Item 5 - Silver Lake MiniPark
SILVER LAKE MINIPARK
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
(Conducted August 18 - 22, 1995)
Preliminary Report
Based on a recommendation from our City Manager and a Council Member, residents of the Golden City Unit No.
1 housing development conducted a survey of the other residents in the area to determine their opinions in the matter
of a minipark to be built in the neighborhood. At the same time, we asked the residents their opinions concerning
the Iglesia ni Cristo Church and its expansion project After the survey began, we added a question concerning
whether the residents had been informed of the activities associated with the park and/or the Church.
There are presently 111 residential homes in Golden City Unit NO.1. After two days of conducting the survey,
seventy-four (74) signatures were obtained. The following statistics were initially compiled from the data collected:
Residents were...
1. In Favor of a Park 5 6.8%
2. Not in Favor of a Park 69 93.2%
3. In Favor of the Church 43 62.3%
4. Not in Favor of the Church 26 37.7%
5. Don't mind Church expansion 25
6. Would prefer $$ be spent in Neighborhood 55
7. Informed of Church/Park activity 14
(note: question added
8. Not Informed of Church/Park activity 13 late in the survey)
Not all residents queried answered all applicable questions, which results in the numbers being somewhat skewed.
In addition, a small number of households were divided in some minor aspects with regard to their opinion. In these
instances, both homeowners responded to the survey individually (10 residents).
********.*****************
After compiling additional data received from petitions gathered through the afternoon of August 22nd, only data
related to the park issue was further compiled and illustrated on the Golden City Unit NO.1 Map (attached). Details
specific to this issue are as follows:
111 Residents in Unit 1 104 Residents
-2 Expressed no opinion about park 10 In favor of a Park 9.6%
~ Conflict of Interest 67 Not in favor of a Park 64.4%
104 Residents 27 Homes not yet contacted 26%
Out of the 77 Residents polled (representing 74% of the residents of Unit 1)
10 I n favor of a park 13%
67 NOT in favor of a park 87%
Petitions were also received from a group of condominium owners on Robison Blvd. Their statistics were kept
separate for purposes of this analysis, although reflected on the map for information only.
Over 100 signatures were obtained in this survey. Some signatures are from residents in homes just outside of Unit
NO.1. However, only the responses from residents within Unit No. 1 were used for this analysis. '6- ;U-'i5
~5
-------~-- --~._~ -~---------
U')
(])
(])
~
-
~
N
-
VI
:> ""1'--1'--
rn
:> Ol'--N
<( ~
~~-.-
"'C I '0'0
>. (]) III 2
Gl-c-c - 0
2:~JB >- I '" '"
c. _
:>lUo (]) .0 c
en .9-.l!l ~ '€ 8
.... 0 r::: '" -
::l c. III
0'- 0 o "-
_1::0 (f)
GllU_ J::-
_CoGl lI) ~ g
:90>' '" '"
- - -
rn..r::: - l:: c: c:
w~g (]) III III
:2:'2
UJ J!} en :0 '" '"
III III
-r:::- lI) C::C::
r::: Gl r:::
Gl -c Gl (]) II II
-c .- -c '0::: I
.- VI .- I
VI Gl VI
en Gl c::: Gl -
~ c::: c::: 0
....
:J (])
en .0
W E
c:::
>- ::l
W ,Z
~
:J
en i
Cl
0 I
0 I
::c
c:::
0
!Xl
::c
<9
~
w ~ >1'.
0
Z ..... 0
mJg ..;
01'-- ~
~CD a.. ID '"
~
.- c:: "''''
c: loCI.
.- "- Cl.1Il
:2: ~ III =
J::_
:J -0
Q)en -~
00
~'O ~>
CtI g 0",
; -l -E iliu.
0 u. .!:
~ ......0 c:-
J:: .- 0
lU Q) .2' oz
""a. > III ~ ....
~
....- =z >1'. co
lU 0 0
en 0
a..... ,..:
_0 ~
0>
.... lU
ou.
> r:::
lU.-
U.o
Ez
------ ----...-
~-_._---
JEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE
AGAINST BUILDING SILVER LAKE MINIPARK
From 1971 through 1981 there were a number of attempts to have park/recreational facilities on Lot 100, now owned
by Iglesia ni Cristo Church. For two more years, the property was vandalized and left vacant until the Church took
possession in 1983. Although it is true that the land was originally intended to be used for recreational purposes, historic
events tell us that a park/recreational area was not supported. The land was an eye sore and had many security/safety
risks until the Church occupied the property.
Much has changed since 1983. More homes and businesses have been added to the community which have resulted
in more traffic congestion in the neighborhood. We also have the addition of the Star Ridge Park just three blocks away.
What we may have needed in 1983, we don't need today.
The addition of a minipark just off Silver Lake and Robison Blvd. is NOT what this neighborhood needs. I nstead of
another park in the neighborhood, we suggest the funds be put to better use to improve the neighborhood. More street
lighting, speed bumps, more playground equipment or facilities installed at the Star Ridge Park -- whatever the
neighborhood decides.
Another important aspect is the proposed installation of stone block walls for those homes surrounding the Church
property. A great idea and certainly a must to offer residents the privacy and security necessary from the Church's
activities. However, they have discovered in many cases where property lines have been moved. Their current plans
for building the wall would move the property lines back to their original positions. For some homeowners, this may
cause a problem with trees, gardens, pools, or other items in what they think are their back yards now. Another
suggestion to the Church would be to not dispute the property lines with the homeowners, let them keep what they think
is theirs. In return, they don't have to expend the funds to build a park which we don't need in the first place.
There are many options available to the neighborhood. Let's not spend $60,000 for a small area of land that will further
increase congestion to the area, promote vandalism/drug trafficking/loitering, create potential safety hazards for our
children, and result in higher taxes to pay for its maintenance/upkeep.
We need your opinion to take before the Poway City Council on Tuesday, August 22nd. Please complete the information
below and share with us your comments. Thank you.
o in favor of a park o not in favor of a park o spend $ on the neighborhood
o in favor of the Church o not in favor of the Church o don't mind Church expansion
Signature: Print Name:
Address:
o in favor of a park o not in favor of a park o spend $ on the neighborhood
o in favor of the Church o not in favor of the Church o don't mind Church expansion
Signature: Print Name:
Address:
o in favor of a park o not in favor of a park o spend $ on the neighborhood
o in favor of the Church o not in favor of the Church o don't mind Church expansion
Signature: Print Name:
Address:
o in favor of a park o not in favor of a park o spend $ on the neighborhood
o in favor of the Church o not in favor of the Church o don't mind Church expansion
Signature: Print Name:
Address:
__u --- ----."---"------.------
r
-- ~- ~~
-;4
l" ..: ~\
'" ',-'
:!z ~ 3
~-
F\D 7, \
cp,p.p.\p,<;E - .
,'Z..,. '3- \
'39'<:/ \ 'd 'd '<:/ ') 0
;; 0-
."
~. i. 't-..
~a: .J ,
,
- ~
:<: (j)", M
a: '~I..S N
<( 0
a. -
:2 VI
0-
J Cl
-'
W ;
-
@ d
z
~ .. 0-
e . -
, ~
> .
J : r::
III "
u . -
< , ~ U
0
~ @ . ;
.; .
. ,
@oO
r-
! r-
Q)
<D
, 0..
'1:10 ...
'. ""
311\n "0
":>-
M l:I3^llS
""
N""
-
.
,
IID@\O
~ ~'i:~ .
II \1 \' .
;<:r.... - t
Z .
.
-LL 0 \1 @,....
(J)
- V'I "
J III
0
CP 1 a:
I ~ 1 :
~ J'
b .
, .!L
0- 0-
t ~ ~ @<Xl
-~ c:-r.: ,- ,., E9
0
C-t-- 1. <-Ii
~ >
.;;: , ' -l$ '0
, - ? ~
.-
-fa ~ 8' ----
j
2 t LJ
0 2
\1 \,
\' "
.
-
,
,