Item 15 - MDR 95-31 Iglesia ni Cristo Church
DISTRIBUTJ:P ......
- '?::7-9~
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
~TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: .James L. Bowersox, City Manager
.John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~1r ~ ..
INITIATED BY:
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Pla 1ng Service
DATE: September 5, 1995
SUBJECT: Minor Development Review 95-31, Iglesia ni Cristo Church, Applicant
ABSTRACT
A revision to the original design for the Silver lake Mini Park, located at the
intersection of Orohaven lane and Silver lake Drive, in the RS-7 zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The previously issued Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 83-01 for Iglesia
ni Cristo Church adequately discusses the environmental concerns of this project.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
This is the continuance of a public hearing from August 22, 1995. ~o additional notice
is required.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the information provided and give staff
further direction.
ACTION
".." ......
-
'.
1 of 15 SE.P 5 1995 Ir< 15 .Il
--_.._.~- . -~.",.- - - .----- --.~- - ._.
.! AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
. '
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~it ~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ing Services
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: September 5, 1995
SUBJECT: Minor Development Review 95-31, Iglesia ni Cristo Church,
Applicant: A revision to the original design for the Silver
Lake Mini Park, located at the intersection of Orohaven Lane
and Silver Lake Drive, in the RS-7 zone.
APN: 317-640-62 (Portion)
BACKGROUND
On August 1, 1995 the City Council approved the above named project for the
construction of a neighborhood mini park which would be constructed by the
Iglesia ni Cristo Church. Upon completion of the park, it would be accepted and
maintained by the City as a city park. On August 22, 1995, several adjoining
neighbors requested that the City Council reconsider the approval of the park,
raising objections concerning possible noise and security problems. Counc i 1
continued the matter to September 5 and requested that staff bring back
alternatives for additional public input for consideration.
On August 30, 1995, staff and two-members of the City Council met with a number
of surrounding neighbors to discuss the issues in a more informal setting. The
outcome of the discussion was a recommendation that staff look at alternate
locations for the park on the site and present these to. the City Council on
September 5 as well.
FINDINGS
ODDortunities for additional Dublic inDut
Some of the area residents conducted an informal survey concerning whether or not
the majority of the neighbors want to have the park. The Council may, however,
wish to have staff conduct a more formal survey. The survey could be mailed
ACTION:
.
2 of 15
'.- '~,. ,,----- _ __,___ "n. __~_ ,-___,
.-
- Agenda Report
September 5, 1995
Page 2
"
either to property owners within 500' of the church site (the normal public
notice radius) or within 1/4 mile of the site (which would reflect the area which
the General Plan indicates is to be served by a mini-park). The survey could be
mailed to only property owners or to property owners and residents both.
Another way to obtain input about the neighborhoods feelings about the park would
be to hold a formal workshop with the area property owners and/or residents.
Notice of the workshop could be mailed to either the 500' or 1/4 mile radius
area.
Alternative Dart locations
At the meeting on August 30, a resident suggested two alternative positions for
the park. Within the past couple of weeks, the church has been considering
relocating to temporary quarters to allow demolition of the existing structure
to proceed concurrently with site preparation work for the park. This would make
it possible to consider some locations for the park which were previously not
feasible because of the location of the existing building. Three alternate
locations for the park are reviewed below. These include the two suggestions
made by the neighbors.
- A park of acceptable size could be provided by any of the alternatives. All
required setbacks could be observed and parking to code could be provided. All
of the alternatives maintain connectivity between the parking lots which allows
access to be distributed between the streets and allows church members to search
for a parking space without having to return to city streets if one portion of
the lot is full.
Alternate Plan I
This plan inserts the park between two segments of the lower parking area for the
church. The park would remain essentially the same size as the original park
plan, approximately 20,000 square feet, and would contain all of the same play
elements. The advantages to this plan are:
. there is ease of access from both Silver Lake Drive and Elm Park Lane;
. lighting from the parking lots on either side of the park will wash into
the park area at night offering better surveillance to sheriff's patrols;
. the park is moved away from all adjoining neighbor's property
The disadvantages of this alternative are:
. the church parking area will be fragmented, which will be somewhat more
inconvenient to members attending services;
-
. noise and light from the parking lot will be closer to the neighbors to
the south of the church property.
.
3 of 15 SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 It
-- -- ... -
Agenda Report
September 5, 1995
Page 3
.,
Alternate Plan II
This plan would turn the park 90' to orient it parallel to Silver Lake Drive.
The advantages include:
. the park would be highly visible to passersby, which would make
surveillance easier and would be a visual amenity for the neighborhood;
. the park would be immediately adjacent to fewer residential properties.
The disadvantages are:
. the park would still adjoin the rear yards of two neighbors on Robison
Blvd;
. the tot-lot would be much closer to the street than with a perpendicular-
to-the-street orientation of the park;
. there would be no easy way to achieve pedestrian access from Elm Park Lane
to the park, since there would be church parking lot in the intervening
space and it is the desire of the church that the parking lot be fenced
separately from the park, allowing them to consolidate and secure their
property.
Alternate Plan III
Alternate Plan III would place the park on the upper portion of the church
property at the end of Elm Park Lane. In this alternate, the church building
could be placed either further north on the upper part of the lot or on the lower
pad. If the park were integrated with the planned fountain overlook and front
setback landscaping for the church, a total of just over 21,000 square feet would
be available. As sketched on the illustration, the park area itself would be
about 13,000 square feet.
The advantages of this plan would be:
. the park would be adjacent to a quieter street;
. the park would not be immediately adjacent to any residential properties;
. the park could be integrated with the setback landscaping and fountain
overlook area to create a slightly larger park area;
. the park would be easily surveyed from the street for security purposes.
~
4 of 15 SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 II
.
-
.- Agenda Report
September 5, 1995
Page 4
.
The disadvantages of this alternate are:
. if the church were constructed on the upper pad, the plan would force the
chapel building and upper parking area back further onto the property and,
thus, closer to surrounding residences;
. Elm Park is a less traveled street and therefore, there would be less
passer-by traffic to help with park surveillance;
. there would be no easy way to provide pedestrian access from Silver Lake
Drive.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The previously issued Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 83-01 for
Iglesia ni Cristo Church adequately discusses the environmental concerns of this
project.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
This is the continuance of a public hearing from August 22, 1995. No additional
notice is required.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the information provided and give
staff further direction.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:kls
E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\MDR9531R.AG2
Attachments:
A. Alternative Plan I
B. Alternative Plan II
C. Alternative Plan III
D. Previously Approved Plan
E. Correspondence
..
5 of 15 SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 .1
.... "-.- -
- I:,
lEi ;.tHAF
"~ .... .
.~~< -: :>()"-
/t'-' ...::.: .
::': "
N ::~ ;:", '.
r-
r-
-
86.So4'
870 11'SO'W -
- ',;'DI
t....,.
. -..... ".
. ~ ,. 'IE
,~,. _: ,.....
ill
.
lJ)
0
ill -W'
ill
~~ ..
". .
. .
<tZ '.
.'
-l -OJ <
.. '. , :......
er) ,".,
- 'j ,
N ..,
r .
~ - '<. S.~!
I
ill ! :2Y
, -
> , AL TERNA TE PLAN I
I i+ ----_.- ----
-l
. .
...... I ,- . ...--
. .-. ._--.
U) 2.5
.
.,.:'t::;:. ...~~ 51,\9
185.0'
N 880 03' S1' W
1.~
- ATTACHMENT A t....
~. .--
-.-.- Ii!;(
~~:
. SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15
6 of 15 "
_ _~._ "'U_ -'-' _.~
r- ..-
-
MUL T I 15 :tt:HAF>E
USE " '.3 :.....-:;,
.~
. "
~271 IP' - .. ~.
N ,'."
r-
r-
-
-0 II 86.54' :......
lXla
W I 87. 11'50'W
N I -
ill Ii - ORe
, .
~J . . ~.$' 15'
~
Ow
.
lTl
0
ill -W I
III
~'- -- I . I
<lZ ' l ' 9
.; ~OTAL ~O:~ PA~:I~:- -J._ln.
..J 'to
'l;
lTl ,f r' -~ . r-rT~! T 'rrrr
-
{\J
~ 7-: I ! i !. .,
".'. ., ",,' -.c_" \
.- -
;1"
r1
ill " IS ,
.'t 5.~5
!_:,.l;
> .1 -~--._- .--- '---,.---.----
..J AL TERNA TE PLAN II
.....
---
(J) 17
....-,u..". ""'" ..
185.0'
, N 88. 03' 51' ';":' ~ "., .~.
W .t';'
. _.. .,
A TT ACHMENT B
- -----..
. u...._-.__
7 of 15 't:' W SEP 5 ITEM 15 .1
~. 1995
'f
,
!
HO TO'!'JoJ.. PAKlNli ~ I .,
.
~"~'.t.:..,;.:_,...t.~~
.j"'i'.~i' --
"'t:':').:'- ..-~
. -i,!;
"~ :-
..:f
,...~,
-,,4-
';, ~
',~ ;
..-'j.~
-"'~ .
. ,.
.', ~.'
- . CHAPElg~;
15
-- . , ',i. : . ~'l~::~
" "
.,,-\ ?
-- "
..~.
1 ~ *-
N
r--
r--
-
-0 " 86.54
lQa 6'70 II'SO'W ~ OROP~6
lD I ..
N I ~. . .~,.:;.:,;\{;:.
ill " J
I'
~1'
~ ---
-
Ow - -- 7' " --
B B .' -
,'" --
.~ [DIg - " "
. , .
.~...
, -.,
ill olD 't'':160;SO'
10: --. ~._-_. --....=- I ("IR=- ~6
'::J.. 0 : (')
- , \
' ,
, ,
<[ Z: : V) \
' ,
, , 56 TOT AL.. ~OWEii PARICING
-.J ~ :: I ~E
00, o~
'If' ! ~
' '
Ol' ; ! '--..::-.-
N - ,
~ .
~
. . 5..<15'
. ':I.~'-o.. . .
ill i-l' I - - .
--- ---- L
,
> j~ l CITY PARK ,lD
.J I~
--1 <:> AL TERNA TE PLAN III
~
H~ . .
- , .... ",---.~
If)
B of 15 . . -ArTACHM.ENL.C- . _ . -, 'SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 .,
.-.-.-.-' 51\9
- .........._._.~- .' .
I: ' 185.6" .
- -
/1
~
'. ~~ I -""'
lIO 'I'ar..... p......lNG -1-.-,\.~ "
, ". . I' __.
!
-
15
,<'" 15 pt. .
. "'''~ . t&i ~ ,~\
'\ \
-~o T
\
<~~~:: "
. ~'<.::::-
,-......_-
~
ELM PARK
-
ORIGINJL APPRO~AL
'.
.; I
,
----
9 of 15 A TT ACHMENT. [j
SEP 5 1995 .ITEM 15 .
I . f
.n_
August 3D, 1995
. ,
Dear Poway Council Members,
Our family lives on the cui de sac behind the church on Elm Park Lane. We have lived
on Orohaven Lane for a little over four years and enjoy our neighborhood, as well as
our neighbors very much.
We were notified of the first meeting at City Hall concerning the church's new building
and the plans for the small park required by the original agreement 12 years ago.
Several of my neighbors, including our neighbors who belong to the church, and I went
to the meeting. I had some objections to the size of the proposed church, but was
pleased to see that the little park was in the plans.
On Sunday, August 19th, one of our neighbors who lives on the corner of Robison and
Silver Lake came to our house with an informal poll. It was very biased against our
little park, and did not provide for much disagreement to my neighbor's point of view. I
think that any decisions that the City makes should not be decided on this poll.
Since my husband and I cannot attend the meeting tonight, August 30th, I have asked
my neighbor, Bill Dunbar, to read this letter to let you know that I would very much like
to see our little park back on the map. We have two sons, ages 10 and 7, and I know
that they would enjoy this park, as I would be much more comfortable letting them play
in a park that is much closer to home, and one where they will not have to cross
Carriage Road, such as Starridge Park. I think the park as planned accommodates
our family with our children, as well as my neighbor who has two children under the
age of five.
Please reconsider your decision to put aside our little park for the future. My family
and I would like our park now.
Sincerely,
-
~
Julie Lucas
12621 Orohaven Lane
Poway, CA 92064
679-9159
. -.
10 of 15 ATTACHMENT E SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 1
. ..--
# '.. - -'~ ". .._""'~~,..".. "'-." ',. -JsJ.'~~~" --
ft ;'It'.~Q~' w.~ ~~~,_-r~:"il~;:'*.(::'~,F~"',,",'"i-tp.'a'-:"::~~ # .'. .' _ ~~ .n.~ '.:r,l.:'''-~::_... ~
~.. ~....~ \; - ...... ~..~--':-.:;."",'" -~.... ~~" -. '-.. .,.'- .,..-.~ ~- ~.- ~- ........ " '. .......
.. T.~ ':ll.:; 't~~~.~<,:,., ..,".... .. '<::-'. -..__.....-... . _...~-~- ~'.'" ~'S.._~ ~';~":Jr:...._~''''~,_.-''''~~'.-~ ,_~ ...
~'"~..:~.;~,ri- -r.~..~i i~~:-;:::~.. ~ ~..:-'l.~:"".~" ~~ ~,~:.;;.-'...~f. ~. ';.~I1~~~~~:":;;<;'~id~4~::"-'~:,." ". _'~_
.. 'J.. ~~.'... ..... ,,-..tJQ ~-" _....r.,:.",;.. ;t...,..,,, " .,i";....l;;,.;~r.,~~.:.;'t~.:t... ".... ft: .,,~.t,,~ ,,'-o'~;;':~~'~""_ .'-t..:';._
~~~:"~:$.&~..-'~(-;f' -;t ~~,,~:..<:-.:~.~~:: - ':...-:,. -;.~~. 'E':~~~;:~~:' ...~ .~ ...v~ _~: ,~~".:,- f{4;.: ...:'}. ~_
,~., -l2".;.",..::,-_.".'t~~~h ''''''--~;2<'''''"''<-!'~:-.--'~>''''<~~~. ~.iO!'~~w<'ti\:'t_c'C',. ~
~.i;:~,~~:~~~.:i0:~~~J~t;;D.i~'~:~"~'<'!:;:\;' ;~:,~:~~~rt~ ~ ;"E~~~~~~:~,:7",:
~-"~~~ ~"'.~;~~l"~:'':t.~~~~~~o!'~~:$f~(~~ ."iJj~;::;.j!;,;-~,~~~*;.~(~,;~'t-~~~- .:~~~~::;~,~-:~!;_...~,-;::,~.
..~, - ~:;-'~:!t:g~;_ ff;r~~':i';;'-' :'~-"~~?:~'(:~ .+,,~%.;:*~:~lt~~~~:f~~~;?-t;: '.
;fm?:t~~1~~~Ii~~~~~!;g@~:<t': .-;'.
~ l ::-;:
.
_.'- ;-' f
" H
I!~I~' '.J!~. .~ ." .. ...
Ii' .' ." '. .
'- .
.-
r'
..'......... "-,
f- . :- ",~ _', ~
....
": ">. .;;,> ~, ="< } ".'.;,
r;~?:f.~;~::'~'~,::~J :;;;;~;i:;it~~=:~~~~:* - :~tii~::.:.:,:-:-,_'~
~'~~~1~~:i\...:.~~ .
1.1 of 15 . .. ._. _. _ "
"".'1 '_>>
~...
- ,.4& '"""" _____.......iL_
--- ----,. -~ -- - .... ----. -. - - -- ---------.--- ---~- --.... - -- .. -
August 28, 1995 ,
.
~
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Beth Ranlett. I reside at 13412 Silver Lake Dr
in Poway, just (1) block north of the Church project.
with regard to the issue of the park to be located on the
land now is possession of the Iglesia ni Cristo Church,
I am in favor of the park project. It is my
understanding that many years ago the land had been a
very successful Community Center. Realizing that times
have changed, I believe.,that a park would greatly enhance
the neighborhood by providing a nearby area for family
activities. I believe that the neighbors are all greatly
involved within the neighborhood, and would be aware of
any drug or gang activity and take the appropriate action.
Thank you, ~
(n09"S)~
:
12 of 1S SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15
, I
_..___ _.._..__ - ._n_'__ _~ ____
.I
.'
: .~, .'.,:,: .:~", .,,<.~.. ~.;".; . :' :.<,
~,;,,~SfQ~~h!,~.;-tI.~.,..;,..~.j~~ 't'i' .:..'t.....--".: ,'I,
...:ii1r:~~:}>.';:~~.gp~::,;,~::::!::.:,i~~::.',:: ~ - ;2. ~ ~ '1 ~ . :::.\t~~~~;~$iW!!:
_-,c,~JJ-~~~.:'
. . .,
._J.~ ~....... \~ o-l-.
~'1.~u. '::>\\v~"'" 't:>..-.
7~""j . rc_ 9'2.0is>1.l
__J..__a."'" ~ ~ 0;:>'" \f .'
______ _. ____ ~~c:>v-
:.) ":"';'U ____~-=.-_____ ______~~~.:~_~_ ::.::~~.- ~l-.-_:_t:b,.i:~,;,~;.
----.---...------- -- --....-------.
--,--------- ---- --
~ .' .' --- ----- J':,.;
~. ______n ,'.-'
--. -.-------------- .-- ---- -- -
~___ _h'__ ._.. _. ----
,.
~. ..:',;(.
.. I
.3 of 15 "-
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 rt
----...---------.----- .<.~.- ...---- _..._---- ----- ---._.~-_..__.__._._... .
'.'.__ .___.___________.___m._...__~___
.'
2-30-95
~
1..~!;i~!f,Bff..rt~~c~i~~+'ft~,,, c-Jo 0Ao ~~~J t~i~~~ik<m;f~
:';:."'~>;i:i.':"',,;;,,'?1' ".' "..',;:n:';" 0 :;i::):Y':~{V':i
:==- J ~4=Li.v~~t/u:L-
AC&k--&aL-.---------------- -
-- ...-.--...-----.------------- ---------.--
~=-~~-~~~:-~~:~---------=-~;:- ~~~
______um.___________ ____f!~---DL &j ~o ~I - .
. 0 J
.-- .,-. .-.- ~._._.,.._-_...~---_..__.. .-.---...-----.---- ~------
..--.----... ------------- _...- - - ..-- ---'- -----.-.--------.-
_.~ __ _ .____n____"_ ___._.,___"., __..____ . __.,_ - ..,__. n___ ...._- -.-..-... - .-.-.-. ---.----
__._ ____. ..,__. __. _______.____.__.___.____ _____ .___________. _~~;m~~;k~.
.. ..__ ____.. __ ___~._.._ _'_" ___ ._._ __ _._______.~_n_.
_.___._. ." ~__ ___ .____ _._.__oiI..~_...__ -. - --.-. --------.-...-.----.
_.______.... .____.______________._h____ .._._.__...___._____..__.__. . .
~0 ~ ~~
_, ._._.______ .__.._. __._....____._._..._._..._ _ _~._ ...__._.. _.____..v____
--- -"'- - .. ._.._-_...~----_._--_.- - ....-.-..-.-..... .- ... _.---_.- ,.---------
;
____ .._.__._. .____.__,_.~~_ '.____'_+'_"_' ___,,'_,"._._ _._._.._~.._______J
_~,,___... ____._._____._____n.__.. _...___.____._'_ ~---.------.-----_.-. ..-----.------------
..~_.___.._.. ____ ___ ..__~_____.. ______ _.____'_._____ __~....__._____, .._n_
-----.- . -.----- -.------------. ~--
___ I
~ ~
., ;;'"1.,-:-.... . _.__.n._-.-----...----.....---~-.-:_~-...-- -.....---- --.....,-...--~---.... :::':;:' ,--~",~,----,~-'-'-'"
"s
'''-;
"
14 of 15
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 . I
---- - --- .-. - ...- - --_.__. '.._. - ---- --- -
. .. .'.
j
/
i w - - ~,~qc6 lj: - ~Z5'.-% I
." MitLJ-rl'bjc..uw,-, Ii AY:~ U rmtff I.
d l1lw\._ ~&1 J:hl ~ :, ~~~~\~. . . i
; 0Vl ~~~ ''PJI. 11 I \(e.\~ \NC!>~\O '\',\Le.> <:t-P().(~
'. \\:~, 'c ~ytQ) ~) ,,"Orf\8o ;
Ju~
'Suftti I ~.
. ::
. ;,
!
, t
J3fO(P.J~~ln.' ·
~)JttCVl-~) ..
.
~~ !
~-;;. \ ~l1-()S -s .llIer Ici\ze.op. I
['''E:.
.. ------~
- --.
~-:_-' 'e ~ f"<"" .;.
",.>,'.~.::'."",~-,'~'.,,;i;
., ""-~''''''''''''''I>'i:-:;;
r ~~~Ht:;:[)~:: :::~.: ,:i;~;;'~;r
<) ~ 00
r~~, -
. ~ ~ =:
- '1li-:~iJ
'~<~lj:' ,.
.. tV' I'*"'.
-0
I '... IQ
15 of 15 . ~.:;
I V,0
---
, ,(J.i,~ 9- S -q5)
-
'ROM GLENN G~OTH ARCHITECT e~.e~.199S at 2 P. 2
- CD
GLENN
GROT H ~' ;:-: (--: ;": r V j:: !--~
ARCHITECT, AlA . .';.,,~ .__ i L.- ~.
.
SEP 05 1995
-~
pr1\NNH~G DE?-T.
September 5, 1995
City CounCil
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, Ca 92064
Re: Iglesia NI Cristo and the Community Park
Dear Members of tho Poway City Council:
In September of 1983 Iglesia Ni Cristo acquired Lot 100 of Golden City Unit N1 in the City of Poway. As
part of the recorded Grant Deed, II 11,468 sq.ft. portion of the land roughly 65' wide and 136' deep was
eet apart from the total for development Into a community park. The church knew upon acquiring the
land that it had to build the park and C,U.P. 83-01 described how the park was to be equlppoo and
maintained. Because the park was to be operated and malntainEld by the church under thle resolution,
the legal ramifications and lIablllty were not acceptable to the church. It took almost 10 yeare to resolve
.- thie issue after which the church found thornsolves In deep trouble for not complying with the rest of the
63.01 C.U,P. requirements.
At the first of many neighborhood meetings, the church was made aware of the neighbors' concerns and
their negative feelings toward the church. The neighbors wantoo the ChurCh to fulfill their obligation to
build the park. They also wanted the fences taken down, lhe church grounds cleaned up, hours of use
establlshEld and noise controlled. all to demonstrate they could be 'good neighbors." Neighbors were
also concerned with the proposed size of the church (52S seals) and the traffic It could generate,
especially on Elm Park Lane.
As the architect for the project I take full responsibility for convincing the church to relocate the park from
the area described In the Grant Deed to its proposed location and to Increase Its size. As a design
professional I felt this change would be In the best Interests 01 the community and demonstrate the
church was making an effort 10 not only comply with tho C.U.P. requirements but exc8edthem by giving
the community more land than originally specified.
First attempts to design the park In Its dGeded location revealed that the space requirements for.
equipment and uses exceeded tM land available. In an effort to address the neighbors' concerns, the
ChurCh building was reduced to 400 seats, lowering the parking requirement from 175 cars to 133. The
pastoral residence was also eliminated. These changes could allow the sIze of the park to be Increased
some 240010 to an area of 27.717 sq.!\. Wilen I suggested this posslblllty to the ChurCh they agreed to
offer this additional land to tM community lor the enlargement 01 the park aa a gesture of good will.
Other neighborhood concerns were access to the park from the Elm Park Lane community side without
traversing the church property and, again, automoblle noIse. That Is why 1 also suggestoo to the church
to relocate the park to the southwest corner of the site so that the neighborhood would have access to
the park from both Sliver Lake and Elm Park Lane. The larger park also could accommodate the
playground requiramonts. The need for public easements across church property was eliminated,
allowing for the church to be autonomous from publiC use. This plan was presented at a neighborhood
meeting and readily accepted. 15
ARCHiTECTur~E & PlANNiNq SEP 5 1995 ITEM
GlENN f: GflOTli A.i.A. JOHN s. CjHOTll
bfi7 ril\'ILli.' CT. VIS'\ rl\ \';'>Ol\~ !'1I0Nf (61'1) (I~~ - }bOO fAX ((,1'1) (I~~. lOlli,
FROM GLENN GROTH RRCHITECT 09.05.199S .23 f'. 3
-
.
Poway City Council
September 5, 1995
Page 2
..
In June the church came before the Council and as part of the discussion asked Ihat the park
construction be allowed to run concurrently with the church construction to help reduce costs and confine
the construction on the site to one period of time. The Council reprimanded the church for lis past failure
to comply with original C.u,P. and mandated that tho church produce a timetable showing the earliest
possible construction starts for the park and masonry fence plus Immediate removal of the chain-link
fencing, Installation of Irrigation, landscaping, clean-up and construction of a dumpster enclosure, All
of this before a now church would even be considered.
On August 1, 1995 the park design was presented to and approved by the Council and the target date
for construction start was set for August 28. The final construction documents were authorized to
proceed at maximum speed for submittal to the City so that permits and approvals could be obtained to
meel the deadline. Based on the approval of the park plans by the Council the church authorized the
civil engineer to begin preliminary grading and drainage plans for the revised site plan and submittal of
these drawings for modification of C.U.P. 83-01.
At the August 22, 1995 Council meeting, which was for the adoption of the continuance of the interim
condition of approval, the church was asked to stop construction of the park as some neighbors no longer
wanted the park. The church was granted its continuance and remained neutral In regard to park
construction.
. On August 30 a special meeting was held to determine the fato of the park. When those who now didn't
wllntthe park were Informed that the monies set aside for tht! park could not be used for anything elso,
the park was again back In the picture - but now perhaps In a different locatlon!
The church has rernainoo neutrai until now. At a meeting on July 11 with the City Manager, City Attornoy
and Planning Director Ihe church was told that its past failure to comply with the 83-01 requirements and
demonstrate a 'good neighbor' Image had 'almost broken the back' of the Council and its patience. The
church took this discussion to heart and has removed the fencing around the yard, Installed an irrigation
system, replaced certain landscaping. purchased boxed trees for the parking lot, build a trash enclosure,
cleaned up the propol1y, changed its hours of operation, restricted its parking, engineered and started
construction on over 1200 linear feet of 6' high masonry fencing (a reqlJirement in addition to that of Just
repairing the exlsllng fencing set forth In the 83.01 C.U.P,resolutlon), Is prepared to 'give' to the ~
neighbors a 6' wide piece of land connecting the church property to Papago Drive without compensa I n I{) ~
to the churCh but at an additional cost of over $3000 for legal paperwork to prepare t ,ot splil
documentation and submittals and, finally, not at the request Of the city or the neighbors, made er
to enlarge the park from 11,468 sq.ft. to 27,717 sq.ft. thus 'giving' to the city 16,249 sq.ft. of additional
land as a gesture of their sincere effort to demonstrate their desire to be a 'good neighbor.' Tile ChurCh
has spent many hours of time meeting with the officially appoln1ed ad hoc neighborhood committee on
the design of the park. They have also spent over $6000 for professional fees In doing so.
Based on the Council's approval of the park design on Augusl 1, 1995 the church also proceeded with
spending over $12,000 in civil engineering drawings for drainage and pfelimlnary grading plans plus an
additional $8000 for revised site and preliminary building drawings as required for the application to
. modify the 83-01 C.U,P. Further expenditures Include the engineering costs of the lence and the deeding
of land back to the neighbors.
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15
-
99.05.1995 0 ,4 F. 4
~ROM GLENN GROTH ~RCHITECT
. -
.
.-
Poway City Council
September 5, 1995 .
Page 3
."
Over $26,000 has been spent to date by the church In the design and development of the park. not to
mention the man hours put In by church and neighborhood committees. The masonry tence. now under
construction, will cost over $BO,OOO. The church will spend $60.000 to build the park, donate thG
additional land to make it a usable par.k and then dedicate" to the City.
These expenditures and donallons have "maxxed out" the church's budgot, If additional changes are
required, due to relocal/nllthe park, the additional costs will "break the back" of the church and cause
It to abandon tho project in Its entirety. Everything will revert back to the original Grant Deed location
of the park and the site will be abandoned. If this happens. I can't estimate what legal or monetary
damages the Church will be Gnlilled to as a resu" of expenditures Incurred based on having an approval
granted and then later rescinded.
As far as the church is concerned, the relocation of the park Is not an option open tothe public. The only
option open is "will there be a park or not?" If the park is to be built, which the church has agreed to
and knowingly has to do, the "approved" park will be located on the southwest corner of the property and
27,717 sq,ft. in sizo. This location and size. which differs from the Grant Deed requirement, comes out
of the generosity of the c!lurCh, It was not mandated by Council but has been approved by Council,
One further thougllt: the Council has already mandated the church give a 6' strip of land back to the
neighbors. If the Council also has the power to mandate that the location and size of the park contradict
the directive set forth in the Grant Deed, then the probability exists that it also has the power to mandate
that the entire proparty be given back to the neighbors. The church hopes and prays that the Council
does not have this pow or.
As an architect and profossionaltrained In planning and design, I do know that the proposed approved
park location is the best location fOr all concerned.
1) The location allows for access from Silver Lake and Elm Park Lane streets.
2) It is of a size and configural/on allowing for the Intended use originally established.
3) The church and park are autonomous and no access easements are required for the
public to move across church property or Church people to move across the park land. '
4) It Is the best location for all noise concerns, whether ~ be from the park to the neighbors, the
park to the church or the cars and church people to the neighbors because:
a) The park is restricted to use during daylight hours only or If necessary with other
operation restriction. Church parking adjacent to the neighbors is allowed beyond
daylight limitations to possibly 10:00 PM or later seven days a week. The proposed
masonry wall will mitigate the majority of the noise from either source.
b) The noise from a park located too close to the church will disturb those people who
have come to worship or wish the sol"ude of the facility. Additional solid fences would
have to be built to control these distractions. More expense and unsightliness.
c) The proposed park location places the center of noise development about 40' from the
closest neighbor but with a masonry wall separation. Any other plan only moves the park
noise closer to someone else without a wall as a sound barrier or divides the church
property Into two sections.
5) Security. The park is located where It can be observed from both Silver Lalle and Elm Park
Lane. Residual light from church parking lot lights, located 85' from the neighbors' property will
assist In surveillance of the parll. Moving thl) parll away from the neighbors only puts the parking
lot Ughting closer to them. If the park Is situated where it divides the church property, the church
members who have had to use the remote parking area must pass through unsecured areas to
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15
-----
F~OM GLENI~ GROTH ~RCHITECT e9.05.1995 Do~n 24 F'. 5
.
Poway City Council
September 5, 1995
Page 4
-"
get to their vehicles - perhaps as late as '0 PM. A location whem churcll members would have
to pass through the park on their way to and from the church could also be a disturbance 10 park
users,
In conclusion, thG entire projoct as proposed is the best for ihs church and community. tt Is the most
aesthetic, beautiful and compatible arrangement of spaces and USGS. The relations between the church
and the community have Improved tremendously. Any more restraints, requirements or 'stirring up of
the po," will only destroy what so many have worked hard for.
Please, for the good of the cotrlmunlty as well as the church, keep the park In the location shown on the
approved plans.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~;;,;Ii
Glenn Groth Architect, AlA
. GG/ng .
c: Pastor Ben Dela Pa~
Rober1 Rubie
Ernesto Edralln
Poway City Manager
Poway City Planner
~ ~<, -.J
,
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 1
04''''04 ElH-'***'
.
~:~ 0 .. did. 9-S--9S-..
~~ :
- . ~,=-1 . ~ -\~~.
~ ~:1JLL fOJ'Jz.. . '
.
. . _ ,~----or -:ULo::t ~ ~ ~-~
c.. ,..,. .Jl
' 0' --.-., r (\ ~ . .. \
_' .... _ .':1 .' \1 ~ , --"t
ct. ,. c~.'.' '\..f).JrVJ.- \:)~ fi: .fd: I. .J.;. -,:.A
- ( G ~ -,. ~ ~ :. (:'-. .Pf"' ~~- ~ ~
0'- . ,.. ' ,.j ..
ct ~l_'-
O~"_ _ _._~~ .~~ J~ ~ JJ..; ~~
~ 0-- ~, ~-:*c
r;L ~.~ ~ ::*J~
~ 0
-ZOU:YD1 '-'
; /' -~ --fy'-t.
1 . \ " .{ .~'C\JJ1..., ~ (j
\ I' '.I .
,. . / .
\: .I.' foMND ·
.,~ .' ~- .' DELIVERED
1:' ' - ---.-
. ! ". ,/' /
. .' 1\',./,' " ~TE \1~O,qr
\.1 '~! ~i 1/ ." . . . .' (flAIu+# ~.otL
t' \ , . .
. . , f '.:' ~ v:..) f IW~ ~
t.l I -, ,!l.: . ~ .
or 1 ',~7'. . 't"l '" .
. ..... .- : ----.... "'$ ,
... ,'''-; '*:
. .... ,,- '- " .
.i!~' ". '. . ,.' ~ - Copied for:
( €. ' .: 4. .~...~~i' ". ,.- ..,. '" I BfJDF/RW.Q r
, ... '" ~7''''''''' I j"
~ '01" ,',''''It..' . ~- --.' .
. _......... ('". i' , f " I - ,." 'l-~"" . ~} .- ~ ,.' .
l C'. ' ,,~. .' .'. -'._" "-' ..I,I.,f lJ :..:.- lJ !T'....
, . r;r); . l. . t-"'Jj: ...~ ' -....... .
, ,0 ,-. ,'~. -. . " '. .".., , >:. " Jl It ." ill. ~. .. t. .
_ _ . l L " ~ " . . {-." ,-- .~ .
(C. '. ,J". I .' ~'.' Ii_....!~_ I,k ;'.~.Jlf)K ;. ....
'_.",. , ,_ _," .' . ,.",)< . ~ ...1r.~ ~,)j; Ie). Jh ..I..
_ _ "_ _ .' _ ~ .. " t- l' !' '"'1 "'-..... -
" _ _ , .. _ _ ~ _' ___ .' _.. -,"I ..,T' .," ..;r _J-' _4 .
.-- ------~:.:.-..- - -.---= ---~- ._-}~~~-
. ..-- - - ----- --- --'- .
,,---
.
"
.. SEP 5 1995 . rEM 15
~ ?-s-q~ j
t l;> N
. 'ri:', .-
.." R '.d .,
Q"~~' ~....~ >-'~;:...........
:: ~ .... ~ '--" .....
' J' 'k~'
To: Th-e;:'-.(.,It of f,9~Ll.{{~r
~ , "', "\ ).'
c. .--:......~..~ I W \ $\)', , -t ~~f-.l C ~~
. DC ,~...' bve, 0- p~~ b ~ ~
. Ct.. _'.<
'~~: ,~:~:~ nOlA-~" . So Th Ihr}llG
o ~-_ _ _ _ (
.- 5~n:?~~ ~re-iCJ ~lQ~ .
~. .,~ .' fro <<J --
-""', \\ e.Ls 3 G coJ..
13363
~ ~:l C~Pled for: cJ
.' . 1. C', C"molI ~
\ ' City Clerk ~ .
'''';':'C'':~''c j~,~ --:__ '.' 'l..Ju./J':/RW.Q U
I L" ". ':a..... '.' ....... ".."", '~..~
· ( ----. , , - T ,.,.. - - . 14 .
- , or' - - .. - '- . ," "'. ,r - . ." 'r '
' -0 (. ,~ .r 'J" .. " , , ., ,. .~.. , J ;r . -' J _
- . r - ...'. .' """ _," ",. _ _' ,_
( c. . . . . . ~ ,.. ____
~ · (, ,'- <.: ::.- , '~ . -.. .::.. --=--=-:.-:----- . --:.<= -- ",
--------
- ,
.,.
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 "
..
~. ~-s- -9S-
(~ To: Poway City Council
Reason: Church expansion and Park at Silverlake Drive
Date: August 28, 1995
.
From: Kim Norris and Veronica Miller .
12602 Orohaven Ln
We wanted to show our support for the Park off SiIverlake Drive in Poway. It is our
understanding that the park was promised over 12 years ago. The church has obviously not
upheld their part of the contract with the people of Po way. We feel that in addition to the park,
the church should be liable for all of the improvements that would go along with having the park
in the area. Not limited to, additional lighting, speed bumps and stop signs.
The park was not only promised but is necessary for our area. The kids in this neighborhood need
a large common place to play that is safe. They presently have to play on the street because
there is no area large enough to accommodate some types of games. A park a mile away is not a
reasonable substitute.
We are against the church expansion plan. Their track record for upholding their promise ofthe
park 12 years ago would only lead us to believe they will not uphold any other agreement made in
the present, or future.
Thank you for your time.
-
Sincerely,
f)(,~ 71~ ~ /'l"....A
Kim Norris and Veronica Miller
12602 Orohaven Lane
Poway, CA 92064
RECEIVEr
AUG 3 0 1995
Copied for: CITY~~~:~WAY
City Council
City Clerk OFFICE
JLB/JDF/RW-Q
.-
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 1
-
~, 9-5-9:;-
. .. ~MEO
ON\T~ K' - o-"tJ
-i~ _ ..D<-:BC~~5~i>-CJ \ ·
t-....... .___. ._._.l..-t;.,.~J.n.k +..b:ot-~ (\u..___
_1_ ...S~C:UlQ _b .a,-~ -t.~~ ,--
..... . \" 1"'"4.-...-6 be__.-eh 03:::c:.,. h:c:~ I Y\ C
). .... ....LC+.tce:cSc:::,D.Sj.__'d-:1.ere~~
: . Q.-Back.. c'l.cs~~Dbb~W. L~,_
. L'L'\2 9; an _-.1.'10 '{',919'0 .--.: . ),::La1::
\ S .~~~__-tD.._-1~~\oDfr]~-----.-.-
. -r0~.. "'~ . "?o('. ---- \..0a-,-1-.-~~---~ .~~
.', cleo '()e~~(--Jes _._-t:.~L..-aC~..-p
\)eI:'(? ~~ ~_\ ; r ~(~\'ot:_J'-:JE:.xi: dC0..! _J_~_
. ~~"J'21 C--clril .D..:'~,-\... ~e.5n \ ~IO nfu--~
'\h,_S-c .a~--, ~ *,_-~{b.e.._-r __~'Y)~-_ -
,\-1;-;' " = b./r1 e i',. . '. ..
-;>-C\..:-:~ ~ a ,-,c:::fJ ..ux. -'-' ~a.c-L:c;-_-'~-
-- '--" -- ._- - --------_.-.-- ----..--.----.. u .
______ ...u .._ _._.______ -----..,---~-------_.-
'r\~ ?'\c\l'(~'-
_~ .. ._.uun___..... ..-.-----..-..-.....-..
_ __' _"P ._ ____._ _,on -_.- -----'--- .--.--..--
. '-{ W ./r/T.... -...-.-.---
... .---..----- t"",-c8chec. "~I""S k \)"
.... . ._ ..--J ~ '3 ~37 I -S, JJ.~L-.L-.-e e
: .n...... .~t~~_ ~ C:.,-A~d.-01.e#
:.___n.. __rz_y..w~Y9-
-- .-. -.---.---------. .. . Copied for:
City Council
-- ----------~~._-----------_.__. City Clerk --
JLB/JDF IRW-Q
-- ___ _._ ,._.n _ -
_0- _____ .__ .. -- - ----------- ---------------.--
_.._ __ _ _._n _.----- .----
. - . .--- - ...-------.---- .-- ----5EP--& 1935 IT-E-M 15
- ~ 9- S:-CJ~
HANO~
~TE
-
.
.
Patricia Good
13363 Silver Lake Dr
Poway, CA 92064
To the Mayor of Poway,
I have lived on Silver Lake Drive now for seven years, and in all this time I have
looked out my backyard only to see a dilapidated ramshackle of an excuse for a
building and lot which, according to CUP regulations should have been repaired
twelve years ago (something I only became privy to this summer). However, criticizing
the City of Poway for trier laissez-faire attitude to the area right outside my kitchen
window is not the purpose of this letter, that of which is the park which the City of
Poway already agreed to construct on our pristine Silver Lake Parking Lot. Now it has
been decided, as two members of the City Council were absent, the park plans have
stopped.
It is common knowledge here in the neighborhood that one City Council
member met with one family to discuss the fate of the park, and that very evening
- our park plans stopped. This family claims that the park will attract gangs, drug-users
and all those bad elements of society; nevertheless, as a mother and a teacher I know
that one cannot just tell children to say "no" to drugs and gangs, children need to be
given something positive to do with their lives. A neighborhood park is just the place.
Our children will be able to play ball (something they cannot do in our under-sized
lots), network for neighborhood jobs and socialize with other families in our
neighborhood.
I am asking that the plans for the park continue. Shadily, our neighborhood had
their community center taken and now the City tells us, after already agreeing to a
park, that they may be taking it yet again. We have waited twelve years and it is about
time for the City to treat the Silver Lake neighborhood fairly.
~~
Copied for:
City Council
- City Clerk
JLB/JDF /RW-Q
SEP 5 1995 IT"'.~ 15
Ct..
.- - ~, 9- 5-95
.-
James Christenson
12733 Elm Park Lane RECEIVED,
Poway, California 92064 .
AUG 2 S 1995 ,
,
August 25, 1995 {
i
Re: CITYOFPOWAY i
Iglesia Ni Cristo and the Silver Lake Mini-Park CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I was absolutely astonished at the results of last week's City Council meeting. I find it incredible
that anyone, particularly the City Council, would deny this neighborhood its mini-park. The
church has owed this community a park for over a decade. An entire generation of children have
grown up without its park.
Let me assure you this community truly wants and needs this park. Please do not deny us our
park by listening to small group of parochial NlMBYs (not-in-my-back-yard) - people of narrow
vision, people who do not have the interest of the community as a whole in mind. A self-serving
group of our neighbors have taken it upon themselves to poll the neighborhood about the park.
They have done so in such a way as to turn uninfonned citizens against it. Their approach to me
was "this park is terrible and you don't want it, do you?" They have manipulated the neighbor-
hood by spreading misinfonnation.
The ad-hoc committee, of which I am not a member, has done an excellent job of distributing
infonnation to and collecting input from the neighborhood. They have worked long and hard to
develop this project and they have done a quality job. The input solicited from neighbors has
been used to accommodate their desires: witness the previously made changes to the park design.
There are no real reasons for not continuing with the direction that has been established: to build
this park. To do otherwise would be unconscionable.
How can anyone be against a park, particularly this one? If we don't have a park, what will we
get? A parking lot.
. Parks provide environmentally-friendly open-space. Parking lots provide hot, tarred sur-
faces and polluting cars.
. Parks provide a place of quite reflection or a place for families to play. Parking lots do not.
. Parks are beautiful. Parking lots are not.
. Parks, with their walls and sound absorbing plants, are quiet. Parking lots have hard reflec-
tive surfaces and noise producing cars.
-
. Parks open up a community to itself: people get out of their homes and meet their neigh-
bors, i~ this case the park will open up community access from Silver Lake through to
~ % ~
~ SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15
~. 9-S-9S-
Carriage; now that the fence has been removed, many. many people are walking through
and around this area. This is good. This is how community develops. The church's fenced
parking lot only divides the community with a barricade. .,
It has been suggested that we can use Star Ridge. Star Ridge Park is really not part of this com-
munity - it is not close enough for a five-year old to walk to.
It has been suggested that parks will decrease our property values. In fact, the opposite is true.
Read the real estate adds. "Close to parks" is always seen as a benefit.
It has been suggested that parking and traffic will be problems caused by this park. There are no
issues here. This is a mini-park that the neighbors will use. That's its purpose. No one is going to
drive to this park. Parking is simply not required.
It has been suggested that increased vandalism, and graffiti, and vagrancy, and drug-dealing, and
all sorts of sins will result from this park. These arguements border the silly. Parks don't cause
these problems. Look what's there now - an unkept ditch and a broken down fence.
Please take the time to review the needs and desires of the entire community and let the plans for
this great mini-park continue on as they should.
Si~~~
J a s Chris enson
.
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15
. -~ 9-5-Cf~
-
.
-
D .\lIg'hl. 1995
<:il\ Coun.:,) \/~mb~r, .
CilY "'fJ\'\\ay .
PO B." 7~:9
l'o\l~Y. C -\ 9207-1-071(9
cc': PO\lay .'\~\lS Chi~nain. San Di~go Vnion Tribun~. Sub.."OIlm1itt.:~ ~kll1l..:r,
I 3111 \lTiling 10 ~xpr~" my d~o:p r~gr~t and a/am1 at th~ Cily Coundls' d~.:ision h' s,,'aLlI~
lh,' r~qllir~ll1~nllorlh~ SilY~r Lak~ mini park from Condilional l;s~ P.:nnil (CU') K..(il. /11
><' "",ing. Ilw Cily of PO\lay is pr~paring to gi\'~ away a mini park that is h~ing d., ,,'1,',110
1 h,' LlI \ 31 "0 COST.
Th.: park \la, a r~quir~m~nt oflh~ l~s~ P~nnil so Ihal r~c,.~alion31 liS': hY Ih.: '"I1".'ll'l<llI1g
".,id..nl' \llluld b~ pr~,~\'~d. which was Ih~ original inl~nl ofth~ prop~rty ~s a r..':I,ali,\ll
wnl.:r. Th.: .:~nl~r \la, ~slablish~d as ~ompo:nsalion to \h~ flrs1 I'has.: hom.: 1\\1 n~r, "I III.:
C;o)d~n CilY n~wJopm~nl in PO\lay. Th~ir 1015 \Wr~ und~r..iz~d during ~<>l1"flI :Ii..r..
1 nl~>nunal.:l\'. Ih~ .:~nl~r was not prop~rly manag~d and f~1l inlo disr~p3ir. ..\11..1' plll\:hJSlIlg.
Ih.: pmp..l1Y wilh an I\p~n spa.:~ ~as~m~nl for th~ n~ighborhl,,>J . Th~ Igksia ~i Crish'
(,h,,,d1 :Jppli.:d lor th~ l's~ P~nnil and agr~~d to cr~al~ Ih.. park ;mJ ",,\'.. .,lIil'l
I j'P:\ '\"':lll~:n1s.
J II.: op~n spa.:.: ~a'~Il1.:nt. co\'~ing 111051 oflh~ prop~y was 10 11.. in pla.:~ IInl'\ th.. park
\la, ,.\'hpkl.:d. Th.. Cily Coun.:il n..gkCl~d 10 ~nlor.:~ \h~ p~tTllil r~quir"I11"l" Ii.,. ]:': ..aI's.
"'lI..h II' III~ Iruslralion oflh~ original and subs~qu~nl own,'rs. Is i1 (\\m kg3.ll" "...:nll'\,,' a
"c'quir~m,'nl Irom th~ I 'So' P~nnil wilhoUI pr~\'iously nOlij~'ing th~ n~ighh.)rh.ll>J in Ihis ,a'~'.'
~lIk',. .\pril I,f Ihis war. al r~411~sl of lh~ Cily Council. a suh.:,'nllnil1~.: ';"1111''''''.1 ,,1'
n.:ighhl'''', .;hll,.d, nwnho'r, and m<lnil0r~d by Ih~ Cily Planning n"'pal1lllc','1 \la, t"IIll".I
Th,' ':1'l1U11ill~.: \lork~u Ilmg and hard hours to hal111I1.:r oUl s~dlk r~quir"'lll,'r,h alld rk.i';1I
h'r 1h". park. Th~ r~quir~l1l~nls indud~d park ~quipl1l~nl. localion of\l~I~\I3:' 1.I<",k \\:1l1s
alld lands.:aping, wilh sp.:.:iaJ consid~ralion for th~ n~eds of no'ighl><ll s ill1111",diald~ adj:J.:",nl
\., Ih" par~. Th~ IgJ~sia ~i Cristo Church is now abJ~ and willing \<> 1I1~"'llI,...r ..J.\;:.,:oli..lls
..ilhl'lIl ro',eryalion. Tho' dlUr.;h is r~ady 10 donale to th~ dly ~"','f an a". ..IIa,..1 allll
:-,(ilJ.iJ\J(J ji'r imprll\'",m.:nls for Ih" park. This park was apprnwd in ~arly .\ugusl hy Ih~ <.il\
'.',,"n.:il 311er r~p~aled publi.: h~arjngs for whi.:h th~ city ~nloUll'lIblic ""Ii",'. Th;.. dl .01
wa, lllaJ.: by Ihe ndghborhood and chur.:h so Ihallh~ long awail~d r':'lUir"Ill,'nl' "r Ih,' I~"
J>..nntl would linall~' he m~1 and \h~ l~s~ P~il would nOI b.: r~Yok~d during allllllal 1',' .<"
\1 Ih.: 22 .~lIgllSI City Coun..;1 me~ting. th~ aMual r~\'i~w of C\"I' 1<"\-01 \\as Idd.
'\~ighh<lrs and chur.:h nWllb~r' ~"press~d gralilud~ 10 on~ :Inlllh..r and th~ J>lalU,ing
.- Ikp;trll11.:nl lor Ih~ su.:.:~ssji.11 work Ihal was don~ by all. Supp.)" li'r Ih.: CI'p ;111d Ilk'
.:hurd) wa, al a high. hO\l~\'o'r 2 Il~ighhors li\'ing iml1lc-dialdy n.::o.110 th,' park sol,' "hl_d..I
h' ," J<lc:Jli0n. A.llhi, point. Ihe Cily Council did an abolll fa.:", Iln Ihe park r.:qll ikll',IIL
'.11'. C~fa,!-n:J ,ugg~sl~d Ihal the park r~quir~ment for approyal ofth~ I',,: J>..n11i' h.. rel11Il\.:d
SEP 5 1995 I1f.M 15
.. ,
~ 9-S-9S;-
.
\
.
. ,.
alld Iha! Ih~ parI- b~ .:onsid~r~d a s.:parau il~m lor lala discussion, S~r~tr;Jt\..'t.i.' II"" \\.t... .
lh~ '''lI,'I\) b~ d~.:id,'d \\ilhoUI a g0wming do.:um~nlljl-~ Ih~ l's~ P,'rmit'.' Th~ I ',~ 1'~llllil
\\as aprr",,'d \\ilh0llllh~ park. .-\1 this point. som~ Cily CQuncil m"lIIb~r' st,:,,:;. sl~d 11131
lh~ Sc'v,OOO imprO\'~m.m1 mon~~' b~ us~d for 1101I~illg project). wilhin th~ cil~. ,.Ii, ,"rl. ",~
sllgg~slion, This was a bail and swil.:h mow on part orth~ Cily C,'un.:i!. W,'T~ Ih. ri"hls ",
Ih,' n~ighb0rhood ':0nsid~r~d and pfl)I~,'1~d? Can a modificalion of Ihis magnilud,' b. 1ll:ld.:
will, )lI1 a full .:ouncil \"Ol~'? This was th~ \"~. r~ason th~ n~ighbors. .:(Iuh:h and pl.lll11in~
d'l'anl1l~ll[ .:om'~n~d almosl \\'~~kly lor 4 monlhs. Th~ park was alr~ad~' app' ''..:,.. .llh1'
h.arillg a II sid", E\"id~nIJy. th. .:ommin~~ which had b~,'I1 organit,." ;It Ih,' .:il~ 's 1':'11""1
;111<1 "p~ral.d und~1 Ih. watdulll ~y~ of th~ Planning D''Partm~1II was n01 ".d,bl.: ill 111.-
...'it\ " lo:\'t:S.
rh.:" \1111 always be p~opl~ \\'ho oppos~ parks and publi.: d~,dopm~11Is '11,;, \\ ill nll[
..hang", ThaI is \\'h~ th~ cily has sponsor~d and appro\'~d many su.:h J,'""l<'p"lcnts in 'I'll,'
(,I' St'J11C' c()mplaints. Th~ .:ily knows Ih~ \'alu~ "I' parks. csreciall~ in c"mmun;li~s \\ ilh
.:hiIJr~11 and und.rsiL~d lots. .\ park is an ~asy target I'\f 'Tili,'jsm. hc.:aus.: IIILI.h ,,(if.;
\ alllc is illlallgibJ~ and onl\ m~asur~d in th~ laughur of .:hildr~n at pla~ "r n~ighl" ,rs ,1l.H i,,~
"I' l,unili~, enjoying m~als tog~lh~r. Th~r~ is no 4u~slion of Ih~ \'alu. par'" pro" id.: II' Ihe
,,"Imai,'ril' ofpeopl~ in rlli~ cily. The track r~cord of parks in l'oway is ,'ulstandin::, mh.l
p"\\;l\ cn.l"~' I'ne ,,1' the lowesl ,Time rates in th~ counly and Ihe stale, Tile tllle,";/JI/ ;,
".I,,!lIIer .1'/JII. .\Jr. Calagllo, belie,'e thi~ "Ci(r ii, the Culllltr...... i)' bel;efuetl h.... 0 lieII'
pllrl.. IIr ('011 rhe <.:il)' affortl TO rhruw 011'0.... thi~ free Iti,.,?
Th~ .:11' i, pr~paring ", r~wrs~ a decisi,," on Ihe re4uir.:J1l~nllor an apprln-ed pall- '" p.'rl ..I'
lh,' l's~ l'em,it. J-Iany "riginal ()Wn~rs in the d~\'dopm''I11 haw waited 12 years "'I' Ih.: .:;1"
I.. ,'nl~'r..: th~ Pennit. Th~ City Coun.:ils de.ision op~ns Ih~ d",'r lor th~ .:il~ h' "i.,' .\.:0\ a
lIlini parh Ihal is being giwn al .'\'0 COST 10 the cilY, That' s ri!~ht. Ih~ ,'il\ i, I',,,~,,'d 10
~i,,' a\la\" mini park wilh oY~r an a,'Te off and and S60.000 in imp""" ,'"~,,,I:. 1I.,w IIlIl.:h
;s Ih:>t \\ 1)1\11': S:50.lJOO. S30lJ.OOO, ~Ior~') A1 3 tinl~ \\'h~n Ih~ ,,:11\' i:-. 1~1' I in;.:. .\ ilh
I~sid~nts ahout how peopk SI10Uld use Ihdr land becaus~ onh~ lacl- "I' ;t\"ilahk "P"1l sf.a.,'.
.,nJ wilh hudgels b~l\h'en gray and pink. what mak~s J.lr. CalagJla Ihll1l.. I,e "an gJ\. :1\\;1\
,'ul>h,' lalld which was d~signaled Il'r th~ .:njo~m~nl of 3 whol~ "onununi,~ '.' \I",uldll'l
manY resid~nls lik~ 10 o\\n and liw on larger lots or wilh mor~ open spa.:~ if Ih,', ':',"ld
all,'rd it. \\'ell. parks help pro\ide thai op~n spac~ for many p.:ople.
l"'un,'j I \kl11b~rs. do no! den~' Ih~ residenls of th~ Gold~n City D~Y.:I"rnl"lil tit,. onl~'
':'lJlSl)!alil,"lcft 10 Ihem Je'r Ih~ Joss oflh~ir land: do not be.:om~ the City (\'uncilllJ;11tumed
d<l\\ 11 a fr~~ park whid, it carmot replac~.
.kfrB~l';Il<l
J'<'\la\. C\,
SEP 5 1995 ITEM 15 I ,
.