Item 13 - MDR 95-31 Iglesia ni Cristo Church
_. -
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
-
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ /'
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Managef1l~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services
DATE: August 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Minor Development Review 95-31, Iglesia ni Cristo Church, Applicant: A
request for approval of the design for a mini park located on Silver Lake
Drive at the intersection of Orohaven Lane, in the RS-7 zone.
ABSTRACT
This is a review of the design for the minipark on Silver Lake Drive and for approval of
its construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The construction of the park was an anticipated feature of the Conditional Use Permit
83-01, for which a Negative Declaration was issued along with the original approval of
- the project. No further environmental review is required of this project.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Hearing was mailed to 30 property owners and residents adjOining the church
property.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council find that the previously issued Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the environmental impacts of this project and approve
Minor Development Review 95-31, subject to the conditions contained in the attached
resolution.
ACTION
-
E:\C1TY\PLANNING\REPOAT\MDRA9531,SUM
1 of 8 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
., -~----_. "
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ J~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City ManagerCf,' , &.
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of PlanWing Services ~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: August 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Minor Development Review 95-31, Iglesia ni Cristo Church,
Applicant: A request for approval of the design for a mini
park located on Sil ver Lake Dri ve at the intersect ion of
Orohaven Lane, in the RS-7 zone.
APN: 317-640-52 (Portion)
BACKGROUND
In 1983 the Iglesia ni Cristo Church was granted a conditional use permit (CUP
83-01) approving the establishment of a church on a 3.2 gross acre lot located
at the terminus of Elm Park Lane, and extending west to Silver Lake Drive. The
site is overlaid by an open space easement which was recorded in February, 1971
as a means of assuring that a recreational use would be preserved for the long-
term benefit and use of the surrounding residents.
When the church took ownership of the property, CUP 83-01 specified a location
for a public mini-park which was required to be constructed prior to the
occupancy of the site by the church. The original location was situated in the
northwest corner of the lower portion of the property, fronting Silver Lake
Drive, an area of approximately 10,000 square feet.
FINDINGS
During the course of negot i at ions with the church regarding the overall
funct i oni ng of the church on the subject property, it was proposed that the
location of the mini-park be moved to the southwest side of the property, thereby
allowing more usable space for park development, approximately 21,000 square
feet, and allowing the church to consolidate the rest of its property into one
contiguous area.
ACTION: I
2 of 8 III\JU 1 ~
- -
Agenda Report
August 1, 1995
Page 2
The park design is the product of two neighborhood meetings, where design input
was sought from those most interested in its use. It contains a half-court
basketball court, a grassy lawn area suitable for active games, a tot-lot play
area complete with climbing/play equipment, a sidewalk extending from Silver Lake
Drive to the easternmost corner providing disabled access to all areas, and an
assortment of furniture, picnic tables, etc. The park will not be equipped with
restrooms, and no lighting is proposed, both of which are consistent with City
mini-park standards.
It is the desire of the neighbors whose rear yards abut the park to be provided
with a six-foot masonry wall in order to preserve their privacy and attenuate
anticipated noise. Staff supports the provision of the wall.
Once construction of the park begins the church will lose approximately one-half
of the existing parking spaces which are located on the lower level of the lot.
At the neighborhood meeting it was felt that an interim solution would be to
allow a temporary parking area to be constructed in the area designated as the
first site for the park. Staff supports this proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
,-
The construction of the park was an anticipated feature of the Conditional Use
Permit 83-01, for which a Negative Declaration was issued along with the original
approval of the project. No further environmental review is required of this
project.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Hearing was mailed to -1Q property owners and residents adjoining the
church property.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council find that the previously issued Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the environmental impacts of this project and
approve Minor Develooment Review 95-31, subject to the conditions contained in
the attached resolution.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:kls
Attachments:
_. A. Proposed Resolution
B. Zoning and Location Map
C. Park Site Plan
3 of 8 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-31
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 317-640-52 (PORTION)
WHEREAS, the Iglesia ni Cristo Church has set aside land to provide area
for the construction of a public park on a portion of the property located at the
southwest corner of Silver Lake Drive and Orohaven Lane, in the RS-7 zone; and
WHEREAS, a design for the development of the park has been completed and
has been presented to the City Council at a regularly scheduled hearing; and
WHEREAS, neighborhood participation has been sought and included during the
design process.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental Findinas:
A Negative Declaration was issued for the underlying Conditional Use
Permit CUP 83-01, which anticipated the construction of the city park. The
City Counc i 1 finds that the previously issued Negative Declaration
adequately discusses the environmental concerns of this project.
Section 2: Findinas:
1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan in that
public parks are an anticipated element within residential areas of
the community.
2. That the approved park will not have an adverse aesthetic, health,
safety, or architecturally related impact upon adjoining properties,
because it will be adequately screened from adjoining neighbors by
fencing, no lights will be installed, and no restroom facilities in
order to discourage illegal use of the park at night.
3. That the approved park is in compliance wit the Zoning Ordinance
because public parks are a semi-public use consistent with
residential zoning.
4. That the approved park encourages the orderly and harmonious
appearance of structures and property within the City in that it
will be an attractive and functional recreational amenity in an
neighborhood of very small residential lots and neighboring
apartments.
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Minor Development Review 95-31, subject
to the following conditions:
4 of 8 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
- -
_.
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
Within 30 days of approval (I) 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.
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 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.
5. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not
issued for this project wi thi n two years from the date of project
approval.
PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS
1. Parking lot lights in the lower parking area 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.
2. All two-way traffic aisles in the lower parking area shall be a minimum of
25 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.
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
1. Complete 1 andscape construct ion documents shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Services Department prior to the issuance of
building permits. Plans shall be prepared in accordance with City of
Poway Guide to Landscape Requirements (latest edition).
2. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed in
- accordance with the City of Poway Guide to Landscape Requirements and
shall be planted at an average of 30 feet on center spacing along all
streets.
) of 8 AUG 1 1995 neM 13
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
~
Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed and approved in
conformance with the Sign Ordinance.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
1. All damaged off-site public works facilities, including parkway trees,
sha 11 be repaired or replaced prior to exoneration of bonds and
improvements, to the satisfaction of the Department of Engineering
Services.
2. Prior to any work being performed in the publ ic right-of-way, an
encroachment permi t shall be obta i ned from the Engineering Services
department and appropriate fees paid, in addition to any other permits
required.
3. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of all surface water
originating within the park, and all surface waters that may flow onto the
park from adjacent lands, shall be required. Said drainage system shall
include any easements and structures as required by the Director of
Engineering Services to properly handle the drainage.
4. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks shall not be
permitted.
5. Water plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the
City of Poway and the County of San Diego Department of Health.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 1st day of August, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
6 of 8 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
- _.
-
JfIr -
-
- -
-
\
,A RR-A
CITY OF POW A Y ITEM: MORA 95-31
@ BCALE , TITLE: ZONING & LCCATION
NCNE A TT ACHMENT : B
7 of 8 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
::3/,I'dd -;17\......., '-J-::1f\'" I?
-- .- --
.-
~l~
~!~
~! ~
16r ~
~~t.
~ -:t }!
" l'
~ L...
~"'t (l\
+=~
~ l. ";]
;J tl'
, .' -1~1
~ Q>
" fI~
> il1
-l -.:s ~
-l
> ,. .
(") :tt 1i '11-
::I: '. ,
\'I' . R .' ..,.
3: "!:. ',' .
m ' . I:'i c- L ' \U
z -=\.~ .. ~
-l " . )', '3: . , .
., .'. 0' l1' ' ,
(") , ~.' " .
, '1{ ,
, ' .
. '.
. .
'.. . '.':
. ,
~' "
- \11
. "@ f
)1'=
l~
l:
L
~
q ..-
!$ ~"l I>l
r
=::i~ 3-
~
~Jl 'Jl
1"
lJI ~nlL W~~l~~ !I!ilIIlMn W> ""1i\1~ G F H land1cape~'
__INn
D~I1.~$n& ~ ~m(O -"...-
.-
AUG 1 13
3 of 8
.
- tJ~ 7--;2[;>9s
e.o., ~..., SPHR
12724 RotwfI BIuJ.
POIllIUJ, e..t/ornia 92064
/u,....: (619) 748-6857 IIID.t, (619) 679-6051 Ft-e-C-E1-\tE r:
July 19, 1995
City Council of the City of Poway JUl 2 5 1995
Poway, California 92064 CITYOFPOWAY
RE: Proposed Plans for a Park behind homes located on Robison Blvd. CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
adjacent to Silver Lake
To Whom It May Concem:
I am the homeowner of a property whose backyard borders on the parking lot owned by the church
behind me, In fact, my house is the last one in the row before the embankment.
I and my family have suffered a number of personal security and safety problems as a result of the
parking lot located behind my home. I have two dogs and a pool. Because of the traffic behind my
house, my dogs have been provoked and teased on a regular basis. On no less than three occasions
in the almost four years that I've owned this property, someone has thrown glass containers over the
fence at my animals which smashed onto the concrete around the pool. Glass also fell into the pool and
on two of those occasions severely damaged the pool filter causing expensive repairs, The glass was
extremely difficult to clean up and prevented us from using the pool for several days after each occasion
because of potential injury due to glass in the pool.
On yet another occasion, someone climbed the embankment at the fence's edge and threw a rock over
the fence, breaking a window on my back door,
With the incidents described above, I'm sure you can understand why I am extremely opposed to any
additional traffic occurring behind my property. These incidents don't even take into consideration the
added noise that would result from the potential increase in traffic, As It is, I'm awakened every Sunday
morning by the sounds of cars parking behind my fence and voices from people as they head into the
church as early as 6:30 a,m. This was not what I expected when I bought the house. I've managed to
make a few adjustments, but there's no way I could adjust to a doubling of the trafficfnoise at that houri
I understand that fencing is proposed to help keep individuals away from our property lines, I cannot
imagine anything being adequate enough to solve the problems I've experienced to date. The only
possibility that even comes close to a viable solution would be a six foot blocked cement or brick wall
that is thick enough to offer privacy and protection from strangers on the other side,
To date, I've kept these problems to myself and have dealt with them. I assure you If the plans that are
proposed do not come with sufficient means of protecting me as a homeowner, I will not hesitate to take
whatever legal means are available to ensure my family's protection and safety,
My work schedule has prevented me from being active in following the activities associated with the
proposed work. However, be assured that my silence to date does not imply my acceptance of these
changes, I am steadfast in desiring some assurances that my family's well being is being considered,
Thank you.
-
AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13 I
-'--
- ~~ 7- 3/-ys
.!'-2j iii; ;2:;~ SA S~;, eXeC OFFiCe FAX NO, 6j96186G43 ~ ~,o; .
Jay & Diana Kawamoto R Ed-Ce: I1!J I V tE";;'-1
- 12706 Robison Blvd, E L:
Poway, California 92064
(619) 748-4182 JUl 28 1995
CITY OF POWAY
July 26, 1995 CITY MANAGERS OFACE
City Council Members
City of Poway
~.O. 9:n( 789
Poway. California 92074-0789
RE; CUP 83-01 -- Iglesia nj Cristo Modification Project
Dear City Council:
Chapter 17 of the Poway Municipal Code clearly defines the conditions which must
be met in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit. It appears as if our Council
members have overlooked some of these provisions in their leal to reach agreement
with the Church, As a result, we find it necessary to remind you of your
responsibilities to the citizens of Powayfor whom you represent in this malter, In this
case we are referring to the residents on Robison Blvd. adjacent to the property in
Question,
Section 17 states in part that the use of the property should be "compatible with and
will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, ,.,"
It also further states that there 'will not be II harmful effect upon desirable
neighborhood characteristics" nor an adverse impact to traffic conditions. Clearly the
proposed plans for the Iglesia ni Cristo violates all of these conditions.
As the homeowners of a property which borders the parking lot of the premises. we
have dealt with a number of issues over the years. However, these problems are
minuscule in nature compared to the foreseeable adverse impact which will arise as
a result of the mini-park presently proposed on this land,
During the bright light of a pretty summer day, the plans for a mini-park seem cheerful
an~ appropi:a~e 10r :he w~o:e neighborhoo~. But when the light of the sur; is gone,
and the pale glimmer of the moon is all that lights our path, the negatives associated
with locating the park in this location overshadow any positives there might have
been. The effects are many and all adversely Impact residents on the north side of
the parking lot. We will list but a few to give you a vision of our plight:
1, Since the fence has been taken down, we have been plagued with drunks,
parties, noises late at night and early In the morning, homeless people sleeping
-- against the fence, cars in and out of the lot at all hours, and trash thrown into
our yard. Public access to this area wifl only increase this activity, not make
it go away.
jAUG 1 1995 ITEM 13 I
<
. -
,. r,'. ,....- -.... .f"'\...... SA S?S tXtC OrriCt -A" t-iO 6'9~7~~~4~ t. G2
...._:_-'-,~,-_.~j rr\. 1t...'10 t X. . 1 0 I ~Ov ~
,
Page 2
2. Drug dealings are already taking place on the street corner, The park only gives
them a more comfortable place in which to conduct business.
3, We have a dog which has been provoked and teased through the fence by
children passing by, A park will only increase this behavior. The liability
associated with what would happen if a child were bitten by my animal,
through no fault of the animal's, is unthinkable.
4, Traffic on Robison Blvd. already amounts to an excess of 4,000 vehicles a day
driving by our home. A park would increase that traffic, with no provisions for
these people to park.
S, We have received testimony from a number of resident!. from other
neighborhoods concerning the impact that a park had on them and their homes,
None of them are positive. Stories of vandalism, peeping toms, noise levels,
and higher property taxes are but a few of the negatives we've been told,
We've even been urged to "sell now while you can before the park is
developed. "
6, Privacy and security are of utmost concern with the development of a park,
It's bad enough we have to deal with traffic congestion, noise, and soot from
the busy street that we live on, Our backyard has been our place 01 solitude
away from these problems, Now you want to take that away by having people
be able to gawk at us from the other side of the fence,
Council members, we urge you to re-consider the proposal for a mini-park on Silver
Lake Drive, In the long run, this development is NOT In the best interest of the
community, It is NOT in keeping with the standards set by the Poway General Plan,
And it is certainly NOT going to bring harmony to this neighborhood. The resultant
effects are detrimental to our residences and adversely affect our quality of life,
Should you allow this park to be developed as planned, you will have gravely steered
from your desires to retain the small town character and peaceful community image
that we so proudly proclaim as Poway.
We urge you to re-consider the proposed development plans for the mini-park. There
are other alternatives that should be sought,
~e%l..$
, ::-~
Ja~iana Kawamoto
AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13 I
JUL-31-95 r.Oli 9:48 SA SPS EXEC OFFICE FAX NO, 61967961149 p, 02
Copied for:
I City Council
City Clerk
- July 31, 1995 JLB/JDF/RW-Q
RECEIVE[\
Mari Jo Van Dyke, AICP JUl 3 1 1995
Anocl.te Planner
City of Po....~y CITYOFPOWAY
Planning Services Dep'l1'l1Ilent
P,O. Box 789 CITYMANAGERSOFACE
Po....ay, California 92064
Dear Ms Van Dyke:
On Thursd"y, July 271h. Mrs. Diarua Ka....amoto 11lade a reque.'t to receive a cupy of the complete file on
the properly involved in Ihe CUP 83-01 maner, On Friday, July 28th, I made" sUnil"" request and ....:is
lold by you that Mr., K.....amoto had already requested the 1ile, and that I cuuld get a <opy from her,
I sub.equemly comacted Mr., K.....amoto and made. copy of the documents that h.d been provided to
hor by your offie:<:, However, in reviewing the m.terial., I discovcred that a number of documents ....er..
not provided to us, A rec.p foIlo...."
1. \t'e know that the property was originally permitted under P70-391 b"ck in 1970. However, there
...'cre no documents in the materials provided that cover the time period 197\l _ 1982,
2. '\1:'e r..ceived a series of documents rderring to th.. July 1983 time period ...,h.,lIthe Chur.:h originally !
took O"cr the property. These appear to be incomplet..,
3. There Was no documcnt:nion from the 1983 rnateriols until 1986. yelthe 1986 m"terials refcrenee data I
from 1984 and 19S5 which we were not given,
4, The fjle then makes an even bigger jump from 1986 to 1995. There "'3$ no correspond""" provided
for the period of 1987throl1gh 1994. Yet there Are do=ents""e were given that rderence meetings
and di;cl1ssions in the April!993 and January 1994 time periods,
5, An O<tob..r 7, 1986 Agenda RepOrt was only partially complete, We received pagc. 1 and 3,
Where's the rest of th.. report? We also received partiol pages of repono d.t.,cl Sf" '1, mber 2. 1986
(p~g. 3 only), September 23,1986 (pase 3 only), December 17, 1985 (page 4), July 12, 1983 (poges 1,
3 and 5),
\t'e 'Would also like to reque.t clorification on the differences between a Speci:tl Us. Permit and
Condition.u Use Permit,
In order for u. to m.ke educated decisions as to the matters surrounding the Iglesia ..; Cristo. ....e need
to have sufficient data to talk knowledgeable about the IUbject_ Th~t ~'.. the re..on rur the request for
th.. files. We ""e not .ble to do '0 ....ithout the d~t., There OlI'e holes missing in the inform.tion th.t we
received,
-
1995 ITEM 13
A\lG 1
I
--
JUL-31'85 r.JN 9:49 SA S, EXEC OFFICE FAX NO, 619, ~6D49 P.03
Mari Jo V:lll Dyke - July 31, 1995 - Page 2
You indicated to me on the telephone on Friday th"t there were three (3) huge ftlcs conceming this
ID.tter, You funher clarified m:l1 Mrs, Kawamoto was receiving a copy of the ., ...i.. file, induding all
three folders,. However, the dan that We Were given doesn't even fill one 1 inch notel,ook. It is obvious
that we were not given me entire file,
W' e resp""tfully request to receive copies of the ~m.unil1g documeuts from tilt files In quenion. These
documents are needed urgently in order to altempl to dige.lthe information hefore the meeting scheduled
for tomorrow (Tuesd.y) ni~lt, As such, your a5sistnnCt in gathering the additional data for us is
requested and appreciated, Mrs. Kawamoto will be contacting you by ttlephonc to pick up m.,
documents for me since I am unable to I..\\'c my office today to pick them up,
Th,Ulk you for your prompt mention to this request,
Calhy Francis
Po.....y Homeowner
AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
-
':" :185 MOtj 13:43 SA SP~ tiEC OFFICE FAX NO. 6196, "049 P,01
"
Tim and Wendy Phillips
12718 Robison Blvd. ,
Poway, California 92064 (!))f1" Jv '
home: (619) 679-6585 _ ~ .~~
-. _ -P~---
July 30, 1995
City Council of the City of poway
Poway, California 92064
RE: Proposed Plans for a public mini-park located
on Silver Lake Drive at the intersection of
Orohaven Lane.
To Whom It May Concern:
I
Myself, my husband, and two children (ages 11 and 2 ye~rs) are
residents of a property whose backyard borders on the parking
let owned by the church. Iglesia Ni Cristo" behind us. Our
home is the third house over from Silver Lake Drive on Robison
Blvd.
We understand that a public mini-park adjacent to " Iglesia Ni
Christo . is being considered at this time tor construction by
the City Council of the City of Poway. I am not a public speaker
or formal letter formator, though we wish to express our concerns
AGAINST having the mini-park constructed at this location. In the
very least, we would like our request heard to construct a slump
block wall over six feet at the rear property lines of ~ur homes
which back up to the proposed mini-park.
Our most serious concern is for the safety and security u: our
family, mainly our two children. Robison Blvd. is the stre~t in
the front of our property and is also a frontage street to poway
Road. This brings us excess traffic, speeding, and traffic noise.
We do not allow our children in the front of our home to play
unless supervised by us due to the large amoun~ of traffIC and the
danger it brings. This means that the backyard of OUr home is
their " safe play " area. We are very concerned ;,b"1Jt what kind
of Eatety and protection we can offer to our childr~n ~nd our
home if this mini-park is constructed right behind ~E, wit,h only
a chain link or double sided wood fence separatin1 us.
We have had several invasions of privacy and safety Inc:de~ces
OVer the past four plus years we have resided her0 ,~ ~ result
of having the church parking lot behind our home. We hove
experienced on at least three different occasions, rocks beIng
thrown over the fence into our yard while Our children hdve
been playing, hitting our house. We have tried to confront this,
though, by the time we can get to the fence the kids from the
church parking lot are too far away, not an adult In sight.We
\',avc: h"d cigarette butts flicked over our fence, ...hld, r~is,"s
another highly issue of concern . Fire .
( 1 ) A\JG 1 1995 ITEM 13 I
.itlL 3>95 MON 13:44 SA. ,EXEC OFFICE FAX NO. 6L .96049 P.02
(continued)
.---.----."-- ._-~-
RE: Proposed Plans for a public mini-park located
on Silver Lake Drive at the intersection of
Qlohaven Lane
We have viewed the plans for the Park and also oppose the
Hot Ash Receptacle.
On a number of occasions, there have been male adults and
children peeking through our fence when I am in my kitche~
in the mornings or doing my laundry. Both of these rooms iace
our backyard and have large windows and sliding glass door.
I
Two of the four homes whose property borders this proposed
mini-park along with ours have dogs. I can not recall on how
many different occasions these dogs have been provoked and
teased due to the traffic on the other side of "the fence".
Our family is very attuned to this due to the dogs waking
our two year old countless times during the day and night
since he has been born, and keeping our family up during
the night when the church kids are out up until 10:00 pm
playing volleyball and basketball in the parking lot.
This brings us to yet another issue" noise control."
As we have mentioned, Robison Blvd is a cause of great traffic
noise. Due to this, we are forced to keep the bedroom windQ~s
facing Robison Blvd. closed when sleeping at night and when
our youngest is napping during the day. We also keer our
livingroom window and front door closed, both of which tac~
Robison Blvd. I most of the time when our T.V.I VCR ic playing
or we can not hear them.
We ~re concerned and oppoged to any additional traffi~ and
noise occurring behind our property. We do not have central
air conditioning in our home, so we must keep our back windows
open during the night to cool the house in the warmer months.
I feel uncomfortable doing this now, we will not feel at all
secure or safe with our windows and doors open if a park is
constructed behind our home. We will be forced to cloeR
windows during the daylight hours for noise reduction al~o,
ezpecially if only a double sided wooden fence is b~inq
constructed between our backyard and the proposed mini-park.
As it is now, every Sunday we are awakened as early '-" ~',~a;n
by the sounds of cars parking, car radios, and the volcc~
of people as they go to church. On the weekends and some
weeknights, the noise continues up to 10:00 pm, as the kids
are playing sports games with no senSitivity to the hOIl',"s
around tbem.
AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
( 2 )
~
JUl' 31-95 MON 13:45 SA Sf - -:Y.EC OFFICE F AX NO, B19l 3049 p, 03
.
(continued)
--.--. -
RE: Proposed Plans for a public mini-park loca~ed
on Silver Lake Drive at the intersection of
Orohaven Lane.
Our family has made many adjustments to the noise and
insecurities of Robison Blvd. alone, and have dealt with the
shortcomings of the church and its parking lot. Having the
proposed mini-park constructed will only double the in~ecurties
and unsafe conditions already present within OUr home and
family.
We are ren~ers at this timel and have discussed with th~ owners
the opportunity to purchase this home. We have put that option
aside for now, until park plans have been set, as we will
not be able to make many more adjustments without knowing
that our family and neighborhoods well being is being
considered.
Our first desire is a strong opposition to the consruc~ion
of Silver Lake mini-park.
Our second desire is we strongly urge you to take our Concerns
seriously and in the very least construct a block wall higher
than six feet for OUr protection and safety.
Sin~re~1
tJ ,~tfN'
, ~ v.... Vi
y
, .~11Hl1~\~J1I\ lU~T)
Tim ~nd Wendy hill ips
Branden 11, Jacob 2
...
AUG 1 1995 ITEM 13
( 3 ) .
-,-
.... --'-~ , -'--..,---
~ ne..\"Q\i J ~.,i- 5
-S ~t~1'i~~ ~ :";~;tL
..t \,\)0 -lof'\.( ':'~~~"1
","4";_,,
',-'-.. ,.
< --~~~~~~.
'oIJj'
~
Is this the type of building you want protruding out of the middle of our neighborhood)
DID YOU KNOW,,,
. The Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) is planning to increase its membership from 150
per church service to ~OO + per church service three times a day) on Sundays and
Thursdays (not counting their special events on other days), The result will be increased
traffic, light and noise pollution to our tiny community,
. Our streets already have in excess of 4,000 cars traveling on them every day, We don't
need any more soot light, or noise pollution to this area,
. The church model shown above is a "slightly smaller" version of the one they plan to build
in the middle of our homes, This church cost $1 million -- they plan to spend $2,3 million
on a structure that will tower over the rest of our community.C!hey'll be able to look right
into your own back yard!)
. ( The park they plan to build in our area could potentially increase traffic flow, noise levels,
vandalism, gang activity, and our property taxes)
. The Church has failed to live up to its commitments to the City of Poway for 12 years.
Why should we believe them now that they will make amends and beCgood neighbor7
from now on if we give them what they want.
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT...
. Come to the public meeting to be held Tuesday night, August 1st, at 7:00 p.m, at City
Hall, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway,
. Sign a petition requesting the City Council to deny the Church's request for expansion of
these facilities. Call 748-4182 or 748.6857 to see the petition or talk to someone about
the issues,
. Get involved in what's going on in your community. Voice your opinion by calling or
writing to the City Council about this issue, Let them know how you feel.
8-1-45
:li-l~
. -.
.....n..._ @mJlliI~nl J~~'j][f))n
UlOUI__ " I
...,.,"'''' "'''''P'''l H .:19 .'
I, ]tJi\iJW@] BIMB~ ID(JW'Il&j]~ffil..lD~ I j l ;
, .' .
.
,,[ l1'l ~fi1
rL
Ii. -:z JL~
. - L ~ ~~ ~~~
.
-1 Ef1t
ill 'lr. \\~IC.
"- :liL~
"~
.- \,
j _.-
>/ ~ ~ i~ J
,J ~ ~
~ ~"
<I;I~
'" ~ ~ \I .
... ~ ') '" QJ
'. !' ,,~'" IJ
,~ I" ~::-
u '" " .
~ .... ~ VI '" I:i!
\) ~ ~ , ' '"",
~ 'G ~,,'{ .
I'lj _~<J!l("
'1"L\:~~
II
\;:
'<I
~ '." .
'-l, " 5:- ' ,"
(.j '. ,ill,
~ 1\1' 'j. . .' (
, I .lD.."
l\l ' :(.,. f;.::;:;:
<:l ~. 1"-' '~
,~ ~ -::z --:I l.l .
'<t .' ~ -:z. L
" k '. ' 'l.l' .
..,. :lr 'A- ~
\:: t~ ' -(, -
'Il '....I (
~ t~~ ~ !L <
~
'-:l..l .. ~
~ LIl1.....I ..l " <
~~~ ., ..
~ ~~ Ul.~' i
ill ~ :oI.l" '
"- ~~& ,~ ,',..'
~ I.\)
~ -:l. ' ,
~ ,
-'>l
"'" Ii.
~ 'tn\.
:1-1
~~ .,J
.J
-t
,
,Ii >l
~
-J
~~ f.!:l
-
~ ~
- -- - ~
~
, ' " . ,~
-
k:,1chAIU 11~k.. r,=/oJe t 11// tJ...ArE' Ar WALit. iJ,.;>' "'].//ClIAP~E
c;.1 L-V~f-I'-j::. P f;lv 1::
3+"15
------ .#-I~
,--