Loading...
Item 23 - Letter of Objection concerning Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan - - LDCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTOIlNEYSAT LAW. FOUNDED 1873 -'-'~ CRAIG X. BEAM, PAllTNER DIR.ECT 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. SEP ~b\Ptt~I\l,1.9I\9.l11..gt,n 2600 . SAH Dileo. CALIFORNIA 92101 . TEUPHONE (619) 236.1414 . PACSl~IB. liOO 23:ITEM ~3',; II SAN Duco . LA JOLLA . Nt" You: . Los ANGUIS . SAN FUNCISCO 'g-l S-'1 .,d,(., LUCE, tORWARD, HAMILTON & SCIUPPS 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: l. 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\lD06117.01 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23:1'" ..- - - LUCE, t'ORWARD, HAMILTON 6- SCRIPPS ATTORNEYSAT LAW. FOlJNDED 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\CKB\1006117.01 SEP 2 6 1995 lTEM 23 . ...~- . 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 "mlU!: have a sianificant effect on the environment" (Section 21100, italics added.)" Quail Gardens at Page 160l. 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 negative 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, i.e. 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 Countv of C:\OMS\CKB\100611r.Ol SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 .l Joo.__ - - LUCE, 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 Deve10Dment v County 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 HCP 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 Hiah 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 ~ 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 Invo v city of Los Anaeles, (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 Raptor/Wild Life Rescue CTR v County C:\OMS\CKB\1006117.01 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 .-- LDCE, FOR\\~RD, 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 ~ 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\CKB\1006117.01 SEP 26 1995 ITEM 23 .. .-- - - 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 Dlannina and develoDment 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:\DMS\CKB\ID06117.Dl SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 ..- LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ATTOIlNEYSAT 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 .Qili , 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 (i.e., 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:\DMS\CKB\1006117.01 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 A.._ - - iDCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON 0- SCRIPPS A TTOaNEYS AT LAW . FOUNDED 1873 ,-.- 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. Armstrono 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) 1 San Dieoo Gas & Electric Co. V. citv of San Dieoo, 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 Tioard, 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 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 .-- LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON 6- 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,V it 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\lD06117.01 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 .. . .- - - LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON 6- 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\1D06117.01 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 . -- LUCE, rORWARD, HAMILTON & SCl<.IPPS 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 light 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:\DHS\CKB\lDD6117.Dl SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 ,.- - - LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS ArrORNEYSAT LA.... . 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 ~ 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:\DMS\CKB\1006117.01 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 . .- ~ 65300 PLANNING AND ZONING Title 7 Note 10 S.C.A, * 1701 et seq,] snd count)., half of of interest" contemplated by Notional En- which was within CDCA and which had vi,onmental Polic)' Act (42 U.S.C.A. * ststuto,y duty to adopt comp,ehensive 4321 et seq,] lOnd therefore the)' conld not ,eneral plan, also had standing to chal- challenge the odequac)' of the final envi- lenge the plaD under FLPMA to ,"indicate ronmeotnl impact statement. American its own proprietar;y interest in its plan. Motorcyclist Ass'o v. ".att (D.C.1981) ning activities; Howeve" neither plaintiff 534 F.Supp. 923. organizations Dor county fell within '"zone ~ 65300.5. Construction of article ; In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature in- I 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 CODsistenc;r doctrine. Joseph F. Di- . Mento (1980) 20 Santa Clara L.Rev. 285. ' Notes of DeelsloDS In aeneral I changing land use designations. Karlson J Review 2 v. City of Camarillo (1980) 161 Cal.Rptr. ( 260, 100 C.A.3d 789. Under * 65802 relating to city general ~ J. I n general plans, single.clty ordinance containing city .. Sioce countr's general plan "'8S inter. general plan is preferable, in view of fact naU~' inconsistent 8S regards open space t~~t legIslature intended. that loca\ agen- and conser\'ation elements on the one c, 8 general plan. and J,~s elements. and ( hand and land use element on the otller parts wou!d eomprJ,se an Int~gr8ted. mter- 1 hand. county zoning ordinance which was nall~' ~o.nslstent and com.paoble Bt~teme~t ( {'onsistent with map of land use element of POI1CleB fo~ the adopt1.ng a...genc~. Sale .. but inconsistent with map of open space E1 Toro Ass n v. Days (1917) 141 Cal. conservation element, could not be consist. Rptr.282, 74 C.A.3d 64. I ent with sllch plan and ",'as invalid when 2 R I passed. Sierra Club Y. Kern County Bd. . tvew of Sup"s (1981) 179 Col.Rptr. 261 126 This section requiring integrated, inter- C.A.3d 698. 'nal consistency of a general plan did not , . " .. modib scope of re\>iew of action of city ( Cl~~. councd did. not act ,8rbl~ranly or council in enacting amendment to general ~ capriCiously or ""thout. e\:ldentlsr)' sup- plan changing land use designations. port, b~t rather, a~ted .W1thln the scope of Karlson v. City of Camarillo (1980) 161 ~uthorlt~. and not 1D ,",olstlon of the low, Cal.Rpt,.260 100 C.A.3d 789. , J.D enactlDg amendments to eeneral 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 aceommodate local condi- tions and circumstances, while meeting its minimum requirements. C f (Added by Stats.1980, c. 837, p. 2617, ~ 1.) 5~ L SEP 26 1995 ITEM 23 " .-- ~ - - - ~NT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE . t 65352 r Blatom.l UllI StatutoIJ No_ 1884 Ler\ltaUon Dorifttioa: Farmor I 6&3liO, added by _1966. Co Fonner t 6&3liO _ "'pealed by _1984. Co 1008. ll1llO, p. 4888, II. 113. plaMinl polid.. Legitlative intent relating to Stat.o.l984, Co 1009, lie note under EduCoC. t 39002. levelop site design No_ of Decilioftl the general plan 1. In renera1 wbIcb 10 DOt eouiIlent with ItI ClImlnt renera1 plan under A Iocol government may not approve Ul a1t.omatift UN Ibo "wIDdow" prvriIk>DI of Statl.1981. Co 1096. 67 Opo. of WlIIiamIon Ad. (f 61200 et oeq.) contnet property ~.Gen. lIC7. 8-6-84. t 65351. Public involvement nay be cited u, the During the preparation or amendment of the pneral plan, the plaDnlni agency Bhall provide j Control Act.. opportunities for the involvement of eitiz.ena. public agencies. public utility companies. and civic, education. and other community groups. through public hearingB and any other meanB the city or county d~ms~propria~. ' . t 13 It oeq. (Added by StatB.l984, c. 1009, t 13.5.) 140. Hiatoriea1 and Statutory No_ 1984 Lepl1ation LeIIIIatlve IIlleDt NIatlnI to Statl.l984. Co 1008. 1M - Fonner I 66361 _ ",pealed by Stat.o.l984. Co 1009, _ under EdIIc. C. I IllOO2. 113. DerMtioa: Farmor I lII5llCN, added by Stat.o.l966, Co See. now. It 66OIlO. 6Ii09<I. 66096, 663611. 1880. p. 4338, I 6- - t 65352. Referral to other .,end.. (a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or subetantial1y amend a aeneral plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entltieB: , proviIionl for boUling (I) Any city or county, within or abutting the u'ea covered by the propoaal, and any sPeciaI district , eoIIlIDunlty, Dateline which may be signific:antly affected by the PropcIIed action, II detennined by the planning agency. . (App. 1 DllL1983) 194 (2) Any elementary, high school, or unified school diBtrict within the area covered by the proposed action. (3) The local agency fonnation commission. (4) Any areawide planning agency whOle operatlOIl8 IDlIY be IlgnlfIc:antly Ift'ect.ed by the proposed AL PLAN action, II detennined by the planning agency. (5) Any federal agency if itB operatlona or landa within ita jurisdictlon IDlIY be oii"ifl""'ltly Ift'eeted by aring. the proposed action, II determined by the PIaDnlni agency. tion. (6) Any public water &yI~m, II de1lned In Section 4010.1 of the Health and Safety Code, with 8,000 or more service connectiona, that eerves water to c:uatomet'l within the area covered by the proposal. The t.ribution: f_. public water syetem shall hove at leaat 45 daye to comment on the propooed plan, in accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide the planning agency with the information let forth in Section 65958.1. ,r plans. (7) The Bay Area Air Quality Mana2ement District for a DroDOHd action within the boundaries of the nties. me. district. (b) Each entity receiving a proposed pneral plan or lUIIendment of a general plan pursuant to this section shall hove 45 daya from the da~ the referring agency mails It or deIlverIlt in which to comment unless a longer period is speclfied by the planning I&llDCY. (c)(1) This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section does not Ift'ect the va\idity of the action, if adopted. (2) To the extent that the requirementB of this section conflict with the requlrementB of Chopter 4.4 oUhose general plans (commencing with Section 65919), the requlrements of Chapter U Bhall prevaiL , (Added by StatB.I984, Co 1009, I 13.5. Amended by StatB.l985, Co 114, I 5, elf. June 28, 1985: StatB.1991, Co 804 (S.B.755), t 1; StatB.l992, Co 631 (A.B.455). I 1; StatB.l998, Co 719 (A.B.835). I 1.) rlaka * * * Addltlona or chang.a IndleM" by undwlln.; HMtIona by nt.r1.ka * * * 337 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 "-- .. " . 1 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 119 I Wednesday. June 21. 199~ I N ; ot\cee 32337 I Sill Bernardino Ml!I'idiu Flail MId WIldlife Service (NCCP) Act, NCCP Proces. GUld.1 I T,l1N" R,9W,. and NCCP Southern California r":::i I Sec. 34, Nl1ZN11ZSWl14NEl14NWtI Endangered and TllrMtened Specl.. Sage Scrub Conservetion Guideline.. 4NWtl4. Nl12NtlZSEtl4NWl14NWtI Permit Application In addition to the permit d;plication. 4NWl14, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife. Interior, the Service also announces e Containing 1.25 acres of public land. more ACT1ON: Notice of .vailability, avail.bility of an Environmental or less. Assessment (EA). The EA evaluates the Availability of an Environmental effects on the human environment of the SUP~EMENTARYINFORMATH)N:Tbe Assessment and Racei pt of an proposed action: Issuance of the I County of Kern has applied to expand Application for a Parmitto Allow incidental take permit and approval of the area currently leased for the North Incidental Take of 3 Threatened and the HCP and IA. This notice is provided Edwards Community Pari" The land Endangered Species and 19 Other pursuant to section 10(el of the Act and will be leased during the development Species by the City of Pow.y 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 fo, Federal purposes, and that the City of Powey and its on or before July 21. 1995. conveyance would be consistent with Redevelocment Agency (applicants) ADDRUSU: Comments regarding the the 1980 CaliCornia Desert Conservation have .f.P ied to the U.S, Fish and adeql1llcy of the HCP, IA. and EA should Area Plan. as amended. The lease and Wildli e Service (Service) for an be addntssed to Mr, Gail Kobetich, Field conveyance of the iand would be subject incidental taka permit (PRT-803743) Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife to the following terms and conditions: pursuant to section 10(0)(1)(B) of the Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West. 1. Provisions of the Recreation and Endangered S~es Act of1973, os Carlsbod. CA 92008; FAX (619) 431- Public Purpose Act and applicable amended (Act, The application package 9618. Please refer to permit No, PRT- includes 0 Habitat Conserv.tion Plan 803743 when submitting comments, regulations of the Secretary of the (HCP) and Implementing FOIl FUIlTHER INFOllMATIOH CONTACT: Interior. Agreement(IA). The proposed incidental 2. A right of way to the United States take would occur os a result of habitat Nancy Gilbert. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. lOt the ahove addntss, fo, ditches and canals, pursuant to the disturbance associated with residential tele~hone (619) 431-9440, Individuals Aet of August 30. 1980 (43 U.S.C, and limited municipal development. wis ng copies of the application and 945). The requested permit would authorize EA for review should immediately incidental take of the threatened coastal 3. A reservation of all minerals to the California gnatcatcher (Polioptilo contact Ms. Gilbert. United States, and the right to ealifornica californica). endangered SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATH)N: The prospect, mine. and remove the least Bell's vireo (Vireo belW pusillus). "take" of threatened and endangered minerals. and endangered southwestern willow ~cies is prohibited under section 9 of Publication of this Notice in the flycatcher (Empidonax troWU extimus). e Act and its implementing Federal Register segregates the public The applicants also request coverage regulations. Take is defined, in part, as lands from all othe, forms of of an additional 19 unlisted. sensitive killing. harming. 0' harassing listed appropriation under the publie 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 or the proposes to conserve all 22 species injury to listed ~ecles. Under limited Recreation and Public Purpose Act. according to standards required for circumstances. e Service may issue listed species under the Act. such that, permits to take listed species if such Detailed information concerning this barring unforeseen circumstances, the taking is ineidentol to otherwise lawful action is available for review at the unlisted species could be amended to activities. Regul.tions 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, Fo, incidental take of those species should The proposed action would allow a period of 45 days afte, 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. ConCll1T8nt with species and up to 19 other species interested parties may submit comments the proposed issuance of the Federal within the City of Poway, The City has to the District Manager, California 10(a)(1)(8) 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, Objections will be reviewed by to issue a management authorization for habitats. To minimize and mitigate the the State Diractor. who may sustain. the 22 species under section 2081 of the impacts of the proposed take, the vacate. 0' modify this ,eaity action, In California Endanr:red /!Jecies Act. applicants propose to implement the the absence of any adverse comments, Preparetion of e H is a condition HCP within an approximate 13,OOO-acre the classification will become effective of Service approval of. significant Resource Conservation Area (RCA). The 60 days afte, publication of this notice roadway extension project. which will RCA includes 78 percent of all require significant mitigation, Federal remaining undeveloped habitat and 85 in the Federal Register. approval of the HCP also is required as cereent of the California gnatcatche, Dated: June 5. 1995, part of the special 4(d) rule fo, the abitot (coastal sage scrub) under City Henri R. Bisson. California gnatcatcher (58 FR 65088). jurisdiction. Nea,ly the entire extant District Manager. Incidental take of the gnatcatcher is gnatcatcher population within the IFR Doc, 95-15196 Filed 6,-Zll-95; 8:45 ami allowed undar section 4(d) of the Act if planning area occurs within the RCA. take results from activities conducted The endangered southwestern willow aal.UHQ COOl 431 G-4O-P pursuant to the California Natu,al flycatche, and least Bell's vireo Community Conservation Planning potentially occur within the ,iparian SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 ..- . , - - 3Z338 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 119 I Wednesday, June 21, 1995 I Notices ~ltat of the RCA, proposed for nearly Includes allemotives nnglng from proposals for funding submitted lercent conservation. complete preserv.tion of n.tive habitats pursuant to the North American ..dsidential, limited commercial. ltDd within the RCA 10 ...parate, project-level Wet10nds Conservation Act, Upon limited public infrutructure efforts, completion of the Council's review. develofment is planned within and The EA considers the environmental proposals will be submitted to the beyon the RCA. Some of these projects collllllquences of four a1tarnatives, Migratory Bird Canserv.tion will result In loss of natural habitats. including the proposed oction. Under Commission with recommendations fo, An estim.ted 200 pairs of the no oction altemotive, the proposed funding. The meeting is open to the gl1atcatchers occur within the RCA on HCP would not be Implemented. The public. 6,210 of the remsininJ},;300.cres of .pplicants would either avoid take of DAllS: July 19. 1995, 9:00 a.m, coastal Iage scrub wi ' the planning listed species within the planning area, ADDIIESSES: The meeting will be held at area. Approximately 90 percent of the or apply for Individuall0(a)(1)(B) the PInes Resort Hotel on Shore Road In coastal Iage sCl'\lb within the RCA is permits on . project-by-project buis, Digby, Nov. Scotia, Canada, The North proposed to be conserved through Existing land use and environmental American Wetlands Conservation various measures, resulting In 0 net loss reguiations would apply to all projects Council Coordlnstor is 10000ted at U,S, of a~proxm.ately 20 pairs,. proposed within the planning area. Fish ltDd Wildlife Service, Arlington T e oS,Plicants propose to miti~ate for Existing reguJotory practices require Square Building. 4401 N, Fairfax Drive, take of e l!"stcatcher by prese~g the mitigation for Impects to sensitive Suite 110. Arlington, Virginia 22203, above mentioned lllIlOunt of habItat species ltDd habitats resulting in lands CONTACT' thro gh direct ' iti f habitat d FOIl FUIITHEIIINFOIIMATION . u .cqws on 0 ltD being set..ide for open-space Coordin N rth Am' W tl d through protective restrictions or preserv.tion. However, under the no otor, 0 encan eons easements on IltDds remaining In private action alternative, ter habitat Conservation Council. (703) 358-1784, ownership. Acquisition revenues are fragmentatinn woJd""likely occur IUPPLEMEN'lAIIY INFORMATION: In . expected from mitigation fees for because the lands set IlSide for open- .ccordence with the. North Amencan development of coastal sage scrub space preservation would not be Wetlands Collllllrvotion Act (p.L, 101- wiih!",ltDd beyond the RCA, through a .....mbled In. coordlnsted preserve 233,103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989), proVISion of the NCCP process. system. Under a third alternative, the the North Amarican Wet10nds Mitigation credits also are ltDticipated to proposed RCA boundary would consist ConMrVation Counell is . Federal:State- be sold to parties outside of the City of only of IltDds a1reedy preserved In Private body wbich meets to .=de, Poway's jurisdiction, os approved by the Poway; i.e., cornsrstone lands .. wet10nd acquisition, restoration. , Service, The level of allowable identi6ed in the HCP the parcels enhltDcoment ltDd mmagemen~f'OJects residential devel~pment wi~ the RCA pwchesed for mitigation of the Scripps- for recommendati~n to and fin w=ld be d~temlln~d by e"'sllng low- Poway Parkway Extension project, end .pproval by the ~tory Bird . ty ZODlDg (venous levels) ltDd by slop..s over 45 pen:ent within the RCA. Collllllrvotion Commission. Proposals l1.. dvailability of municipal water No other IltDds would be included In the from State end private sponsors require supply (the lack of which would RCA or .dded to the preserve. The . minimum of 50 percent non-Federal prevent bigher building densities), fourth alternative would preserve all matching funds, . ClllTOntly, the ,:,,~jority of the RCA is not identi6ed hahitat end species within the Dated: Juno 14. 1995. served by m~".'pal water. Exi~ RCA. Development would be prohibited MoJlio H..IIuItIo. IltDd-use restrictions would limit the within the proposed RCA boundary Diroclor V S FWI d Wildlife ServiC1t, amount of development to 2 .cres per aIre d disturbed here . ,. IUI '" ~ th except on a y areas w (FR Doc. 85-15152 FUed &-20-S5; 8:45 am] parcel. Mitigation are.. 0' ese such develottment would not Impact the unpects would be preserved In... ~turaI viabiUtyof e proposed RCA. lOIUMG 0008........ state by resourc..mltD8gement zoomg. . . The balltDce of mitigation IltDds (AppbcoliOC for a Pmnllto Allow lDcldectaI remaining in private ownership would T.ko of 3 Throatecod and Endsnsered, INTERNATIONAL TRADE. be rotected by ordlnltDce, Spociosand 19 Other SpoCl" by tho City of COMMISSION ~ 'aI ulti I' Powoy and itsllodevolopmoclApncy, in e potenti m p "sJ>O?es Son Diogo County, Colifomia) IInwdptton No. 731-TA-1OO (Final)] preserve system would be bwlt by , Incremental additions at the parcel Datod, JUD~ 1995. D1~..bl. L1ghterll From the People's leve\. These .dditions are proposed to WWiom F. . " , Republic of China .ugmentend connect ltD existing system Actin, DeputyROBJo1UJlDiroclor. ROBJon 2, of clllTOntly disjunct, publicly owned - Portlond, OIYson, , DetermlD.tion IltDds via resource-mltDagement ZOlling, (FR Doc, 85-15149 Flied &-2G-ll5; 8:45 am] On the boais of the record J developed Other elements, of the He: address lOIUMG - ........ In the subject investigation, the preserve planmngln a re8'onal context; Commission determines,' pursuant to currently, private lands with especially section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of1930 high ~iological ~olue havelM;e~ Fish end WIldlife Service (19 U.S.C, S 1673d(b)) (the Act), theten identified for pnority a,cqwSlllon so as North Am....can We1Ianda Ind~ In the United States is not to ensure ~e J'~rv.tion of Conurvatlon Council' MeetIng moteri ly injured or threatened with ~constraln~ Wlldlands ltDd their AnnounC8lllent' material injury. ltDd the establishment of Unkage within ltDd beyond the RCA. en industry In the United States is not Selective siting of development at the AGENCY: Fish and Wil~fe Service, materially retarded, by re..on of parcel level IS further proposed to Department of thelntenor, Imports from the People's Republic of r-'mize impacts to relatively rare end ACTION: Notice of meeting, . .tive biological habitats ltDd ,'Tho rocord is cIofinod iD soc. 207.2(0 ofth. features. The achievement of e viable, IUMMAIIY: The North Amencan Commlulon', Rul.. 01 Practice and Pnx:odW'l (19 connected natural preserve system is Wetlends Conservation Counell CFR 207.2{m. proposed under the HCP. The HCP (Council) will meet on July 19 to,review 'Commisolonen Robr and No""!ul" diuenliDg, SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 A__ , 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 :~~ 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 ' . - - . 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 ReA. 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 st.t. of C011foml., th.t the forooolno Is lru~d co,:,ct. 21 Doted, 'Uoust 15,1995 ~{' ~ \ ~ 22 JOHN . PAVIN 23 24 25 26 - 27 28 SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23 4 C:\DMS\TAM\1006217.01 - -- - - Sheila Cockerell, 15395 Running Deer Trail. I live on 32 acres. It is included in this area. I am a property owner, I am a resident and I am a taxpayer, and I am a voter and I would like to request a 60 day extension prior to your vote on this item. It is my feeling and the feeling of many of those impacted that this action that proper notification was not given. Our request to receive a list of those notified and the dates of notification have been ignored by the City of Poway. To vote on this issue at this time would expose the City to endless and expensive lawsuits. It is my understanding that this plan has been the works for the past three years and the cost of the same for consultants fees alone is in excess of $300,000. At no time during those three years were any of the landowners who will be losing the use of their land if this is enacted made aware of what was being contemplated. At no time were those impacted consulted or asked for their opinion. As a taxpayer I have no desire to spend any more of my tax money in a legal battle which this action will provoke. Even if it's on a voluntary basis. It seems reasonable that at this time you postpone the voting on this issue until you can assure yourself that the public has been adequately informed and you will not be forced to spend more of your money defending your actions. .... .- SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 23J3 . 0-- - - -- GUARDIAN RECEIVED TOWING AND REPAIR P.O. BOX 719 SEP 1 2 19~:i POW A Y, CA 92074-0719 PLANNING DEPT. (619) 679-8999 SEPTEMBER, 11 1995 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCll., RE: APPROVAL OF LOCATION USE FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR. DEAR Sffi: - GUARDIAN TOWING AND REPAffi IS A CONTRACT STATION FOR AUTOMOBll.,E CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS A SERVICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF POW A Y AND PENASQUITOS AND THEffi NEED FOR AUTOMOTIVE RELATED PROBLEMS. WE AT GUARDIAN TOWING ARE VERY PROUD TO BE A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE SERVICING OUR NEIGHBORS FOR YEARS TO COME. GUARDIAN TOWING BEEN BASED OUT OF POW A Y SHELL 12365 POW A Y RD. UNDER A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 95-69. WE BEEN LOOKING FOR A REPAffi AND STORAGE SPACE FOR THE LAST YEAR, HOWEVER FINDING A LOCATION TO MEET OUR REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH STORAGE AND REPAffi HAS BEEN A VERY CHALLENGING TASK. WE LEARNED ABOUT THE AREA AND CAME TO A DECISION THAT STAYING IN THE POW A Y AREA AND HAVING OUR OPERATION CLOSE BY IS THE BEST SOLUTION FOR US. WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A LOCATION THAT Wll.,L SUIT OUR NEEDS, AND WAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR AUTOMOTIVE STORAGE. THIS PLACE IS LOCATED AT - 12300 STOWE RD. SUITE A POW A Y, CA 92064 IN THE STOWE BUSINESS PARK. SEP 2 6 1995 IlEM 28A . ..~- , I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN PROHmITS AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FOR LAND DESIGNATED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. WE ARE SEEKING CITY APPROVAL TO USE THIS LOCATION FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, NOT HEAVY MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES. THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ENGINE OVERHAUL, TRANSMISSION REBUILDING OR BODY WORK. LIGHT REPAIRS ARE MAINLY ALTERNATORS, STARTERS, BATTERY, BELTS, LIGHT ELECTRICAL, TIRE, AND MINOR TUNEUPS. WE WILL PROVIDE OIL DRIP PANS FOR ALL STORED VEHICLES IN OUR LOCA TION. THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CARS. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING TillS MA TIER PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ME AT ANY TIME. s'1lt~&. . , ill li1tlf/1} ALl M. GANJI ( CC: JAMES L. BOWERSOX, CITY MANAGER REBA WRIGHT-QUASTLER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 28A ~ ...- . I + - ,\ r In-Ii . ," . _ f'2.,.r:;:::::;. ,'" C)'- ..... I ~o " 'II- c:.. ..... ..... ......1 , ~ ' c:. I / ~ Ii -- >:-~~~. - ~! .=..- _' - I I, I I ~~ ' 'I!-~ ....... ~i I <( ..J C. (,!}. z' -,' 01 -- <(l ~ ~,: ! I / III H~Lff{.. _ / \~~" - > ~ !JJfj1iftJ~jr---- 1- =-~ \ ex: :' l'fr/" ~ - 'I {' ' <(: ~ II ,1 Z '/ -Ii '0,\:1 H 11I:::' I '11-" Ii' ~I -\- 3; 1(- -I' .....,,!,; ..J " c:.ll" ~ . Ii .....o:~: Wi. II : II Ii! ex: ' I . .: C. - II ~ _.__, ___. i. ,I ,~~ ..r. ' _ i t i Ii !~~ 1 I ~ . I · . ': < I ,. ,. ; 1 ! i~ d!, I m I: ~ ! I · i: bl< , I" '. ~ " ~. .n!~ 5 ;i~P is t;~ r5;~ ;;! ~~ ~i. I' , , ~ I ' , I i I N "i ~.., 5 ... l ; - J~"f "'~. . E "i 101 "'III! < I ' I I ~ !Hn~ ! n n!!i "1 . ~ i!i~ ~ ~~ HPi H~ ,I if I i~lll I I q L !" i i :I "" "Xl'. . '. .,11 E U gis, 1Il.1 'r' I t.! II' IIII E E i I i f; JI.I i! Ii ;t~ f ~ i i ir~x i . 12 '5~S ... Ei ~ ~ jii ill"il I ~ I q i II t t ' i E i 1 S' C . .' . , . I I 1 I'" . C li" ~ 0 f. 8 '" '.. I,,; " · ,. t. I / ~pi :~n ~ P iiIUH,I. ~ i~;i !!l ~n ~ 1;I~nin & II d H l~ilH q i. ; ~ l ~ ~i gl !'IP'Jr . d "M II 9-11. W .w.-- !;;1 Ii' S~I" ,., ! Is I,' , t.1 h , ~ · Ils I t 'I II .- IWil! ! n 1m il ~i!! "!fl! m i!! i!! i;jiB ill II Ii iil ~ \\ ~ i1i1ii im ill! 11 ~ : . .. ..... _.. di~ XI . ' ' .! I ' , ,! I, I : I I~ 'f . , :. . iI'\ _ _'.; 0'" ,;: i d: I r 1:16 9 e' 0 tciJ JJ ~ 0 Ilw , , . AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING City Council for the City of Poway, hereinafter referred to as 'City' and r~\Aa.fJ',a", \o"'~d~i(hereinafter referred to as 'Proponenf enter into this Agreement of Understanding based upon the following facts: Proponent owns or has an equitable interest in land described by tax Assessor's Parcel Number(sl sR ~ 1-\ fi..3~S<lo3 01- . Proponent desires to develop this property in accordance with the will of the City and without the expense of a protracted development. City is concerned that Proponent will create development plans unsatisfactory to City and consume time and effort of City employees needlessly on unsatisfactory development plans unless City assists in directing Proponent. Based upon the above-mentioned facts, City will grant Proponent a hearing prior to filing any application for development upon the following understanding: a. City will render no decision with regards to any development proposal or part thereof. b. City will receive no evidence, specific in nature, in support of a particular development plan. c. City will make no representations that will obligate the City to render a decision in favor of or against any development proposal or part thereof Proponent may subsequently submit. d. If any development proposal is subsequently submitted, Proponent will proceed at its sole and exclusive risk with the understanding that City has made no representations upon which Proponent may rely,. - Dated: if! -f!3 Proponent: I/I! SEP 2 6 1995 ITEM 28A ..-