Item 4 - CUP 88-14
[t.~ ?--,jJ-f-~:L
TO: The City Clerk
City of Poway
rRECEIVED,
JUL 1 4 1992 ;
\..... CITY OF POWAY ..,..,f'
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: Keitha Walker
Executive Board
First Church of Christ. Scientist
Poway-Rancho Bernardo
DATE: July 14.1992
RE: ITEM 4 of agenda for City Council Meeting, july 14, 1992
Conditional Use Permit 88-14
REQUEST TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
The Executive Board of the Christian Science Church would like to request a
postponement of this issue until the next City Council meeting. We did not
receive a copy of the Planning Department's report and recommendations
until yesterday, July 13. 1992, nor 11ave we had the opportunity to meet
with them to discuss possible solutions. A meeting has been set up for this
Thursday. July 16. and we feel all parties would be better prepared to
resolve the matter after the discussion on the site of the Church takes place
this Thursday.
Thank you for your consideration.
cc: C. Edmonds
..' V~~
~er
679-9704
JUL 14 1992 ITEM 4
~
l
D~-t.z-cJ 1-/tJ-9c;;<
AGENDA REPORT -
CITY OF POW A Y
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
(\.1
James L. Bowersox, City Manager~)f &
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services~
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
PROJECT
PLANNER:
Carol M. Edmonds, Assistant planner II
DATE:
July l4, 1992
SUBJECT:
Annual Review of Conditional Use Permit BB-l4,
First Church of Christ Scientist, Applicant: The
addition of a 6760 square foot sanctuary to an
existing religious complex located at l63l5
pomerado Road in the RR-C zone.
APN: 275-510-12
DISCUSSION
The annual review of Conditional Use Permit BB-l4 was initially
considered by the City Council during the public hearing of June
30, 1992. The Council continued the item to July 14, 1992 to allow
time to resolve issues raised during the hearing by area residents.
The issues raised were:
1. The impacts of the church parking lot lights on adj acent
residences.
2. The erosion of the banks of an on-site drainage swale.
3. The erosion of soil around the footings of a fence.
4. Project dust.
5. Decreased effectiveness of a recently installed wood fence to
attenuate noise and light.
6. The pomerado Road traffic impacts that will be generated by
the church expansion.
ACTION:
1 of 10
4
Agenda Report
July 14, 1992
page 2
7. The location of a church dumpster and the impacts of parking
lot noise on adjacent residences.
8. Equestrian Trail easement.
Staff discussed these issues with church representatives and the
area residents that had voiced their concerns during the June 30,
1992 Council meeting. A few of the issues have been addressed,
staff is currently working with the church to resolve other
concerns.
Resolved Issues
The church presently uses the parking lot lights for regular
Wednesday night services and periodic evening church meetings (see
Attachment 1). Generally, functions are held at the church only
one night a week. For the most part these activities end by 9:00
p.m. so the lights are turned off near that time.
The dumpster is currently located in the parking lot near the
easterly property line adjacent to residential properties. There
were some concerns voiced regarding the noise associated with the
on-site trash collection. It should be noted that the church plans
to use the dumpster only temporarily. Church representatives
checked with their disposal service whose records show that the
trash is collected after 9:00 a.m. and not during the quieter early
morning hours. The disposal service prefers that the dumpster
remain in its present location because it is easier to access. The
church is, however, willing to relocate the trash bin if it is
necessary.
Tackifier has been applied to the currently vacant graded building
pad to better control dust emanating from the site.
Staff inspected the eroded drainage swale that was damaged by the
heavy rains this past spring. The church is required to stabilize
the banks immediately to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Services Department.
Issues CUrrently in the Process of beinq Resolved
Mr. Saylor, an adjacent neighbor voiced his concerns regarding the
gaps in the recently installed wood fence along the easterly
property line of the church. In the past he has been disturbed by
church parking lot noise and lights. He believes the church should
be required to make the existing single-sided wood fence double-
sided to help mitigate project noise and light impacts. Staff
2 of 10
I
JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM
4
Agenda Report
July 14, 1992
Page 3
believes that the single-sided wood fence adequately complies with
the fencing requirement. A field inspection revealed that the
spacing between the fence boards was fairly close but there were
some spaces that were up to one-half inch wide. It should be
noted that the City's intent in requiring the church to install a
wood fence along the property line was to provide a physical and
visual separation or barrier between the church use and adjacent
residential land uses. The fence is not an effective noise
attenuation barrier and was never intended to perform that
function. The fence does, however, effectively screen parking lot
vehicle lights from adjacent residences even with the intermittent
small gaps between the boards.
The required wood fence also runs along the northerly property line
adjacent to the drainage swale. As mentioned above, the drainage
swale suffered considerable erosion during the spring rains. The
fence was sited close enough to the swale so that in a few sections
the erosion is so extensive that some of the footings for the fence
have been completely exposed. Staff supports relocation of the
fence further south away from the drainage swale to avoid similar
problems in the future. Relocation of the fence will require that
an adjacent equestrian easement also be relocated. The preferred
location for siting the equestrian trail is along the westerly and
southerly property lines of the church (see Attachment 2). Staff
is currently working with the church on the proposed relocation of
the equestrian easement. It should be noted that to date the
church has not agreed to the relocation of the easement. The
estimated costs for redesigning and relocating the easement, in
addition to the church's preferred site design, could influence the
church's decision.
Another neighbor voiced concern regarding the pomerado Road traffic
impacts that will be generated by the proposed church expansion.
The City of San Diego has jurisdiction over pomerado Road along the
stretch of the street that fronts the church. Staff has contacted
the City of San Diego to check if on-site traffic signs (i.e., no
left turns onto pomerado Road) should be used to lessen traffic
impacts on pomerado Road.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this
report and allow Conditional Use Permit 88-l4 to remain in effect.
The proj ect will continue to be regulated by the conditions of
approval listed in Resolution No. P-88-l08; however, with a minor
modification requiring the equestrian easement to be relocated
along the westerly and southerly property lines. Section 17.48 .100
of the Municipal Code allows for minor revisions or modifications
3 of 10
JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM
4
Agenda Report
July 14, 1992
page 4
to a conditional use permit to be approved by the Director of
Planning Services if it is determined that the changes would not
affect the findings. The proposed relocation of the equestrian
easement will not affect the project findings.
JLB:RWQ:CME:pcm
Attachments:
l. Letter, Church of Christ Scientist, July 6, 1992
2. Approved Location of Equestrian Trail
REPORT\2CUP8814.AGN
4 of 10
JUL 14 1992 ITEM
4
Delivered to Poway City Planning Department
July 6, 1992
Please Note: Exhibit A is a large architectual drawing that will be
presented at the next City Council Meeting, July 14, 1992.
FROM The Church of Christ Scientist
16315 Pomerado Road
Poway, CA 92064
48704007 or contact Keitha Walker, 679-9704
ATTACHMENT 1
5 of 10
JUL 14 1992 ITEM
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Poway City Council
cc: Carol Edmonds, JoAnn Van Dyke
City of Poway Planning Department
FROM: Keitha Walker. Chair Executive Board
Christian Science Church. Poway /Rancho Bernardo
DATE: July 6, 1992
RE: Mr. Saylor's complaint regarding activity in the Church
parking lot.
In response to the comments and concerns Mr. Saylor expressed at the City
Council Meeting last Tuesday evening, the Executive Board of our Church
would like to present some information we feel is necessary to have a proper
perspective on the activity in our Church parking 10t--espeQllli!ly in
relationship to Mr. Saylor's property and any effect that activity would have
on the Saylor residence.
To begin with. the Church (eastern) property line borders the Saylor's back
yard for approximately 214 feet. Directly adjacent to half of that fence line
is open space on both sides of the property line with occasional trees, shrubs
and boulders. As you know, this entire border is now divided with a solid
wooden fence according to the specifications given by the City of Poway. The
area of concern is the northern half of this property line. which is where the
back end of the church parking lot is located (it is approximately 12 feet
from the fence and 106 feet across (see Exhibit A n. and has ten lined
parking spaces.
First we would like to point out that because this area is the very back end
of the parking lot. it has the least amount of activity. There is a total of 122
parking spaces on the premises, 15 of which are at the front of the Church
property and could have no impact on any of our neighbors. Because our
membership is around 100 people, and most come to church and meetings in
pairs and families. on our most active day, Sunday, there is rarely more
than 10-15 cars in the back portion of the lot.
Perhaps more importantly are these two facts:
6 of 10
JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM
4
1. The first 70 feet of this northeastern border is already double fenced.
Mr. Saylor has a barn and two RV's stored right next to the property line in
this corner of his lot, and some time ago put up a high fence for this 70 feet.
Behind these structures are another small building (storage shed or
workshop) and at any given time a minimum of ten other parked vehicles.
Thus, it is not likely that noise or parking lights could penetrate at this point;
2. The remaining area which appears to be the focus of Mr. Saylor's
complaint inCludes four parking spaces, which are twelve feet back from the
new fence and approximately 36 feet across the property line. Although
these spaces are used almost every Sunday from 9:45 a.m. to 11: 15 a.m. by
Sunday School teachers, they are rarely used during evening meetings
because of their location away from the lights in the parking area. Please
note also, that Mr. Saylor's house is a considerable distance back from this
property line with yard, cement decking and a pool between. There is only
one sliding glass door, which in the past (pre-fence) could have been'
impacted by any light, as their patio area is to the side on the south end of
the property,
In addition, it is not very light in the parking lot when we have our weekly
Wednesday night meetings (from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m.!, and it is very dark in
the far end of the lot at night. We would invite you to investigate this for
yourself, Our good neighbors to the south, Saint Bartholomew Church, are
much higher than we are and have many more lights, and we are not aware
of any problems they are having. Please do not misunderstand, if there is a
problem we are creating for any neighbor, we will be more than happy to do
what is reasonable and fair to correct the situation.
Finally, we would like to share with you the amount of activity that has
taken place at our Church during evening hours for the past 18 months.
Please refer to Exhibit B. Although these documented meetings reflect an
unusual amount of activity, due to our Church building project, no
distinction has been made as to Which meetings were held during Daylight
SaVings Time. These figures reflect possible activity which would impact our
neighbor to the east 13 evenings in the past 547 days, or less than 3% of the
time in the past 18 month, which ended some time between the hours of
9:00 p.m. and II: pm.; and 78 regular Wednesday evening meetings in which
all activity was ended before 9:00 p.m. (78 ourof 547 or 14%). It is our
feeling that with a solid fence in place, we have now taken steps that more
than insure any adverse effect on Mr. Saylor.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
7 of 10
~~~
JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM 4
Exhibit B
MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS
1991
DATE
OPENED
ADJOURNED
1. 01-22-91 7:35 p.m. 9:50 p.m.
2. 04-15-91 7:35 p.m. 9:35 p.m.
~ 05-20-91 7:30 p.m. 9:00 p.m.
j.
4. 07 -15 -91 7:30 p.m. 10:30 p.m.
5. 09-09-91 7:35 p.m. 9:45 p.m.
6. 10-21-91 7:30 p.m. 10:25 p.m.
7. 11-12-91 7:30 p.m. 9:55 p.m.
1992
8. 01-21-92 7:35 p.m. 9:25 p.m.
9. 04-20-92 7:35 p.m. 10:55 p.m.
10. 06-29-92 7:34 p.m. 9:06 p.m.
Added to this would be two well-attended workshops held by our Church
during evening hours in 1991 and one so far this year. Some committees do
meet in the evening, although most meet on Saturday mornings, but such
activity would amount to no more than five or six cars per early evening.
8 of 10
JUL 14 1992 ITEM 4
) , ,
'~i~
! i '
~\l''i.'
'f~.J.~i
I ~ I
k;:!~
( l): 41
~,
I h.'
, ...
i .
;~.
: ~I
i ~i
! <<:I!
i~
\. ~ ~:'..
~
-I
I
I
I
,
,
I~
~ .' ~ of 10
I
i ,
iv'
i~
_V\ \)1
,.j-1
>-
.~
I r
r~1
< ~d
'''''''J1f
~
I
i )...1
r~!
i~1
1~1.
!~Ii
~I
I
j
~~
" '
,~
-:)
oQ
~
/
I
I
l
I
"
,
! ,.
\.
I.
./---
, '
I
_/
~
U
j-
~.,
, 'J
!',-
- ,.-.) ...-'----
if
"
i!
I.
!i
!:
,
j\
.,
,
ii
I
, ~
'1(l~ ..
V'- (4...
'<.~
. ~
--~,
,~r
~. .
_ LI~
~
~
\
1
/
j
~ /
.-.~
--
s.~~-:i!!!.2'" .
.Cc9;:;>~da olE
I
f
I
';i
'li
~
~
~
,,,",
<J
!
L-~ -- .s:';a.o:;>cda be
-----'-.
~'____ ___ _ _ _---'--JuJ:: ~4~19.~2__~~EfJJl;4_
rv~i
, \ ~.~ i.
, ,,\1) ~ , '
"_. I
-..-----1
............
--
-
~
~ I g I I 1:1,1
---;:r::3;: VlHlIOJll'o'J J.VMO~
avo. OOnJW04 U Ut
1SIIN3DS 1SI~I.D ~O H)~mD 1S~U
NV . _ ~11S 0311V 130 ;
~
t:
~ "-
~! I ~
:,j~- liD f
--------../'~ z , ..)
O~
57
. ,
I I
,I i I.
I: II ,I
l:!!!ll,!l:
0( I' !!! ~ 'l;
~ l'lli,hi'!.'
~ I
t:; li I I I I
10 of 10
ATTACHMENT 2
I'll
Ill. J I
.\
\J -:
~.:-, :0-.
\\
I.
~
z
<(
....J
CL
LU~
f-~
V1~