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
..-