Item 4 - Rehearing EA VAR 95-03 DR 95-05 The Chabad of Poway
TO:
FROM:
AGE1~A REPORT SUMMARY
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Ma~
John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~~1r
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of PlarlAing services~
INITIATED BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
June 13, 1995
A rehearing of Environmental Assessment, Variance 95-03 and Development
R . 95 05 Th Ch b d f PAl' t
eVlew - , e a a 0 oway, "ppllcan
ABSTRACT
A request to construct a new religious complex located at 16934 Old Espola Road, in the
RR-C zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study was completed on the project and it has been determined
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. It is
recommended that a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures be adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 105 property
. owners within 500 feet of project boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration with mitigation
measures and approve Variance 95-03 and Development Review 95-05 subject to the
conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution.
ACTION
E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\VAR9503.SUM
1 of 21
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
DATE:
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
- AGENDA REPOR1
CITY OF POW A Y
Honorable Mayor and Members~~e City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning services~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner..,.....,.
June 13, 1995
June 13, 1995
A rehearing of Environmental Assessment, Variance 95-03 and
Development Review 95-05, The Chabad of Poway, Applicant: A
request to construct a new religious complex located at 16934
Old Espola Road, in the RR-C zone.
APN: 273-820-15
On May 9, 1995 the City Council voted to rehear the variance and development
review for the above named project, which is the design of a new religious
complex comprised of a synagogue seating 150 persons, as well as classrooms,
office and social hall on a 1.1 acre parcel at the northwest corner of Espola
Road and Old Espola Road, in the RR-C zone.
FINDINGS
A variance from the required 40 foot front yard setback to 30 feet along the
Espola Road frontage is requested. The southerly elevation of the complex, facing
Espola Road, will encroach 10 feet into the required minimum setback. Due to the
unique triangular shape and irregular topography of the site, a recommendation
of approval of the setback variance can be made, since the complex meets all
other required development standards.
The height of the main building (the synagogue), has been reduced to 27 feet,
measured from finished grade. Visual impact will be further reduced in that the
buildings will be roughly 8.5 feet below Espola Road elevation when measured at
the southeast corner of the synagogue.
ACTION:
2 of 21
JUN 13 1995 ITEM i
Agenda Report
June 13, 1995
Page 2
On-site parking will be located on the west side of the complex, at grade with,
and in the same general location as, the existing parking lot. On-street parking
will be restricted to one side of Old Espola Road only.
Adjoining neighbors in Rancho Bernardo have requested additional screening from
the parking lot. Staff recommends that the fence height be increased to eight
feet of sol id materi al and that the pl anter area be heavily 1 andscaped with
appropriate specimens which will create a dense screen.
Neighboring property owners who share access with the Chabad along Old Espola
Road have requested that persons attending services or functions at the complex
be restricted from parking in their neighborhood, on the private streets
extending north from the Chabad property. Special attention was also requested
in the engineering of the surface drainage system at the inlet just north of the
Chabad property, so as to suffiCiently handle all new runoff from the property.
There was also concern voiced regarding the present slope of the driveway to the
Chabad which is too steep, forcing drivers exiting the property to lurch suddenly
into the travel lane on Old Espola Road. The driveway slope will be required to
be reduced to meet a regional standard design. This will improve the access
problem. Finally, neighbors were very concerned that the worshipers and guests
of the Chabad actually use the parking lot rather than park along the street
which is presently the practice among those who drive to services. A commitment
from the leadership of the congregation was made to emphasize this requirement
to the members in order to remedy this problem. Furthermore, parents delivering
their children to the school will be required by the school administration to
comply.
A second neighborhood meeting is scheduled for June 6, 1995, which will address
any concerns the surrounding property owners may still have. These are unknown
at the time of this writing. Based on input from the previous neighborhood
meeting, residents were mostly concerned about the height of the buildings,
parking impacts and drainage impacts which were anticipated to increase with the
size of the complex. Conditions have been fashioned, which staff believes will
address these issues and reduce their impact to a satisfactory level.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study was completed on the project and it has been
determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. It is recommended that a Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures be adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
3 of 21
Agenda Report
June 13, 1995
Page 3
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 105
property owners within 500 feet of project boundaries. One neighbor has responded
in writing in favor of the application (Attachment H).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council issue a Negat i ve Decl arat i on with
mi t i gat i on measures and approve Vari ance 95-03 and Development Revi ew 95-05
subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:kls
E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\VAR9503.AGN
Attachments:
A. Proposed Resolution
B. Initial Study
C. Negative Declaration
D. Zoning and Location Map
E. Proposed Site Plan
F. Proposed Elevations
G. Proposed Elevations
H. Letter from Antonina Bruno
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
4 of 21
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING VARIANCE 95-03 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-05
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 273-820-15
WHEREAS, Variance 95-03 and Development Review 95-05, submitted by the
Congregat ion Chabad of Poway, Appl i cant, for the purpose of construct i ng a
religious complex to include a synagogue seating a maximum of 150 persons, as
well as classrooms, office and social hall, located at 16934 Old Espola Road, in
the RR-C zone; and '
WHEREAS, the applicants request a variance from the required front yard
setback along Espola Road; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the staff report and has
considered other evidence presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental FindinGs:
The City Council finds that Variance 95-03 and Development Review 95-05
will not result in any significant impact on the environment and hereby
issues a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures.
Section 2: FindinGs:
Variance 95-03
I. The approved project is consistent with the general 'plan in that a
synagogue and school are semi-public uses which are permitted with
benefit of a conditional use permit in all residential zones.
Conditional Use Permit 86-08 Modification was approved by the City
Council on May 9, 1995.
2. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, and
because of this, the strict appl ication of the Zoning Ordinance
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity under identical zoning classification.
The special circumstances are that the property is triangular in
shape, with two road frontages, and with a 50-foot minimum building
setback along the third side. The site slopes downward in a
westerly direction so that the present complex of small modular
buildings are sited approximately 10-12 feet below street level
along Espola Road.
3. The granting of the variance or its modification is necessary for
the preservat i on and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vi ci nity and zon i ng for
which the variance is sought.
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
5 of 21
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
The variance will allow the complex to be sited with the building's
south elevation parallel to Espola Road and bring the building to
grade with Old Espola Road, where the main entry is located. Other
neighboring churches are located on elevated sites overlooking both
the Chabad property, but also the surrounding neighborhood.
4. The granting of the variance or its modification will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
injurious to the property or improvements in such a vicinity and
zone in which the property is located, in that the building will be
logically oriented to both street frontages, presenting a balanced
and well designed appearance.
5. That the granting of this variance does not constitute a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone in that, the adjoining church properties are
not so physically burdened as is the subject site although they are
fully developed.
6. That the granting of this variance does not allow a use or activity
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning
development regulations governing the parcel or property in that,
religious complexes are a type of semi-public use which is permitted
under a conditional use permit.
Develooment Review 95-05
1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan as stated
above.
2. That the approved project wi 11 not have an adverse aesthet ie,
health, safety, or architecturally related impact upon adjoining
properties in that the main sanctuary building has been lowered to
27 feet in height, which is approximately 5-6 feet below the grade
of Espola Road.
3. That the approved project encourages the orderly and harmonious
appearance of structures and properties within the City in that it
is similar in size and scope to adjoining church complexes within
the same block of Espola Road.
Section 3: Citv Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves VARIANCE 95-03 and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-
05 subject to the following conditions:
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.
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
6 of 21
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file
in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein.
2. Revised site plans and building elevations' incorporating all conditions of
approval shall be submitted to the Planning Services Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
4. The developer shall modify the grade of the driveway entering the complex
so as to comply with a regional standard design and intersect Old Espola
Road at a 90 degree angle.
5. Drainage improvements shall comply with City of Poway Drainage Ordinance
and shall in particular address a possible need for redesign and
reinstallation of the drainage inlet located directly north of the subject
property.
6. Congregants and guests of the Chabad shall not park within the adjoining
private streets, namely; the private extension of Old Espola Road located
north of the project boundaries, Coyote Court, and Rock Road.
7. Congregants and parents of school children shall use the Chabad parking
lot, and shall not park along 01 d Espo 1 a Road unless there is no room
remaining in the parking lot.
8. The height of the solid fence along the westerly property boundary shall
be raised to eight feet. A dense landscape screen comprised of evergreen
trees and shrubs shall be installed within the planter strip between the
parking lot and the west property line.
8. Trash receptacle shall be enclosed by a six foot high masonry wall with
view-obstructing gates pursuant to City standards. Location shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Services Department.
9. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
arch itectura lly integrated, screened from vi ew and sound buffered from
adjacent properties and streets as requ i red by the Pl ann i ng Servi ces
Department.
10. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced
thereof, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to
the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services.
7 of 21
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
11. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
12. For each new residential dwelling, commercial or industrial unit(s), the
app 1 i cant shall pay Permit, Pl an Check and Inspect i on Fees, and School
Fees at the establ i shed rate (i n accordance wi th City-adopted pol icy
and/or ordinance).
13. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access
road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast with their
background color.
14. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not
issued for this project within two years from the date of project
approval.
PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS
1. All parking lot landscaping shall include a minimum of one IS gallon size
tree for every three spaces. For parking lot islands, a minimum 12 inch
wide walk adjacent to parking stalls shall be provided and be separated
from vehicular areas by a six inch high, six inch wide portland concrete
cement curb.
2. Parking lot lights shall be low pressure sodium and have a maximum height
of 18 feet from the finished grade of the parking surface and be directed
away from all property lines, adjacent streets and residences.
3. All two-way traffic aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. A minimum
of 24 feet wide emergency access shall be provided, maintained free and
clear at all times during construction in accordance with Safety Services
Department requirements.
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped.
LANDSCAPING
All conditions contained within Resolution No. P-95-25 approving
Conditional Use Permit 86-08 Modification shall remain in full force and
effect.
SIGNS
Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed and approved in
conformance with the Sign Ordinance.
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
8 of 21
Resolution No. P-
Page 5
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
1. A drainage study of both the existing and proposed drainage system shall
be submitted to the Engineering Services Department as part of the grading
pl an submittaL Any increase in runoff from the project to 01 d Espol a
Road will require the redesign of the drainage system in Old Espola Road
and construction of the necessary improvements to adequately handle the
increase in runoff.
2. The driveway shall intersect Old Espola Road at 90 degrees and shall meet
the design requirements of Section 17.08.180 of the Poway Municipal Code
and the applicable regional standard drawings.
3. All private improvements shall be constructed outside the public right-of-
way.
All conditions contained within Resolution No. P-95-25 approving
Conditional Use Permit 86-08 Modification shall remain in full force and
effect.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY SERVICES.
All conditions contained within Resolution No. P-95-25 approving
Conditional Use Permit 86-08 Modification shall remain in full force and
effect.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 13th day of June, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
JUN 13 1995 ITE~~ 4
9 of 21
DATE: 3.-1-45
APPLICANT: ("""Or;~ Chc..lonA.. af 1"o~
FILING DATE: a.-;l..<-l-4~ LOG NUt.4BER: rl'p gb-a~1-\ D~ "'t5-<:1S
.
PROJECT: c..n-.:s-h-u.c:t1o... of' c.... S't"'"~,.... ~r{"~
PROJECT LOCATION: ''=>'1"34 Dld."'""f"'....R<!..
I. ENVIRONMENTAL It.4PACTS
~.
CITY OF POWAY
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Fact-based explanations of all answers are .requlred on attached sheets.)
YES t.4AYBE NO
1. Sol Is and Geology. Wi I I the proposal have
significant Impacts in:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
g.
In
Unstable ground conditions or In changes
geologic relationships?
Disruptions. displacements, compaction. or
burial of the sol I? B"'~~ .f',,""II"\(.I'~-
Change In topography or ground surface
contour Intervals?
v
v
v
The destruction. covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
V"
Any potential increase In wind or water
erosion of soi Is, affecting either on- or
off-site conditions?
...JL
f.
changes In erosion. siltation, or
deposition?
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
muds I ides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
V"
.......
2. Hydrologr. WI I I the proposal have significant
Impacts In:
LO of 21
a.
Changes In currents, or the course In
direction of flowing streams. rivers, or
ephemeral stream channels? - v
-
Changes In absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of .
surface water runoff? v
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? V
- -
Change In the amount of surface water In
any body of water? .........
- -
Discharge Into surface waters, or any a I ter-
action of surface water quality? - - ~
b.
c.
d.
e.
Attachment B
JUN 13 1995 I1EM 4
---. .-., ._----_._-~--------~_._-_._"---~
Environmental Study Check I 1st
Page 2
---~ ----.~ ---------.--
.-
Environmental Study Checklist
Page 3
YES MAYBE NO
6. Population. [WI II the proposal] have significant
results In:
[WI I I the proposal] alter the location, distri-
bution. density. diversity. or growth rate of
the human population of an area?
Wi I I the proposal affect existing housing.
or create a demand for add I t lona.l .hous I ng?
7. Soclo-Economic Factors. Wil I the proposal have
significant results In:
a.
b.
a.
v
v
Change In local or regional soclo-economlc
characteristics. Including economic or
commercial diversity. tax rate, and prop-
erty values?
v
WI II project costs be equitably distri-
buted among project beneficiaries, I.e..
buyers, taxpayers, or project users?
8. Land Use and Plannln~ Considerations. WI I I the
proposal have significant results in:
b.
./
a.
A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
v
b.
A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any govern-
mental entities?
v
--
c.
An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational opportunities?
__L
.9. Transportation. Wi II the proposal have significant
resul ts In:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement? -L
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction? V
c. Effects on existing parking facl I Itles, or ./
demand for.new parking? ~
d. ~t~~I~ur:exlst'lng transpor-
tation systems? 2C
e. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people and/or V
goods? - -
1. Alteration to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail. mass transit, V
or air traffic? - -
g. Increases In traffic hazards to motor ./
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians?
~("ea.Sed. '^~ ---'0 Re.t. c:.u..rlo """
~ o-ne. <i~e sf' S\&. ~$~U JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4 . ~.
..
2 of 21
Environmental Study Check I 1st
Page 4
10. Cultural Resources. WI I I the proposal have
significant Impacts In:
11.
a.
A disturbance to the Integrity of archaeo-
logical. paleontological. and/or historical
resources?
Wi II the
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
c.
A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances In the event Of an accident?
d.
An Increase In the number of individuals or
species of vector or parthenogenic organisms
or the exposure of people to such organisms?
.
e.
Increase In existing noise levels?
1.
Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels?
g.
h.
The creation of objectionable odors?
An increase In light or glare?
12. Aesthetics. WI II the proposal have significant
resul ta In:
a.
The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
~ ~ NO
ii
v
_ _ V"
v
.J:::::.
V"
,/
..J.C
V
V'
__ v
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corrldors~ .
I........."...Q. '"ff~e. "'\~ "..... 'tGcili~ CQer tJo-p.\..-. iJ..:I.' ;:--
Utilities and Public Services. WI II the 'broposa I ~ .
have significant need for new systems. or alter- .
atlons to the fOlloWing:
13.
e."
g.
h.
13 of 21
b.
The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
a.
Electric power?
b.
Natural or packaged gas?
Communications systems?
Water supply?
Wastewater facl I Itles?
c.
d.
f.
Flood control structures?
Solid waste faclll~les?
Fire protection?
-"~~.-.._-_._-_._.-_._--~--_...._._._-^
v
v
./
./
v
v
V
V"
.........
..........
- Jl1NT3""1S95 ITEM !t.
II
Environmental Study ChecKlist
Page 5
m.
I.
Police protect Ion?
Schools?
j.
Ie.
I.
Paries or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facl I Itles. Including
roads and flood control facl I itles?
Other governmental services?
14. Energy and Scarce Resources. WI I I the proposal
have significant impacts In,
a.
Use of substantial or excessive fuel or
energy?
b.
Substantial Increase In demand upon existing
sources of energy?
An Increase In the demand for development of
new sources of energy?
An Increase or perpetuation of the consump-
tion of non-renewable forms of energy. when
f,eas I b Ie renewab I e sources of energy are
available?
c.
d.
e.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
or scarce natural resources?
15. Mandatory Flndlngs'of Significance.
14 of 21
a.
Does the' 'project have the potent I a I to
degrade the Qual ity of the environment.
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wi Idllfe species. cause a fish or wi Id-
I ife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community. reduce the
number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal. or el imlnate
Important examples of the major periods
of the California history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term. to the disadvantage of
long-term. environmental goals? (A short-
term Impact on the environment Is one which
occurs In a relatively brief. definitive
period of time while long-term Impacts wi I I
endure well Into the future.)
b.
c.
Does the project have Impacts which are
Individually limited. but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the Incremental effects of an
Individual project are considerable when
viewed In connection with the effect of
past projects. and probable future
proJects. )
YES MAYBE NO
~
L
...iL
v
v
v
~
v
v
1
v
~
v
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
~. I
r-
Environmental Study Check I 1St
Page 6
d.
Does the project have environmental
effects which wi I I cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings. either
directly or Indirectly?
__ v
I I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(i.e., Of affirmative answers to the above Questions plus a discussion of
proposed mitigation measures.)
I I I .DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o
[3
D
I find the proposed project COULO NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wll I be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
In this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required.
SIGNATURE: ~ ~~
TITLE: a~/' ?.t1-"''''A''--''
I
DATE: 3-20-"1'5
FORMS\EIS.FRM
L5 of 21
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
/
CITY OF POWn{
DON HIGGINSON, Mayor
SUSAN CALLERY. Deputy Mayor
BOB EMERY, Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA. Councilmember
BETTY REXFORD, Councilmcmber
CITY OF POWAY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Chabad of Powav. 16934 Old Esoola Road.
Powav. CA 92064
2. Brief Description of Project: Variance 95-03 and Develooment Review 95-05
Chabad of Powav.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway has determined that
the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Poway are on
file in the Department of Planning Services of the City of Poway.
5. This decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final.
Contact Person: Mariio Van Dvke
Phone: (619) 679-4294
Approved by: Date:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Ph.D., AICP
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive JUN 13 1995 ITEM 4 . I
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
L6 of 21
JmR,,,'"d"',"' Attachment. C
~,
-'
i~
I /
"~,
'~
o
\D
l!J
[j tRR-C]
z I 1 ~
~~~ sm=-
&.~.
t & ' l;S~oL."" <"> _A "-
rJ ' - ". -......--.'-'
I~ I \ I I IIJL(! ! I I ,
r::;~ '\ I I I I I I I I I I
hi Ilf//d=':
t::. L / I oi"lRs-i-"!!1 Il" i / \
1-1 I I I ,'--tI r , ~ -' .
-:... --..-..
CITY OF POW A Y
ITEM: VAR 95-03/ DR 95-05
II
@ SCALE, NONE
TITLE: ZONING & LOCATION MA
ATTACHMENT: D
17 of 21
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4 '-I
~..... J<lMJV<O
..-.......
..-...-
..,~--_...............
4..",,~-,...un
.--
:::-........
.~-
"'--
"'--"
:)
----
------
[....J-.
....~"""-
,...ta_
~::~~..
...-....
~~
::::~.:..~--
~~-
~=--~
..........",..........-
.... onoca
---
....IIJIMC1I"I........
J:Lu................
---
1-
~'
". l
.. -"';;:J:....: II,
I. _
. ...._""__~ 4.1,,,
----
""",~,,,O'" ..JIUU
""""""'"
r-::".:':; -';:.
/ .......--.--
l"-'t; ::'!ll'lj~----m
'l .' l ,,:-.::t!7 '7.ltl:
1-' "." ,'-!5!!l!
, I '
-"
il1"',~_Tl~ ,..
,,,,',\'.,'
I
""-
" "...
..:...:......'.........'~ ~
r . '-~"</~:"., '. .
" '.. '.I '"
~ . - '-..;
,..-.,~~~
r ~>.:\
_~-- -!,tf.::..- 1
. _ '.... ., "t
~ -','it. ~
- - ~ '- '-<J
.~ -";\ --"~
~'-'t~.-
,~:.k l-~_ ~~WERlPAR~LEVELPLA"
.~~ ~~ ~
.\.- .
tl
11
.
I
1
~,
~-
"--- .
.~.
~
ATTACHMENT E
1 ~I, ,
" 'I "
--'\.1 : ,'; ; i
.il ..
18 of 21 I '
PROPOSED NEW RELIGIOUS & EDUCATIONAL FACILITY
FOR
CO:--lGREGAT!ON CHABAD OF RANCHO BERN'ARDO CALIF
OWLC__ _............._.
---....'"
.._...,. ("1"1-"-1
P:trk-i"i r:tlr...!"l'inn
Squue f'oolq8 of s..cGlary - 20'1$ ..f.
R.equind Pvkiq:
lspa<:efare&eb.45..f.
2025/45 - 45"1*1II
Totalspaca provided -45
~I
- ---
:':-.~. \
I -=-- ~
""t;JNn-r'M'"
~_.
fI
_......-.........~
--.-........--
..........._ ~....m_
I~I'
;11
:~1
EAST EU:VAll0N
......_.'.,r
*
----I'
I
I
!
:;1
~, j
SOUTH SECTlONAL ELEV AnON
......". ,'.r
SOUTH ELEV All0N AS SEEN FROM
ESPOLA ROAD
......-.,....
.
- ..
-'- ----------
-~~--......-("
-- -. . -:-::--:./, .-r':
PROPOSED NEW RELIGIOUS & EDUCATIONAL FACILITY
fOR
CONGREGATION CHABAD OF RANCHO BER.c'lARDO CALIFOR.c'lIA
PERSPEcrlVE SKETCH
i
-...................--..
--.-...---
....-..- ..........-
.-...__._-'_.._~"~_._-_-.,,-_._---_._~-------,--_._-----------
o~
- ..'!...."
=~~:r__
....-.--.
=--=--.=-..:.:=-::: .
------
------
=:~:.:-~=-:.= I
=---....:.,.-.:::.-=--=-= ,
------- -
--------
,--.---...--
::~~::- :;; eo"-'-
_ __ ___"C'_.. ,1~~
.-- .
1,1
-I' "- '-
--"-'-'-
WEST ELEVATION
-.
I
I
I
-.:-'
-;
I
,..;.......-
---":"~~ ~-
~"'...t.:t-':::::"'I'::!:..!'~ .~,~~ ~~._.....~."':'e':.__
_....~ -"...-
.-......,'
~c~~~ ~'~~r:::r()N
-- - .........
::-- ':1:1:1 :1:1:1:1
.
~
~=__'_:=.".
-= - -t~
-J
5!...___
~
=--
==-~.::
~~~
-~"--:::::;::
~I-
~I~-
=:;..~~ ..~ I ~
~!\~~~::':;"'i, ': 1" _,'.' ~,',_,; "i,',' ,.i ,
:~-:rT~~~
-.l... - -~..:::.-...
: 'iI[ 'iI:
-;~":'aa ~;~':";-Dc
-:- ~ ..
Ll4-+"'"7:fJ.;:". -P'=""";;";". /\\.';""-'....... ;-:".:,,~"-
U~IN~ -=re::::. ,~~.::.
~
.....................,....-c>rT'l"'"
ATTACHMENT G
i"v I
,I
"
I~ =~il ~! !!~!i !i !
20 of 21
" ;
!' !
PROPOSED NEW RELIGIOUS & EDUCATIONAL FACILITY
FOR
CO~GREGATIO:" CHABAD OF RA:--:CHO BER:"ARDO CALlFOR'-.'IA
M:l. Marjorio K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
P.D.Box 789 R E eEl V E 0
Poway, CA 92074-0789
MAY 1 91995
Miss Antonina R. Bruno
2838 Pinefie1d Rd.
oway, CA 92064-1502
619) 487-6548
May 18, 1995
CITY OF POWAY
CITY CLERK'S OFFiCe
Dear Ms. Wahlsten:
I would like to respond to the Notice of Public H~aring concerning the Chabad of
Poway requesting to construct a new religious complex consisting of a synagogue,
classrooms, office, and social hall.
I would like to express that I am highly in favor of granting permission for the
above request.
Warmly,
J~~~,,"~ (2.~
Antonina R. Bruno
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4
21 of 21
Attachme~t H
/'
~
May 24, 1995
Mayor Don Higginson
City of Po way
PO Box 789
Poway, CA 92074
-.: ~:r :...=, ;:
.. ~- ..
-
lJ~: ~
i,. ... .., ,
.- I~. J" ,.....,..
! '-.j I,.. I~~:J
Dear Mr. Higginson,
C'-/ '
. I ' . -- ,. '~.'
~;I:\! '. _-':';"'-"_~':-~~'>~~~j"::
"
I am writing you with the hope of gaining your support for a pending issue. I am a member of a
local Jewish congregation, Congregation Chabad of Poway and I would very much like to see a
new building erected on our land to accommodate our small congregation.
On April 18, 1995, at the City Council meeting, many of us witnessed the discussion and approval
of our plan to build a new synagogue.
Since April 18th, there was opposition expressed by a few of the local neighbors. Our plans have
been put on hold until June 13, 1995 when there is another scheduled City Council discussion about
the construction plans for Congregation Chabad.
I am concerned because I want to see a permanent temple to house our preschool, our senior center
and our sanctuary. We are a rather small congregation with membership of about one hundred fifty
families. Our dream is to see a permanent structure replace our current portable housing. We
would like to build an attractive and architecturally compatible new facility and I am confident that
a new temple will enhance the neighborhood, stabilize property value and provide a real need for
Poway's Jewish community.
Poway is a wonderful place to live. There are strong moral values, good schools, a safe
environment and a variety of religious and ethnic denominations. These elements and more
contribute to make this a great small city. I am keenly aware that Poway has many, diverse
churches and synagogues, and want to express my strongest desire to see our group have a
permanent structure for prayer and to conduct our charities and much needed OUlrt:ach programs.
We need your support. We are all committed to see the construction of a new home for our
Congregation as proposed in our plans.
Please help.
We look forward to seeing you at the June 13th City Council Hearing.
?
JUN 13 1995 ITEM 4
~
May 24, 1995
0(~
RECEJVer
Mayor Don Higginson
City of Poway
PO Box 789
Poway, CA 92074
JUN 1 3 1995
CITY OF POWA Y
CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
Dear Mr. Higginson,
I am \\Titing you \\ith the hope of gaining your support for a pending issue. I am a member of a
local Jewish congregation, Congregation Chabad of Poway and I would very much like to see a
ne\\' building erected on our land to accommodate our small congregation.
On April 18, 1995, at the City Council meeting. many of us witnessed the discussion and approval
of our plan to build a new synagogue.
Since April 18th, there was opposition expressed by a few of the local neighbors. Our plans have
been put on hold until June 13, 1995 when there is another scheduled City Council discussion about
the construction plans for Congregation Chabad.
c'
I am concerned because I want to see a permanent temple to house our preschool, our senior center
and our sanctuary. We are a rather small congregation with membership of about one hundred fifty
fanlilies. Our dream is to see a permanent structure replace our current portable housing. We
would like to build an attractive and architecturally compatible new facility and I am confident that
a new temple will enhance the neighborhood. stabilize property value and provide a real need for
Poway's Je\\ish community.
Powa)' is a wonderful place to live. There are strong moral values, good schools, a safe
environment and a variety of religious and ethnic denominations. These elements and more
contribute to make this a great small city. I am keenly aware that Poway has many, diverse
churches and synagogues, and want to express my strongest desire to see our group have a
pemlaJ1Cnt structure for prayer and to conduct our charities and much needed outreach programs.
We need your support. We are all committed to see the construction of a new home for our
Congregation as proposed in our plans.
Please help.
We look forward to seeing you at the June 13th City Council Hearing.
Cordially, 'f(Wi""~.J~,,-, ~
~fNW(\\-\-
\ (b ~.~
<;V~IC
PIJwM
~. ~~STl1fN ,/vl)>
~ch8~C; \~.
E.~
cA Ch.-o G 'J
..
~
...,
g::
~
~
!:!5
"/
May 24, 1995
A,,_ h:'U-,/ cIJ~ 'lt~ 13/f7?f
~C,p ~- -
RECE~VEr
Mayor Don Higginson
City of Po way
PO Box 789
Powa)', CA 92074
JlJri 1 2 19~5
CITYOFPOWAY
CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
Dear Mr. Higginson,
I am "'Titing you with the hope of gaining your support for a pending issue. I am a member of a
local Je\\ish congregation, Congregation Chabad of Poway and I would very much like to see a
new building erected on our land to accommodate our small congregation.
On April 18, 1995, at the City Council meeting, many of us witnessed the discussion and approval
of our plan to build a new synagogue.
Since April 18th, there was opposition expressed by a few of the local neighbors. Our plans have
been put on hold until June 13, 1995 when there is another scheduled City Council discussion about
the construction plans for Congregation Chabad.
I am concerned because I want to see a permanent temple to house our preschool, our senior center
and our sanctuary. We are a rather small congregation with me'mi;ership of about one hundred fifty
families. Our dreanl is to see a permanent structure replace our current portable housing. We
would like to build an attractive and architecturally compatible new facility and I am confident that
a new temple \\ill enhance the neighborhood, stabilize property value and provide a real need for
Poway's Jev"ish community.
Poway is a wonderful place to live. There are strong moral values, good schools, a safe
environment and a variety of religious and ethnic denominations. These elements and more
contribute to make this a great small city. I am keenly aware that Poway has many, diverse.
churches and synagogues, and want to express my strongest desire to see our group have a
permanent structure for prayer and to conduct our charities and much needed outreach programs.
We need your support. We are all committed to see the construction of a new home for our
Congregation as proposed in our plans.
Please help.
We look forward to seeing you at the June 13th City Council Hearing.
~::Y'fJ-.~ /Jrvtl,
MR & fiRS f!Oii,\RD SAOlS
lSf6J Lrc~s:_~v ST~rET
S,:" ;;1 :r:} (1':, S?:,./3
JUN 1 3 1995 ITEM 4