Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/1994, 1 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE USE PERMIT U 135-93, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A RELIGIOUS FACILITY IN THE R-1 ZONE ON A LOT LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF JOHNSON AVENUE AND BISHOP STREET (2211 JOHNSON AVENUE). IIIII�IIIIVIIIII�III�,IIpp� VJ f _ MEETING GATE: piu�u�► c� o san suis oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: WNGe i FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Directo -69 Fe, A! By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action to approve Use Permit U 135-93, a request to allow a religious facility in the R-1 zone on a lot located near the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street (2211 Johnson Avenue). CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution labeled Exhibit A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to approve Use Permit U 135-93 to allow a Jewish synagogue at 2211 Johnson Avenue. DISCUSSION Situation An application was filed on September 17., 1993 by the Temple Ner Shalom to establish a Jewish synagogue on the R-1 lot that is approximately 8,000 square feet in area. Synagogues are a conditionally allowed use in the R-1 zone and require the approval of a Planning Commission use permit. The proposal includes remodeling the existing 1,777 square-foot house and adding a 1,904 square-foot, two-story addition as a sanctuary and meeting rooms. Previous Review On December 29, 1993, the Planning Commission considered the use permit and conditionally approved it on a 3-2-2 vote. Findings for approval.cited that the small size of the Temple's congregation would minimize compatibility impacts (see attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 5130-93 and minutes). During the public hearing, testimony was received from both members of the Temple in support of the request, and also from neighbors opposing the establishment of the synagogue at this location. Temple representatives discussed the unique characteristics of their congregation's worship practices in the context-of mitigating compatibility issues. A petition was presented at the hearing that was signed by 21 neighbors in opposition of establishing the synagogue at this proposed location. Staff had recommended that the Planning Commission deny the use permit based primarily on compatibility issues because of the small size of the site and the lack of an effective buffer between the proposed synagogue and adjacent residences. Noise, traffic safety and parking issues were all raised as potential problems with the establishment of a synagogue at the site. The Planning Commission report prepared for the December 29, 1993 hearing �����►�Hi�IIIII�IIP° I�II1 city of San Cues OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT se erm, Page 2 is attached. The report provides background information and describes staff's assessment of compatibility issues and potential impacts. ADueals Filed On January 5, 1994, an appeal was filed by Susan Akers Graves who owns adjacent properties at 1365 Bishop and a vacant flag lot behind the proposed synagogue. Terry Stambler-Wolfe,the attorney for Ms.Akers Graves,prepared a letter (attached) for the City Council which expands on the basis for the submitted appeal. The letter outlines her client's main concerns with the request which are: the thoroughness of the traffic analysis in the initial environmental study; the shared parking arrangement; legal issues with the common driveway arrangement; and the Planning Commission's action to approve the synagogue without limitations on occupancy or hours of operation. A second appeal was filed on January 7, 1994, by Laura and Jeff Brewer, the owners of the adjacent property to the south at 2253 Johnson Avenue. Their appeal statement lists the following as reasons that they do not support the use: hazardous traffic situation; lack of on- site parking and the use of off-site parking; small size of the property exacerbating compatibility concerns; and the addition of another non-residential use to the neighborhood. Response to Issues Raised by Stambler-Wolfe Letter Traffic The first concern brought out in the letter was with the adequacy of the environmental analysis,specifically with the quantification of noise and traffic impacts. The traffic analysis was based on the project description which indicates that 5 on-site parking spaces will be developed and the remainder of the parking requirement (23 spaces) will be provided off- site at the Bishop Medical Plaza across the street from the synagogue site. The initial study concludes that trip generation from the use (applicant's statement indicates that on average there will not be more than 40 worshippers) will not significantly impact traffic levels on Johnson Avenue. The 28 required parking spaces should adequately accommodate the planned number of worshippers (some cars would likely carry more than one worshipper). 1988 City traffic counts indicate that Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along Johnson Avenue is approximately 11,500 vehicle trips and that the street operates at a Level of Service (LOS) A. Traffic generated by the synagogue represents an insignificant proportion of ADT. The bulk of the required parking spaces will be provided in a lot that is accessed by a signalized intersection. The intersection was recently upgraded to provide pedestrian actuation; this addresses the issue of safety for pedestrians crossing the street between the synagogue site and off-site parking. ����n�i�IIIUIIIII�II�InIIUIU City Of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Use Permit U 13543 Page 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were not relied upon in the initial study because of their questionable relevance to the review of the particular project being evaluated. With the bulk of the required parking provided off-site, staff believed that traditional analysis was not entirely applicable. However, to respond to concerns with not providing a comparison of trip generation rates for a house versus a synagogue in the initial study, the following discussion is provided. The generally accepted ADT standard for a single-family house is 10 trips. The synagogue would typically have light traffic use during most of the week with peaks on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. The ITE trip generation factors for churches and synagogues is prefaced by the warning that additional data is needed to draw valid conclusions and that the differences in individual worship characteristics for various religious organizations need to be taken into account. However, for illustrative purposes and to provide a documented estimate of synagogue trip generation using ITE standards, the peak hour generation rate for a church on Sunday was used to determine that the peak hour trips for the synagogue would be 30. 30 trips is generally consistent with the amount of parking required by City standards and would not alter conclusions about impacts to street LOS on Johnson Avenue. Noise The noise discussion in the initial study indicated that there would be occasional increased noise levels at the site of short duration with people coming to and leaving the site. The study suggested that limiting hours of operation and occupancy levels in the building were ways to help mitigate noise impacts to neighbors. There is no real practical scientific means of estimating the expected increase in intermittent noise levels of this type since they are dependent on such a wide variety of factors and noise levels will vary. Building Massing A conceptual drawing was submitted by the applicant showing the general height and massing of the existing building and planned addition. This sectional drawing illustrates a structure that conforms with property development standards included in the zoning regulations. Staff disagrees with the contention made in the letter that the ARC is not equipped to deal with issues of building massing, privacy and protection of view corridors. Off-Site Parking In staff's review of the Bishop Medical Center address file and planned development file, there was no evidence of any special parking arrangements that had been made that lowered the overall parking requirement for the medical offices or would provide an impediment to the Temple's shared use of the off-site parking spaces. I--3 ��► i ►►tul{Illlllll� ���lll city of San iuis OBIspo nia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT se ermi Page 4 Common Driveway Issues A letter from Jerry Kenny dated 1-31-94 is attached which addresses some of the questions presented in the letter regarding the requirements for installing the common driveway. Conclusion Staff originally recommended against approval because of the compatibility issues that the site's small size and mid-block location raised. However, a majority of the Planning Commission was persuaded that compatibility concerns could be mitigated and the use permit was approved. Findings for use permit approval cited that the small size of the congregation and the relatively infrequent use of the site by larger groups as reasons that compatibility issues were adequately addressed. Staff in its report to the Planning Commission prepared findings and conditions for approval of the use permit (see Pages 6-8 of Attachment 10). Staff's recommended conditions included restrictions on occupancy and hours of operation that the Planning Commission chose to eliminate. The City Council may wish to reinstate Conditions 1 and 2 as shown in the Planning Commission report if they support the use, but feel that further controls need to be placed on the use to address the neighbors' compatibility concerns. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the draft resolution labeled Exhibit B, upholding the appeal and denying the use permit based on findings. 2. Continue with direction to the staff, the applicant and the appellants. Attached: Attachment 1: Draft Resolutions Attachment 2: Appeal to City Council received 1-5-94 Attachment 3: Appeal to City Council received 1-7-94 Attachment 4: Letter from Marguerite Maxwell dated 1-15-94 Attachment 5: Letter from Jerry Kenny dated 1-31-94 Attachment 6: Petition from neighbors received at 12-29-93 Planning Commission meeting Attachment 7: Letters submitted at 12-29-93 Planning Commission meeting Attachment 8: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5130-93 Attachment 9: 12-29-93 Planning Commission minutes Attachment 10: 12-29-93 Planning Commission report and attachments 1- ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A JEWISH SYNAGOGUE AT 2211 JOHNSON AVENUE (U 135-93) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the staff report, public testimony, the appellants' statements and the Planning Commission's action, denies the appeal based on the following findings: 1. Because of the small size of the congregation and the infrequency of its use of the site, the proposed temple use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The temple use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses because potential noise and visual impacts can be effectively addressed through architectural review. 3. The proposed uses conform to the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed off-site and joint use parking is appropriate at the proposed location, being within the prescribed 300 feet from the uses and not separated from the uses by any feature which would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 3, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission: a. In its review and consideration of the required use permit, the Planning Commission shall consider including conditions limiting hours of operation and the maximum occupancy of the building to � � S City Council Resolution No. (1994 Series) Page 2 reduce potential land use conflicts. Site development plans shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. b. To minimize conflicts in turning movements from the site, the existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk to the approval of the City Engineer. C. The applicant shall provide compensatory tree planting for mature trees to be removed, at the rate of two 24-inch box specimens for each tree removed,with species and placement to the approval of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. SECTION 2. Action Application No. U 135-93 is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit an application for architectural review prior to occupancy which includes specifics on building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. 2. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. Required landscaping plans shall include a plan detailing automatic irrigation systems for all formal landscaped areas. 3. The project shall include facilities for interior and exterior recycling. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding the size and location of areas dedicated to on-site recycling storage. 4. The applicant shall submit an agreement to the City for review, approval and recordation indicating that a minimum of 23 parking spaces will be available at all times at 1551 Bishop Street for the Temple Ner Shalom for a period of not less than three years. Upon its expiration or sooner termination of the agreement, or if off-site parking is not available, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Director in writing, and the temple use upon which the off-site parking serves shall cease, unless other off-site parking is made, or on- site parking is provided in compliance with City standards. City Council Resolution No. (1994 Series) Page 3 5. All terms and conditions of the common driveway agreement and improvement bond for Minor Subdivision MS 91-145, as may be applicable to this property, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy. 6. The applicant shall submit a parking demand management plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: i A orn I— l EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY DENYING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A JEWISH SYNAGOGUE AT 2211 JOHNSON AVENUE (U 135-93) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the staff report, public testimony, the appellants' statements and the Planning Commission's action, upholds the appeal based on the following findings: 1. Because of the small size of the site and the proximity of adjacent residences, the proposed temple use will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The temple use is inappropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding land uses because of potential noise, visual and site development impacts. SECTION 2. Action Application No. U 135-93 is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1994. City Council Resolution No. (1994 Series) Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: i At r I— ! ATTACHMENT 2 city Of SAn uis omspo 990 Palm StreetlPost Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Tide i, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappeals from the decision of_ p t a n n i na Comm fi s s i o n rendered on Dec. 29, 1993, which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual situation and the grounds for subm&Jng this appeal. Use additlonal shoots as needed): We are appealing the vote in favor -of the conditional use permit for Temple Ner Shalom at 2211 Johnson. We do not believe the Planning Commission fully considered requirements for the use. permit. We will be forwarding additional information to support our appeal . We respectfully request that the public hearing on this appeal not be held prior to February. 15, 1994•. `" Q I am owner of 1365 Bishop and .a vacant parcel adjacent to 2211 Johnson. The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with: Kim Condon , Asst- City Clerion December 30 , 1993 DATE&TIME APPA RECEIVED; Appellant: Susan L. Akers Graves 20612 Reef Lane Name/Tide Hentingten Beaeh, 92646 E Represent+e bier-Wolfe . Attorney P.O. Box 3898 JAN 5 ��4 Palos Verdes Peninsula, AAddram' CA 90274 ^ CITY CLERK -9540 �.„:;_BC. p•CA Akers-Graves 714-968-8302 Phone Stambler-Wolfe 310-375-2650 Original to City Clerk Calendared forCity Attorney �",C 9y Copy to Admlrnlstradve Officer Copy to the-following department(s): Q Us�v4s • I— I O LAW OFFICES OF TERRY STAMBLERAVOLFE January 26, 1994 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Letter in Opposition to Planning Commission Approval of Use Permit U 135-93 , 2211 Johnson Avenue (Temple Ner Shalom) Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter has been prepared on behalf of my client, Susan Akers Graves, who is the owner of two parcels located at 1365 Bishop Street and 2233 Johnson Avenue, both of which are directly adjacent to the subject site. Ms. Akers Graves appealed the determination by the Planning Commission that a use permit should be approved for Temple Ner Shalom. She and many other property owners and residents in the vicinity of the proposed Temple believe the Planning Commission made a serious mistake in not requesting that additional information be provided by staff and in underestimating the probable adverse impacts of an institutional use in the proposed location. The Planning Commission also appeared to ignore a petition by 21 neighbors who requested that the use permit be denied on the basis that it would create adverse impacts in the neighborhood. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting on December 29, 1993 , I sent a letter to the Commission, a copy of which is attached, outlining a number of concerns about the proposed use. For the purpose of the appeal, my client reasserts all of the arguments contained in my letter to the Planning Commission. In addition, there are other issues which would be appropriate for the City Council to consider during the appeal hearing. INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Among the primary concerns are the lack on adequate on-site parking and probable traffic generation impacts. The POST OFFICE Box 3SQS • PALO',' ` ERDFS PE\C <l.'i_:\, CALIFORNIA 1)l�, i 1' 15 l) I�1 TELEPHONE (310) 375-2650 • FAX (3110 i 7, i-00-26 January 26, 1994 Page Two Environmental Study (ER) does not include traditional traffic generation analysis including a comparison of single family generation figures with those for an institutional use. All required spaces should be included even though off-site shared parking is proposed. Additionally, it would be appropriate for the Director of Public works or his designated traffic engineer to comment on the safety issues connected with a project which proposes 23 out of 28 spaces across an arterial street. The ER does not include any data which quantify the projected noise impacts. This issue is of particular significance since the Temple's stated activities are anticipated to occur at night and on weekends when the neighbors are most likely to be affected. In addition, the Planning Commission chose not to impose any conditions of approval relative to types of activities and hours of operation. My client is concerned that the scope of the activities at the Temple may have been understated and will change over time. For example, under the present code, a day care facility could be established without any oversight by the City. The ER does not address the issues of building mass and loss of view corridors from the adjacent properties. Such impacts cannot be adequately addressed later through the architectural review process because the use permit would grant permission to construct a two-story addition of a specified size and in the requested location. FAILURE TO SEER CLARIFICATION OF SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENTS At the public hearing, there was testimony that several existing uses already participate in a shared parking arrangement in the same location as the shared parking proposed by the Temple. Unfortunately, the magnitude of these arrangements was not addressed in the staff report and the information was not available at the Planning Commission meeting. A review of the existing conditions and the effect of adding shared parking for the Temple should be addressed. FAILURE TO SEER CLARIFICATION OF LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT My client is uniquely impacted by the proposed development because the design contemplates the provision of all access via a shared driveway with her property. Ms. Akers Graves ' concerns are described in some detail on pages 3 and 4 of my December 27, 1993 letter to the Planning Commission. January 26, 1994 Page Three Although my client understands that she is obligated to install certain improvements as a condition of her Minor Subdivision, she never agreed to share access with a use more intensive than single family. Approval of the proposed Temple would burden the easement above the level that was contemplated by the parties at the time it was created. City officials were extensively involved in these negotiations and advised my client that the area would remain single family residential. Further, we have been attempting to seek clarification through staff of an issue regarding the timing of the installation of the improvements (copies of letters to staff are attached) . My client has requested that the conditions of the improvement bond be modified to clarify that she is not obligated to install the improvements until such time as she is ready to proceed with her project. If the Temple's request is approved, there would be a lack of clarity regarding who must install the improvements and how maintenance and liability issues would be addressed. My client's civil engineer, Terry Orton of Westland Engineering Co. , testified to the Planning Commission that the approval of a use more intense than a single family residence may require additional engineering and more substantial improvements on the shared access easement than were originally contemplated at the time Ms. Akers Graves' Minor Subdivision was approved. Since this information is not available at this time, it is our contention that approval of the project without knowledge of these impacts would pose an unreasonable burden on my client. Finally, at the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant testified to a willingness to delete all on-site parking. This alternative was not explored during the hearing. While my client is opposed to the institutional use in general, it would be of interest to determine if such a proposal can be implemented, consistent with all applicable codes and regulations. If so, the elimination of the parking might reduce certain adverse impacts to the adjacent properties. FAILURE TO IMPOSE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Although my client strongly opposes the proposed use in this location, should the City Council approve the Temple, it would be appropriate to impose conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. At a minimum, it is requested that the Council impose the following conditions plus the others recommended by staff: hours of operation and occupancy limitations recommended by staff; no day care facility to be established without an amendment to the use permit; no on- January 26, 1994 Page Four site parking to be installed; no loading zone to be installed in front of the facility on Johnson Avenue; no improvements will be made to the shared access without written agreement by my client prior to issuance of any construction permit; and a review of the permit shall be conducted by the Planning Commission at a public hearing no later than six months after the occupancy permit is granted. My personal experience in land use matters spans 23 years including serving as a city planner, a building official, and an attorney. Rarely have I observed a lack of foresight in land use decision-making as was evidenced at the Planning Commission hearing. Not only did the Commission fail to heed the professional assessment of the project by the staff, but it also chose to ignore the concerns voiced by the residents who have to live adjacent to this use for as long as the use permit is in effect. The City Council has the authority to correct this oversight by the Commission. By denying the Mitigated Declaration and the Use Permit, the City Council will be acknowledging that the proposed use is simply too intensive for this location and would have the effect of totally disrupting the single family residential character and integrity of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. It is our intention to be present at the appeal hearing and respond to any questions you may have. Sincerely, ' l Terr tambler-Wolfe Enclosures cc: City Attorney -14 THRRI' VIA FAX TRANSMITTAL December 27, 1993 Chairman Karleskint and Members of the Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Letter in Opposition to Use Permit U 135-93 , 2211 Johnson Avenue (Temple Ner Shalom) Dear Chairman Karleskint and Members of the Planning Commission: I have been retained to represent Ms. Susan Akers Graves regarding various issues concerning her property located at 1365 Bishop Street and 2211 Johnson Avenue. These two parcels are located immediately adjacent to the proposed location of the new Temple. Based on a review of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on December 29, 1993 , Ms. Akers Graves is opposed to the proposal as presented by the applicant for a number of reasons described below. The Community Development Department has recommended that the application be denied for what we consider to be rational and appropriate reasons. Our comments are intended to focus on the aspects of the proposal which Ms. Akers Graves finds particularly objectionable especially since her property rights are uniquely affected. Please note this letter has been prepared without the benefit of reviewing the environmental documentation, the revised site plan and other aspects of the file. It may be appropriate to make additional comments at the public hearing. LACK OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY As the Planning Commission well understands, the purpose of the public hearing for a use permit is to determine if a particular proposed use is compatible or conditionally compatible in a given location. The action of the Planning Commission is totally discretionary. The proposed Temple is not compatible in the proposed location for several reasons. First and foremost, at 8 , 157 square feet the site is simply too small to accommodate all of the requisite facilities to support the proposed use. This parcel is of a size suitable for a traditional single family home, which is the current Ptl" ( )I 11('1' 1i(,X ')8')S • I'AI t,c VIT.111:c I'I ;;I;.!c1 LA, ( .AI.iiur. :IA 902 }() I r1 rrnc, .:r 01o)) Z;�) (,;o I Ax ( 110) December 27 , 1993 Page Two use of the property. The existing development pattern to the southwest of the Bishop/Johnson intersection is entirely single family homes or homesites of modest scale. The introduction of an institutional use in this area would destroy the integrity of the single family neighborhood and would be considerably more intense than the scale of the surrounding structures. The functions which occur in a place of religious worship create noise and activity impacts even under the most ideal of circumstances. Where the development site is a typical single family parcel, it is not reasonable to expect that such impacts can be designed out of the project. Even if minimum setback standards are met and buffering techniques are employed, the noise and activity levels generated will intrude on the solitude of the neighborhood, particularly in the evenings and on weekends. In addition, the lot coverage and massing of the buildings will be out of character with the single story improvements in the existing neighborhood. While it is admirable that other religious institutions support the application of Temple Ner shalom, it is significant to note the data provided in the staff report regarding other religious facilities in the area. These five churches are located or proposed to be developed on sites ranging in size from more than 2 times to more than 24 times the size of the proposed facility. Two of the five churches are developed in the more intense residential zone of R-2 . In many cases these sites have sufficient size to be designed in a manner which achieves compatibility with surrounding uses. The critical point is that not every religious institution is compatible in an established R-1 neighborhood, thus the necessity for a site specific review. ADVERSE PARKING AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS The proposed project requires 28 parking spaces yet only 5 are located on site. When a project must have in excess of 82% of the required parking off-site, this is a red flag that the applicant is attempting to do too much with too small a site: The provision of 23 parking spaces across the street on a temporary shared parking basis is not a acceptable solution. While the concept of shared parking may be appropriate in some situations, it is usually only acceptable when most of the required parking is available on-site and the shared facility is located immediately adjacent to the proposed development so that access is both convenient and safe. Shared parking is most feasible in a combined commercial/institutional setting, but is incompatible in an R-1 neighborhood. December 27 , 1993 Page Three With regard to the proposal that the shared parking be the subject of an agreement with the Bishop Medical Center, there are risks associated with permitting such a temporary arrangement. If these spaces become unavailable at some point in the future, the Temple may have difficulty in obtaining suitable replacement parking. The City would then be placed in the awkward position of having to terminate an existing use or, alternatively, modifying the parking requirements which would further adversely impact the neighborhood. This proposal calls for most of the required parking to be located across an arterial street. The parking is a considerable distance from a signalized intersection where it is safest to cross. It is easy to anticipate that accidents will occur when people cross a busy street in mid-block. Additionally, it is human nature to follow the path of least resistance and, despite the good intentions of the management of the Temple to avert the problem, some members are likely to park on both Bishop and Johnson adding to the adverse impacts on the single family homes. For residential property owners, one of the most frustrating situations is to be impacted by violations of use permit conditions when they occur after normal business hours. The staff report is correct in anticipating that the City will encounter enforcement difficulties with this type of use because the primary activity times will be in the evenings or on weekends when the Community Development Department staff is not available to investigate. INAPPROPRIATE INTENSIFICATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT Access to the proposed development is intended to be via a shared access easement with Ms. Akers Graves ' property. The access easement was imposed as a condition of approval by the City staff when Ms. Akers Graves applied for and was granted approval of a two parcel subdivision (MS 91-145) . Ms. Akers Graves voiced her opposition to this condition but was told her request would be denied if she did not 'agree. Further, Ms. Akers Graves agreed to the condition only because she was advised by the City that no use other than single family would be sharing the driveway. Her belief that this shared access was to be secondary in nature was reinforced by the fact that the adjacent property had an existing driveway on the opposite side of an 8o foot wide parcel which leads to a single family house and garage. All five on-site spaces serving the Temple are to be accessed by the shared driveway and may be used at any time of the day or night by Temple officials, staff or members. Such activity is much more intense than the traffic generated by a typical single family residence. This level of activity certainly came as a surprise to my client. At most, she expected to share the driveway with 1 - 17 December 27, 1993 Page Four another residence where the access would lead to an enclosed garage, assuming the site was reconfigured in the future. There is legal authority for the proposition that, if an easement is used for a more intense use than that which was originally agreed to, the uncontemplated, more intense use which greatly increases the burden is not permitted. Ms. Akers Graves contehds that at no time was a use other than single family contemplated by the property owners or the City. Should additional background on this point be desired by the Planning Commission, Ms. Akers Graves and her Civil Engineer, Terry Orton, a Principal of Westland Engineering, will be available at the public hearing to elaborate further on the discussions that took place with the adjacent property owner, Sharon Baldridge, the City staff and other concerned parties. LACK OF CLARITY REGARDING TIMING AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO MS 91-145 It is indicated in the staff report that, should the Planning Commission be inclined to support the application, the conditions of MS 91-145 must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. It is the contention of Ms. Akers Graves that these conditions were intended to be met in conjunction with the development of her property even though the driveway, tree planting and drainage facilities will benefit the site of the proposed Temple. Ms. Akers Graves does not intend to proceed with her development at this time. Should the Planning Commission approve this use permit application, it is requested that any condition of approval relating to these improvements clearly indicate that it is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain Ms. Akers Graves' agreement before any work is undertaken and that the cost of installation must be borne by the applicant or be in accordance with any understanding to which the applicant and Ms. Akers Graves subsequently agree. Ms. Akers Graves also is greatly concerned that the staff report does not address whether the proposed development will require additional engineering requirements; more extensive improvements, including drainage, landscaping and paving material; and increased permanent maintenance costs for all of the improvements required by MS 91-145. She is opposed to any . intensification of improvements beyond those already required. A response from the staff on these points is necessary to fully assess the impacts of the proposed development on her property. DIMINUTION OF PROPERTY VALUE Ms. Akers Graves is of the belief that the development of the December 27, 1993 Page Five proposed Temple will cause the value of her two parcels to depreciate considerably. The attached letter to Ms. Akers Graves from Jerald Jecker, a partner with Schenberger,Taylor, McCormick & Jecker, dated December 14 , 1993 supports the contention that the proposed use will be detrimental to the value of adjacent properties. She will be available to comment on this particular issue in greater detail at the public hearing. FAILURE TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Akers Graves did not receive a copy of the required public hearing notice at her address listed on the tax rolls. Fortunately her recent contacts with the City enabled her to be informed of the use permit public hearing. It is requested that the records be verified by the City so that future notices for development proposals in the vicinity of her property will be sent to the proper location. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. We look forward to responding to any questions you may have at the public hearing on December 29th. Sincerely, Terry am ler- Wolfe Enclosure _L LL.I.. 1l:• 1 J» 1••1a1 11 IleDb S C H E N B E R C - R, TAYLOR, prinelpblb of the Flt M�CQRMICK & J_ECKER RichardL aldC.baylor Gerold C. Taylor. M -- - Rollie A. McCormick. M I if r r.l r.. v, (r rt A t e o Jerold W. Jr ' 1-SF ur•,71 I slMic Apprvivcm. Cfvncnllenls end Inng<IntMN An,llsls Todd 0. Me' M I•oundedfit 1972 AbOoclab December 14, 1993 ._ William O. Col Max R. Knupp Susan Akers Graves William V. CI 20612 Reef Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 . RE! 1365 Bishop St. & vacant Site Behind 2211 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA bear Ms. Graves! I received a fax copy of your letter to Mr. Arnold Jonas, Planning Director for the City of San Luis Obispo; CA on November 30, 1993 . I feel that you do indeed have valid concern regardi.nq the impact that a use of this type would have on the marketability and market value of the vacant site located to the rear of 2211 Johnson Ave. and the single family residence located at 1365 Bishop St. In my opinion, your greatest concern is in regard to the vacant homesite, It is my opinion that there is a high probability that trying to sell a residential homesite, that will be behind a non- residential facility would be more difficult than selling a residential homesite in a typical residential neighborhood. I would expect to see a lohger marketing time and a lower market value. The drawing you sent me shows the driveway for the neV facility as being the same drive that serves the homesite you tecently developed. The use of the driveway by the public would further detract from the marketability and market value of the vacant homesite you recently created. I don't know how the easement for tho driveway was worded! but I would recommended that you use all possible and feasible legal means to prevent the public use of the driveway serVing the flag lot. I would recommend that, in Addition to the letter you sent to Mr. Jonas, you also send letters to all members of the Planning Committee and City Council expressing your concerns+ Further- more, I encourage you to attend the meeting in December so that you can voice your concerns and get a feel for the inclinations o e planning staff and city officials, since raid W d cke R� —AZ 0 1411 IVIAR3'Fl STREET, SUITE 107 • SA14 LUIS OBISPO i CALIF ORRIA + 93401 6 (805) 5442472 + FAX (805) 544.439(; I AW ( TH( I t T VIA FAX TRANSMITTAL January 20, 1994 Mr. Gerald W. Kenny Supervising Civil Engineer City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Conditions Imposed on Extension of Subdivision Agreement for MS 91-145 (Susan Akers Graves) --Second Request Dear Mr. Kenny: This letter is a follow-up to the one I sent to you dated December 27, 1993 , a copy of which is attached. My client, Susan Akers Graves, remains concerned about the clarity of the conditions imposed on her improvement bond relative to the possible development of the adjacent property. As you may be aware, an appeal has been filed regarding the Planning Commission approval of the use permit for Temple Ner Shalom. Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed Temple on property which has the access easement over Ms. Akers Graves ' property, there will be a conflict over the timing of and responsibility for the installation and maintenance of the improvements. It is our hope that such a conflict may be avoided if the language of the conditions of approval of the bond are clarified in a manner indicated in my first letter to you. A further concern mentioned in my original letter is that there has been no analysis as to whether the proposed synagogue development will require additional engineering regarding the shared access resulting in the installation of increased drainage, landscaping and paving materials together with greater permanent maintenance costs. This concern was expressed at the Planning Commission public hearing on December 29th but was not addressed by the City. Ms. Akers Graves is opposed to any intensification of improvements beyond those required by MS 91-145. I do not believe the City is entitled to ignore this issue on the basis that it is a private matter. A response from your office prior to the City Council appeal hearing, scheduled for February, 15, 1994 , would serve to reduce much of the conflict between the property owners as well as potentially eliminate confusion during the hearing process. (. )i l lr'f 1"o". 3808 • I',\11Ic V'1`RI,fS I'I'rJINSIII.\, ( 'Al.11onrim 00)/.I.0; 10 Ir111n(,wl 131(1) 3�i )1,5{l • 1'�X ( 31()) 3t5-(;h?1+ �I January 20, 1994 Page Two It is my intention to discuss this and other issues with the City Attorney and other staff representatives in the immediate future. • As such, it would be appreciated if you would give consideration to this issue at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, //����// ', ) PL ! - Terr1 ambler-Wolfe Enclosure cc: Susan Akers Graves Wayne Peterson, Director of Public Works Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director TERRY SIANIMTRI-W01.11: VIA FAX TRANSMITTAL December 27, 1993 Mr. Gerald W. Kenny Supervising Civil Engineer City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Conditions Imposed on Extension of Subdivision Agreement for MS 91-145 (Susan Akers Graves) Dear Mr. Kenny: I have been retained by Susan Akers Graves to represent her interests in conjunction with her property at 1365 Bishop Street and 2211 Johnson Avenue. In reviewing her records relative to MS 91-145, I read your letter to Ms. Akers Graves dated December 3, 1993 (copy attached) . In that letter, you responded affirmatively to her request for a one year time extension for the improvement bond. However, you imposed three conditions, the first two of which are worded in such a fashion as to potentially cause some confusion. while Ms. Akers Graves reluctantly agreed to the requirement that she provide shared access with the adjacent property owner in order to receive approval of her subdivision, and that she install certain improvements including tree planting and drainage, it was always her understanding that the trigger for the need to make the improvements was the intent to pursue the development of her own parcel. As you are undoubtably aware, on December 29 , 1993 the Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on Use Permit U 135-93 (Temple Ner Shalom) . Although the Community Development Department staff has recommended denial of the project, in the event that the Planning Commission determines to approve the proposal, there is a staff suggested condition of approval that all conditions of MS 91-145 be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. It is our contention that Ms. Akers Graves is responsible for installing the improvements only when she elects to proceed with her project. As such, we are requesting that you modify the language of Conditions 1 and 2 to reflect this understanding. If the owner of the adjacent parcel desires to proceed with a development prior to the time Ms. Akers Graves intends to proceed, I 11C I ( )I I W1 In IN iti')` • I'nl f)c VFPI)I S PFNI`JC((I,n, ( 'A1.11 ORCI:\ I Fr rrnONI. ( Ihl '+r '( 5(I • I nx (310) 37S-6o?(') f 'ZJ December 27, 1993 Page Two it would be up to the respective property owners to enter into an agreement regarding the timing and cost of installation of the improvements. A further concern of Ms. Akers Graves is that there has been no analysis as to whether the proposed synagogue development will require additional engineering regarding the shared access resulting in the installation of increased drainage, landscaping and paving materials together with greater permanent maintenance costs. Ms. Akers Graves is opposed to any intensification of improvements beyond those required by MS 91-145. It is our hope that you will understand my client's concerns regarding these issues and will agree to clarify my client's obligations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sin erely2bler-Wolfe rry a Enclosure cc: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director i �z4 FPU 1! PFIl I I VE (.UI GJP I I Ul 1 IU' 0.3'1360'�b LiLU 4. Aty Of- SAn tuls 061$P0 ��i �1AY 11I ��0111 955 Who Sifeel • SAn Lots ObISPO, cA 93401 31 1993 Aket'g Graves 2015j.2. nepf T.nT18 ,11111tingtmon Beach, C. 97.646 AVe""t for MS 91-t44 S, of _jj)-)oc,t - F-scEPTIPiOl: 211 johtlbon Avenue j365 Bishop Stra@E and 2 �leSt for 8 : O"L"Yemr time pxtsngion of thOhPnublectoihjb! d Yotr IPqrbvgdpbject to tt vision qgraeMP 't J.d . 1ereby app goil Avenue.ane common drivgday ImL"Lel proleynentl The jojinL Aji (within PlitC41 3) Ond Utility bME 'ott! tot tree plAtItAlit ' Aalled in coh3unctioli with devolb]�M011t Of parce]. i must }ie inr -tent proposal being tile. common dilvewny- 11,110rog ILI s cot procesnea on Obircel 3 which will include the instAllotiOn Of tills dr1v@waYJ, 2 . Thne ogrf adfrionm P"R,jiLA.cdorla3bltAgtoOUi9mprPogvtedmgelhgE* aien d 2 fthAltl oI ciokhbwoly athboe rt Condition of the CILSV@lop"Latit bf pmr-C-LAIsi 2 or 31 inst.n1l'?d Mg A : city VnJineet and Chief 6Uildi"g to thp Mg f. Of the 3 . Continuance ofthe surety bond for the Additional Ohh year. period . It you finve Any qt46tiong regarding this MaUor' please co I 46A me nt (BOB) 781-7194 . ' Yours 14AYtIE A. PETERSON CITY EIIGJNEER 41 /C.Prald W. Kenny supervI.9ing civil �nglntm"t Attnuhme])E: AgreQjllent Ron WitiT:enttn(1 T Pnmor:h 11B/14s file inilited to Include 1116 &RI"B"t In of 115 services. piogroint end aclivilles. (,.Ily Di Ssit LtjIq C)blspf?Is con, Tple r Din w tin In st i nn.1' [)ovICr Ini 1119 0eqj(805) 7410..781 �5 ATTACHMENT 3 �IvlvjjjuAll city of sAn tuis oaspo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo MunicipalCode,the undersigned herebyappeals from thedeclslon of USE PERMIT U 135-93 rendered on nFr_ 29, 1993 which decision consisted of the following (I.e. set forth factual sltuaiton and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): SEE ATTACHED SHEET C E I V E L JAN 7 19% CITY CLERK The undersigned discussed the.dectsion being appealed with: MR. BRFTT CROSS on DEC. 30, 1993 DATE &TIME APPEAL RFCFIVED: Appellant: LAURA JEFF BREWER ame e E C E IV EL, eF�presenta e JAN 7 1944 AdJZ.0 JOHNSON AVE. , SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY GL ERK 544-0827 (H) 772-7351 (W) 545-4083 (w) _ Phone 14; os to, ►� , Original to Clty Clerk ,/ Clty Attorney Calendared for. -/s- 97 Copy to Administrative Officer Copy to theio�liowing department(s): i gsYca„µ�A CITY CLERK A use permit was granted to the Temple Ner Shalom to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. We are opposed to this decision and we are appealing it for the following reasons. We feel this permit was granted without due consideration of these items. 1. The hazardous traffic situation to pedestrians and residents. 2. The lack of parking. 3. The small size of the lot and proximity to adjacent housing. 4. Noise to adjacent neighbors. 5. Lack of consideration of the neighborhood residents. 6. This is a precedent-setting change allowing facilities with no on-site parking into residential areas based only on the availability of neighboring parking lots. (Do we really want this for long range city planning?) 7. Encouragement of non-residential development in an area already impacted by General Hospital, County Health Department, and Bishop Medical Plaza. ATTACHMENT 4 Retain this riocumenl for future Court,it meeting Q —/57 1340 Cecelia Court iiat3, :I agCf.QE22:1 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 January 15,.1994 Mr. Allen Settle City Council ��- San Luis Obispo City Hall �{i� nda Vit" 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 RE: 2211 JOHNSON AVENUE Dear Mr. Settle: I attended a concerned neighborhood meeting last January 11 and was made aware of the proposed religious facility planned for 2211 Johnson Avenue. I also was made aware of an impending meeting to be held at the City Hall on February 15, 1994. As a home owner of 18 years, I feel very strongly that this proposed facility would pose a threat not only to pedestrians but to traffic in the Johnson/Bishop area This is the first episode where I have felt so strongly as to write a member of the council or make contact. I understand that only five parking places have been approved for this facility. I have no idea how many of those are for handicapped. I do know that I own a five bedroom rental and am required to have four parking spaces on the property itself. It seems ludicrous to me that a proposed congregation of 50 to 80 families are to use five parking spaces. It is also my understanding that the city has proposed that the "over-flow" can park on private and public owned grounds as the medical complex across the street and the city health department.lot. There are private homes in this area with small children who walk and ride the sidewalks. There is a great deal of traffic on Johnson Avenue which is a main street and a simple drive-in driveway certainly would prove a hazard to traffic moving at 35 miles an hour. I would appreciate you and your collegues looking into this case more extensively. I look forward to your comments and recommendations on February 15. Sincerely yours, - RECEIVED. Marg"rite Maxwell 9 , ANI 1994 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA ATTACHMENT 5 WISOBISPOcit o san to y 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 January 31, 1994 Terry Stambler-Wolfe Attorney at Law P.O. Box 3898 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274-9540 Subject: Minor Subdivision No. 91-145 (Susan Akers-Grave) Subdivision Agreement Time Extension Dear Ms. Stambler-Wolfe, First of all, I would like to apologize for not responding to your first FAX dated December 27, 1993 in which you stated your concern about possible confusion with conditions listed in my letter to Susan Akers Graves dated December 3 , 1993 . I was on vacation at that time, and didn't return to work until January 3rd. I reviewed the letter during the next week, but expected to receive a "mailed" version, at which time I planned. to respond. The mailed version .-Was not received. I sent a second letter to Susan on December 61 1993 (attached) in response to a FAX of her December 5, 1993 letter (attached) , in which I attempted to clarify her confusion on the matter. I assume that you haven't seen those letters, since you didn't mention them. Your latest letter (January 20, 1994) reiterated your earlier concerns and expressed further concerns. I submit the following in response to your requests: 1. The "conditions of approval" of the bond extension are not "new" conditions. They are original conditions of the subdivision, covered by the agreement. 2. Although Susan signed the agreement and posted the surety, staff is not concerned which of the parties to the subdivision (Graves or Baldridge) installs the necessary improvements, as noted in my December 6th letter. �� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. ® 1,4 Telecommunications Device for the Deal (805) 781.7410. Terry Stambler-Wolfe (MS 91-145) January 31, 1994 Page two The fact is, the improvements were required to be installed prior to final approval and recordation of the parcel map. However, the posted guarantee allowed for the one year extension of time to install the improvements. This latest time extension only extends that time to December 18, 1994. If the improvements were installed prior to the map. recording, this wouldn't be an issue now, except for concerns related to the use permit at 2211 Johnson for Temple Ner Shalom. (U135-93) 3 . The City Planning Commission's approval of the development of the Temple Ner Shalom included a condition of approval that the respective driveway and drainage improvements be installed as part of its development. That would seem to put the burden on BOTH parties, not just Susan. That could significantly reduce the cost of improvements that Susan is currently obligated to install, pursuant to the subdivision agreement. 4 . It would seem prudent (and logical) for the owners of the ,respective parcels (and/or the new owner of Parcel 3) to -coordinate these improvements in accordance with: (a) any original agreement regarding initial installation (if any) , (b) the recorded Common Driveway Agreement (attached) , and/or (c) a new agreement setting forth their respective shares of the improvement requirement. 5. The structural design of the pavement section is based on City's Standard # 2210 (attached) . The "Light Parking" standard should be adequate, although the owner(s) may wish to use the "Medium Parking" design in order to extend the life of the initial pavement. 6. The proposed drainage improvements within Parcel 2 per the approved plans prepared by Westland Engineering (or an approved alternative) must be installed in conjunction with the driveway installation to convey runoff to an adequate point of disposal. I would like to reiterate that Susan Akers Graves is responsible for installation of the subdivision improvements in accordance with the. subdivision agreement, and any extensions thereof, and not necessarily "when she elects to proceed with her project" , as you noted in your December 27th letter. In essence, by recording of the final parcel map and posting the bond, she has undertaken the project for which the conditions were were set. 90 Terry Stambler-Wolfe (MS 91-145) January 31, 1994 Page Three I hope this clarifies your concerns, but if you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call me at (805) 781-7194 . Yours truly, WAYNE A. PETERSON CIT ENGINEER .,l Llr'LA Gerald W. Kenny Supervising Civil Engineer Attachments: nolr i n a ItAd -4 in Coun c i I pa ckeJ 1) Letter from Susan Graves (12-5-93) 14vchad #0P6 ec- 2) Letter from Gerald Kenny (12-6-93) re.Forb 3) Common Driveway Agreement 4) Pavement Design Standard # 2210 n44ac.heAt fv -4-5) Director's Action (Conditions of Minor Subd. Approval) .pC repor4- 6) Guarantee & Bond c: Susan Akers Graves Terry Orton (Westland Engineering) Arnold Jonas Jeff Jorgensen G: \. . . \Misc\MS91-145.EXT l -3l ATTACHMENT 6 To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission From: Residents of Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street Petition submitted by the residents of Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street to the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission in opposition to Use Permit Request U135-93. /-3L 1 'Ve the residents on Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo object to the .e-zoning of the property at 2211 Johnson Avenue from R-1 single family residential to an alternate zoning. We feel that the creation of a church facility at the above mentioned address will create a hazardous traffic situation for the current residents on Johnson & Bishop Streets. Excessive parking on Johnson and Bishop creates blind corners for residents leaving their homes. The church facility planned for Johnson Avenue would encourage such parking. The constant stream of people coming and going to the church will increase noise, activity, and additional road hazard risks for the surrounding neighbors. The home in question for conversion to the church, located at 2211 Johnson, is at the top of the hill close to an extremely busy intersection which cars currently race through. Additional traffic moving in and out of the home/church in question would increase traffic problems already in existence. In conclusion, the area is zoned single family residential. Residents of this area have purchased their homes in good faith that it would remain a family neighborhood. The signatures below are residents of the neighborhood described above and by their ignature expressly request that the City of San Luis Obispo deny the re-zoning of 2211 Johnson Street, San Luis Obispo from R-1 single family dwelling to any other type zoning. c;2Q S :? Ic 34o 2LO t• ti3 � l-33 We the residents on Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo object to the re-zoning of the property at 2211 Johnson Avenue from R-1 single family residential to an alternate zoning. We feel that the creation of a church facility at the above mentioned address will create a hazardous traffic situation for the current residents on Johnson & Bishop Streets. Excessive parking on Johnson and. Bishop creates blind corners for residents leaving their homes. The church facility lanned for Johnson Avenue would encourage such parking. The constant stream of people coming and going to the church will increase noise, activity, and additional road hazard risks for the surrounding neighbors. The home in question for conversion to the church, located at 2211 Johnson, is at the top of the hill close to an extremely busy intersection which cars currently race through. Additional traffic moving in and out of the homelchurch in question would increase traffic problems already in existence. In conclusion, the area is zoned single family residential. Residents of this area have purchased their homes in good faith that it would remain a family neighborhood. The signatures below are residents of the neighborhood described above and by their signature expressly request that the City of San Luis Obispo deny the re-zoning of 2211 Johnson Street, San Luis Obispo from R-1 single family dwelling to any other type zoning. C. . 90vE, 57 6 .O 225-3 J oi�ivsv 6�a E- 5 L v 'Ve the residents on Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo object to the re-zoning of the property at 2211 Johnson Avenue from R-1 single family residential to an alternate zoning. We feel that the creation of a church facility at the above mentioned address will create a hazardous traffic situation for the current residents on Johnson & Bishop Streets. Excessive parking on Johnson and Bishop creates blind corners for residents leaving their homes. The church facility planned for Johnson Avenue would encourage such parking. The constant stream of people coming and going to the church will increase noise, activity, and additional road hazard risks for the surrounding neighbors. The home in question for conversion to the church, located at 2211 Johnson, is at the top of the hill close to an extremely busy intersection which cars currently race through. Additional traffic moving in and out of the home/church in question would increase traffic problems already in existence. In conclusion, the area is zoned single family residential. Residents of this area have purchased their homes in good faith that it would remain a family neighborhood. The signatures below are residents of the neighborhood described above and by their ;ignature expressly request that the City of San Luis Obispo deny the re-zoning of 2211 Johnson Street, San Luis Obispo from R-1 single family dwelling to any other type zoning. �� A 1375 Tc.s-�c9,I� 4-7y— D . 7!�,�51"04 U1W O CHRIST CHURCH RICHARD H.LEVY,Senior Minister ATTACHMENT 7 1490 Southwood Dr.San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Office:(805)543-4250 Dial-A-Truth:(805)544.8540 December 22, 1993 City Planning Committee Subm*c--J @ 12-.2 q-Q 3 rn San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Gentlemen: I am writing this letter in support of Temple Ner Shalom's request for a permit from the City Planning Commission to build a synagogue on the property located at 2211 Johnson Ave, San Luis Obispo. Our church is located on the corner of Johnson and Southwood (1490 Southwood). We have been here for more than 6 years. We are located near residential dwellings and directly across the street from the Church of the Nazarene. We have had a good working relationship with our neighbors and with the Church of the Nazarene during the past 6 years and have had very few complaints of any kind regarding our church activities. I am confident that Temple Ner Shalom would be compatible with the residential neighborhood and that they would conduct their church business with respect for the surrounding neighbors. There are several churches along Johnson Avenue and I have never heard of any problems involved with having these churches in a residential area. We hope that you will issue a permit to the temple. We look forward to having them as neighbors. Sincerely, � r Richard H. Levy 1 Minister AFFILIATED WITH ASSOCIATION OF UNITY CHURCHES AND UNITY SCHOOLOF CHRISTIANITY,UNITY VILLAGE. MISSOURI Shell Beach Community United Methodist Church .� 189 Windward Avenue Shell Beach, California 93449 Office (805) 773-4607 ---� Residence (805) 773-2402 December 23, 1993 City Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo S ubrn;+ed 6� 12-2143 mt P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: It has come to my attention that Temple Ner Shalom has applied for a use permit to convert the property at 2211 Johnson Ave. for use as a synagogue. I wish to express my support to the congregation of Ner Shalom in their desire to have a permanent facility of their own. Although I now live in Shell Beach and serve the United Methodist Church here, from 1991- 1993 I was assigned to the U.M.C. in S.L.O. and lived in the Johnson Ave. area. It seems to me that the synagogue would only enhance the atmosphere of the neighborhood. I believe it would be compatible with the mix of residences, medical, religious, and other facilities which presently occupy that stretch along. Johnson Avenue. I hope that you will approve the request of Temple Ner Shalom. Sincerely yours, Rev. Dawn King, Pas 2or /-3 7 1Tl'" 71T(I`=p�County tS. CFef(=hip of San Luis 232 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 805-544-1669 Rev. Carolyn W. Colbert, Minister December 22, 1993 City Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Sub rn i 4,P—d- (@12-2 q - Dear Commissioners: I am writing in suppport of Temple Ner Shalom's request to use the property they have purchased at 2211 Johnson Ave., San Luis Obispo, as a synagogue. Temple Ner Shalom has rented our facilities at 232 Foothill for their services for over four years, and we know them to be exceptionally responsible tenants. While we would prefer not to lose them, we understand their desire to have a place of their own. It would seem that the Johnson Ave. area, with its mix of hospitals, churches, offices and residences would be an ideal location for the Temple. Our own church is located in a residential area, with houses bordering our property, and we not only have had no trouble with this arrangement, but have found it to be a happy, cooperative one. I hope you will approve Temple Ner Shalom's request. Sincerely, Rev. Carolyn Colbert Minister,Unitarian Universalist Fellowship /-38 L,e,;e ober 29 th. 1993 Planning Commission Cit;,• of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 221 1 johnson Ave. 6ubrn4ed @ 12 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Commissioners: civ house is nest door to the property' that houses both the Unita rial Universalist Church and Temple Ner shalom. During the pass iuur Vears that Temple tier Shalom has rented the buliding. I have never once been bothered by' ativ° noise or have lead a it gi m from the :Y.li:o :Urle i �:-tiv'it1eS u. -he cuilgregat1U11 during lllz Ii11C of t leer ser\'ic:s Friday nights and Saturday mornings. incerzlti . Itonald Sherer ���IInII1111111111Nllllllll �Illlllilllllll a city of san lues oBlspo POLICE DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1328 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1328 • (805)781-7317 December 24, 1993 Richard A. Carsel, President �vbmi{}td @ 12 .2q '93 Temple Ner Shalom 232 Foothill Boulevard San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Use Permit Application to Convert Residence to Synagogue 2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Mr. Carsel: This will confirm our conversation this morning regarding your questions as to the Police Department's position on this matter. Our initial concern was that sufficient parking be provided to prevent any traffic or safety hazards. Upon further review of the plans and based upon our understanding that the Temple has secured an additional 50 parking spaces across the street at the Bishop Medical Plaza, we believe that our concerns have been adequately addressed. We note that Johnson Avenue is a major thoroughfare. However, there is relatively little traffic on Friday evenings and weekends when your congregants will primarily be using the building. We hope that this satisfactorily clarifies the Police Department's position on your application. Please feel free to call upon us if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, BART TOPHAM Administrative Captain BT:/ "Service, Pride, Integrity" !� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 1 � v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410 ATTACHMENT 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5130-93 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 29, 1993, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. U 135-93 by Temple Ner Shalom, applicant. USE PERMIT REQUESTED: To allow a religious facility in a single-family residential zone. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 2211 Johnson Avenue. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Low-density Residential. PRESENT ZONING: R-1. WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: 1. Because of the small size of the congregation and the infrequency of its use of the site, the proposed temple use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 1-41 Resolution No. 5130-93 Use Permit U 135-93 Page 2 2. The temple use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses because potential noise and visual impacts .can be effectively addressed through architectural review. 3. The proposed uses conform to the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed off-site and joint use parking is appropriate at the proposed location, being within the prescribed 300 feet from the uses and not separated from the uses by any feature which would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 3, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission: a. In its review and consideration of the required use permit, the Planning Commissio shall consider including conditions limiting hours of operation and the maximum occupancy of the building to reduce potential land use conflicts. Site development plans shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. b. To minimize conflicts in turning movements from the site, the existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk to the approval of the City Engineer. C. The applicant shall provide compensatory tree planting for mature trees to be removed, at the rate of two 24-inch box specimens for each tree removed, with species and placement to the approval of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U 135-93 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit an application for architectural review prior to occupancy which includes specifics on building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. -42. Resolution No. 5130-93 Use Permit U 135-93 Page 3 2. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. Required landscaping plans shall include a plan detailing automatic irrigation systems for all formal landscaped areas. 3. The project shall include facilities for interior and exterior recycling. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding the size and location of areas dedicated to on-site recycling storage. 4. The applicant shall submit an agreement to the City for review, approval and recordation indicating that a minimum of 23 parking spaces will be available at all times at 1551 Bishop Street for the Temple Ner Shalom for a period of not less than three years. Upon its expiration or sooner termination of the agreement, or if off-site parking is not available, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Director in writing, and the temple use upon which the off-site parking serves shall cease, unless other off-site parking is made, or on-site parking is provided in compliance with City standards. 5. All terms and conditions of the common driveway agreement and improvement bond for Minor Subdivision MS 91-145, as may be applicable to this property, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy. 6. The applicant shall submit a parking demand management plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Sigurdson, seconded by Commr. Williams, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Sigurdson, Williams, Hoffman NOES: Commrs. Cross, Karleskint ABSENT: Commrs. Whittlesey and Senn Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: December 29, 1993 1 -43 ATTACHMENT 9 draft MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City of San Luis Obispo December 29, 1993 PRESENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey, Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie Williams, Brett Cross, Sandra Sigurdson and Barry Karleskint ABSENT: Commr. Senn OTHERS PRESENT: Whitney Mcllvaine,Assistant Planner; Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager; Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney; and Diane Wright, Recording Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of November 17, 1993 were approved as submitted. Item 1. Use Permit U-135-93. A use permit request to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone; 2211 Johnson Avenue; R-1 zone; Temple Ner Shalom, applicant. Commr. Whittlesey stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report and recommended denial of the use permit because of the potential for noise, visual impacts and reduced privacy conflicts with adjacent residential uses due to the small lot size and because the site was served by a common driveway also serving a property owner to the rear of the site who objected to this use. She said 23 of the required 28 parking spaces would be located off-site and although it met City zoning standards, there could be a conflict with residents desiring to park on the street. She said the Community Development Department had received a call Barbara Vance, 1359 Bishop Street, around the corner from the applicant, supporting the proposal. Commr. Cross asked if staff had studied housing policy regarding conversion of housing. Whitney Mcllvaine said the Housing Element recognized in some situations, housing would be lost and it applied to this proposal. Commr. Williams said Condition 7 requiring off-site drainage facilities, seemed to be placing a requirement on a different party. P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 2 Ron Whisenand explained that off-site improvements were required to be done at the time of development as a condition of a bond at the time the property was subdivided. He said the improvements would have to be made before a building permit was issued. In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Whitney Mcllvaine said noise buffering would be addressed during architectural review, which was required by condition 3. Commr. Sigurdson said she had spoken with Richard Carsel on behalf of the applicant. She asked if other churches on Johnson Avenue had a restriction on hours of operation. Ron Whisenand said hours for lighting in parking lots was restricted for the Church of the Nazarene. In answer to a question by Commr. Sigurdson, Whitney Mcllvaine said the 50 person limit came from the applicant's description. She explained the Fire Department would allow more than 50 people if the building had more than one exit. Ron Whisenand said all functions would be limited to 50 people unless the Planning Commission modified the condition. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Marshall Ochylski, 75 Higuera Street, applicant's representative, introduced Richard Carsel, the president of Temple Ner Shalom, to explain the temple's services and activities and the reasons this site was selected. Richard Carsel, 3375 Sequoia Street, applicant's representative, said the temple was very small and could not afford a full time clergyman. He explained that members of the temple practiced conservative Judaism in the ancient tradition. He said the members believed that the Sabbath, from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday, must be observed. He said worship services are on Friday night and Saturday morning. As part of honoring the Sabbath, working and driving automobiles is considered sacrilegious unless absolutely necessary. He explained that congregants who could walk to temple would do so and those who had to drive to get to the temple would not want to park near the temple because it would be considered profane. In addition to the Sabbath, he said other services included about 12 holidays or festivals a year, four memorial services a year, and funeral services. He felt condition 1, which limited hours, was inappropriate and unnecessary because services start at sundown according to the lunar calendar which is determined by experts. He said services are small and no organ or choir is used at services. He asked the Commission to consider that this was not a request for a fraternity and members would be worshiping quietly and respectfully. He did not think the 1 -4� P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 3 noise would be any louder than a television. He said the congregation had been in the community for 10 years and had rented space from the Unity Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the Unitarian Church and there have been no problems. He said members' homes, including his, had been used for worship services, weddings, funerals, adult education classes, bible study and committee meetings during the past 10 years and there have never been any problems. He explained that two high holidays a year are attended by many people who never otherwise go to temple and because there can be 150 to 250 people, a facility is rented. He said in addition to the numerous letters from clergy in the staff report, others had been received and he passed out letters from Rev. Levi of Unity Christ Church on Southwood and Johnson and Rev. Caroline Colbert of the Unitarian Church supporting Temple Ner Shalom at this site, and a letter from Ronald Sherer, 238 Foothill Boulevard, next to the Unitarian Church, stating that he had never been bothered by noise or had a parking problem when Temple Ner Shalom had met at that site. He said Beth David, the other Jewish Temple in San Luis Obispo, has never had a problem with the neighboring elderly residents of Judson Terrace. He explained that there were more than 45 spaces parking available in the Health Department Parking lot for temple members who need to drive to services. He said Dr. Spivida said it was county policy not to enter into written parking agreements, but county lots were available to the public during off hours. He said there were also spaces available in the parking lot for General Hospital. Because the county could not provide a written agreement, the a written parking agreement for 50 spaces had been entered into with Bishop Medical Plaza. He said Temple Ner Shalom wanted this property because the price was right, the location was good, and parking was available to meet City requirements. He explained that small congregations have a very difficult time finding affordable property. He said Temple Ner Shalom would upgrade the property and be a better neighbor than the Cal Poly rental which is there now. Marshall Ochylski asked the Commission to look at pages 2 and 3 of the staff report. He requested the Commission consider that if Temple Ner Shalom was given size credit for the 50 parking spaces in the written agreement with Bishop Medical Plaza, it would be similar in lot size to other churches in the area which had on-site parking. He said the structure to the north of the site was a garage and the distance to the house on the south was about 50 feet. He said the 16-foot driveway was a requirement of a previously approved parcel map which would be required whether or not the temple was approved. He said he did not understand how a condition of a map that was the responsibility of another property owner could be a condition of this project. He did not believe condition 7 was legal because it required an action of a third party that the applicant could not control. He distributed a letter from Bart Topham, the an administrative captain of the San Luis Obispo Police Department, stating that initially he was concerned with parking, but that he felt the department's concerns had been addressed and that traffic was not a concern because traffic was light on Johnson Avenue on Friday nights and Saturday P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 4 mornings. He asked the Commission to approve the project with the deletion of condition 1, condition 2 and condition 7. Commr. Sigurdson asked for an explanation about the subdivision conditions. Cindy Clemens said to give an opinion, she needed more information as to whether or not someone who had owned this particular lot agreed to the subdivision conditions. Whitney Mcllvaine said Susan Graves was the subdivider, and at the time she proposed a subdivision for parcels one and two, she was required to provide access to the flag lot, and she purchased a piece of property from an adjacent property owner to be used as a common driveway. Whitney Mcllvaine said the subdivider was required to make improvements and provide a drainage easement. Cindy Clemens asked if the owners of Parcel 3 were passive in the subdivision agreement. Whitney Mcllvaine said she believed that was correct. Cindy Clemens said if the role of Parcel 3 was passive, Mr. Ochylski's point might be valid. She said she needed more information about the bond. Whitney Mcllvaine explained that the subdivider asked for an extension of the bond agreement to install the improvements and a condition of the time extension stated that development of either parcel would require installation of the common driveway. Cindy Clemens felt that the Parcel 3 owners probably knew they would have to be partly responsible for the common driveway, but she said she was not sure that the other improvements should be required of parcel 3. Whitney Mcllvaine said drainage needed to be addressed because a drainage easement was a provision of the subdivision agreement. She explained drainage was to be conveyed from parcel 3 to Bishop Street because of the slope. Ron Whisenand said he thought the subdivision was done by two subdividers for one project, and the original owner of parcel 3 was a party to that subdivision. Cindy Clemens said she would like to see a map to know who did what. Ron Whisenand left the meeting to see if he could find more information on the subdivision and bond. 141 P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 5 Charles Rosen, 4509 Perfumo Canyon Road, said he located 24 places of worship in residential areas. As a member of Temple Ner Shalom, he asked the Commission to approve the project. Baruch Margalit, 3340 Johnson Avenue, a member of Temple Ner Shalom, said he lived next to the Church of the Nazarene and across from the Church of Christ and had not been bothered by noise. He asked the Commission to remember that churches weren't industry, but spiritual places that should be encouraged. Stan Payne, 1420 Johnson Avenue, a member of Temple Ner Shalom, said the members were non-violent and asked the Commission to approve the use permit. Laura Brewer, 2253 Johnson Avenue, who resides adjacent to the site, presented a petition signed by 21 people living on Bishop Street and Johnson Avenue opposing the temple. She read the petition which stated concerns including that it would be hazardous for people to exit driveways because of cars parked on the street, there would be a constant stream of people coming and going, traffic would increase and residents desired the area to remain residential. She said it had been difficult to find people home to sign the petition over the holiday. She said one of her major concerns was that a letter from the synagog downplayed the size of the structure. She said two people had complained to her about the truck parked on the street blocking vision. She said 50 people coming and going would make noise. She said she purchased her home in a residential neighborhood because she wanted a neighbor. Commr. Sigurdson asked if painting the curb white so that parking was not allowed would be helpful. Mrs.-Brewer said if parking was prohibited in front of the temple, members would park in front of her home. She did not feel it would be fair to deny parking to residents on Johnson Avenue. Commr. Sigurdson asked if it would ease her concerns if parking was eliminated on the site. Mrs. Brewer said she did not support this type of a facility on such a small lot next door. Commr. Sigurdson asked if the Health Department and Bishop Medical Center caused impacts. Mrs. Brewer said those places had separate parking lots and were away from the neighborhood. She said some people on Bishop Street were unhappy about county 1-48 P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 6 employees parking in front of their homes. She said one person on Bishop Street mentioned a parking problem related to Beth David. Jeff Brewer, 2253 Johnson Avenue, said he did not believe all of the members would park in the other parking lots. He said the other churches were on much bigger lots and couldn't be compared to this site. He said it was dangerous to back out of driveways if cars were parked on the street because of the hill on Johnson Avenue. Ron Whisenand returned to the meeting. Susan Akers Graves, owner of the property at 1365 Bishop and the flag lot parcel, said she was not opposed to a synagogue, but was opposed to a synagogue at this location because the project was too dense for the site. She passed out photographs of the site. She said she hadn't wanted to give a driveway easement to Mr. Baldridge who owned 2211 Johnson Avenue, but had wanted to purchase the access. She explained the condition of the common driveway easement was imposed upon her to receive the lot split. She said sales documents showed she would fence and landscape the area between the driveway and 2211 Johnson Avenue. She said she agreed to the common access because Mrs. Baldridge's garage was on the other end of her lot. She said the new project would impact the view toward the mountains. She said she had assumed the area would remain R-1 homes and the City had indicated there would not be commercial use. She said churches and schools in residential areas needed to be designed so that they were compatible with the community and she believed this one was not compatible. She said Mr. Carsel and Mr. Rogoff contacted her by telephone to see if they could purchase her flag lot. She said she told them she would consider selling both lots because of the density impact on her property, but she had never heard back from them. She said she bonded for an extension on the driveway because she was unable to sell or develop the lot. She pointed out a letter from Jerry Decker that stated the project would adversely affect both her properties. Terry Orton, 75 Zaca Lane, Westland Engineering, said he would answer questions about the lot split. He said in discussions with the Planning Department, the easement was set up with the intent that a single family residence would be on the site. He said a drainage study would be needed before parcel 3 was developed. He said bonding for improvements was allowed under the Map Act. Commr. Hoffman asked if bonding included accepting all the drainage from parcel 3 or just a certain amount of drainage. Terry Orton explained that Mrs. Graves bonded to accept the drainage from parcel, but he did not think she would have to accept any additional drainage than was currently I�q P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 7 there. He said he was not sure the facilities of the plan would handle this intense of a use. Cindy Clemens said the language of the condition stated that drainage shall be conveyed from parcels two and three, not that drainage conveyed was to be from a single family residence. From the condition language, she believed drainage would have to be conveyed regardless of what happened on the site. Ron Whisenand said there were two subdividers involved and both of them signed the map and agreed to the conditions of approval. He said Sharon Baldridge owned parcel 3 and either still owns it or sold it to the temple. Cindy Clemens said that was the information she was looking for. She said Sharon Baldridge signed on the map as the owner, but she did not sign on the bond. Ron Whisenand explained that Public Works had deferred the improvements, including the driveway, until development occurred on either parcel. Iris Alexander, 1361 Bishop Street, said parking on Bishop Street was a big problem. She said the neighborhood was already fractured by General Hospital and the Health Center and asked the Commission to deny the project. She said this proposal could not be compared to other churches in the area because of the size difference of that lot. Terry Stambler Wolfe, P.O. Box 3898, Palos Verdes, Mrs. Grave's attorney, called the Commission's attention to her December 7, 1993 letter. She asked the Commission to remember every piece of property is unique, and that the fact that other churches are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods did not mean that this proposal would be appropriate on this site. She expressed concern about the applicant's request to prove the temple would be compatible. She explained that once the use permit was granted and the building completed, a revocation hearing, which would be unlikely, would be needed to end the use. She requested that if the proposal was approved, the condition relating to hours of operation not be deleted. She said the times of services conflicted with times neighboring residents were at home. She asked the Commission to consider that if the building was designed to hold a larger capacity than 50 people, larger gatherings would probably occur at the site. She said her client believed that the conditions of approval for the minor subdivision were intended to be triggered by building on her property, not on development on the other parcel. She said bonding for improvements was a legitimate approach. In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Ms. Wolfe said she did not have a copy of the bond, but she believed it expired in January of 1995. J- 50 P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page S Jules Rogoff, a temple member and real estate agent, said he had yet to successfully locate a site for a religious group in the city because parking requirements were difficult. He believed parking was not an issue at this site because there was more than adequate parking available in county parking lots on Friday nights, Saturdays and Sundays. He said he preferred to eliminate parking on the site and let Mrs. Graves have the driveway. He expressed surprise about the petition against the project because he had not received any complaints. He said one signer of the petition was a tenant who said he signed because he did not want to cause problems. He said he had contacted Mrs. Graves about purchasing her flag lot, but the price she asked was too high. Commr. Sigurdson asked Mr. Rogoff if people view property adjacent to churches as degraded. Mr. Rogoff said people like to live near clean, well kept properties and a church wasn't the issue. Mrs. Brewer said as far as she knew, only two people who signed her petition were tenants and they were both at the meeting and had not made the statement that they signed to avoid trouble. Mr. Ochylski asked for a copy of the December 27, 1993 letter referred to by Mrs. Graves, Mrs. Jenkins letter, and the petition. He said the letter from the Police Department indicating a lack of concern about traffic and parking problems addressed the issue of safety. He said the letter sent to the neighboring property owners was this same project. He said condition 3 addressed blockage of views. He pointed out that Mrs. Graves split one lot into two, which increased density. He said the property owner of parcel 3 and the purchaser never agreed to ask for the extension for improvements. He said the applicant would remove parking from the site, but would prefer limiting on site parking to one handicapped space and one staff space. He said the applicant would agree to not increase the amount of drainage off the site by directing gutters to Johnson Avenue so that no drainage improvements would be needed. Cindy Clemens said she could not be certain at this time if Sharon Baldridge's obligation expired because she did not sign on the bond. Ron Whisenand recommended modifying condition 7 to state "All terms and conditions of the common driveway agreement and improvement bond for minor subdivision MS 91- 145 as may be applicable to this property shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits." He said that language would allow the issue to be resolved with the City Engineer and City Attorney, and if it was P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 9 determined that the applicant was not a party to the legal agreements, improvements would not be need at this time. Commr. Hoffman suggested that the improvements be required prior to 'occupancy" instead of before the issuance of building permits. Mr. Ochylski asked what was meant by all improvement that apply if all parking was removed from the site. Ron Whisenand said that the property had obligations under a subdivision agreement that cannot be changed. He said if parking was removed from the site, perhaps a modified subdivision map could be worked out with Public Works. Ms. Wolfe asked that because the applicant had proposed modifications to the project, the Commission not make at decision this evening so that the Commission and those at the meeting could respond to those conditions and allow her client to work with staff and the City Attorney's office regarding legal obligations. Mr. Ochylski said he did not want to interfere with the process, but only offered to reduce possible impacts of on-site parking. Commr. Cross asked Mr. Carsel why the temple wanted to move from its present site. Mr. Carsel said they are tenants in the building and all the religious symbols are not Jewish. He said Jewish prayer books had to be stored off site. Joyce Vidia, 279 Hermosa Way, said she lives near Unity Church and was not bothered by parking or noise. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission decided to continue Item 4. Item 4. Zoning Regulations Amendments R 108-93. Amendments to the Zoning Regulations to simplify processing, add and change definitions, clarify working and format, and make minor changes to the development standards; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Commr. Williams moved to continue Item 4, Zoning Regulations Amendments R 108-93 to January 12, 1994 as the first item on the agenda. SZ" P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 10 Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Williams, Hoffman, Cross, Sigurdson and Karleskint NOES - None ABSENT - Commrs. Whittlesey and Senn The motion passed. Discussion continued on Item 1, Use Permit U 135-93. Commr. Williams pointed out that the temple indicated Saturday services began at 9:30 a.m. and the condition required a starting time of 10:00 a.m. She expressed concern about time restraints because other uses that were more active had been approved with more leniency. She said the site was small, but felt the site could work for 50 or less people. She said off-site parking was allowed for other uses such as Greenhills School and Grace Church, and preferred less paving over of sites when off-site parking was available. She said streets did not belong to homeowners and residents aren't guaranteed parking in front of their homes. She said she saw the 4-wheel drive vehicle on the street on Johnson Avenue, and said she understood concern about that vehicle blocking vision. She suggested a loading zone in front of the temple. Commr. Hoffman felt that because the congregation was small, the site could work. He said the conditions seemed basically reasonable but felt more than 50 people could be allowed at events with prior approval from the Community Development Director. He suggested the temple institute a parking management plan encouraging members not to park in front of homes in the neighborhood. He didn't believe condition 1 was necessary because he did not think this facility would be making more noise than other neighborhood residents. He said if there was a problem, the City did have a noise ordinance. He supported roof run-off being directed toward Johnson Avenue. Ron Whisenand suggested the drainage plan be handled as a building permit requirement to see that it complied with City drainage standards. Commr. Sigurdson expressed concern about the neighborhood's concerns but felt people shouldn't feel hostage to their automobiles and the available parking would be sufficient. Commr. Sigurdson moved to approve Use Permit U 135-93 with the deletion of conditions 1 and 2; with condition 7 be modified to state "All terms and condition of the common driveway agreement and improvement bond for minor subdivision MS 91-145 as may be applicable to this property shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy;" and with a condition added establishing a parking management plan. P.C. Minutes December 29, 1993 Page 11 Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion, Resolution No. 5130-93. Commr. Cross said he understood the difficulty the temple has had locating a site, but he sympathized with Mrs. Brewer's expectations. He felt all residential neighborhoods were equally important to preserve, regardless of how they have already been impacted. He expressed concern about property owners allowing property to deteriorate so that an argument can be made that any new development would be an improvement. He expressed concern about the loss of affordable housing. He said students are not all bad. He said he could not support the motion because the site was not appropriate for the proposed use. Commrs. Hoffman and Sigurdson said they did not feel this neighborhood was less worthy than others. Commr. Hoffman said he had learned a lot about zoning regulations and that the public should become aware of what is allowed in residential areas. Commr. Karleskint said churches in residential areas are the rule rather than the exception. He felt the synagog would probably fit well at this site but said what a church does isn't the issue either. He said the use permit goes with the property and if the synagog was successful it would move to a larger site and if it was unsuccessful it would also leave and the site could be rented to a larger congregation. He said he couldn't support the motion because the site was too small. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Sigurdson, Hoffman and Williams NOES - Commrs. Cross and Karleskint ABSENT - Commrs. Whittlesey and Senn The motion passed. Commr. Hoffman left the meeting due to illness. Commr. Whittlesey rejoined the meeting. Item 2. Use Permit A 78-91. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's action to allow continuation of an approved use permit with modified conditions to allow a hot dog cart behind 770 Higuera Street; C-C-H zone; 770 Higuera Street; Greg Campbell, applicant/appellant. Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report and explained that the applicant was appealing the conditions of the use permit because two of five changes requested by the applicant which were deleting references in the conditions for the sale of non-alcoholic beverages and deleting the condition restricting signage, were denied by the hearing CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ATTACHMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# , BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR MEETING DATE: December 29, 1993 FILE NUMBER: U 135-93 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2211 Johnson Avenue SUBJECT: Planning Commission Use Permit U 135-93 - request to allow a religious facility in the R-1 zone on a lot located near the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the use permit based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation The Temple Ner Shalom would like to establish a Jewish synagogue on a residential lot located one lot south of the southwestern corner of Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street. Synagogues are a conditionally allowed use in the R-1 zone and require the approval of a Planning Commission use permit. Data Summary Address: 2211 Johnson Avenue Applicant: Temple Ner Shalom Representatives: Richard Carsel, Marshall Ochylski and Jeff Bague Property Owner: Sharon Baldridge Zoning: R-1; Low-Density Residential General Plan: Low-Density Residential Environmental Status: The Community Development Director approved the filing of a negative declaration of environmental impact with mitigation measures on December 3, 1993. Project Action Deadline: April 17, 1994 Site Description The project site is 8,157 square feet in area and slopes moderately from the street to the rear. The site is currently developed with a house and attached .garage. A flag lot subdivision was approved separating the project site from the vacant property to the rear. A common driveway for both lots is located along the south side of the project site. U 135-93 Page 2 Other lots immediately surrounding the site are developed with houses. County offices are located across Bishop Street to the north and County General Hospital and Bishop Medical Center are located across Johnson Avenue to the east. Project Description The existing 1,777 square-foot house would contain a social hall, administration/meeting room, library, kitchen and rest rooms. A 1,904 square-foot addition is proposed as a sanctuary and meeting rooms. Five vehicle parking spaces are proposed on-site. The remainder of the required parking spaces for the use would be provided off-site at the Bishop Medical Center parking lot on the opposite side of Johnson Avenue. The site would be used for religious services primarily on Friday nights from 8:00 - 10:00 p.m. and Saturday mornings from 9:30 a.m. - 12 p.m. On Sunday mornings, religious education would be provided to about 25 students. The site would be used Monday- Thursday only for occasional meetings or classes. A statement of uses from the applicant is attached. EVALUATION 1. Appropriateness of Land Use: R-1 zones in the City are developed primarily with single-family houses; however, temples, churches and synagogues may also be allowed with approval of a use permit. Other churches located along Johnson Avenue in the vicinity of the site include: Church Address Zonina D i s t a n c e Size of Site from Site First Baptist 2075 Johnson R-2 0.18 mile 78,844 sq.ft. LDS 1603 Sydney R-1 0.20 mile 19,314 sq.ft. (existing) LDS 2070 Fixlini R-1 0.19 mile 197,806 sq.ft. (proposed) Nazarene 3396 Johnson R-1 0.83 mile 52,800 sq.ft. Unity Church 1490 R-2 0.83 mile 17,500 sq.ft. Southwood U 135-93 Page 3 Church of 3172 Johnson R-1 0.75 mile 42,000 sq.ft. Christ The potential for compatibility conflicts between the proposed temple and adjoining residences is significant due to their proximity and the relatively small size of the project site. The project site at 8,157 square feet is significantly smaller than the other church sites listed in the above table. The small size of the property makes it much more difficult to provide enough of a physical separation between uses to buffer them adequately (through screening and distance). The proposed change in use from a single-family house to a place of worship will intensify activities with groups of people regularly coming to and leaving the site. With this increase in activity, it can be expected that the ambient noise levels at the site will increase potentially adversely affecting the project's residential neighbors. While the additional noise would be occasional and of short duration, it will be generated at a time when nearby residents are likely to be sensitive to additional neighborhood noise. The attached initial environmental study concludes that land use and noise impacts could be significant. A mitigation measure is included which recommends that the Planning Commission include conditions limiting hours of operation and the maximum occupancy of the building to reduce potential land use conflicts. That same mitigation measure requires that site development plans be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. Staff does not support the establishment of the temple use at this site because of its small size and the proximity of adjoining houses. Even with the small size of the current congregation, there will be a significant intensification in the use of the site. The lack of available on-site parking (discussed in the next section of this report) is also an indicator that the proposed site is not optimally suited for the planned use. Either a larger site, or a site that was not mid-block, where it would be possible to provide a more significant buffer between uses, would be more logical and better choices. The staff recommendation does provide a motion for approval that the Commission can use if they feel that issues can be adequately mitigated. Conditions are recommended which address compatibility, noise, parking and aesthetic issues. 2. Parking: Required parking for the temple use is 28 spaces (based on a parking ratio of one space per 40 square feet of floor area in the sanctuary - the largest assembly room). The majority of the required parking spaces will be provided in the Bishop Medical Center's U 135-93 Page 4 parking lot across Johnson Avenue from the project site. Only five of the required parking spaces will be provided on-site. The City's zoning regulations stipulate that off-site parking shall be Within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed..., within 300 feet of the use and not separated from the use by any feature which would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous." The proposed off-site parking meets this criteria in terms of its proximity to the site and the fact that the signals at the Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street intersection were recently upgraded to provide pedestrian actuation. However, it is not typical of a new use to establish the majority of its parking off-site. The proposed shared use of parking between the Temple and the Bishop Medical Center would also be considered joint use of parking as described in Section 17.16.060 C. of the zoning regulations. Joint use of parking may be approved `for separate parcels or independently planned projects...when there is limited conflict in the operating times of the concerned uses and where the concerned parties have adequate recorded agreements governing the joint use." According to the Statement of Uses supplied by the applicant, the peak parking demand for the temple will occur on Friday nights, Saturday mornings and Sunday mornings. At these times, the medical offices at Bishop Medical Center would be closed and use of the off-site spaces by temple worshippers would not result in conflicts. During regular office hours for Bishop Medical Center (in general, 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m., Monday-Friday), the on-site parking spaces provided at 2211 Johnson Avenue would typically cover temple parking demand. The parking situation is not optimal, but could work with proper monitoring by temple leaders and with the cooperation of temple members. There are numerous examples of churches throughout the City that do not provide on-site parking to City standards. With many churches, worshippers will use curb-side parking on surrounding residential streets. At this location, there is curb-side parking available along Johnson Avenue, but continued use of this on-street parking may cause friction between temple members and the adjacent residents. If temple leaders encourage their members to park in the authorized off-site parking lot, the potential for such conflicts will be minimized. As stated in the previous paragraph, it may be possible for temple members to self monitor their parking patterns when visiting the site given the small size of the congregation. On the other hand, staff sees potential problems with this arrangement for both the City and temple members. For the City, the situation may create enforcement problems since times of most intensive use at the site, when complaints would be most likely, will also be the times when the City staff responsible for monitoring complaints will not be working (evenings and weekends). For the Temple, the situation will not be the most convenient and may be the source for future tension with adjoining property owners and the City. U 135-93 Page 5 3. Site Aooearance: If the Planning Commission approves the use permit, the Temple will then need to file an application for architectural review to evaluate plans for the building addition and site work associated with establishment of the temple use at the site. As mentioned previously in Section 1, there is a specific mitigation measure requiring the ARC to review plans for specific kinds of compatibility concerns like parking lot development, lighting and screening between properties. Concerns for site appearance, such as changes to the street yard area with the elimination of the existing driveway, would most appropriately be handled by the ARC. ALTERNATIVES The commission may approve or deny the use permit with appropriate findings and conditions, or it may continue or deny the request. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Public Works: 1. All conditions of MS 91-145 must be completed, including off-site drainage facilities, prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Street trees and replacement tree planting are required to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Fire: 1. The building shall be equipped with an approved, automatic fire sprinkler system per NFPA-13. 2. A fire hydrant shall be installed along the south side of the property. The developer must pay the City for the cost of materials prior to the issuance of a building permit and the City will perform the installation. Police: 1. The Police Department expressed concerns with the lack of available on-site parking. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the use permit, based on the following findings: U 135-93 Page 6 Findings 1. Because of the small size of the site and the proximity of adjacent residences, the proposed temple use will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The temple use is inappropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding land uses because of potential noise, visual and site development impacts. If the Planning Commission supports the establishment of the temple use at the site, then it should approve the use permi4 based on the following rindings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. Because of the limits placed on its occupancy and the infrequency of its use, the proposed temple use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The temple use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses because potential noise, visual impacts and intensity of site development can be effectively addressed through architectural review and conditions limiting hours of operation and allowed occupancy. 3. The proposed uses conform to the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed off-site and joint use parking is appropriate at the proposed location, being within the prescribed 300 feet from the uses and not separated from the uses by any feature which would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 3, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission: a In its review and consideration of the required use permit, the Planning Commission shall consider including conditions limiting hours of operation and the maximum occupancy of the building to reduce potential land use conflicts. Site U 135-93 Page 7 development plans shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. b. To minimize conflicts in turning movements from the site, the existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk to the approval of the City Engineer. c. The applicant shall provide compensatory tree planting for mature trees to be removed, at the rate of two 24-inch box specimens for each tree removed, with species and placement to the approval of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. Conditions 1. The hours of temple use shall be limited to between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except for Friday where hours shall be limited to between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 2. The occupancy of the sanctuary shall be limited to 50 persons. 3. The applicant shall submit an application for architectural review prior to occupancy which includes specifics on building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. 4. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. Required landscaping plans shall include a plan detailing automatic irrigation systems for all formal landscaped areas. 5. The project shall include facilities for interior and exterior recycling. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding the size and location of areas dedicated to on- site recycling storage. 6. The applicant shall submit an agreement to the City for review, approval and recordation indicating that a minimum of 23 parking spaces will be available at all times at 1551 Bishop Street for the Temple ner Shalom for a period of not less than three years. Upon its expiration or sooner termination of the agreement, or if off-site parking is not available, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Director in writing, and the temple use upon which the off-site parking serves shall cease, unless other off-site parking is made, or on-site parking is provided in compliance with City standards. Hol U 135-93 Page 8 7. All conditions of Minor Subdivision MS 91-145 must be completed, including off-site drainage facilities, prior to issuance of building permits. Attached: Vicinity Map Site Plan Temple Ner Shalom project data Initial Study ER 135-93 Statement of Use from Richard Carsel dated 9-13-93 Letters from Marshall Ochylski dated 9-15-93 and 9-17-93 Letter from Susan Akers Graves dated 11-24-93 Reduced Copy of Minor Subdivision MS 91-145 Director's Action on Minor Subdivision MS 91-145 Letter from Jerry Kenny to Susan Akers Graves dated 12-6-93 I-(Z- P �- PF -J dq IB Q -ry^ n O v X51 �`' r aL O I z 'SfCG ,sL7A .� O r' �o J I C r A e'�s GRAPHIC SCALE: O0 50 100 200 300\ 2 s VICINITY MAP U 135-93 NORTH 2211 JOHNSON AVE. 1 -403 st M I* 0 JoL 11 .I I � a i tI $ I� II 1 10 31 ria I Pa. U , U tie7m-ti —T I I &mwmmm J a K A s 0 1 A I E I wmw.r zi LJ j :i n.n, M=LL DISIM M A R T I N B A C u E INTEki0k, TOM m SWE K c.:,!.I U,%1. L N I C M ,A�' i' 1 NI C L I E AP'\ CH ITECTUP\ E PLAN N I NC I NTEF\ 10P\ 5 846 HICU ERA : 5 , SAN LUIS 0315 P0 , CA 9301 8 � 544 . 43 8 TEMPLE NER SHALOM Site Address: 2211 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo APN: 003.692.146 Existing Use Zane: R-1 Proposed Use: The existing residence will be renovated to include a Social Hall, Library,Administrative Offices, and Meeting Rooms. In addition to the renovation a new Sanctuary will be added with 3 Meetings Rooms situated below the Sanctuary. Site Area: 8,157 SF Building Areas: Existing Structure 1,777 SF Area of uses after renovation Social Hall 556 SF Administration/Meeting 580 SF Library 146 SF Kitchen 260 SF - - Restrooms 235 SF 1,777 SF Addition Areas New Sanctuary 1,112 SF New Meeting Rooms 792 SF 1,904 SF Total Facility Area: 3,021 SF Parking Calculation: 17.16.060, Table 6 Church, synagogues, temples, etc. 1/40 SF (Area of largest assembly room) Parking Required: 1,112 SF: 40 = 27.8 28 spaces Parking Provided: On-site Standard spaces 4 Handicap spaces 1 Bicycle spaces 3 Motorcycle spaces 2 Joint Use Parkin Standard snares 23 ToTil Parking 28 sp;1ccs mom city of San lues OBISpo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 2211 Johnson Avenue APPLICATION NV 5-93 PROJECT DESCRIPTIOINtenovate existing 1,777 square-foot house for use as a religious facility. Construct a 1, 904 square-foot addition for use as a sanctuary and meeting rooms. APPLICANT Temple Ner Shalom STAFF RECOMMENDATION: XNEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPAREDB)pam Ricci, Associate Planner DATE 12-2-93 COMMUNIEr DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE /2/0 z-fl �!� �or•. ill N�Id,..lOn�S SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS 1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... YES* B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH............. .... ......................... NONE C. LAND USE ............................................ ........................... YES* D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ......................................... .... . E. PUBLICSERVICES ................. .. NONE ............ . F. UTILITIES....................................................... ................. NONE* G. NOISE LEVELS .......... ......................................................... YES* H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NONE I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............... NONE J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ................ .. NONE . .. . .. . ... YES* K. PLANT LIFE ...................................................................... L. ANIMAL LIFE.................................... ................................. NONE M. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL . ...................... ............................ NONE N. AESTHETIC . ............ NONE ......... .. O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE .................................. ......... ............... NONE P. OTHER ................... .... . . ................. .................. .............. NONE III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT saes INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ER 135-93 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Temple Ner Shalom would like to establish a Jewish synagogue on a residential lot located one lot south of the southwestern corner of Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street. The existing 1,777 square-foot house would contain a social hall, administration/meeting room, library, kitchen and rest rooms. A 1,904 square-foot addition is proposed as a sanctuary and meeting rooms. Five vehicle parking spaces are proposed on-site. The remainder of the required parking spaces for the use would be provided off-site at the Bishop Medical Center parking lot on the opposite side of Johnson Avenue. The project site is 8,157 square feet in area and zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential; it slopes moderately from the street to the rear. .ne site is currently developed with a house and attached garage. A flag lot subdivision was approved separating the project site from the vacant property to the rear. A common driveway for both lots is located along the south side of the project site. Other lots immediately surrounding the site are developed with houses. County offices are located across Bishop Street to the north and County General Hospital and Bishop Medical Center are located across Johnson Avenue to the east. II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Community Plans and Goals C. Land Use The R-1, Low-Density Residential, zone is intended primarily to "provide housing opportunities to those who want private open space associated with individual dwellings." However, other types of uses, including churches, parks and day care centers, are conditionally allowed and may be established on R-1 sites through approval of a use permit. Residential Land Use Objective C.2.g. of the adopted Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan states that: "certain non-residential uses ... should be considered conditionally compatible with residential environs, subject to the evaluation of site development plans." The establishment of the proposed temple at this site requires the approval of a Planning Commission use permit. The purpose of the use permit requirement is to evaluate whether the use can be compatibly established within its neighborhood setting. The use permit process is designed to allow City review of requests so that the detrimental effects associated with the use can be reduced or avoided and potential conflicts in land use can be prevented through conditions of approval. The potential for compatibility issues between the proposed temple and the neighborhood is exacerbated by the small size of the project site and the proximity of surrounding single- family residences. The Planning Commission will ultimately decide whether the project is ER 135-93 Page 2 compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the General Plan through its review of the required use permit. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: In its review and consideration of the required use permit, the Planning Commission shall consider including conditions limiting hours of operation and the maximum occupancy of the building to reduce potential land use conflicts. Site development plans shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. D. Transportation and Circulation Parking Impacts Required parking for the temple use is 28 spaces. The majority of the required parking spaces will be provided in the Bishop Medical Center's parking lot across Johnson Avenue from the project site. Only five of the required parking spaces will be provide on-site. The parking situation is not optimal, but could work with proper monitoring by temple leaders and with the cooperation of temple members. There are numerous examples of churches throughout the City that do not provide on-site parking to City standards. With many churches, worshippers will use curb-side parking on surrounding residential streets. At this location, there is curb-side parking available,along Johnson Avenue, but continued use of this on-street parking may cause friction between temple members and the adjacent residents. If temple leaders encourage their members to park in the authorized off-site parking lot, the potential for such conflicts will be minimized. The signals at the Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street intersection were recently upgraded to provide pedestrian actuation. This allows a pedestrian to press a button on the signal standard to get a protected signal to walk across Johnson Avenue. Traffic Generation and Safetv The site will be used most frequently for regular services on Friday nights from 8:00-10:00 p.m. (25-40 worshippers) and on Saturday mornings from 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (15-20 worshippers). Johnson Avenue is an arterial street carrying an estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 11,500 vehicle trips. The street in the vicinity of the project site is currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS) A - little or no delay. I�� ER 135-93 Page 3 Given the small size of the temple congregation and the limited number of on-site parking spaces, the amount of traffic generated from the site itself will be minimal. When services are held at the site, the majority of worshippers driving vehicles will park across the street at the Bishop Medical Center parking lot which is accessed through the Johnson Avenue/Bishop Street signalized intersection. Therefore, the additional traffic, directly attributable to the project, impacting traffic volumes on Johnson Avenue will be insignificant. The intersection at Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street is at the crest of a steep hill. From the project site, this hill limits visibility to the north and makes exiting the site more difficult and dangerous. The street intersection is within 200 feet of the common driveway on the south side of the subject site. This common driveway was created through Minor Subdivision MS 91-145 (final map approved 12-18-92). At the time that this flag lot subdivision was evaluated, it was determined that the driveway was at a safe distance from the intersection, but that the existing driveway serving the house at 2211 Johnson Avenue should eventually be eliminated. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: To minimize conflicts in turning movements from the site, the existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk to the approval of the City Engineer. F. Utilities The proposed change in use will not trigger the requirement for a water allocation because the difference in calculated water use for a single-family house (0.37 acre feet) and a 3,000 square-foot temple (0.42 acre feet) is negligible (0.05 acre feet). The minor difference between existing and projected water use will be adequately accounted for by required installation of low-flow (1.6-gallon maximum) toilets with the change in use. G. Egin The proposed change in use from a single-family house to a place of worship will intensify activities with groups of people regularly coming to and leaving the site. With this increase in activity, it can be expected that the ambient noise levels at the site will increase potentially adversely affecting the project's residential neighbors. While the additional noise would be occasional and of short duration, it will be generated at a time when nearby residents are likely to be sensitive to additional neighborhood noise. Conclusion: May be significant. ER 135-93 Page 4 Mitigation Measure: Same as provided in Sections A. and C. of this initial environmental study. K. Plant Life The following trees (with trunk diameter of 3" or greater) are located within the southerly area of the site where the common driveway would be developed: 5" and 15" Monterey Pines, .two 4" Fruitless Mulberries, and a 3" Purple Leaf Plum. These proposed tree removals are consistent with the tree proposal endorsed by the City Arborist at the time that MS 91-145 was reviewed and approved by the City. Conclusion: May be significant. Removal of these trees will change the number and diversity of plant species on the site. Mitigation Measure_ The applicant shall provide compensatory tree planting for mature trees to be removed, at the rate of two 24-inch box specimens for each tree removed, with species and placement to the approval of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a negative declaration be prepared for this project with noted mitigation measures incorporated into the project. If the Community Development Director determines that the mitigation measures outlined in this initial study are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. P70 ER 135-93 Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ER 135-93 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored by written acknowledgement from the property owner of these restrictions, and through follow- up if complaints are received that conditions have been violated, and by reviewing the plans during Architectural Review Commission review and building permit plan check: 1. In its review and consideration of the required use permit, the Planning Commission shall consider including conditions limiting hours of operation and the maximum occupancy of the building to reduce potential land use conflicts. Site development plans shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate building design, parking lot development, lighting proposals and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots. 2. To minimize conflicts in turning movements from the site, the existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. The applicant shall provide compensatory tree planting for mature trees to be removed, at the rate of two 24-inch box specimens for each tree removed, with species and placement to the approval of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. 4. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. I - 7� Temple - - > >��- � Ner �S0 � -541-2-71F3� cShalom September 13, 1993 VIA TELECOPIER Jeff Bague, Architect Martin & Bague 846 Higuera Street, Ste. 5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo Proposed Synagogue Facility STATEMENT OF USES Dear Jeff: Temple Ner Shalom would like to use the captioned building as its synagogue if the City will approve the use. The anticipated use of the facility is as follows: 1. Friday Nights: - Worship service from 8: 00 - 10: 00 p.m. We normally have between 25-40 worshippers at these services; 2 . Saturdav Mornings: Worship service from 9 : 30 a.m. - 12 : 00 p.m. We normally have between 15-20 worshippers at these services; 3 . Sunday Mornings: Sunday School from 10: 00 a.m. - 12 : 00 P.m. We have about 25 students in the Sunday School program; 4 . Monday - Thursday: The building would rarely be used except for occasional meetings or classes. For your reference we have been a congregation for over 9 years. We are renting space from other churches and/or schools in San Luis Obispo. The schedule stated above has been our pattern since our inception. Please let me know if you need any other information. Thank you. Sincer ly, R CHARD A. CARSEL, President RAC:noa LANDPLANS INCORPORATED Hand Delivery LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND%SITE PLANNING P O. Box 14327 San Luis Obispo. California 93406 September 15, 1993 (805) 54A-4546 FAX (805) 544-4594 Ron Whisenand Marshail E. Ocnylsk. C1662 Community Development Department 669 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Subject: Proposed Nor-Shalom Temple San Luis Obispo, California Per the pending submittal of a Use Permit Application, we would like to review the permits required to allow the use of a structure located in the R-1 Zone as a Temple for worship by members of the Jewish Faith. The following items are the various City discretionary permits which we believe are necessary to implement the project: Use Permit: This use is allowed with Planning Commission approval per Chanter 17, Table 9 of the City's Zoning Regulations. Since this proposal would not be a granting of special privilege or endanger the public's health, safety, or welfare we can foresee no reason that the Use Permit should not be approved. Environmental Review: Because of the minimal scale of the proposed use (see the attached letter from Richard Carsels) we believe that there are no adverse environmental impacts associated with the project, and that the project should receive a Negative Declaration. Mixed Use Parking Reduction: The proposed shared parking agreement furthers the goals of Section 17.16.060.A by "consolidating parking and minimizing the area devoted exclusively to parking when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." In addition, the Temple has an agreement with the adjacent Bishop Medical Clinic for use of their. parking facilities on a shared basis. In accordance with the requirements of Section 17.16.060.8 of the Zoning Regulations, the attached letter verifies that the "times of maximum parking demand from the various uses do not coincide." - 1 - /-73 Finally, the Temple will have a "recorded agreement governing the joint parking" as required by Section 17.16.060.C. Variance: A Variance of the front yard setback requirement is requested to allow the continued use of existing driveway parking space for handicap parking upon the conversion of the use from Residential to Church. We believe that approval of the this variance would not constitute a granting of special privilege, since it is a continuation of an existing practice and is typical situation of the existing condition in the neighborhood. Architectural Review Commission: The proposed addition will require ARC review and approval, however because of the relatively small scale of the proposed addition, its location at the rear of the site and our architect's sensitivity to the character of the surrounding structures, we do not foresee any difficulties in obtaining ARC approval. We look forward to discussing these items with you further, and hope that these items can be addressed in on expeditious manner that is satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely, s Marshall E. Ochylski, C1862 President MEO/Ipp attachment - 2 - 71L LANDPLANS -- INCORPORATED Hand Delivery LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND,SITE PLANNING P.O. Box 14327 September 17, 1993 San Luis Obisoo. California 93406 (805) 544-4546 FAX (805) 544-4594 Ron Whisenand Community Development Department Marshall E. OcnylSki. C1862 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Subject: Proposed Temple Ner Shalom 2211 Johnson Drive San Luis Obispo, California Attached is our application for both a Planning Commission Use Permit to allow a Synagogue in a R-1 zone, pursuant to Chapter 17, Table 9 of the City's Municipal Code, and an Administrative Use Permit to allow for Joint Parking pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.16.060. Description of Proposed Use: The proposed Temple Ner Shalom at 2211 Johnson Drive will include the renovation of an existing residential structure to include a Social Hall, Library, Administrative Offices, and Meeting Rooms. The proposed minor addition to the structure will include a sanctuary and additional meeting rooms. A more detailed description of both the building and site areas are included in the attached documentation from Martin . Bague. The proposed use is an allowed use with Planning Commission approval per Chapter 17, Table 9 of the City's Municipal Code. The location on Johnson Drive, adjacent to the County's Medical Center and adjoining a mature residential neighborhood is a convenient location for this proposed use. Joint Parking: A detailed analysis of the parking is included as a part of the attached documentation submitted by Martin • Bague. In summary, the analysis shows that the proposed synagogue requires 28 parking spaces, of which 23 are proposed as joint use parking spaces with Bishop Medical Clinic. /- 75 This proposed shared parking will further the goals of Municipal Code Section 17.16.060.A by "consolidating parking and minimizing the area devoted exclusively to parking when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." In addition, it is in accordance with the requirements of Section 17.16.060.B of the Municipal Code, the attached letter from Temple Ner Shalom verifies that the "times of maximum parking demand from the various uses do not coincide." This proposed arrangement will also further the stated goals of the Air Pollution Control District of reducing the paved areas of parking lots in order to reduce diurnal emissions. Finally, as required by Municipal Code Section 17.16.060.C, a "recorded agreement governing the joint parking" between the Temple and Bishop Medical Clinic will be provided. Proposed Findings We propose that the Use Permits be approved on the basis of the following Findings: The proposed Synagogue use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity. The Synagogue is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. The Synagogue conforms to the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. Application of the City's parking standards shows that development of the site as requested by the applicants results in an on-site parking deficiency of 23 spaces. Given the Joint Parking Agreement, there is no evidence to indicate that this level of deficiency would result in poor on-site circulation or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16 060.A, Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." It also fulfills Section 17.16.060.B in that the "...times of maximum parking demand from the various uses do not coincide. Moreover, the project satisfies the Joint Use requirement for parking specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060.0 as evidenced by the Temple's Joint Parking Agreement with Bishop Medical Clinic. The Joint Parking Agreement will assure that all parking will either occur on- site or in the Bishop Medical Clinic parking lot and not in the surrounding residential areas. This approval is consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's land use planning strategies to reduce the areas required to be paved for automobile parking. We look forward to discussing these items with you further, and hope that these items can be addressed in an expeditious manner that is satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely, Marshall E. Ochylski, C1862 President MEO/Ipp attachments cc: Richard Carsel Jules Rogoff Jeff Bague - 3 - P71 Susan .Akers Crct �s 20612 Reef Lane Huntington Beach, Cil 92646 (714) 968-8302 13ECEIVEI November 24, 1993 DEC 0 81493 Mr. Arnold Jonas CmOF SIN LUIS Og)SP,- nMMUNrYDEVE!r7c. - Planning Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Planning Activity at 2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Jonas: 1 am the owner of the property at 1365 Bishop, Parcels, #003, 692, 043 and #003, 692, 048 . I have owned 1365 Bishop since 1978. This second, latter parcel was formed by taking a portion of the 1365 Bishop lot and by purchase of a portion of the lot at 2211 Johnson Avenue to create a flag lot and access to the back portion of my property to create an additional residential lot of 8, 400 square feet. At the time of this purchase and subdivision last year, I had asked that an easement not be granted to either 2211 Johnson or the lot to the right. I believed this was important, because of the nature and issues of attractiveness for anyone who would either choose to purchase or develop this lot as a home. I was assured by the City Planning Department that the area was to remain an R-1 zoning, which was the reason I was doing the subdivision in the first place. I had originally attempted to have the city approve an option for R-2 or condominium arrangement and was told this was not possible. Thus, after two+ years of discussions we purchased a small portion of the 2211 Johnson lot from Sharon Baldridge and went to subdivision. Several months ago I was approached by the (at that time "prospective") = ourchasers of the lot at 2211 Johnson about their prospective plans to develop a synagogue at the site and they were essentially asking me if I would consider selling my unimproved lot to them to create the space they required for the ultimate development of the synagogue and ultimate parking. I told them I was interested in selling it and potentially my other piece of property at 1365 Bishop, especially in light of their description of the ultimate plans for their project, which could ultimately impact both of my existing properties deleteriously. They indicated that for the moment they were going to be "renting" parking space across the street from the City or other commercial venture to accommodate their site, but that additional plans could prospectively include my property. One discussion included their first and second phase plans. The first phase includes building out their property to as close to their property line (and of course, very close up to my property as they can get) . I told them I had concerns about how this would affect my prcperty. I gave them a price for the what I wanted to sell the two pieces of property and they said they would get back to me. They have not done so. And I have never seen or been given any information, plans, drawings or final scenario regarding this effort. 1-78 Page 2/Arnold Jan, I am not opposed to a synagogue in this area. what I am opposed to is that this kind of development in this R-1 area impacts this small community and VERY SPECIFICALLY impacts my two pieces of property that lie behind and to the side of it. Most importantly, this development greatly impacts tremendously the accessway to my flag lot, which was supposed to be an easement (to be used on a limited basis) for two R-1 properties and now is to be an easement for a multi-use venture and at a much more intense use than ever intended. My sense and concern is that this organization is trying to get the city to aonrove the initial plan, with the intent of creating a plan that could currently affect and ultimately would drive down any value on my residential property or the ability for me to properly develop or sell my unimproved lot. Additionally, the plan (which I haven't seen) probably takes advantage of the engineering work for the accessway, drainage improvement and landscaping that was created for the improvement of my unimproved lot behind their property without any compensation or remuneration. ;Lay plan that is considered should be considered, as was with my R-1 lot, the full potential of the project--in this case--something significantly more substantial than the original plan that you probably see before you. The very fact that parking is being leased elsewhere and that I had been approached about my lot demonstrates that there is more to this plan than this specific conditional use permit request from an R-1 lot to what will be a significantly more intense use of this property. My understanding is that religious organizations can operate in these zoning areas, but they are usualy set apart so as not to impact neighboring residences. I believe the organization should be responsible for developing the full-case scenario of its plans and that whatever conditional use permit change occurs should be based on that scenario, including their full requirements and its impact on neighboring properties. My sense is that the impact would be highly downplayed. It seems to me that their plans might need to include city mandate that to complete this plan that my property be purchased, or plans be mitigated in such a manner as to protect my property from the impacts of an intensive use venture. I have assisted in church development in other communities and I believe the meetings, prospective meetings and gatherings and their impact on a small lot residential community should be looked at in a long-term view, which I am sure you,will do in your role as chief planning executive for San Luis Obispo. Many thanks for your consideration and assistance. Please followup with me regarding the proposed plan and what I now need to do to assure that my concerns are part of the permanent record for "hearing" purposes. Sincerely, Susan Akers Graves CC: Terry Orton, Westland Engineering . � I I I i I l j I I t t n I . wv � tm I g Io C 314 F — v eo' g. w sssv'wtz' _ I s,, - I -I �e 8� /--ssv �Fy I •ti � � �C i � �'•r t 4�g � i 03 '� V s 'w uzu[.o .. •t e I N J I I Q cm x sf a = JOHNSON AVENUE x. i I � y�y gg�� '�`• L = o���o_a QRS �a�= Q^°_ Q -:' - es �. - _ , Ism kZ YQ€f n •... L'zz.G� H �m F^�+� F�^ �oi� .�: •9v3 Qf;Yfm"r5 ^'3d �,� Y 3q 7 X63 .�ga Qa'o�s� 3�Z N . �+oQ � �-• •a•. � I � ��F}Qo' i0 �� P Y $�S> .] -�s �P�.i 55zo�� 5 lit S ism �o P4Q-0Z * Z ! . > Lv _ Fg .19l !' s s . 5i.�a7:H tY QvoL Qcli _QQ� O� � � " •i --- �a cgYF o en 5`a o IX ¢�Ul I eY 80 Illi I i I III I I'!ii4U�iihr.:''II jl hj'' II - II�IIIINIIItl IIIII�II,II I�IfI,IIl,irijnallrlpl cityO sAn tuts oBispo - lilll ' 990 Palm StreetlPost Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 934038100 January 21, 1992 Susan L. Akers Graves 1365 Bishop Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision No. MS 91-145 1365 Bishop Street and 2211 Johnson Avenue Dear Ms . Graves: On Friday, January 17, 1992 , I conducted a public hearing on your request for tentative parcel map approval for a minor subdivision creating two lots from one lot, at the subject location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved the tentative parcel map for Minor Subdivision 91-145, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements listed in the attached document. My decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. Municipal Code Section 16 . 16 . 170 states that anv failure to record a final map within two years from the approval of the tentative map, or extensions thereof, granted by the city shall terminate all proceedings and the tentative map of the subdivision shall be null and void. If you have any questions, please call Greg Smith at 781-7174 . Sincerely, Ken Bruce Hearing Officer cc: Terry Orton - Westland Engineering 1037 Mill Street Sharon Baldridge 1026 Mill Street Attachment: Director ' s Action No. 92-02 DIRECTOR'S ACTION NO. 92-02 AN ACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 91-145 LOCATED AT 1365 BISHOP STREET AND 2211 JOHNSON AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Community Development Director, after consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision 91-145 and the staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone. - - 3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. .4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed minor, subdivision is exempt from environmental review. SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision MS 91-145 be subject to the following conditions: 1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation. 2. Subdivider shall provide a 20-foot wide with a 16-foot wide paved common access driveway easement and agreement for parcels 2 and 3 for recordation with the final map. The driveway agreement shall be in a form approved by the Community Development Director. DA 92-02 Page 2 3. Subdivider shall provide compensatory tree planting for mature trees to be removed, at the rate of two, 24-inch box specimens for each tree removed. The number, species and placement shall be to the approval of the City Arborist. 4. All boundary monuments and lot corners must be tied to the city's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map along with a 5-1/4-inch computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in "Autocad" for geographic information system purposes. 5. Final map shall note that Parcel 2 is determined to be a sensitive site and that any new development on this lot shall require review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Final map shall show a drainage easement through Parcel 1 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This easement shall convey drainage from Parcels 2 and 3. SECTION 3. Code Requirements. That the following represent standard requirements required by various codes, ordinances and policies of the City of San Luis Obispo: 1. Final map shall note that structures constructed on Parcel 2 shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 2. Final map shall note that all applicable sewer and water fees, as determined by the City Engineer, are due and payable prior to the issuance of future building permits for any of the lots. 3. Street trees shall be installed to city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, prior to final map approval. 4. The subdivider shall install individual sewer, water and utility services for each parcel. New utilities shall be underground. 5. New lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 6. The subdivider shall pay park-in-lieu fees, as determined by the Community Development Department prior to final map approval. �-83 DA 92-02 Page 3 The foregoing document was passed and adopted this 17th day of January, 1992. Community Development Director By: Ken Bruce, Hearing Officer 'nl".I!!111!111111"1111!IC!II'lurf!:C''r."IC:I'!!"Rha ti;Ij!;Filll!Ejllll�l�lly!IEGi;I;r;:;l�i,.:; ri�::;j•::c;!II _ &Iplil City Of SAn WIS OBISPO 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 December 6 , 1993 Susan Akers Graves 20612 Reef Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Subject: Common Driveway - NS 91-145 Dear Susan, In your FAXed letter of December 5, 1993 you indicated that you were "in total confusion and disagreement with the issue of a common driveway" and the "requirement for the associated improve- ments" . I have attached Director's Action No. 92-02 which set forth the tentative map requirements to be met prior to approval and recorda- tion of a final parcel map and offer the following comments: Condition 2 . specifically required a common access driveway easement and agreement, along with the necessary improvements. That condition was met by the recordation of a standard City Common Driveway Agreement (attached) between you and Sharon Baldridge (owner of Parcel 3) and by execution of a subdivision agreement (Guarantee) and submittal of a bond to guarantee the installation of the required subdivision improvements. There is no mention of a "limited" use of the driveway by either party in that document. The issue of zoning and any "expanded" uses of Parcel 3 do not relate to the map conditions. Those issues are more related to consideration of the pending land use request currently being processed for Parcel 3 . There are no requirements to improve "any portion of Parcel 311 , as a condition of the above-mentioned agreement, except for compensa- tory tree planting to replace certain trees which will be removed when the driveway is installed. (Condition 3 . of the above- mentioned Director's Action) I believe a separate document was recorded (along with the parcel map) which denotes the areas reserved for such planting. Some of the tree planting will be on Parcel 2 . Although staff typically does not have knowledge of special agree- ments between the parties to a subdivision, the fact is that you signed the subdivision agreement and supplied the bond to guarantee this work. Therefore, you are held responsible for completing the requirements of the subdivision under the agreement . Tne C•:% G: Sc' L vs 0;.c:J 5 :Y.^...;:E: :J :nc..je :`e C .c2:en n:: Jf ::S 5­. 1(9 Te!ecomr,un,ca:-ens De.',ce +r ;ne Deat ,.3.5) 751.7;7.0 /r05 Susan Akers Graves (MS 92-145) Page two If the developer of the proposed development on Parcel 3 installs the necessary driveway improvements, it would be up to the respective parties to resolve any private agreement conflicts . The City is only obligated to make sure the improvements are installed under the terms of the subdivision agreement. I have transmitted a copy of your letters to Pam Ricci, the project planner for the proposed project on Parcel 3 for her information. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (805) 781-7194 or Pam Ricci at 781-7168 . Yours truly, WAYNE A. PETERSON CITY ENGINEER erald W. Kenny Supervising Civil Engineer Attachments: 1) Director's Action 92-02 2) Common Driveway Agreement - - - c: Terry Orton (Westland Engineering) R Whisenand/P Ricci ' T Baasch MB/HB file G: \WP51\DReview\Misc\MS91-145.Ext The following letters of support were submitted by the applicant's representatives after the staff report was prepared. Pvl LANDPLANS INCORPORATED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND.'SITE PLANNING Hand Delivery P.O. Box 14327 San Luis Obispo. California 93=06 (805) 544.4546 December 21 , 1993 FAX (605) 544-4594 Marshall E. Ochy!ski. C 19E2 Community Development Department City Of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Attention: Pam Ricci Subject: Use Permit # U 135-93 Temple Ner Shalom San Luis Obispo, California I am writing this letter in response to our conversations and to further respond in writing to some of the issues raised in the letters that the City has received from Susan Akers Graves. Per our conversations, we understand that Community Development staff may have some concerns regarding the neighborhood compatibility of the proposal to allow a synagogue in this specific location. Our request is to allow a synagogue on the site located at 2211 Johnson Avenue, property which is presently zoned R-1 . This request is before the Planning Commission since the City's Zoning Ordinance allows churches in the R-1 Zone with Planning Commission Use Permit. The city's well established policy of allowing churches in the R-1 zone has well served the city's spiritual needs while preserving the integrity of the city's residential neighborhoods. This diversification of religious facilities throughout the city has served to help create the diverse character of San Luis Obispo, which is treasured by so many residents. If the city takes a retrospective look at its experience with the numerous churches presently located in the R-1 zone, I do not believe that these facilities would be perceived to present a compatibility problem. The specific request for this site proposes uses which are much less intense than those presently occurring at Congregation Beth David, the only other synagogue located in San Luis Obispo. Congregation Beth David is also located in a predominantly residential neighborhood, and even though Congregation Beth David has a much larger congregation with a for more extensive program of religious services, it has not created any neighborhood compatibility problems in its over twenty years of existence. Judson Terrace, which is located closer to the Congregation Beth David site than any residences would be to the proposed Temple Ner Shalom site, has a number of senior citizens living in units that are directly adjacent to, and overlook, the Congregation Beth David property. As the enclosed letter confirms, there have been no complaints from these residents over that thirty year period. In addition, the approval of this religious use may actually significantly reduce the neighborhood impacts presently generated by the continued use of the house as a rental for Cal Poly students. That there is a need for, as well as widespread support for, this facility is well evidenced by the enclosed letters of support from the other religious congregations in the city. Regarding the parking issues, we are in the process of finalizing a parking agreement with the doctors at Bishop Medical Plaza for the use of their parking facilities on a shared basis. In addition, we have discussed with the Engineering Department our desire to have the curb immediately in front of the synagogue painted white to allow drop off and pick up only. The congregation intends to stridently monitor, and strictly enforce, its parking program, and wants to- assure city staff, and the adjacent neighbors, that no parking will occur in the adjacent residential zones. The following comments are directed towards the concerns raised by Susan Akers Graves in her letters. The fact that a flag lot was created with no appreciable street frontage is not the fault of the synagogue nor the present property owner. The lot was created at the request of Ms. Akers Graves with the implicit understanding that the easement for the common driveway would allow access to Parcel 3 off the driveway to Parcel 2 as well as granting an easement for 'parking and back-up space over the area' to Sharon Boldridge, the owner of Parcel 2. (See enclosed copy of the Grant of Easement for Common Driveway.). Therefore, any argument to the contrary by Ms. Akers Graves regarding the use of common driveway appears to be illusory. There are no plans for any additional development at this time, and there would be no further development on the site unless the synagogue purchases Parcel 2 at some later date. Regarding Parcel 2, Temple Ner Shalom has offered to purchase this property at its appraised value without success. It is unfortunate that there is now an attempt to bring these negotiations between private parties over the purchase price of her property into the Planning Commission's deliberations. - 2 - �!O 1 Also enclosed is a copy of a letter that was distributed to the adjacent property owners, informing them of the plans to develop the property for use by the Temple Ner Shalom. The letter indicated that the congregation would be happy to meet with them and answer any questions or respond to any concerns they might have, to date there has been no concerns raised nor questions asked. In conclusion, we hope that the Planning Commission will agree that this facility is a significant asset to the community, and will concur with our Use Permit request. Sincerely, 0. rts Marshall E. Ochylski, C1862 President MEO/Ipp enclosures - - cc: Temple Ner Shalom Richard Carsel Jeff Bague - 3 - 1-96 JUDSON TERRACE HOMES _ Roger C. lump Retirement Community Manager 3000 Augusta Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • Telephone (805) 544-1600 December 21, 1993 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Temple Ner Shalom Proposed Site; 2211 Johnson Ave. , SLO Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is written in support of Temple Ner Shalom's application for a use permit to use the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue. As you may know, Judson Terrace is a non-profit residential facility for low-income ambulatory senior citizens. At any given time we have well over 100 residents living at our facility. We have been located at this address for over 20 years. Our immediate neighbor is Congregation Beth David ("CBD") and we share a very long common property line. We have been neighbors with CBD for the entire time that Judson Terrace has been in existence. As such, we have "lived with" CBD on a daily basis for over 20 years. CBD is an active congregation with what appears to us to be a full range of congregational activities including Sunday School. As you might expect their facility is used for all normal congregational functions including worship services on a regular basis (e.g. , every Friday night and Saturday mornings) . We have many apartments for our senior citizens which are adjacent to and overlook the CBD facility. In the eight years that I have been the administrator here there have been only 2 or 3 incidents of youthful enjoyment which I consider minor and acceptable. For all practical purposes, CBD has been a good neighbor and has not interfered with the quiet enjoyment of our senior citizens' residential apartments. Non-Sectarian Servic%�5 in Retirement Living "LSF Managed by American Baptist Homes of the 0.'est l-o-9/ Planning Commission December 21, 1993 Page 2 We understand that Temple Ner Shalom is a considerably smaller congregation than CBD. Based upon our experience as residential neighbors of a Jewish congregation we would expect that Temple Ner Shalom would also be a good neighbor for adjacent residences. The proposed site at 2211 Johnson Ave. is adequate for a small synagogue facility. And, as I said, we believe from our experience that their activities will not adversely impact neighboring residences. We urge you to approve the requested use permit application. Thank you. Sin cerel erel , ROG , dministrator R7:noa l�g� Z i The Congregational Gurck - United Ckurck Of Ckrist 11245 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93405 s i e MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3559, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93403 KENNETH E. LOCKWOOD, MINISTER OFFICE (605) 544-1373 December 21, 1993 The Planning Commission City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Planning Commission: I currently serve as President of the San Luis Obispo Ministerial Association. I have learned that the Planning Commission may not approve Temple Ner Shalom' s application for a Use Permit on property located at 2211 Johnson Avenue . I also understand that one of the major concerns stated by the commission regarding the issuance of a Use Permit is the incompatibility of Temple Ner Shalom activities in a residential neighborhood. Many of our local churches and congregations are located in residential neighborhoods and the work and ministry has proven to be entirely compatible , even advantageous to neighbors. I am writing to you to urge your approval of Temple Ner Shalom' s Use Permit on the 2211 Johnson Avenue property. Sincerely yours, Rev. en Lockwood �-g3 - The First Presbyterian Church Barbara Haddon Marsh and Morro Streets San Luis Obispo, California i Pastor l!' Post Office Box 591 Church 543-D951 November 19 , 1993 City Planning Commission County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 To whom it may concern: I am writing to encourage you to issue a use permit for Temple Ner Shalom to enable them to complete their plans to locate a place of worship in the building at 2211 Johnson Avenue. The location is appropriate for such use, being on a major thoroughfare with easy accessibility and ample parking due to their agreement with the General Hospital across the street . This congregation definitely needs their own facility to carry on the programs of worship and education that are part of their weekly activities. They are currently forced to rent or borrow a variety of locations in the city, making it difficult for them to provide stability and continuity for their congregation. Speaking both from my position as Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of San Luis Obispo, and that of Vice-President of the Ministerial Association of our county, I am eager for this congregation to be able to settle in a permanent location. They are a vital and contributing force for good in our community. I urge you to facilitate their plans expediently! Sincerely, n *bars Haddon 1�9�- 0 0 - St. Stephen's (aptscopal Church 1344 Nipomo Street • San Luis Obispo • CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 543-7212 December 8, 1993 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission San Luis Obispo, California 93401 I am addressing the use of the property at 2211 Johnson Street in San Luis Obispo. I understand that Temple Ner Shalom has plans to purchase the residence situated there contingent to being able to convert it for use as a house of worship. In my opinion, that would be a good use for that property. The neighbor- hood is currently mixed residences and medical facilities. The church in which I work is in a neighborhood which is mixed residences and business establishments. It should be fine. I feel strongly that the City of San Luis Obispo should be intentional in supporting the growth of religious communities. Temple Ner Shalom is an integral part of our township and deserves every consideration in their petition. ery Tr1 o s,VThe R� Geo Ri y The reverend George E. Ridgway, Re:tor • The Reverend Miles 12cncar, Associate • The Reverend Tom Zarwater Deacon The Reverend Alanson Higbie • The Reverend John Leo, Assisting Clergy 1� P.O.box 1483 San Luis Obispo Califomia 93406 (805) 543-1034 %r .�ui55osise� �e�'OLOSAI� i ' December 14, 1993 j City Planning Commission San Luis Obispo, California RE: Use permit for residence conversion to a synagogue facility I would like to give support to Temple Ner Shalom's plan to purchase and convert the residence at 2211 Johnson Avenue into a synagogue facility. The very visible location on one of the main streets in San Luis Obispo is most i appropriate for a place of worship. Speaking for the Community of Old ' Mission San Luis Obispo, we support and look forward to the dedication of this newest place of worship in our town. If there is anything that Old Mission San Luis Obispo can do to encourage the Council to issue the use permit, we are willing to try and encourage it. i ' Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation, In Mary's Son, i j Rev. Jim Nisbet Pastor, Old Mission San Luis Obispo I —9!v G GrP� s CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE O��j 3396 JOHNSON AVENUE L SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 IN CHRIST Phone 805/543-3192 December 17, 1993 San Luis Obispo Planning Commission City Hall - San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Commission Members: This is to lend support to the request of Temple Ner Shalom of San Luis Obispo for approval of a use permit to convert the building at 2211 Johnson Avenue to a synagogue facility. This should be a good use of the property without detriment to the immediate area, and of benefit to an organization that contributes to the moral and spiritual strength of our community. Si cerely John Payton, Pastor San Luis Obispo Church of the Nazarene JOHN a PAWON / r} P&= 7 ►� Kt. 'Carmel Lutheran Church 1701 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo,California 93405 (805)544-2133 Russell E.Gordon Pastor November 15, 1993 City Planning Commission City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Friends, On behalf of the members of Mount Carmel Lutheran Church I would like to express how pleased we are that the Temple ner Shalom of San Luis Obispo is hoping to convert a house at 2211 Johnson Avenue into a synagoeor their worship use. With the adjacent adequate parking of General Hospital and the fact that several other churches are already established on Johnson Ave., the location seems to be an ideal place. It is my hope that the City Planing Commission will act swiftly to approve a use permit for Temple ner Shalom Sincerely, Russell E. Gordon Pastor "Go, then, to al!peoples everywhere and make them my disciples... Matthew 28:19 V Church Educational System The Church of I,•iui Chviit of Lllr ti r-,hly.Sa nlfi San Luis Obispo Calironia l!!]titntC Of Rdiou City Planning Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 December 13 , 1993 To Whom It May Concern: I ' m writing to encourage the approval for Richard Carsel ' s permit application concerning purchasing the building at 2211 Johnson Avenue for a Synagogue . If the Synagogue ' s presence could in any way reflect Mr. Richard Carsel ' s personal character, then rest assured the Synagogue will prove to be an asset to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Calvin S . F:unz Director 125 Cali)ivnia Boulraard• San Luis O64i1,o, Cali Oruia 934113 •(8 1)5) 543-03S9 The Protes rant Chapel California Men's Colony - East • Rev. H. Warren Alderson, Chaplain November 16, 1993 City Planning Commission San Luis Obispo Dear Commission members: I am writing to you on behalf of the Temple Ner Shalom of San Luis Obispo, which is currently in the process of purchasing a residence at 2211 Johnson Avenue. As the Protestant Chaplain at the California Men's Colony, East Facility, and a member of the Ministerial Association of San Luis Obispo, I would like to express my support of this purchase. The property would be used as a new synagogue facility, which would undoubtedly be an asset to the community. Those who would be attending this synagogue would be a positive and enriching influence to this area. The synagogue would also facilitate the patients at the General Hos- pital and their families. I therefore urge the City Planning Commission to permit the con- version of the property in question into a synagogue facility. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Cordi.allG� sionall _.. . Rev. H. W en erson Protes t ain, CMC-East HWA/mpm j-/oo 8101 547 - 7900 4504 P.O. Box 8101 - Hwy. 1 North 9 San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-EM= • 805/Na3-2Z=. Ext. UNIVERSITY CHRISTIAN CENTER 1468 Foothiff Boulevard San Luis Obispo, Cahfomia 93401 (805) 544-3710 Tfie Revaend David A. Srnifry, Campus Mumter Ci y� C yam, 01* CL 12eed /� �.� c�-.1�./rrjr«tel` —`� h��c. 2 �-�►.c ' ' � 9�-- �� ='Wv�� Y�IG'hC7 CGL -tl'Yl cc- - ��K�� /�er ���l�t .�� l��=Q-�i'l lt•1'� Gt' I2c L:U� CG-rv►r,ll(.4�� ��t� f��� dd �Y1LcC('� p�- D7, ot, rvlcl- Val' We serve California Polytechnic Stale University and Cuesta College on beholl of UNITED MINISTRIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, an interdenominational commission Composed of representatives Irom the Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.),the United Church of Christ.the Christian Church(Disciples of Chrisf(. and the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of EI Camino Real. A`oveir4iz,; 191 1993 U4i Pean sing Commi.szion Caw Kari 990 Pain Sfneet San La-ia G'Ciapo Cavi loan ire Si3OJECi%: USE uF P&Z LIT FOR MiPLL A&Z ShxL.uis veait (t'Q,aCe�a: A.6 a mnlaEz¢ o� the San Luiz 0 iapo PUni.at -i.at A"Or-iation arrL PMYa en . onr/nn o..1 the Community of John. XX111, I am uKitlnq.. on eehaU o? Temple i'iez Shalom in itz nequeat 2olz a uze rxAniit attowing it to makz uze of the &Litdiing at 2211 John-hon .4venue, San Luiz 09-iA o, and uti bze it az a zynagogue. Thin Bong-aegation has gnoun oven the pant ten geanz, and it iz nu, o=.seavafion Lf itz racmaa4z have a&jayz dnga=d of a pla.^e o� thein o&n. Now they zee the pozziliiitiq o� achieving thla dzeam. Ile w, o nae then¢ �n.iend d shat¢ theist hope with them and taurt that you e iiF_i ,tezpond gavo wAlidt to the.La nequeet. The Location they have ,w-&ctz d iz idzan g, and the aan A&gantz "e aea&j! Thanh you A4 youz conzideaation. Sinee�eiJ, i�:.oaf PIcG.inn COPrMNITJ OF J0111V XXIII 188 Cuz to Nive San Lai e Oi i.apo CA 93405 543-9452 . 1-/OZ- San Luis Obispo United Methodist Church 1515 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, California 93405 (805) 543-7580 - December 21, 1993 City Planning Commission 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Commissioners: We are writing in support of the purchase of 2211 Johnson Ave. by Temple Ner Shalom. Our understanding is that the Temple plans to convert the residence into a synagogue for their worshipping community. This residential area already includes other worship centers, including the First Baptist Church at 2075 Johnson. Because worship centers, especially synagogues, normally serve a population which can reach them easily, either on foot or by car, this residential location is ideal for a synagogue. In addition, the close proximity of the site to both French and General Hospital will make the Temple more accessible for those who are in need of spiritual assistance in times of physical crisis. One of the strengths of the San Luis Obispo area is the diversity of its religious organizations and the way in which the leaders and members work together to reach to the community. It is a pleasure for us to work with Richard Carsel, President of the Temple, and other members of Temple Ner Shalom. We encourage the city to approve the purchase and conversion of 2211 Johnson Ave. so the Temple and the entire community can continue to benefit from the sharing of our mutual interests in the betterment of life in San Luis Obispo. Sincerely, /- Randa J. D Aoustm , Mister G. Nelson tringer, ter 1--/03 SENT BY:STAMBLER-WOLFE 02-14-94 10:12AM 131037560264 8 7109 # 2 M; !IING AG�N�f� TEM #- LAW OFFICES OF TERRY STAMBLER-WOLFS FEB 14 1994 yTA 7bz TPANOXITTAL CITY COUNCIL` . . ON LUIS OBISM CA 9 UNCIL CDD DIR February 14, 1994 dFCL�ERKIOMG �s_{- ❑ FlNDIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF RI4EY ❑ PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF Mayor and Members of the City Council ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ RECDIR City of San Luis Obispo ❑ CAEAD FILE L] UTIL DiR 990 Palm Street I V/ Elll ❑ PERSDIR San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Letter in opposition to Planning Commission Approval of Use Permit U 135-93r 2211 Johnson Avenue (Temple Her Shalom) --Supplemental Comments Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is a follow-up letter to the one addressed to the City Council on January 26, 1994 . A second letter is necessary to address the contents of the staff report prepared for you as well as to comment on additional aspects of the proposed development. TMpzoII C7 of SY71ROMXNTAL On January 21, 1994 I sent a letter to Pam Ricci, Project Planner, indicating a number of areas where additional data should be provided in order for the proposed project to receive a proper review. A copy of this letter is attached. With all due respect to the staff, the responses to the concerns raised in my letter are not as well developed in the staff report as we believed is necessary for your information and understanding. TRLFFTC Axn PARKING one of the key planning issues regarding the proposed use permit concerns parkingr traffic and related safety concerns. It is my opinion that the Planning commission was not provided with sufficient information regarding traffic generation. A review of the staff report to you has not changed that opinion. The key to traffic and parking analyses lies ' in the underlying assumptions about the proposed use and the application of the most applicable trip generation estimates available. In P(�`'C OFFT(:L Liar .3898 • 1IAT.(IS UF,Ri)L'S 1'F.NINSUI.A. C:AL1FORNIA 90274-9540 T,:r cnurlNR r1trn 17S-2050 a FAx (310) M-6026 5ENT HY:5TGIMHLER-W0LFE 02-14-94 10:13AM 131037560264 0057517109 # 3 February 141 1994 Page Two this case, the staff assumes that a traditional analysis is not applicable because the bulk of the required parking is provided off-site. Also, staff focuses almost exclusively on traffic generated on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. It is my contention that a proper analysis addresses all traffic generation impacts by the use, based on the total anticipated number of visitors, not just the traffic associated with the proposed 5 on-site parking spaces. Only by analyzing the use as a whole can the true cumulative environmental impact be determined. Also, by its own statement, the applicant indicates that it will conduct routine activities 7 days per week, including Hebrew School, holiday services, memorial services, weddings, and other large group activities. All of the uses of the site should be taken into account in the analysis. Further, there is nothing wrong with using the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates for a religious institution. This site should be treated like any other proposed development. poTE NT AL CITY LIABILITY Finally, the staff relies on traffic counts dating back to 19ss. These are old data and do not adequately reflect existing conditions. By not preparing a more definitive traffic analysis, the City subjects itself not only to legal attack on the environmental documentation but also sets itself up for a future negligence claim in the event of an injury accident that might have been averted through more adequate traffic and parking planning. NOISE IMPACTS The staff has chosen not to address noise impacts. A properly documented Environmental Assessment would, at minimum, include a best effort at evaluating the noise impacts associated with the proposed activities. As difficult as it may be to evaluate intermittent noise levels, there are techniques available to do so. BUI pi Ng MASSING AND VIEW CORRIDORS With regard to building massing, staff states that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is equipped to deal with this issue. My disagreement with this statement is predicated on the position that, if the applicant is granted permission to erect a two-story addition of a certain size to the rear of the site, effectively blocking the view corridor from my client's February 14 , 1994 Page Three property, the ARC will be limited to looking at architectural details such as facade treatments and window placement. The structural mass parameters already will have been decided. jUU2.E&WWM The staff report still does not analyze the isuerOf the does shared parking arrangements. Additionally, tstaff not include any new information regarding the development standards which were followed by other religious institutions in the community and does address any land use compatibility issues religiousbetween neighborhoods which nmay tdhave beenreportedlow stoyresidential the City. TH C BEF , 4LQRX p 8 As-was mentioned in earlier correspondence to the City Council and the Planning Commission, an objective assessment of the. applicant's proposal leads to the conclusion that the Sits is simply too small for the intended use. was agrees since an interest in acquiring my client's nientpropertynd the other communicated to her. For the benefit of my ro riate for property owners in the neighborhood, it would be app p the City Council to inquire useto the applicant's complete development program USE o8 8 With regard to the common driveway issues, my client's interests are not fully addressed by the letter from Jerry Kenny dated January 31, 1994. Additional communication with staff will be required. It has come to my attention that the applicant intends to propose to the Council that all on-site parking be removed. In the event that the Council determines to approve this use and agrees to the suggestion that the 28 parking p provided off-site, my client requests that all appropriate approvals be granted by the City to remove the shared access easement to her property, and that the applicant continue to use the existing driveway that serves the property. It would be grossly unfair to wallow this hile still uencumbese to ringtmywclient's ithout npropertyewith an accessing easement. In closing, I would like to reassert my client's contention that the proposed use is not compatible with the -surrounding SENT HY:STpMHLER-WOLFE 02-14-94 10:14AM 131037560264 8057817109 ii 4 February 14, 1994 Page Four single family character and the use permit should be denied. As the Planning Commission action now stands, there are no conditions of approval which address the major concerns of the neighbors. We respectfully request that the City Council reaffirm its commitment to sound land use planning principles and deny the mitigated Negative Declaration and the Use Permit. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. sincerely, Ter tamblsr-Wolfe Enclosure cc: Susan Akers Graves ME, JG AGENDA DATE 225--L ITEM # February 11, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Penny Rappa SUBJECT: BUS SHELTERS Recently, we have all been approached by Mr. Tom Martin with a proposal for a joint venture involving bus shelters. With no prior commitment, I believe this idea is worthy of further consideration. I would request that Council direct staff to agendize at the next available date an opportunity for Mr. Martin to present the bus shelter concept. Thank you. PR:ss CO' D9 DSR CgO- P-f&DIR 94' ORNEY &1r%V Din 121 LERWOMC, ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGWTTEAM O REC DIR ❑ C FIFAD FIEF L UTIL DIR �l Le, 13 PERS DIR MFff AGENDA RECEIVED D�' ITEM # YSTLYD FEB 14 1994 GICOMPANYclTr couruclL O.NSULT7L ENGINEERING 8•SURVEYING SAN LUIS OBISQ% CA 75 ZACA LANE, N LUIS 0,WX 934 TELEFHRr54 4 • Fes(.. S)IS41-24PO ❑ FIRE CHIEF February 14, 1994 NEY ❑ PWDIR Honorable City Council Persons K/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF c/o City Clerk 's Office ❑ MGMTTEAMI ❑ RECDIR San Luis Obispo City Hall ❑ F11 13❑ uTILDIR City of San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �== ❑ PERSDIR RE: ENGINEERING CONCERNS AND HISTORICAL CONCERNS FOR THE NER SHALOM TEMPLE HEARING. Dear Council Persons: I am unable to attend the City council meeting to express my concerns and answer questions regarding the original lot split, because of a conflict with the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission meeting. Therefore I am putting some of the comments into this letter that have come up in past meetings. I have been involved with the subject property due to a lot split that our office performed at the request of Ms. Susan Akers-Graves. I was involved in the processing of the lot split all of the way through the tentative and final map stages. During this processing with staff, I know from my discussions with staff that the easement that was granted to APN 3-692-03 (the Temple site) by Ms. Akers-Graves was not discussed to be for any use of a greater impact than a single family residential nature. My client never wanted to provide the easement for the above mentioned property and only did so at the insistence of city staff. We had meetings with staff to talk about the need for the proposed easement and even the likelihood of it being used since the garage was not readily accessible from the new easement. Staff had mentioned that the access of the garage could be changed from the present location to the proposed location or that a new garage could be constructed. I feel that these items show the intent of staff, which was to eliminate one driveway approach from Johnson Avenue which was intended to reduce or mitigate traffic concerns, not increase it as the Conditional Use Permit would. During the processing of the tentative map, we also talked to the city planning staff about the possibility of a higher density, i.e. capable of duplex use, being considered in the neighborhood. We were assured that no rezoning would take place in the foreseeable future. I also raised a concern at the planning commission hearing on the Temple, that the drainage from the Temple site should be reviewed with respect to future possible expansions of the use. The design of drainage facilities that go through my client's property were designed using city standards for single family residential use and it may be possible to build out the Temple property to an intensity greater than our facilities would be able to safely carry. This information regarding drainage will not be known until calculations are performed and submitted to the staff. It should also be noted that concrete or asphalt flatwork does not require a building permit and could be added at some future time, and thus inadvertently cause damage to the downstream property owners. We feel that some condition(s ) might be in order to insure that future work on the site would not be constructed that would be contrary to the approved drainage plan. I am aware that some downstream property owners were concerned about the added drainage from one additional residential structure in the neighborhood and this has made me cautious regarding runoff. Thank you for this opportunity to express concerns that should be considered in the review of this project. Sincerely yours: Terence R. Orton cc City Planning Department Ms. Susan Akers-Graves Ms. Terry Stambler-Wolfe 'STINGAGENDA t,rifE 2" ITEM #_I Kevin Dye 2472 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, California 9340.1 (805) 543-8753 February 9, 1994 CIL ]DIR ❑ Ms. Penny Rappa 60ZCAO OF San Luis Obispo City Hall b1CPTORNEY ❑ Post Office Box 8100 110 PCTFMRIG ❑ F San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 MGMTTEAM ❑❑ C F! r DRE: Use Permit For Temple Ner Shalom-2200 Block of Johnson Avenue O Dear Ms. Rappa: The purpose of my letter to you is to express my opposition to the recent Planning Commission decision in issuing a Use Permit for the above referenced facility. With this decision, the Commission is allowing an organization which will significancy impact the area to begin operations in a residential area. Both of the other religious organizations which are within the general vicinity of the area have large on-site parking facilities and are fairly insulated from surrounding residential single family dwelling by either their own parking facilities or existing vacant lots. This Use Permit was granted, apparently, with an allowance for only five (5) parking spaces on premises. The reasoning might have been due to the parking which exists at both the General Hospital and County Services lots. Having been a homeowner on Johnson Avenue for eight(8) years, the parking situation at both of the church facilities on Johnson ALWAYS overflows onto both Johnson and the adjacent side streets despite abundant on-site parking at both of these facilities. If this Use Permit is allowed to stand,this general area of Johnson will be severely impacted as follows: 1) It will create a hazardous parking and pedestrian situation at an area just beyond a "blind spot"for traffic proceeding toward Laurel Lane on Johnson. 2) The lack of on-site parking will severely impact the residents of the neighborhood as parking overflows onto the street during gatherings at the site. 3) The small size of the lots and relatively"uninsulated" proximity to single-family dwellings will result in noise considerations to surrounding residents. 4) The encouragement of non-residential operations in a residential area which is already impacted from General Hospital, County Health Services, Bishop Medical Plaza & County Offices. I would urge you to strongly consider the appeal for this Use Permit for the reasons outlined above. Should you wish to contact me personally to discuss the matter further, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Sincerely, i . RECENE® Kevin Dye f EB 14 1994 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA M 1 G AGENDA I DATE '15'q ITEM # Jeffrey M. Brewer 2253 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, California 93401 February 14, 1994 Hon. Peg Pinard, Mayor, City Council Members San Luis Obispo City Hall San Luis Obispo, California RE: Appeal to Use Permit U 135-93 Dear Members of the City Council, Please find attached a copy of my concerns that I would like to present to the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning our appeal to the above referenced Use Permit. I originally planned to present them at the City Council Meeting in full detail, however I understand the agenda is quite full and do not wish to take more time than is necessary. I appreciate your efforts in reviewing the attachment prior to the meeting a I will present a brief summary at that time. Thank you for your a_ ,ention to this matter. Sincerely, QB[1NCIL DD DIR Jeffrey M. Brewer 1W W ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF CLERKIpR[C,OXMRNEY 13 PVA DIR ❑ MGMi TEAh1 ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ REC DIR O I� �fj DiR DIS RECEIVED FE91 4 1994 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA My name is Jeff Brewer and I live at 2253 Johnson Avenue, the property next door to the proposed synagogue to the southeast. My wife Laura and I filed one of two appeals to the Planning Commissions approval of Use Permit U 135-93 . First of all I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to present my concerns to the City Council. My wife and I have lived at this address for the last 6 years, and I feel that as residents not only SHOULD our concerns should be considered, but we will also have valuable insight as to the consequences of granting such a use permit in this location. Also I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to churches, synagogues, or any other form of religious belief or worship. I feel that a church type facility in R-1 neighborhoods can be made to work with minimal impact on the residents of the neighborhood. For the reasons I am about to explain, I do not believe this is such a location. I would like to present to the Council our concerns in relation to the following subjects : 1 . The lack of on-site parking. 2 . The hazardous traffic situation that will be created by granting this use permit, thus having an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of people living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 3 . The negative impact on the neighbors privacy and welfare due to noise disturbances from the facility based on the fact that the lot is too small for use as desired with the permit . 4. The decision to grant the use permit was based to a high degree on analogies with other facilities which really do not apply. LACK OF ON-SITE PARKING Currently, we have been told, the Temple ner Shalom has contracted with Bishop Medical Plaza for 28 to 50 parking spaces for Friday night, Saturday and Sunday and after hours on Monday through Friday. This contract, however, can be canceled with a 60 day notice which not only makes it useless, but is in violation of condition 6 of the Use Permit as approved by the Planning Commission. Condition 6 specifically states that "parking spaces will be available at all times at 1551 Bishop Street for the Temple ner Shalom for a period of not less than three years. " At any point in time the Bishop Medical Plaza could decide they need these spaces for some other purpose. If this were to happen, the congregation of 85 families would be forced to park on Johnson and Bishop. It seems incredible that the city would grant a use permit without a permanent parking arrangement for that property. As far as availability of the County Health Department parking lot is concerned, no parking contract exists, therefore the parking cannot be considered available. In this particular case, it is actually a risk to the County to allow the people to park there. Should someone who is using the parking lot injure themselves and decide to sue, the County, since it carries no insurance for such usage, could very well be held liable and forced to pay a large settlement out of public funds. This most likely will .result in the parking lot being closed off for general use. we are aware that shared parking arrangements do exist in San Luis Obispo, specifically both Grace Church and Presbyterian Church use the San Luis Medical Clinic parking lot . This situation is not comparable to Johnson Avenue. Both of these churches are over 40 years old and the town either grew up around them or they were established in a business area to begin with. These churches were meant to be walked to. . . not driven to. . . and were conceived in a time when people didn' t depend so much on their automobiles. Furthermore these churches are either directly adjacent to the needed parking lots or are in areas where the traffic is highly constricted by narrow streets and 25 mph zones. The Bishop Medical Plaza exists in a busy 44 mph street that is a blind hill. It is also across Johnson Avenue from the facility, not adjacent to it . TRAFFIC Johnson Avenue is a busy 4 lane street with about 11, 500 vehicle trips per day. This is based on. a 1988 study, I suspect the number is higher now due to development out on Tank Farm and Orcutt roads. The location of the proposed facility is the second property on the right past Bishop Street, as your coming from downtown, this is a distance of about 98 feet from the intersection. This area is the top of the highest hill on Johnson Avenue southeast of Monterey Street, most people think the apex of the hill is at Bishop Street intersection. Actually the true top of the hill is about on the property line between the first house on the corner past Bishop and the proposed synagogue property. Also the apex of the hill is accentuated by the high degree of crown in the street which is I assume for water drainage. At about the middle of the proposed synagogue property the descent down the other side of the hill begins and continues to do so well down the street . The result is that a blind hill exists for people pulling out of there driveways along this section of Johnson Avenue. This is to such an extent that when I sit in my driveway, which is about 280 feet from the Bishop intersection, waiting to pull out onto the street, I cannot see cars that are in the intersection coming my way. This can result in some harrowing experiences since the average speed of traffic on Johnson Avenue is about 44 mph, according to the city engineer. Also the proposed synagogue property is blind to anything past the bus stop in front of the County Health Department Building. Why is this all of a sudden a problem?? The answer to this lies in the fact that we are on the downhill side of the slope. The truth of the matter is that this has always been a problem but it has never manifested itself because very few people actually park on Johnson Avenue. Even though it is a blind hill one can make it out with reasonable safety. . . . . if you GUN it when you pull out of your driveway. . . . and even further safety margin can be attained if you wait on the red light. We are now however faced with the situation that most of the time all of the street parking spaces will be taken. Since we are on the downward sloping side of the hill, our vision is further impaired because when one is sitting in your driveway waiting to pull out you cannot see over the cars parked in the street as they are uphill from you. All you can see is the grill of the cars that are parked on the side of the street . So now the effect is that you are totally blind and can' t see cars on the street at all. This is one of the reasons we feel this use permit creates an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of people living in the neighborhood. The second problem relating to traffic is the fact that now many cars will be attempting to pull in and out of this facility at the same time to drop off passengers . If it were just to be the 5 cars proposed, this would be a minor issue. It is most likely however, that people will be pulling up to the facility to drop off passengers and will then drive away to park either further down the street or over in the Bishop Medical Plaza parking lot as proposed. The methods by which this is performed is of particular concern to us. Giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt and assuming they will do what they said and park in the Bishop Medical Plaza, although currently nothing forces them to do this, the following scenarios are proposed: Method A A car pulls in, stays on the street next to the curb and drops off passengers. The problem with this is now how does one get back to Bishop Street and the Bishop Medical Plaza parking lot . The fastest legal way is to pull back out onto the street and continue down to Sydney Street, take a right, drive to Augusta Street, take a right and drive back to Bishop Street, take a right back to Johnson Avenue, cross the street and your there. You cant take the first street you come to on the right, Smith Court, because its a dead end. The first street on the left, also Sydney, results in a dead end because Flora Street which is the next turn is blocked above the new San Luis Recovery Inn and you cant get back onto Bishop Street. This is by far the long way around and is much larger than the standard city block. The much faster way is to pull an illegal U-turn in the middle of the street take a right on Bishop and your there. I shudder to think ofthe carnage on Friday nights that ' s going to result from this. Remember its a blind hill, 98 feet from the intersection. Method B A car pulls into the driveway drops off passengers and pulls back onto the opposite lanes of the street, turns onto Bishop and into the parking lot. The correct way to do this is to pull into the driveway drop off passengers, turn around and drive forward across the street to the opposite lanes and onto Bishop. The problem with this is that with 5 cars already parked on-site, there will not be enough room to turn around. Another problem is that the driveway is only one lane wide so that if another car tries to pull in behind the first, the lane is blocked, no one can go anywhere, and the traffic starts to back up out onto Johnson Avenue. This is .still a. problem if no cars are parked on-site, because there still is only room for one or two cars at a time to perform this maneuver. The only other alternative is to back out onto the street to go the long way around as described earlier or to back out onto the opposite lanes of the 4 lane street which is not only illegal but incredibly dangerous, particularly at this spot. The point I am trying to make here is that any attempts at achieving any kind of loading zone here or any action that results in many cars parked on Johnson Avenue is going to result in a situation that has a direct adverse effect on the health safety and welfare of the not only the residents of the neighborhood on Johnson Avenue but also to the congregation of the synagogue and to motorists who are just driving through. If nothing else comes of this appeal I at least want it to be officially part of the records of these hearings that the action of granting this use permit will endanger myself, my wife and any others who are visiting my property and that the city has been so informed prior to deciding to take the action. NOISE/LOT SIZE CONSIDERATIONS The lot in question is 8, 157 sq. ft . and the proposed facility is 3,681 sq. ft, not the 3, 021 sq. ft . originally presented to the Planning Commission. Although this is consistent with existing building codes, it does reflect a high percentage of lot area used for a structure and would appear to be pushing the limit of those guidelines which were really developed for residential structures . As a matter of fact the proposed sanctuary is exactly 8 feet from the property line to the rear which IS the limit. Also the proposed sanctuary is about 55 feet from my bedroom window, and this is by far the greatest distance from any of the houses on the adjacent properties. The others are closer. The proposed 6 ft . wall along the sides and back of the property will do nothing to stop the noise. The top of the wall is below the level of our bedroom window which provides a direct shot for sound to travel. Mr. Carsel, President of Temple Ner Shalom, has quite eloquently stated that his congregation is quiet and that noise will not be a problem. With all due respect to Mr. Carsel, even if no one sings, chants, or plays an instrument, 50 or more people will make a lot of noise. In a residential neighborhood this is occasionally tolerated. But not in a situation where it is planned to occur multiple times per week on a lot that has no natural sound buffer zone because it is so small. Furthermore what a particular congregation does is not the issue at all. According to Planning Commissioner Karleskint, Use Permits are associated with the property and stay with the property. If this Temple decides to move out and rent. . or sell . . . or even to stay and rent to someone else at a different time of the week, they could do so as long as they stay within the rules of the Use Permit. This means a another church could move in with an organ. . . . , guitars or whatever. . . , they could do what they wanted to do, sing or play whatever they wanted to. Furthermore I don' t believe it is limited to religious functions either, and there could be regular meetings of any civic organization going on at any time. Would this also include groups like Lions Club' s, Moose Lodges, etc. ?? What this use permit is doing is guaranteeing that every weekend there will be a noisy crowd of at least 50 people at the neighbors house, lasting well into the evening, and it is highly expected that they will be exceeding the noise levels as established by city ordinances. Furthermore since there is no means of enforcing these rules, except through public complaint, this Use Permit puts us in the position of having to monitor this facility ourselves to ensure that they comply with the rules established by the Use Permit and are not violating our rights to peace and privacy as established by City Ordinances. This is mentioned in the Planning Department staff report and is further complicated by the fact that during this time of use, which is when complaints will be lodged, the City Planning Staff will not be available to receive and act upon the complaints. COMPARISONS TO OTHER FACILITIES One final point of concern is that even though all of the details supported NOT granting this use permit as was the Staff recommendation, a lot of consideration was given to the fact that other Church facilities in our area exist. Analogies were made between this Temple and First Baptist Church, the existing and proposed new Church of Latter Day Saints, Church of the Nazarene and Unity Church. We feel that none of these facilities are analogous to the proposed Temple site, and that the Planning Commission was in error in making any decisions based on any assumed similarities. The Temple Ner Shalom site is 8, 157 sq. ft. Compare this to .the First Baptist Church of 78, 844 sq. ft. and the proposed LDS of 197, 806 sq. ft . These are the two churches of closest proximity. They are all large facilities with large parking lots. The smallest of these sites listed on the staff report (Nazarene) is over twice the size of the Temple site. The parking lots serve to provide a buffer zone to the surrounding neighbors, and not a very effective one at that. For every person that walks in to the City and* says its not a problem I can bring you ten people that says it is. The bottom line here is that it seems the city to a certain extent and the residents of our neighborhood to a great extent are being asked to sacrifice an awful lot just so this synagogue can buy and use for themselves a "bargain basement" Temple. If only one or two concessions were being made it would be different . But we' re making concessions on almost every rule and that ' s unacceptable. we do not feel it is fair to the residents of the neighborhood for the city to impose this upon them. Quite honestly if I were moving in next door to a church, based on what Mr. Carsel has said, this would be one of two or three congregations I would want to have as a neighbor. The truth of the matter is. . . . , I didn' t move in next to a Church, I moved in next door to a single family house, and that is a big difference. Thank You for Your Time C:04 �- Jeffrey M. Brewer MEE]INU Rumen p► ._ - - ITEm Temple \AWNer 232 Foothill Boulevard PWA,QPost Office Box 3344 eShalom San Luis Obispo, California 93403 of S a n Luis Obispo Telephone (805) 541-2413 CILDD DIR F 11, 1�MNDIR qAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF U� NEY El PW DIR HAND DELIVERED RKIOF. G ❑ POLICE CHF Hon. Peg Pinard, Mayor p MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR City of San Luis Obispo ❑ C 1 ❑ UTIL DER RECEIVED, City Hall ±, ❑ PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, CA FEB 14 1994 RE: Appeal - Temple Ner Shalom - U 135-93 CITYCOUNCIU Letters of Support from Religious Institutions SAH LUIS oelSeo,CX Dear Mayor Pinard: We have received several additional letters of support from religious institutions which for various reasons were not included in the Council Agenda Report you received from the Planning Department ("the packet") . I have enclosed copies of those letters with some comments for your consideration. The originals of each letter will be presented at the time of the hearing. Grace Church. Grace Church has a comparable parking situation with our proposal in that they have successfully shared parking with a medical facility for many years. .Seventh Day Adventist Church. This Church also shares parking with the San Luis Medical Clinic (as does the First Presbyterian Church) . Central Church of Christ. This Johnson Avenue Church is bordered on three sides by residences. The distance from the Church buildings to various residences appears to vary from as 7 _ :}1= �- o:'.},� t� rw u. .7r_ a �wi F...i.} Tw ��.`�i�+.. } pw}�... r . . s 4 j c a:= 1 uch �r,.w.'iA,..nt--,. f0ccZ.. `.L rV 1.�-r or leave their parking lot every cat must pass within less than ten . feet from a residence. Congregation Beth David. This Synagogue is bordered by apartments and by Judson Terrace, a senior citizen residential apartment complex, and is much closer physically to its neighbors than we would be at the proposed Johnson Avenue site. As noted in the letter, the relationship between the congregation and its neighbors has always been excellent. This is also verified by Judson Terrace and a letter from them to that effect is a part of the packet at pages 1-91 and 1-92. The great majority of the churches and synagogues in our city are located in residential neighborhoods and to my knowledge that . AFFRIA7ED W17H THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM ' f ihalom emple Ner Hon. Peg Pinard, Mayor February 11, 1994 Page Two has never been a problem. Many churches are converted residences and are surrounded by other residences, e.g. , the University Christian Center on Foothill Blvd. and the Mormon Church on Johnson Avenue at Sydney. We had previously submitted letters of support from other religious institutions, copies of which are set forth at pages 1-36 through 1-38 and 1-93 through 1-103 of the packet. Because of the volume of the packet I have listed for your reference (in alphabetical- order) the following institutions, which represent a wide range of religious traditions in our community, all of whom are supporting our proposal: Central Church of Christ Church of the Nazarene Community of John XXIII (Catholic) Congregation Beth David (Jewish) Congregational Church - United Church of Christ First Presbyterian Church Grace Church LDS Institute of Religion (Mormon) Mt. Carmel Lutheran Church Old Mission Church Protestant Chapel, CMC Seventh Day Adventist Church St. Stephen's Episcopal Church Unitarian - Universalist Fellowship United Methodist Church, San Luis Obispo United Methodist Church, Shell Beach Unity Christ Church University Christian Center Thank you for your consideration of this letter. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 544-8510. oma.-. -•re:. , RICHARD A. CARSEL President RAC:noa cc: Hon. Penny Rappa (hand delivered) Hon. Bill Roalman (hand delivered) Hon. Dave Romero (hand delivered) Hon. Allen Settle (hand delivered) Jeffrey Jorgensen, Esq. (hand delivered) Pam Ricci, Associate Planner (hand delivered) Marshall Ochylski (via telecopier) Grace Church of San Luis Obispo, Cahfornia Aka U ('0niff Of 211d Pi:InO StTCTU failing ing .Address: P.U. Box 33 An Luis Obispo, (a. 93406 (805) 543-2358 'T,v br Grae u:%T saved xhr,%Agh jaith;and Thai nit 4)vur>cfiYs; it is 1%,qih 6M. M71 q 11%rLi. 61 anv man should Wan.-- KpIwsums 2:S 9 February 2, 1994 Planning commission City of San Luis Obispo City Hall San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Dear commission members: Grace Church would like to lend it's support to Temple Ner Shalom's request for a use permit to use and convert the 2211 Johnson Avenue property for their house of worship. We have found that our shared parking with the San Luis Medical Clinic has worked well over the years. Sin 4 c V. Deane Keller, for the Board of Elders of Grace Church Rev.V. Deane Keifer A(SUVAEr Lars Soderfiolrn Mark Huss Ken Peet Pastor Minister of Music Minister Of Minister Of MinLw of Youth Christian F11-ration Outreach/Coffege Seventh,-day Adventist Church of San Luis Obispo OSOS AND PACIFIC STREETS,P.O.BOX 1321,SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93406 805543-1849 January 26, 1994 _._ City.Council of San Luis Obispo, CA. Dear Council members: This letter serves to give my support for your favorable approval in granting the congregation of Temple Ner Shalom to use the property on 2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo, as a synagogue. I am personally. acquainted with this congregation, and have recently attended one of their worship services.- On the evening that I attended their worship service, I found that the members were extremely courteous and respectful of their neighbors. The worship service was conducted in a very appropriate manner. It is my conviction that our city would benefit from the granting of this use permit request Members of Temple Ner Shalom contribute to the ---- welfare.of our city by assisting with a number of Community projects. (some of which have been in the down-town area). Once again, I urge your approval for this use permit request Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely ours, Ron Rasmussen Pastor. Central Church of Christ 3172 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA (805) 543-8653 February 4, 1994 City.Council San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Council Members: We wish to lend our support to the request of Temple Ner Shalom for approval of the purchase and conversion of the residence at 2211 Johnson Avenue into a synagogue facility. The visible location on a major thoroughfare is ideal for such a use. The encouragement of spiritually-oriented entities near two of our community's hospitals should also be considered. Our congregation has been located on Johnson Avenue in the midst of residential dwellings for many years. Many of our members come from the immediate neighborhood. We consider such mixed use a positive for San Luis Obispo. We urge you to approve the request of Temple Ner Shalom. Sincerely, Frank Potter, Elder LaVerne Bucy, Elder im Greathouse, Elder Michael Anderson, Minister Rabbi Harry A. Hanhoff Congregation Beth David, 2932 Augusta Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 544-0760 February 8, 1994 To Whom It May Concern: As the Rabbi of Congregation Beth David in San Luis Obispo, I would like to express my support for Temple Ner Shalom's purchase of a building on Johnson Avenue, and the eventual use of that building as a synagogue. In my thirteen years as a rabbi in this community, the relationship of the Jewish community and our neighbors has always been excellent. There is every reason to expect that a similar relationship between the members of Temple Ner Shalom and their new neighbors will continue in the future. I am confident that Temple Ner Shalom and its members will be an asset to the Johnson Avenue neighborhood. I sincerely hope that all of the permitting processes will be expedited in order to allow the synagogue to be in full operation without restriction as soon as possible. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely, /� % I Rabbi Harry A. Manhoff MEEnN AGENDA DATE Z" 5` RM ;�T Feb. 14, 1994 Dear MAYOR PEG PENNARD, Citizen input Please know that you have our support in the effort to move the People's kitchen away from the Mission front porch. We feel this acidity curtails visits to our art museum as well as general use of the area by families and visitors. We would also ask you to hold the line with the State on its push to force increased housing in this area. Even if it means losing some state funding we feel they are holding a knife to our throats and denying one of the few freedoms we have left with regard to local control. Water as well as quality of life issues and services would be greatly impacted with this push for growth. Not all growth is good or necessary. What the increase growth will cost us in schools -and other increased services will be much more than the amount of money the State threatens to with-hold now. Respectfully presented, Pig Sullivan Tim Plumb_( M CAL POLY) U/ate RECEIVE[) FEB 14 1991 C� FMGMTTEA&I IL CDD DIR CITY COUNCIL IJ ❑ FIN DIRSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA ❑ FIRECHIEFN ❑ P►YDIRORIG ❑ POLICE CHF❑ REC DIR ❑ 9-BEAD FILE 0 UTIL DIR '. ❑ PENS DIR _ Full Council has received this docunIew MEETING AGENDA DX #= ►IIIA III►I III II IIIIIIII►���Ilfllll►IIII III� �� sAn WIS OBISPO c��ry 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 MEMORANDUM February 14, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Office4�)� FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director O BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PPP SUBJECT: Use Permit U 135-93 (Temple Ner Shalom) The Temple Ner Shalom is proposing to have a majority of its required parking spaces for the use off-site. 23 of the required 28 parking spaces for the use are proposed to be located across the street from the site in the Bishop Medical Center's parking lot. Initially, the County's parking lot behind the Health Department on Sierra Way was discussed, but the applicant's statements indicate that the Bishop Medical Center is the site where they have secured an agreement for the off-site parking. Condition No. 4 of the draft City Council Resolution for approval of the use permit requires that the applicant secure the off-site parking for a minimum period of three years. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received written verification that the parking has been secured. However, the use permit was approved with a condition that a standard City agreement for off-site parking be obtained and recorded. Like other required conditions of the use permit, the off-site parking agreement would need to be secured and approved by the City prior to the use being established. UNCIL ZCDD DIR ; EV ❑ FIN DIA RECEIVED C O ❑ FIRE CHIEF EY ❑ PL's DIP] FEB 1 4 1994 LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR CITY CLERK ❑ READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR lI QM LUIS OeI9PO.CA ;.. ❑ PERS DIR /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. MEETING AGENDA C DATE. L EM # OUNCIL 201CDD DIR —11 VAO ❑ FIN DIA GfV1CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Allen Settle ,,ATTORNEY [) PL'iDift 2/11/94 990 Palm St. CLERK/OMC, ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo ❑ MGMTTEAM E) RECDIR 113 C READ FI:F_ C J UTIL D!R i � ---. ❑ PERS DIR Mr . Settle, j As you know, the Temple Ner Shalom is requesting a land use -permit for 2211 Johnson Ave . On February 15th, the City Council will vote on this issue. I am writing this letter in the behalf of the concerned neighbors and families that have brought this issue before the City Council . It has come to our attention that there could be possible conflict of interest between you and the vote for the land use permit being considered for the Temple. It seems that you and Richard Carsel, the president of the Temple group, have had an attorney client relationship in the near past. We have received a copy of a letter distributed by the Friends of Allen Settle Committee, and the Friends of Supervisor Blakely Committee, asking for donations to satisfy the monies owed by you and David Blakely to Mr . Carsel. According to the City Attorney's office, the attorney client relationship probably would not be considered a conflict of interest . We do believe a debt to that attorney should or could be a conflict of interest. We. do not know if your debt to Mr . Carsel has been satisfied. If it has not, we are asking you .to abstain from . - Sprp voting on this issue. If the debt has been paid in full, we .. L fW� s p E 3 1 4 1994 ::TY CLERK still would like you to abstain from voting because of the appearance of a conflict of interest due to your past relationship with Mr . Carsel . Please consider our request, we do believe it will be best for all concerned. Thank You For Your Time, Robert . Bruington Home 544-3329 Work 541-2160 cc :City Attorney Friends of Supervisor David Blakely & SLO City Councilman Allen Settle January 24 , 1994 Dear Friend: Because we know you are a person who cares about the democratic process and doing the right thing, we ask you to take a moment and read this letter. We know about the strength of your commitment because we, enjoyed the privilege . of being campaign manager and treasurer of Supervisor David Blakely' s and. San Luis Obispo City Counselman Allen Settle' s victorious 1992 election efforts and.we recognize you as among those who either volunteered to work for D.avid. or Allen or generously contributed money to one or more of their campaigns. We're writing today because David Blakely and his friend and colleague, Allen Settle, truly need your help right now. But they're too proud to ask. However, we, their friends and supporters, aren't too proud because we know, once you hear their story, you'll want very much to help them. Here' s the story: As you may have read in the papers or seen on TV, shortly after the 1992 general election a lawsuit was filed against both David and Allen by a local political gadfly named Gary Kunkel. The suit challenged both men' s election victories. It claimed they had broken the law when they encouraged Cal Poly students to become politically active in local elections. In effect, Mr. Kunkel charged that the students had been mesmerized in some sinister fashion which caused them to believe they enjoyed the same voting rights in SLO County. as the rest of us. According to Kunkel, even though students-studv,—woiXc and live here, they haven't the right to vote here. Therefore, he concluded, because Cal Poly students voted for Blakely arid ' Settle, the court must order their election victories null and void. Clearly, this brazen assault on the majority's will called for a vigorous and decisive counter-stroke. David and Allen immediately retained a first-rate attorney, Richard'.Carsel. After thorough preparation, they confronted Mr. Kunkel in court. At trial, Kunkel was compelled to reveal the truth: he had not one shred of credible evidence to support his ridiculous charges. His suit was finally fudged frivolous and without merit. He was admonished by the judge and ordered to pay all (Over, please) costs incurred by both David and Allen, including attorney' s ' fees. That should have been the end of it. However, apart from his decidedly florid fantasies, Mr. Kunkel is otherwise without resource. In fact as he testified, he's homeless, jobless, penniless and unable to pay. Thus the cost of defending the electoral process has fallen entirely on David' s and Allen' s shoulders. That cost totals $19,000. That's why we're writing to you. In our view, David, Allen and their families should not be expected to bear this burden alone. Nor should Mr. Carsel be expected to relinquish his fee. To the extent it is possible, we believe the necessary funds ought to be raised among all the rest of us. We think that-cost is simply our portion of the price of maintaining some semblance of civic responsibility and good government. We're sure you' ll agree. If one-fourth of the people who receive this letter mail back just $20 we' ll almost cover the entire $19, 000 debt. If one-eight mail back $20, we' ll come very close to covering half the amount. On behalf of both our committees, Thank youl Sincerely, 'J � I'V,(f Jay & Tina Salter Dominic Perello - Manager & Treasurer Treasurer Friends of Supervisor Friends of Blakely Committee Allen Settle Committee PS: Let' s start off the New Year by doing the right thing for two dedicated public officials and their families. They stood up for the democratic process without hesitation because they knew it was the right thing to do. Now let us stand up too. Write a $20 check or more, and mail it in the enclosed ' envelope. And, in so doing, show the likes of. Kunkel and his ilk what civic responsibility really means. P.O. Box 471, Santa Margarita, 93453 Tem( le Ner Kalom September 13, 1993 VIA TELECOPIER Jeff Bague, Architect Martin & Bague 846 Higuera Street, Ste. 5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo Proposed Synagogue Facility STATEMENT OF USES Dear Jeff: Temple Ne'r Shalom would like to use the captioned building as its synagogue if the City will approve the use. The anticipated use of the facility is as follows: 1. Friday Niahts• - Worshin service from 8: 00 - 10: 00 o.m. We . normally have between 25-40 worshippers at these services; 2 . Saturdav Mornings: Worship service from 9 :30 a.m. - 12 : 00 p.m. We normally have between 15-20 worshippers at these services, 3 . Sunday Mornings: Sunday School from 10: 00 a.m. - 12 : 00 P.M. We have about 25 students in the Sunday School program; 4 . Monday - Thursday: The building would rarely be used except for occasional meetings or classes. For your reference we have been a congregation for over 9 years. We are renting space from other churches and/or schools in San Luis Obispo. The schedule stated above has been our pattern since our inception. Please let me know if you need any other information. Thank you. Since ly, R CHARD A. CARSEL, president RAC:noa M/F"ING AGENDA DA. # ' TO: San Luis Obispo City Council FROM: The Concerned Residents on Johnson Avenue, Bishop Street, and Cecelia Court DATE: February 11, 1994 RE: A petition in opposition to the Planning Commission decision granting use permit U135-93 to allow a single-family home to be converted into. a religious facility at 2211 Johnson Avenue TOTAL OF 123 SIGNATURES RECEIVED FEB I r 1994 CITY COUNCIL SM jLU)B OBISPO,CA oU OIL caa Dln ❑ FlM DIF MEORiMMO ❑ F CH:'cF MEY 1YDiR❑ POLI CHF ❑ MQ TFJ1M O DIF ❑ EAD FILE UTIL DIR �' -PIP" _ ❑ PERS DIR TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. NAME (signature) NAME (print) ADDRESS Af ��f � . z� C' �� . �e P � ��., �1- .v � ,sem• -� „- � . LIZ- Gn hER t� -i U N t -5 M E�� FrZECqZ Zk�.r� �Z- ���-.� c�P�•f/��C�s i•e �G rxl M .�C� J G�- s7 s 11 S i ,J� �41�on1' 3`I < �.. /Llir/'"3 / / 4 5-mi Gntiqwi "f St L 7P - , • I I Ct�t 14tA Lca,-i-Olet 4OLL I l ►3 5 dish° St s�� �v •�.a. •r1 �d� �' lToHivsoM V S. - � I TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. NAME si na re NAME rant ADDRESS c / _ 41, V C _` � x , •� �iva.1� � 1. n� �-I-�1 `1 � .r -v � r x:11 (C,e n , 4- 73 ,2 - z z2c� �f�f'�l./ Cp '_,��1.�� z29 Ja�� .qG'�•S,L�C�- _. I f n i 9�7 LC.`) is ;r IWO ri 71) Al Ael"1 �/ //7) r 5 — / LT TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. NAME (signature) NAME (arint) ADDRESS Y 5W C. •,�_ __t.cC�-G �����;�� f�'Q� c�!-��l / C� �-- lJ� l /��,I���•,2 s'7^J�: �o�� �-v� %>. & R1 /k/ C A • 5�5 � Gi_.,G� Clr�� A �&v-`Z'LLV. I . S 0,Co cltiu Lf ; L U (J V/9 9 L.i•v r,C1 ( "/ .> Z C/ :.> is)Z ,r,�-K m ey J. M�c riga�L ��r/ti s i a�8 c cz�,g �� S•L .0. c q <:?3 q-o 1 v QR - 1-4 fi- k L � 012 - ;21J5 cSi- ti, �ok. W 'LLerr�T 130 0 1315 IYGP V�'Vw��• ^��-�- --�,on� ,S iZ- ^'Cr-r- zL5-6 eu� fir-. TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. NAME (signature) NAME (print) ADDRESS eQrn 5.37 6erro Rorr,a.,do S46 gt7 d cu.4n_a_ Avc S.1-0 , nJ p� W HJL rcr Y� rC LO GAY VI / 313,P RdSE AVE . SLG sv ��// �/�d/L�JC ,�/�t'�•f�/yJQ2lvo.so4 AR• �L..o �w;�j • r 1 tt�rc.�.C�,�7G� �G��� S63 I C.u..n�rS�-C� � ) l ' - /1.� ' S kel- Vii S M9a.k AA1W 5eou>x1E2t�a6Ld �a 5Y-0 1 TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. NAME (signature) NAME (print) ADDRESS ba Mil azo JG�hsan Z/� Ed i-f l�i G�2 //1Y�3 � ►� r f-h/�G_ /� , Y ar , r IVP7 i S ro es Y 3 7 (,-e-,rf1UAa M)= L c.P E R I YlsStirsT><l St, S/-D'. &AVA64 Aqoyj.-ir— At�gv a2jj:d� 5L D fes- ME f)6,16 143 /4 WC -9A1VLU15 o s �[i¢,QE.✓ZE rn/e /<F r 44 Vrve2 /5-i12a �� Lc U� Sa.,f U is c6i -It LLJA �5 r G nlgh r`0,r) 4/,. O , � ��MA*f okiAel, d I TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. sinature NAME forint) ADDRESS �1 eevr 144v.r Lu:�j obis a CA 93Yo/ ' .z/Zf/S A�Fx /-1•JC _ . B/�// si 3,Q A/ c-y)s cr3istb il 1 / 3.�5 �11/�f1�Au D DTZ• SR►v Lu r s a B(s�d� �f3�r, a 365 ,0N S �Cru�O�iis �0 93Yom4l�tc XJ-4 � I org i .S -Foy,, nFLL5t. i�5,po - L ee T i C " f c� TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. NAME (signature) NAME (print) ADDRESS /t-f (c - ? l)V ZS&C -SANTA i - �� Q � Pa -race ��' brh � Sg4e, Qlat-a 2S' 10 Wo, ieiaa k-=== L4t'rn RtA AJ S1Z - 6 TO:THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL 1 do not agree with the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission decision on December 29, 1993, granting Use Permit U135-93 to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. NAME (signature) NAME (print) ADDRESS / ���:.�-��,��....� Cl��fo.v ✓,.a, �^.l-�o.gfE /35� �iShap Sf; S',,L.p , AAA,,, wFT = ING GENDA a o.� 2_15_ TEM # Russell K. Powell 1330 Cecelia Court cuclL D DIR San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 �� ❑ FIN DIR PCELERWRIG ❑ Fl CHIEFMrs Peggy Pinard, Mayor `'C NEY r DIRCity of San Luis Obispo, RECEI ED ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ R IR FEB 1 1 1994 ❑ AD FI T!L DIR Dear Mayor: CITY COUNCILLe- ❑ PERS DIR S.AN I_uIS OBISPO,CA Having just been notified that the City Planning Commission Has approved the building of a Synagogue on a lot fronting on Johnson Avenue which is about 8,157 feet square in size and intend to construct a building of 3,600 feet to house their worshipers. This additional construction to the home presently on the property will have only five parking spaces with one necessarily being mandated for handicapped people. I felt the need to write this letter not only to PROTEST this action but to point out several items that must be considered and contended with. First of all, the petitioners have indicated that they will use about 25 spaces on the parking lot owned by the Bishop Medical Plaza. let us assume that they have permission to do so, I will still contend that many of them if not the Majority of attendees will park on Johnson Avenue which has a tremendous flow of traffic each and every day of the week in cluding Saturday and Sunday but we are aware that churches having on going activities throughout the week.Now-we know that the traffic on Johnson Avenue is great and foot traffic across Johnson to the church will necessarily be a additional hazard to the more evident one of cars parked on the street which people park and get out of their cars and any one on the left hand side of that car, must open the door into the traffic flow creating the possibility of death or injury to both the individual getting out of the car without first looking to see if there is oncoming traffic and to the driver of the oncoming car which may not be able to swerve out of the way or not stop in time. I will also suggest that a number of vehicles will be using the health department parking area and perhaps the Hospital area, are they well covered with proper a insurance program for protection to all and if so who is paying for that insurance, the taxpayer? Then consider the the people who own homes in or around that precise area. Not only will the operation of the church interfere with our nice quiet neighborhood it will also decrease the value of our property as well as to those who rent homes nearby. It should also be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that the changing of the zoning should be brought to the attention of the people in an open meeting to discuss the petition input and reason for changing the zoning from the General Plan we presently adhere to and is not just to satisfy any minority, whether it be church or any other proposals you may receive, as their are plenty of areas available either in or without the city boundaries Page 2. Just as importantly is the action of the planning Commission when two of them supposedly said they voted in the affirmative because it was a church petitioning fro the change of zoning, which told us that there was no deep study of the facts and the impact it might have on nearby owners and renters, and you may well say, So What? well the so What is that you have asked us to visualize and support the general plan for the City of San Luis Obispo, but if you allow the Commission to recommend use changes that we the Majority of people have lived with, then why are we being subjected to a change that we the people have who have lived with and a change which is not within the realm of the General Plan. Perhaps it is because they want us to lay down and roll over "Rover" and don't bother us with the trivia? Well, we do not condemn the church for wanting to move in and build, but we do want our peace and quiet and do not want our property to devaluate and it will with such a change of the general plan. So, please,will you the City Council, cancel the proposal of the church and the subsequent action of the planning Commission and return the zoning to the previously approved General Plan !!!!! Among other concerns is the fact that the Commission voted contrarily to the recommendations of City Staff Members. I am having a hard time trying to understand some governmental decisions from National to local entities. We hire staff to do the work and then go against their recommendations with only the fact that it is for a church and that without study and reasoning. of the staff, I feel certain that David Romero a former employee of the City would understand that it is not not a good approval method.. It is a certainty that some things must be changed for the betterment for the community and the people within it, but remember that it should be for the Majority not the Minority.. Well ,I have taken up enoygh of your time but{Tease remember it is with very soliq reasoning that We feel this application for a change in use isnot in the best interests of nearby property ovypers and property renters and our great concerns for traffic ha;4rds and safety far our ubl!c as well. So we are fervent in our PROTEST to this petition of T�MPl-f N�q $�ALOM, U 135-93. Very Truly Yours, Russell K. Powell 1330 Cecelia Court, San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 (805)544-0309 'METING AGENDA Tepm le RECEIVED �.,IE LIT 9q ITEM # Ner FEB 5 1991 252 Foothill Boulevard CITY COUNCIL Post Office Box 3344 eshalom SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA San Luis Obispo, California 93403 of San Luis Obispo Telephone (805) 541-2413 February 8, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Hon. Peg Pinard, Mayor F!�AO DD DIR City of San Luis Obispo ❑ FI DIR City Hall ❑ FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo, CA ❑ PWDIR ❑ POLICE CHFRB: Appeal - Temple Ner Shalom - U 135-93 Maw O RECDIR ❑ UTIL DIR Dear Mayor Pinard: ) ` ❑ PERS DIR The Planning Commission granted Temple Ner Shalom's request for a conditional use permit to allow a religious facility in the R-1 zone on a lot .located on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street (2211 Johnson Avenue) . That decision was appealed by two neighbors and is scheduled for a hearing before the City Council on Tuesday, February 15, 1994. It appears that the neighbors are confused regarding our plans for parking and that may be the cause of some opposition. Specifically, we are required to have a total of twenty-eight (28) spaces. We have contracted for fifty (50) spaces across the street at the Bishop Medical Plaza. Our parking agreement is for a five (5) year period and gives us the right to the exclusive use of the 50 spaces during non-business hours and on holidays and weekends. We have confirmed with Bishop Medical Plaza that no other entity has leased any parking from them at anytime. We believe that our solution to the parking issue is to the advantage of everyone because 'we can use existing lots which are very close and otherwise would be vacant. That eliminates the need for us to purchase additional property just to pave it, thereby saving us considerable sums, .and also promotes the City's wise policy of making use of existing lots during off hours rather than having to pave yet more land. The shared use of parking between religious facilities and medical offices has been utilized for many years with several churches and the San Luis Medical Clinic. Both the churches and the Clinic have advised us that this relationship works very well. Our original proposal contemplated five (5) parking spaces on site with the remaining twenty-three (23) at the Bishop Medical Plaza. However, several neighbors have objected to the five (5) on AFFILIATED WiITI THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM .-- ihalom emple Ner Hon. Peg Pinard, Mayor February 8, 1994 Page 2 site spaces, either because it would be visually unattractive, create safety hazards and/or create additional runoff and drainage problems. We believe those concerns are valid. The solution is to eliminate any on site parking. It would be a shame to have to pave more land simply to create a few parking spaces which are really not needed. We have almost twice the parking required of us available across the street. The facility would not suffer if there were no on site parking and the legitimate concerns of the neighbors would be satisfied. We discussed with the Planning Commission the idea of painting the curb white in front of our property to create a passenger loading zone. It seemed that everyone thought that would be a good idea because that would allow us to drop off children, the elderly and the handicapped in a safe place which would provide them level entry into the building. We are still in favor of that idea. We look forward to your positive support of our application which is critical to the success of our congregation. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 544-8510. Thank you. Si erely, RICHARD A. CARSEL President RAC:noa cc: Hon. Penny Rappa (hand .delivered) Hon. Bill Roalman (hand delivered Hon. Dave Romero (hand delivered) Hon. Allen Settle (hand delivered) Jeffrey Jorgensen, Esq. (hand delivered) Marshall Ochylski (via telecopier) MEFTING AGENDA DMS ITEM #_/ Met CDD DIR_. RECEIVED 0 FIN DIR 0 FIRECInEF FEB 9 1994 0 PWDIRJLEY 0 POLICE C CI '� 0 Ml3WrTEAM 0 REG DIR SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 0 CC /FILE 0 UTIL DIR y 0 PERS DIRLim- oly- O ZING AGENDA DATE -LO'22 ITEM #. Kevin Dye 2472 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, Califoniia 93401 (805) 543-8753 February 9, 1994 Ms. Peg Pinard RECEIVED San Luis Obispo City Hall Post Office Box 8100 FEB 1 U San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 1,Q 94 IL RE: Use Permit For Temple Ner Shalom -2200 Block of Johnson Avenue SAN L S CO CITY CA Dear Ms. Pinard: The purpose of my letter to you is to express my opposition to the recent Planning Commission decision in issuing a Use Permit for the above referenced facility. With this decision, the Commission is allowing an organization which will significancy impact the area to begin operations in a residential area. Both of the other religious organizations which are within the general vicinity of the area have large on-site parking facilities and are fairly insulated from surrounding residential single family dwelling by either their own parking facilities or existing vacant lots. This Use Permit was granted, apparently, with an allowance for only five (5) parking spaces on premises. The reasoning might have been due to the parking which exists at both the General Hospital and County Services lots. Having been a homeowner on Johnson Avenue for eight (8) years, the parking situation at both of the church facilities on Johnson ALWAYS overflows onto both Johnson and the adjacent side streets despite abundant on-site parking at both of these facilities. If this Use Permit is allowed to stand,this general area of Johnson will be severely impacted as follows: 1) It will create a hazardous parking and pedestrian situation at an area just beyond a "blind spot" for traffic proceeding toward Laurel Lane on Johnson. 2) The lack of on-site parking will severely impact the residents of the neighborhood as parking overflows onto the street during gatherings at the site. 3) The small size of the lots and relatively "uninsulated" proximity to single-family dwellings will result in noise considerations to surrounding residents. 4) The encouragement of non-residential operations in a residential area which is already impacted from General Hospital, County Health Services, Bishop Medical Plaza & County Offices. I would urge you to strongly consider the appeal for this Use Permit for the reasons outlined above. Should you wish to contact me personally to discuss the matter further, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Sincerely, OUNCIL CDD DIR Kevin.DyeAO ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF ORNEY ❑ PW DIR CLERKIORIC, ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM O REC DIR ❑,E READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR 0PERS DIR M'"r-TING AGENDA L,..c � ' S�� ITEM # 107 Highland Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 UNCIL CDD DIR �O ❑ FIN DIR c� `, REFIRWORIG V O ❑ FIRE CHIEF February 15, 1994 RECEIVED ED NEY ❑ P�'{DIR D POLICE CHF FEB 15 1994 ❑ MGVTTF!kh;l ❑ RECDiR City Council CITY COUNCIL �" READ`' ` i7 UTtL DiP, ! Cit of San Luis Obispo SAN LUIS OBISPO`CA { ❑ PERS DIR !• City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Regarding Temple Ner Shalom's Use Permit Application Dear Members of the Council: I recently signed a petition stating that I did not agree with the Planning Commission's decision to allow a religious facility in a single family residential zone. When I signed the petition I was not aware of the fact that there are at least 6 churches located on Johnson Avenue within less than a mile of the proposed Temple. I also did not consider the fact that most of the churches in the City of San Luis Obispo are in residential neighborhoods. I was told by the petition bearer that the Temple did not have adequate parking facilities, that it would be unsafe for congregants to cross Johnson Avenue, and that her property value would go down if she had to live near a Temple. While at the time I believed the petition bearer thought this information was correct, with additional information I have learned it is not. It is my understanding that the Temple has contracted for almost twice as many parking spaces as are required by the City, that the Police Department does not have any concerns about either parking or safety issues, and that the residence the Temple is seeking to convert is presently in a state of disrepair. Under the circumstances, I would expect the Temple to renovate the structure, install proper landscaping and, in general, upgrade the facility and thereby raise property values. Please remove my name from the petition in opposition and count me as a supporter of the Temple's application. Thank you. Sincerely, MARY ANN TROUTNER _ETING AGENDA LAW OFFICES OF � DATE 1:& ITEM # FEB 1 5 1994 TERRY STAMBLER-WOLFS CITY CLERK VIA FAS TRANSMITTAL February 14, 1994 COUNCIL 2(CDDDIR GeCAO ❑ FIN DIR 121ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Q'AT!ORNEY ❑ P:'J DIA Mayor and Members of the City Council 70CELERK/ORM ❑ POLICE CHF , City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MGVrTF.Api ❑ REC DIR 990 Palm Street ❑ CREAD FILE ❑ UT'LCiR San Luis Obispo, California 93401 r�/ _ ❑ rE4$ rip Re: Letter in Opposition to Planning Commission Approval of Use Permit U 135-93, 2211 Johnson Avenue (Temple Ner Shalom) --Supplemental Comments Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is a follow-up letter to the one addressed to the City Council on January 26, 1994. A second letter is necessary to address the contents of the staff report prepared for you as well as to comment on additional aspects of the proposed development. INADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION On January 21, 1994 I sent a letter to Pam Ricci, Project Planner, indicating a number of areas where additional data should be provided in order for the proposed project to receive a proper review. A copy of this letter is attached. With all due respect to the staff, the responses to the concerns raised in my letter are not as well developed in the staff report as we believed is necessary for your information and understanding. TRAFFIC AND PARKING One of the key planning issues regarding the proposed use permit concerns parking, traffic and related safety concerns. It is my opinion that the Planning Commission was not provided with sufficient information regarding traffic generation. A review of the staff report to you has not changed that opinion. The key to traffic and parking analyses lies. in the underlying assumptions about the proposed use and the application of the most applicable trip generation estimates available. In POST OFFICE BOX 3898 • PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CALIFORNIA 90274-9540 TELEPHONE (310) 375 2650 • FAx (310) 375-6026 February 14, 1994 Page Two this case, the staff assumes that a traditional analysis is not applicable because the bulk of the required parking is provided off-site. Also, staff focuses almost exclusively on traffic generated on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. It is my contention that a proper analysis addresses all traffic generation impacts by the use, based on the total anticipated number of visitors, not just the traffic associated with the proposed 5 on-site parking spaces. Only by analyzing the use as a whole can the true cumulative environmental impact be determined. Also, by its own statement, the applicant indicates that it will conduct routine activities 7 days per week, including Hebrew School, holiday services, memorial services, weddings, and other large group activities. All of the uses of the site should be taken into account in the analysis. Further, there is nothing wrong with using the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates for a religious institution. This site should be treated like any other proposed development. POTENTIAL CITY LIABILITY Finally, the staff relies on traffic counts dating back to 1988. These are old data and do not adequately reflect existing conditions. By not preparing a more definitive traffic analysis, the City subjects itself not only to legal attack on the environmental documentation but also sets itself up for a future negligence claim in the event of an injury accident that might have been averted through more adequate traffic and parking planning. NOISE IMPACTS The staff has chosen not to address noise impacts. A properly documented Environmental Assessment would, at minimum, include a best effort at evaluating the noise impacts associated with the proposed activities. As difficult as it may be to evaluate intermittent noise levels, there are techniques available to do so. BUILDING MASSING AND VIEW CORRIDORS With regard to building massing, staff states that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is equipped to deal with this issue. My disagreement with this statement is predicated on the position that, if the applicant is granted permission to erect a two-story addition of a certain size to the rear of the site, effectively blocking the view corridor from my client's February 14, 1994 Page Three property, the ARC will be limited to looking at architectural details such as facade treatments and window placement. The structural mass parameters already will have been decided. SHARED PARKING , The staff report still does not analyze theissue of the shared parking arrangements. Additionally, the staff report does not include any new information regarding the development standards which were followed by other religious institutions in the community and does address any land use compatibility issues between religious institutions and low density residential neighborhoods which may have been reported to the City. ISSUE WHETHER THE CITY HAS BEEN FULLY APPRISED OF THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLANS As was mentioned in earlier correspondence to the City Council and the Planning Commission, an objective assessment of the applicant's proposal leads to the conclusion that the site is simply too small for the intended use. Apparently the applicant agrees since an interest in acquiring my client's property was communicated to her. For the benefit of my client and the other property owners in the neighborhood, it would be appropriate for the City Council to inquire as to the applicant's complete development program for the use. USE OF SHARED DRIVEWAY With regard to the common driveway issues, my client's interests are not fully addressed by the letter from Jerry Kenny dated January 31, 1994. Additional communication with staff will be required. It has come to my attention that the applicant intends to propose to the Council that all on-site parking be removed. In the event that the council determines to approve this use and agrees to the suggestion that the 28 parking spaces be provided off-site, my client requests that all appropriate approvals be granted by the City to remove the shared access easement to her property, and that the applicant continue to use the existing driveway that serves the property. It would be grossly unfair to allow this use to operate without any required on-site parking while still encumbering my client's property with an access easement. In closing, I would like to reassert my client's contention that the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding February 14, 1994 Page Four single family character and the use permit should be denied. As the Planning Commission action now stands, there are no conditions of approval which address the major concerns of the neighbors. We respectfully request that the City Council reaffirm its commitment to sound land use planning principles and deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Use Permit. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. sincerely, Terry to ler-Wolfe Enclosure cc: Susan Akers Graves LAW OFFICES OF TERRY STAID BLER-WOLFE VIA FAX TRANSMITTAL (805) 781-7173 January 21, 1994 Pam Ricci Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Re: Planning Issues concerning 2211 Johnson (Temple Ner Shalom) Dear Pam: As we discussed yesterday, this letter will constitute a brief summary of some of the outstanding issues about which my client, Susan Akers Graves, and her neighbors remain concerned. Your response to these issues in the staff report to the City Council for the appeal hearing would be greatly appreciated. 1. The Initial Study does not adequately address traffic and circulation impacts. No traffic generation figures are analyzed for the 28 required parking spaces. The analysis of the impacts of having 23 of the spaces provided off site on a shared basis with others uses is only generally discussed. This impact analysis is even more critical in light of the fact that the Planning Commission did not impose any occupancy limitations on the project. 2 . The Initial Study addresses neighborhood compatibility and noise impacts of an institutional use in only a cursory fashion. In reality, a religious institution sited on an 8100 sq. ft. lot in the middle of an R-1 area will significantly alter the character and noise levels in the vicinity. Additional documentation in these areas is appropriate. 3 . During the Planning Commission public hearing there was testimony to the effect that several uses share the parking facilities across the street from the proposed Temple. The facts concerning which uses participate, how many spaces are required, how many spaces are shared, as well as the duration of the shared parking agreements is relevant in terms of analyzing the suitability of this proposal. 4. The staff report provides some information regarding existing churches in proximity to the proposed Temple; however, an assessment of whether these facilities have all of their parking Pos'I (4n(-F Box 31808 • PALO VERDER PFNINCULA, CALIFORNIA 902/4-Q540 1'ri-r.mMNr (110.) 375-2650 o FAx (310) 375-6026 requirements provided on-site and if these facilities are adequate has not. been made available. 5. It would be helpful if staff would determine what types of difficulties have been experienced by property owners who live adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity to an institutional use, including religious organizations. 6. The additional burden on the shared access easement has not been adequately reviewed by the City. There also is an issue as to whether the proposed use will require additional engineering, and the resulting modifications to the level of improvements, maintenance and liability, which were not contemplated by the City nor the parties to the Minor Subdivision agreement at the time it was approved. For our records, we would appreciate receiving a copy of the Planning Commission resolution, the minutes of the meeting, and the petition circulated by the residential neighbors. As indicated yesterday, we will be preparing a letter to the City Council for their consideration. It would be appreciated if you would ensure that it is sent to them as part of the public hearing packet. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Terry S a bler-Wolfe cc: Susan Akers Graves Arnold Jonas I��V�II�IIIIyIIIII�IIII�flI�IIIIN�`I -W o f MEETING DATE: IpU'MII cIsan'LUIS OBISPO -> - � - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TEM NUMBER FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Rosemont Planned Development on the east slope of Bishop Peak — a request for development plan approval within a Conservation/Open Space zone, to enable three lots and three houses at the northwest end of Highland Drive, and a caretaker's dwelling near Highway 1, with an open space dedication. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Introduce an ordinance, in summary form, to confirm the previous negative declaration of environmental impact and to approve the rezoning and preliminary development plan, with findings and conditions as determined appropriate by the Council. DISCUSSION Situation Within the Ferrini annexation open space area, the General Plan,zoning, and an open space easement exception allow consideration of approving three houses near the end of Highland Drive, with potential for a fourth dwelling near Highway 1. In June 1993, following receipt of a Planning Commission recommendation and several hearings, the Council was set to take an action similar to the recommended action (PD 89-92). A negative declaration, with mitigation measures, had been approved, and the urban reserve line had been slightly enlarged to accommodate the revised project. An ordinance with findings and detailed conditions had been introduced. However, the application was withdrawn just before the planned-development ordinance was to be given final passage. The applicant has resubmitted the proposal with further revisions. A revised geotechnical investigation based on soil borings also has been submitted. Data Summary Owner/applicant: Felton Ferrini Representative: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning: C/OS-40 Land Use Element map: Conservation/Open Space Environmental status: Director approved a negative declaration August 31, 1992. Action deadline: State law does not set a deadline for legislative acts such as general plan amendment and rezoning. �►� ►��II�IIIII�IIp�>nu�i��`�� city of San lues ogispo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Site Descri tl� ion .The three upper houses would occupy a shallow trough extending from elevation 600 feet to about 630 feet, on the eastern flank of Bishop Peak. A new water tank would be located between groves of oak trees, about 200 feet higher than the end of Highland Drive. Annual grasses, many oak trees of varying sizes, and some brush grow on the site, which has been grazed. The site includes a graded, unpaved road, a garage-type building, a stock-water tank, a stock-water pond, several large boulders, and some clusters of rocks which were moved many years ago. Project DescriQtion The applicant proposes to create three lots, of 1.8, 2.3, and 4.5 acres, each with a designated building envelope to accommodate a single-family house. The building envelopes and associated driveway contain a little over two acres. Specific house designs are not proposed at this time, but design standards would be included in the PD zoning. Evaluation Following are the issues identified in the previous consideration, for which the current proposal differs from the plans that the Council had conceptually approved. 1. Lot Sizes Lots would be smaller than the Planning Commission's recommendation, but larger than the Council's conceptual approval: Previous Current Lot 1 1.1 ac. 1.8 ac. Lot 2 0.6 ac. 4.5 ac. Lot 3 1.0 ac. 2.3 ac. Lots would extend downslope from the trough (easterly, toward Patricia Drive) and to, but not including, the stock pond. 2-;L San Luis Obispo county Historical Society P.O.Box 1391 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 County Historical Museum s 696 Monterey Street �.� Mw,,oUkIft San Luis Obispo, California 93401 STATe HwroiwAL r mDwAm NO.oxo (805)543-0638 February 12, 1994 Hon. Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council City of San Luis Obispo City Hall Palm at Osos Streets San Luis Obispo, CA Dear City Councilpersons: The city of San Luis Obispo grew up around a church. St. Stephen's Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church were founded one-hundred and twenty-six years ago. The Episcopalians elected to found their church in a genteel neighborhood. The Methodists first tried a downtown church. Within several years they moved their place of worship to a residential neighborhood interface. Since that time, virtually every church including Temple Beth David, has been located in a primarily residential area. We have carefully reviewed the plans for the new temple. It is a legitimate cultural asset to our city's urban fabric. As a one time "big city" person, I can assure you that Conservative Jewish Temples are not noted for large choral events or boisterous celebrations. The parking facilities at Bishop Medical Plaza supplemented if necessary by the County Hospital's public parking area, seems more than adequate. You can't quibble over the traffic impact during the hours normally used for significant assemblage in the Temple along four-lane Johnson Avenue. Why should there be any ruffled feathers over Temple Ner Shalom's relocating to a permanent edifice on Johnson Avenue? How can the proposed temple be labelled a non-conforming use? There are three large churches currently located on Johnson and several smaller ones close by. San Luis Obispo has a reputation for multi-culturalism and tolerance. During the early 1920's, those admirable qualities were challenged by the appearance of the Klu Klux Klan. It was our city's moment of shame. I trust that those who object to the construction of Temple Ner Shalom are acting on the basis of some small inconvenience that might be created. I would ask these petitioners to consider the larger implications of denying the right of a particular creed the right to build a place of worship along a byway with so many other churches. I'm confident that the members of this City Council will wish to uphold both the historic and the long range view of the issue at hand. Very truly, /3 � Dan Krieger President, San Luis Obispo County Historical Society February 15, 1994 Honorable Peg Pinard, Mayor City of San Luis Obispo City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 RE: Appeal - Temple Ner Shalom V-135-93 Dear Mayor Pinard: This letter is for the express purpose of indicating to you and your fellow council members that I am very supportive of the request by the Temple Ner Shalom for a use permit to convert the building located at 2211 Johnson Avenue to a Synagogue facility. This should be an excellent use of this property and without any detriment to the general area. This type of an organization just adds more to the moral and spir' wal strength of our community. ReCoopder February 14 . 1994 To Whom It' May Concern : My name is Sharon Gove and I live at 3272 Johnson Avenue , San Luis Obispo, California. My husband and I have lived in this town for over 43 years , as we were both .born and raised here . We own our home, which is surrounded by churches of different. faiths . On one side is the Church of Nazarene . across the street is the Unity Church, and to our other side is the Church of Christ.. We have lived in this neighborhood for almost ten years . and have never . had a problem. To the contrary , we have been told in advance of many concerts and speakers that could draw large crowds and have been invited to. nurnerous events and dinners over the vears . When our daughter died . these churches were there for us with food and flowers , even • thouah we do not attend any of these churches ! y The Church of Nazarene even invites the neighbors for Wednesday dinners and to play basketball in their new gym. I fee' the controversy over the Temple Ner Shalom is absurd' and quite frankly, ridiculous . With the three churches in my neighborhood . the Church of the Latter Pay Saints Reorganized down the street . the Baptist Church and their facilities. nearby. and with the building of the new Church of Latter Dav Saints (to be built ncr-oss the street from the Baptis,r Church)- I struggle with the notion that the . Temple Ner Shalom will bring too much noise , parking problems , etc . to the area . I am not a member of the Temple Ner Shalom, but have friends who are , as I have friends who belong to the other churches mentioned. I think this temple should have every right to be on Johnson Avenue along with these other religions . There ' s more than enough room on this street for ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS . Sincerely , r,aron ove 327 Johnson Ave . San Luis Obispo . Ca . the First Baptist Church 2075 Johnson Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805)543-0945 Of San Luis Obispo February 14, 1994 San Luis Obispo City Council P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Dear Council Members, I am writing to you in regard to the request of Temple Ner Shalom of San Luis Obispo for approval of a use permit to convert the building at 2211 Johnson Ave. to a synagogue facility. As is well known to you, religious organizations often suffer from discrimination. From all that I know, there seems to be no justifiable reason why this request should be denied. The specter of religious discrimination against a Jewish synagogue in San Luis Obispo is not a happy one. I would therefore urge you that the decision to grant this request be made on the basis of the merits of their petition. Inasmuch as many religious groups in our community operate in a residential area, it would seem that there would be no good reason for denying the request of Temple Ner Shalom. Sincerely, David D. Clark Senior Pastor Alex and Anne Gough/964.Chorro St./San Luis Obispo/CA 93401 (805)549-8526 2/14/94 Jules Rogoff 1010 Orcutt Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Jules, You have asked me to comment on what itis like to live near a church, since 1 now live across the street from a church and grew up with one across the street. You asked in regards to the efforts to locate Temple Net' Shalom on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street. From my perspective, having a church nearby has been a positive experience. The impact is confined to parking, and that is confined to a very few hours on weekends and religious holidays. The rest of the time the church is empty and the impact is nil. 'On the positive side, I have always felt that having a church or religious organization in a neighborhood adds a very positive feeling of stability and vitality. There is an upbeat feeling surrounding religious celebration, and having a church group next door is, in my opinion, preferable to any number of other possibilities, such as.a noisy neighbor or inconsiderate renters. I believe, too, that there is an issue that goes beyond local zoning, and that is the right of a religious group to freely assemble and to locate in a place convenient to their membership. It seems to me, therefore, entirely consistent to locate a religious center in a residential neighborhood I wholeheartedly support your efforts to locate Temple Ner Shalom in the 3000 block of Johnson Avenue. Yours, Alex Gough .................................................................................................................................. Alex and Anae Gough/964.Chorro St./San Luis Obispo/CA 93401 (805)549-8326 2/14/94 Jules Rogoff 1010 Orcutt Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Jules, You have asked me to comment on what it is like to live near a church, since I now live across the street from a church and grew up with one across the street. You asked in regards to the efforts to locate Temple Nee Shalom on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street. From my perspective, having a church nearby has been a positive experience. The impact is confined to parking, and that is confined to a ,',very few hours on weekends and religious holidays. The rest of the time the church is empty and the impact is nil. On the positive side, I have always felt that having a church or religious organization in a neighborhood adds a very positive feeling of stability and vitality. There is an upbeat. feeling surrounding religious celebration, and having a church group next door is, in my opinion, preferable to any number of other possibilities, such as a noisy neighbor or inconsiderate renters. I believe, too, that there is an issue that goes beyond local zoning, and that is the right of a religious group to freely assemble and to locate in a place convenient to their membership. It seems to me, therefore, entirely consistent to locate a religious center in a residential neighborhood I wholeheartedly support your efforts to locate Temple Ner Shalom in the 3000 block of Johnson Avenue. Yours, Alex Gough .. .................. ........................................................................................................................................ §Q9 _ Alex and Anne Gough/964 Chorro St./San Luis Obispo/ CA 93401 p a r� (805)549-8526 F V IF+{ S EL9Y sx r ?� r Y 5 jF'`LA MiLrY3 7Sv`x4+ y�ti _:3'�l'. ules,Rogoff -0 $r w10 OaOrcutt:Rd ca n "�r .s SanI:uis Obispo, CA 93401 M 11 ' b'�r ,'s 7 R •s*L' +I`- Y a i 7 _ ' = You=h�ve1askedYme`to comment on what it is like to live near a church, �t ``` _ u •'�.rx+�Y,r f3''Ly t �y':'� )ti r;vlr'I• .. ' r.: �' stycncy,;eyly/{�'l now:hve across the street from`a church and grew up with one �,� .•r Y �.4 C.,'^T,•'.`l.2"PIT S ��•iF � .. ... acrossyther street._You asked in regards to the-efforts to locate Temple Ner t � "p �Shaldm on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street: ' tnµ .. � .I.�`7.✓ TS 4h �1� Yom.T Y � �r 'v5•`. _ . i:dA� �� ! ..•�� � ^^.�: -F1j u''F`�4:�y:�:y'J.;^iL'.1.::'i•.1:1•��: . *,�{�.�+`-�'. til:n'N if y�.� tiv�ry',rir`•'.W x `�,r„Jz��:, "�JLe. .rx - ... . 11•,. ,. . .. .. Fromwmy perspective,.having a church nearby has been a positive r S {.• .t4 .+�r +is xLfi^ : r . r � f experience The tmpact;is,confined to parking; and that is confined to a ` ve ' Few hours on weelends and religious holidays. The rest of the time �r , y '!the'church'ts empty and the impact is Ail. r �+��Yes � ..` pc'•'YyoT,"Zii.'S',i"`:",.�:• t-'.- , SLG 1,y ��f ! 'A¢'i�� Y Cuk� r',ti»y'. •• �.� ....... ,. .h ,i!.{.t phi:n`ih7��`Vrl''�T•'i.•: .Y��.• ' :' ' ieposifive'sde; I have always felt that having a church or religious '�F t organiziition in'a'heighborbood adds a very positive feeling of stability and �h •• vitality:;There;1§an'upbeat feeling surrounding religious celebration, and n havms a churchgroup neztdoor is; in my opinion, preferable to any 4}.�. �.• �� .number of-other-possibilities, such as a noisy neighbor or inconsiderate 5„w,+. •,r�,_":t•ate,:`4 - ;.'�."• '_:�'� ol „ renters, a .- - r that;there is.an issue that goes beyond local zoning, and that ”"' isthe`'rightof'a religious,group to freely assemble and to locate in a place canveatenft,to their membership. It'seems to me, therefore, entirely „.., -;y -consistent to locate a`religious center in a residential neighborhood "IM, wholeheartedly support your efforts to locate Temple Ner Shalom in the ' x3000:block of Johnson Avenue.. . ry `}F, y 'eT.f.�n mom. Y Si_r••.'.i., ' ' :r Yours,4i L Alox Ugh” ppzt r����rr u„y... 1.•r '.�rf ia�7� �L'!1 •7�;q. �.•'�tri.'"�:r- .:yam" �} f '1'f.�:' li'l:l!1':i.'-r:•V:.: i December 29 th. 1993 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 2211 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Commissioners: My house is nest door to the property that houses both the Unitarian- Universalist Church and Temple Ner Shalom. During the past four years that Temple Ner Shalom has rented the building, I have never once .been bothered by any noise or have had a parking problem from the activities of the congregation during the time 'of their services Friday nights and Saturday mornings. Sincerely, Ronald Sherer i. MELA`NG GENDA DATE MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY February 15, 1994 TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Jorgensenl SUBJECT: Appeal of Temple Ner Shalom (Agenda Item No. 1) Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Richard Carsel, President of the Temple Ner Shalom, together with a copy of their Parking Agreement with the Bishop Medical Plaza. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. JGJ/sw enc. cc: John Dunn Arnold Jonas OUN IR " ECEp7 P CAOCIL ❑ FIRERN OHIEF TTORNEY ❑ PIst DIR FEB AO 0 1 ; 1994 q�oLERIeoRIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGN1T TEAM ❑ REC DIR CITY CLERK ❑ C REREAD ❑ UTIL DiR � —__ 0 PERS DIR Temple FEB 1.4 W4 OF N e r cm ArrOFFICE-'-Y 232 Foothill Boulevard Post Office Box 3344 C alum San Luis Obispo, California 93403 of San Luis Obispo Telephone (805) 541-2413 February 14, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Jeffrey Jorgensen, City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA RE: Appeal - Temple Nor Shalom - U 135-93 Parking Agreement With Bishop Medical Plaza Dear Mr. Jorgensen: Several of the neighbors have questioned us regarding the duration, term and cancellation clauses in our Parking Agreement with the Bishop Medical Plaza. Rather than have to debate the content of the Agreement at the public hearing I have enclosed a copy for your review. As you will see, the Agreement provides for the exclusive use of fifty (50) spaces for a five (5) year term. There are no provisions for early termination. In addition, the parties have specifically agreed to sign the standard City form agreement covering the same subject matter (see Exhibit "A" to the Parking Agreement) . If there are any technical deficiencies in the Parking Agreement we would appreciate knowing your opinion before the hearing, if possible. The Bishop Medical Plaza has been most cooperative and is anxious to assist in arriving at an Agreement for shared parking which will be acceptable to the City. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sinc rely, RICHARD A. CARSEL President RAC:noa cc: Marshall Ochylski (via telecopier, w/o encl. ) Jeff Bague (via telecopier, w/o encl. ) AFFQS.ITED WITH THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVA•nVE JUDAISM PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT Between THE LA PARRA PROJECT OWNERS ASSOCIATION aka BISHOP MEDICAL PLAZA CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION and TEMPLE NER SHALOM OF SAN LUIS OBISPOO, A California Not-For-Profit Corporation . . TIM ORCINAL OF THM DOCUMENT M LOCATED W THE SAF"OF rVmLty%Uce se.trm RICHARD A.CARSEL.A LAW CORPORAITON. . RAN Luis ORAPPO,cALWORNLk TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. PARKING SPACES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. RESTRICTIONS ON USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. TERM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. RENTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. CONDITION OF PREMISES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. NOTICE OF DISREPAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10. MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11. NONLIABILITY OF OWNERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 12. UTILITIES . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 13. SIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 14. TAXES . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 15. ALTERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 17. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 18. RULES AND REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 19. DEFAULT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 20. HOLDING OVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 21. INTEREST ON MONETARY OBLIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . 9 22. CITY AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 23. GENDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 9 24. AMENDMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 r\reslty t-Jcerse.tns i TABLE OF CONTENTS. Continued a e 25. COUNTERPARTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 26. NO ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW . . . . . . . . . . . 9 27. WAIVERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 28. NOTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 29. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS . . . . . . . 11 30. ATTORNEY'S FEES . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . 11 31.. COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 32. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 33. GOVERNING LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 34. ENTIRE AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 35. COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 36. TIME OF ESSENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 37. EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 38. ADVISORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 rXrealtAt inose.tm l i PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT is made between THE LA PARRA PROJECT OWNERS ASSOCIATION aka BISHOP MEDICAL PLAZA CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter "OWNERS") , and TEMPLE NER SHALOM OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a California not-for-profit corporation (hereinaf- ter "TEMPLE") , both of whom are sometimes collectively referred to herein as "the Parties", in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, as follows: Recitals WHEREAS, the real property owned by OWNERS which is in part the subject of this Agreement is located at 1551 Bishop Street, at the corner of Johnson Avenue and Bishop Street in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, and consists of several buildings containing medical and related offices together with parking 'lots and common areas ("the Premises") ; and WHEREAS, TEMPLE is in the process of attempting to purchase a single family residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California ("the Residence") , for the.purpose of converting the Residence to a synagogue facility; and WHEREAS, in order to obtain a use permit from the City of San Luis Obispo ("the City") to accomplish the synagogue conversion TEMPLE needs to be able to provide sufficient parking spaces to support the use of the Residence as a synagogue according to the City's requirements; and rXmLty\Licerze.tns 1 WHEREAS, TEMPLE dogs not have sufficient land at the Residence to use as parking in order to meet the City's require- ments; and WHEREAS, the City will allow TEMPLE to use parking facilities on land located near the Residence in order to meet the City's requirements; and WHEREAS, the Premises is located directly across Johnson Avenue from the Residence and the parking facilities at the Premises would qualify as off-site parking for the TEMPLE's proposed use permit application; and WHEREAS, TEMPLE would not need to use any parking at the Premises during normal business hours but, instead, would need the parking during evening, non-business hours and on weekends when TEMPLE's use would not interfere with OWNERS ' . use; and WHEREAS, OWNERS have sufficient available parking which OWNERS are willing to make available to TEMPLE in order to allow .TEMPLE to meet City's requirements, NOW, THEREFORE, this Agreement, which includes the foregoing recitals as material terms and conditions, is entered into as follows: 1. PARKING SPACES. OWNERS hereby grants to TEMPLE and TEMPLE hereby accepts from OWNERS, for the term, at the rental and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, a license for the exclusive use of fifty (50) non-designated parking spaces in the parking facilities located at the Premises, together with access to and from the parking spaces over the common areas ("the Parking r�reatcy�liceeae_en. 2 Spaces") . 2. RESTRICTIONS ON USE. TEMPLE's use of the Parking Spaces will be limited to the evening hours from 5:00 p.m until 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, being Monday through Friday, and without restrictions as to hours on weekends and recognized holidays when OWNERS are not generally open to the public for business. The intent of the restrictions as to use . herein imposed is to make clear that TEMPLE's use of the Parking Spaces will not interfere with the normal business operations of OWNERS nor in any way utilize parking spaces which OWNERS needs in order to accommodate OWNERS' patients, customers, staff and invitees. 3. TERM. The term of this License shall be for a period of five (5) years, commencing on the date that the City issues a certificate of occupancy .to TEMPLE for the use of the Residence as a synagogue. The Parties agree to execute a written addendum to this Agreement to memorialize the commencement date when the same is ascertained. This License may be terminated earlier by TEMPLE at any time by providing OWNERS with written notice and by paying OWNERS for all obligations owed hereunder to the date of termina- tion. 4. RENTAL. During the first (1st) year of this' License the rent shall be the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per month. At the conclusion of the first year the Parties shall confer to determine the rent for subsequent years. It is the intent of OWNERS to charge a nominal rent to TEMPLE after the first year if, in the sole judgment and discretion of OWNERS, the use of r\reelty\l i case.um 3 the Parking Spaces by TEMPLE hereunder has not been burdensome to OWNERS. In any event, the amount of rent charged to TEMPLE hereunder commencing with .the second (2nd) year and continuing thereafter shall be determined solely by OWNERS. S. PAYMENT. All sums of rent required to be paid to OWNERS hereunder shall be payable on the first day of each month. All other payments which are required under this License to be made by TEMPLE to OWNERS will be billed at the end of each month and are payable within ten (10) days of receipt. 6. USE. TEMPLE will use the Parking Spaces only for the parking of vehicles belonging to congregants, staff, guests, agents and invitees of TEMPLE and for no *other purposes, unless OWNERS shall give TEMPLE previous written consent for a different use. TEMPLE warrants that it is ' a duly chartered not-for-profit California corporation in good standing. In connection with TEMPLE's use of and activities in 'and about the Parking Spaces TEMPLE, at TEMPLE's expense, will comply, and will cause TEMPLE's congregants, staff, guests, agents and invitees to comply, with all applicable laws and ordinances, with all applicable rules and regulations of governmental agencies, and TEMPLE will cause TEMPLE'S congregants, staff, guests, agents and invitees to conduct themselves, with full regard for the rights, convenience, and welfare of OWNERS and OWNERS' patients, customers, staff, agents and invitees. 7. CONDITION OF PREMISES. TEMPLE has inspected the Parking Spaces and the parking facilities located at the Premises r%mtty\lieenee.tM 4 and has found them in good condition and repair and in all respects in accordance with the obligations of OWNERS under this License. 8. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION. TEMPLE shall maintain general liability insurance for at least one million dollars ($1,000, 000.00) per occurrence or, alternatively, in an amount and for such coverage as required by OWNERS' insurance carrier. TEMPLE shall name OWNERS and the owners of condominium units within the Bishop Medical Plaza complex as additional insureds on the liability policies to. be obtained by TEMPLE. TEMPLE will provide OWNERS with reasonable evidence of coverage as may be requested by OWNERS and shall defend, indemnify and save harmless OWNERS, owners of condominium units within the Bishop Medical Plaza complex, their customers, patients, staff, agents and invitees from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability occasioned by the performance or attempted performance of TEMPLE'S use of the Parking Spaces arising out of this License, including, but not limited to, condemnation, equitable relief, or any wrongful actor any negligent act or omission to act on the part of TEMPLE, or of any of TEMPLE's congregants, guests, staff, agents, employees, or independent contractors directly responsible to TEMPLE; providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any wrongful acts, or any actively or passively negligent acts or .omissions to act, committed jointly or concurrently by TEMPLE, TEMPLE'S congregants, guests, staff, agents, employees or independent contractors. 9. NOTICE OF DISREPAIR. Upon observing that any part of the Parking Spaces or parking facilities of the Premises is or r\realty%Ucerae.tnm 5 appears to be defective, dam4Lged or in disrepair, regardless of the nature of the cause, TEMPLE will notify OWNERS immediately. 10. MAINTENANCE. OWNERS shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Parking Spaces and of the parking facilities located at the Premises. 11. NONLIABILITY OF OWNERS. OWNERS, owners of condominium units within the Bishop Medical Plaza complex, their customers, patients, staff, agents or invitees shall not be liable to TEMPLE for any damage to TEMPLE or to TEMPLE Is congregants, staff, guests, agents or invitees property, resulting from fire, earthquake, or flooding; from faulty or leaking plumbing, gas, water, steam, electrical, heating, cooling, ventilating or air conditioning fixtures, facilities, or conduits; from disrepair or faulty construction of the Parking Spaces or of the parking facilities located at the Premises; from acts of OWNERS Is,, owners of condomin- ium units within the Bishop Medical Plaza complex, their customers, patients, staff, agents or invitees; or from any trespass or public offense committed in or about the Parking Spaces or at the Premises. TEMPLE shall maintain extended coverage insurance covering the perils referred to in this paragraph in sufficient amounts to cover any potential losses to TEMPLE's personal property or that of TEMPLE's congregants, guests, agents, staff or invitees. 12. UTILITIES. OWNERS' shall pay for any and all utilities used in connection with the Parking Spaces or the Premises. 13 . SIGN. TEMPLE will not place any sign or signs on the Premises. Neither Party shall use the name of the other on any 6 rN mlty\l cen e.tns signage, letterhead, advertising or third party communication of any kind. without the prior written consent of the other. 14. TAXES. OWNERS will pay real property taxes applicable to the Parking Spaces and the Premises. 15. ALTERATIONS. TEMPLE will not make any alterations or additions to the Parking Spaces or the Premises without OWNERS's prior written consent. 16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION. TEMPLE may not assign, sublet, or hypothecate this License, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of OWNERS, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any attempt to assign, sublet or hypothecate this License or any rights under it without the written consent of OWNERS shall be void, shall confer no rights on any third party, and shall be good cause for cancellation of this License by OWNERS at OWNERS's option. This License shall not be assignable by operation of the law.' Should TEMPLE violate any of the terms or conditions hereof, OWNERS may terminate this License. 17. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES. Should the parking facili- ties located at the Premises be damaged or destroyed to the extent that OWNERS are physically unable to provide the Parking Spaces for TEMPLE's use, OWNERS may elect to terminate this License or continue it in force and, without affecting TEMPLE's liability for rent under Paragraph 4, repair or rebuild the parking facilities and the Parking Spaces. OWNERS may occupy as much of the Parking Spaces as may be necessary to accomplish the repair or recon- struction, pending the completion of which an equitable reduction r%mttAUcense.tns 7 or abatement of the rent will be made by OWNERS if this License should not be terminated. OWNERS shall not be liable-to TEMPLE for any loss or damage resulting from the damage to or destruction of the Parking Spaces or from the repairing or rebuilding of the Parking Spaces. 18. RULES AND REGULATIONS. OWNERS may, but is not obligated to, establish, maintain, and enforce reasonable rules and regulations in connection with the use and occupancy of the Parking Spaces which will be conducive to the welfare and comfort of all users of the parking facilities located at the Premises. TEMPLE and TEMPLE's congregants, guests, staff, agents and invitees shall comply with such rules and regulations. 19. DEFAULT. If TEMPLE should become in default under this License, OWNERS, at OWNERS's option and without notice, (a) may terminate this License, take possession of the Parking Spaces and relet them at any rent obtainable and be entitled to recover all damages allowable by law under the circumstances, which may include the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that TEMPLE proves could be reasonably avoided; or (b) may sue to recover unpaid installments of rent. The remedies provided in this paragraph are cumulative and may be exercised simultaneously with, in addition to, or independently of, any other legal remedy. 20. BOLDING OVER, Should TEMPLE hold over the Parking Spaces after the term of this License, TEMPLE will be a tenant at rUvn1ty\l1eense.tns 8 sufferance from day to day with a rental of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day unless OWNERS shall consent in writing to a different tenancy. 21. INTEREST ON MONETARY OBLIGATIONS. All monetary obligations of TEMPLE to OWNERS under this License shall bear interest from the due date until paid at the rate of ten percent (10$) per annum or at the highest rate,permitted by law, whichever is the lower rate. 22. CITY AGREEMENT. The Parties will enter into an Off- Site.. Parking Agreement, in the form set forth at Exhibit "A" hereto, in order to accommodate the requirements of the City as a condition for granting the use permit requested by Temple as hereinabove described. 23. GENDER. In this -Agreement, whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender includes the feminine and/or the neuter, and the singular number includes the plural. 24. AMENDMENTS. The provisions of this Agreement may be waived, altered, amended, or repealed, in whole or in part, only on the written consent of all parties to this Agreement. 25. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 26. NO ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and whenever there is any conflict between any r%realty%license.the 9 provision of this Agreement and any statute, law, ordinance, or regulation, contrary to which the parties have no legal right to contract, then the latter shall prevail; but in such an event, the provisions of this Agreement so affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to bring it within the legal requirements. The several rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be construed as being cumulative, and no one of them shall be deemed to be exclusive of the others or of any right or remedy allowed by law. 27. WAIVERS. No waiver by _any party of any failure by the other, respectively, to keep or perform any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be *a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or other provision. 28. NOTICES. Any notices to be given hereunder may be effected by personal delivery in writing, or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the Parties at their last known addresses. Notices delivered personally shall be deemed communi- cated as of actual receipt. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of the date of receipt. Mail which is refused, unclaimed or undeliverable because of an act or omission on the part of the Party to be notified, if personally addressed to the Party to be notified, shall be deemed communicated as of the first date said mail was refused, unclaimed or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities. rmLty Ucvwe.b* 10 V 29. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. Subject to the provisions regarding assignment, this Agreement shall be bindinq'on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respec- tive Parties. 30. ATTORNEY'S FEES. If an administrative proceeding is brought, or if arbitration is sought, or if any action is commenced at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. 31. COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS. All of the provisions of this Agreement are to be construed *as covenants and conditions as though the words importing such covenants and conditions are used in each instance. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by reason of any rule of law or public policy, all other provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in effect. No provision of this Agreement shall be deemed dependent on any other provision unless so expressed herein. 32. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS. The paragraph headings used in this Agreement are for reference and convenience only, and shall not in any way limit or amplify the terms and provisions hereof, nor enter into the interpretation of this Agreement. 33. GOVERNING LAW. The validity of this Agreement and of any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereunder, shall be governed by the laws of the State rVvalty%t icance.tne 11 of California. This Agreement is made and is to be performed in San Luis Obispo County, California. Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, it is further agreed that venue on any action hereunder shall be in the courts of San Luis Obispo County, California. 34. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement supersedes any, and all other Agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the Parties with respect to such subject matter in any manner whatsoever. Each Party to this Agreement ack- nowledges that no representation's, inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any Party, or anyone acting on behalf of any Party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall' be valid or binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing, signed by the Party to be charged. 35. COOPERATION. Each Party to this Agreement agrees to do all things that may be necessary, including, without limitation, the execution of all documents which may be required, in order to implement and effectuate this Agreement. 36. TIME OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence. 37. EXHIBITS. Any and all exhibits hereto are incorporat- ed herein by this reference as though fully set forth. r%mtty%t ieense.tns 12 38. ADVISORS. Each Party to this Agreement has had an opportunity to review this Agreement with their .-professional financial, tax and legal advisor(s) and enters into this Agreement after full consultation with said advisor(s) to the extent desired by each Party. Accordingly, the Parties intend that this Agreement be interpreted fairly, and not for or against any Party. Executed on February 8, 1994, in duplicate originals at San Luis Obispo, California. OWNERS: THE LA PARRA PROJECT OWNERS ASSOCIATION aka BISHOP MEDICAL PLAZA CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION By: CHARLES B. FI HMAN, M.D. , President TEMPLE: , TEMPLE NER SHALOM OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A California Not-For-Profit Corporation By: _ �• ICHARD A. CARSEL, President rV"Lty%License.tns 13 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department P.O. Box 8100 (990 Palm Street) San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 i OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENT This agreement, made and entered into this day of 19_, by and between and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called -City'. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, is the owner of San Luis Obispo; Lot_Block_ Tract APN ; and WHEREAS, has leased to for I and WHEREAS, is the owner of Lot Block Tract APN ; and WHEREAS, the City has granted approval for operation of at ; and WHEREAS, one condition of said approval,(Use Permit Appl. # requires to maintain additional off-site, off-street parking space(s) to service the during its hours of operation; and WHEREAS, is willing to provide said off- street parking on the aforementioned premises; NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1 hereby agrees to provide and maintain on his/her property at _parking space(s), as approved by the City, for the exclusive use of s business at during all hours of operation of the business,on terms,conditions and compensation as may be agreed upon by owner and lessee/tenant. 2. II for any reason the space provided becomes unavailable to tenant/lessee, owner(s) shall immediately notify the City in writing of the unavailability. 3. As required by the City,additional information is attached to this agreement and incorporated by reference as (If none is required, write *none".) i Otf-Site Parking Agreement Page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written. ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED • I I Date Owner One t Date Owner Two Date Tenant Date Tenant Date City of San Luis Obispo i i I State of Callfornlal } I County o1 San Luis Obispo} On 19-_,before me, Notary Public,personally appeared ( ) personally known to me or( ) proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name Is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that(s)he/they executed the same In his/her/their capacity(les),and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,executed the Instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. i Notary Public _Capacity claimed by Ilan r(s)• ( )Indivldual(s) (;)corporation ( )partnership ( )attome -In-fact y ( ) political agency 'EXH18IT A Paga 2 0. 3 Off-Site Parking Agreement Page 3 State of Calllornla } ,- County of San Luls Obispo} On 19_,before me, Notary Public, personally appeared ( ) pers6nally known to me or '( )proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name Is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that I(s)he/they executed the same In his/her/their capacityQes),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s)or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,execulod the Instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public Capacity claimed by sioner(sl: ( )indlvldual(s) (')corporation ( )partnership ( )attorney-In-tact ( ) political agency State of California } County of San Luis Obispo} On 19. before me, Notary Public, personally appeared . ( ) personally known to me or ( )proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name Is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that (s)he/they executed the same In his/her/their capacltyQes),and)hat by hls/her/their signature(s)on the Instrument the person(s)or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,executed the Instrument. Witness my hang)and official seal. Notary Public Caoaclty claimed by slpner(sl: ( )individual(s) (I)corporadon ( )partnership ( )attorney-In-last ( )political agency i I i $3.50 ONI REGULA� IONS JULY 1,` 1993 .. . .. . . . . .. ISI,i,,l �y�liu c't' of ®WMQ;mSan lUIS OBISp0 24-89 ing spaces when he determines there is limited conflict Commercial and governmental agency antennae may in the operating times of the concerned uses and where exceed the height limits for the zone in which they are the concerned parties have adequate recorded agree- located if such an exception is approved by the director. ment governing the joint parking. Any other exception to the height limits requires ap- D.Requirements by Type of Use. Except as otherwise proval of a variance as provided in Chapter 17.60. provided intheseregulations,foreverystructure'erected or enlarged and for any land or structure devoted to a Forheight limits of signs,see Chapter 15.40.Sign Regu- new use requiring more spaces according to the scbed- lations.(Ord. 1085-1 Ex.A(part), 1987;Ord. 1006-1 ule set out in this subsection,there shall be provided the (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - indicated minimum numberof off-street parking spaces 92025(E)) located on the site of the use. 17.16.050 Fences,walls and hedges. The right to occupy and use any premises shall be contingent on maintaining the required parking. In no Fences,walls or hedges may be'placed within required case may required parking spaces for a use be rented or yards,provided: leased to off-site uses or used for other purposes. A.The maximum height in any street yard shall be as 1.The parking requirement is based on the gross floor shown in Figure 9; area of the entire use,unless stated otherwise."- B.The maximum height in any other yard shall be six 2.When the calculation of required parking results in a feet; fractional number,it shall be rounded to the next high- est whole number if the fraction is one-half or more; C.Where fences orwalls are located on retaining walls, otherwise it shall be rounded down to the next lowest the height of the retaining wall shall be considered as whole number. - part of the overall height of the fence or wall; Parking in addition to these requirements may be re- D.Thedirector may grant exceptions to these standards quired as a condition of use permit approval. by approving an administrative use permit subject to a - - - --- finding that no public purpose would be served by strict For residential uses,when-'parking spaces are identified compliance with these standards. (Ord.1006-1(part), for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwell- 1984;Ord.941-1(part),1982: prior code-92025(F)) ing,required spaces maybe arranged in tandem(that is, one space behind the other)subject to approval of the 17.16.060 Parking space requirements. community development director. A.Intent. This section is intended to ensure provision Housing occupied exclusivelybypersonsaged sixty-two of adequate off-street parking,considering the demands or older may provide one-half space per unit or one likely to result from various uses,combinations of uses, space per four occupants of a group quarters. / and settings. It is the city's intent,where possible, to consolidate parking and to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and driveswhen typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities. B. Mixed Uses. Where more than one type of use is located on a lot or within a project with common park- ing areas,the parking requirements for individual uses as provided in subsection D of this section,except that by approvalof an administrative use permit the director may.reduce the total parking space requirement by up to twenty percent when the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not coincide. C.Joint Use. For separate parcels or independently planned projects, the director may, by approving an administrative use permit,authorize joint use of park- 29 J E Uses Not Listed. The director shall determine the which are non-conforming because they do not meet parking requirement for uses which are not listed. His/ current parking standards may be expanded more than her determination shall be based on similarity to listed 25percentoftheexistinggrossfloorareaor1000square uses,and may be appealed to the planning commission. feet,subject to the following: F.Bicycle and Motorcycle Spaces. Each use or develop- a.All existing parkingshall be in substantial compliance ment which requires ten or more spaces according to with parking and driveway standards;and subsection D of this section,shall provide facilities for parking bicycles and motorcycles at the rate of one b.All required parking for the existing use or structure bicycle space and one motorcycle space for each twenty plus that required for the addition is provided; or an car spaces. Projects which provide more bicycle and/or administrative use permit is obtained and parking is motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the re- provided pursuant to the following chart: . . quired car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five motorcycle.or bicycle spaces, up to a ten percent parking provided for parking provided for reduction. Increase in gross addition in addition .existing vise or Door area to existing parking strut izris at least G.Off-site Parking. The,director may,by approving an 25-49% too , so% administrative use permit, allow some or all of the 50-74% 100% 75% required parking to be located on a site different from '75% 100% 100% the use. Such off-site parking shall be within a zone and for residential projects, at least one legally con- where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, or forming space is provided for each existing unit in within an office,commercial or manufacturing zone. It addition to all parking required for the addition itself. shall be within three hundred feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature which 3.Use changes. Changesin use,which increase the total would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazard- parking demand, from existing, legal uses which are ous. The site on which the parking is located shall be non-conforming because theydo notmeetcurrent park- owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party ing requirements may be permitted so long as the num- use.use. (Ord.1006-1(part),1984;Ord.941 her of spaces equal to the differencebetween the num- - um- -1 (part),1982: prior code-92025(G)) ber required by the previous use and the number re- quired by the new use is provided, in addition to all H.Additions and Changes in Use for Existing Uses or spaces-already provided for the•previous use:!_(Ord. Structures which do not meet current parking stan- 1122- 1 Ex. A(part), 1988; Ord. 1114- 1 Ex.A. 1988: dards: Ord. 1102-'1 Ex.A(10),(11),1987:Ord. 1085-1 Ex.A (part), 1987: Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984:-Ord. 941 - 1 1. Minor additions. Minor additions to existing legal (part), 1982: prior code -92025(9)) structures or uses which are non-conforming because they do not meet current parking standards may be 17.16.070 Parking and drivewaydesign and exceptions. permitted if they meet the following requirements: A.Parking and driveway design and requirements for a. The parking spaces required for the addition are permits shall be as provided. in the parking standards provided in conformance with this chapter,in addition adopted by council resolution. to all parking spaces already provided for the existing use or structure;and B.The director may grant exceptions to the standards subject to appropriate conditions and upon finding b.All existing parking shall be insubstantial co mplia nce that: with parking and driveway standards;and 1.The exception will not constitute a grant of special c. The addition isnot more than 25 percent of the privilege inconsistentwiththe drivewayorparkinglimi- existing gross floor area or 1000 square feet,whichever cations upon other properties in the vicinity; is greater;and 2. The exception will not adversely affect the health, d.For residential projects,at leastone legallyconform- safety or general welfare of persons working or residing ing space is provided for each existing unit in addition in the vicinity;and to all parking required for the addition itself; 3.The exception is reasonably necessary for the appli- 2. Larger additions. Existing legal structures or uses 37 OP-13-94 111:30 80SS430545 GF 11AP15 RnT STORE 106 PO] February 12, 1994 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Temple Nor shalom ' PrORQsed sii_to:_ 2211 Jghnson Ave- Dear Planning Commission Members: I m writing in support of Temple Ner 9halom's application for a use permit to use the building at 2311 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue. My home is located directly behind the Church of the Nazarene (on Johnson Avenue at Southwood) and thus, one block from the Unity Church aross Johnson, and so have had ample opportunity to observe the comings and goings of members of both churches. We have watched the members of the Church of the Nazarene work hard to improve the area around the church, even going so tar as to plant trees behind the back fence. These trees do more for my view than theirs. . I appreciate It. (I also enjoyed the cookies members of the church baked and distributed as a neighborly gesture during while some construction was going on. ) Even though both of these churches are on Johnson Avenue and offer services at approximately the came times on Sunday mornings, we have never felt this caused any parking or traffic problems. Members of the churches have not given us any reasons for concern. They couldn't be better neighbors. Having had churches near my hovae before, I believe they make excellent neighbors, and urge you to approve the requested use permit application. Very truly yours, Aetsey 7 on V 1605 Colina Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Remarks before City CoL .1 of San Luis Obispo February 15, 1994 by Susan Akers Graves My name is Susan Akers Graves. I am the owner of two parcels that would be negatively impacted by the development of the synagogue at 2211 Johnson. My parcels are the home at 1365 Bishop and the 2233 Johnson flaglot parcel immediately adjacent and below to the proposed project site at 2211 Johnson. This flaglot was formed by the subdivision of a portion and reduction in size of the 2211 lot and property I owned on the backside of 1365 Bishop. You have received several pieces of correspondence from me indicating my disagreement of and wish for the denial of the conditional use pemut for the proposed project at the 2211 Johnson location. The project is too intensive and the impacts too substantial for this small site in and among our small R-1 houses and lots in this location. In fact,probably no consideration would have been given to the project without the so-called common driveway easement that takes advantage of the driveway access which I purchased from the 2211 Johnson property this time last year. I did not want to give any such a driveway easement to Ms. Baldridge,who retains ownership of the rest of the property at 2211 Johnson, on which the synagogue is proposed. This was a condition imposed on me by City Planning to receive my lot split. I did not want to give this easement at all because of the already potentially less than attractive issues related to the development of a flaglot. In fact I can provide for you sales documents that demonstrate that at no time did I agree to such an easement and that as part of the sales documentation,that I was to provide and pay for a landscaping/fence barrier along the side of the driveway that would preclude in actuality Ms.Baldridge use of the driveway once it was developed and to provide protection and privacy between the two lots. Terry Orton,principal of Westland Engineering,who handled engineering for the project has attested in a letter to you these facts that this easement was imposed for city planning purposes and that you should also be concerned from a drainage standpoint about additional intensification. I ultimately agreed and signed the Common Easement form provided by Community Development because Ms. Baldridge's predominant access for the garage to her rental house is on die opposite south side from where this new driveway will be. Page 2/Planning Commission/SLO It was suggested by city staff that perhaps in the future with the refurbishment of the small house at 2211 that perhaps driveway access could be diverted in an appropriate and aesthetic manner to allow for a single driveway access to these two houses,but we assumed this configuration would be handled in future building and architectural review. The goal was to mitigate traffic issues not intensify it as this project will do. And because of the extensive discussion of the traffic issues along Johnson during my subdivision,none of us in our WILDEST imaginings would have ever thought any consideration would be given to the intensity of use now being proposed. We were told at the time of our hearing just last year that the City expected that the area would remain R-1 for some time and potentially could in some time in the future become R-2. We were told it was highly unlikely it would become commercially zoned. I make this point because our questions were based on trying to getting a clear understanding from the city to assure that no additional intensity would impact this easement negatively from any extended use, even residentially. I have just learned that such an attempt to impose a common driveway easement was suggested by staff for the adjacent subdivision of property similarly structured to mine for my neighbor Barbara Vance. Barbara is a City engineering staff member and she was able to have the easement waived. I maintain that these policies on the easments have been administered both inconsistently and inequitably. Apparently you have been told that an alleged offer has been made for my property. There has been no official offer made for my property. I was approached briefly by a phone call in September by Mr.Jules Rogoff on behalf of the synagogue to see if I would be willing to sell the organization my flagloL I told him at that time I would be willing to consider selling him both of my parcels because of the impact such a project would have on this small residential community and that he also should be considering talking to the other residents who would be impacted to consider an appropriate development scenario. I asked that he keep me posted on future development efforts. Page 3/Planning Commission/SLO I never received the letter sent to neighbors about the project and ultimately received a letter from the synagogue December 22 just prior to the Planning Commission hearing indicating their continuing interest in buying the flaglot. I have been asked by some city council members why I don't just sell the lot. I did not do a lot split to have the backyard of my other property become a parking lot and intensified institutional use. I am against this project on the basis of this intensification. I resent the insinuations and the pressure of being forced to sell my lot to mitigate an inappropriate intensive use because a body of planners is afraid to make a proper planning decision. Even with my lot, this use is still inappropriate in this location. Your zoning agreement about parking not being adjacent to a use was made to grandfather in older projects in commercial areas...not to have you make these kind of mistakes with new development. Every other religious institution has a different scenario than this one. This one does not make sense from the intensity of use,parking, traffic,building massing, drainage, or any other way you look at it. Even if I were to sell my lot, the project is inappropriate and too dense in this location. My agreement to purchase 2,000 square feet to create the driveway access to the flaglot behind 2211 Johnson was based on my ability to have the city approve the lot split and be provided with a curb cut on Johnson; otherwise I would not have entered into any final purchase agreement. My negotiations with the City staff to do this minor lot split took over three years to complete. Concurrent to this conversation were so many discussions about the issues of traffic concerns to get the curb cut that I would never have thought the city would even consider such a proposal for intensity of use as is being proposed tonight. Because I had bonded for the improvements that include the development of the driveway,I had written to Jerry Kenny in engineering about extending this bond since I am both unable to appropriately sell or develop this lot in this economic climate. I received a return letter from Mr. Kenny indicating that I was going to be forced to develop these improvements as part of the synagogue plan and that the project would be using my driveway as their main access with parking adjacent that would use the driveway as its turnout area. Not only am I opposed to the intensity of the project,but this intensity of use of the driveway was never intended or implied as even possible in original discussions with the city for development of my R-1 lot. Page 4/Planning Commission/SLO In the first plan forwarded to me of the proposed project, the architects had even put up a retaining wall blocking the driveway from the rest of my property. Planning Commission was shown a drawing that made the 5-space parking area look like open space, and the children's play area is against the driveway. The project is not even wellplanned,much less safe. No correspondence,much less any consideration has been given by the project developers to the impact of this intensified use of the driveway, its construction or maintenance and its associated financial impact,nor on my lot behind it. I was in the process of having the flaglot appraised, when I became aware of the synagogue project's move forward. Because residential land parcels such as mine are rare in San Luis Obispo and because of the economic climate currently affecting real estate development, appraiser Jerald Jecker suggested that I wait to have the parcel appraised until such a time as its actual development would become feasible. When Mr. Jecker and I learned of the intense institutional use being proposed on the lot above me, he told me to oppose it in any manner possible—to contact and write to you and to be at these hearings. His letter indicates his opinion that such an intense use project has a detrimental impact financially on the ability to sell or develop my residential properties (plural) immediately adjacent to this proposed project. I concur with City Planning staff that this is just not an appropriate project on the 2211 site for all of the negative impacts cited for intensity of use and activity,parking and traffic that will occur on both Bishop and Johnson Avenues, and for those that especially impact my specific properties outlined here. Additionally the project developers have misrepresented the scope and magnitude of this project and have downplayed the uses and the parking requirements. I recently called two conservative temples in my area and attended services because I could not attend services here. I attended at Temple Isaiah in Orange County and called the Conservative Temple of Orange County. Being a small organization of 50 families,Temple Isaiah has shared the complex of a community Christian Church for 20 years. While it would be nice if members walked to synagogue as described by Mr. Carstel,it is rare that they don't drive,even if they live in the neighborhood. It is only required that the rabbi walk to synagogue. Page 5/Planning Commission/SLO Secondly, you as city officials and planners of your community must look at the full scope of the activities that will occur here. As I suggested in my letter to Community Planning in November the very fact that the project developers want to purchase my lot is indication that you do not have the whole picture. There will not be just services here on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. Temple Ner Shalom,by its own advertisement in the Yellow Pages of the Phone Book operates a childcare facility,religious education,Hebrew language school,adult education programs,in addition to Sabbath services. I provide for you copies of pages of the newsletter of Temple Isaiah that also shows bar mitvahs,flea markets,and other celebratory activities that occur. Picture a scenario perhaps that this temple moves in with its conditional use permit,and finds the place is too small right off the bat and decides to move. Then you have opened a can of worms for the next conditional use without even having the ability to assess its intensification. These are business and planning decisions. Contrary to what one believes, it rains on the Sabbath and during the week,too.. Like the Conservative Temple I went to,I suspect that some members are middle-aged or older and then there are children in the childcare center,all who will need to be let off curbside, or pull into the driveway...why would it hurt anyway? Please,please consider the traffic safety issues here. Many churches are located in commerical or even industrial zones...sometimes this even allows for growth of a congregation. Other churches are grandfathered in like the SLO Presbyterian church...but it is strictly a commercial area and your zoning makes senses to have adjacent parking in these areas. Because you are starting new with this project, there is no reason why you should not require proper planning and proper siting for this institution. Finally as an appellant here tonight, I would like to be given the opportunity to make any clarification of statements or rebuttal following the applicant's statement. Conservative Judaism Called the Temple Beth Emet of Orange County a Conservative synagogue in Anaheim, California. Spoke with Karen Pulverman, who described the services. She said it is ture that the "law" says that one is not supposed to drive, one is not supposed to even carry money on the Sabat, that 99% of their congregation drives to services, except for those who actually live in the neighborhood "within a block or two. " In actuality it is only the rabbi who walks to temple. No instruments are played on the Sabbath because to play an instrument to to "work, " however there is much singing, there can be a choir, there are always cantors. Other services may include a morning service called the daily minion (spelling?) in the morning, and often a daily evening service to say the kaddish--about half an hour long, if one can get 10 men together for the service. Men and women do sit together in the conservative synagogue and men are still encouraged to cover their heads . The sabbath is from sundown on Friday to.,the next evening when three stars are shown in the sky. The Friday service is a 8 p.m. Other weekend services: Saturday morning at 9:15 to teach the Shabat and on Sunday at 9:30 a.m. (to say the daily minion) . Tonight we are visiting Temple Isaiah in Newport Beach. Fortuitously, Temple Isaiah turns out to be a "Conservative Synagogue"--although Temple Beth Emet was not aware that it was. Temple Isaiah also has been using (and leasing) the Harbor Christian Church facility for 20 years and apparently is very satisfied with the arrangement, at 2401 Irvine Avenue in the Back Bay of Newport Beach. The temple is well known and has many non-Jewish visitors because they hire and have guest professional opera singers who perform part of the temple services. Opera Pacific, a noted professional organization in Orange County apparently provides many performers. Phone (719) 548-6900/Flory) SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action to approve Use Permit allow a religious facility in the R-1 zone on a lot located near Avenue and Bishop Street (2211 Johnson Avenue) . CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution labeled Exhibit A, denying the appeal, Planning Commission's action to approve Use Permit U 135-93 to al at 2211 Johnson Avenue. Send notices/reports to: Temple Ner Shalom c/o Richard Carsel 1118 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Marshall Ochylski/Jeff Bague P.O. Box 14327 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Terry Stambler-Wolfe , P.O. Box 3898 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274-9540 Susan Akers Graves 20612 Reef Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2a0t IRVINE AVENUE —NEWPORT BEACH.CA '?17 . . Rabbi TEMPLE ISAIAH Marc Rubenstein KOL HAVERIM Lisa Kron THE VOICE President December 1993 - January 1994 Mailing Address: Temple Isaiah Kislev - Tevet - Shevat 5754 P.O. Box 10414, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Office Phones: 548-6900 / 646-7512 - , SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTS 12/01/93 .Wed 7:30 PM Board Meeting 12/03/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "Joseph & His Brothers" 12/10/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "Joseph & Pharoah" 12/11/93 Sat 6:30 PM HANUKKAH POTLUCK DINNER 12/17/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: 'Joseph Reveals Himself' 12/24/93 Fri 3):110 PM Erev Shabbat: "Come Unto Me" 01/05/94 Wed. . 7:30 PM . Board Meeting 01/07/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev.Shabbat: "The Redemption from Egypt" 01/08/94 Sat 10:00 AM RICHARD STEIN BAR MITZVAH 01/14/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The Visit of Jethro" 01/21/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The End of Genesis" 01/22/94 Sat 6:30 PM WHITE ELEPHANT SALE 01/28/94 Fri .8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The Renewed Promise of Redemption" Temple Isaiah will be instituting a new practice through our Bulletin: PERSON OF THE MONTH. Call or write us to give us your vote for someone you feel deserves -recognition as person of the month . We would also.like to start having a guest speaker from our own ranks. With such a varied congregation, we feel that we must have members at least as interesting, and with at least as much to offer in the way of information, anecdotes, and useful ideas, as any guest lecturer.! Percy Sher, one of our members, would like to talk to us about his homeland, South Africa, so be looking forward to a pleasant evening with Percy after the Shers return from their vacation! Last, but not least, we would like to see our members participate in a reading at services, in English or in Hebrew, whichever is more comfortable or desirable for you. To have one of our own members participating would bring our congregation together even closer! What more delightful way to share in the warmth of our temple family? If you would be interested, or would like to suggest someone, please call us. WEtCOME , NEW *fig Temple Isaiah is proud to welcome the following new members: Morris A. Balderman. Morris is a geologist, and lives in Dana Point. We are very happy to welcome him into our warm temple family. -" Roslyn Snow, of Newport Beach. Roslyn is a professor of English at O.C.C. A very warm welcome to you -- we're so glad to have you. Temple Isaiah is enriched by the new members in its midst. Our congregation has been greatly enriched by the addition of our new members! i Canned Food For the Needy We are happy to say that every week, Felix is able to bring a full load of canned and non-perishable goods to the Interfaith Shelter. In this season during which so many faiths celebrate holidays, the homeless feel their need more sharply than any other time of the year. Do a Mitzvah, and please remember to bring with you whatever canned and non- perishable foods you can spare, to give to the Interfaith Shelter. This is one of Temple Isaiah's most important traditions -- a way in which we can share our blessings with those who need it most. There will always be a box at the back of the sanctuary during Shabbat services, and available during any of our events in the social hall. Or just give us a call anytime! Help those who are in need! 3 LiiiiiiiiIIIIIIII ?eat,*& /fWfKfi a wwwe & .. OUR ala"uldtih SPECIAL Vwrf SATURDAY NIMT. DECEMBER 11th 6:30 PM. Our temple will hold our famous annual DAIRY POTLUCK DINNER, to be held in the Social Hall of our place of worship, 2401 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach. Join us for fun, food, games, songs HERRING a night of entertainment, dreidle games, and a special menorah lighting service with Rabbi Marc (don't forget to bring AAMBROSIA FRUIT SALAD your own Menorah). The temple will provide cups, coffee, tea, punch, etc. BRING YOUR FAVORITE FOOD FOR THE POTLUCK NOODLE PUDDING DINNER -- $400 per person jowards the rental of the hall. CHILDREN UNDER 18 ADMITTED FREE. The Committee will need to know how many people PSIDE DOWN CAKE to expect, so please fill out the attached slip and mail it,with your check, to the temple. The deadline for reservations is one week ahead of KUGEL the event. Tear off and mail with check to: KNISHES TEMPLE ISAIAH of NEWPORT BEACH, P.O. Box 10414, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 APPETIZERS Name Number of persons HONEY CAKE Children under 18 read DO*? ' 6� f/6" AAMtllel.1t I \ SPECIAL EVENTS Ricliarb Stei" Dar Mitzvah �����_..,, ����„ . � , ■■ 9M The Stein family cordially invites the congragation to share in their happiness and attend: Saturday, January 8th, 1994, at 10:00 AM !Z1,0 sr� Our profound congratulations to Richard, his parents, and brother Charles. Mazel Tov to the entire family! Richard's Torah portion at this blessed event will be Va'era. Please join us! WHITE ELEPHANT SALE::: riFABULOUS .1 1% WHITE ELEPHANT SALE Bring your usable items, new or in excellent condition! As always, we expect a good turn-out, and there will be fun, bidding, and lots of socializing!!! Saturday, January 22nd, at 6:30 PM Don't miss thisM we are sponsoring another evening of fun and fund$! Search your closets and bring your USABLE "unusables" to the temple. Got lots? Dgn't stop with one -- bring 'em all! After all, one person's white elephant is another's treasure. 6 Hebrew School News Don't forget: Hebrew School is held Mondays and Wednesdays, from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 PM! Registration may take place anytime during the school year, and students will be individually tested according to their background and ability. On Saturday morning at 10:OOam, January 8th, we celebrate the Bar Mitzvah of Richard Stein. Please be with us as he is called to the the Torah. Please feel free to call us at 548-6900 if you have any questions, or would like to enroll your child. Children are welcomed to enroll at any time! The school will be in recess from December 23 1993 till January 5th,1994. Tye A0U`T ADULT EDUCATIONCATIME T/ON C q� S Temple Isaiah's Adult Education are held every Tuesday, starting at 7:30PM, in the Rabbi's study at our place of worship. Don't miss these delightful and highly interesting sessions. The first subject will be "Books That Didn't Make It Into The Bible", every Tuesday from 7:30PM to 8:30PM, followed by Beginning Hebrew from 8:30PM to 9:30PM. You are always welcome to come, even if you've missed the other nights -- these are on-going classes! Classes are free to members of Temple Isaiah, and cost to non-members for either the lecture series, or the Adult Beginning Hebrew, is $50, which can be applied towards the membership fee for joining the temple. Call 548-6900 for more information, or to enroll. members on the Move Good luck to Sam and Cheryl Silverman and family on the occasion of moving into their new home! Hebrew Co"versrtio" Temple Isaiah is now offering a class in modern Hebrew conversation. As always, members may attend for free, and the fee for non-members is a bargain: $50.00 for the entire course, which may even be applied towards membership in the temple! Please call 548-6900 for more information. High Holy Day Pledges CAROL BEITSCHER MELVIN and CAROL BEITSCHER(Kol Nidre Pledges) RAYMOND and MARY SEGALL GERTRUDE T. WEINER ARTHUR L. and ALTHEA SHEF ROBERT A SAVASKY KEN and LOLA GADER MR. and MRS. RALPH DELITSKY, of New York LARRY and MARSHA STEIN MR. and MRS. ANDREW F. BISOM MR. and MRS. ALEX BRENGAUZ ALBERT and LORRAINE WEINGARDT SARA ROBERTS ETHEL HERSKOWITZ MR. and MRS. ALAN DINER MR. and MRS. ROBERT B. SCHOENBERG MR. and MRS. ALFRED KESSEL LARRY and ELEANOR STERNBERG AARON LEDERFINE STEPHEN and ILDIKO RETI GOOD RICHARD and SUSAN CABIN MAROSZ I DR. and MRS. KAMRAN GHODSIAN MRS. JUDITH KRANG i I Our temple is now selling 1994 Entertainment Books. They cost only $40.00, and yet they treat you to many times that amount in entertainment coupons, plus they benefit the temple, as the temple will make a small profit on each book sold. Seriously -- they're a great investment: with 50% off meals, hotels, many discounts on services, entertainment, etc. Please help us sustain the temple, and avail yourself of a book that will take you through a year of fun, entertainment, good food, and fulfillment. Our own Alan Dror and his lovely wife Gloria are in charge. You may call the office at 548-6900 for more information on how to obtain an Entertainment Book. I I "Book of Life" Want to give a very meaningful gift to your family and friends? Put their names in Temple Isaiah's Book of Life! The Book of Life is a beautifully handcrafted book in which your family member or friend's name will be professionally inscribed, in gold lettering, on its own page. The cost per name is $25.00. The book will be displayed at the entrance to the Sanctuary. Names inscribed in the Book of Life will also be announced in the next edition of the Bulletin. 10 Choir Notes 0 11 We have had the pleasure, these past months, of having Aram, Gayle, and other accomplished soloists lend their magic to our services. Temple Isaiah is known for its musical excellence, especially its wonderful.High Holy Day Choir. Please remember that supporting the Choir Fund makes it possible for Temple Isaiah to continue to offer the accompaniment of unusually talented soloists. If you feel you would like to contribute, please send your.donation to: Temple Isaiah of.Newport Beach P. O. Boz 10414 Costa Mesa, CA 92727-0154 Any contribution would be most sincerely welcomed, as.it enables us to bring a special feeling to our services throughout the year by allowing us to have accomplished soloists, and, of course; the special High Holy Days Choir. In. Loving Memory We deeply regret the passing of: ANNA SMITH beloved wife of Nehemiah Smith, mother, mother-in-law, and grandmother of our members Robert and Barbara Maller and their family, on October_ 19th, 1993 (Cheshvan 4. 5754). Our deepest sympathy to the Maller family. May your loved one's memory be a blessing and a comfort to all who knew her. MAY THE FATHER IN HEAVEN CONSOLE ALL THOSE WHO MOURN.. Just a Reminder... WE NEED YOU. v f We need help with the vital function of planning important fundraisers and fun temple events. We really need the help of men and women in the congregation to come up with ideas, and. the temple could always use some help with funds.. This is an important part of the congregation's survival. You, too, can be a real cornerstone. of our temple! We really need people with enthusiasm, a desire to have fun, even a couple of minutes here and there throughout the year to spare, and a few good ideas. Please call us at 548-6900 and we'll set a time to get together: GOT20MU&tOM � �s�ti1/is�Es DECEMBER BIRTHDAYS JANUARY BIRTHDAYS 2 Shirley Bisom 6 Irene Tipper 3 Flory Van Beek 6 Marsha Kessler Stein 4 Cheryl Silverman 10 Virginia Katz 9 Alan Dror 19 Jennifer Kron 30 Thelma Mann pp,� 22 Eleanor Sternberg D' 23 Melvin Beitscher C)°, 24 Marion Fligner DECEMBER ANNIVERSARIES JANUARY ANNIVERSARIES 14 Robert & Barbara Maller 24 Moisey & Rosa Fridman 9 Alfred & Thelma Kessel 18 Sam & Cheryl Silverman 26 Saul & Thelma Mann 29 Todd & Cynthia Clark Kindle Sabbath ONEG SHABBAT Candies Have a Birthday, an Anniversary, a Special December 3 ... 4:25 PM Someone you'd like to honor? By sponsoring December 10 ... 4:26 PM an Oneg Shabbat, you not only help the temple, December 17 ... 4:28 PM d but you also choose a truly suecial way to honoz December 24 ... 4:31 PM great events and great people in your life. December 31 ... 4:36 PMThere isn't'a single present you can give that 4 will say "Happy Birthday", "Happy Anniversary" d or "You're Very Important to Me" quite as well January 7 ... 4:42 PM as a special get-together after Erev Shabbat January 14 ... 4:48 PMS Services! Do something special — dedicate an January 21 ... 4:55 PM Oneg Shabbat to someone you love or care for! January 28 ... 5:02 PM ' The temple provides tea, coffee and punch. You may contribute either by bringing your favorite treats, or bydonating a check GET WELL WISHES TO: towards Oneg Shabbat expenses, whichever you would like!. Temple Isaiah gratefully welcomes either. We wish you a speedy recovery! tr*� And to all who are feeling under the weather, we say: GET WELL SOON! � MAKE FRIDAY NIGHT P.efuah Shelayamah TEMPLE NIGHT T T ' lz -MOcNVN 00 x Y 1 O O <s u7NMW --N �1 Y a Opo ' n D —�?N v� E2 T• T yA � N � , � O�. � 00 C yy E-4 .+ o� yEoQi �, y O N m d y! R y CL 6i y O•y d :n N � ,� CC\j o CY) V J _U) coN C� corr � o g g g LU N $ C3) CO x � T x � N x � N , LU U U U U U Q WId C/) 00 3 C n T C n N C r (v g g C0 m � T xe C\j N y(D f7 01� N N N^a)CD W N m O�m N ;moria LU N >,N0 CD NM � Z� tet- mN N T C n �^ ^�NN T T N GIFTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS Date............... ENCLOSED IS A CHECK FOR $................................. TO A TEMPLE ISAIAH FUND (please clerk fund): ED PRAYERBOOK C. LIBRARY GENERAL. FUND C) EDUCATION [] FLORAL IN HONOR OF O IN MEMORY OF C1 ................................................................................. ... .................. .. ........................................ Name............................................................ ......... ................. ....... ..................... P Address..................................................................................................................................................... ALL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE From..._........................................................................................................................................... . 190"C") Address....................... .................................................................................... .......................................21p........................ Please send acknowledgment cards to the donor and to the person honored C3 or to the person's family[3 below. Name...—............................................................................................................................ Address .................................................................................... CHY..................... .................... AiNICY RAYMON R.N. N.N. Breast Cancer Consultant DVORA TAL'S 711/651-07055 PIANO LESSONS 13112 A1.4ace Circle M PIMO PERIORMMCE lr%,;ne.CA92714 •&EoRy •Sirjo REAdimy 0 Em TRAWNG DVORA TAS THINKING OF ADVERTISING? Rates are reasonable: IRVINE,TURrIsn"k $ 60.00 for a whole page, or $ 350.00 per year. 30 MORNINr VIEW (714)854,3408 $ 30-00 for a half page, or $ 160.00 per year. $ 15-00 for a quarter page, or $ 80.00 per year. $ 10-.00 for business card size, or $ 50.00 per year. ---------------MMM!!M Ci boo OD OD O R N E O W tlJ �,,. R N I •� a yo VaSWtoo Q • � � yS N �' 07 � r5 � T mac .. 00 a� aa � T Hca (U N � caa d pq h H oeoEica S S o R E-F �7y o9 00 0 oo Q o O 3 a a d EPoG4 ,,, W d N iii~ � zra d' O CY) O � T N N r 00 IV' s a v� a � via via � a R W r N LOT x � C x � Z Q Yl Cc: R U U U U oa Qen en W Qin 9 ':3 LO Nn 0 o T O o V1 a L 0 M VJa y � O ,. .0 %0 x � El co O T s � N i O Co N CV) T- N 8. Telephone(714)731-6111 ALBERT KHANZADEH D.D.S. BARBARA A. ROSEN, Ph.D. FAMILY DENTISTRY CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY Lic. PJ004269 1520 NUTMEG PLACE SUITE 100A Fashion Lane Financial Center COSTA MESA, CA 92626 (714j S40-2644 161 Fashion Lane,Suite 209 Tustin,California 92680 PACU7C VIEW MEMORIAL PARK AND MORTUARY Where the beauty of the lives we remember 6 reflected in every way possible.g, CATERING SERVICE Cemetery,undertakinmortuary,mausoleum, chapel, serving Jewish congregations, me. Invite a professional Chef to plan, cook/ morial services in Orange County,cremation and serve your next affair. serviees.For any or every need-.one call. Casual to Formal — All Occasions 3600 Pacific View Drive Be a guest at your own party. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Award-winning Chef JEFF WEISS, C.W.C. Telephone (714) 6442700 Gourmet Foods (714) 645-6641 POB 3156 3455 E La Palma Ave. E/30/4C East PacHlc Investment Co. Laguna Hills,CA 92654 Anaheim,CA 92806 Lisa Kron HEARING AID SERVICES ReaMor es Audiornet/�iy and pHeairing�Aids 3001 RednillAve. e,ettsin9 eSOtat�ZLin LQLL fO'Mia GJIRCE 7976 Building One Suite 219 113 Costa Mese,CA 92626 USA (714) 286-5700 (Pager) Bus.(7u)434.9056 Priv.(714)324-OOU Robert Nick, B.S.E.E. State Licensed e91lTONe Fax(714)434-9917 Hearing Aid Specialist NHAS Certified TEMPLE ISAIAH OF NEWPORT BEACH to N4410M Com. 2401 irl xe Ave. U.S. POSTAM Pimport Bads, CA 92660 PAD COSTA MESA,CA MAILING ADDRESS: PEJ#Irr NO.2 P.O. Box 10414 CesU Mesas Ca. 926ZI TMMB VALUE! ADDRMSS COUNCT10N REQUESTED �b Conservative Judaism Called the Temple Beth Emet of Orange County a Conservative synagogue in Anaheim, California. Spoke with Karen Pulverman, who described the services. She said it is ture that the "law" says that one is not supposed to drive, one is not supposed to even carry money on the Sabat, that 990 of their congregation drives to services, except for those who actually live in the neighborhood "within a block or two." In actuality it is only the rabbi who walks to temple. No instruments are played on the Sabbath because to play an instrument to to "work, " however there is much singing, there can be a choir, there are always cantors. Other services may include a morning service called the daily minion (spelling?) in the morning, and often a daily evening service to say the kaddish--about half an hour long, if one can get 10 men together for the service. Men and women do sit together in the conservative synagogue and men are still encouraged to cover their heads. The sabbath is from sundown on Friday to. the next evening when three stars are shown in the sky. The Friday service is a 8 p.m. Other weekend services : Saturday morning at 9:15 to teach the Shabat and on Sunday at 9:30 a.m. (to say the daily minion) . Tonight we are visiting Temple Isaiah in Newport Beach. Fortuitously, Temple Isaiah turns out to be a "Conservative Synagogue"--although Temple Beth Emet was not aware that it was. Temple Isaiah also has been using (and leasing) the Harbor Christian Church facility for 20 years and apparently is very satisfied with the arrangement, at 2401 Irvine Avenue in the Back Bay of Newport Beach. The temple is well known and has many non-Jewish visitors because they hire and have guest professional opera singers who perform part of the temple services. Opera Pacific, a noted professional organization in Orange County apparently provides many performers. Phone (714) 548-6900/Flory) i 2401 IRVINE AVENUE — NEWPORT BEACH.CA Rabbi TEMPLE ISAIAH Marc Rubenstein KOL HAVERIM ,visa Kron THE VOICE President December 1993 - January 1994 Mailing Address: Temple Isaiah P.O. Box 10414, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Kislev - Tevet - Shevat 5754 Office Phones:548-6900/ 646-7512 SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTS 12/01/93 Wed 7:30 PM Board Meeting 12/03/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "Joseph & His Brothers" 12/10/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: 'Joseph & Pharoah" 12/11/93 Sat 6:30 PM HANUKKAH POTLUCK DINNER 12/17/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "Joseph Reveals Himself' 12/24/93 Fri o:()0 PM Erev Shabbat: "Come Unto Me" 01/05/94 Wed 7:30 PM Board Meeting 01/07/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The Redemption from Egypt" 01/08/94 Sat 10:00 AM RICHARD STEIN BAR MITZVAH 01/14/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The Visit of Jethro" 01/21/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The End of Genesis" 01/22/94 Sat 6:30 PM WHITE ELEPHANT SALE 01/28/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbai: "The Renewed Promise of Redemption" Temple Isaiah will be instituting a new practice through our Bulletin: PERSON OF THE MONTH. Call or write us to give us your vote for someone you feel deserves recognition as person of the month . We would also like to start having a guest speaker from our own ranks. With such a varied congregation, we feel that we must have members at least as interesting, and with at least as much to offer in the way of information, anecdotes, and useful ideas, as any guest lecturer! Percy Sher, one of our members, would like to talk to us about his homeland, South Africa, so be looking forward to a pleasant evening with Percy after the Shers return from their vacation! Last, but not least, we would like to see our members participate in a reading at services, in English or in Hebrew, whichever is more comfortable or desirable for you. To have one of our own members participating would bring our congregation together even closer! What more delightful way to share in the warmth of our temple family? If you would be interested, or would like to suggest someone, please call us. �o yf , NEW NEn W Fi�,�0 Temple Isaiah is proud to welcome the following new members: Morris A. Balderman. Morris is a geologist, and lives in Dana Point We are very R� Ora happy to welcome him into our warm temple family. Roslyn Snow, of Newport Beach. Roslyn is a professor of English at O.C.C. A very warm welcome to you -- we're so glad to have you. Temple Isaiah is enriched by the new members in its midst. Our congregation has been greatly enriched by the addition of our new members! I V-0-VA oa I I 1 , o Canned Food For the Needy We are happy to say that every week, Felix is able to bring a full load of canned and non-perishable goods to the Interfaith Shelter. In this season during which so many faiths celebrate holidays, the homeless feel their need more sharply than any other time of the year.. Do a Mitzvah, and please remember to bring with you whatever canned and non- perishable foods you can spare, to give to the Interfaith Shelter. This is one of Temple Isaiah's most important traditions -- a way in which we can share our blessings with those who need it most. There will always be a box at the back of the sanctuary during Shabbat services, and available during any of our events in the social hall. Or just give us a call anytime! Help those who are in need! 3 2401 I}RVVIINE AVENUEE�-- NEWPORT BEACH,CA 01:3 .. �. Rabbi TEMPLE ISAIAH Marc Rubenstein KOL HAVERIM Lisa Kron THE VOICE President December 1993 - January 1994 Mailing Address: Temple Isaiah Kislev - Tevet - Shevat 5754 P.O. Box 10414, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Office Phones: 548-6900 / 646-7512 SPECIALS HIGHLIGHTS 12/01/93 Wed 7:30 PM Board Meeting 12/03/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "Joseph & His Brothers" 12/10/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "Joseph & Pharoah" 12/11/93 Sat 6:30 PM HANUKKAH POTLUCK DINNER 12/17/93 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "Joseph Reveals Himself' 12/24/93 Fri SM PM Erev Shabbat: "Come Unto Me" 01/05/94 Wed 7:30 PM Board Meeting 01/07/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The Redemption from Egypt" 01/08/94 Sat 10:00 AM RICHARD STEIN BAR MITZVAH_ 01/14/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The,Visit of Jethro" 01/21/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: "The End of Genesis" 01/22/94 Sat 6:30 PM WHITE ELEPHANT SALE 01/28/94 Fri 8:00 PM Erev Shabbat: 'The Renewed Promise of'Redemption" Temple Isaiah will be instituting a new practice throdgh our Bulletin: PERSON OF THE MONTH. Call or write us to give us your vote for someone you feel deserves recognition as person of the month . We would also like to start having a guest speaker from our own ranks. With such a varied congregation, we feel that we must have members at least as interesting, and with at least as much to offer in the way of information, anecdotes, and useful ideas, as any guest lecturer! Percy Sher, one of our members, would like to talk to us about his homeland, South Africa, so be looking forward to a pleasant evening with Percy after the Shers return from their vacation! Last, but not least, we would like to see our members participatein a reading at services, in English or in Hebrew,.whichever.is more comfortable or desirable for you. To have one of our own members participating would bring our congregation together even closer! What more delightful way to share in the warmth of our temple family? ILIf you would be interested, or would like to suggest someone, please call us. 1 • �pg , NEW *f*8 w� fRs.1 Temple Isaiah is proud to welcome the following new members: Morris A. Balderman. Morris is a geologist, and lives in Dana Point. We are very happy to welcome him into our warm temple family. Roslyn Snow, of Newport Beach. Roslyn is a professor of English at O.C.C. A very warm welcome to you -- we're so glad to have you. Temple Isaiah is enriched by the new members in its midst. Our congregation has been greatly enriched by the addition of our new members! I Canned Food For the Needy We are happy to say that every week, Felix is able to bring a full load of canned and non-perishable goods to the Interfaith Shelter. In this season during which so many faiths celebrate holidays, the homeless feel their need more sharply than any other time of the year. Do a Mitzvah, and please remember to bring with you whatever canned and non- perishable foods you can spare, to give to the Interfaith Shelter. This is one of Temple Isaiah's most important traditions -- a way in which we can share our blessings with those who need it most. There will always be a box at the back of the sanctuary during Shabbat services, and available during any of our events in the social hall. Or just give us a call anytime! Help those who are in need! 3 OUR HA"Uldtih SPECIAL Z146W6:30 SATURDAY NICHT, DECEMBER 11th PM, pe&4" Z)4weot//'Our temple will hold our famous annual DAIRY POTLUCK DINNER, to be held in the Social Hall of our place of worship, 2401 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach. Join us for fun, food, games, songs HERRING a night of entertainment, dreidle games, and a special menorah lighting service with Rabbi Marc (don't forget to bring AMBROSIA FRUIT SALAD your own Menorah). The temple will provide cups, coffee, tea, punch, etc. BRING YOUR FAVORITE FOOD FOR THE POTLUCK NOODLE PUDDING DINNER -- $1.00 per person jowards the rental of the hall. CHaDREN UNDER 18 ADMITTED FREE. The Committee will need to know how many people PSIDE DOWN CAKE to expect, so please fill out the attached slip and mail it,with your check, to the temple. The deadline for reservations is one week ahead of KUGEL the event. Tear off and mail with check to: KNISHES TEMPLE ISAIAH of NEWPORT BEACH, P.O. Box 10414, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 APPETIZERS Name Number of persons HONEY CAKE Children under 18 � �ac't j� 2�uu� r��ketlte��l 5 I � I SPECIAL EVENTS I Tt�el�ar� Stei» ��� Dar Miuvah tia,.�:,. ,, ,�,� � � ■■, �� The Stein family cordially invites the congragation to share in their happiness and attend: Saturday, January 8th, 1994, at 10:00 AM sr� Our profound congratulations to Richard, his parents, and brother Charles. Mazel Tov to the entire family! Richard's Torah portion at this blessed event will be Va'era. Please join us! WHITE ELEPHANT SALE::: riFABULOUS WHITE ELEPHANT SALE Bring your usable items, new or in excellent condition! As always, we expect a good turn-out, and there will be fun, bidding, and lots of socializing!!! Saturday, January 22nd, at 6:30 PM Don't miss thisM we are sponsoring another evening of fun and fund$! Search your closets and bring your USABLE "unusables" to the temple. Got lots? Dgn't stop with one -- bring 'em all! After all, one person's white elephant is another's treasure. I� I �i7f�fi�fliWfl��i• OUR Hc111Ukhih SPECIAL Z)41�w SATURDAY NIGHT, DECEMBER 11th 6:30 PM. Our temple will hold our famous annual DAIRY POTLUCK DINNER, to be held in the Social Hall of our place of worship, 2401 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach. Join us for fun, food, games, songs HERRING a night of entertainment, dreidle games, and a special menorah lighting service with Rabbi Marc (don't forget to bring AMBROSIA FRUIT SALAD your own Menorah). The temple will provide cups, coffee, tea, punch, etc. BRING YOUR FAVORITE FOOD FOR THE POTLUCK NOODLE PUDDING DINNER — $400 per person.towards the rental of the hall. CHILDREN UNDER 18 ADMITTED FREE. The Committee will need to know how many people PSIDE DOWN CAKE to expect, so please fill out the attached slip and mail it,with your check, to the temple. The deadline for reservations is one week ahead of KUGEL the event. Tear off and mail with check to: KNISHES TEMPLE ISAIAH of NEWPORT BEACH, P.O. Box 10414, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 APPETIZERS Name Number of persons HONEY CAKE Children under 18 1¢Kd Do�c�t jet ��.."' r�jfiketlSetll I SPECIAL EVENTS ,t Ric ark Ste�� 4""�r. Isar Mitzvah � 'M) wUWNOprei U7 IR ■, The Stein family cordially invites the congragation to share in their happiness and attend: Saturday, January 8th, 1994, at 10:00 AM Our profound congratulations to Richard, his parents, and brother Charles. Mazel Tov to the entire family! Richard's Torah portion at this blessed event will be Va'era. Please join us! WHITE ELEPHANT SALE::: FABULOUS WHITE ELEPHANT SALE Bring your usable items, new or in excellent condition! As always, we expect a good turn-out, and there will be fun, bidding, and lots of socializing!!! Saturday, January 22nd, at 6:30 PM Don't miss this!!! we are sponsoring another evening of fun and fund$! Search your closets and bring your USABLE "unusables" to the temple. Got lots? Don't stop with one -- bring 'em all! After all, one person's white elephant is another's treasure. M% - ix? Hebrew School News Don't forget: Hebrew School is held Mondays and Wednesdays, from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 PMi Registration may take place anytime during the School year, and students will be individually tested according to their background and ability. On Saturday morning at 10:00am, January 8th, we celebrate the Bar Mitzvah of Richard Stein. Please be with us as he is called to the the Torah. Please feel free to call us at 548-6900 if you have any questions, or would like to enroll your child. Children are welcomed to enroll at any timel The school will be in recess from December 23 1993 till January 5th,1994. THIS AUCT�s THF ADULT EDUCATION epVCAT ON CoJOIN ftkS Temple Isaiah's Adult Education are held every Tuesday, starting at 7:30PM, in the Rabbi's study at our place of worship. Don't miss these delightful and highly interesting sessions. The first subject will be "Books That Didn't Make It Into The Bible", every Tuesday from 7:30PM to 8:30PM, followed by Beginning Hebrew from 8:30PM to 9:30PM. You are always welcome to come, even if you've missed the other nights -- these are on-going classes! Classes are free to members of Temple Isaiah, and cost to non-members for either the lecture series, or the Adult Beginning Hebrew, is $50, which can be applied towards the membership fee for joining the temple. Call 548-6900 for more information, or to enroll. members on the move Good luck to Sam and Cheryl Silverman and family on the occasion of moving into their new home! Hebrew Co"versatio» Temple Isaiah is now offering a class in modem Hebrew conversation. As always, members may attend for free, and the fee for non-members is a bargain: $50.00 for the entire course, which may even be applied towards membership in the temple! Please call 548-6900 for more information. High Holy Day Pledges CAROL BEITSCHER MELVIN and CAROL BEITSCHER(Kol Nidre Pledges) RAYMOND and MARY SEGALL GERTRUDE T. WEINER ARTHUR L. and ALTHEA SHEF ROBERT M. SAVASKY KEN and LOLA GADER MR. and MRS. RALPH DELITSKY, of New York LARRY and MARSHA STEIN MR. and MRS. ANDREW F. BLSOM MR. and MRS. ALEX BRENGAUZ ALBERT and LORRAINE WEINGARDT SARA ROBERTS ETHEL HERSKOWITZ MR. and MRS. ALAN DINER MR. and MRS. ROBERT B. SCHOENBERG MR. and MRS. ALFRED KESSEL LARRY and ELEANOR STERNBERG AARON LEDERFINE j STEPHEN and ILDIKO RETI GOOD I RICHARD and SUSAN CABIN MAROSZ DR. and MRS. KAMRAN GHODSIAN MRS. JUDITH KRANG II Our temple is now selling 1994 Entertainment Books. They cost only $40.00, and yet they treat you to many times that amount in entertainment coupons, plus they benefit the temple, as the temple will make a small profit on each book sold. Seriously -- they're a great investment: with 50% off meals, hotels, many discounts on services, entertainment, etc. Please help us sustain the temple, and avail yourself of a book that will take you through a year of fun, entertainment, good food, and fulfillment. Our own Alan Dror and his lovely wife Gloria are in charge. You may call the office at 548-6900 for more information on how to obtain an Entertainment Book. I "Book of Life" Want to give a very meaningful gift to your family and friends? Put their names in Temple Isaiah's Book of Life! The Book of Life is a beautifully handcrafted book in which your family member or friend's name will be professionally inscribed, in gold lettering, on its own page. The cost per name is $25.00. The book will be displayed at the entrance to the Sanctuary. Names inscribed in the Book of Life will also be announced in the next edition of the Bulletin. 10 Choir Notes nM We have had the pleasure, these past months, of having Aram, Gayle, and other accomplished soloists lend their magic to our services. Temple Isaiah is known for its musical excellence, especially its wonderful High Holy Day Choir. Please remember that supporting the Choir Fund makes it possible for Temple Isaiah to continue to offer the accompaniment of unusually talented soloists. If you feel you would like to contribute, please send your donation to: Temple Isaiah of Newport Beach P. O. Box 10414 Costa Mesa, CA 92727-0154 Any contribution would be most sincerely welcomed, as it enables us to bring a special feeling to our services throughout the year by allowing us to have accomplished soloists, and, of course, the special High Holy Days Choir. I i In Loving Memory We deeply regret the passing of: ANNA SMITH beloved wife of Nehemiah Smith, mother, mother-in-law, and grandmother of our members Robert and Barbara Maller and their family, on October 19th, 1993 (Cheshvan 4. 5754). Our deepest sympathy to the Maller family. May your loved one's memory be a blessing and a comfort to all who knew her. MAY THE FATHER IN HEAVEN CONSOLE ALL THOSE WHO MOURN. Just a Reminder... WE NEED YOU!r r We need help with the vital function of planning important fundraisers and fun temple events. We really need the help of men and women in the congregation to come up with ideas, and the temple could always use some help with funds. This is an important part of the congregation's survival. You, too, can be a real cornerstone of our temple! We really need people with enthusiasm, a desire to have fun, even a couple of minutes here and there throughout the year to spare, and a few good ideas. Please call us at 548-6900 and we'll set a time to get together. Gongrzxtdatom . 6 Bezr lisS., DECEMBER BIRTHDAYS JANUARY BIRTHDAYS 2 Shirley Bisom 6 Irene Tipper 3 Flory Van Beek 6 Marsha Kessler Stein 4 Cheryl Silverman 10 Virginia Katz 9 Alan Dror 19 Jennifer Kron 30 Thelma Mann 22 Eleanor Sternberg �al 23 Melvin Beitscher 24 Marion Fligner i DECEMBER ANNIVERSARIES � JANUARY ANNIVERSARIES 14 Robert & Barbara Maller 24 Moisey & Rosa Fridman 9 Alfred & Thelma Kessel 18 Sam & Cheryl Silverman 26 Saul & Thelma Mann 29 Todd & Cynthia Clark Kindle Sabbath ONEG SHABBAT ' Candles 3VOHmave a Birthday, an Anniversary, a Special December 3 ... 4:25 PM Someone you'd like to honor? By sponsoring December 10 ... 4:26 PM an Oneg Shabbat, you not only help the temple, December 17 ... 4:28 PM d but you also choose a truly snecial way to honor December 24 ... 4:31 PM great events and great people in your life. December 31 ... 4:36 PM s Thi isn'Ya single present you can give that -- will say "Happy Birthday", "Happy Anniversary" d or "You're Very Important to Me" quite as well January 7 ... 4:42 PM as a special get-together after Erev Shabbat January 14 ... 4:48 PM �� Services! Do something special — dedicate an January 21 ... 4:55 PM Oneg Shabbat to someone you love or care for! January 28 ... 5:02 PM The temple provides tea, coffee and punch. You may contribute either by bringing your favorite treats, or by.donating a check GET WELL WISHES TO: towards Oneg Shabbat expenses, whichever you would like!. Temple Isaiah gratefully welcomes either. We wish you a speedy recovery! And to all who are feeling under the weather, we say: GET WELL SOONI MAKE FRIDAY NIGHT P%.efuah Shelayamah TEMPLE NIGHT T .. . 1Z OC CY) ^A N N m ���yyyyyyyyy 0 m- NV-m V �y ^NN C U cpp (O(nON G. Fq ° $ r °" Cap y 8 Lf� z, COON y a r T y 'c b N < NQ)<O R ppa app � pp y a 00 � F Fp f = at a� y p, � y M0 _ or d CY) (3) C� cY) 0 N r N C'7 w 8 8 M IOU W 3 (D N d C� r Cap x � r x � N N ui W 30 30 '30T. 3en 0 3 e n C i� T-fn � N Q r a f� r < iN � 8 $ 8 d o � S O E Cfl x � co x � ON N „(Dcnoi N N �LL LONO)N u M- R:: ON N 23:MONY w -N NO)tD NN D 0 2 ^ N N N 0) CD U) �oF,m L0T T N N N i ?1133110 GIFTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS Date................. . ENCLOSED IS A CHECK FOR $.................................. . TO A TEMPLE ISAIAH FUND (please cluck fund): ❑ PRAYERBOOK [, LIBRARY GENERAL. FUND ❑ EDUCATION ❑ FLURAL IN HONOR OF _7 IN MEMORYOFn ..................................................................... .............. ... ............ ......... ........................................... Name........................................................................ ......... ............................. Address.............................. ALL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE From.........................._..............................-.._._.................................................................................. . roonea� Addma-........-.._................_._.......__ ____._............................................................ Clty_....._. .._.._................_........._.._._............state_.........................................Mp........................ Please sad acknowledgement cards to the donor and to the person honored❑ at to the persons family❑ below. ...................... Address _. ..__ .._.._.._................................................................................... _Mate_._......... _._.._....._._.�Lp..._.._....�_ 4 \TAN'CY RAYNION R.,N_M.u. Breast Cancer Consultant DVORA TAL'S ;11/(351-Oras PIANO LESSONS 15112AI[aceCircle Ir%•ihc.CA 92714 PIANO PERIORMAnCE O THEORY ■Si4T REAdiNy' EAR TRAINING DVORA TAS THINKING OF ADVERTISING? Rates are reasonable: IRVINE•Tuarlraock $ 60.00 for a whole page, or $ 350.00 per year. 10 MORNIN(�Vim (714)854.3406 $ 30.00 for a half page, or $ 160.00 per year. $ 15.00 for a quarter page, or $ 80.00 per year. $ 10.00 for business card size, or $ 50.00 per year. - W a a O i, LO u $ F O T � c � � $ T (A 00 N N � Ag d rA Mot 96 cc F � .o c -a $ 3 ' � dTp � .0 � od M 4) r .0F � � F �" T""'" 4) C\j q X\jwcoo U) O C� O T N N °° S yah via vAa Ww a LO T � v x � CV x � N N N N cue, U C/)0 CD Cn T Ct*-* W e � j L � o +- V T T C\ d o e V ° T rAw � a � $ �o E Co T"'*" N O co 0 N � N Telephone (714) 731-6111 ALBERT KHANZADEH D.D.S. BARBARA A. ROSEN, Ph.D. FAMILY DENTISTRY CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY Lic. PJ004269 1520 NUTMEG PLACE SUITE 100A Fashion Lane Financial Center COSTA MESA, CA 92626 (7141 540-2644 161 Fashion Lane,Suite 209 Tustin,California 92680 PACIFIC VIEW MEMORIAL PARK AND MORTUARY � ! / Where the beauty of the lives we remember y !moi 0 V is reflected in every way possible. CATERING SERVICE Cemetery, undertaking,mortuary,mausoleum, ebapel,'eerving Jewish congregations, me. Invite a professional Chef to plan, cook moria]services in Orange County,cremation and serve your next affair. services.For any or every need—one all. Casual to Formal — All Occasions 3600 Pacific View Drive Be a guest at your own party. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Award-winning Chef JEFF WEISS, C.W.C. Telephone (714) 6442700 Gourmet Foods (714)645-6641 POB 3156 3455 E.La Palma Ave. EJ'-q0/C East Pocnic Investment co. Laguna Hills,CA 92654 Anaheim, CA 92806 Lisa Kron HEARING AID SERVICES Raaf°' Audiometry and ppHearingAids 3001 Rodhill Ave. 4 ElvirIg �OutfrESn C.n/allfo-mia cSinG£ 1976 euiloin0 One Sults 1,9 ® Costs Mesa.CA 92676 USA (714) 286-5700 (Pager) Bus.(714)434.9056 ar..1o.. Priv. ,.ti(`ii 324-OW Robert Nick, B.S.E.E. State Licensed Hearing Aid Specialist NHAS Certified TEMPLE ISAIAH OF NEWPORT BEACH NON41IFIOM OFG. 24101 IrI Ave. U.S. POSTAGE 11(mporf BI CA 92660 PAD' COSTA MESA,CA MAII.D10 ADDRESS: PEfi1R NO.2 P.O. Boz 10414 Costa Masa, Ca. 92627 TIME VALUE! ADORES CORRECTION REQUESTED lb r PETITION TO SUPPORT TI i A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Jobi SZ10 Febn L� �� TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY l 4 We urge you to uphold th. PC16 :is o Planning commission approving 1 COy1�i'�'�' A at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagc There are many churches al( /CSU that the Johnson Avenue location T____�.,.o o�.itltlL —rrOm General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS / i� ISE S� h2fM LZ '3560 Gz-cCt. Luis Ob fs oC P/-w i II .&4. / J/Y� .0 D 1 AA- -I �r �� SL-0 41 tye SL 0 0s SLS �3�fl � 23 � 9 41(0 S LbQ,3�b1 Lj-e-� 24 �4 -F( e, SLe 3 lg PE rMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 19% TO: THE SAN LUIS OSISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS Gj��-' - -x"jo P 3 ©� - C-5 S64 4�kk e l __L'7 1/1 y � v YGD A f Ss 1� PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitals parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS W.1 �Io (D 50 Toar, �o�rn�i� . spy 3a-g sr� SZ-0 X3110, T6hao 1A r, . . �RO Lq5yo4 35/os < - Go c!q o� '7&401 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE BAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the Ban Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. rNAMEADDRESS -7- J PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS v (00� P PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE BAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. . There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS -all ZZC1(e .AA .3Sip f / r 5 ;91 " / �� �--� / - � ,o� S moi✓ f'3�o� 5- Z o OL U 9 3 yc -s r i acs s �sos 3 aL (��S Orcuft Aed S [v 4040 / 1 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS r), Sol- �y/,o r4-Q 2 2-1 b ���ZS Ste/. s�c 93yU W6 61 o SSG ��o� 155 r(3k6( PETMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LIIIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS cp /3o Sc� ek �5 9 o 3S 5. 6�, eao 3oS7 3 - S t-o t r J L 7 T /3v �64 ci �.G S o CA 93ya,� ST G SGo-C cloy 0 qG /O 1 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS KpL 5/ a4 39 V2— C4 y Yvz- /1 U ` 2-17Z q3Yo3, M3 s� . R 3y62 Q,ru, v ,s- bg 3 7, Z d � 0 3..?— A vp, i S�La 3 y o n74 cS O Ut PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 19% TO: THE BAH LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS Cr 4 D - 3�Yjl0l 041a'41 20 ;q 5,,4.,o CAW o /y-0i s 0 s3yG5 eP rL O 9�z/O� 2 LO ?7va PETMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. ADDRESS �- y3�os i�KB�L &d4&:2 � e PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 19% TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. ME ADDRESS I`6U 8�M�I1d0'i� I X33-(� SV,,-tA Wffd dv. JL/0 q�� al 5't-o 3 �t 4 3Ct CI:q) PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Ner Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe-that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS 1C�o 12 L i c G� _LC 2:4 d� Tf IfT /3 15 PEI MON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAH LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from asneral Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS 5A£�� N►KU IZS? DE5c-Ani5o SSR. `2ANLuis �9yoS 7l./p m� o.^•j 1279 aCsca,, 56 -V,cy7Lujsr\ rl.¢, rree � �7YI�Orh IZ.y9 �eacatirsa �L� .SB.hL�,rs �6ia/�a S.�t4 /a 9S �Pscaviso �'an Gin's Db%sPo q3 yoJ-- S DCSC4A/S0 SAWulisoglSPo 73805 -n 133 SC/a Loi B 7 44 9 33 f J'(o�cs 7 8( Vis SLo 93 5`o J � ar;s-a s� �li•- 1� �� o�/G I ►j 95 49ni5 o S l-k. SAn0 firs o,s'rPO Q3405 � �r Lti O�i 64 JYOS -Z-5b COQALvsf2q, 5opLasllc,sPv y3�tll l3 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS (3mcu �-gyy ,"'tcr) -- .f �r�rn�ba, ��� Rr -h` ll� S�FCt! c4340� ► 3y� d -�3 � %r WOW oo_ -7 �u A l ��s ✓ 59 s t 1 I , Ee I&I dZv S'C o po M t -S7#4/E 14 7 N.a 55a to rlSGa g�cJ� 1 — -S CoR� DP- SLD � � ���ne, EuoS 311 �• 1�i�Y� meq , Ste, �3�0� PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Iuis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitales parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS PETMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Ner shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. kl� AME �•\ ADDRESS " � , I` � e 51&l 5-7-7q sLo x3401 + S L 0 r 152, 611 3�Cll 9-6 61 CI-11,45 33 c4740 S ca -� 3Y % 7-0* = �9� 19,q6E Is f- 6 i TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESII j,,1n Yn CD! 61Z5 GOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Lui IV 016 H5 6�S February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS �I LA E� 2608 , C. ��Tp �l.p 934-0 I �j rUC,-'r— TQ8 one /`�6P3 ` oc Lie 1 y o cA-- sM "d - sin eA Wnnl tt?- sLD CA q3u01 VIv(71 H - co+hr// ?;Oxvjwj- Ct- Suv .rya rr u0 2-b cSiZ CA 43 4W S- c ysM0,qrAA1C:W �-- J � PETITION TO SUPPORT USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS L-42s c D. or S� 144 PE`rMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning. Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the- street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS SCS ac) ?3qo / 3 C °13 0,- 96 QSLd ?3'101 c S Z Q Sarre #z sLz 47:S 4D PETITION.TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS pdr LI 3 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS ��� ���tZ� '(28(0 � �►c.�.s S�-o i � � °1�'io� `70 0 ` a V S5 ?�laq -kA AM ; 2 02 CaliArr,is RNA 44:406 [, 0 A 4 T±025L (/c-zerwc.. 4C:1'- 93,xpj- / ��ron1 �;'�r G�lfS G�rTBnc g� QPT Dso !S- Lo `?3zloS y- SL-�D CA 954-0,5- A- 1'�/_�✓XA.a 7—C/_l l2 d o Py . 6A 537,Y Q / a�zc� N¢rn?nab$ �1� MOrTAN G *?0.? d L©i �p 9 too 5 Sn�u✓ Ito-) CaRw4u713��4v4, 5�� CN F_440 D l � PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAM ADDRESS 1 S�mr� ����� �, D� Seo 9�3yau' S3 CF-1�a o Z ac j S?1J 3 q0 3L6 � 3�fnS ov - U�.,z� ✓)a�adye� 1Z 4 �,fh-'/J 131 ��l �/�� `` 9.3yds llp, 3�-r ePu� S LO 93 41/0-lz p� I � PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 19% TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NA�ME�� L, ADDRESS /5��j 14116&I'll'" D2. /,/Jj ra-� ce� �/�•�5 "�° 9�j�/o a at•flrfi �l.1 �c Qity;sr� ��, P R Q�y� 3 y--zo lot elloic 2 �o o oy� t�� . ,meq UZ)� w aX66' S. GJ 2-79a tJ Sto Y 9113 g PETMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the Ban Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitals parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. nhAt JJV,,,)J ADDRESS 2� z 5�6-oa�7 `FzS ErnQra�A �a r7�, r� o G.e�rv� Cf� g3�La -6 . A. 2p a =4, -7rq �l ifB ����.4y� /✓�✓✓Y6 r f y�kz� OF�rvF (� x-R s�s� ALA Y. I ! �W 3 33 ,lu r, j a f rl,(-) L.-�—rV A-A.6 C�f G� /5 L51 y1e,0 9j SID PETMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital Is parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. n� NIS .—�- ADDRESS q� Q '13 E L /'3T0 ) Q e �ea QQ 6 'S Sky 1, Or SL0 93 yob a4e n '��{D 3 of e 01 CEJ � � �3 5 th Z Z -r7– Gor s v L s 92611-11 2 0�rnr��rc� -6061 cern / y PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitals parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS 14241t&` 20; It SLD -JS40I l•445)( abhv 138,Lt Cgdl2r LA SLD 3`f0S -44-4309 -� / 30 Atcc4,1 C c,, q�yyy 22160-71 3 �s u ✓ . iC& 93449 10¢p Save CarloS S L o p l 5"- 91 I Z (�10-Leo u,,, Cd"rt a `✓.ue Y'� , OD�II/,O�a/ �i �j� �yol� AQ Yl� 7t D 93101-5Y3-1106 39� Sr c 6 -SL 93 67� G S o �! Yd/ s Spy` ci7Zo S 7- 0 3 r 0 L 6S3 �— SAO 3 4/0 SY//— 5'75 ` - 1 4-r)� Sco °rsy6�- s1, ve baryC ha or 0 139;0J �S PETMON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAH LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. f NAME ADDRESS y L � W o S L� ; el�4&� Z y1J1ou 5 S Lo 4.9 r �' C'Q cS'v114- rA!/G. �• L. O� PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS 9�i s'Lo z35� �lo•n— � . Sw Oplfm O '° c10 3 0 4Zwclo r . 5W z Y yo LrNH /4v�. o F 3 YO/ 13 11A n r as 0 93Y o/ c —� i 333 /CcraPu xAao 1-)121 ' S LO `1 -Vol l3 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San lois Obispo) . February, 19% TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Ner shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS rna L4* 6(o a La S 3 L a � 3yD SAO o/ 2!� 2,40o LrvvA4 Siyat 2 L6 3 5'4/ 2 LEow SL--a 9346 OIL L.o Ill SLo 91LA )) 6 l E/1'-c LV '51-0 `CSW l-5;tac5a4-t,-?a-4 cew ct. S/_D q3401 l3 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. , We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Ner Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAMEAAn _ ADDRESS,Sl/ 4 a`3�3 L e©� 547,L C'"I �'j Z5- V--C7AA, C2 CA 3 Yo :33 -75 g3Yo/ 3 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Ner Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS G d y.3 p ar— skw C4, � v�e �� Tis« �3 D d C �l� I it — M A10 I s SanJeeLe 01, A- IT109 S 3 S� J S o CZ 2 0 I PET MON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson. Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitalls parking lot) is appro riate for a religious facility. i ADDRESS /l (112, PET MON TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital Is parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS r- wrVSSU /(p S/E2RA c,✓ .�L� 3860 A- SMIWERA Seo 3Qw -H u A- �3v� PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospitals parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS © s�O ' G S6�(� -T Sl 9 3 01 1 S b 3 4u-P, 6,644 rt 3Y3? Y hR 3If Mood 6^ R 93tr OS— VL 9 � S y 743 ,w+iu�-ala�c� S.L Q. �3`25 1 � PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. RAM ADDRESS 5ASHA TAUS447 W00PE5):UP6jE ST. ,S.L.o, ,CA934c �USPtt� Rf MAO 26aoa$ MwwJ %-,C21-0, M 43gbI ��Fp FIOC-L.441AJiT,?2 S 6� 5C4�w.�ccl l U � /5�9��5 `C�• it S/cFSy /4GtcsrYSc� 3`l0�` n;4c� � Cq 00 , S0 f 2pSCo Cw . KCL GSA � _ �� �j'�r��T �f GfiGUt G(�l� d e(L,61 a p\ U4I LL,oo TDY . i 3'�& I g-p �/6 % Seo >n e r 93�0> ✓ / 3/229 :!5 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE USE OF A RESIDENCE AS A SYNAGOGUE (2211 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo) February, 1994 ,_ TO: THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. We urge you to uphold the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission approving the use of the residence located at 2211 Johnson Avenue as a synagogue for Temple Nor Shalom. There are many churches along Johnson Avenue. We believe that the Johnson Avenue location (across the street from General Hospital's parking lot) is appropriate for a religious facility. NAME ADDRESS �- 'E LO 9��, L/2jjj,,P-- 662 isles S LKS 9�YrJ V Psw U .. JZ0 0, o �� `Z`� ✓fro `` ���® 4104