Item 4 - REVISED Public Hearing to Consider Modification of MUP P81-13
~ -,4lGENDAD~i~~:~Tf 7/:; IS; /~/
0." Jt1
CITY OF POW A Y
REV I SED
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~ ~
INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quast1er, Director of Planning Services ~
PROJECT Mariio Van Dyke, Associate Planner~
PLANNER:
DATE: July 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider the ReQuest for the
Modification of Maior Use Permit P81-13 - Rancho
Arbolitos Swim and Tennis Club.
APN: 314-722-40
It has been reQuested by Standard Pacific that this item be
continued to August 6, 1991 in order to allow them sufficient time
to further review their files and staff's report.
RECOtMENDATION
It is recommended that this item be continued to August 6, 1991.
JLB:RWQ:MVD:pcm
Attachment:
REPORT\2P8113.AGN
ACTION: Coot10"d to "",t 6, l"l.~~
u eputy City Clerk
~
1 of 2 JUL 16 1991 lTEM~7
,") @)
'''<r.
, <;;j
STANDARD PACIFIC OF SAN OIEGO
A Division of Standard Pacific, LP,
RECEIVED
July 3, 1991 JUL :3 1991
Ms, Reba Wright-Ouastler, Director CITY OF POINAY
Department of Planning Services PLANNING DEPT.
City of poway
Post Office Box 789
Pcmay, CA 92074-{)789
Re: Public Hearing: Modification of Major Use Permit P81-13
Rancho Arbolitos Swim & Tennis Oub
Dear Reba:
We respectfully request the subject scheduled public hearing be continued from July 16, 1991 to July 30.
1991, We have not had the opportunity to review staffs report on this matter and wish to avail ourselves
of sufficient time to review our extensive files on the Swim & Tennis Oub,
We additionally want to bring to staff's attention that Standard Pacific did not, and has not, requested any
modifications to the original Major Use Permit or even Development Review 84-21, The Notice of Public
Hearing should not have indicated Standard Pacific as Applicant In our opinion the public hearing was
originated and Initiated by staff, We are extremely disturbed the City even considers that further review of
Use permit P81-13 is necessary,
Attached Is a copy of the approved Use Permit P81-13, Development Review DR84-21 (approved November
13,1984), and most importantly, a memo from Steve Eckis, City Attorney, stated January 10, i991, indicating
his opinion of the validness of the existing CUP, All the documents Issued by the City included approval
for lighting fixtures for all nine tennis courts,
Standard Pacffic will be furnishing a report from a qualified lighting engineer in compliance with DR 84-21,
Section 3, Item 4, as required,
Again, In our opinion, the City should not be considering further review and public hearings on a matter that
was fully reviewed In a previous pUblic hearing,
Very truly yours,
STANDARD PACIFIC OF SAN DIEGO
tu- -
David H, Phares
Vice President
Acquisition & Development
DHP:tjd
cc: James Bowersox, City Manager
ATTACHMENT AUG S 1991 IT~II.'J 4
2 of 2 7290 CLAIREMONT MESA BOULEVARD / SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 iTEM 7
(619) 279-2042/ FAX: (619) 279-{)190 JUL 16 1991
tr ~AGENDA REPORT;
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~
INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services~~
PROJECT Associate Planne~'
PLANNER: Marijo Van Dyke,
DATE: July 16. 1991
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider the Request for the
Modification of Major Use Permi t P81-13 - Rancho
Arbo1itos Swim and Tennis Club.
APN: 314-722-40
ABSTRACT
Staff has received a request by Standard Pacific of San Diego to
install court lighting on the three remaining unlighted tennis
courts at the Rancho Arbolitos Swim and Tennis Club. Two adjoining
residential neighbors have submitted letters in opposition and have
requested a public hearing of the matter. A publ ic hearing has
therefore been set in conformance with MuniCipal Code Section
17,48.140 Annual Review.
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 1981, the County of San Diego approved Major Use
Permit P81-13 on behalf of the City of Poway, under City interim
standards. The complex was constructed in 1984 according to the
approval except that no lights were installed on the eastern three
courts.
The resolution of approval was based on findings that illustrated
the swim and tennis club's compatibility with the master planned
single-family community of Rancho Arbolitos. One of the findings
however, appears to have been made in error in that it suggests
that the pad elevation of the tennis courts were to be placed lower
than all adjoining properties, thereby presumably providing a
pr i vacy and noise buffer for the residences from the club. The
ACTION:
'I AUG 61991 IT:II.'J 4
1 of 11 JUl 16 1991 lTEM 7
").' """".,.
" ~.,
~ ~
~.'.'
Agenda Report
July 16, 1991
Page 2
actual condition is directly opposite, as the tennis complex
relates to the residences directly to the east. In fact, there is
a sizeable grade separation but, with the tennis court complex is
higher. Had this been correctly cited during the original approval
process, no doubt some design changes would have been warranted to
insure better long-term compatibility.
In recent weeks, Standard Pacific has posted "No Trespassing" signs
to alert players to moderate their tendencies to retrieve stray
balls, and has planted new trees along the slope above the
residential lots, in an attempt to provide additional screening for
the homes,
It also appears that at least one neighbor's rear fence contains a
gate allowing access between his/her yard and the swim and tennis
court property, albeit only the slope area. Nevertheless, it
appears that trespassing has been occurring from both directions
and that the gate may be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION
The letters from adjoining neighbors indicate a growing
dissatisfaction with the conduct of players who trespass into
residential yards to retrieve tennis balls. There is also
dissatisfaction with the general lack of privacy because of the
orientation of their rear yards to the club's courts due to the
grade separation placing the courts high enough to allow outsiders
a view into their private yard spaces. The desire for outdoor
quiet time uninterrupted by the noise and awareness of court play
seems to be a high priority.
Section 17.48.140 of the Poway Municipal Code requires that all
conditional use permits undergo an annual review. Where there have
been no complaints regarding the use, the review is conducted on a
staff level. However, where complaints have been received, a
public hearing is required to consider possible modification or
revocation of the permit.
No unsolicited complaints were received regarding the conduct of
the subject use until staff polled the neighbors concerning the
plans by the operator of the club to light the remaining courts.
The public hearing was thus precipitated,
Based on several conversations with the neighbors directly adjacent
to the subject courts, it appears that they would be satisfied if
the easternmost court (Court *8) were to remain unlighted.
AUG G 1991 rr:M 4
2 of 11 JUL 16 1991 lTEM 7
,~ 4j
./
- Agenda Report
July 16. 1991
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt (Class 3) under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
RECCWNENDATION
It is recommended that City Council amend Major Use Permit P81-13
by the addition of a condition restricting the installation of
lighting to Court 8. shielding the lighting for Courts 6 and 7 and
recording a covenant to that effect.
JLB: RWQ:MVD: pcm
Attachments:
1. Proposed Resolution
2, Letter. Mr, and Mrs, Tone, June 11, 1991
3, Letter, Mr. and Mrs. Berger, June 14, 1991
- REPORT\P8113.AGN
-
AUG 61991 m:M 4
JUL 16 1991 ITEM 7
) ~
~
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING MODIFICATION OF MAJOR USE PERMIT P81-13
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 314-722-40
WHEREAS, a request has been submitted by Standard Pacific of
San Diego to install lighting for three remaining tennis courts
within the Rancho Arbo1itos Swim and Tennis Club; and
WHEREAS, a request has been made on the part of adjoining
property owners for the modification of the CUP pertaining to the
operation of the complex; and
WHEREAS, it has been found that an original finding justifying
the construction and operation of the tennis court complex was made
in error; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered staff's
report and has considered other evidence presented at the pub1 ic
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section 1 : Environmental Findings:
The City Council hereby declares that the proposed project is
Categorically Exempt, Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures.
Section 2: Findings:
All original findings in support of the approval of P81-13 are
considered valid except for Item 5 which states:
The suitability of the site for the type and
intensity of use or development which is
proposed:
The fact supporting Finding (a-5) is as
follows:
The site is suitable inasmuch as it is at a
lower elevation than the proposed homes to the
south and east. In addition, sufficient areas
have been set aside for landscaping.
The City Council finds that the site is suitable because the
operators of the tennis club have installed additional trees
and landscaping to act as a visual buffer and that lighting of
the court nearest the affected residences to the east shall be
4 of 11 JUL 16 1991 lTEM 7
(" )
-'
_ Resolution No. P-
Page 2
prohibited. These measures, along with clear prohibitions
against trespassing, act as sufficient mitigation to allow the
tennis club to continue operating adjacent to residential
lots.
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby amends Major Use Permit P81-13
imposing the following conditions:
1. Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit
in writing that all conditions of approval have been read
and understood; and (2) the property owner shall execute
a Covenant on Real Property.
2. The use conditionally granted by this permit shall not be
conducted in such a manner as to interfere with the
reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding residential
and commercial uses.
3. Light rays emitted by the tennis court light fixtures
shall be projected below the imaginary horizontal plane
_ passing through the lowest point of the fixture and in
such a manner that the light is directed away from
streets and adjoining properties.
4. Lighting of the subject tennis courts Court *8 shall be
prohibited.
5. A dense landscape screen shall be installed and
maintained along the eastern slope, to the property
boundary.
6. The interior of the tennis court shall be posted with a
notice to players prOhibiting trespassing on adjoining
residential properties.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
State of California, this 16th day of July 1991.
Jan Goldsmith, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
AUG 6 1991 ffi:M 4
5 of 11 JUL 16 1991 ITEM 7
v ')
t~ ~-:~ ,,~-. -,'. ",'.'" -
~ ;:, J,,;;, '1\," , -...
~...~ J " -~~ ,-G'
;J
June 11. 1991 JUN 12 1991
c! [Y vr '_' ~
CITY . ' ,).. (
jl,lAN/\GER~:" ":'\:-f-'-'
C: ty CJ: ?Owdl' .J 'v',-r;i,;E
Department of ?1an~ing Serv:ces
?:. 30:< ""80
D.......;"., ~.~ . o...,....-:>._...."':"po
- ""'""'....~ , .:....-'''''1 .....''-'
~~~_. ~e~a W~:g~~_0u~~~ler
.... ..... ., -.J .... ..1. '"' '_~"" ..
~ar:jc Van Dyke
Re: Rancho Arbo! Itos Swt~ ~~d !e~~:s C:~b Appl ~ca:!~r. 1..,-., ..!.....\..,l.. ':;-,e
..v _. ';::1"-
:~~ee ex:st:ng ~astern Tenn:s Courts.
:e3.':- ?e8? 1:'::; ~,3.:":~:)~
As ~".e c')ner cf lot 81 direc~ly EdS~ of and BELOW t~e co~..:-:s .,
~~"':.'s~ :O~, ',,:e C:~p~SE.' t~e :r:sta.:~atior: cf :~ese : : :;r.:s. t~e:-:. '"ie
.....,-" .-....- ,.......-0:, ,,- ::':0:"'. "":":::3 :): 3~ ?:-'::i.L.:: ?~:::~: :~:, - ~ ......::, . .......... --
......."':.:.:..... .~.... .:'-'''''', ..- . ..A-..... .' ~..,.,- .
c: :r:e .t._,.... ~r,c : ~hese - ._~ ::--:ree GC;..:-:S ~,;ere ;.::;: :::: ,:>2
I..a.....~ .:::.~~ ' - ~ .
3~:::;.....se ~:~e ~~~~~3 =o~:~s are ab::;ve the e:e'''3.~::):: ~,- ::::'--'~ ?:-::::;:e::-:::: J
.~ ,
,:i-:d :he three b3~~ bed~ooms, ",., .....,.. s..:-e :he c~: :~re~s :-c~~s, ~- ',' ~d
............,;
t~~ te;::; I s ~::r..;=-t s:de, t~e ~o!se a~d glare w~:~ ....0.....1..:::....' ,. \.-..,:)
.......... ~ <"'1.. t .......
:::s~:...;r~::-:g.
7he ~emorandum sent to you on January 10, 199: by ~r,Ste?he" ~,
Ec~Is, Cltl' At:crney, states In sec::c:l 2. ~~at the ....se be
compatible with surrounding propertIes. Since the propertIes are
a 1 ~ o~c;.;.?:ed by the cr~ginal owners, who better to decide ~hetr.e:
or not the 1 ighting cf these courts ~ou:d be, I.: :act, cor.:patlb~e
with these properties.
In exami~l~g ~he wording of the orlgi;:,~: use per:nit, .,..:e be: >~'!e
1::" ~ _,.J: _,_ ':: ' D-....o:, ":' ....~ ~~e 3ppr8va1), ~~:ch st3~es ~~.~~ :~t" '3::: e
- .......-..;1 '"" ',I.. c.~.~ '_' .....1- ,-
3:" : ~ a~ : e :nas:::uch ~s ' . is at ~~ 1 c~..;e C' e 1 e v.3,: ~ on than the h::~es :~
"
the east, is not true; b'" in :act, the cppcs~te cc~dlt:c~
v, .
e:<:s:s.
AI; th:ee of the ~roperty owners in ~uesticn are agai nst '-;"Q.
".I.....
1 :ght:r:g of these tennis co~rts. Sta~dard PacIfic has ~aGe ~8
c":.....""l- to com~unicate with us to work cut ani ~lab;e sC;ut:~~;
-""...... ..
::;,.,..... :act, haven/t ar.swered a letter sent to them by ~::-. :'''''.'::''''''/
.....1......, . d ........w._.. ....
Berge:. .~galn, r..JI thout ~ny :orr~~unicatic~, Standard ?ac:ti: has
l~sta!led unsightly signs behl~d ou~ propert:es st~t:~g, n'.1"'"1
,'v
7RES?ASS:~G, VIOLATORS fNILL 3E PROSCECUTED. 1I :Jne of '~ih 1 ch was
i"stalled directly behind cur gate wh:ch ?~eve"ts 1 t cpen::;.g ;:;.... t .
We question whether they should have a per~i: f:):- :~ese 8:;:;S.
AUG 61991 ITi:M 4
6 of 11 ATTACHMENT 2 JUL 16 1991 lTIM 7
-- J
';Ie ~?)O~.;:::: ~::;pe +-l-.:.;,j. ~~e ,...:.." r" 11 re~:;:(~~ ~~,e 2..pp;O'~',::. ; ~ ..."... t~:s
'...-.'. .... ~ ...; N.,. ~ ...j~
....-,... ~,...- ~ ....... (.eep -.J::~ -'0 ....co...., ; ....Q,.....:a."'l.. , 3.: " '::e ::;)r7'.:;a::::e ',J::~
;:'....'.."...... ;I....... ....,,, ~ ..... "':l.... l .. ............ ~ . ~~~
- the surround;ng properties. We would a sc ~cpe :h,~.~ :he c~'ty
would be as wi i 1 ing to uphold the rights of the I ndl v 1 dua 1 hOr:le
owner rather then bend to large developers.
~, ,
..~~r1.'< you /
~f;/~-r~
....,...'"' _~;:e ~:~;j :.: :-:ts. :'c:1e
'..........
:):~5 ...l:~:)~.:)~:: 3:: :-~~~
?c.,,:ay, ~. o~:6~
....."1
,..,...
.........
~ .. ... Gc ;:::5:7:: t:ro: , ~ayo:-
....:Li.
Bo~ :..:7.e ~ 'i J :ep:..:';, \~~ '/,......
..-. '-"..
~^ .-:::;;11:5::::-:, ,....... ......: 1 -co...........:.-
-'''' . "" ....''"'........ . ....~ .o;.....'~ _
- Sr:esk::;, :::c~;:-:c: :::-:e7:::;:e::-
. .~ .;,
~.' ~ ... ;... ., ~;:::::"'.:'j':e , Cou:;::: :::;embe~
..4......;.
~ ::.:::es 3owersc:<, Cl ~y Manager
"'L':""Q1'" :.;~< ~ s, ..... ~ !-. ~ A: :o~~e:i
)....../.". .........
-
-~
AUG 61991 m:M 4
7 of 11 JUL 16 1991 ITEM 7
.
) 'J
~~/O~
RECEIVED
JUN 19 1991 14 June, 1991
13112 Woodmont Street
CITY OF POWAY Poway, CA 92064
CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
748-8854
City of Poway
Department of Planning Services
P.O. Box 789
Poway CA, 92064
Attn: Reba Wright-Quastler
Subject: Tennis Court Lighting at the Rancho Arbolitos Swim
and Tennis Club.
Reference: (a) Public Notice of Minor Development Review,
MDRA 90-26, dated March 21, 1990
(b) Neighbors letter, dated March 29, 1990
(c) Standard Pacific of San Diego letter, dated
, November 7, 1990
!
(d) Poway Directoi of Planning Services letter, dated
December 4, 1990
(e) Poway City Attorney Memorandum, dated
January 10, 1991
(f) Rancho Arbolitos Swim and Tennis Club Newsletter,
dated April 1991
(g) Edward Berger letter, dated May 22, 1991
(h) Notice of Approval of Major Use Permit P81-013 by
Poway City Council, dated June 2, 1981
Dear Reba,
Reference (a) notified the public of a pending minor
development review to install lighting on the three remaining tennis
courts at the Rancho Arbolitos Swim and Tennis Club. The property
owners immediately adjacent to the Swim and Tennis Club and
8 of 11 AUG 61991 IT~ 4
ATTACHMENT 3 JUL 16 1991 aT 7
.
,-, .c)
- directly affected by installation of the lights responded to the public
notice with reference (b), strongly opposing the installation of the
subject lights.
Reference (c) indicated Standard Pacific "desires to aggressively
move forward with the installation of tennis court lights....., expressed
their opinion that Major Use Permit P81-013 is still in effect and that
Standard Pacific "does not need to submit a new application" .
Reference (d) is your response to the Standard Pacific letter
indicating .. ...research has turned up some startling facts concerning
the permitting and occupancy of the club.... The evidence taken
together suggests that a new public hearing is warranted because the
original use permit cannot be found valid. In addition, the present
permit situation is technically a zoning violation which requires
immediate remedy considering the complex's wide use by the
community" . Reference (e) is a memorandum from the Poway City
- Attorney on the subject application for tennis court lighting, and
states that .. ...the use be compatible with surrounding properties" and
the ". ..application may only be approved and permits issued if the
stiff is satisfied that the lights are designed in such a way that their
u~e will be compatible with adj'oining property".
Reference (f) informed the Rancho Arbolitos Swim and Tennis
Club members that lights are currently being ins taIled on the
remaining tennis courts. Reference (g) notified Standard Pacific that
"property owners adjacent to the Rancho Arbolitos Swim and Tennis
Club are adamantly opposed to the installation of lights" and stated
our intention "to aggressively oppose the intrusion on our rights to
solitude and privacy".
We have not received a response from Standard Pacific to our
phone calls or reference (g). We are very disappointed that we were
not afforded an opportunity to collectively resolve this matter with
- Standard Pacific prior to their arbitrary decision to install the subject
lights, We are therefore petitioning the Poway City Council to revoke
the permit for installation of the subject lights based on our position
AUG 61991 m:M II
9 of 11 JUL 1 6 1991 lJiM 7
J S9
~ .':~->
that lights on the tennis courts immediately adjacent to our
properties are an infringement on our rights to privacy as their use
is not compatible with surrounding properties. We have also been
advised by council to consider pursuing civil action for recovery of
all damages, based on the Declaration of Restrictions signed by
Standard Pacific on 23 September, 1983. It is also of interest to note
that the Poway City Council, in reference (g), approved Major Use
Permit P81-0l3, indicating the Swim and Tennis Club " ...site IS
suitable inasmuch as it is at a lower elevation than the proposed
homes to the south and east". In fact the reverse is actually the case;
the tennis courts are at a higher elevation than our homes to the
south and east. If the use permit stipulation is correct in the City
Council approval, the tennis courts have been installed in violation of
the original permit.
Standard Pacific has recently installed "NO TRESPASSING" signs
on tall metal posts immediately adjacent to our properties. The signs
are intended to warn that trespassers will be prosecuted. One of the
signs blocks the gate to the property of John and Linda Tone. The
si~ns are vague as to which property is supposedly protected, have
no legal basis and are nothing inore than an eyesore, It is apparent
to us that Standard Pacific will go to any lengths to have the lights
installed, objections of neighbors notwithstanding, thereby increasing
the profitability of the club.
10 of 11 AUG 61991 ffi:1L'J 4
JUL 1 6 1991 ITEM 7
.
~ .
(- j
.,
-
We are adamant in our position that installation of lights on the
remaining tennis courts violates our rights to privacy and we will not
be deterred in pursuing this matter to a conclusion that respects our
rights as property owners. We request prompt City Council action to
our petition, as installation of the tennis court lights is in progress.
Respectfully,
~dward B(I(J Bonnie Berger
Cf!~~ . ~~ G:?.... .'" ~~
cc: J an Goldsmith, Mayor
- Bob Emery, Deputy Mayor
Don Higginson, Council member
Tony Snesko, Councilmember
! Kathy McIntyre, Councilmember
Jim Bowersox, City Manager
Steve Eckis, City Attorney
~-
AUG 61991 m::l.'J 4
11 of 11 JUl 1 6 1991 11li i M 7
DISTRIBUTED car~- /-/77/ ~ ~;-v<'---./
, ' ff'#AI
'7:oo~,,,,~
-- 15415 San Moritz
Poway, CA 92064
(619) 451-6035
August 2, 1991
poway City Council
City Hall
13326 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
RE: Country Montessori School Expansion
Dear Council:
We are Patrice and Norman Switzer, residing at 15415 San Moritz,
poway. Our property backs up against the empty lot adjacent to
and east of the Country Montessori School on Monte' Vista Road.
We are very much in favor of allowing the Country Montessori
School to expand their facilities.
The property they wish to use is a valuable commercial lot and,
if not allowed to expand, they will surely sell the property and
move or discontinue the school. There are very few uses of this
property that we would prefer over the Montessori School.
,For instance, presently across Monte vista from our lot is the
National HealthCare Center, a nursing care facility. Although
this would appear to be a peaceful neighbor, the cars of visitors
and employees come and go at all hours of the day and night.
There is also the noise of trucks and sirens from the frequent
visits of paramedics, ambulances and fire trucks.
There is no denying that poway needs every educational facility
possible, public and private, to help with the overcrowding in
the poway Unified School District. It does not make sense to
limit facilities like the Montessori School and discourage their
expansion.
Country Montessori School has tried and is trying to work with
the city and the surrounding neighborhood to make the expansion
of their school as acceptable as possible at great cost to the
school. Their efforts are admirable.
" Again, we wholeheartedly support the expansion of the Country
Montessori School.
Sincerely,
, /- -,1- ) ~ 7~i~ ff.-,~~
/ .~,-.,.-- ,\ j --/.- "
, , ,___/c~_,
, I ~
Norman K. Switzer
-~ CC: Country Montessori
,
11, ,
tl :~;J
AUG 6 1991 ITEM 5
DISTFBUTED a{.L/:l(l.Y/ r;~/ If""!.../~ ~
I. / ,5'_1-.-9/
.z : .z D 1'" '"
~-
City of poway
Attn: Mr. Tony Snesko
City Hall
13325 Civic Center Dr.
Poway, CA 92064
August 5, 1991
Dear Mr. Snesko,
On behalf of the parents, children and staff of Country Montessori
School, located at 12642 Monte Vista Road in Poway, I urge you to
approve Conditional Use Permit 91-08 and Development Review 91-25.
My two children have been attending Country Montessori since it's
inception in 1989. I have found the school to be an excellent
model of a Montessori environment, as well as a place where parents
can become very involved in the operation of the school.
poway needs educational alternatives. I have chosen Montessori
over public school thus far because of the small teacher-student
ratio, and individual attention received by the children.
In order for our school to continue operating in a financially
viable way, we must expand. It is in our best interests to keep
the school a manageable size. Our current expansion plans keep
the size feasable, while allowing us to provide improvements for
our current and future students.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Sapp
Board of Directors
Country Montessori School
15209 Del Poniente Court
" Poway, CA 92064
-
~ i
,~
~~,
AUG 6 1991 ITEM 5
., ~'XFUBU" gr- (b~'~S;/Y9J
The Santina Ql~e ~menT rOD}J d .
14133 Mountain lew Court
Poway, Ca. 92064-4948 .;-;-.. 'pC ':1 :;., '1 '~~~~ 'y:.--,
- 619-748-0007
,.=.:~ ~ .... ,:t.. "1
'--'"
~, ,~ -.~:-; ~ ',"'-'
} ,"
Mr. Jan Goldsmith 1\UG 'r~ '1991
City of Poway
P,O, Box 789 "'1' \-~) ~~
Poway, Ca. 92074 \...:: \ ,., ,~
619-748-0007 ('\TY;:\'j --
~
Mr, Goldsmith, August 1, 1991
My name is Paul Santina and I own and operate two businesses in Poway, a Development
company and a Manufacturer's Representative company, I am writing regarding the plans for
expansion at the Country Montessori School near Pomerado Hospital. ,I want to express to you
just how important that school is to myself and my family, It is easily the best school we have ever
found. We need the expansion to ensure that additional elementary grades are added to the
curriculum, The expanSIOn will house those higher grades,
Country Montessori School is a significant asset to Poway. Residents such as myself picked
Poway to move to expressly because of the schools. Country Montessori is the answer to that
goal. The management and staff are outstanding and their educational contribution is
unparalleled. I am intensely concerned about the continued growth of Country Montessori
School.
~ - My develor.ment compaj has built several large single family residences in Huntington Gate,
Green Val ey Estates, an Green Valley Summit. Not surprisingly, I have probably paid around
$50,000 in school fees in addition to my regular taxation, I was horrified at the experience we had
at Midland School, when I enrolled my daughter there last September, but luckily found the new
Country Montessori School which literally saved us from movmg away! The point I am trying to
make is that I feel it is especially ironic that despite the la~e school fees and taxes I pay, that I
can't send my daughter to the local school because it is so i erior, but rather must pay additional
fees to a private school to accomplish our educational goals.
I think that at least I should get the support of the CiZ Council in making certain that the school
that does indeed meet our needs be supported by t e City Government. Please support the
Country Montessori Schools' expansIOn to meet the needs of Poway residents who are
constructive contributors to Poway's growth and improvement,
I am sincerely an active supporter of you and your policies. Although irrelevant here, I did in fact
vote for you. I am, however, counting on you to continue with your excellent plans for Poway's
growth and improvement by supporting the expansion of Country Montessori School.
Can I count on your support?
\
- Paul Santina
619-748-0007
Fax:619748-1001
AUG 6 1991 rrEM 5