Item 6 - Status Rpt. re: Iglesia ne Cristo Church CUP 83-01
.. D!~TR!BU~D
,}~~... ~,., ..., .'. ..-
AGENDA RErORT SUMMARY" "'~ ~ t" ,....
-TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council -. - ....--_. .-
~ - -"o:r- ~
James L. Bowersox, City Man~ ~ 97 ....1::--.;,. (t-;<t:
)-It,; TH). ('.~
FROM:
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~~ Jl
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ng Services~
DATE: November 7, 1995
SUBJECT: Status Report regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo Church, CUP 83-01, located at
12730 Elm Park Lane, in the RS-7 zone.
ABSTRACT
Report updating progress toward completing Conditions of Approval for the Iglesia ni
Cristo Church.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
- None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
None.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
ACTION
',. .,n ....
-
HOV 7 1995 ITEM b
1 of 9
..----- ---- ---L..
.! AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members~e City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~~ Sl
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ng Services~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: November 7, 1995
SUBJECT: Status report regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo Church,
CUP 83-01, located at 12730 Elm Park Lane, in the RS-7 zone.
APN: 317-640-52
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 1983 the Poway City Council approved Conditional Use Permit CUP
83-01, which granted the use of the subject property for a church, and also
approved the design of a worship complex consisting of a 540 seat sanctuary, a
social hall and a pastoral residence under Development Review 83-06. The church
congregation began restoring existing buildings on the property and began holding
services soon after. Some of the improvements made to the buildings were done
without permits. Later permits were obtained for construction of the entry
canopy and some disabled access improvements. These permits were renewed in
1995.
The 1983 development review approval for the construction of a new worship
complex expired in mid-1985 because building permits for the construction had
never been obtained for the project. Because the church immediately began using
the property as a church and has continued to do so, the conditional use permit
remains in effect. Under this permit they are allowed to use the property to
conduct church service related activities.
The resolution approving CUP 83-01 contained conditions requiring the church to
perform improvements to the property, to dedicate an open space easement in favor
of the City and to construct a public mini-park. It further required that this
work be done by the church in the first phase of development. Trees and shrubs
were required to be installed within the existing parking area and along Silver
Lake Drive. On-site drainage improvements were required where necessary, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Services.
ACTION: I
J
2 of 9 NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6
--.-
DISTRIBL, rED 11-7-QS
Agenda Report REVISED
November 7, 1995
Page 2
During the past six months the City has been monitoring the performance of the
church in order to better evaluate the status of the use of the property and to
aid in the decision-making process regarding the construction of future expansion
of the worship complex. In July, 1995, the City Council adopted a set of interim
conditions intended to respond to the desires of the surrounding neighborhood
regarding conduct of the church operations. The interim conditions address hours
of worship, use of the facilities, parking, noise, and maintenance. . They also
laid out a timetable for the completion of improvements which were adopted with
the ori g i na 1 approval in 1983, namely the dedication of the park site and
completion of park improvements. A condition was added concerning the perimeter
fencing around the rear of the church property adjoining the rear yards of
neighbor lots fronting on Carriage Road, Papago Drive, and Silver Lake Drive.
A six-foot decorative masonry wall was required as a revised condition, in order
to provide adequate noise attenuation and privacy to these neighbors.
On August 1, 1995, the City Council approved of the design for the mini-park as
Minor Development Review 95-31, and reaffirmed approval on September 5, 1995
under MDRA 95-31R. A condition was added at the second hearing that the church
construct an eight-foot high masonry wall. At the October 17, 1995, City Council
meeting Diana Kawamoto raised the question of whether adequate notice had been
given for the hearings on the park MDRA. There is no statutory requirement for
notice on Development Reviews, but City policy is to notify adjacent property
owners for Minor Development Reviews. Not i ce of the heari ng for the mi nor
development review was sent to adjoining property owners along Silver Lake Drive~
~J,.m,"e~,r,K1Cln!!I,"!,~,!tS~R,~orners of Orohaven Lane, ~apago Drive,~ll_pjl!eV~Y
I!IJ~lt$t!P!\JBg!?J~lln)j:~J.tvfJ[{,. 31 notices of hearing ln all. One notlce went totlle
former address of an adJolning property owner because the 1994 property tax rolls
were used to generate the mailing list. That notice was returned by the Post
Office weeks after it was mailed. Notice, therefore, met the City policy.
FINDINGS
The status of the 1983 conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit and
the interim conditions imposed in 1995 is as follows:
1983 CUP Conditions'
1. An open space easement shall be granted to the City over the area of the
proposed recreational park which allows use of that area by the general
public and the park shall be improved and maintained by the applicant. An
irrevocable offer of dedication shall also be granted to the City over the
area of the proposed recreational park which shall be reviewed for
acceptance by the City Counc il three (3) years after approval. A
lThe original condition numbering has been retained. Because onditions which
related to the development review approval have not been include, the numbering
is not sequential.
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6
3 of 9
--.--.'.------- - -~------.-,----_.,----_._-_.._---
Agenda Report
November 7, 1995
Page 2
During the past six months the City has been monitoring the performance of the
church in order to better evaluate the status of the use of the property and to
aid in the decision-making process regarding the construction of future expansion
of the worship complex. In July, 1995, the City Council adopted a set of interim
conditions intended to respond to the desires of the surrounding neighborhood
regarding conduct of the church operations. The interim conditions address hours
of worship, use of the facilities, parking, noise, and maintenance. They al so
laid out a timetable for the completion of improvements which were adopted with
the original approval in 1983, namely the dedication of the park site and
completion of park improvements. A condition was added concerning the perimeter
fencing around the rear of the church property adjoining the rear yards of
neighbor lots fronting on Carriage Road, Papago Drive, and Silver Lake Drive.
A six-foot decorative masonry wall was required as a revised condition, in order
to provide adequate noise attenuation and privacy to these neighbors.
On August 1, 1995, the City Council approved of the design for the mini-park as
Minor Development Review 95-31, and reaffirmed approval on September 5, 1995
under MORA 95-31R. A condition was added at the second hearing that the church
construct an eight-foot high masonry wall. At the October 17, 1995, City Council
meeting Diana Kawamoto raised the question of whether adequate notice had been
given for the hearings on the park MDRA. There is no statutory requirement for
notice on Development Reviews, but City policy is to notify adjacent property
owners for Mi nor Development Reviews. Notice of the hearing for the minor
development review was sent to adjoining property owners along Silver Lake Drive,
Elm Park Lane, the two corners of Orohaven Lane, and Papago Drive, 31 notices of
hearing in all. One notice went to the former address of an adjoining property
owner because the 1994 property tax rolls were used to generate the mailing list.
That notice was returned by the Post Office weeks after it was mailed. Notice,
therefore, met the City policy.
FINDINGS
The status of the 1983 conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit and
the interim conditions imposed in 1995 is as follows:
1983 CUP Conditions'
1. An open space easement shall be granted to the City over the area of the
proposed recreational park which allows use of that area by the general
public and the park shall be improved and maintained by the applicant. An
irrevocable offer of dedication shall also be granted to the City over the
area of the proposed recreational park which shall be reviewed for
acceptance by the City Council three (3) years after approval. A
lThe original condition numbering has been retained. Because conditions which
related to the development review approval have not been included, the numbering
is not sequential.
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6
3 of 9
Agenda Report
November 7, 1995
Page 3
reciprocal parking agreement for ten (10) parking spaces adjacent to the
park shall also be provided to the City.
This condition has not been fulfilled.
2. Improvement of the park shall include additional grading to increase the
useable recreat i ona 1 area, landscaping for slope stabil ization and
aesthetics, basketball half-court, sand pit, swings, slides, and other
playground equipment, all to the satisfaction of the Directors of
Community and Public Services.
The design for the mini-park is complete. Working drawings have been plan
checked by City staff and are ready for the bid process. The eight foot
masonry wall which was included as a condition of approval under MDRA 95-
31R has been designed and is also being bid. A stockpile permit has been
requested from the Engineering Services Department for temporary storage
of asphalt which will be removed for park construction.
3. The park shall be maintained by the applicant at a level consistent with
that provided for City parks to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Services. A maintenance plan shall be submitted and approved by
the Director of Community Services prior to use of the property.
Because the park has not yet been constructed, this condition has not yet
have been met.
4. Should the project be phased, granting of the open space easement,
improvement and maintenance of the park shall be requirements of the first
phase.
The church construction was not begun, therefore the requirement that the
park be done in conjunction with phase one has not been an issue.
5. The City will relinquish the existing open space easement over the
remainder of the property in return for compliance with Conditions 1, 2
and 3 above with the cost of vacation proceedings to be borne by the
applicant.
It is now the recommendation of the City Attorney that the easement not be
abandoned but rather that the church be allowed to be built under the
easement.
6. Within sixty (60) days of the approval of this permit, the applicant shall
secure the existing toilet/shower building and within 120 days the
exterior of the building shall be restored and all debris (weeds and man-
made materi a 1 ) shall be removed. During the time period needed to
complete these requirements, the applicant sha 11 provide security
personnel at the site on a 24 hour basis. All of the above requirements
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Safety Services.
NaV 7 1995 ITEM .6
4 of 9
Agenda Report
November 7, 1995
Page 4
The buildings 1 isted in this condition have either been demolished or
rehabilitated, and have been inspected by both Building Inspection and
Safety Services Departments for safety.
8. Existing solid fencing on the site shall be repaired where necessary and
repainted. Slats shall be installed in the existing chainlink fence along
the west, north, and east sides of the church adjacent to the rear yards
of existing residences.
This requirement was modified in 1995 to require a block wall which has
been installed.
I.H.l. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for property line
clearances considering use, area and fire-resistiveness of existing
buildings.
Please refer to Item #6 above.
I.H.2. Existing building(s) shall be made to comply with current Building
and Zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be
demolished.
Please refer to Item #6 above.
Not all building and/or zoning regulations have been complied with.
1995 Interim Conditions
l. 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.
Both the statement and covenant have been executed and returned to the
City.
2. The use conditionally granted by this permit shall not be conducted in
such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of
surrounding residential and commercial uses.
There have been operation of early morning worship services held on
Thursday and Sunday mornings before 6:30 a.m., in violation of the interim
conditions. There have been instances reported by neighbors, in which
church youth have congregated on the property very early in the morning
during the sUDlller (5:15 a.m.) to organize group outings, and in the
process wakened sleeping neighbors. There have also been instances
reported where some older youth members have caused some confrontation
with neighborhood youth, and where the Sheriff was called to respond to
loud noise in the middle of the night within the church buildings. These
problems and concerns were raised to church representatives by members of
the Ad Hoc Committee, but no satisfactory responses were forthcoming.
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6
5 of 9
-----~.- ---~-~.
Agenda Report
November 7, 1995
Page 5
3. This conditional use permit shall be subject to a bi-monthly, then
quarterly review by the Director of Planning Services for compliance with
the conditions of approval and to address concerns that may have occurred
duri ng the past year. I f the permi tis not in comp 1 i ance wi th the
conditions of approval, or the Planning Services Department has received
complaints, the next required review before the City Council shall
consider modification or revocation of the use permit.
1... THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK:
1. Site preparation and any necessary demolition work for the park shall
begin by August 22, 1995.
Demolition has not begun.
2. Construction of the park shall begin by September 18, 1995.
Construction has not begun.
lL. CHURCH OPERATIONS:
1. Hours of use of the premises shall be limited to between 6:30 a.m. and
10:00 p.m. No one, other than two designated persons who will prepare the
building for services, shall be permitted to arrive before 6:25 a.m.
Choir practice and assembly of deacons for prayer service have
consistently been taking place before 6:30 a.m. Recently, church officers
have been positioned at parking lot entrances to discourage worshipers
from entering before 6:20, but they have parked on the streets.
2. No outside activities including, but not limited to, social events, shall
continue after 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, or 11:00 p.m. on Friday
and Saturday. (The parking lots are to be empty at these times.)
Outdoor noise has occurred.
3. No outside amplified sound shall be permitted at any time.
The church has complied with this requirement.
4. Noise levels shall not exceed 45 decibels at any time, when measured at
the property line adjoining a residential lot.
Noise levels have not been measured.
5. No special outdoor events shall be conducted on the property without an
approved temporary use permit from the City of poway and written consent
from all adjoining property owners/ residents.
No temporary use permits have been requested by the church for special
events.
NaV 7 1995 ITEM 6
6 of 9
Agenda Report
- November 7, 1995
Page 6
ilL. SITE IMPROVEMENTS:
1. A six-foot high tan slump block wall shall be installed by the church at
the rear property lines of the homes which back up to the church property.
Work shall begin by August IS, 1995.
The start of construction of the wall was delayed due to funding delays.
Construction commenced briefly, then stopped suddenly and didn't begin
again for several weeks. Work is now complete, pending final building
inspection on sections of the wall along the east, north and west property
11 nes. The S' masonry wall along the southern property line, which was
required in conjunction with the park approval, has not yet been started.
2. Gradi ng shall be accompl ished and fixtures installed as required to
correct existing drainage problems over the rear yards of adjoining homes
fronting Silver Lake Drive, which originate on the church's property.
Work shall be started by August IS, 1995.
Work is complete on this item.
ll....... TRAFFIC AND PARKING:
1. No on-street parking shall be permitted.
On-street parking has occurred at times on both Elm Park and Silver Lake
Drive.
2. Church attendees shall park in paved parking lots only.
Church attendees have parked on the streets.
3. Speed humps shall be installed at the exit of each existing parking lot to
control excessive speed when leaving the parking area.
This requirement has not been fulfilled.
I.. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE:
GENERAL:
1. Maintain standard size trash dumpsters inside a six-foot high solid wood
enclosure, with painted, solid wood gates.
The trash enclosure is completed.
2. Pedestrian access to Papago Drive shall be closed. The easement shall be
vacated, and deeded to both adjoining residential properties. This shall
be accomplished by August 22, 1995.
With the completion of the property line wall the access has been closed.
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6 ,
7 of 9
---. --._-- --"--
Agenda Report
November 7, 1995
Page 7
3. After each use of the premises, police the grounds and parking areas for
trash. Provide adequate trash containers and ash cans on the property.
Do not throw trash, cigarette butts or any other item into neighbor's
yards and/or streets.
The property appears to be free from trash and debris except for that
remaining from the construction of the perimeter wall.
4. No outdoor storage of materials is permitted.
There is still a pile of materials being stored outside on the west side
of the upper building pad.
LANDSCAPING:
The plant materials and lawns shall be maintained in a healthy, thriving
condition free of weeds, trash and debri s as provided in the Poway
Municipal Code.
Plant materials and lawns are generally in good condition, a lthough a
large part of the upper pad is disturbed because of the construction
activity on the wall.
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH:
The church shall maintain representatives to meet twice per month with a
neighborhood subcommittee of two or more residents to review improvements
and discuss any ongoing problems.
The church representation originally consisted of the pastor, head deacon,
members of the church and two construction representatives. At the last
two meetings with the neighborhood, the construction representatives were
the only church representatives.
PROPOSED NEW CHURCH
A design has been submitted for the new worship complex. The application is
considered to be incomplete, pending a traffic impact analysis which will be
conducted by an independent consultant, a current title report, and a number of
other material items. The neighborhood previewed the church designs at an
outdoor meeting held on the church patio on September 26, 1995. Coment sheets
were distributed to the neighborhood audience in an effort to solicit reactions
to the proposal. The initial responses repeatedly emphasized the neighborhood's
discomfort with the overall size of the building and, in particular, seating for
400 worshipers. Suggestions as to an appropriate size were offered, with the
preferred numbers being between 200-250 persons. The other major concern voiced
by nearby residents was regarding the overall building height of the sanctuary.
The main roofline was designed to 31 feet, with front and rear parapets reaching
35 feet, and containing three spires, the center one measuring 55 feet to the
top. The sentiment is that the building is too tall when compared wi th
surrounding residences. They preferred a much smaller and shorter building
overa 11 .
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6
8 of 9
Agenda Report
November 7, 1995
Page 8
--
The church's design team presented possible color options from which to choose
and encouraged neighbors to give their preferences. The color package submitted
for staff review is a combination of soft earthtones, tans, cream and beige, with
a dark terra cotta tone standing seam metal roof.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
None.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:kls
E:\CITY\PLANNING\REPORT\IGLESIA.UD
-
Nav 7 1995 ITEM .Q
9 of 9
--- -- -_.- _._---,._..~._------
The KawamoroFrTR~~:,-TED //-7 :CIS:
12706 Robison Blvd. ,"". '0"' .. >.
Poway, CA 92064
(619) 748-4182
November 5, 1995 RECEIVEl
Poway City Council Members and NOV - 6 1995
Jim Bowersox, City Manager
City of Poway CITY~~~t~WAY
Poway, California 92074
OFFICE
Dear City Council:
I have been before this Council before concerning the issues surrounding Lot 100 of
Golden City Unit No.1 and the Iglesia ni Cristo Church. Once again we are reviewing
the status of the Church and CUP 83-01. As the residents in the neighborhood
continue to report, and the Planning Department continues to note in their files, the
Church continues to violate the conditions of the CUP. For the last twelve years, the
Church has used "lack of funds" as the explanation for non-compliance with these
conditions. While financial hardship in understandable, it is not acceptable -- not for
twelve years! They have been given every opportunity to comply, but continue to use
the same reason year after year.
For twelve years the Church has not abided by the rules set down first by the County
of San Diego and then by the City of Poway. They have ignored serious
requirements, like building and occupancy permits. They have ignored even simple
requirements which have nothing to do with any financial outlay, such as landscape
maintenance, operating times, parking restrictions, and noise control.
The City of Poway appears to be continuing to allow these violations to occur without.
punitive action. It seems, therefore, almost a waste of effort to continue to have bi-
monthly reviews of this matter. If they didn't comply before, and aren't complying
now, why would we think they would suddenly change this twelve year pattern and
begin to comply in the future?!?
In the latest Status Report regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo Church dated November 7th,
page 4, number 8, states "This requirement was modified in 1995 to require a block
wall which has been installed." The Report further states on page 6, item number 1,
that "work is now complete, pending final building inspection." If the building
inspection has not been completed, the wall cannot be considered done. Also, after
a walk around the property as of November 5th, the wall appears visually to still be
incomplete. The Status Report is, therefore, incorrect.
It's right there, in your own report!! The Church is not abiding by the rules and
regulations set before them. They are not residential friendly! Therefore, I
recommend that the City Council revoke the CUP once and for all and end this twelve
year trend of non-compliance.
~r~ \{~
Diana Kawamoto ~ ITEM.6
NOV 7 1995
--,...---------------.--.-
~. -.-----"----
d~ -4- .~i ..:r~t7 p~ .l>A4..J. o~"""'''4J:-''
r~~ r.fl ~A;:" V>?..i C _.;/~ -<~~_ 'i)."u~ T~
~~"d.J /YUO~.").~ T;''24/<~ ..l:.....~
~L--l._ ,'1/7~<- --.., g..tL~d-~
-~..~ ~<' t:? tt .-... ...<~/ -z:&A<7...M.Lf.1tJ. ;oJ, Z
'2. 00 - "3 OOJZ.-- ..'7::;..a../ ___.A ~ .A1 ~ .."..} J -
RZ i{} s.,,~
'.t-W. S'" U4~
/""?36'1 ,/W,t:PLAkl< DJt!.
P~w.~ C..t _ &J]..L'J{;J./
..
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6. ...
~./~ ~.~ P7'J ~ ~.v-J.
tJH-. o-.sL-. ~c/.., A-I- ~ c>L.. '-~
J-f. "':>f! 0'.,.
4~::=,~-a~<-;:;
J~~ $I <;'-/- - J~.
NOV 7 1995 ITEM b. ..
'--~'-'-----'-'-'",,----,-~,---
----- - ----~--- ----
. ,
,
)
)
"
) i
,
,
) ,
11- s- 7~
'\ ~! R,~7 (7..j ! (!o~ t I
I
- eIC. i
) e... (. i
t=b....::lc.."f' . I
- ) CA. ,
,
- 1
~~c..t= T'j I~Slo 'u1 C!.I,05+o i
:-) ,
,
,
,
i ) -~ !' A"'-Lp".~~ rJ./f! Ch..,c "'. 'j;" -1. -'I! l'd,,~c.~ I
,
'3 i
l__ ~b" ~-4 I~ u:: "rl'9~O"";~ "T#~ ~AI2.(~ A~ (..ArG ,
,
cJ. ~.c- ../.." ..,. 7J~ ~1$~ ,
W .n.JA-My, ...,/
-) "'!€_~Jl!>.iD __.UE.'1.!ElC< .Ji:' 1").t' ~k;,s: P,,"-I(/~ """
,
?A~f"<C..,I; THo _r,..(ltc,s t!>r '1',(", ~It~..<~ /q ",:)/~ i
I I
-"
)--~'"_._.- 7),,, _.:fJ",f:{,~__~_'$~.s _ oN~",_~!:.~~~~lr,..~{....,':4.'(. .
I~ ~ rr.""~__~~1S_otii..a-/ /?",.rl,v~ r
1 ) -...- 1'f!) ;TNe: s 7i/~iFT
)--. ~L.6Lt:7" -";-P~-i'~L-v:.q- ~~~L.LIri\ l4uc"" f/'"
-_.- -'- I......C'.!.fA5.~.(' rr.,.f,r,~ c:....~1 AJiJI' '5[ I,&' TI-I* c.A",...~ t.. J'
.I ,
__ _______ __"____ At.Q....,~~_tt;-5;2.!1.~b... / ;(,- .....1..:/ -:- Jftfr~,Al.S7 rl'fE c~&.t~cl... ~
) ...-
_~___'_' _"t-.!S~c,r _K ,T~ I.F~~.._E.~_.~c....7 .T AA# 66//Jo ~~NC.~Jt_t" lr
, !
<:--' . .-- . !....$.c,,",-T rWE "T~E'N,-,~t&-JC~ LC~...!lJlJk. -. t!.Ac.o't:.~ "h""'~
~- ~.."..I b.3... I It ,'V...,._._Ac-_J4!r~! .r~. A"~ :T ~lfr.lC At Jt~lfb v I
. ,.
,~..- '!.1 --., -I..,1;'~kr 151c,,(,n ~If... (' o-r- "I ......... <AA.c/..,
.........n "'-~ Ac"".I..L. A...s ~~4..rZ€~,.,,~a m Ar ~"'t:li,... /...,(..
--~ ,
\ '"..., ~-I ~ '* /'h. / , .6 t:,(."ct. ,.,.._ ,I,,,...s .,,1,./ '!lII~r D f
~ ~ .____ ._,1.""_- .---
,
- -H.e4 ,,~ I ,t' c....t! 5''-'~. '" .5~ ./ ,I.. cJ..,. ~ '/')'7
.
- n"'ec 1-0 ~ "--r- ",r rl'lr CI.fv,"c" Z """~...~k-.,,.1 .,.~. IJ--f
,~ ~ 6e ...."'('.' <0.
- .,.,J .. '\..-J ecr~-.4(t..~-.1 ...,..~~ ~I" C(JI-f_t.4/v.-I'y
,
\. A../ 11-.1 ..;;...:1 If sk..../J ",(".I I>r, "" "d f......,J
'"-;;: -Jd. 1$ :&
{ul I n. b.....
NOV 1995 ITEM h
-.-;10-'. ~ .i. .". .
-
.....,. ~. .~,-:o;;.~ ' ......:.
. ~1"
~
12603 Orohaven Ln.
Poway, CA
To whom it may concern,
I am an original homeowner of Golden City Unit No.1. As such, I have
a vested right to access to Lot No. 1 OO--not just the part the present church
structure is not using--but to the whole 3.2 acres. This is what I was
promised when I bought my home, and this is what I expect. Lot No. 100
was intended to be used for recreational purposes only. Not just for a
chosen few, but for all those who own a home in Golden City Unit No.1.
I was never infonned about a church buying the above said property, nor
was I ever asked permission to relinquish my rights to the property. I do not
intend to give up my open space easement rights to Lot 100.
~ I understand that Iglesia ni Cristo is generously offering to build a 1/2 acre
mini-park on Lot 100, in an attempt to appease the homeowners for taking
their 3.2 acres. I do not see that as a fair trade. Besides, why haven't I been
asked what my feelings are on this issue.
Just because Lot No. 100 was gradually mishandled, does not make it
legal nor ethical. I request the city of Poway respect its residents' rights
by returning Lot No.1 00 to its intended use by the developer of Golden City Unit 1.
J{~ ~I
~~JJ;.
~. (]. J,iA
718-73gC;
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6 .
. ,
)
I "
I 1.':311 (1--^.A~rr' ~. !
I ""?
,
. ^u r.p..... ;NrfP
! ,
,
l- .,., (<n~"'~~A..1?~""/'\ ~ I
;
~P. t7~r4"~- r:.L<it7 OCZ/II6_"M_<;r.~"""1'<<7 ~10.J
t-- -
\
i J
i d,<M-tAJ .:%AA~/ -r4.L~ ,4..-:.:r, - .
, I :
, : '1~~. /~+ --".u.~.q"--' :'cr) ~...J ./-7/. .h..:r~
~"~7;;~^(--'A~eo ~~"'-" ,..J!.l'~~~ ~J"A~."---.Q h.A-'
, .
, ~J' -....r ~,,,-,,, ~'-(~~ _ O...u.., r.>:;J:;, 'tZ L7"A p<~-,,~ A".-Q
, -
I """,.....I'l .1'17 ~...rucY TAJ{); ~~tF-.." ~..J1..17 ;7."
'~~-4oCJ.}~ ./~~ /I..n A..-'\ ~.M1.j.T4""> ~,,*
; 96~o J2aJ/(?-; ~_:~_J1I"../:~'=" ~"'-t.A&e.Lj
i
I
l~ ~ h 7r --r./J ~. --<'4H ~ A"'__
... rt"'~~~ "J b^*
I
i /..ul.J~ ~.A --.. '3 ,:'J " U,. ...:.. T;;~_ ~~cI'l ~./
! 0-
---i~~~: A,t< ~~ 't"'->l{g --;,..:... P'
"'~.A.P~
i c.5....;:<<".c.~ ' -
) . .
I
!
.. .. .~
1
, ,
November 5, 1995 Re: Iglesia ni Cristo
Page 1 of 2
To whom it may concern:
Over the past several months the neighborhood around the
property which the Iglesia ni Cristo Church occupies has been in
unrest. The proposed expansion of the church has many residents
concerned about the damage a large church w ill cause to our
neighborhood, To ease our concerns, the city implemented a
number of restrictions on the church. From our experience we
feel the church has not been meeting their obligations. Iglesia
ni Cristo continues to be inconsiderate at best of the
neighborhood in which it has been given the privilege to reside.
The City of Poway needs to understand that a large church does
not belong in this small neighborhood.
Our property runs along side an easement (a walkway) w.hich
we have been told is to be deeded from the city to us. At a
neighborhood update meeting on September 26, 1995, Associate
Planner, Mary Jo Van Dyke said that this property now belongs to
us. When we inquired as to the whereabouts of the deed that
would confirm her statement, she replied that the paperwork would
follow shortly and we could divide the walkway between us and our
neighbor whenever we wanted. To remove the cement walkway and
reconstruct the fence would create out-of-pocket expenses we feel
we should not have to incur because of the church. Ms. Van
Dyke's reply was, .'Then just leave it as it is. ,. When we pointed
out that we would be liable if someone were to get hurt in the
walkway, Ms. Van Dyke said, "Then board it up. " As of yet we
have not received any paperwork stating we have rights to this
walkway. We also do not have the necessary financial resources
to rebuild.
The City of Poway placed Iglesia ni Cristo under strict
operating hours. We know of numerous occasions when the church
has operated well before and after these regulations.
In general the church continues to treat the neighborhood
without regard. Take the issue of the slump-block wall which is
under construction. A "Notice of Construction" was placed on our
front door in Mid-August. This notice states that the contractor
hired by the church would work Mondays through Fridays 7:00am to
5:00pm. On numerous occasions which we have kept record of, the
crews have continued working well past 5:00pm during the week,
and have worked most Saturdays all day. This continues without
further communication from the contractor or the church to the
neighbors. After a full week of workers roaming right behind our
home, we look forward to the weekends for solitude, only to
endure further commotion. ITEM
NOV 7 1995 .6
^___.___,..w_~_._.___~.__,...~_.._~_ .-------.-. ~--_..__.._~-"-,------
,
November 5, 1995 Re: Iglesia ni Cristo
Page 2 of 2
The "Notice of Construction " also states the common fence
would be removed before the wall was built. We had to verbally
request the common fence to be removed three times, only to have
the fence removed and the metal poles still in place, left for us
to remove. In watching the construction of the wall. we have
noticed that it is poorly built. We have taken photos which
illustrate this point.
We feel the issue of the Open Space Easement to Lot 100
should be further investigated by Mayor Higginson and the Poway
City Council. This neighborhood has vested rights to Lot 100 and
should not forfeit these rights in exchange for a large church
and a small token "park". Rather, Iglesia ni Cristo should be
asked to find another location which would better suit their
needs, and Lot 100 should be used for recreational use as it was
originally intended. I am sure Mayor Higginson and our City
Council members are in office to serve the people of Poway. They
are committed to protect our neighborhoods so our children will
to have a safe and peaceful environment to live in. The people
of this neighborhood deserve it.
RespeC~llY submitted,
, ''''1
~1~~
" - is & ~erri Parkllan
12731 Papago Drive
Poway. CA 92064
#748-4609
NOV 7 1995 ITEM 6
,
I
I
!
June 14. 1995 Re: Iglesia ni Cristo
Page 1 of 2
To whom it may concern.
OUr family moved into our home exactly one year ago this month. In this
year we have experienced many situations that have concerned us about the group,
the Iglesia ni Cristo. This group's property sits back to back wi th our
property. There is also a walkway connecting the church property to Papago Drive
which runs along our property. On a weekly basis we experience ongoing problems.
When it was brought to our attent ion that this group plans to expand their
exist ing bui lding and services, it alarmed us. We live in a small, quiet
neighborhood. A large church does not belong in our neighborhood. Currently,
the Iglesia ni Cristo group is creat ing havoc in our neighborhood. Following are
some of our experiences with Iglesia ni Cristo:
1. On numerous occasions. our driveway has been obstructed by cars parking
near the walkway to the church.
2. On an ongoing basis. there is trash thrown into our front, back. and side
yards. Candy wrappers, soda cans. cigarette butts, half-eaten food,
socks, etc. Most of the trash is thrown over the fence from the wall-way
into our back yard.
J. The youth. who frequent Iy use the walkway for access to the church
grounds. have been loud and disruptive. They often yell and scream, and
on occasion have shot off popguns in the walkway. The church does not
take responsibility for maintaining their walkway.
4. The congregation uses the church yard as one big parking lot. They park
their cars on the grass area that backs up against our back-yard fence,
even though they have a paved parking lot. This group worships late into
the night, sometimes as late as mid-night. The group also worships early
morning before the sun rises during the week. As these people leave their
services and go to their cars. they are not considerate of the neighbors.
They will shout to one another, and have many times honked their car horns
at all hours. The headlights from the cars that park on the grass, flash
right into our bedroom windows.
5. As the group expands, the increase of street traffic will be a BIG
problem. OUr neighborhood has a large number of families with children.
If our roads become high-traffic roads, it will be unsafe for our children
to play.
NOV 7 1995 ITEM b
. -_._--,._._~--_. -..---------
,
Re: Iglesia ni Cristo
Page 2 of 2
6. After we moved into our home, we found we had little privacy due to the
Iglesia ni Cristo group. We constantly have to deal with people peering
into our backyard through the holes in our wood fence, as well as people
mulling around their cars when they are parked along our back fence. We
are concerned that our limited privacy will be totally taken away with the
building of a new church building over one story. A tall building will
allow upper story windows to look right down into our home.
In conclusion, it has been our observation that the Iglesia ni Cristo has
demonstrated great negl igence in car ing for and maintaining their existing
grounds. Further, Iglesia ni Cristo has fai led to demonstrate any care or
concern for the consideration of the people in our neighborhood. It is our
opinion that expansion of Iglesia ni Cristo would be further damaging to our
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Chris and Terri Parkllan
12731 Papago Drive
Poway, CA 92064
#748-4609
NOV 7 1995 ITEM 6
, .
I
Cathy Francis, SPHR ~ff ~ C-/
12724 Robison Blvd.
Poway, California 92064
(619) 748-6857
November 6, 1995
City Council Members RECEIVED
City of Poway NOV'7 1995
P.O. Box 789
Poway, California 92074-0789 CITY OF POWAY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICI!
RE: CUP 83-01 -- Iglesia ni Cristo Status Report
Dear City Council:
We know that the history of Lot 100 of Golden City Unit No.1 has been filled with
a long string of fiascos, the longest of which has been the last twelve years. This
implausible chain began when the City of Poway granted a CUP to Lot 100 allowing
a church to reside on land that was intended to be used for recreational purposes for
the homeowners of the neighborhood. Setting that issue aside for a moment, let's
concentrate on what has transpired during the last twelve years.
The City of Poway Planning Department has a file more than six inches thick of
records related to this property. Year after year, correspondence shows that the
Iglesia ni Cristo Church, which took ownership of the property, continued to fail to
comply to the original conditions set before them. Before they bought the land, they
agreed to these conditions, yet for twelve years they failed to fulfill them.
Here we stand today with a copy of yet another piece of correspondence for the ever-
bulging file. This status report dated November 7th recaps some of the events taking
place on Lot 100.
. Under "background," your report reveals that some of the improvements made
to the buildings were done without permits. What does this tell us about the
entity that we are dealing with?
. Page 2 of the report states that the City has been monitoring the performance
of the Church for the past six months. Not truer Look at your files and you
will find that, although it hasn't been done properly, you have been monitoring
the Church's NON-performance for the last twelve years.
. The report further states that in July 1995, the City "adopted a set of interim
conditions" for the Church to follow. Think about this a moment. ----- They
haven't followed the first set of conditions you gave them. So you gave them
MORE conditions, which again they have not complied with.
. An issue of inadequate notice was brought to the Council's attention. This
report states that proper notice WAS given to the adjoining property owners
and boldly states that property owners along Silver Lake Drive, Elm Park Lane,
NOV 7 1995 ITEM .6
._---, -----
, .
. Papago Drive, and two corner houses on Orohaven were notified. Your own
report reveals that improper notice was made. What about the homeowners
that share a property line with Lot 100 on Robison Blvd.17? They did not
receive notices and your own report reveals this fact.
. Every page of the report reflects condition after condition of "not fulfilled" or
"condition not met. " Does anyone besides me see a trend or pattern in this?
If you check the deluge of paper in your own files, you see this trend has
existed for twelve years.
. On page 3 of the report, the City Attorney now makes a recommendation NOT
to abandon the open space easement on the property. I can only thank our
neighbors who diligently researched the history of this land and aided in making
us aware of our vested rights. If they had not brought this important fact
before the City Council, it surely would have been given away without our
permission or knowledge.
. Under the "1995 Interim Conditions" section of the report, page 4, item #2
states that use "shall not be conducted in such a manner as to interfere with
the reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding residential" homeowners.
Again, your own report responds to this condition with a list of violations that
have continued throughout this period. This item further reveals that the
Church had "no satisfactory response" to these violations when they were
brought to their attention. Does this sound like a neighbor who is trying to
build goodwill or make amends for twelve years of neglect?
. Page 5, item #3, restates that the CUP is subject to a bi-monthly, then
quarterly review, and if not in compliance, consideration would be made to
modify or revoke the use permit. It shouldn't take any more bi-monthly reviews
or quarterly reviews for the Council to see what's been going on here. Your
own report tells you clearly throughout its entire eight pages that the occupant
of Lot 100 is not fulfilling its obligations to the City and it's not being a good
neighbor.
Council Members, I urge you to read your own report. Look at the files that have built
up over the years concerning this property. You'll find twelve years of complaints
from neighbors, twelve years of your staff trying to get the Church to comply to the
original conditions, and twelve years of disharmony in our neighborhood. It shouldn't
take any more reviews or any more status reports to help you reach your decision.
It doesn't take a high school graduate to solve this problem. The answer is right here
in your report. If you look within yourselves, you'll also find that the answer is there
as well. It's time to put this issue to rest. Revoke the CUP.
~L
Cathy Flancis
Homeowner & Resident of Golden City Unit No.1
- NOV 7 1995 ITEM 6
I