidelines. , AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 I 70 of 77 - A Aviano and N. Bothwell July 17, 1995 The biological core and linkage area (BCLA) is drawn at a gross scale, is not parcel- specific, and consequently includes some areas of little habitat value. The HCP is designed to protect natural habitats within the BCLA, and does not necessarily prohibit uses of those non-natural areas included within the BCLA In response to this comment, the BCLA will be revised to coincide with the existing natural habitat on the area in question (the coast live oak riparian forest along the southern fringe of the subject parcels. AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 7, of 77 ------- Louise and Doug Bernd July 19, 1995 See responses I, 5, 8 and 10 to comments by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. F.A.CS. AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 . 72 of 77 - Sandy Arsham July 24, 1995 I. The City incorporated in December 1980 and adopted its first General Plan in the Fall of 1983. The Plant and Animal Resources Element of the General Plan contained specific goals, objectives, and policies concerning biological resources. The General Plan was updated in 1991 and the protection of these resources was strengthened. The Poway Zoning Development Code and Municipal Code also include regulations concerning land development. 2. The Poway HCP does not change the existing zoning on a property nor change the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on a parcel. Under the City's existing regulations, development is already limited by regulations contained in the grading ordinance, zoning code, hillside development guidelines, and Proposition FF. Development is also already limited by federal and state endangered species law and regulations. 3. See responses 5, 6, and 9 to comments by John R Hilsabeck, M.D. F.AC.S. 73 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 - - - - -- -_._._~-- -- Bill and Sheila Cockerell July 20, 1995 1. See response 9 to comment by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. F.A.CS. 2. See response 5 to comment by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. F.A.C.S. The HCP limits disturbance to 2 acres per legal parcel, and does not prohibit landscaping, barns, aviaries, and the other uses mentioned in the comment. The HCP does not, of course, prohibit walking on one's own property. 74 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b - Ron and Carol Baker July 19, 1995 1. See response 9 to comment by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. FAC.S. 2. See response 5 to comment by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. FAC.S. 3. See response 6 to comment by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. F.A.C.S. 7S of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 --_..~----- ~-------_._-----_._- Jack M. Gibson Citizens for Private Property Rights July 18, 1995 See response 5 to comment by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. F.A.C.S. 76 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 " - Henry Paris July 1, 1995 See response 5 to comment by John R. Hilsabeck, M.D. F.A.C.S. 77 of 77 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 I - AUGUST 8, 1995 A TT ACHED ARE LETTERS RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF THE STAFF REPORT, ALONG WITH A LIST OF PERSONS WHO SUBMITTED A FORM LETTER IDENTICAL TO THAT ENCLOSED FROM JOHN & DIANA AUGUSTINE. WE WILL DISTRIBUTE ADDITIONAL LETTERS AND A LIST OF THOSE SUBMITTING THE FORM PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 15, 1995 MEETING. 77a AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 '.i - JAMES S. DUBERG AnoRNEV AT LAW n1~DAYENUE 0<<.l.A VIST.... CAlIFORNIA .,"~ TElEPHONE (81'''','400 F.....oDE" tlI18I'21.o13' MCIMAll JOUIlERG - RECEIVED CERTIFIED MAIL \ RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ,.~ 8 ",.., ""' ~. ~\l': \..: J_U~. '... -.' August 4, 1995 , CITY OF rc';:,;y - City Clerk of Poway CITY CLERr;'s OFFICE Mayor Don Higginson Deputy Mayor Susan Callery Council Members: Bob Emery, Mickey Cafagna and Betty Rexford P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074-0789 Reference: Poway Habitat Conservation Plan Assessor's Parcel No.: 322-010-45, 322-010-07 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I object to the Habitat Conservation Plan that is scheduled for onsideration at the City Council meeting on August 15, 1995. I am an owner of parcel numbers 322-010-45 and 322-010-07. I object to the Habitat Conservation Plan and request that you do not approve or adopt that plan. The plan constitutes an unlawful taking of my property rights without just compensation, in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions and many applicable statutes. Furthermore, the plan fails to comply with requirements of CEQA. A full environmental impact report should have been done in connection with the plan, taking into account the economic impact on the included properties. On behalf of all owners of the above-referenced parcel, I object to the Habitat Conservation Plan and reserve my right to challenge it in Court if it is approved. Sincerely, J~ James S. Duber JSD:kj e.c..... ?~--". \ AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 ... 77b ------.-.- -- RECEnJ[J l1e AUG v: ell'( ur ,..OWAY 8-6-95 Dear Mr. Council Member, CITY MANAGERS OFFICE I just read the article "Counc;il Poised to Take Private Pro- perty Without Compensation." I was at that meeting and that that is what I feel the City Council is about to do. I saw couples with 32 or 40 acres bought with hard earned money to use for their retirement told that the City Council would vote and then they could only use 2 acres of it. The rest of it they would still pay taxes on, but could not use at they wish--could not disturb the habi ta t. One man said they had a fire on their property so there was no habitat to preserve. He was told he could not use it anyway, cause the habitat may grow back someday. I nearly choked. Apparently meetings have been going on about this since 1993. But us land owners were not informed until 1 month before you council members would vote. This does not give any time to do much about it~ does it? That doesn't seem proper to me. Twice, I raised my hand asking, "this is illegally confisca- tion of private property, isn't it711 Twice, the lady in charge did not answer my question. Shouldnt there be compensation made to these landowners you would be dealing with? Shouldn't they be notified far in advance? Shouldn't the lady in charge answer my question as well as all the others? This seems to me to be a violation of our property rights/ -D and though my land is under 2 acres, I am afraid that some new == ~ endangered insect/plant will mean you doing the same thing to me. I wrote to you members about the amphitheater, and only 2 ~ "" of you bothered to answer. I am hoping this time will be different ..... CD I protest, this is not honest, fair dealings w~th citizens. = C Don't vote this in. Sincerely, Mrs. D.Kay Martin -- "I A .I, . ., " ~The ....., Hirsch' '.. Company . , SmoJl Business Pension RECEIVED .' Professionals r \ AUG 8 1995 - , August 7, 199.s ,- CITY OF pm','AY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk Members of the City Council City of Poway P. O. Box 79 Poway, CA 92074-0789 RE: Joint Environmental Assessment, Associated General Plan Amendment 95-02, Associated Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-01, Associated Grading' Ordinance Amendment all concerning the Proposed City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan, Project and Companion Implementing AgreementlManagement Authorization We hereby request that our property, APN#278-300-72-00 be excluded from the above referenced proposal. We expect that inclusion will adversely affect our property value and our ability to utilize the property to its fullest. As we did not have the same opportunity for input given to staff, environmentalists and city planners, we would appreciate the opportunity to review all the data gathered on this proposal before being asked to give up property righ~ for this land. Sincerely, V22J-~ -- Mark D. Farrin .~ Alison A Farrin ":.' C-t... 7l't h 1\....) '" . rO.< .' . ' '. Dr. < Suile 230 < San Diego. Calilornia 92128 <(619) 45].9594 < (800) 454.2J78 < Fax: (6J9) 451.9688 77d AUG 1 5 1995 1TE1I6 .... August 7, 1995 RECEIVL /- AUG 8 19s ~. City Clerk of Poway \ CITY OF POw..~v P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074-0789 I .. f""-\' ...... ; 7""'~~'S r 'I":E Please distribute this letter immediately to the following persons: Mayor Don Higginson, Deputy Mayor Susan Callery, Council Members Mickey Cafagna, Bob Emery, and Betty Rexford. Marked copies are included to facilitate distribution. We hereby request that our property (Assessor's Parcel Number 320-020-28-00 located on Creek Road in Poway) be removed from the Joint Environmental Assessment and the Initial Study Proposed Mitigation Negative Declaration, Associated General Plan Amendment 95- 02, Associated Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-01, Associated Grading Ordinance Amendment, and Associated Poway Redevelopment Agency Resolution of Approval; all concerning the Proposed City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) Project and companion implementing agreement/management authorization. As property owners, we believe that inclusion of our property in the above mentioned plan will seriously and adversely affect our property. We purchased this property for the purposes of either investment (to sell at a later date) or to construct a ranch-style retirement home. The aforementioned plan precludes us from realizing either of these purposes because the plans limit development related improvements to the property, building pads, cut and fill slopes, driveways/roads, utilities easements, on and off site easements, ornamental landscaping (including unsightly brush/grass growth management which could represent a fire hazard to surrounding properties), sewage disposal and septic line installations, and all related facility/property improvements. Also, this plan is a violation of our constitutional Fifth Amendment rights; said amendment states emphatically that !lll private land shall be taken for public use without just compensation. Thus, you are limiting our use of our property without just compensation. Therefore, we are on record as opposing this plan and we respectfully request that our property be excluded from the plan. Yours truly, -~-C ~~J ~ z....:.> -' Ralph T. Crozier Thuy P. Crozier CJIL/~ ~fl:. J~ rP~ r..2./~9 ~ <:.. '. 'V lc.-v . :'1 77e AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ... - . ._. NiJas and Aslma ZeDkich 17595 Rancho De La Angel Ramona, CA 92065 (619) 789-4955 I rq:~t':ED \ August 4, 1995 ! ~'f~ 7 fS(.1~ , CiTY 6F POWAV .- CI1Y CLERK'S OFFICI! City Clerk poway City Hall 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92074-0789 RE: POW A Y SUBAREA YCP PROJECT AND IAlMA AS IT APPLIES TO THE POWAY REALTY WE OWN Dear City Clerk: We have reviewed the City of Poway's undated Notice pertaining to the proposed Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Memo dated 1une IS, 199' from the City of Poway providing "important information" concerning the proposed HCP. It identifies us as land owners targeted for the HCP. It further indicates that we, as such land owners, should have received the "lnitial StudylProposed Mitiaated Negative Declaration" ("the documents") via U.S. mail so as to be able to review them and comment on and/or object to them at the August 15, 199' public hearing or In a writing submitted to the City Clerk on or before that date. Please be advised that we never received the documents as promised in the Memo, making it difficult for us to review them, etc. We recently purchased the three "books" discussing the proposed Hep, and related issues, at a cost of $47.00. We found the volume and expense of information excessive. Poway's failure to provide us with the promised documentS was not the only problem with the Memo. The entire thing was confusing. The Memo states that failure by an effected landowner to object to the documents in person or in writing may somehqw limit his/her legal rights to challenge this matter in court. 77f AliG 1 5 1995 . ...v, 6 -~-- -~-_. -~ --- -- _.- -- ---- Although we do not believe that you have the power to limit our riJhts In this manner, we are protecting ourselves by' doing 'as requested in the Memo. Please be advised that with respect to this Rep situation, we object wholesale to the entirety of the contents of the documents as well as to the method of pushins tbtoUSh the environmental protection proposed In those documents. We eltpressly reserve all of our legal rights to challenge each IDCI every provision in the documents and all of the legal remedies deriving from each of our legal riahts. We flITl'l1y believe that if the City of Poway and/or any other lovenunemal entity(ies) pass this environmental protection measure, we must be compensated justly i.e., the loverument must purchase the land that is effected by that measure, which includes our Poway realty. Any attempt by the government to avoid fulfilling this obllption to us would be a violation of our Constitutional rights, and we would have no choice but to sue the wronadoers. I hope this situation does not require such costly and time-consumIni action. To that end. we are willing to hold meaningful discussions. with any iDtereste4 officials, regarding this matter. . . We can be reached at~~)~l~~n.e number listed above. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, t-;." . .t, , / ~:12 ,. ~"V1"'1 II ! {?~j ('v\....kZ< ,t Asima Zenkfch G' -.. -- ---.- 77g AUG 15 1995 ITEM Q .1 - - August 3, 1995 John and Diana Augustine 14210 Midland Road Poway, Ca. 92064 RECEIVED. The City Clerk of poway r- " Mayor Don Higginson AUG 7 1995 . Deputy Mayor Susan Callery I CITY OF POWAY .- , Bob Emery, Mickey Cafagna, & Betty Rexford CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear Council members, I know you all must get tired of nothing ever pleasing anyone, and I sure would not want your jobs, so I feel sorry for you, but not as sorry as I feel for the ..I pri vate property owner who seems to keep getting taken away from over and over. We bought property here in 1977, at that time zoned minimum 2 acres. Since then it was downzoned to 4 acres, then do-Wl'lzoned to 4 to 8 to 20, then downzoned by taking out slop averaging. 1977 = 36;!:. lots, today 3;!:. lots. I ~id for water, lots of 'V<iter, remember AD 79-1? $140,000 worth of water on zoning for 7 - 8 parcels. We just got our check for $38,000 for what we have spend 14 years paying for all the while the potential for splitting our property being continually robbed from us. but nml the ci ty is able to fix the water problem on Donart and SOI\E! lots above us can get water. Corne on guys, please stop taking from us! Everyone gets old and tired and has to retire someday. I still own my original property I bought in 1977, but I sure don't have what I paid for all these years. I implore you to take a look at what government is doing to some of us private little guys. We are not developers. Just hard working ordinary citizens who have tried to get ahead and while we an doing so, the government keeps taking from us for the good of the people, or this or that. We are the people too and nQ..one ever seems to pay us for what they take from us. Please , would you take a look at standing up for us, the private little guy and help us make government represent us more fairly? Hml much land in poway is owned by government? If there is really a need to preserve the birds and such, if we can't use what you already own, then how about buying it fair and square, but please stop supporting taking it from they people who work hard to pay for it. .Please do what you can to help us small guys take a stand. We are the people and I wonder who and what we are putting the higher value on these days. Sincerely, . 77h ,Qa?1~"/ utif - ITEM 6 l~" P.S. We \'Till be on vacation Aug 15th, hence the letter A 1 1995 PROPERTY OWNE~ KEOUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM TIn:. JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) AND lHE INITIAL STUDY (IS) PROPOSED MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 9S~2, ASSOCIATED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 9S~l, ASSOCIATED GRADING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, AND ASSOCIATED POW A Y REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLtmON OF APPROVAL; ALL CONCERNING lHE PROPOSED cm OF POWAY SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (POW A Y SUBAREA HCP ) PROJECT AND COMPANION IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTIMANAGEMENT AUTHORIZATION ( IA I MA), APPUCANT : cm OF POW A Y I POWAY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. RECEIVED. FROM: i '. Diana And John Auau~tine AUG 7 1995 14210 Midland Road Powav, Ca. 92064 CITY OF POWAY - . CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO: CITY a..ERK OFPOWAY.t DON HIGGINSON ,MAYOR, SUSANU" J:'Il.Y, I I ""^ I B EMERY, MICKEY CAFAGNA AND BETTY REXFORD, COUNcn. MEMBER'S. P.O. !laX 789 POWAY, CALIFORNIA 9207~789 fLEASE DISTRIm.l]J: TO A~RSQN~JJSIED ABQYE ~\~O Lettt\Q WE~6_~~HEST'IHATOURPROPERTY .ASS!SSOR'SPARCELNUMBER( S ): ~\i1::\.c tte~ .:'t 321-270-5600 314-193-4200 - ~llled jOlntly wlth Norman and Patrice S\ntzer ., 314-194-0200 *1 do not know if these 3 parcels are * 314-182-43 in thi~area but fiust in case I'm 15 n~ We as property owners. know that inclusion in the a ove men 'oned them. plans WILL ADVERSELY AFFEq our property and therefore respectfully request to NOT be included. This plan is a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights. you will reduce the values of our land. you will reduce the tax basis of Po way. You did not notify us properly. your planning process included planners. environmentalists. staff at the city. council members. but excluded the input from the land owners. Your map indicating areas of habitat was improperly done. your plan does not offer just compensation. You will be responsible for lowering the tax base on this land which will have an adverse effect on school funding and other public services. and you did not do an economic impact report. ?/)Jc;~ PRO~T;Yor DATE f I 8/3/95 .,; \ ~3-C::;';- PROPERTY OWNER DATE . John Augustine 8/3/95 (TEM 6 ~ 77; AUG 1:; 1995 - - IDENTICAL FORM RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS. ORIGINALS ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: Jane & Robin Loder Merrie Ann Jarvis 2240 Via Aprilia 15855 Quail Mountain Rd. Del Mar 92016 Poway 92064 APN: 277-093-04 APN: 278-200-23 (64 acres) Catherine 8arton Helen Smith/Joe Alvarez 2240 Via Aprilia Tierrea Thoroughbred Farms Del Mar 92014 5806 Bucknell Avenue APN: 277-090-22, 277-093-03 La Jolla 92037 APN: 322-041-03 (27.71 acres) Jack Lichty 322-041-01 (78 acres) 4961 Kendall St. 321-360-02 (136.27 acres) San Diego 92109 321-360-03 (6.25 acres) APN: 321-230-56, 321-200-74 Hilsabeck Trusts Edith Hooper 11611 S.W. Skyline Dr. 11502 Moen St. Santa Ana 9270 Anaheim 92804 Katherine Hilsabeck Ball APN: 317-241-37 2616 N. Delta Orange, Ca 92665 F. Douglas Troxler Susan Hilsabeck P.O. Box 1141 48814 Desert Flower Dr. Poway 92074 Palm Desert 92260 APN: 321-031-05 Anne Hilsabeck 16 Wellington Court -- Mr & Mrs. R. E. Sandoval Newport Beach 92660 9996 Dunbar Lane John R. Hilsabeck, Mr. El Cajon 92021 P.O. Box 920 APN: 321-260-06, 07, 08, 09 Mattapoisett, MA 02739 APN: 321-111-03, 321-160-11 David & Edie Barkin 321-100-04, 321-360-01 221 W. Crest St. 321-270-22, 23 Escondido 92025 APN: 320-050-02 Walter & Mary Jo Farber 28051 Glenmeade Way David & Katherine Barto Escondido 92026 13514 Maryearl Lane APN: 321-230-1400 Poway 92064-2933 APN: 314-650-30 Milton & Lisle DeBont 14020 Donart Dr. Loran & Gloria Imlay Poway 92064 1680 Yale St. APN: 321-260-20, 21 Chula Vista 91913 APN: 321-250-15 Francis & Joan Linderman 6050 Henderson Drive #16 Tim Lichty La Mesa 91942-4012 3404 Jewell St. APN: 323-280-09, 10 San Diego 92109 APN: 321-250-11; 321-260-24 Nijas & Asima Zenkich 17595 Rancho de la Angel K. Amemiya Ramona 92065 2240 Via Aprilia APN: 322-010-39, 40, 41, 42 Del Mar 92014 APN: 277-093-39,43; 278-070-40 77j AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ----- --.---.- - ----------.- Pacific Investment Club Ronald & Carol Baker 3085 Karnes Way no address San Diego 92117-4311 APN: 316-020-2200 APN: 316-020-09 Imad Shahhal, MD Dennis Carunchio 488 E. Valley Parkway 2636 Royal Crest Dr. Escondido 92025 Escondido 92025-7318 APN: 321-110-23 APN: 314-650-02 Theodore de Romde Helen Kytasty 1912 Via Tampa 4264 Biona Place Lomita 90717 San Di ego 92116-2333 APN: 275-291-12 APN: 277-020-27, 28 Lawrence Moderno Mable Hartley 9592 Vervain St. 5326 Noel Dr. San Diego 92129 Temple City 91780 APN: 321-160-13 (Crystal View Ln) APN: 321-260-23 James, John & Patricia Duberg Raymond Cannon No address P.O. Box 339 APN: 322-010-07, 45 Poway 92074 APN: 321-270-61, 62 John & Dorothy Allen, Trustees 16611 Highland Valley Rd. Grace Harris Ramona 92065 5107 Onstad St. APN: 322-010-01, 15 San Diego 92110 APN: 321-230-30 Lorenzo Agbulos 754 Churrituck Dr. Robert Hutchinson, Trustee San Diego 92154 Hutchinson Family Trust Juanito Agbulos 147 Walnut Hills Drive 2372 Mindanao Way San Marcos 92069 San Diego 92154 APN: 320-030-29, 30 & 31 APN: 321-271-060 Michael & Catherine Sylvester Angelo Mazzone 14657 Twin Peaks Place 21021 Ventura Blvd. #200 Poway 92064 Woodl and Hill s 91364 APN: 321-230-24, 25, 26 APN: 272-761-07, 17, 18, 30, 35, 39, 40, 48 Mr. & Mrs. Carl Neuss 12485 Rue Cheaumont Glen & Rose Rawlins San Di ego 92131 16823 Camino del Rey APN: 272-600-36; 181-122-02 Bonsa 11 92003 APN: 277-080-09 Hamilton Murphy Murphy Ranch Leonard & Eloise Devine no address no address APN: 321-100-02; 278-200-24 APN: 275-241-05 A. S. Marshall Thomas & Verna Hammel 12197 Boulder View Dr. 16420 Martincoit Rd. Poway 92064 Poway 92064 APN: 316-071-06 APN: 275-490-04 Norma Rose/Tokiko Mizamura Carlos & Carmel ita Lapus 12720 Pedriza Road 4102 Lake Court Poway 92064 Missouri City, TX 77459 APN: 277-130-170 APN: 323-290-170 77k AUG 1 5 1995 '_'f. 0 . - - Francis & Helen Thornburg Yvonne Seely no address P.O. Box 21851 APN: 321-230-87, 88, 89, gO El Cajon 92021 APN: 321-270-35, 46 Victor Machanis 1254 Walnut Tree Lane Annette Jackson, Trustee El Cajon 92021 P.O. Box 567 APN: 320-020-04 Denton, TX 76202 APN: 321-250-16 David Dixon 321-260-12, 31 10510 El Comal Dr. San Die90 92124 Nancy CeteljJoseph Weiss APN: 323-110-22, 65, 66 P.O. Box 9722 Rancho Santa Fe 92067 San Diego Trust & Savings APN: 321-270-63 Danielson Trust Joseph Weiss Peterson Family Trust no address P.O. Box 1055 APN: 321-270-58 Rancho Santa Fe 92067 APN: 276-140-05 James Mraz 18564 Stallion Crest Bradley Peterson, M.D Riverside 92504 P.O. Box 1055 APN: 321-230-12, 13 Rancho Santa Fe 92067 APN: 276-140-06, 07, 08 Charl es El ston 1552 La Playa Ave #114 Oleg & Faith Gladkoff San Diego 92109 2965 N. Broadway APN: 325-060-07, 19 Escondido 92026 APN: 323-280-21, 323-270-47 Mearns & Ruth Fuller 323-090-58 859 Stevenson Road Severn MD 21144 El Rancho Grande APN: 277-033-05 6938 Glen Flora Ave. San Diego 92119 Gayle & Alfonso Guglielmo APN: 275-460-61 no address APN: 321-271-19 Marion Heck, Trustee Heck Family Trust John & Donna Lenhof P.O. Box 1324 14650 Twin Peaks Road Escondido 92033 Poway, 94064 APN: 275-182-10 no APN listed Sylvia Rios,Trustee Jesse Hover no address 15332 Hwy 67 APN: 314-650-36, 37, 38 Poway 929064 APN: 321-110-19, 20, 29 Mathien & Suzanne van den Bergh 14813 Morningside Dr. Marvin & Evelyn Rock Powy 92064 13958 Ipava Drive APN: 314-670-49, 69 Poway 92064 APN: 323-010-26 Alvin & Lillian Hall 1335 E. Belmont Ave. Victorio Agcaro Phoenix, AZ 85020 1222 Beyer Way APN: 321-280-16, 17 San Diego 982154 APN: 321-271-060 771 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 I -- -------- RUG-15-1995 (18:43 FROM IF - 'NV. SERV. DIV. TO ;J}~""J1t:'3;438 P.lill ~ . f--IS--?s- -<' .$T"Tt or CALlfOl'lNI Tt-IE RSSOVItel$ AGE....CY PETE wll.$ON, QowI'rlOl' , ARTMEN~ OF FISH AND GAME @ 1(16 NINTH mEr! ! P.O. fOX 9.u209 I $ACRMlENTO. CA .,-'4+2090 (t16) 65f-'?IO . I , Auqust 9, 1995 RECE\VED "' AUG , !'i 1995 I . -' CITY OF paoNAV , CITY CLERK'S OFFI~ Ms. ~eba Wrlqht-Quastler Dire~tor of planning services city: of poway 1332D Civic Center Drive poway, California 92064 , ' DearjM&. W~i9ht-QUastler: I city of poway'. Draft Ba~it.t con.ervation plan/ReCP Plan, ~vl~onm.D~.l A88..ameD~/Ki~iv.~.a .ev.~iv. D.ola~a~ioD, and Implem.ntin~ Aqr....nt/CBSA MOU. The call!ornia Deparbent of Fiah an4 aa_ (Dva) commends: the ~ity of poway, and its planning staft and consultants in part~colar, tor ... work put i... ..e ci<y'. subar" ..bi..t cons rvation plan (HCP)/Natural community conocrvation Plan (NO ). DFG staff have been wo~kinq clo.ely with the City during the ast year to provide input into the development of the plan, the ~mplementing Agreement, and the envi~onm.n~G1 docum.n~ation. Plan implementation will occur through the normal CEQA process. However, the proc.ssing of specific projects within the city that impllf.lt covered species, an4 listed specie.. in partiaular, IIIhould . . be ~qnific.antly expedited throuqh the plan, 'thus reducing the r~ atory burc:\en on property owners. , ' , The DFG has reviewed the above referenced documents and bel~ves that the su~area HCP INCa Plan adequately address.. the con.~rvation of sensitive habitats within the City, and tha~ conservation of species prOhSed for coveraqe by the plan is con~istent with NCCP Guidel nes, as well as tederal Endangered spe iee Act. 10(a) permit and state "Fish and Galll& Code section 208~ Kanaqement Authorization s~ards. The Plan is consistent Wi~ th. ....ttM.,tiple Speci.. CO......tion PrOqr~ (""") sub eqional plan in terms of habitat pr..ervation and pr8e8rve des qn, as well as impl.mentation strate9Y' . . : .. .1 . , . AUG 15 1995 ITEM b t~ AUG-15-1995 08:43 FROM DFG ENV. SERV. DIV. TO 916196797438 P.02 ~ of Ms. ~eba Wriqht-Quastler Auqu.t 9, 1995 page!Two . ; IThe DFG believes that the City'. Subarea HCP/NCCP Plan will faoilitate streamlining of endangered specie. permitting proc~sses, and protect ~ioloq1cal resources important to the City and the region while allowing a level of development consistent with the current General Plan. We will continue to be available to assist the City in the implementation of its subarea plan. ThanJo.: you. Since.ely, ~~~~ Ron Rempel HCP Program Supervisor cc: ;Pepartment of Fish and Game Dr. Lar~ Eng Sacramen 0 Ms. Patty wolf Long Bea~h Mr. Sill Tippets Mr. David Lawhead San Diego . u.s. FiSh and wildlife Service Carlsbad Mr. Gail Kobetich . Mr. John Lovio . ..' .~,' .-; , AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ..., - ." 4:32 PM. August 13, 1995 r "es Christenson telephone (h): 619.748.1461 ,,,733 Elm Perk Lene ao\ address: chris84597 Poway, Cellfornle 82064-4401 internet address: chris84597@aol.com . RECEIVED \ City Clerk Merjorle K. Wahlsten AUG 1 5 1995 Poway City Council Post Office Box 789 CITY OF POWAY Poway, CA 92074-0789 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear City Clerk, Please place the following on the public record for the City Council meeting of Tuesday, August 15, regarding the Habitat Conversation Plan. I feel that I must speak out to protect our "City In the Country's" wildlife. Poway's -- proposed Habitat Conservation Plan is opposed by a small group of property owners that have narrow, personal vested interests and do not have concern for the larger community. These property owners are masquerading as "property rights" advocates and are misrepresenting the habitat conservation plan by exciting fears that are totally unfounded. Their real agenda seems to be to attack the Plan as a step to rolling back already existing community character and environmental protections. My wife and I support the council in your leadership efforts to adopt the Habitat Conservation Plan. Thank you. S~:l~ James Christenson - AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6l"IM --- ------ -----------------~-- \ . ".. - ~E' '/3- '3"3 A ." 9~ 1-"~" r~, " O? S6:' ._.I::':~l..::':'~1 r:::l\:'t:- i'""~r i _ :;.-~ L uS -,::' ~:....,( i'~O......!u..;. t-'._ I. R E eEl V E 0 '\ AUG 1 5 1995 ( CITY OF POWAY - CITY'CLERK'S OFFICE .. ... 1i.\1gust 14. 1995 Mayor Don Higginson city Councilmembere City of Poway 13325 civic Center Drive poway, CA 92064 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: As the owner of a small vacant parcel of land in the Green Valley ~rea, I was shocked to receive several notices regarding the Poway 8ubarea Habitat Conservation Plan/NCCP which contained false information and were obviously designed to generate plliOn opposit.ion using scare tactics. It is sad that many property owners wsre n,~edlessly alarmed by this irresponsible group. I ant writing to communicate my strong support for thlt excellent Habitat Conservation Plan which has been prepared by the City of Poway. It is important that you not make coneeselonsto placate this small group of people who are attacking planning, regulation and government. What poway does could set a precedent for other areas which have or will come under the same attacks. Please continue the fine leadership course that poway has set for the region and approve the Plan as written. There are far more pl~n supporters than opponents I Sincerely, ~ Diane Barlow Coombs AUG 15 1995 ITEM" q L'::s 'j J '95 ~~~ 15;.~ FAl 519579366. Poway klniios "'~~l . kinko.s. FAX COVER SHEET .. '.... ill branch office PLEASE CAll us IF yor HAVE A.'JY PROBLEMS RECEIVING OR IF THERE ARE PAGES I (;79-3600 . F.\X (619) 679-4440 MISSING. WE CAl~ SE!\l) MIl) RECEIVE FAXES 24 HOURS A. DA.Y, 7 DAYS A WEE.K. 1 ~'II'; 1'"W3V Road . Pow~. CA 92064 . . RECEIVED This FAX is directed to:~ , , AUG 14 1995 CompanylBusiness: , FAX Phone: (_) CITY OF POWAY ~ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Business Phone: (_) N"mb" of .",<INCLUDING "'" 'ov,,,b~t ~ D"'~t;;-i', J Lj 1995 This FAX has been sent by: /V' 6' --'211, A-flC ) Sender's Phone: (IP/q) '74[;'- R97'(j (j a~ 1JL.C~ ~!<-A;, Lv \C. Jj '- 17 CV .'.~,+..-- N/?~ j-d; j~,4. l .. .' 47'J 7 ~iZ~~ ~~ b ~ (~I )/ - I AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM C .. - - -- ---- ~ CRAIG P. FITZGERALD 14545 BUDWIN LANE POWA Y. CAUFORNIA 92064 . August 9,1995 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 71 Don Higginson Mayor of Po way P.D.Box 789 Poway, CA 92074-0789 RE: Multiple Species Conservation (MSC) Plan Dear Mayor Higginson: Please oppose the present recommendation of staff for the implementation of the MSC Plan. They have misread the political and practical realities of the present situation. In my case, the amendments to the land usage was will destroy the most strategic and essential element of a thirty year retirement plan. I purchased eight acres ofland twenty years ago. It took me seven years to pay the land off. The proposed amendments will eliminate any economic use of three quarters of the property. Staffhas tried to convince me of the potential value of "mitigation land". They fail to consider that price is determined by supply and demand and that the proposed plan will dump over 14,000 acres on the market. I personally will not be able to recover from the economic loss in my life time. The loss of this land value will destroy my retirement security and severely restrict its quality. A thoughtful evaluation would consider the following practical alternatives: . Passage of the plan only after it is federally or state funded so you do not have to pay for the implementation and maintenance of the plan. . Passage of the plan after the City and County of San Diego have passed their plans so the Poway Plan can eliminate the punitive and extreme measures that may not be required in the fina1 analysis: . Put the plan up for passage by the general electorate on the ballot at the time of the presidential election so you do not fuel the reca1l fires or provide funding for opposition candidates. I ask you personally to consider my personal loss. I do not have and have never had any endangered species on my property. This plan as designed is taking my property rights over an ideal which has lost its political momentum. Yours Truly, r Craig Fitzgerald AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6- '1:1 I - Edward J. Ayala 1841 Kelson Place. Escondido, CA 92029 . (619) 480-1921 . Fax: (619) 480-1505 . RECEIVED /- -\ , ""~1~1~~- August 1 0, 1995 It;. "c;- r '\:1 _..: J...'~: - ( ., CITY OF POWAY City Council, City of Poway CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. Box 789 Po way, CA 92074-0789 Attn: City Council Members Re: Proposed City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) Council Members, This letter is in response to your notice regarding the above subject matter in order to establish my ability to challenge this matter in court. After reading the Public Review Draft, Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Volume 1: Plan, I am expressing my concerns against this proposed plan. Specifically: . The plan transfers the existing mitigation problems of the City from building the Scripps Poway Parkway Extension on to the backs of the private property owners. . The plan solves future mitigation problems for other builders at the expense of existing property owners. . The plans proposed restriction of owners use of private land constitutes the taking of private propeny under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. . This proposal is in response to the potential listing of the gnatcatcher and to the benefit of environmentalists who have no concern for the rights of individuals. They benefit at the expense of hard working, tax paying, private property owners who purchased this property for their own dreams of a better life and to build security of their families. Those who want this type of plan should purchase and donate their own personal property rather than attempted theft of other citizens property through this type of regulation. . I reserve the right to incluqe these comments along with any and all issues raised at the public hearings in regard to the subject matter for inclusion in a court challenge. ~d Edward J. A a -.-.. ------...----.---....------ All,... 1 r: <UV\P" ....~.. t... . LOUISE , DOUGLAS BEJlND - RECEIVED _ ; \ STARLlNE RANCH AUG 1 ~ 1995 .. 2135 ROBERTSON ST. RAMONA, CA. 92065-2579 - , CITY OF POWAY TELEPHONE [619] 789-6520 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE . FAX [619] 788 1514 Poway City Clerk Mayor Don Hiqqinson Deputy Mayor Susan Callery Bob Emery, Micky Cafaqna , Betty Rezford, We have reviewed the City of Poway's Habitat Conservation Plan [HCP]. and find it to be VERY RESTRICTIVE in the use we have planed for our 20.44 acres. The HCP as I read it is nothinq more than THEFT by the City of poway! I did not read anywhere in the HCP of just COMPENSATION for the owners of this PRIVATE LAND. You can rest assure that I will not sit by and let you TAKE, STEAL CONFISCATE, BORROW or USE my land without a fiqht in COURT, and a RECALL of all elected members of the City Counsel. I only hope that you to your senses and vote this plan down on AUGUST 15, 1995. Sincerely f cJ;, - Louise Bernd AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 . J AIJG-13-~5 SUN 03:31 PM -~PAIN 44517-' p~el - RECEIVED AUG 1,j, 1995 . ..-F A:X..- CITY OF POWAY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM. ruth D'Spain FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER: 445-1703. ADDRESS 24532 Summit Lane, DesC$n$o CA 91916 DATE,August12,1995 TIME: Afternoon NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW THIS SHEET: 0 TO: Mayor Don Higginson, City of poway ADDRESS: 13325 Civic Center Dr. Poway, CA 92064 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 748-6600 FAX NUMBER: 748-1455 MESSAGE: Dear Mayor Higginson: It has come to my attention that the MSCP may be challenged at your August 1 5th Council meeting. As a member and Secretary of the Dascanso Plenning Group, who have taken a positive, and supportive stand on the Plan, I am requesting that you and your CounCIl Members reali<:e that this well conceived Plan can not succeed with partial participation Private Property Rights are not an issue in this case. The Powa" plan does not cause a takina, will not prevent the building of homes on property, is in accordance with the General Plan. Please approve of the MSCP, keep us all on one track If we are to progresc; with common sense planning Into the 21 st century, there must exist an overall plan which is fair to all. The MSCP meets that criteria. Thank you for your Kind attention to my concerns, and the concerns ()f San Diego County as a whole. ruth D'$pain AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 ... ---.---- RECEIVED \ AUG 11 1995 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE - D~JIC.Jllf!d to thr: Prom:tlDn at CoaslQ} s.,~ Savll.J1UI Otkr ThMlttfttrl EcOl~I~,,"5 Dan Silver. CoordiNitor S424A Sanl. Monica Blvd. Il592 Lo. Angeles. CA 90069-4210 TEL/FAX 213.654 -1456 .' Corre.cu:d CQPv August II, 1995 Mayor Don Higginson Gail Kobetich City of Poway U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 13325 Civic Center Dr. 2730 1..01= Ave. West Poway, CA 92064 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Publtc Review Draft PO\4.l2y Subarea Habitat Const1'llaliOlf PlonINarural CommWlity COlUt'rvariOIf Plan and Public Review Draft E/fvirolfMtlflal AS$ess~1fl and INria/ SlwylMitigalt'd NtgatiVt' Dec1arariOlfprrllL Issuance ofQ1\ Incidtlflal Tala! Pnmirlo rIlL 01)' of Po_y for tIlL OJlifomia G~atcllLr Dt:ar Mayor Higginson and Mr. Kobetich: Our organization has reviewed the above-refe:rencccl document and firmly concludes that it does hOl "take" private property, as it is not only in comformity with the cwn:nt General Plan, but guaronru! viable econQ!:'jc use ofho:nesiu:s ane carries au: a well-<locumcntccl and legitimate public purpose. You are on irreproachable legal ground. We undersrand, however, Ihalrhe Ciry is considering subsrantial changes to the plan, including the substitution of voluntary plOvisirms. If the proposed changes are carried out, two eonilel}ucnces would become irnm.:.:liau:ly apparent: I) The current CEQA and NEPA documents would be rendered inadeq-.la1l: far the altered project, and subsequent and recirculated environmental review would be needed, and 2) The covered species lisl would need re-evaluation ~obable revision, including far the gnatcalcher, especially if non-occupied habitat is rcq' as linkage zones. An underlying principle of the multiple species planning is the delegation by state and federaJ agencies to IocaJ government of the responsibility for protecting sensitive wildli fe, thereby avoidmg the need for more regulation in the future. We thUI W'ge ~u to adopt the welHhouj!'hl- out original plan, which serves the community interest, preserves way's unique character, and is absolllldy fair to property owners. Please do not allow a misinformeQ c:xtnmist group - using falsehoods and scare lactics - to singlehandedly determine City policy. Thank you for considering our views. With best regards, 4"_~___ Dan Silver, Coordinator cc: Poway Planning Dept. Dept. of Fish and Game Natural RelOurces Defense Council AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 i - --. 2845 ~imitz :lvn Sar. Die,;"'", I 1'..:.1" ;,;: ~ "J;~ AU9ust 9, l~~S . t-"ailyor ~':'T, Hig'1~.,':::Oi.. RECEIVED Council~4~ Robert Ernery '. CounciL~an Mickey Cafa;~a AUG 11 1995 Council'v.'orr.ar: E',Jsar. Call~r;' C'YJ!1("i.lwlJlf,an ?ett~' ?er..fl':l:!"C: CITY OF POWAY City of Pc.....a::. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE r .:~ ..::'(;:': 7;"':" Fe....-ar, CA 92064 Dear Mayor Higginson ~nc Ma~ers of the City Council: I w0uld lik~ to urge that you do not vote in favor of t~e proposed M~ltiple Spe=ie$ Cc~s~r~a~ion PIQ~ (l1SCF) . I recently reccrde= a 5 lot s~~ivi5ic~ ~a? in the City of poway and ap~rox~~a~&lJ ll~ of all th~ l~n= W3S rese~ved fer open space. r y~~ld ~~~nk ~here are e~~ug~ e~~~ro~~e~tal safeguard: already ir. pla=e: i:. ~he ci~y of poway to i~:~r~ ad~~~at€ prot~ction and conser;a~i~r: c~ o~r nat-.:r=.l res:::-~:r:c~. I a.m the C'w"':i.E:~ 0: tho:: f~:lo~ing parcels cf ~nde7elc?e~ :a~c: 1- Pa==~: ~=. "'''',''. 69 OC -. - i..,!,.; 2. ?a!'::;l ..~ ,ce, 68 oe! .'li.... ..... 3. Pa=c:e2. ..~ 'ioa 67 roc ~,,- . - - 4. Pa=cE.l '.. 70C 6c Oc. .'0- . ""- 5. Pa:-cel !~':) . :75 700 65 DC My \-life a!'::c: ! are al~.. :.:-;e c;""Ti.ers of a 1.62 a.=re Fa~=E..;. :: "..::ic.;':elopea la~d a~ foll~'.~'z : F'ar':<dl No. ...1:- "70(J 25 0:, Thank YOi..J. fo~ YO:'l!" 't~""'.1::::;tf"J.l ccn!:idof:ration of -:.hiE iSE"';~ . Sincerely, ~~ /AN Richard J. Lar~au ' R.JLidl I. ~. ~ a..--4 M " - 15. 4af74 ~ ~~~ ~~~p~ . AUG 15 1995 ITEM h ..., - ---- FlUC-11-"~ F""I ':2e CORONFlIlO CFlYS ""EFlL-TY P. lil 1 I . , Salar and Associates ~ I I Architects . Engineers August 11, 1995 Via Mail and Fax . I (619) 679.7438 , Mr. James R. Ness'e\, Senior Planner City of Poway Planning Department 13325 Civic Center Drive, Bldg B Poway, CA 92064 Subject: LOT ON ESPOlA ROAD ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 277-140-09 and 277-140-10 POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064 Dear Mr. Nessel, I greatly appreciate the extended time and courtesy you shared with me dUrillg our unscheduled meeting on tbe afternoon of July 25, 1995 at your office. As ex~lained to you the above lot was purchased by me in the mid 1980's and was sold ~o Mr. and Mrs. Soleimanpour of Dayton, Ohio in the carly 1990's. They have desif.l1ated nle with the responsibility of designing and consll"llC'ting a large home for th .ir use with possibility of sale in the future. They have ncve r been informed of thj, City's plan to assign their lot as habitat restriction. I als<'l know that the City extenc pd the study after the govemmeot required them to pmvicle mitigation for constl1uction of th, So",h Pow., P"m, tln-ough Sy<''''''" c.",o., W, fl., th;'j'o h' prejudicial to absent property owners who pay (aXl'S and can not defend then selves by vote or their daily presence in the City, YOlllold me that the plan has b en on going for three years, but the public knows about it only this month, and tI final approval is scheduled for August 15, 1995. How c()uld anyone have enoug I time to object to City's decisions? I spoke witb Ms. Reba several months il o and informed her that we plan to build a large home with guest house on he lot opposite from existing avocados. This would haw required impacting nearly acres of sage areas. Hence, she recommended a survt~y tt) better identify the blo ogical elements of the affected areas and requested that maximum disturbance f sage should not exceed 2 acres. We believed that this plan could have work d IInd proceeded with preliminary designs, I had many calls from other property wners about new agenda and its limitations. This prompted me to rush to your offi c and demand an explanation. This letter shall selvc ns an official record r our discussions as follows: Question 1. Why were we Dot infonned or this plnn? Answer. City has been working on this for tlVC'r three years and the fir t time we could place tbe report in publk lut:ation has been this Int nth. $25 BROAOWAY. SUITt! 102S SAN DIEOO CALIPORNIA 92101 l. c'. Tl!1.: (11$) 232-Vi.. PAX. (e1i) 232-0310 AUG 15 1995 - - I I Salar and Associatt" , Architeclll . engineers I , Question 2 . Could we develop the lot as planned'! Answer. You need to perform a biological SIIIVCY, However, you could I lpnct . up to 2 acres of habitat. The line (1n the report maps tha goes through the lot is not 100% and 01 h"r considerations are all wed, For example, you don't bave to bnild in the avocados and the more feasible location may be the sage In the right of avocados. I this case wild life movement will hnVl' to be on the slope an not between the road and end of the htlllSl', In this case the repolt Hows approval of the project. Question 3 . Could the 2 acre limitation include nlready disturbed areas a d the avocado grove? Answer. No Question 4 . People tell me that you intend to rl'st rict use to no more than ncres including already disturbed arel1~ nnd the grove. I came h re to ascertain if this is true. Answer. I appreciate you talking to us dirt't:tly rather than listening o the interpretation of other person's understanding of the details f this report. Question 5 . What should I do to make sure lllnt your discussions are n the record? Answer. Write a letter to City Council members and the PI, nning Department, explnining the contcnts \'If \'Iur meeting, In summary, I understand that City will not intend to restrict the owner of t is lot from completing his plan of building a large h\'lnH' which wm utilize up to 2 ncres of sage area, Again, thank you for explaining the details of this repo and providing us with assurances that we should be pmud to own property with n the City of Poway jurisdiction. Please forward a copy III the honorable members fthe City Council and the honorable City Manager, If you have any questions, lease feel free to contact me. " , . Yours Truly, sJ~~. Salar Dehbozorgi. PE, GE .. Mt. ..6 1.1.. )I.a. Solei....,.... 0lrIa Orll.... ... ~ BROADWAY, SUIl! 10il5 SAN DIEGO eA~IFoRNI" 8210\ Te~: (811)232-19-44 PAX; (811l 232.0310 IT Me AUG 15 1995 d ------ ---- --- -- ---- ~ . . 10: :T,'m Nc.ssJ ~&l'llc't pblll\f.l",1 POUl~ C'i~ CDUMiJ RECEIVED AUG 10t995 1.3 3~ S- c..:uit. ~h...,. .oTive. P OoAlOlj ) ~ q"DhJ,. PLANNING DEPT, Flom: .(t."~ ~CCfae. Dlth', A"i 71" Iqqf, ~73a ko..tntfiYle.. 81- t:= ~ ~;'rl J CD. Cj ~OJ.O' Ra.. " Va.'1~:M=- .3~~ -D.ltl-I'iS'-~O' /)U... My Ne.s.Se~) 1hi& is to CciWlTl M~ lJtYhJ eortltl'll.\.llio..h;"',li ~ ~II] (Qqr Illih) tio,^, '(~a.Ych~ ~ p-ror-'J'~tllM ~-:~"'Wt3~J-O'rJ-JS'~ rtl/.. Ff'OSul 1'''7 ~u..bcue..a. tl<:.p a1~ wilt 1\\010\ I Pr fMA~a.s ~ t.Ji ~r bl/.. o.b~ fa COl'f\e. 10( ~~ d'/l Au.a ' 5" 'Ii /qq S. "neYtb8 Y'e.s~~ ~~t- /'ho.,t. flI~ ~pe:thJ is 1\of;' .Y1'lct:d.J I;" t\t sa.i4 J:tc.sQj as I'IO~ I'. aw~~~ Kf6u..v,~ ~orlT\ ~~ ~ ~iiR 14t. ~ ~ lli8. ~~ ~ (.c ~ro.r~ ~IA olcL:kl1; . .. . ~ ~oF\"^ Prl ;,:'- """ ~ fcwa;,<k 1- ~'t'l\~ ~ " ICO.&!. b<. Wl~ ro -LM,'<. ~.pc ~ <!cLUlJ' h ~ I\IJ c.o~ ' 101" !t4s. C-l.\!rTUlt ~:cltil p11Q cwJ..lr~ wi I1i ~ . j tlUi ~()E.S~ Js<.~~ +cUJQlCch :1.,o.L~r su.. fb.r- ~.a.') k.rt 1.. We b, wb~ j . &cd. ~ ~p~'(~~ or.. ~ tI1.QJ~ el-: Of~fW~ ~ COJ/,. eu.dt:.mt8t p~~ ~~ ~fL.~ 1:0 '1~~ILNe. !la ~~e,d srtu.,\ 1~ tk\. m:t rtft'{~ It, ~ ~~~ ~/ ~"I'r'oW.~ ~~ a} gOi\r <U~~,1 co-klf.-t ~ ~ ~ . C'U\ ~Vf R1~ ~ l.~/ eotvtt ~ QDM 6.&,t ~ r-ro P:r"~ 1<)\ Ik"v-~ ~ ItClUtQ s~~ ' fb i1 u; p11J~Jg Uo1.w.. ~ 80l\.Q. dew" ~ ~or~..i.a. o..J.11l.'rLIf" ~~~~ c.c:t ot-& ~'" ~ ct. ""Ut.1 1OlffS'L w..o.i\I\.l"l" ~~~\.. ~ a.1t. w.0DtuJ. wi~ ~ ~ ~~ aJJ.../t&. ~ o.'it I'Bt- <ArI\C.2!(v.J. ctbC1J- mj "l'~~ ~ J ~t;t. ~ F.1t~'('H t.~ ~ 1\0\-1 ~Q/r&s ~ 'aJtVl~ o..s 3 It~Y~ sl-~ed ~ ~ w ~-irt fu ~"-tt:se f . SLW~S j "tQ~~~1U,\ ~ ~ tJc~ c;~ Gl~ k ~,,~ cJ- ~ ~\\(f.'rlU S~T~c1~ o..v..a - ~ ~1D~<<~tl eN.. sa.l& \YlV~' w.a ~ct ~\'ta nt~l!-, ~ ) i: 1'Ie.tD.sv. Tt.: I AUG 15 1995 ITEM ~ ' I ~ ;!J~-'wIci ?... II -fS- I RECEIVED \ AUG 1 0 1995 '. CITY OF POWAY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE . 21831 Dolores Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 August 8, 1995 City Council City of Poway City Hall 13125 Civic Center Dr. Poway, CA 92064 RE: HABITAT CONSERV A nON PLAN public hearing on August 15, 1995 I am opposed to the HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. It is unfair to land owners like us and is designed to hurt them financially. My wife and I own two small parcels of land in Poway, hoping that we can sell one lot to finance building our retirement home on the other when we are ready to retire. We are not big league developer. We are very concerned that the City of Poway keeps changing rules that are against our vested interest and are at our costs. Please leave us alone. Please consider our constitutional rights, too. Won't you also want to have the right to maximize the value and enjoyment of any of your property and asset like we do? Do you realize that your actions take away the fruit of our labor, hope and dream ? Enclosed is our request for removal of our property from the HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. . Please put a stop to this. Thank you. Sincerely, 0ijd;- _. - - AUG 15 1995' ITEM 6" I 1" - ----- ---- --- - --- --- --- - ---- August 8, 1995 , RECEIVED \ Mayor and Council Members AUG 9 1995 - . - f City of poway CITY OF POWAY Post Office Box 789 CITY CLERK'S OFFICI! Poway, California 92074-0789 re: Proposed City of poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan I am the owner of Assessor's Parcel 314-370-04, which comprises approximately 40 acres of vacant land accessed by a lengthy road easement off the southerly side of the Monte Vista Road cul-de-sac. Imposition of the proposed HCP will severely restrict the utility of my land. Clearing "up to two acres" is barely sufficient to provide access, to say nothing of building and yard improvements appropriate for the site and prudent fire breaks. Information disseminated by the City indicates a driving force behind the HCP is the City's need to mitigate for habitat destruction caused by the construction of the Scripps Poway Parkway east to SR-67. By what stretch of reasoning is it equitable to place the burden of the City's need to mitigate onto the backs of private property owners? If the City must mitigate, why doesn't the City go into the marketplace and buy mitigation land? Other publiC bodies do this (including Caltrans). Among options open to private developers who disturb habitat is the Durchase of land for off-site mitigation. What the City of poway proposes is simply a land- grab in disguise! I object to the having my land placed in the poway Subarea HCP because I think the City is acting unfairly and in bad faith. Sincerely, ~a/~ Mark A. Borun 5481 Linda Rosa Avenue La Jolla, CA 92037 _. - - AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 ' I - - RECEIVED .\ AUG 9 1995 5 July ,1995 CITY OF POWAY ... City Clerk of Poway & Don Higginson, Mayor, Susan Callery, Deputy OFFICE , Mickey Cafagna and Betty Rexford, Council M~mbers, Steve Streeter, PJilnn1ng Services PO Box 789 Poway, CA 92064 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO All. PERSONS USTED ABOVE RE A: Joint Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Initial Study (IS) Proposed Mitigation Negative Declaration, Associated General Plan Amendment 95-02, associated zoning ordinance amendment 95-01, Associated grading ordinance amendment, and associated Poway Redevelopment Agency Resolution of Approval; all concerning the proposed City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (poway Subarea HCP) project and companion implementing agreement/Management authorization (WMA), applicant City of powayl Poway Redevelopment Agency RE B: Parcel Map No. 17458, 12-15-94, Tentative Parcel Map 91-11 (APNs 321-111-21, 321- 110-45,321-110-46 & 321-111-23 formally APNs 321-111-01 & 321-110-18) Dear Officials of the City of Poway, We, the owners of the above referenced parcels (RE B) do respectively request the exclusion of this property from the above referenced poway Subarea HCP (RE A). The inclusion of these specific parcels (RE B) in the HCP (RE A) is not required by Federal Ordinances and further would result in the unilateral violation by the City of Poway of formal agreements negotiated in good faith and implemented between the property owners and the City over the preceding five years. This is more completely explained as follows. We the owners of the above referenced property (RE B) have worked dosely with the City Staff for over five years to mitigate All sensitive habitat from our parcels (see supporting documents for TPM 91-11 dated 11-10-92, Covenants recorded 8-2-94, and correspondence from G. Kobetich U.S Fish and Wildlife Service dated 6-6-95). This has included the devotion of almost 40% of our property (30.1 acres) to fee title and easemented open space, including over 25 acres of high quality Coastal Sage Scrub, CSS, falling within a tributary of Rattlesnake Canyon. Thus all areas which are potential habitat to identified federally threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 have already been given up by us to the protection by the City of poway as part of our existing agreement with the city. This has resulted in the removal from our parcels of all unmitigated federally mandated habitat. In addition to this, we have also devoted to open space additional acreage of general chamise Chaparral. and we have agreed to restrict grading to no more then three acres (excluding roads & driveways) per parcel none of which was specifically required by federal requirements. Further, despite working closely with the City for over five years _. - - AUG 15 1995 ITEM h .1 negotiating and implementing our restrictions we were not informed of the Poway subarea HCP effecting our parcels until June of 1995. To now impose further conditions on our property, RE B, beyond that specifically required by the federal government would not only constitute a take by the City of Poway of our property value without compensation it would also be reneging on an agreement which we made in good faith with the City of Poway. Thus the inclusion of the referenced property (RE B) in the Poway HCP (RE A) would expose the City of Poway to significant litigation as the result of its violation of the owners Constitutionally Guaranteed Fifth Amendment Rights. If you have any questions or we can be of any additional assistance please contact us in v.riting at 13951 Calvary, Poway CA, or phone during the day at 592-3459 or during the evening at 748-5178. We iook forward to hearing from you shortly. Sincerely, ~~-~~-7-'7r ~k~.~P ~~ Dr. Thomas A. Nodes Date Mrs. Bev ly R. Nodes te _. AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 \r - , CHILDReN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CEN fER 3020 CHILDREN'S WAY SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92123-4282 (619) 576-5863 BRADLEY M. PETERSON, M.D. - . DIRECTOR PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE ,.. RECEIVED '\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR TRAUMA f A,C.A.. F AA.P ~ F c:.c.lt4. DII'lJ )I.tATE AWERICAN I'O.4.RO ,.; t'EOIATRICS AUG 9 1995 UIPU)W"TE AWERICAN "'-lARD.of AN~'THE.'iI(llt'l(jY IMPUllio4ATE rEllIATRICSCRmCAl CARE MElllClNE -( FU!OW l.RITICAl rARE MEOICINE CITY OF POWAY -- CITY CLERK'S OFFICE August 7, 1995 City Clerk of Poway & Don Higginson Mayor, Susan Callery Deputy Mayor, Bob Emery Mickey Cafagna and Betty Rexford, Council Members P.O. Box 789 Poway, California 92074-0789 I am writing you in regard to the Habitat Conservation Plan. My wife and I purchased land in poway with plans to build a heme and move to the Old Coach Area. This land represents either our future heme site, our children's education and/or our retirement plan. The Joint Envirormental assessment (FA) and the initial study (IS) proposed mitigation negative declaration, associated general plan amendment 95-02, associated zoning ordinance amendment 95-01, associated grading or- dinance amendment and associated poway redeveloj:IIlent agency resolution of approval; all concerning the proposed city of poway subarea habitat conserva- tion plan (poway Subarea HCP) Project and cc:mpanion implementing agreement/management authorization (IAIMA) applicant: City of Poway/poway Redeveloj:IIlent Agency affects my family's land; parcel numbers: 276 140 05 00 276 140 06 00 276 140 07 00 276 140 08 00 The above mentioned plans will adversely affect my family's property and my family and I therefore, respectfully request that the above mentioned par- cels not be included in the above referred to Habitat Conservation Plan. _. - - AUG 15 1995 ITEM .0 ..1 I I August 7. 1995 Page -2- My wife and I feel that this plan is in violation of out' Fifth AmendIIEnt rights; "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just can- pensation. " We are not against preservation of the environnent if the cost of en- vircmmental preservation is shared by "all the people." To us, The Constitution of the United States of America is no longer just "a historical docunent." Sincerely, 8c../7 ~~~~ ~~ Bradley M. Peterson, M.D. --. AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6 . ,~ - - - :H.H.fh .~: t-51.\1f:u~ ~ i ;~'H~ U~ :: - 111.! " ~ S.8 ... 0 ~ IS 'C:f Sl- G IS - ~ .. $'-E:~ ''C i ~ ~ .~.~U~ ~i il ~h.8.~t=j":!.! ~ 11~~~ri l~ e.:;,; -as 1"-- "'.5 ~I::l liw~.<:."eJ! ;.; > il!ii"!; ,1 .5 ;; . ," . ":c'E~"",-t'''l!i - 11::: ~"~'i~.~ > .~t.:l1.lliG1E' ~ > -= &..l!lt'l ;:€j ~~ .. 0":;0 -= .. 00 >,. Cl. !.J!g .... 2"'''':: t-"S2", ~ :'g.!:iil'~1S ~ .;'; ~ ; ~. l.~1II ~ .2 ;]'~ 21 ~.!:E e }, ~ ill ..l ~ ~ e ] g i:"i '1:;.!.! !l IS ....a e ~ 1"'; e ~ l! f- e:E - -:g ~U~t:~~ -g .!H';lliS'il;j'];; -g ~ ~""1J! p:: ell 1lI~..t~",! ell =:S:\j=51Se:tl,J:..~ ..S! ell Cl."IlI~' - ...il! E '<:Q.IlI~- E ~ "'. ".... ~-= E '".<:J\ '" _Ill" - ..<:S:"..." '<:15.5e:""~;>"". ;;,,- "Ill ill" _In 0_-: 1ft.!!' ...t::: II.. ~ coW .Q'st.lO <( ~ ill ~ 0 ~.!! '" -<: " ,. !; f.<: bO" ,Ill ~ ;: III -<: '.e l! 'C ~ ]" 'i " ., s ... .c :J lU C :J ::s C ~ t; _' ~ C ell ~ ~ - oa- In to t-..c e ~ e'-- ,co] :.., ~.l:! l'CI ~ l! ~'C ti ~ E 5 0 'l5 ~ ::I 'S 'C .2..= S c'- ~ 0 C -""''I:' ""'e~'. ..;..- 'C.w _1_~I'''''O'<:bO" Q,lvri,,~""tl g,.~ 1n.1::.Wfh~..."9. ~ ;;.ccJ:.IiC'- c:~ c :ZQ.,~ o..c 3(:-=:S "'OWJl.... -'€U).c.--;t;;'-ta ~ ~ ~-o.2 11 z" ill ~~ 6.:=~ e.c 6.. .5~.. "e=.! ~.5'h1 ... l'CI 1.1 E"'O l'CI .. tV... ...;:; - Q., .. .2. c.. -fill ~ II 2i U) ~ t ~ c..; 5;j '! c...5 -= o..E 0 2 -8 .E ~ .5 '6 -5 .2 C'I ~ 0 ; .- .--- "~-1lI1l1 "", ..-- 1 .-"" ftI..E 0 "'6..-C - "'6.. "tl .c C ClJ ..... e9.- ;0-.9.:\'0 ;:2 '_ Z U ?f~o5.C: 5!iS...5 8Q.1~ I! :::: 'i--i:J",S!uj WQ,lJ: fl:2E ~ O r.; bO~.<:.;:: III ~,J:." !o ~ ~ c~_-u _'- u _ "" .-__ Ill" '" III " f--l..G U'l .-:: 0 c.. ~ c g ~ "6 Q.I.- "Vl rJ) -. __ .. ~:09j! - 0 t . 1:10,2 _ _ -:5 :; ~ .... -'..... .... ... -:fo-'c == .5.!lOg == !l!;;.Q .!!P - zE- ~ .. ~ebOC "" .... 1Ie: "0" oc: tJ,J 1= tJ,J 0 c:: ~ e-.5 III ~ '0 c:: . ":; 'E '=,: ~ "IS ~ Cf) :c: QJ 0 0 ~= tI en aJ ~ .: -5 OJ c .- ! .- . ..: Z L.. CIl e" '.- - ." e .- ,; e'- ~ " "'- Q !;""""""" C ... 0 GJ ~ = _ .. .. ~ -~ zOr.:...~ ] ~.~~~:c~ ] ~~E "'0 =~E.l! i...... tJ,Juo,< ell ~E~!;e:~t ell "21< ~ 25=,., ~\!l "" !-' E "Q."'~ E - "'<:".Q ,,- ..c: U.J ... 11)... fa'" .- r:: ...."T" CIl -<: ='CCiJ!~" .... "5~g: e -~_'" !l!1: ....._ ~_~_ - ..... bO",.Q -<: .!<.."l: cE f-o 0 ,<:""-s- e:" "'c"'- <~ ~ U'lQ,l~O t >.] Q._.....~ ~lI:: ~ U'lE_~>'E ~~tI ~~~~ ~o Vl..c:o ~ ~c'- II -z ~~.~.t:~E "Be- o~~Q.. ~.:: bO.Q i; ~ ... ~ < 5l III Z 'I: 0 .. Ii :J g~Q.I~tGo Q,I..:.I: C'/ll:.l~ ~- U ~ ~ U'l too .: .s 6-: .s ~ li = - - -.. ~UG 15 1995 ITEM 6, 01 i August 8, 1995 . RECEIVED, I City Council, City or Poway , \ P.O. Box 789 AUG 9 1995 Poway, CA 92074-0789 - r CITY OF POWAY . CITY CLERK'S OFFice Attn: City Council Members Re: Proposed City or Penny Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) Council Members. We have been prompted to respond in writing per your notice regarding the subject matter to establish our ability to challenge the matter in court. Having read the Public Review Draft, Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Volume I: Plan. we are expressing our concerns aninst this proposed plan. Specifically: . The plan transfers the existing mitigation problems of the City from building the Scripps Poway Parkway Extension on to the backs of the private property owners. . The plan solves future mitigation problems for other builders at the expense of existing property owners. . The plans proposed restriction of owners use of private land constitutes the taking of private property under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stales. . This proposal is in response to the potential listing of the gnatcatcher and to the benefit of environmentalists who have no concern for the rights of individuals. They benefit at the expense of hard working, tax paying, private property owners who purchased this property for their own dreams of a better life and to build security for their families. Those who want this type of plan should purchase and donate their own personal property rather than attempted theft of other citizens property through this type of regulation. We reserve the right to include these comments along with any and all issues raised at the public hearings in regard to the subject matter for inclusion in a court challenge. ~ Edward Draper 4600 Panchoy Dr. Karen Draper La Mesa, CA 91941 Katherine Draper Day Phone No. 54t-1885 Andrea Draper Evening Phone No. 447~ 14 Mark Draper Matthew Draper Property owners cUlTCl\tly building our family home on 70 acres off Mina De Om Road. _. - - ~UG 15 1995 ITEM 6 '" C~,~ - ::: 1 '~:I 1-'. ce 110. 1~?O DOli .',. _,_, I .. " . THF:SAN ii/EGO UNlO."-'.'I"lI1JH1NF: .' R E eEl V EO" - AUG H 1995 ) CITY OF POWAV ; CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WednesdAY, July .2(;; 1995 Thucsdny, .July 27, 1!l9(; --:-------,._---'--'--:-- - ~-~:-~...~.;.~~~,:3i"'"~;:-~~'-~ .,. ,. POYtflY pians to 'take' private , """"''' ,. \.~...:.q:iJ <~-'::~-;:.f,~ property as habitat preserve *::~::.;:: ~t;~.; ti:~~~r.; ...----,. ...--.--..--.----..-- I ;\in privy to idortn::\tiolllh..t '1;mghs in TJpdat(~ the lace" of the (""Mit\ltio"al right" 01 pI j. \.;ttt'! (':iti7~n~.1 no lon~~~r ad\'or.atp. for ("('fl. -- -.. - ---.. ----- - .- I f,cn~t.ilJY'~;11 :tgfl:ll(,:ir:i ;:llid dl}' councils i '",hich pIlIPO~c:flll1y ll';~ th~ Multiple Sp.:. . I <jOG Cons"vati0" I'I,n as a !(\lise to over. . .~.<:_ ...;. ;~a:l.'::""'.. :'.l".--~.~.~~.~ ... 4"""..,,= c ~ ~"'),......:..~; ,,~J 'r:.l;V;' '(;U lC'!luJaft!. con..Jt~l'nJI ",id ould~tlt "take" ):' i:':~'j ::)~:i.3w2 rtlnE0-~1 ' ~1i1V;lt~ prf)F~rly. M\' hu..h:mcl ~lld I. who QWlI property ill " .. f'~" ," of' "' }'ow~Y. rr.\.~t'llt)>, r(~cei..~~ thr~e (')nc.p~p~ 4~_; \ r.;\.::..~):, .-- ~':'f' M!.:~:'('I!!)lit:Jn .".~r,.... ......;."..:,~ ..,'. ... J 2 . inrorlTl.t;(illalsh."ts from th~ city 011'0' ~':._.~~ 1).I.\"c.\ l.o\.I\~ pr.:.' .'p,L .. fT\dhan t~\ 41. t.. .-..1,) 'vl" .'" I" 1 w.y. 011 Aug. 15. the 1'0"-")' Cit)' Council "':'''.. ....,,:.:~'. ,,:H: \\'i!:', 3rm:;.rl"llt y d"'- '._ .... r." v:j'J vote to declare ollr land and thou, ""1t~;~>:J 01"/;'; "i e~'.("r\ici: .e:ld ci...jf: prt~;('(:t in ~:}l'."V' ". '.r... n' .. 1 ,.... . '$.."\JJUS of acres of 01lH!T private OWners as ,'. ,)\lJ rC:~,':':. '. ;o.:\-'~.S;<H.' .....O:..Uity. a l'Jr; {j€'cid~:1 ;"{~:::-::cl~y. ..'. '. ". lL1bil~t pr~scrvcs. ,,, larod ovmets, we will "1\"11' 'c . C,1"t;"U. to pay ta.cs unland we c~nJ1ut ." ~\..' \-J..~ C,!' en~J tu jl.'l}":nc fium to.' t~r.':)::'m~r,::~o;.i f~Hilili', who h<lcl'tllO .' i lie"" :L~d iot wldeh .....c VliU not receive :JGe~ of i:s 3'.: Oi)M'Cf: \rVinChc'~tPl hmch money lor U,C "lalting"l11 this l~nd. Tbe ..'J~.i'isc:\~':":,~ o~~-t'ht, :"~cncy. ' ,..... cledaration will lie in .,lfect lor 50 years. "'1'" > ,.:. ; ,. 'd' . "h' . .,. jjlv'';;l.i~aiJtirj rc;;:;ie,ithat (It, oft;rbli'" .,....~,':- . ~tc..~, o~.H:h'!.~.7'll ; tiie(~ IS 8 . igh . ,~.'-.,:,:::,~.>x... trJ,,:,:y.wll: i5Pi"(!3: the r~i\'ersidc' :m.J cnviron111:'!nl ~l_)P.~liciil!5 have "ll <1d('~r' SI~-;:'-':',0: '".'.i'.,.:'i J'.:.y'n Ct,:;~,;ojl. . . the IMld 01 private ownela I"r lhe wrong3 ~:"]' ,..... In '. ., . . ~ .,_,l. ~'4 .,Gl.or:, (' iFiJ;."~nl){()l1l:)' . of dc'..elo;>..rs. I.., .J ~..' ~ . r ,'r (>.' ~ " . .' """~'": ..,\1.'< .~. j. .)4;..... tn:: ;r;ll~t .::-,m1jt'l;::Iy. "'''hen d{"vc1op~rs ~1;;,;nr\g/! sensitive e:l" ;:e:~.~ j.)::~:'.:':;~ ~'~\T;~ ~ ~;l~r=:~i:':!~'~~,~i".. . vi.rQnmr.ntal Ojre?s thro;.ighout5;m Dif'p,o Coul11y, eoVt~rnm~n( agr.ncics require a c(,11:1ir. al'llC)uJ"lt ('I! open ~p(1r.e 10 "mal{c \ .' -. '. ''''. .........y...!.s Le('li .;;.rr,;j;'i~ Siner g()~Jd" the dallla.e done by the develop. :S2,~ ,. '.',.~f....._ ,.: ".. !:\p~ ..,.. .' m;;nl. For instftncl? o\.(~rcle\'elopml~nt in .;. ./. ....... :r.,. t.:.: .\1. 'i ,.) q\i:1S!-.C'<t de,..eJ. Poway can be_ tl~dified by the t~k.ing uf ~D'~;:;'-i ~': .\i:.;: ~~ :;~:;.:: ::,~;~~i;';~';~~:;.' . pr iv,,'te ialld in olh~r arej\R of t11{, courlty. 1 was un:tW~1n~ th;lt privat~ land Q\l.'T1cr!l A~~,'(/(:rN:' i'rr.:l ' d\lrine thp past'1 wo t'.11hrp.t': yenrs h;\v~ 1 "'c(,mo:-: th-:o. "~;".t:i'L!ic~"l i<li11b~" {OJ em'!1 (,11"1 ml';'nt:.\l d('~.lrl!\\ir)jj by :J~v('li\\l'?t ~ ;:md \111- .1':"3: ~ t h",t i ll("~(' !-'.I,d 11\'.'1"1('1 'i Cil!)' IOl (' vf.u u::-'~ tlv~ir l;'ll1d {(Ij ""pfl'.'ultlll".'\\ pUI ro(JS~s. CAIlO!. fit\KER SP,::lP. l't';,'ir) AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 ,.' PROPERlY OWNERS R- VEST FOR REMOVAL FROM 1HE Jf...,.,.T ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) AND 1HE INITIAL STUDY (IS) PROPOSED MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02, ASSOCIATED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-01, ASSOCIATED GRADING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, AND ASSOCIATED POW A Y REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUIlON OF APPROVAL; ALL CONCERNING 1HE PROPOSED cm OF POWA Y SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION . PLAN (POW AY SUBAREA HCP ) PROJECT AND COMPANION IMPLE G AGREEMENTIMANAGEMENT AUTIlORIZA TION (lA' MA), APPLICANT: C OF R"Ot:'1 V E 0 POWA Y REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. i- " FROM: VI!l.U-4IJD MJ.;R:r-HA ot 1~/AJ2E;Z AUG 14 1995 /2,77 MIND ELS . CITY OF POWAY . '4 'E"Crzi c CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO: CITY CLERK OF POW A Y &. DON HIGGINSON .MAYOR, SUSAN CAlLERY, DEPUI'Y MAYOR, BOB EMERY, MICKEY CAFAGNA AND BElTY REXFORD, COUNCIL MEMBER'S. P.O. BOX 789 POW A Y, CALIFORNIA 92074.{)789 f.LEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL PERSONS LISTED ABOVE WE HEREBY REQUEST TIiAT OUR PROPERlY. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER (S ): .3/(" 020 :2..'100 We as property owners, know that inclusion in the above mentioned plans WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT our property and therefore respectfully request to NOT be included. This plan is a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights, you will reduce the values of our land, you will reduce the tax basis of Po way. You diu not notify us properly, your planning process included planners, environmentalists, staff at the city, council members, but excluded the input from the land owners. Your map indicating areas of habitat was improperly done, your plan does not offer just compensation. You will be responsible for lowering the tax base on this land which will have ~'1 aGverse effect on school funding and other public services, and you did not do an economic impact report. Yours truly, c/, ~ /' J. ~ ~/I~/"FI- PROPERlY OWNER ~ DATE 1 OJ; o/rd.". ;.p ~ 7'/(1'/"'- PROPERlY OWNER DATE 1 AUG 15 1995 ITEM 6, .~ - ADDITIONAL MATERIAL - IDENTICAL FORM RECEIV~v FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSON~. ORIGINALS ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: Carol Ann Funk, Trustee Isaiah & Sylvia Rackovsky 11319 Creek Road 141 Nancy Drive poway, CA 92064 Bridgeport, CN 06604 APN: 230-031-05 APN: 321-230-43, 44, 45 Mr. & Mrs. Martin O'Keefe David & Sonia Swanson 14157 Ezra Lane P.O. Box 28056 Poway, CA 92064 San Diego, CA 92198 APN: 321-250-29 APN: 275-732-04 Dorothy Hayes Louis Rivera 9629 Marilla Dr. 25525 Dorval ct. Lakeside, CA 92040 Minifee, Ca 92584 APN: 317-242-08 APN: 317-251-10, 11 Dwaine & Diana Huffman Marland & Martha Clay 5011 Ensign St. 11105 Oakview Terrace San Diego, CA 92117-1206 Auburn, CA 95603 APN: 321-270-43, 44, 45 APN: 314-650-04 Barbara Geiger Ragnar Arestad 1631 Los Altos Road 6041 Lake Vista Dr. San Diego, CA 92109 Bonsall, CA 92003 APN: 320-020-03 APN: 317-102-18, 317-573-08 Richard & Sylvia Cardella Robert & Mary Altaffer 1170 Old Briceland Road 15359 Blue Crystal Trail Garberville, Ca 95542 Poway, Ca 92064 APN: 278-070-13 APN: 321-270-66 Mary Hilsabeck John B. Gerding 1320 N. McQueen Rd. #117e 15464 Markar Road Chandler, AZ 85225 Poway, Ca 92064 Mark Hilsabeck APN: 321-100-01, 08 1201 E. First st. Tustin, CA 92680 C. Jerome Gailey David & Polly Hilsabeck 4707 Norma Dr. 10630 Moorpark st. #303 San Diego, CA 92115 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 APN: 321-260-27 Mrs. Lorraine Hilsabeck 12922 Harbor Blvd., suite 898 Lucille Fernandez Garden Grove, CA 92640 P.O. Box 3806 APN: see Page 1 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 APN: 325-060-5772 John Greenwood Jeremy's Ranch Duane & Mary Westover 14545 Cedar Ridge Court 10927 Baroque Lane Poway, CA 92064 San Diego, Ca 92124 APN: 321-370-04 APN: 323-110-50 Jaime & Patty Rios Rancho Verde Development Co. 5092 Via Playa Los Santos 10650 W. pico #360 San Diego, CA 92124 Los Angeles, Ca 90064 APN: 276-140-11, 12, 15 APN: 273-100-04 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 -----.-- Colleen Llamas Michael & Josephine Kan 5529 Lesa Road 8617 Nottingham Place La Mesa, CA 91942 La Jolla, CA 92037 APN: 276-140-11, 12, 15 APN: 277-020-11 Allan & Collette Brubaker M.L. & Judith Mout 25 Shephard Dr. 3923 Catamarea Drive . Middletown, NJ 07748 San Diego, CA 92124 APN: 272-761-10 APN: 321-231-08 James Davis Zahra & Nassen Digius 4906 Pacifica Dr. 9450 Mira Mesa Blvd., Ste. C San Diego, Ca 92109 San Diego, CA 92122 Raymond & Patricia Wolski Adonis & Nora Bataller 13306 Tawanka Dr. 10729 Frank Daniels Way Poway, Ca 92064 San Diego, CA 92131 APN: 314-650-32, 33, 34, 35 Loreto & Digna Ravana US Fleet & Indust. Supply Cntr John & Lauriel Powell PSC 473 Box 11 27331 Sherwood Road FPO AP 96349-1500 Willits, Ca 95490 APN: 316-020-23, 24 APN: 278-200-18 Kochi & Christian Chang Wallace Beron 11693 Creek Road P.O. Box 2155 poway, CA 92064 Alpine, CA 91903 APN: 320-021-01, 02 APN: 275-750-06 Albert & Patricia Liu Thomas Gillesie 21831 Dolores Avenue Barbara Riegel Cupertino, CA 95014 15578 Raptor Road APN: 273-820-53, 54 Poway, Ca 92064 APN: 314-03-11 Lee Rensberger 3818 Riviera Drive, #4 Doug & Louise Bernd San Diego, CA 92109 2135 Robertson St. APN: 314-230-62, 63 Ramona, Ca 92065 APN: 316-020-220 Duane & Becky Brannon 17268 Dos Hermanos Road Stephen & Joy Ciko poway, CA 92064 4042 Ondine Circle Wayne Brannon Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17156 Dos Hermanos Road APN: 129-240-62, 63, 64, 65 poway, CA 92064 APN: 322-040-29 Phil Baiocchi 1111 Saxony Road Mr. L.E. Gilliland Leucadia, Ca 92024 4382 Ohio Street APN: 321-260-28, 278-210-49 Yorba Linda, CA 92686 APN:277-130-18 W. Ted Tyler 1440 Key View Bonnie Powell Corona Del Mar, Ca 92625 P.O. Box 112 APN: 323-071-15 Warda, Texas 78960 APN: Cyril G. Barlenal 11496 Grassy Trail Drive Peter Weiss San Diego, CA 92127 433 North Camden Dr., Ste 1190 APN: 316-020-24 Beverly HillS, CA 90210 APN: 321-270-54 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 . ~ . Regina Brevich Robert R. Belchez 24041 windward Drive P.O. Box 17305 Dana Point, CA 92629 San Diego, CA 92177 APN: 325-060-11 APN: 278-200-17 Pamela Bubman Artemio & Luzviminda Gapasin . 433 North Camden Dr., Ste 1190 2157 Hanford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 San Diego, CA 92111 APN: 321-270-59 Marcehino & Corazon Juenengo 9040 Decatur Circle John & Katrina pavin San Diego, CA 92126 13319 Stone Canyon Road APN: 316-020-24 poway, CA 92064 APN: 321-160-15 Romeo & Aurorn Valencia 7303 Gatewood Lane Robert Gilchrist San Diego, CA 92114 P.O. Box 1316 APN: 316-020-23 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 APN: 276-070-34 Chih-Chen Su-You/Saint-Tong Hu 13508 Highland Ranch Road Ronald Dixon Poway, CA 92064 40499 Yardlay Court APN: 223-071-02 Temecula, CA 92591 APN: 321-250-13 Walter & Tania Booriakin 11840 E. Crama Road Glen D. Zachman Scottsdale, AZ 85255 15045 Eastvale APN: 323-280-21 Poway, CA 92064 APN: 321-100-39 Steven R. Bray 14128 Mazatlon Court Maria & Robert Feasel Poway, CA 92064 APN: 323-290-16 APN: 275-700-49 Lily George Rufino C. & Francisca Bacong 2733 Katherine Street Marcela Marcelo El Cajon, CA 92020 Lot 35 of Tract "F" of poway APN: 322-041-18 Angelo M. Mazone Ruben & Myrna Herbias 21021 Ventura Blvd., Ste 200 12680 Aida Street Woodland Hills, CA 91364 San Diego, CA 92130 APN: 272-761-07,17,18,30,35, Vitaliano & Martha Olivarez 39,40,48 13779 Camino Del Suelo San Diego, CA 92129 Sam & Lillian Restino APN: 316-020-24 1855 Mira Valle Street Monterey Park, CA 91754 Dominador & Adoracion Erenea APN: 323-010-23 14228 Marianopolis Way San Diego, 92129 A.C. & Elaine Tutor APN: 316-020-23 29305 Wagon Road Agoura, CA 91361 Ruth & Anton Simson APN: 277-140-12 13227 Aubrey Street Poway, CA 92064 Tutor Arslanian APN: 323-290-11, 12, 13 29305 Wagon Road Agoura, CA 91361 Armando & Edna Mirador APN: 321-160-16 14274 Ipava Drive Poway, CA 92064 APN: 316-020-24 ITEM b AUG 1 5 1995 .\ Edward Scott 1758 Lorraine Place Escondido, CA 92026 APN: 321-250-08 Linda L. Wells 11055 Caminito Vista Pacifica San Deigo, CA 92131 - APN: 15650 Boulder Mtn. Rd. AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM 6 I ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IDENTICAL FORM RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS. ORIGINALS ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: Wesley & Carmeen Neally Yorba Linda, CA 92686-6950 APN: 321-110-32 Albert Agglarea 13158 Dechant Lane Poway, CA 92064 APN: 321-160-14 AUG 1 5 1995 ITEM b I:' - Private Prope..y Protection Act of 1995 (Pa" ,e House) HOUSE IIR 925 EH ADOPTED AND THE SENATE VERSION SB#60S IS BEING 104th CONGRESS DEBATED NOW ... To compensate owners of private property for the efTect of certain regulatory restrictions. Bc it enacted by the Senate and Housc of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'Private Property Protection Act of 1995'. SEe. 2. FEDERAL POLICY AND DIRECTION. (a) General Policy- It is the policy of the Federal Government that no law or agency action should limit the use of privately owned property so as to diminish its value. (b) Application to Federal Agency Action- Each Federal agency, officer, and employee should exercise Federal authority to ensure that agency action will not limit the use of privately owned property so as to diminish its value. SEe. 3. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION. (a) In Gcneral- The Federal Government shall compensate an owner of property whose use of any portion of that property has been limited hy an agency action, under a specified regulatory law, that diminishes the fair market value of that portion by 20 percent or more. The amount of the compensation shall equal the diminution in value that resulted from the agency action. If the diminution in value ofa portion of that property is greater than 50 percent. at the option of the owner, the Federal Government shall buy that portion of the property for its fair market value. (b) Duration of Limitation on Use- Property with respect to which compensation has been paid under this Act shall not thereafter be used contrary to the limitation imposed by the agency action, even if that action is later rescinded or otherwise vitiated. However, if that action is later rescinded or otherwise vitiated, and the owner elects to refund the amount of the compensation, adjusted for inflation. to the Treasury of the United States, the property may be so used. SEe. 4. EFFECT OF STATE LAW. If a use is a nuisance as defined by the Imv of a State or is already prohibited under a local zoning ordinancc, no compensation shall be made under this Act with respect to a limitation on that use. SEe. 5. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Prevention of Hazard to Health or Safety or Damage to Speeific Property, uNo compensation shall be made under this Act with respect to an agency action the primary purpose of which is to prevent an identifiablc-- (1) ha7,,,d to puhlic health or safety; or (2) damage to spccific property other than the property whose use is limited. (h) Navigation Servitude.--No compensation shall he made under this Act with respect to an agency action pursuant to the Federal navigation servitude, as defined by the courts of the United States, except to the extent such servitude is interpreted to apply to wetlands. SEe. 6. PROCEDURE. (a) Request ofOwner,uAn owner seeking compensation under this Act shall make a written request for compensation to the agency whose agency action resulted in the limitation. No such request may be made later than 1 RO days after the owner receives actual notice of that agency action. (b) Negotiations,uThe agency may bargain with that owner to establish the amount of the compensation. If the agency and the owner agree to such an amount, the agency shall promptly pay the owner the amount agreed upon. (c) Choiee of Remedies,--If, not later than 180 days after the written rcquest is made, the parties do not come to an agreement as to the right to and amount of compensation. the owner may choose to take the matter to hinding arhitration or seek compensation in a civil action. (d) Arhitration,nThc procedures that govcrn thc arbitration shall, as nearly as practicable, be those estahlished under title 9. United States Code. for arhitration proceedings to which that title applies. An award made in such arhitration shall include a reasonahle attorney's fee and other arhitration costs (including appraisal fees). The agency shall promptly pay :my mvard made to the owner. ~-15-'1S -.i!-(., --- -~--_. - (e) Civil Action.--An o.umer who does not choose arbitration, or who dr - - not receive prompt payment when required by this seetio. ~ay obtain appropriate relief in a civil action ".... .nst the agency. An owner who prevails in a civil action under this section shall be entitled to, and the agency shall be liable for, a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs (including appraisal fees), The court shall award interest on the amount of any compensation from the time of the limitation. (I) Source of Payments.--Any payment made under this section to an owner, and any judgment obtained by an owner in a civil action under this section shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be made from the annual appropriation of the agen<!y whose action occasioned the payment or judgment. If the agency action resulted from a requirement imposed by another agency, then the agency making the payment or satisfying the judgment may seek partial or complete reimbursement from the appropriated funds of the other agency. For this purpose the head of the agency concerned may transfer or reprogram any appropriated funds available to the agency. If insufficient funds exist for the payment or to satisfy the judgment, it shall be the duty of the head of the agency to seek the appropriation of such funds for the next fiscal year. SEe. 7. LIMITATION. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any obligation of the United States to make any payment under this Act shall be subject to the availability of appropriations. SEC. 8. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS. Whenever an agency takes an agency action limiting the use of private property, the agency shall give appropriate notice to the owners of that property explaining their rights under this Act and the procedures directly affected for obtaining any compensation that may be due to them under this Act. SEe. 9. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. (a) Effect on Constitutional Right to Compensation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit any right to compensation that exists under the Constitution or under other laws of the United States. (b) Effect of Payment.--Payment of compensation under this Act (other than when the property is bought by the Federal Government at the option of the owner) shall not confer any rights on the Federal Government other than the limitation on use resulting from the agency action, --_. SEe. 9. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Act-- (1) the term' property' means land and includes the right to use or receive water; (2) a use of property is limited by an agency action if a particular legal right to use that property no longer exists because of the action; (3) the term 'agency action' has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, but also includes the making of a grant to a public authority conditioned upon an action by the recipient that would constitute a limitation if done directly by the agency; (4) the term 'agency' has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code; (5) the term 'specified regulatory law' means-- (A) section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); (B) the Endangered Species Act of 1979 (16 U.S.c. 1531 et seq.); (C) title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 V.S.c. 3821 et seq.); or (D) with respect to an owner's right to use or receive water only-- (i) the Act of June 17, 1902, and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, popularly called the 'Reclamation Acts' (43 U.S.c. 371 et seq,); (ii) the Federal Land Policy Management Act (43 V.S.C. 1701 et seq,); or (iii) section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); (6) the term 'fair market value' means the most probable price at which property would change hands, in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, at the time the agency action occurs; (7) the term' State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States; and (8) the term 'law of the State' includes the law ofa political subdivision ofa State. Passed the House of Representatives March 3, 1995. Attest: ._--- --~.__.__. - - y v.,. n.. . VlldJ.1f. ,.~,,, CA Dept. of 1iah & Game ~ 2730 Loker Avenue lI'est , "" Nt." 'm" ~ Car1sbad, CA 92008 ; PO Box 944209 ~ (619) 431-9440 ~. Sacramento CA 94244-2090 . .../ FAX: (619) 431-9618 . (916) 653-9767 FAX: (916) 653-2588 August 15, 1995 Mayor Don Higginson City of Po way 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 RE: Public Review Draft Powav Subarea Habitat Conservation PlanlNatural Community Conservation Plan and Public Review Draft Environmental Assessment and Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for the Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit to the Citv of Poway for the California GnatcatcheL Dear Mayor Higginson: The California Department ofFish and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have ,been working with the City of Poway on this important planning effort. We appreciate the excellent working relationship with the City staff that has developed and look forward to the completion of the City's planning process. We have had the opportunity to review your proposed plan and have provided comments supportive of the City's approach, Weare here tonight to urge the Council to approve the proposed plan and we offer our assistance in helping you to work out the remaining details. /!J~ C'. ;(6-!uldc <~~~ ./ Gai' C Kobetich Ron Rempel USFWS. Carlsbad Field Office Supervisor DFG, Endangered Species Program and Habitat Conservation Planning Coordinator City of POW A Y comments on HCP August 15, 1995 The Farm Bureau has participated in developing San Diego's two habitat programs. Your program will effect the continued vitality of the regions 4th largest industry, agriculture. Poway should defer approval of their plan until the MSCP details are worked out. I applaud the staff recommendation to allow voluntary enrollment by the private property owners, but without a few modifications the "Voluntary" participation is a very expensive proposition for the farmers and landowners in Poway. Poway must modify the plan to exempt owners of unoccupied habitat from having to obtain approval from the regulatory agencies. The fedemI and state agencies have no authority over these lands other than the land use authority that your staff is recommending. The review costs would be prohibitive to anyone wanting to farm their land as economically is would be impossible to recover the costs of this expensive process. Unoccupied habitat protection is not a Federal or State mandate. To represent as anything else is misleading. This protection is what your City is proposing to use your land use authority to do. No more no less. 1 empathize with your need to build the road and proceed with an HCP in order to do so. However, ITS WRONG to pull in the small private property interests just to build your road. ITS WRONG: when privately owned residential land utilized for agriculture becomes a permanent buffer. ITS WRONG: when mitigation and biological studies are required for crops that will never bring a price to recover these costs. ITS WRONG: when farmers must attend several meetings a week for fear of what could happen in their absence. ITS WRONG: when farmers need a law degree to turn a shovel. The Farm Bureau is asking that Poway use some common sense and that the city not put habitat preservation ahead of public safety issues such as controlling disease vectors, averting floods and preventing fires. Please recognize private property and prevent the financial hardships associated with undefined interim habitat conservation. The Farm Bureau cannot support the HCP in its present form. We will continue to participate in the process hoping that the focus will be on the voluntary incentives described by Dr. Murphy for private property. We will also work toward responsible habitat stewardship on the public lands which comprise a large portion of the undeveloped lands in Poway. Eric Anderson, The Farm Bureau of San Diego County <6-1 S -'1 S :It-\., ~._._-_.._..._-_._----_._---- _._._-~ 'H__'.__ Private Prol ~ .ty Protection Act of 1995 (P~e House) HOUSE IIR 925 Ell ADOPTED AND THE SENATE VERSION SB#60S IS BEING I04th CONGRESS DEBATED N01, To compensate owners of private property for the effect of certain"-regulatory restrictions. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'Private Property Proteetion Act of 1995'. SEe. 2. FEDERAL POLICY AND DIRECTION. (a) General Policy- It is the policy of the Federal Government that no law or agency action should limit the use of privately owned property so as to diminish its value. (b) Application to Federal Agency Action- Each Federal agency, officer, and employee should exercise Federal authority to ensure that agency action will not limit the use of privately owned property so as to diminish its value. SEe. 3. RIGHT TO COM PENS A TION. (a) [n General- The Federal Government shall compensate an owner of property whose use of any portion of that property has been limited by an agency action, under a specified regulatory law, that diminishes the fair market value of that portion by 20 percent or more. The amount of the compensation shall equal the diminution in value that resulted from the agency action. If the diminution in value ofa portion afthat property is greater than 50 percent, at the option of the owner, the Federal Government shall buy that portion of the property for its fair market value. (h) Duration of Limitation on Use- Property with respect to which compensation has been paid under this Act shall not thereafter he used contrary to the limitation imposed by the agency action, even if that action is later rescinded or otherwise vitiated, However, if that action is later rescinded or otherwise vitiated. and the owner elects to refund the amount of the compensation, adjusted for inflation, to the Treasury of the United States, the property may he so used, SEe. 4. EFFECT OF STATE LAW. Ifa use is a nuisance as defined hy the law ofa State or is already prohihited under a local zoning ordinance, no compensation shall be made under this Act with respect to a limitation on that use. SEe. 5. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Prevention of Hazard to Health or Safety or Damage to Specific Property.--No compensation shall be made under this Act with respect to an agency action the primary purpose of which is to prevent an identifiable-- (I) hazard to puhlic health or safety; or (2) damage to specific property other than the property whose use is limited. (h) Navigation Servitude.--No compensation shall he made under this Act with respect to an agency action pursuant to the Federal navigation servitude, as dcfined by the courts of the United States, except to the extent such servitude is interpreted to apply to wetlands, SEe. 6. PROCEDURE. (a) Request of Owner.--An owner seeking eompcnsation under this Act shall make a written request for cnmpcnsation to the agency whose agency action resulted in the limitation, No such request may he made later than I RO days aftcr thc owner receives actual notice of that agency action, (h) Negotiations.--The agency may bargain with that owner to establish the amount of the compensation. If the agency and the owner agree to such an amount, the agcncy shall promptly pay the owner the amount agreed upon. (c) Choice of Rcmedies.--If, not later than I RO days aftcr the written request is made, the parties do not come to an agreement as to the right to and amount of compensation, the o\vner may choose to take the matter to hinding arbitration or seek compensation in a civil action. (d) Arhitration.--Thc procedures that govern the arhitration shall, as ncarly as practicable, he those estahlished under title 9. United States Code, for arbitration proceedings to which that title applies. An award made in such mhitration shall include a reasonable nttorney's fee and other arbitration costs (including appraisal fees). The agency shall promptly pay any award made to the owner. 'i?-IS-'1S -Jb(." ---.----. -..-.- - -.---.----- (e) Civil Action.--An owner who does not choose arbitration, or who doe. not receive prompt payment when required by this sectior '''lay obtain appropriate relief in a civil action a1:. 3t the agency. An owner who prevails in a civil actio. ,lder this section shall be entitled to, and the agency shall be liable for, a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs (including appraisal fees), The court shall award interest on the amount of any compensation from the time of the limitation. (I) Source of Payments.--Any payment made under this section to an owner, and any judgment obtained by an owner in a civil action under this section shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be made from the annual appropriation of the agenlly whose action occasioned the payment or judgment. If the agency action resulted from a requirement imposed by another agency, then the agency making the payment or satisfying the judgment may seek partial or complete reimbursement from the appropriated funds of the other agency. For this purpose the head of the agency concerned may transfer or reprogram any appropriated funds available to the agency. [f insufficient funds exist for the payment or to satisfy the judgment, it shall be the duty of the head of the agency to seek the appropriation of such funds for the next fiscal year. SEC. 7. LIMITATION. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any obligation of the United States to make any payment under this Act shall be subject to the availability of appropriations. SEe. 8. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS. Whenever an agency takes an agency action limiting the use of private property, the agency shall give appropriate notice to the owners of that property explaining their rights under this Act and the procedures directly affected for obtaining any compensation that may be due to them under this Act. SEe. 9. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. (a) Effect on Constitutional Right to Compensation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit any right to compensation that exists under the Constitution or under other laws of the United States. (b) Effect of Payment.--Payment of compensation under this Act (other than when the property is bought by the Federal Government at the option of the owner) shall not confer any rights on the Federal Government other than the limitation on use resulting from the agency action. __....h SEe. 9. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Act-- (1) the term 'property' means land and includes the right to use or receive water; (2) a use of property is limited by an agency action if a particular legal right to use that property no longer exists because of the action; (3) the term . agency action' has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code. but also includes the making of a grant to a public authority conditioned upon an action by the recipient that would constitute a limitation if done directly by the agency; (4) the term . agency' has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code; (5) the term . specified regulatory law' means-- (A) section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); (B) the Endangered Species Act of 1979 (16 U-S.C. 1531 et seq.); (C) title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.); or (D) with respect to an owner's right to use or receive water only-- (i) the Act of June 17, 1902. and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, popularly called the 'Reclamation Acts' (43 U.S.C 371 et seq.); (ii) the Federal Land Policy Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq,); or (iii) section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S,C 1604); (6) the term 'fair market value' means the most probable price at which property would change hands, in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, at the time the agency action occurs; (7) the term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States; and (8) the term 'law of the State' includes the law ofa political subdivision ofa State. Passed the House of Representatives March 3.1995. Attest: "'-~ -. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW' FOUNDED 1873 CRAIG K. BEAM, PARTNER DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (619) 699-2482 August 15, 1995 Our File No.: 78070-00584 HAND DELIVERED The Honorable Mayor Don Higginson city of Poway, city Hall 13325 civic center Drive Poway, California 92064 The Honorable Members of The city council, city of poway 13325 civic center Drive Poway, California 92064 Re: Letter of Objection and Comment upon the Public Review Draft of the Joint Environmental Assessment (EA) and Intitial study (IS)/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Associated General Plan Amendment 95-02, Associated Zoning ordinance Amendment 95-01, Associated Grading Ordinance Amendment, and Associated poway Redevelopment Agency Resolution of Approval; All concerning the proposed city of poway Subarea Habitat conservation Plan (Poway Subarea HCP) project and companion Implementing Agreement/Management Authorization (IA/MA) , Applicant: City of poway/powa Redevelopment Agency. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council: Our firm has been retained by citizens for Private Property Rights, Inc. , hereinafter "CPPR," a group of citizens who are concerned about the city Council's proposed approval of the above-entitled Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Grading Ordinance Amendment, poway Subarea HCP, Implementing Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California. CPPR is comprised of concerned voters and property owners who believe the proposed course of action recommended in the Staff Report dated August 15, 1995 from James L. Bowersox, city Manager, to the City council is not only ill advised as a matter of policy, but also in violation of various state and federal legal requirements. '6-\ 5-4 S ~o'lP"m''W9.Pb*1f..g~1T2 2600 . SAN 01E00. CALIFORNIA 9210\ . TELEONON' (619) 236-1414 . FACSIMILE (6\9) 232-8'11 SAN DIEGO . LA JOLLA . NEW Yo ax . Los ANGEl2S . SAN FaANCISCO .JA.h -",--'.~'-"-'--'."'----~ .._---------_._-~--_.- LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is to state CPPR's objections to the proposed actions described in the above-referenced Staff Report and to request a continuance of this matter for no less than thirty (30) days to allow interested parties to more fully assess the City's proposal and to comment upon it. CPPR's testimony is based upon all three volumes of the poway Subarea Habitat conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, the Staff Report and attachments, and any and all testimony offered at the hearing of this date, as well as any other information contained on the record of the City's consideration of the above-entitled matters. We believe the City should continue this proposal and/or reject the Staff's Report recommendations for, without limitations, the following reasons: 1- written Notice to affected members of the public, namely, property owners within the confines of the proposed HCP/RCA plan area that are affected by it, has been legally inadequate and ineffectual to meet the requirements of the California Government Code. There is significant evidence that the notice provided to the property owners whose land will be affected by the proposal is legally inadequate and not calculated to provide for a reasonable opportunit for public input. It is our understanding that the HCP has been in its formative stages for an excess of 2 years. Yet to our knowledge there has been no generalized noticed public forum for affected property owners or members of the community to come forward, ask questions and offer comments regarding this proposal. This practice is contrasted with that of the city of San Diego or county of San Diego stands out as unnecessarily "closed" from those who are proposed to bear the true burden of the HCP. Interested parties will offer testimony that numerous individuals who are known to have ownership of lands within the proposed HCP did not receive written notice of this hearing or proposal, contrary to the assertions of the Staff Report. See attached Declaration of John pavin. C:\DMS\CKB\1006117.01 ._~,---- -- - LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW' FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 3 2. There is no evidence that the city has failed to comply in the legally mandated processes for a modification of its General Plan. It has not referred its proposed Plan to all adjacent agencies as required by Government Code section 65352. 3. The adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Re- zoning Ordinance, Modification of the Grading Ordinance HCP and other actions proposed pursuant to the Staff Report would be undertaken in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act unless an EIR is prepared for various reasons, including without limitation: (a) the proposed project authorizes significant development within the confines of the HCP which may have a significant environmental effect since it authorizes the grading of significant areas of the habitat of species which are federally endangered pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and endangered pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) , all as set forth on Table 1-1 of the "Public Review Draft" referenced herein above. (b) The approval of the proposed actions when taken as a whole appear to authorize the development of as many as 1100 dwelling units within the confines of the Resource conservation Area. Approval of the proposed actions identified in the Staff Report contemplates the "taking" of as many 20 Coastal California Gnatcatchers as set forth in the "Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment published in the Federal Register on June 12, 1995 . (c) The Project may have a significant adverse environmental effect for the reasons set forth in correspondence received by the city pages 35 through 77 of the Staff Report, incorporated herein by reference, noting the inadequacy of proposed mitigation measures and/or enforcement mechanisms associated with the HCP and the failure of the Negative Declaration to perform a specific analysis with respect to "Proposed Resource preservation Areas." C,\DMS\CK8\1006117.01 - LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 4 CEQA establishes a rigorous standard of review with respect to the use of a negative declaration. As noted in ouail Botanical Gardens Foundation. Inc. v. citv of Encinitas, 29 Cal App 4th 1597; 35 Cal Rptr 2d 470 [November 1994] "CEQA requires a governmental agency prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) whenever it considers approval of a proposed project that "may have a sianificant effect on the environment" (Section 21100, italics added.)" Quail Gardens at Page l60l. The proposed General Plan Amendment and other proposed actions which contemplate the destruction of natural resources and habitats under the Draft HCP as well as the statements of the potential unaddressed impacts of the Plan upon various natural resources, as set forth in the correspondence attached to the Staff Report, all mandate the preparation of an EIR prior to approval of this Project. The use of an Initial Study and negatiye declaration is legally inadequate for other reasons, including: (d) The City has modified the proposed "Mitigated Negative Declaration" to a "Negative Declaration." It has therefore, inadequately provided notice to the public at large of its intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Le. a Negative Declaration with specific mitigation measures and requirements which will assure that the proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The City's mid-course modification from a Mitigated Negative Declaration to a Negative Declaration renders the notice and review period which commenced June 21, 1995 legally inadequate. (e) The failure to adopt mitigation measures also renders the Negative Declaration inadequate inasmuch as there is an inadequate analysis of why the Negative Declaration's conclusion that the Project will not have a significant environmental effect due to the application of proposed mitigation measures is supported by the record. See, Sundstrom v County of C:\DMS\CKB\1006117.01 -.----------. - _. LueE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW' FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 5 Mendocino 1988 202 Cal App 3d 296, 305 and citizens Association for sensible Develooment v Countv of Invo, 1985 172 Cal App 3d 151. (f) The Initial study/Negative Declaration appears to be a "Plan the Plan" environmental document comparing the impacts of the currently adopted City General Plan, zoning ordinance and Grading Ordinance for the areas which may become subject to an RCP with the impacts on natural resources should an HCP be adopted. Such a "Plan to Plan" comparison is violative of CEQA as set for in El Dorado Union Hiqh School District v city of Placerville, 1983 144 Cal App 3d 123. The Initial study's argument that the proposed General Plan and zoning has fewer impacts than the existing Plan does not eliminate the need for an EIR. (g) The proposed Initial study also purports to determine that the otherwise adverse environmental effects on natural resources of the proposed Public Works projects contained on Table 2-1 will be fully mitigated by the adoption of the HCP without any description of the impact of such projects on the natural environment. This inadequate description of the impacts of such projects renders the Initial study/Negative Declaration inadequate. Even if the city of poway had undertaken the preparation of an EIR such an approach would have been inadequate as provided for County of Inyo v city of Los Anqeles, (1977) 71 Cal App 3d 185, 192. (h) Generally speaking the City's Initial study of the General Plan Amendment ignores the ultimate development associated with the adoption of this General Plan Amendment, namely authorization for the construction of upwards 1100 dwelling units and various public works project that will be authorized to proceed if the HCP is adopted, having "mitigated" their natural resources impact pursuant to the proposed 10{a) Permit and Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Games. This limitation on the discussion of the impacts of the proposed project, even in the context of an EIR violates requirements of CEQA. See, San Joaquin Raotor/Wild Life Rescue CTR v County C:\DMS\CKB\1006"7.01 -- LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 6 of stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal App 3d 713, 32 Cal Rptr 2d 704. As defined in the CEQA Guidelines in section 15378(a) the term "project" means "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment directly or ultimately." The "whole of the action" authorized by the General Plan Amendment and Re-zoning is clearly not discussed in the Initial study. In conclusion, where there is substantial evidence to support that the proposed project mav have a significant adverse effect upon the environment an EIR must be prepared. The city's rejection of specific mitigation measures in its late decision to adopt a Negative Declaration as opposed to a Mitigated Negative Declaration merely exacerbates the City's non-compliance with CEQA. See, Quail Gardens, Page 1606. 4. The city has failed to consider whether or not the Proposed General Plan Amendment and other aspects of the project are consistent with all elements of the Municipal General Plan. Government Code Section 65300.5 requires internal consistency between all elements of the Municipal General Plan mandated by Government Code section 65302. There is no attempt to reconcile this proposed General Plan Amendment addressing primarily issues of preservation of natural resources with other elements of the General Plan to include the State mandated Housing element. The poway HCP appears to give "precedence" to "natural resources" elements of the General Plan in violation of Government Code Section 65300.5. 5. The adoption of the Memorandum of understanding as well as Implementation Agreement also appear to be an unlawful delegation of the City's Municipal planning and zoning power to a Federal Agency, namely the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and California Department of Fish and Game. There is no authority for the City to delegate future planning decision by contract to either the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and wild Life. The city's obligations under Section 6.1 et seq. of the Draft C:\DMS\CK8\1006117.01 .-' _-.----~----,_..__._-~--_. .~-- ~_..__._____u_.__ LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 7 Implementation Agreement bind the City, and its exercise of police power in the future by amongst other things requiring that "[The] City amend the poway General Plan and the City's Zoning and Grading Ordinance to effectively incorporate the provisions of the PSHCP, including the special development requirements and mitigation measures identified in section 7 of the Plan and this Initial Agreement into all plannina and development decisions made bv the citv." [Emphasis, added] . As also provided in Exhibit B, Page 31 of 77 of the Staff Report, "Proposed Changes to the Draft Implementation AgreementjCESA MOU," "the terms and requirements of the Initial Plan shall be applicable to all private projects and all public projects where the private property owner seeks to rely on permits granted to the city in conjunction with the Initial Plan and its associated documents." 6. The Mitigation requirements as set forth and reauired by MOU and Implementing Agreement ignore constitutional requirements that there be a legally required "nexus" between the impact of a proposed development and any mitigation required of such a project, as well as the "rough proportionately" between mitigation measures or conditions of approval and the magnitude of any impact of a project. These twin constitutional requirements are set forth in Nollan v California Coastal Commission 483 US 825 (1987) and Dolan v citv of Tiaard 152 US ____ 129 Lawyer Edition 2d 304 (1984) . Various requirements of both Nollan and Dolan should be considered: First, according to the plain language of Nollan--the ability to use real property is a right, not a mere conference of a governmental benefit. While the government may utilize the police power to reasonably regulate the exercise of other rights, the government cannot simply take away a right because it is convenient. This is the sine qua non of the requirement that a regulation "substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest," the test that guided the Court's holding in both Nollan and Dolan. Second, according to the united states Supreme Court in C:\OMS\CKB\1006117.01 -. LDCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 8 Nollan and Dolan heightened scrutiny is required whenever specific impediment is placed upon the exercise of a property owner's right to make reasonable use of a parcel of real property. Third, as explained in Nollan, if government has the police power authority to deny a permit for the use of real property in a particular case because of a potential harm caused by that use, then the government also has the alternative power to impose a condition or exaction on the use of the property so long as there is an "essential nexus" between the condition or exaction and the harm which would have been caused by the use of the land. As explained further in Dolan, this essential nexus requires a finding of "rough proportionality" between the condition and the impact caused by the proposed development. Fourth, the heightened scrutiny standard described in the second point above applies regardless of whether the conditions imposed call for the dedication of land or money or something else. This heightened scrutiny is triggered by the fact that an impediment is placed upon the exercise of the right to use real property and not by the nature of the exaction. (The validity of this argument will be decided by in Ehrlich v. citv of Culver City, now pending before the California supreme Court.) Fifth, Nollan and Dolan require that government bear the burden of proof to justify the conditions placed upon the use of property by showing that the conditions are on an "individualized and particularized" basis "related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development" caused by the use of real property. sixth, in examining the sort of impacts caused by a development project (when such impacts are used to justify a "roughly proportional" exaction, fee, or condition) a change in the underlying character of the land (Le. , removal of common vegetation) is not necessarily a legitimate impact to consider. Because the public has no "right" to the continuation of any particular land use, the public has suffered no impact when it "loses" the "benefit" from a prior land use designation and the public has suffered no loss through the mere designation of a new use. C:\OMS\CKB\10061'7.01 - - - LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED [873 August 15, 1995 Page 9 THE POWAY PLAN FAILS THE NOLLAN AND DOLAN ANALYSIS The poway Plan is suspect for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its underlying premise. The Plan assumes that if there is a shortage of habitat then only the owners of undeveloped property should be responsible for preserving the remaining habitat. In other words, landowners who have already destroyed habitat (and who are thus responsible for any existing shortages) are forcing landowners who have not yet developed habitat on their land to bear all the costs of preserving habitat. Those who are last in line with the bulldozers are required to bear all the burdens so that society may enjoy the benefits of the remaining habitat. This, however, is precisely contrary to the articulation provided by the united States supreme Court as the rationale behind the takings clause: The Fifth Amendment's guarantee ... [is] designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. Armstrona v. united States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960) , cited in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. at 835 n.4 (noting that this is the "principal" rationale for the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause); San Dieao Gas & Electric Co. V. citv of San Dieao, 450 u.S. 621, 656 (1981) (Brennan, J. , dissenting) ; Penn Central Transportation Co. V. citv of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 123 (1978) ; Dolan v. citv of Tiaard, 512 U.S. -' 129 L.Ed.2d 304, 316 (1994) . The poway Plan, however, is designed to do precisely the opposite. It imposes the costs on owners of raw land who are not responsible for the present state of affairs because the responsible planners are determined that "implementation of the poway HCP should not impose an economic burden upon local fund revenues or the tax-paying general public." Plan at 7-2. Instead, the costs are being stuck entirely to those least able to resist--the owners of undeveloped property. In this case, the chief activity affected by the poway Plan will be the removal of vegetation. This sort of removal simply does not rise to the level of a public impact as did the alleged psychological viewshed impacts assumed by the Court in Nollan or C:\OMS\CKB\1006117.01 - - LDCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 10 the watershed and traffic impacts caused by Mrs. Dolan's plumbing store expansion. While the development projects in Nollan and Dolan conceivably had the sort of adverse public impacts that could have justified ~ermit denials in the first place--without there being a taking,Yit is hard to imagine that a permit denial to a poway landowner would not itself be an outright taking. That is because the removal of vegetation simply is not the sort of activity that the city can easily prove would have any significant impact at all on the public health, safety, or welfare. For that reason, it is doubtful that the first test of Nollan can be met by the poway Plan's attempt to impose conditions on the development of private property. In the event that a permit denial could be justified, the next question is whether the mitigation requirements of the plan pass muster. In other words, are the mitigation requirements "roughly proportional" to any impacts caused by the development and has the city carried the burden of proving on an "individualized and particularized" basis that the development of a particular parcel of property can justify the imposition of any particular mitigation measure? The Two-Acre Limitation The two-acre development limitation per parcel of property cannot be reconciled with Nollan and Dolan. Because the limitation is imposed on parcels of varying sizes there is absolutely no proportionality between the condition and the impact caused by a development proposal. This provision is also arbitrary and capricious in that the Plan contains no adequate justification for the two-acre figure and because there is no relationship between the two-acre limit and the size of the underlying parcel. The poway Plan also fails to adequately discuss the adverse _environmental impacts that such a limitation will have on the natural environment. It is well known that arbitrary and severe growth control measures encourage leapfrog development, 1/ Recall that Nollan said that conditions could be imposed instead of denying a permit if the permit denial would not itself be a taking. NoHan, 483 U.S. at 836. C:\DMS\CKB\1006117.01 - LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 11 inefficient land use patterns, the destruction of contiguous habitat, increase traffic commutes of homebuyers, and a host of other suburban and urban ills. Rather than cure a perceived environmental problem, this provision will ultimately exacerbate it. Section 6.3.2.2.--Non-Cornerstone Area Development and Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Projects that remove native vegetation either within or outside the RCA must engage in revegetation and restoration in key areas. The problem here is that there is no showing that the mere removal of native vegetation has any significant public impact on an as applied basis sufficient to justify costly and draconian revegetation and restoration efforts. This is especially a problem with the removal of vegetation outside the RCA necessitates a revegetation section 6.4--Compensation Mitigation Impacts to vegetation communities and wildlife will require either the outright purchase of lands inside the RCA or the payment of in-lieu fees to a mitigation bank. Once again, the problem is a failure to prove the nexus between the impacts caused by a particular project and the level of exactions and/or fees called for by the plan. This is especially apparent in the rejection of the "conservation of onsite habitat" as "appropriate" only in "rare circumstances" for impacts outside the RCA. Plan at 6-65. Quite simply this rejection of mitigation measures most proportional to the actual impacts of a project in favor of more remotely proportional mitigation measures flies in the face of Dolan. In fact, this sort of proposal calls into question the validity of requiring any mitigation for projects outside the RCA because their impacts on the most important habitat seems minimal if onsite mitigation is not to be required. Other mitigation measures are insupportable. For example, the ratios of 1:1, 2:1, or 3:1 (depending on the type of landscape and wetlands impacts) appear to be concocted out of thin air, and lack the sort of nexus analysis required by Nollan and Dolan. similarly, the five and ten to one oak tree mitigation requirements are wholly out of any sense of rough C:\DMS\CKB\1006117.01 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT lAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 12 proportionality. Section 7--Implementation The Implementation Plan section is seriously flawed. First it expressly admits that its goal is to foist the cost of the plan not on the taxpayers and local government, but on the owners of undeveloped property who are the least responsible for any existing shortage of habitat. Plan at 7-2. second, it applies to all parcels with vegetation regardless of whether the land contains actual habitat utilized by or capable of being utilized by an endangered species. Plan at 7-3. Third, it lists as "projects" a variety of activities with no discernible environmental impact," such as boundary adjustments. Plan at 7-4. Fourth, it includes a host of extraneous items, with no demonstrated relationship to species protection such as "lighting for home security." Plan at 7-11. This is especially relevant in light of a recent Attorney General's Opinion that under the California Endangered Species Act habitat modification (and presumably habitat lighting) is not covered. Thus, unless the habitat of a federal endangered or threatened species is at issue, the mitigation requirements may not be legally justifiable. Fifth, the in-lieu of fees of $8,500 to $12,000 per acre, plus a $1,200 administrative fee are absolutely outrageous and not at all supported by any cogent analysis. They fail Nollan and Dolan utterly. See Ehrlich v. citv of Culver citv, u.s. -' 129 L.Ed.2d 854 (1994) (vacating and remanding case upholding fees in 1 ight of Dolan.) The poway Plan violates the constitutional principles enunciated in Nollan and Dolan and will open the City of poway to substantial litigation damages and costs should it be enacted. Furthermore, the plan violates CEQA for its failure to adequately analyze the adverse environmental impacts of the severe growth restrictions which will lead to leapfrog developments and increased traffic commute times. The Plan must be scrapped entirely. C:\DMS\CKB\lD06117.01 .-..--- --- .-------. ----~_.- - LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 August 15, 1995 Page 13 CONCLUSION A hearing before the city council where the above plans are proposed for adoption at this time is manifestly unfair. It provides affected property owners with one opportunity to comment on nearly three volumes of technical information, without first having an opportunity to even ask generalized questions with respect to what the city council is considering, nor its implications. For the reasons set forth above citizens for Private Property Rights, Inc. respectfully request that the city council continue this matter for not less than thirty days or until after at least one generalized "Community Forum" may be held during which citizens are afforded a better opportunity to review the city's proposal and seek further information. Inasmuch as the Implementation Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding provide that this "Agreement" is intended to guide the development of their property over the next fifty years, surely a delay of the nature sought does not impose an unreasonable burden on the city or its city council. I remain, very truly yours, craig of Luce, CKB:cg Enclosures cc: James L. Bowersox, city Manager city Attorney Steve Eckis Mr. Jack Gibson Tom May, Esq. C:\OMS\CKB\1006117.01 ~ 65300 PLANNING AND ZONING Title 7 , J Note 10 S.C.A. ~ 1701 et seq.] and county. half of of interest" contemplated by National En- which was within CDCA and which had vironmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C.A. ~ statutory duty to adopt comprehensive 4321 et seq.] and therefore they could not general plan. also had standing to eba}. challenge the adequacy of the final envi- lenge the plaD uDder FLPMA to viDdicate ronmentnl impact statement. American its own proprietary interest in its plan- Motorcyclist Ass'o v. Watt (D.C.1981) ning activities; However, neither plaintiff 534 F.Supp. 923. organizations nor county fell within "zone ~ 65300.5. Construction of article ] In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature in- tends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of poli- cies for the adopting agency. (Added by Stats.1975, c. 1104, p. 2682, ~ 2.) Law Review Commentaries Consistency doctrine. Joseph F. Di- MeDto (1980) 20 Santa Clara L.Rev. 285. Notes of Decisions I n general I changing land use designations. Karlson I Review 2 v. City of Camarillo (1980) 161 Cal.Rptr. 260, 100 C.A.3d 789. Under ~ 65302 relatiDg to city general , I. I n general plans, single-city ordinance containing city Since county's general plan was inter. general plan is preferable, in view of fact nally inconsistent as regards open space that legislature intended that loca~ agen. aDd conservation elements the one c;y's general plan and its elements and ( aD parts would comprise an integrated. inter- hand and land use element on the other J lland. county zoning ordinance which was nally consistent and compatible statement , consistent with map of land use element of policies for the adopting agency. Save . but inconsistent with map of open space El Taro Ass'n v. Days (1977) 141 Cal. conservation element, could not be consist- Rptr. 282, 74 C.A.3d 64. ent with such plan and was invalid when 2. Review passed. Sierra Club v. Kern County Bd. of Sup'rs (1981) 179 Cal.Rptr. 261, 126 This section requiring integrated, inter- C.A.3d 698. nal consistency of a general plan did not City council did not act arbitrarily or modify scope of review of action of city council in enacting amendment to general capriciously or without evidentiary sup- plan changing land use designations. port, but rather, acted within the scope of Karlson v. City of Camarillo (1980) 161 authority and not in violation of the law, Cal.Rptr. 260, 100 C.A.3d 789. l in enacting amendments to general plan < ~ 65300.7. Legislative finding i ( The Legislature finds that the diversity of the state's communi- i ties and their residents requires planning agencies and legislative bod- ies to implement this article in ways that accommodate local condi- tions and circumstances, while meeting its minimum requirements. ( (Added by Stats.1980, c. 837, p. 2617, ~ 1.) I ] 568 ~ ""_.._._-~,-~----- I SMENT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE t 65352 Hiltorieal and Statutory Nota 1984 Lerialalion Deri..llon: Former f 663liO, added by 8t.al&1966, e. Fonner t 66360 was repealed by Stata.l984, c. 1009, 1880, p. 4338. f 5. ~ 13. planninr polici.. LegiJlative intent relating to Stata.I984, Co 1009, ... note under EduCoC. ~ 39002. develop site design Notea of Deeilioftl : the general plan 1. In gen_ral whieh is not collJiltent wilJl ita current general plan under A local government may not approve an alternative 1118 IJI_ "window" provisions of Stata.I981, e. 1096. 67 Opa. of WiIliamaon Act (~ 61200 et oeq.) contnet property Atty.Gen. 247, 6-6-84. t 65351. Public involvement may be cited II, the During the preparation or amendment of the general plan, the planning agency shall provide d Control Act.. opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utility companies. and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any other means the city or county deems appropriate. l f 13 et oeq. (Added by Stats.I984, c. 1009, f 13.5.) 140. Hi,torieal and Statutory Not.. 1984 Leri.1aUon Legialativ_ intent relating to StatLl984, e. 1009, ..- Fonner f 65361 wu repealed by 8tata.I984, e. 1009. note under Educ. C. ~ 39002. f 13. DeriftIlon: Former f 6li304. added by 8tatLl966, e. See, now, If 66090. 66084, 65096, 663611. 1880, P. 4338. f 6- f 65352. Referral to other arenci.. (a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend , general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entities: :e provilIions for boUling (1) Any city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the proposal, and any special district ,f community. DateIin- which may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as detennined by the planning agency. I. (App. 1 01.1.1983) 194 (2) Any elementary, high school, or unified school district within the area covered by the proposed action. (3) The local agency fonnation commission. (4) Any areawide planning agency whoee operations may be significantly affected by the proposed ~ PLAN action, as detennined by the planning agency. (5) Any federal agency if ita operations or landa within ita jurisdiction may be significant1y affected by ,aring. the proposed action, as detennined by the planning agency. (:tion. (6) Any public water system, as delIned in SectIon 4010.1 of the Health and Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service connections, that serves water to customel'll within the area covered by the proposal. The 5tribution; fees. public water system shall have at least 45 daya to comment on the proposed plan, in accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide the planning agency with the infonnation set forth in Section 65968.1. ,er plans. (7) The Bay Area Air Quality Manalrement District for a DrollOsed action within the bolUlllaries of the lnties. ~ine. district. (b) Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of a general plan pursuant to this section shall have 45 days from the date the referring agency mai1s it or delivers it in which to comment unless a longer period is specifted by the planning agency. (c)(I) This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section does not affect the validity of the allIion, if adopted. (2) To the extent that the requirementa of this section conflict with the requirementa of Chapter 4.4 of those general plans (commencing with Section 65919), the requirementa of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail . (Added by Stata.I984, c. 1009, t 13.5. Amended by Stata.l985, c. 114, t 5, eff. June 28, 1985; Stats.I991, c. 804 (S.B.755), t 1; Stata.I992. c. 631 (A.B.455). t 1; Stata.I993. c. 719 (A.B.835), t 1.) Irian * * * Addltlona or chang.. Indlcatad by underllna; dalatlona by mart.ka . . . 337 ^m__~___..__ .-..-- -_._-----------~-~~-"_._-~-- Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 119 I Wednesday. June 21. 199 5 I Noti.c.e. 32.337 SOIl Bernardino Meridi... Fish and WIldlife Service (NCCP) Act. NCCP PTocess G 'd II T,IIN,. R.9W" d Ulen.. an NCCP Southern California Coaata\ Sec. 34. N1I2Nl/2SWI/4NEI/4NWlI Endangered end Threllt8ned Species Sage Scrub Conservation Guidelines. 4NWl/4, Nl12Nl/2SEl/4NWl/4NW11 Pennlt Application In addition to the permit application. 4NWl/4. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife. Interior. the Service also announces the Containing 1.25 acres of public land. more AcneN: Notice of availability. availability 01 an Environmental or less. Assessment (EA). The EA evaluates the Availability of an Environmental effects on the human environment of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assessment and Receipt of an proposed action: issuance of the County of Kern has applied to expand Application for a Permit to Allow incidental take permit and approval of the area currently leased for the North Incidental Take of 3 Threatened and the HCP and lA. This notice is provided Edwards Community Park. The land Endangered Species and 19 Other pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and will be leased during the development Species by the City of Poway and its National Environmental Policy Act stage. and subsequently conveyed upon Redevelopment Agency. in San Diego regulations (40 CFR 1506.6), substantial completion of the approved County. California. DATES: Written comments on the permit plan of development. The lands are not SUMMARY: This notice advises the public application and EA should be received needed for Federal purposes. and that the City of Poway and its on or before July 21. 1995. conveyance would be consistent with Redevelopment Agency (applicants) ADDRESSES: Comments regarding the the 1980 California Desert Conservation have applied to the U.S. Fish and adequacy of the HCP. IA. and EA shouid Area Plan. as amended. The lease and Wildlife Service (Service) for an be addressed to Mr. Gail Kobetich. Field conveyance of the land would be subject incidental take permit (PRT~03743) Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife to the following terms and conditions: pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Service. 2730 Loker Avenue West. 1. Provisions of the Recreation and Endangered Species Act of 1973. as Carlsbad. CA 92008; FAX (619) 431- Public Purpose Act and applicable amended (Act). The application package 9618. Please refer to permit No. PRT- includes a Habitat Conservation Plan 803743 when submitting comments. regulations of the Secretary of the (HCP) and Implementing Interior. Agreement(IA). The proposed incidental FOR FURTlIER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2. A right of way to the United States take would occur as a result of habitat Nancy Gilbert. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. at the above address. for ditches and canals. pursuant to the disturbance associated with residential telephone (619) 431-9440. Individuals Act of August 30. 1980 (43 V.S.C. and limited municipal development. wishing copies of the application and 945). The requested permit would authorize EA for review should immediately 3. A reservation of all minerals to the incidental take of the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila contact Ms. Gilbert. United States. and the right to cali/ornico cali/arnica). endangered SUPPlEMENTARY INFORMATION: The prospect. mine, and remove the least Bell's vireo (Vireo belJii pusillus). "take" of threatened and endangered minerals. and endangered southwestern willow species is prohibited under section 9 of Publication of this Notice in the flycatcher (Empidonax troilJii extimus). the Act and its implementing Federal Register segregates the public The applicants also request coverage regulations. Take is defined. in pari. as lands from all other forms of of an additional 19 unlisted. sensitive killing. harming. or harassing listed appropriation under the public land species (11 plant. 8 animal) that occur species. including significant habitat laws and the general mining laws. but within the City's jurisdiction. The HCP modification that results in death of or not the mineral leasing laws Of the proposes to conserve all 22 species injury to listed species. Under limited Recreation and Public Purpose Act. according to standards required for circumstances. the Service may issue listed species under the Act. such that. pennits to take listed species if such Detailed information concerning this barring unforeseen circumstances. the taking is incidental to otherwise lawful action is available for review at the unlisted species could be amended to activities. Regulations governing California Desert District. 6221 Box the 10(a)(1)(B) permit to authorize permits are in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. Springs Blvd.. Riverside. CA 92507. For incidental take of these species should The proposed action would allow a period of 45 days after publication of they be federally listed within the term incidental take of 3 listed animal this notice in the Federal R.egister of the 50-year permit. Concurrent with species and up to 19 other species interested parties may submit comments the proposed issuance of the Federal within the City of Poway. Tbe City has to the District Manager. California 10(a)(1)(B) permit. the California jurisdiction over 24.999 acres. of which Desert District. in care of the above Department of Fish and Game proposes approximately 16.678 acres are natural address. Objeclions will be reviewed by to issue a management authorization for habitats. To minimize and mitigate the the State Director. who may sustain. the 22 species under section 2081 of the impacts of the proposed take. the vacate. Of modify this realty action. In California Endan~red !!Jecies Act. applicants propose to implement the the absence of any adverse comments. Preparation of e H is a condition HCP within an approximate 13.000-acre the classification will become effective of Service approval of a significant Resource Conservation Area (RCA). Tbe 60 days after publication of this notice roadway extension project. which will RCA includes 78 percent of all in the Federal Register, require significant mitigation. Federal remaining undeveloped habitat and 85 approval of the HCP also is required as percent of the California gnatcatcher Dated: fune 5. 1995. pari of the special 4(d) rule for the habitat (coastal sage scrub) under City Henri R. Bisson, California gnatcatcher (58 FR 65088). jurisdiction. Nearly the entire extant District Manager. Incidental take of the gnatcatcher is gnatcatcher population within the [FR Doc, 95-15196 Filed 6,-20-95; .,45 ami allowed under section 4(d) of the Act if planning area occurs within the RCA. take results from activities conducted The endangered southwestern willow BILLING CODE 431l)...4O..P pursuant to the California Natural flycatcher and least Bell's vireo Community Conservation Planning potentially occur within the riparian "---------~-,-_._,-_.._--- ._-_..__._---------'_..._-_.._-~--,...,- --...-- 32338 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 119 I Wednesday. June 21. 1995 I Notices habitat of the RCA. proposed for nearly includes alternatives ranging from proposals for funding submitted 100 percent conservation. complete preservation of native habitats pursuant to the North American Residential. limited commercial. and within the RCA to separate. project. level Wetlands Conservation Act. Upon limited public infrastructure efforts. completion of the Council's review. development is planned within and The EA considers the environmental proposals will be submitted to the beyond the RCA. Some of these projects consequences of four alternatives. Migratory Bird Conservation will result in loss of natural habitats. including the proposed action. Under Commission with recommendations for An estimated 200 pairs of the no action alternative. the proposed funding. The meeting is open to the gnatcatchers occur within the RCA on HCP would not be implemented. The public. 6,210 of the remaining 7.300 acres of applicants would either avoid take of DATES: July 19. 1995.9:00 a.m, coastal sage scrub within the planning listed species within the planning area. ADORESSES: The meeting will he held at area. Approximately 90 percent of the or apply for individual10(a)(1)(B) the Pines Resort Hotel on Shore Road in coastal sage scrub within the RCA IS permits on a project-by-project basis. Digby Nova Scotia Canada The North proposed to be conserved lhIough Existing land use and environmental American Wetlan~ Conse';'ation venous m.easures. resulting 10 a net loss regulations would apply to all projects Council Coordinator is located at UB. of approXlJ':lately 20 pell'S. . . proposed within the planning area. Fish and Wildlife Service Arlington The applicants propose to mitigate for Existing regulatory practices require Sq B 'ld' 4401 N 'F 'f Dri t- ~ f th t tch b serving the' . . uare W 109, . air ax ve, ...e 0 e l!lla ca er y pre. mitigation for impects to sensitive S 't 110 Arlington V' inia 22203. above mentioned amount of hahltat species and habitats resulting in lands we. , ug through direct acquisition of hahitat and being set aside for open-space FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. CONTACT: through protective restrictions or preservation. However. under the no Coordinat?r. North ~mencan Wetlands easements on land~ ,:"maining in private action alternative. greater habitat Conservation Councll. (703) 358-1784. ownership. Acqwsltion revenues are fragmentatinn would likely occur SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAnON: In expected from mitigation fees for because the lands set aside for open- accordance with the. North American development of coastal sage scrub space preservation would not be Wetlands Conservation Act (P.L. 101- Wlthin. and beyond the RCA. lhIough a assemhled in a coordinated preserve 233.103 Stat. 1988, December 13. 1989). proVlslOn of the NCCP process. system. Under a third alternative, the the North Amencan Wetlands Mitigation credits also are anticipated to proposed RCA boundary would consist Conservation Council is a Federa1-State- be sol~ t~ parties .outside of the City of only of lands alreedy preserved in Private body ,:,,~ch meets to .consider POw!y 5 }unsdiction. as approved by the Poway; i.e., cornerstone lands as wetland acqwsltion. restoration. . Service. The level of allowable identified in the HCP the parcels enhancement and management projects residential devel~pment within the RCA purchased for mitigation of the Scripps- for recommendati~n to and final would be d~termlD~d by eXlsling low- Poway Parkway Extension project. and epproval by the Migratory Bird denSity zoomg (venous levels) and by slopes over 45 percent within the RCA. Conservation Commission. Proposals the availability of municipal water No other lands would be included in the from State and private sponsors require supply (the lack o~ w.hich wo~ld RCA or added to the preserve. The a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal prevent higher b,,!ld.lDg denSities). . fourth alternative would preserve all matching funds. Currently. the m~Jonty of the R~ IS not identified hahitat and species within the Dated: June 1'. 1995. served by m~c.lpal water. Exi~ RCA. Development would be prohibited MoWe H"Beattle. land-use restrictions would limit the .thin th ro osed RCA bound amount of development to 2 acres per WI e pre p. ary Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I Miti ti f th except on already disturbed areas where IFR Doc. 95-15152 Filed 6-2lHl5; 8:45 ami paree . ga on areas or . ese such development would not impact the unpacts would be preserved 10 a n~tural viabilit of the ro osed RCA. ....- c:oa. "'~ state by resource-.management zonmg. . y. p p. . The balance of mitigation lands (ApphcatioD for 8 Pennlt to Allow InCIdental remaining in private ownership would Take of 3 ThnIa.enad and Endangered INTERNATIONAL TRADE be rotected hy ordinance. Speci.. and 19 Other Speci.. by the City of COMMISSION pr . ~, ul' I' Poway and ,t. Redevalopmen. Agency. 10 The potenti", m tip e-s!,"?es San Di 0 County California) pnvutlg8llon No. 731-TA-1OO (Flnel)] preserve system would be bwlt by OS, incremental additions at the parcel Dated. June 15. 19115. DIsposable Lighters From the People's level. These additions are proposed to WilJIam F. Shake, .' . R bile of China augment and connect an existing system Acting Deputy Re8Jonal Dlrector. R68'on 1, epu of currently disjunct, publicly owned . Portlond, Oregon. Determination lands via resource-management zoning. IFR Doc. 95-15149 Filed 6-20-95; 8:45 amI On the basis of the record I developed Other elements. of the HCP address IIUMG c:oa. ..,......... in the subject investigation. the preserve plannmg m a re810nal context: Commission determines :z pursuant to currently. private lands with especially section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 high biological val,:,e have hE;e,n Fish and Wildlife Service (19 V.S.C. S 1673d(b)) (the Act). that an Identified for pnonty a,cqulsltion so as North AmarlClln Watlands industry in the United States is not to ensure the preservation of Co atI Co II' ~-~ materially inJ'ured or threatened with . d 'ldland d th . nll8lY on une, ......ung unconstrame Wl s an err A t material in,'ury and the establishment of I'nka .thin d be d th RCA nnounceman ' 1 ge WI.. an yon e. .... an industry in the United States is not Selective siting of development at the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, materially retarded. by reason of p~ellevells further pro~osed to Department of the Intenor. imports from the People's Republic of muu~lze ~pa~s to rel,atively rare and ACTtON: Notice of meeting, senSItive blologJCal habItats and . I The ~cord is defined in sec. 207.2{f) ofthe features, The achievement of a viable. SUMMARY: The North Amencan Commission's Rules of Prectice and Procedure (19 connected natural preserve system is Wetlands Conservation Council CFR 207.2(f)). proposed under the HCP, The HCP (Council) will meet on July 19 to ,review 1 Commission8rs Rohr and Newquist dissenting, - 1 I, JOHN M. PAVIN, declare: 2 1- I reside at 13319 stone Canyon Road, Poway, California 3 92064. 4 2. On or about July 30, 1995, I mailed notices to over 700 5 persons who are known to me to own vacant rural property within 6 the city of poway ("city") regarding the proposed poway Subarea 7 Habitat conservation Plan (the "Habitat Plan") proposed for 8 consideration by the City council of the city at their hearing on 9 August 15, 1995. 10 3. Since mailing my notice I have personally talked to 11 over 200 people that responded to my notice regarding the 12 proposed Habitat Plan. In each case I confirmed that these 13 people owned vacant land within the city and inquired as to 14 whether they had received the city's mailed notice of its 15 intended consideration of the Habitat Plan on August 15, 1995. 16 Of the 200+ people I spoke to, only 5 or 6 had received the 17 city's notice. All others denied receiving any notice from the 18 city regarding the proposed hearing on the Habitat Plan. 19 4. In light of this very large percentage of affected 20 landowners who had not received the city's notice of the hearing, 21 I made inquiries of the city in an effort to determine whether 22 notice was in fact given to affected landowners. 23 5. I have talked to several individuals at the Planning 24 Department of the City and the city Clerk, in each case 25 requesting a copy of the mailing list used by the City for 26 purposes of sending out its notice of a hearing on the Habitat 27 plan on August 15, 1995. I intended to check that mailing list 28 against my own list of property owners who had not received - I 1 mailed notices in an effort to determine if the city had properly 2 notified all interested persons of the proposed hearing. 3 6. I have been informed by staff members in the Planning 4 Department and the city Clerk at various times that the City's 5 mailing list is either not available or has been misplaced. I 6 have not yet received a copy of the mailing list used by the city 7 for purposes of providing notice of the hearing on the Habitat 8 Plan and hereby renew that request. 9 7. I have been informed by Planning Department staff and 10 the City Clerk that the City's mailing list included owners of 11 all property within the Resource conservation Area ("RCA") 12 described in the Habitat Plan and all owners of property, any 13 portion of which lies within 500 feet of the RCA. 14 8. I own 10 acres of property along Blue crystal Trails, 15 which property is directly adjacent to, and within 500 feet of, 16 the RCA. 17 9. I have not received any mailed notice from the City 18 with respect to its August 15, 1995 hearing on the Habitat Plan. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the 20 state of california, that the foregoing is true and correct. 21 22 Dated: August 15, 1995 JOHN M. PAVIN 23 24 25 26 27 28 C:\OMS\TAM\1006217.01 AUG. 15, 1995 Douglas & Louise Bernd 2135 Robertson st. Ramona, Ca. 92065 ( 619) 789 6520 City of Poway Board: Mayor D. Higginson, Deputy Mayor S. Callery Council members, R Emery,B.Rexford, M Cafagna City Planners J Nessel, J. Bowersox, Reba Wright-Quastier Dear Board, I am here tonight to request a extension for more time in order to further study the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. I ask that you hold off voting on this plan, and allow Private property owners a reasonable amount of time to study the proposal as set forth by the city of Poway. My reasons for this request is listed on the two pages attached to my request. Sincerely, f ~~~~ L Louise Bernd - - AUG. 15, 1995 Douglas & Louise Bernd 2135 Robertson St. Ramona, Ca. 92065 ( 619) 789 6520 City of Poway Board: Mayor D. Higginson, Deputy Mayor S. Callery Council members, R Emery,B.Rexford, M Cafagna City Planners J Nessel, J. Bowersox, Reba Wright-Quastier Dear Board, We, the poway Property Owners request an extension for more time in order to further study The Poway's Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. These are the reasons Why we fell more time is absolutely necessary. 1. The blatant refusal to acknowledge the Fifth Amendment. 2. The confiscation of privately owned Property. 3. The devaluation of Private Property. 4. Not giving property owners equal time to study the poway Subarea Conservation Plan to come up with an alternative plan. 5. Misleading the public by calling this a Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan, in order to put your own construction plan into operation. 6. The restriction of the use of our private property. 7. The two acre restriction to property owners regardless of the amount of property they own. 8. Not notifying all concerned property owners. (Many property owners were never notified.) 9. Not allowing property owners to be involved with the study or allowing them to be represented. 10. Not allowing Private property onwers access to the records are affected under this plan. ll. Refusing just compensation to the property owners. 12. The misrepresentation of the word voluntary. 13. The political strong arm tactic of this broad. 14. The misuse of Tax Payers money for a study that is unwarranted, unconstitutional and without the knowledge or consent of the Tax Payers. 15. A Fifty year restriction of nonuse of property 16. The unjust thirty day notification in which to respond to the City of Poway's Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. 17. No access to records of noticification of the the property owners. Our Recommendations to all concerned: 1. The removal of all privately owned property from the poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. 2. To redefine the Subarea Habitat Conservation plan -" Map, Removing all Privately owned property. 3. To remove all Regulations and restrictions from privately owned Property. 4. To change the zoning. 5. To stop the Scripps-Poway Extension plan. 6. To start a recall petition for all those involved in this Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. 7. The changing of the poway General Plan, and zoning ordinances. 8. The City of Poway should conduct a nonaerial environmental study of each individual parcel at the City expense, to determine: A. Whether or not any endangered species do exist on privately owned property. B. And whether the species found are truly endangered, and are listed by the state and Federal Government. 9. A time extension for Private property owners to further study the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan to see what effects it will have on the community. Sincerel .&d Bernd Owners ."-- ~----" - Bill & Sheila Cockerell P.O. Box 1420 Poway, California 92074 Telephone (619) 748 3298 FAX (619) 748 3171 August 15, 1995 TO: Mayor and City Council of the City of Poway Subject: Poway Subarea Habitat Conversation Plan Gentlemen: We strongly protest the confiscation of our property rights by the City of Poway. While we are being told by Reba Wright- Quastler and the other city people involved that "we will be better off with this than the present situation requiring a permi t" , any fool can see that our property rights are being stripped away with the proposed ordinance. The following are primary among the reasons for our protest: 1) Under the present permit requirements, we are still able to fence, walk on, plant trees on, and use our land as we see fit, with some restrictions on the destruction of endangered species and habitat. With the proposed ordinance, the above activities will be illegal. 2) Basically what this law does is reduce any size plot of land to 2 usable acres, period, end of discussion. By what convoluted logic can the city justify this? If we wanted only 2 acres, we would have purchased 2 acres for a lot less money than we paid for 32 acres. Why hasn't a less unfair plan been considered that would take a certain percentage of each parcel, including that in the industrial park and other areas of Poway? Why doesn't Poway have a plan to compensate land owners for the loss of use of any land over 2 acres? 3 ) The main reason people buy large plots of land is for isolation. By forcing owners to build in clusters, the plan further reduces the value of the land, especially if Poway decides the least disturbance to the habitat would occur if a dwelling unit is built in an undesirable part of a parcel. This would be particularly damaging to" an owner, if he were forced to build in a valley rather than on a hilltop where the view was much better, or i.f the dwelling was placed in an area where highway or street noise was unacceptable. g-IS-QS ~l.. Poway Subarea Habitat Conversation Plan (page 2) 4) Our fire protection from the city is now inadequate, and the situation will be even wOrse if we are not allowed to clear our land, or replace the native combustible foliage with fire retardant plants in order to prevent fires. It appears that Poway intends to do nothing to make up for this restriction. S) Since we cannot fence our property under the proposed ordinance, is Poway prepared to assume a land owner's liability if a trespasser is injured on his property? If the land was fenced, and someone trespassed, the probability of a successful lawsuit would be significantly lower. 6) Since the City of Po way and the Wildlife Service don't know whether there are endangered species on a particular piece of property, how do they justify restricting all parcels? 7) This ordinance will obviously reduce our land values. Does Poway have a plan to operate on lower tax revenues? Since owners have the right to get their property re-assessed, there is a high probability that property taxes will be reduced. 8) Why is so much land being affected? It is our understanding that the parkway extension only destroys 200 acres of habitat and mitigation land has supposedly been purchased by Poway. Why is over 13,000 acres of land being subjected to the confiscation of land use rights? 9) At the meeting in July, I asked if we can clear and landscape the parcels that will be 'legal when water is brought to upper high valley. We were told no, in no uncertain terms by Ms. Wright-Ouastler. Under the proposed plan, properties within the Resource Conservation Area will supposedly be allowed the same subdivision and development rights as currently exist. Since the native plant species do not depend on city water for their survival, the clearing either before or after water is available should make no difference. What logic is being used to deny permission to clear? I also asked what was done in preparation for the bringing of water to our area. I was told that nothing had been done. This is obviously never going to happen under the plan, since Poway will have to find (steal) more mitigation land if water is to be brought in. This entire plan is unconstitutional, and is a violation of our fifth amendment rights. The proposed implementation is blatantly unfair, no one who has already developed their land is being forced to make a sacrifice. Those few who have not yet developed their land must shoulder the entire burden without compensation. Why is the Poway city government going along with the federal and state agencies and allowing our land, as well as city land, to be stolen, when the Poway government was elected to represent us and our best interests? There is no logic that can possibly justify this disregard for our rights. ~ - August 15, 1995 Ron and Carol Baker 3344 Lakeview Drive Spring Valley, CA 91977 poway Mayor: Don Higginson, Council Members: Mickey Cafagna, Susan Callery, Robert Emery, Betty Rexford Speaking on behalf of all private property owners effected by Poway's Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan, we adamantly disapprove of this plan, and the recommendations submitted by James Bowersox, City Manager of Poway, which is a superficial attempt to placate private property owners by stating that, if adopted, the plan will be voluntary. To which we maintain that Poway's voluntary plan is not voluntary and a misrepresentation of the council's intentions. . If the council believes that Bowersox's recommendations make the plan voluntary, why then on page 13 of 77 of the addendum does it states,"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of poway by adoption of this resolution, does hereby approve the following actions: 3. The Resource Conservation Area as defined in the poway Subarea HCP and companion IA documents is hereby established." We contend that #3 graphically defines our property as habitat preserve under the guise of being "voluntary" _ We argue that no private property be designated in Poway's HCP or IA documents as habitat areas. . The city, by approving all these documents, is entering into a contract with the 3 -l S -"15 #1" ~_.__.,.__...,..._."""."_._._.m _ _. U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife to prohibit and restrict development of 80 to 95% of our property. . In this report the City of Poway has the "green Iighf' to proceed with development of the Scripps poway Parkway extension. As the City of Poway states, mitigation lands have already been set aside. If the city already has obtained enough land to proceed with their self-serving road, why then do you, the city, need to "take" our land? On August 9, 1995 private property owners recommended to the city manager (Bowersox), council member (Callery) and senior planner (Wright-Quasler) that the City of Poway redraft all maps and documents to exclude all private property from the HCP. To our legitimate concern, there was no reply from our elected officials. If the council refuses our request to redraft the habitat area maps and documents to exclude all private property, then we perceive the council's intentions of making the plan "voluntary" as being purposely misleading. ~bL - .._M____~__~_ ....----.-,....- _,.~.~__.m_ . - - August 15, 1995 Mayor Don Higginson Deputy Mayor Susan Callery Councilmember Bob Emery Councilmember Mickey (;afagna Councilmember Betty Rexford City Hall Poway, California 92064 RE: August 15, 1995 City Council Meeting and the poway Subarea HCP and companion IA/t1A Dear Elected Representatives: I am a property owner and re:o:ident ()f rural Poway, a t.21X payer, and a voter and I would like request 60 day extension prior to your vote on the above matter. It is the feeling of many of those impacted by this action that proper notification was not given, and our quests to receive a list of those notified, and the dates of notification been ignored by the City of Poway. To vote on this issue at this time would expose the City to endless expensive lawsuits. It is my understanding that this plan has been in the works for the past three years, and that the cost of same in consultants fees alone is in excess of $300,000.00. At no time during these three years were any of the landowners who will lose the use of these lands if this is enacted, made aware that 'this was being contemplated. At no time were those impacted ever consulted or asked for their opinions. As a tax payer, I have no desire to spend any more of my tax money in a legal battle, which passage of this Habitat Conservation Plan, even on a voluntary basis will provoke. It seems reas()nable that at this -cirne you postpone voting on this issue until you can assure yourselves that the public has been adequately informed, and that you will not be forced to spend more of QUI' monies to defend your actions. Most sincerely, dYdacm) (;~ Sheila ~l. Cockerell Post Office Box 1420 Poway, CA 92074 Parcel: 321-11(1--J6 Phone: 61 ';1-748-~;292- 3-15 -4 S .jI.1o RILEY J. LIVELY Commercial and Industrial Development 9628 Campo Road. Suite G . Spring Valley, CA 91977 (619) 461-3131 August 15, 1995 poway City Council Members: Do all of you know that the vacant lot behind our shopping center isn't a vacant lot and that the 147 acres of land we bought in South Poway for $3,000,000 isn't undevel- oped land. They are both "habitat." However, we clear the brush and weeds off of the lot each year to control the fire hazard and have thus, in the eyes of the people at California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with those dedicated biologists at Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, committed a sin. We don't have a vacant lot, we have a quarter of an acre of "disturbed habitat." Because some of our undeveloped land is adjacent to a residential area, the city annu- ally clears a few acres of brush back from the houses, for about a $500 charge, and so, you to have sinned. I bring this example up just to demonstrate that these people know all the buttons to push to get sympathy and support for what they consider a noble cause. After all who would dare criticize motherhood or apple pie and surely, "disturbing" habitat runs a close second. Let me mention just one more, do you know that if this plan is approved you have the responsibility to insure that no one has a security light that shines on the "habitat" next to their house? Read page 7-11 last paragraph. These are just a couple of the ridiculous examples, there are many more repugnant, costly and insulting state- ments and requirements in there volumes. Speaking of these volumes, I am willing to bet the farm that not one of you has read these three documents, to say nothing of understanding what you are being asked to vote for this evening. I confess I have been diligently trying for the last two weeks and I still get lost in the abbreviations. Anyone that has tried to make sense out of these documents will know exactly what I'm talking about, a list is attached to this letter. g-lS-'15 ~j.. .--- - Lets acknowledge the real reason the city has paid Ogden at least tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce this plan. I don't believe for a nano-second that the Poway City Councilor planning department honestly believes they need anything more than their existing legal controls over development in this city. Every bit of the time, en- ergy and money expended on this project is the direct result of the "Endangered Spe cies Act" and the horrendous bureaucratic nightmare it has spawned. I ask you, how many of you have ever in your life seen a California Gnatcatcher or for that matter would care if every one of them flew down to Mexico and never came back? The fact is the California Department of Fish and Game along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice are doing nothing more than exercising that time worn and classic gambit of threat- ening to withhold their approval of the Scrapps Parkway environmental documents un- less the city passes this Habitat Conservation Plan. Just as our company has concluded we must never again give in to this type of extor- tion, the City of Poway should assume the same posture. The City has already pro- vided the required mitigation land for the Parkway and I suspect the money spent with Ogden and the other associated costs of presenting and selling this plan would have paid for the remaining cost of your permits. Its time to put the city taxpayers and the cities's honor and integrity above this nonsense. I don't believe I'm being naive here, but if I am it is precisely because you have again repeated the procedure you followed when you developed the poway Road Rezoning Plan. Specifically, you have worked two and a half years on a plan that vitally affects the well being if not the financial survival of tax paying property owners without ever in- forming us of your intentions or requesting our input until just before you planned to vote. While this procedure has the benefit of limiting opposition, in the instance, it practi- cally guarantees litigation. As an aside I want to make it clear to those of you that are not aware, that we have al- ways supported the extension of the Scripps Parkway. Four years ago we donated an easement across our property without reservation or request for payment of any kind. I seriously doubt that many, if any, other private property owners have matched our com- mitment to this project. -- ~ I could not get a complete copy of this plan until August first and there is no way to ex- press all of our concerns and objections in the allotted three minutes, so in order to pre- serve our position in court a partial list of our objections follows: We object to: 1. The identification of core and linkage areas as untouchable for development 2. The requirement to pay money as mitigation for development outside of the resource Conservation area. 3. The city imposing this plan on the property owners as mitigation for the Scripps Parkway Extension, Paguay Redevelopment Plan and other city capital improvements. 4. The City failing to inform or consult with the affected property owners until the plan was complete and ready for vote 5. Any revegetation plan that requires planting coastal sage scrub 6. The taking of private property without just compensation 7. The submission of a plan that is extremely difficult to read without a glossary 8. The city using in-lieu fees paid by private property owners to purchase mitiga tion land for city projects 1::~ Property Manager, Lively Trust .~------~ Each of these acronyms is used in the plan documents, however, no glossary is pro- vided and the first time ( or tenth time) reader must try to remember where each was dfined and refer to that page for help in order to understand what he is reading. CNPS IA RR-C CDFG ZOA UBC USFWS MHP NEPA MSCP PRD SDRVP DPLU PC SOl CEQA HC BCLA ESA PF BLM MSL OS-R MSCP MHCP EA OS-1DU MSMP MOU TET NCCP EIR OCGE AMSL FEIR NOS HCP MH COSP SDRP MHPA ERCE AB 337 CESA MOU GIS ORV PSHCP CG CUP GPPA RA ACOE RCA RS-2 RS-4 BCLA MG RS-7 PRPA MWD LNCESA OS-RM SANDAG RR-B MMRP SDAB RR-A JPA SR-67 FPA NEPA GPA SPPE ffr/c1 y~ ~ August 15, 1995 City of Poway Don Higginson, Mayor P. O. Box 789 Poway, California 92074 0789 Dear Mayor Higginson: RE: Pallas Property, APN 323-100-01 My grandfather homesteaded this land in the 1880s and for sixty years, until his death in 1940, successfully farmed and ranched the property. At one point he either owned or leased 1,800 acres. At the time of his death in 1940 the government condemned over 480 acres of his land for the expansion of Camp Elliott paying $1.00 per acre. This land is now the General Dynamics Sycamore Canyon Test Site. Since that time various government agencies have down zoned or condemned this property to the extent that in accordance with the South Poway General Plan my original 110.8 acres can perhaps develop approximately 23 acres (this is a 20% yield versus the over 50% yield the major developers of the South Poway Planning area received). The most recent condemnation of this land is for the South Poway Parkway. Your appraisal valued the entire parcel at $ I 2,000 per acre and classified the property as "mitigation land". In anticipation of condemning this land for the roadway, you converted the majority of the land to "open space". I am currently litigating your "offer" for the Scripps-South Poway Parkway right of way. Our constitution gives property owners the right to fair compensation-"no private land shall be taken for public use without just compensation". Over the years the City of Poway and other government agencies of the county have systematically taken my property without just compensation. I am not going to take the arro~ance of government anymore. I will litigate the taking of my land as far as my resources will take me for the matter of principal, for the legacy of my grandfather Mr. Julius Jakob Friedrich Buehler and for his namesake canyon, Beeler Canyon_ Now then, here comes the "Joint Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Initial Study (IS) proposed mitigation negative declaration, associated General Plan Amendment 95-02, associated zoning ordinance amendment 95-01, associated grading ordinance amendment, and associated Poway Redevelopment Agency Resolution of approval; all concerning the proposed city of Poway subarea habitat conservation agreementl/management authorization (INMA), applicant: City of Po way /Po way Redevelopment Agency." I strongly object to my property being included in this Habitat Conservation Plan because it constitutes the further taking of my land without compensation. While the political climate of the past tolerated and in fact encouraged the taking of private land without compensation by mindless planning bureaucrats, unless you are living in a vacuum, it must be obvious that times are changing and the popular political climate will foreclose on this arrogant government practice. Further, the City's record of planning for the South Poway Planning Area is a failure with the principal developers bankrupt, in default on property taxes, in default on special assessment bond interest, in default on their agreed to off-site improvement agreement with the city, and the majority of land zoned for industrial/commercial uses by these developers remains unsold. This "planned" development is a drain on the city and the "planned" land will remain unsold for many years to come. Yours very truly, --:t-:\Jcl~~o ~~~\'-'-C" , \---" Frieda Pallas-Sprague FP/ejs 1243 Moana Driv~ (ar the (oot of La Paloma) ~ San Diego ~ California ~ ')2107 .',LJIO wia 619 224l:l454~" fax 6192249715 - As of 4:00 today we had received letters (mostly the form letters) from 129 property owners asking that their properties be excluded from the plan area. Of these, 74 (57%) actually own property within the proposed Resource Conservation Area. The remaining 55 owners' parcels are outside of the RCA. Two of those with property inside the RCA have contacted staff and no longer oppose the plan. 129 property owners 74(57%) have parcels in the RCA The attached list is alphabetical by property owner. Where we received letters from more than one owner referring to a single Oointly owned) parcel, there is only one listing. \ _..._---_.__._-----_.._.."""~-- --~,.-,_._.- ""'''Z"'...........-.~,.J,..,..~,.~._..., ....._ ..' . _ _ . .. ~,...,_~._,_,..~_. -.--.-.....- -'. -... ~._-- "'''_M .C,.>__... __ - -.., -,._-".....-- '. SUBAREA LETTERS RECEIVED AS OF 4 P.M. AUGUST 15.1995 idd~;;;;::' .......;IIII~I~~~ Agbulos San Diego 321-271-06 yes Allen Ramona 322-010-01 yes 322-010-15 yes Alvarez La Jolla 322-041-03 yes 322-041-01 yes 321-360-02 yes 321-360-03 yes Amemiya Del Mar 277 -093-39 278-070-40 277-093-43 Arglofia Poway 321-160-14 yes Arslanian Agoura 321-160-16 Arsham Ramona 278-200-20 yes , Augustine Poway 321-270-5700 321-270-5600 yes 314-193-4200 314-194-0200 314-182-43 . Ayala Escondido APN not available Bacong Lot 35 of tract "F" Baker/Bernd Spring Valley 316-020-22 yes Barlenall San Diego 316-020-24 yes Bataller Barkin 520-050-02-00 no such APN in poway - 272-150-23, 321-012-08 & 321-161-07 in Poway are registered to Barkin with same first names Bataller/ San Diego 316-020-23 yes Digius et al Barto Poway 314-650-30 yes --.--- ___...m__~_'_'''''''___'____~_____ - '---'~ - - _'_'H - - ..~...-.'"" -. .- -"-,. - Subarea Letters Page 2 ...--'....,'.--.-.'..,'.-,.,-.".,.,.-....,.-,-.-,.,.. 11~11~~t~ii::i;1 :;::::::::::';:':";::,':::::::;':':';',:,.,:,::,::;':',';:,':.::,::::::',:::,:;::::,::;::,::;:,': 8@r!liNyiTI~~r Barton Del Mar 277-090-22 277-093-03 Belchez San Diego 278-200-17 yes Booriakin Scottsdale, 323-280-21 AZ Borun la Jolla 314-370-04 Yes Brannon Poway 322-040-29 Yes Bray Poway 275-700-49 Brevich Dana Point 325-060-11 Bubman Beverly Hills 321-270-59 Cannon P. O. Box, 321-270-61 Poway 321-270-62 Cardella Garberville 278-070-13 Carunchio Escondido 314-650-02 yes Cetel Rancho 321-270-63 . Santa Fe Chang Poway 320-021-01 Yes 320-021-02 Clay Aubum 314-650-04 Yes Cockerell poway 321-110-36 yes Crozier San Diego 320-020-28 yes Danielson SDT&S- 321-270-58 Trust San Diego De Bont poway 321-260-20 yes 321-260-21 yes Delaney Poway 276-140-14 Yes Devine Poway 275241 Q5 ---~- ---_. ----.- - - Subarea letters . : Page 3 1~~II.NW!!~t!11 Dixon Temecula 321-250-13 Yes Dixon San Diego 323-110-66 323-110-22 323-110-65 Draper laMesa No parcel number Duberg Chula Vista 322-010-45 yes 322-010-07 no EI Rancho San Diego 275-460-61 Grande Elston San Diego 325-060-19 325-060-07 EreneaJ San Diego 316-020-23 yes Valencia Farber Escondido 321-230-1400 Farrin San Diego 278-300-72 Feasel 323-290-16 . Fuller Severn MD 277-033-05 Funk Poway 320-031-05-00 yes has met with staff - no longer opposes plan Galiley San Diego 321-260-27 yes Geiger San Diego 320-020-03 yes George EI Cajon 322-041-18 yes Gerding Poway 321-100-01 yes 321-100-08 yes Gibson Santa none listed . (Citizens for Ysabel . Property Rights) ---- - - , , Subarea Letters Page 4 ",.:.:.;.;.:.;.,.;-,.:.;.:.:.:.;.;.;.;-,.,-;.:.;-;.:.;.,.;.:-,-,.,.:.;.:.,-,.:-,-,.,-:.:.;.:.... B@t~~INq!E~t Gilchrist Rancho 276-070-34 yes Santa Fe Gilliland Yorba Linda 277-130-18 yes Gladkoff Escondido 323-280-21 323-270-47 323-090-58 Greenwoodl Poway 321-370-04 Kicinski Guglielmo Poway 321-271-19 Hall Phoenix, AZ. 321-280-16 321-280-17 Harris San Diego 321-230-30-00 Hartley Temple City 321-260-23 yes Hayes Lakeside 317-242-08 yes Heck Escondido 275-182-10 Hilsabeck Newport 321-111-03 . yes Beach 321-160-11 yes 321-100-04 yes . 321-360-01 yes 321-270-23 yes 321-270-22 yes Honmel poway 275 490 04 Hooper Anaheim 317-241-37 yes Hover Poway 321-110-20 yes 321-110-29 yes 321-110-19 yes Huffman San Diego 321-270-43 321-270-44 321-270-45 ,. . ----- ------. -------- - - ,. Subarea Letters . Page 5 ..--.....'-'.....--.......-,-.-....,'.,-,-...".,..-..., 11~11~~f~111iir iil ~~t~~i~affiE~t -....-.-,.,..,._...-..,-,.....,..,......--.................. Hutchinson San Marcos 320-030-29 320-030-30 321-030-31 Imp/ay Chula Vista 321-250-15 yes Jackson Denton TX 321-250-16 yes 321-260-12 yes , 321-260-31 yes . Jarvis Poway 278-200-23 yes Juenongo San Diego 316-020-24 yes Miradol Herliasl Gapasinl Olivarez -, Kan La Jolla 277-020-11 yes Kytasty San Diego 277-020-27 yes Lapus Missouri 323-290-1700 City, TX . Lareau San Diego 275-700-65 275-700-66 275-700-67 275-700-68 275-700-69 275-700-25 Lenhof Poway yes .. Lichty, Jack San Diego 321-230-56 . - 321-200-74 Lichty, Tim San Diego 321-250-11 yes 321-260-24 yes Linderman La Mesa 323-280-09 00 323-280-1000 Loder Del Mar 277-093-04 .':. - -- ..._~- - - Subarea Letters Page 6 :::;:;:':':':';"':':::::':':':':':;',{:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,;;:':':;:':::':':':::':':;:':':':'::::': .-..........-........y....................-.... .Ri~INym~gr Machanis EI Cajon 320-020-04 yes Marshall Poway 316-071-06 yes Martin APN not listed Mazzone Woodland 272-761-07 272-761-17 & 18 are partials Hills 272-761-17 272-761-18 272-761-30 272-761-35 272-761-39 272-761-40 272-761-48 Modemo San Diego 321-160-13 yes Mout San Diego 321-231-08 . Mraz Riverside 321-230-12 yes 321-230-13 Murphy San Diego 321-110-02 yes Ranch 278-200-24 yes - Neally Yorba Linda 321-110-32 yes Neuss San Diego 272-600-36 181-122-02 Nodes poway 321-111-21 321-110-45 321-110-46 321-111-23 November Poway 321-100-34 yes O'Keefe poway 321-250-29 yes Pacific San Diego 316-020-09 yes Investment " Club Paris Atlanta GA 322-041-22 yes -- ------- - - Subarea Letters Page 7 """-'-'---"'''--,-"""-"--,.,,,,.----- ,.- B~tl!Nq!~&t Pavin Poway 321-160-15 yes Peckham Garden 321-111-03 yes . Grove 321-160-11 . yes 321-100-04 . yes 321-360-01 yes 321-270-23 yes 321-270-22 yes Peterson Rancho 276-140-05 yes has met with staff - no longer ; Santa Fe 276-140-06 yes opposes plan 276-140-07 276-140-08 yes Powell Warda, TX APN not listed Rackovsky Bridgeport, 321-230-44 yes CT 321-230-45 yes 321-230-43 Ravana FPO 316-020-24 yes Rawlins Bonsall 277-080-09 yes . Rensberger San Diego 314-230-62 314-230-63 - .' Restivo Montery 323-010-23 " , Park Rios San Diego 276-140-11 yes 276-140-12 yes 276-140-15 yes Rios San Diego 314-650-36 yes 314-650-37 yes 314-650-38 yes Rivera Menifee 317-251-10 yes 317-251-11 yes de Ronde Lomita 275-291-12 Rock Poway 323-010-26 Rose poway 277-130-170 yes -.--.----- ----..-- - - , . Subarea Letters " Page 8 Salar San Diego 277-140-09 yes Architect for Soleimanpour of Dayton, 277-140-10 yes OH Sandoval EI Cajon 321-260-06 yes 321-260-07 yes 321-260-08 yes 321-260-09 yes Seely EI Cajon 321-270-35 yes , 321-270-46 yes . Shahhal Escondido 321-110-23 yes , Scott Escondido 321-250-08 yes . Simson Poway 323-290-11 323-290-12 323-290-13 Smith! La Jolla 322-041-03 yes Alvarez 322-041-01 yes 321-360-02 yes 321-360-03 yes Su- Y ou/Saint- poway 323-071-02 Tong Hu - Swanson San Diego 275-732-04 Trust Sylvester Poway 321-230-26 321-230-25 321-230-24 yes Thornburg Portland OR 321-230-67 321-230-88 321-230-89 yes 321-230-90 yes Troxler Poway 321-031-05 Tutor Agoura 277-190-12 Wells San Diego 275-800-08 yes van den poway 314-670-49 Bergh 314-670-69 " - Subarea Letters Page 9 _n_ _...'....._.,......_______,..."...____,_.". !1.~.I.I~~.t~jll!;d::1 "'''-'-'''--''--''''''-----''''''''''''''-''--'"'',' ..._-...... .. --. .......... ., ......., ..". ............,........-.-.-......,.,......-.-...-.........'.......,-...............,_....,.:.:.:. B~rlljNl1im6er Weiss Beverly Hills 321-270-54 Zachman poway 321-100-39 yes Zenkich Ramona 322-010-40 yes 322-010-39 yes 322-010-41 yes 322-010-42 yes E:\CITY\PLANNING\PLANDIR\PROTESTS. TBL - ,- --- As of 4:00 tOday we had received letters (mostly the form letters) from 129 property owners asking that their properties be excluded from the plan area. Of these, 74 (57%) actually own property within the proposed Resource Conservation Area. The remaining 55 owners' parcels are outside of the RCA Two of those with property inside the RCA have contacted staff and no longer oppose the plan. 129 property owners 74(57%) have parcels in the RCA The attached list is alphabetical by property owner. Where we received letters from more than one owner referring to a single Gointly owned) parcel, there is only one listing. _.._._--_._._.,-----------_.~- -.. -'-~'-----"-"---""""""'-'~-~'."~-~' .'- ....-."" - .....~~_...~_. -'- -. .._"'._.----~.,--_..- ..--._-----~~---.... ----.- "'--.- .......-. - - '. SUBAREA LETTERS RECEIVED AS OF 4 P.M. AUGUST 15.1995 1.~~III~.I~~~1 Agbulos San Diego 321-271-06 yes Allen Ramona 322-010-01 yes 322-010-15 yes Alvarez La Jolla 322-041-03 yes 322-041-01 yes 321-360-02 yes 321-360-03 yes Amemiya Del Mar 277-093-39 278-070-40 277-093-43 Arglofia Poway 321-160-14 yes Arslanian Agoura 321-160-16 Arsham Ramona 278-200-20 , yes Augustine Poway 321-270-5700 321-270-5600 yes 314-193-4200 314-194-0200 314-182-43 . Ayala Escondido APN not available Bacong Lot 35 of tract "F" Baker/Bernd Spring Valley 316-020-22 yes Barlenall . San Diego 316-020-24 yes Bataller Barkin 520-050-02-00 no such APN in poway - 272-150-23,. 321-012-08 & 321-161-07 in poway are registered to Barkin with same first names Bataller/ San Diego 316-020-23 yes Digius et al Barto poway 314-650-30 yes --'''--'-'~'----_.- --., - - Subarea letters Page 2 1.1.~!I~~l~i 'H/ Barton Del Mar 277-090-22 277-093-03 Belchez San Diego 278-200-17 yes Booriakin Scottsdale, 323-280-21 AZ Borun la Jolla 314-370-04 Yes Brannon Poway 322-040-29 Yes Bray Poway 275-700-49 Brevich Dana Point 325-060-11 Bubman Beverly Hills 321-270-59 Cannon P. O. Box, 321-270-61 Poway 321-270-62 Cardella Garberville 278-070-13 Carunchio Escondido 314-650-02 yes Cetel Rancho 321-270-63 . Santa Fe Chang Poway 320-021-01 Yes 320-021-02 Clay Auburn 314-650-04 Yes Cockerell Poway 321-110-36 yes Crozier San Diego 320-020-28 yes Danielson SDT&S- 321-270-58 Trust San Diego De Bont poway 321-260-20 yes 321-260-21 yes Delaney poway 276-140-14 Yes Devine Poway . 275241 05 ---_._~-_.._,-------.__. - - Subarea Letters . : Page 3 I~tli.~~!~~t !1~11~~.~~...........j.I.lii.1 Dixon Temecula 321-250-13 Yes Dixon San Diego 323-110-66 323-110-22 323-110-65 Draper LaMesa No parcel number Duberg Chula Vista 322-010-45 yes 322-010-07 no EI Rancho San Diego 275-460-61 Grande Elston San Diego 325-060-19 325-060-07 Ereneal San Diego 316-020-23 yes Valencia Farber Escondido 321-230-1400 Farrin San Diego 278-300-72 Feasel 323-290-16 . Fuller Severn MD 277-033-05 Funk poway 320-031-05-00 yes has met with staff - no longer opposes plan Galiley San Diego 321-260-27 yes Geiger San Diego 320-020-03 yes George EI Cajon 322-041-18 yes Gerding Poway 321-100-01 yes 321-100-08 yes Gibson Santa none listed . (Citizens for Ysabel , . Property Rights) , ------ .-.- -------- ------ - - , , Subarea Letters Page 4 I~t!~llul~.~t 1~~II~~f~tl Gilchrist Rancho 276-070-34 yes Santa Fe Gilliland Yorba Linda 277-130-18 yes Gladkoff Escondido 323-280-21 323-270-47 323-090-58 Greenwood! Poway 321-370-04 Kicinski Guglielmo Poway 321-271-19 Hall Phoenix, AZ 321-280-16 321-280-17 Harris San Diego 321-230-30-00 Hartley Temple City 321-260-23 yes Hayes Lakeside 317-242-08 yes Heck Escondido 275-182-10 Hilsabeck Newport 321-111-03 yes Beach 321-160-11 yes 321-100-04 yes . 321-360-01 yes 321-270-23 yes 321-270-22 yes Honmel poway 275 490 04 Hooper Anaheim 317-241-37 yes Hover Poway 321-110-20 yes 321-110-29 yes 321-110-19 yes Huffman San Diego 321-270-43 321-270-44 321-270-45 yo . ,.. - - "' Subarea Letters . Page 5 laaf~~gI~~fagINaffib~f... !I~II~~!~I ' ....... ... '........................,---....."......-... ...............-........,................-...................................... ,..........w......,...,............. . ........."................ ......... Hutchinson San Marcos 320-030-29 320-030-30 321-030-31 Implay Chura Vista 321-250-15 yes Jackson Denton TX 321-250-16 yes 321-260-12 yes 321-260-31 yes . Jarvis Poway 278-200-23 yes Juenongo San Diego 316-020-24 yes Miradol Herliasl Gapasinl Olivarez Kan La Jolla 277-020-11 yes Kytasty San Diego 277-020-27 yes Lapus Missouri 323-290-1700 City, TX . Lareau San Diego 275-700-65 275-700-66 275-700-67 275-700-68 275-700-69 275-700-25 Lenhof Poway yes .. Lichty, Jack San Diego 321-230-56 321-200-74 Lichty, Tim San Diego 321-250-11 yes 321-260-24 yes Linderman La Mesa 323-280-09 00 323-280-1000 Loder Del Mar 277-093-04 ..... --~- . - - Subarea Letters Page 6 ."................-,..--'-.........,-..-,--.-..... --......-...,........,-------........,......--... BgtIINgl~~t Machanis EI Cajon 320-020-04 yes Marshall Poway 316-071-06 yes Martin APN not listed Mazzone Woodland 272-761-07 272-761-17 & 18 are partials Hills 272-761-17 ~ 272-761-18 272-761-30 272-761-35 272-761-39 272-761-40 272-761-48 Modemo San Diego 321-160-13 yes Mout San Diego 321-231-08 .. Mraz Riverside 321-230-12 yes 321-230-13 Murphy San Diego 321-110-02 yes Ranch 278-200-24 yes Neally Yorba Linda 321-110-32 yes Neuss San Diego 272-600-36 181-122-02 Nodes Poway 321-111-21 321-110-45 321-110-46 321-111-23 November poway 321-100-34 yes O'Keefe poway 321-250-29 yes Pacific San Diego 316-020-09 yes Investment " Club Paris . Atlanta GA 322-041-22 yes - Subarea Letters Page 7 ..'--.'.'-.'-",...,.---."".....,...,.-.,-----...,.","-' I...... ... ..... ................................................................................................., .,.......-,_............_.__..........-.-..,............,................-,-.-.-,..... g~tllNgtllbgt ~~mm~~~~I)> Pavin Poway 321-160-15 yes Peckham Garden 321-111-03 yes . Grove 321-160-11 . yes , 321-100-04 yes 321-360-01 yes 321-270-23 yes 321-270-22 yes Peterson Rancho 276-140-05 yes has met with staff - no longer ; Santa Fe 276-140-06 yes opposes plan 276-140-07 276-140-08 yes Powell Warda, TX APN not listed Rackovsky Bridgeport, 321-230-44 yes CT 321-230-45 yes 321-230-43 Ravana FPO 316-020-24 yes Rawlins Bonsall 277-080-09 yes . Rensberger San Diego 314-230-B2 314-230-B3 - .' Restivo Montery 323-010-23 ,;... Park Rios San Diego 276-140-11 yes 276-140-12 yes 276-140-15 yes Rios San Diego 314-B50-36 yes 314-B50-37 yes 314-B50-38 yes Rivera Menifee 317-251-10 yes 317-251-11 yes de Ronde Lomita 275-291-12 Rock Poway 323-010-26 Rose poway , 277-130-170 yes . --.-----..- ---,,-- - - , . Subarea Letters " Page 8 ,.,.:-,.-..-,-...-':.,.:.:.:,.....,._'--.'-:.-.--.-....,..-.-,....:.'.'.....'...'.'.-.-.-.-,-. 11~!!~~t~/'II .....- ,...,.........------...,.......... ..,-,.......-.-....,.....--,-.-..,.......-......--,--.,... R~rp~iNYm~~t Salar San Diego 277-140-09 yes Architect for Solei man pour of Dayton, 277-140-10 yes OH Sandoval EI Cajon 321-260-06 yes 321-260-07 yes 321-260-08 yes 321-260-09 yes Seely EI Cajon 321-270-35 yes , 321-270-46 yes . Shahhal Escondido 321-110-23 yes , Scott Escondido 321-250-08 yes . Simson Poway 323-290-11 323-290-12 323-290-13 Smithl La Jolla 322-041-03 yes Alvarez 322-041-01 yes 321-360-02 yes 321-360-03 yes Su-You/Saint- Poway 323-071-02 Tong Hu Swanson San Diego 275-732-04 Trust Sylvester Poway 321-230-26 321-230-25 321-230-24 yes Thornburg Portland OR 321-230-87 321-230-88 321-230-89 yes 321-230-90 yes Troxler poway 321-031-05 Tutor Agoura 277-190-12 Wells San Diego 275-800-08 yes van den Poway 314-670-49 Bergh 314-670-69 _.._-"---- --._---- --- Subarea letters Page 9 .........,',...,...,-_......................_,---,_._,'.. '~.~II~.h~~I;l:!1 .-,-.-.-......_..._.._._..-......,......-...-,-.-.-,-.-.-.._...__....,_..._,...........-,-. !R~tl!N9ttJ!;j~r Weiss Beverly Hills 321-270-54 Zachman Poway 321-100-39 yes Zenkich Ramona 322-010-40 yes 322-010-39 yes 322-010-41 yes 322-010-42 yes E:\CITY\PLANNING\PLANDIR\PROTESTS. TBl - -_._,------