Item 13.1 - Request for Rehearing Chabad of Poway
;0:
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
--~.:,--",v!t
DISTRIBUT~ '~d;-~qS "'.."~
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~i\ dl
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Pl~n~ing Services ~
May 2, 1995
Request for Rehearing: Chabad of Poway
ABSTRACT
An application for a new religious complex on the property at Espola Road and Old Espola
Road was heard before the City Council on Tuesday, April 1a. The required yariance was
omitted from the notice of public hearing. Neighbors filed a written request for
rehearing on April 27, 1995.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Decision to rehear an application is not subject to CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
No public notification was done for the request to rehear, however, if granted, new
notice will be sent for the actual rehearing. A copy of this report was provided to
Mrs. McNabb and Rabbi Goldstein.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council rehear the request for variance only.
AillIDf
\CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\a60aREH.SUM
1 of 8
!llTl.Y 2 1995 ITEM 13, 1
CITY OF POWAY
AGENDA REPORT
INITIATED BY:
Honorable Mayor and Members,,~e City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Ma~
John D. Fitch, Assistant City ManagerC¡i¡)'\ &.
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of PlanWing Services ~
May 2, 1995
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Request for Rehearing: Chabad of Poway
BACKGROUND
On Tuesday, April 18, 1995, the City Council considered an application for a new
religious complex on the property at Espola Road and Old Espola Road. No
neighbors of the project spoke at the hearing. The proposed development requires
a 12' setback variance along Espola Road; however, this variance request was
omitted from the notice of public hearing which read as follows:
Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit 86-08 Modification,
Development Review 95-05, Chabad of Poway, applicant: a request to
construct a new religious complex consisting of a sanctuary,
fellowship hall, classrooms and offices on a 1.1 acre parcel which
presently houses a temporary complex for the same purposes, located
at 16934 Espola Road, in the RR-C zone.
The issuance of a Negatiye Declaration with Mitigation Measures
(indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated
due to the addition of special requirements, to the project) is
recommended. APN 273-810-15.
Following the hearing, neighbors contacted staff to inquire about the procedure
for a rehearing. They raised their concerns with the City Council under public
oral communications at the April 25th meeting and filed a written request for
rehearing on April 27,1995 (see attachment A). In response to the public oral
communications, the City Council asked the City Attorney to reyiew the matter.
His opinion is that the notice was, in fact, deficient in that the yariance was
omitted and that the variance portion of the application must be reheard (see
attachment B) The City Attorney further finds that "if you determine that the
variance is such an integral part of the conditional use permit and the
development review that all three should be heard together, it is our
recorrrnendation that the new hearing include all three items and notice properly
identify each."
The question of a temporary use permit to allow the location of trailers on a
portion of residential property on Rock Road has also been raised. Although the
Temple has discussed the possibility of this with staff, no application has been
received and it is staff's understanding that the idea has been dropped by the
Temple.
MAY 2 1995
ITEM 13, 1
2 of 8
Agenda Report
May 2, 1995
Page 2
The Temple inYited neighbors to a meeting on April 30th to reyiew and discuss
the plans. Issues discussed included the height of the proposed building,
parking, drainage, physical constraints of the site, financing, and temporary use
of the Rock Road property.
FINDINGS
The conditional use permit deals with whether the use (religious facility) is
appropriate for the site rather than with physical deyelopment issues such as
design or size of the facility. Staff belieyes that this issue is clearly
separate from the variance question,
It appears that the building could be modified to el iminate the need for a
yariance without becoming inconsistent with the design approyed in the
deyelopment reYiew. Staff, therefore, believes that it is also appropriate to
reconsider the variance without reconsidering the development review approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The decision to rehear an application is not subject to CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
No public notification was done for the request to rehear, however, if granted,
new notice will be sent for the actual rehearing. A copy of this report was
provided to Mrs. McNabb and Rabbi Goldstein.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council rehear the request for variance only.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:kls
Attachments:
A.
B.
C.
Notice of Public Hearing
Memo from Steve Eckis
Letter from Property Owners to Mayor and Council Members
E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\8608REH.AGN
MAY 2 1995 ITEM 1). 1
3 of B
DON HIGGINSON, Mayor
SUSAN CALU;RY, Deput)' Mayor
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Councilmember
ROBERT EMERY. Councilmember
BE'I7Y REXFORD, Counoilmember
(,I~Y OF POWA1-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Poway will hold a
Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 13325 CiYic Center Driye, Poway,
California 92064 on Tuesday, April IB, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as
possible thereafter to consider the following item:
Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit 86-08 Modification,
Development ReYiew 95-05, Chabad of Poway, applicant: a request to
construct a new religious complex consisting of a sanctuary, fellowship
hall, classrooms and offices on a 1.1 acre parcel which presently houses
a temporary complex for the same purposes, located at 16934 Espola Road,
in the RR-C zone.
The issuance of a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures
(indicating no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated ude
to the addition of special requirements. to the project) is recommended.
APN 273-810-15
ANY INTERESTED PERSON may review the staff report and the plans for this
project and obtain additional information at the City of Poway Planning
Services Department, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California or by
telephone (619) 679-4294,
If you wish to express concerns in favor or against the above, you may appear
in person at the above described meeting or submit your concerns in writing to
the City Clerk, City of Poway. If you challenge the matter in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing,
If you have special needs requiring assistance at the meeting, please call the
City Clerk at 679-4236 24 hours prior to the meeting so that accommodation can
be arranged,
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
Published in the Poway News Chieftain on March 23, 1995
Order No, 95-037
ATTACHMENT A
4 of 8
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Mailing Address: P.D, Box 789. Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
MAY 2 1995 ITEM 13. 1
'(
5 of 8
MEMORANDUM.
CITY OF POWAY
TO:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services
Stephen M. Eckis, City Atto~
FROM:
DATE:
May 1, 1995
RE:
Request For Rehearin~: Chabad of poway
I have reviewed the Notice of Hearing for the above-referenced project and the request
for rehearing received April 28, 1995. Grounds 2 and 3 are insufficient to grant rehearing.
Those grounds are set forth in Poway Municipal Code (PMC) , Section 7.46.080. The receipt
of insufficient information from the staff (ground #2) is not a ground for rehearing, Brevity of
the notice is not a ground for rehearing nor does brief notice constitute insufficient notice so
long as the notice complies with the requirements of the applicable noticing ordinance, PMC,
section 17.46,050.
Notwithstanding the inadequacy of grounds 2 and 3 for the granting of rehearing, it is
our opinion that a hearing on the variance should be granted because no notice of a hearing on
a variance was given (ground #1). PMC, section 17,50,040 requires that before granting a
variance the City Council shall hold a public hearing pursuant to notice given as prescribed in
section 17.46,050. The notice of the public hearing in this matter published in the Poway News
Chieftain on March 23, 1995 made no mention whatsoever of a variance. The variance was
certainly discussed at the hearing actually held on April 18, 1995, However, since the notice
did not advise the public that a variance was being requested, the variance granted on April 18,
1995 is legally deficient and vulnerable to being overturned in the event of litigation, For that
reason and for the benefit of both the public and the applicant, it is our recommendation that a
hearing be noticed for variance 95-03. If you determine that the variance is such an integral part
of the conditional use permit and the development review that all three should be heard together,
it is our recommendation that the new hearing include all three items and notice properly identify
each.
###
ATTACHMENT B
MAY 2 1995
ITEM 13. 1
1
~.
April 27, 1995
RECEIVED
," \
APR 2 8 1995
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Hall
13325 Civic Center Dr,
P,O, box 789
Poway, CA 92074-0789
CITY OF POWAY -'
CITY CLERK'S OFFIC~
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully request a re-hearing in the matter of the proposed permanent complex
of Chabad of Poway at 168934 Old Espola Rd. This issue was originally addressed at
the City Council meeting on Tues. April 18, 1995 concerning Environmental
Assessment, Conditional Use Permit 86-08 Modification, development Review 95-05
and Variance 95-03, Chabad of Poway, Applicant.
The principal reasons we ask council to readdresS the above-mentioned resolution
are as follows:
1. The Notice of Public Hearing sent to impacted residents was deficient in that the
request for Variance 95-03 was not included in the Notice of Public Hearing.
2. A property owner did telephone the City of Poway Planning Services to inquire
about the plans upon having read the Notice of Public Hearing and believes that
pertinent information was not disclosed to them ( although we do not suggest, .
suspect or have any reason to believe this was intentional)
3, The Notice of Public Hearing in itself was too brief to alert impacted property
owners of the size and scope of the new facility,
In addition, although council has not been asked to approve, the Agenda Report dated
April 18, 1995 suggests that the congregation also seeks approval of a temporary use
permit to locate certain trailers on a portion of residential property located at the north
terminus of Rock Road directly across from residential homes. Although
representatives of the Poway City Planning Services have indicated that this is not
possible, homeowners have observed individuals of this property with blueprints in
hand.
Please understand that we are not opposed to replacing the temporary facility with a
permanent structure, The current facilities are unattractive and do not conform to the
surrounding area, However, we believe we have legitimate concerns regarding the
size and scope of the facility, traffic and safety of the area, height of the structure and
construction issues (I.e., the time length of construction, access during construction,
etc.).
MAY 2 1995 ITEM 13. 1
6 of 8
ATTACHMENT C
In summary. we ask Council to reopen the public hearing because the Notice of Public
Hearing sent to property owners was deficient and Council has not heard the concerns
of the property owners who are impacted by this proposed facility,
Respecfully yours,
9
~j~
/70
C.:;.v¡(?,
45f-3qroC[
j;j,,</,~ e A ::I ¡,2, P b '/
,h?~ I2-ß~9~ Q ;K,J2(?~
/~ý.Ç.5- oLA GSLJoÙ ÆJrJ
. .
A¿V~1 f:"~ - 9 û>t.cj-
,/
.1ú" ~ ~~u /J~~
~
/ ¿19L/ 7 Ok.! BcrftJl<t p:¿
f'~ .. eA- 9ÀDfRt/
~:J1, ~ J.b1q X ~
, I C-o 0 -e- c.. r- {.;'75 - 37Cf3
fJovv~!j CA '77-0b4-
~"~~~Md
/1"1-1 r1~:*- ß~~:I-.
'ß.(¿m¡ J 'fL, t¡;2a hf
MAY 2 1995 ITEM 13. 1
7 of 8
!¡L /; IF' (}h- \~ ~~~,~
Jd-Î71 (J¡kt-f-ftl- ~JI61
514-)) UU;G (If 9~ I~
fJ~~ (j. ~v~ r{ G úJ ~J
/')7 g~ ~ ("i-
~ tJ~-"'1L) . 4, qà ,~ ~
(LiY'óS{v, ho....æl1/, Oa II/flu CCL~
¡ (,,'1 <-/ '3, Ok) espO/pJ /Cd.
~:;~n};~lU! 4f>-/3 fo
/ h,~?/ ()/¿J f:--.:;/a/A- ~¡)
¡O{Jw4~ CA- 92n{C¡
{l(ì: ~
. _.O~~
MAY 2 1995 ITEM 13. 1