Escondido Planning Commission backs ISKCON temple and 10‑lot subdivision, 5–1 recommendation to council

The Escondido Planning Commission voted 5–1 on Sept. 23 to recommend City Council approval of PL23‑0129, a proposal by ISKCON of Escondido to subdivide a 24.53‑acre property into 11 parcels (10 residential parcels and one non‑residential parcel) and to build an 11,700‑square‑foot Krishna temple with ancillary facilities, parking and a 10‑lot subdivision. Commissioner Jester made the motion to recommend approval; Commissioner McCarroll seconded.

City planning staff presented the application, saying the project includes a density bonus request under the city zoning code and a suite of entitlements: a tentative subdivision map, a development agreement for residential parcels, a conditional use permit and a design review permit for the temple, and a grading exemption for certain slopes. Principal planner Ivan Flores told the commission that “city staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution number 2025‑08, recommending that the city council approve the project subject to the [conditions of approval].” The commission voted to forward that recommendation to council.

Why it matters: the proposal replaces a previously approved, larger project and would change use and intensity on a largely undeveloped hillside zoned for E‑20 residential. Opponents and supporters described competing community interests — neighborhood safety, traffic and wildfire concerns versus the congregation’s desire for a permanent worship site and community programs — leaving the City Council to weigh those issues under the conditioned approval recommended by staff.

Key facts and regulatory steps - Site and scope: 24.53 acres; tentative subdivision to create 11 parcels (10 residential, 1 non‑residential) and construction of a Krishna temple (11,700 sq. ft.). The temple is composed in staff materials of a 6,221‑sq.‑ft. temple hall, a 4,733‑sq.‑ft. monks’ residence (room for four monks onsite) and an 813‑sq.‑ft. restroom building. The project’s drawings show 72 parking spaces where 55 are required. - Land‑use and zoning details: site is in the Estate 2 general plan designation and zoned E‑20 (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The applicant requests a state density bonus for two lots restricted to low‑income households, yielding one bonus unit (proposed 10 total residential lots versus a planning‑level capacity of 9 under slope constraints). The application uses code provisions that allow limited religious architectural elements above height limits; the tower/top spire is shown at about 51 feet and staff cites Escondido zoning code section 33‑10.75 as authority for towers/steeples that are non‑habitable. - Environmental review and mitigation: staff circulated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) between April 11 and May 23, 2025. The MND identified potential impacts (biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources) and included a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; California Department of Fish and Wildlife commented and staff said a protocol survey is included in the record and CDFW did not require further coordination. - Public‑use events and festivals: the applicant listed regular services and weekend activities; staff noted the largest festivals would be Janmashtami, Diwali and Ramanavami. Large or unusual events will require separate temporary use permits under the zoning code (article 63), with additional departmental review; those permits are discretionary and could be denied if they do not meet the city’s standards. - Fire protection and access: because the site is in a high fire severity zone, the applicant submitted a fire protection plan reviewed and approved by the Escondido Fire Department. Deputy Fire Marshal Lavonna Kretke told the commission the site is in a high fire severity zone but not in the very high category that would trigger a second, mandatory emergency access under city standards; the proposal provides five hydrants and other measures.

Points of debate brought to the commission - Traffic and circulation: neighbors and the Rocky Point Ranch HOA argued the area is a ‘‘box canyon’’ with limited in/out options and that festivals and repeated services would generate substantial peak traffic. Staff and the project traffic consultant noted the local mobility analysis waiver applies and that the study included both the temple and the 10 residential lots; staff said projected changes were within the scope of the applicable traffic review. The commission and staff noted that temporary use permits for large events will require parking and traffic plans when event details are known. - Emergency access and easement issues: nearby property owner Mike Stevenson and HOA speakers raised a long‑standing recorded easement and a 2003 agreement that they said included construction obligations. City staff and the applicant described multiple recorded easements and said the project as proposed does not extinguish existing easement rights; the applicant said it intends to provide a paved access shown on the project drawings and to work in good faith with the neighboring property owner to resolve alignment and maintenance details. City staff clarified that private easement disputes between property owners are not adjudicated by the city, but the engineering review confirmed the development would not extinguish or block existing recorded access rights. - Use of outlying property and ‘‘animal sanctuary’’ claims: HOA representatives presented photos and asserted activities and temporary parking currently occur outside the temple pad shown on the drawings; the applicant and representatives said animals (a small number of bovines and possibly one horse) have been present on the larger parcel but that the project scope and CUP do not propose a formal animal sanctuary or commercial animal operation and that animal counts remain subject to city code limits tied to lot size. - Noise and character: neighbors raised concerns about early‑morning chanting and nighttime festival noise. The applicant and clergy representatives said early morning services have small attendance and chanting would be unamplified; staff emphasized that the CUP conditions restrict ancillary commercial‑style uses and that noise must comply with city ordinance.

Public comment and applicant responses Supporters from the Hindu and ISKCON communities said the temple would provide a permanent place of worship, cultural education and charitable programs. Puja Desai, a long‑time Escondido resident, told commissioners the project ‘‘will not only serve our congregation, but also strengthen the broader Escondido community.’’ Applicant representatives and counsel said they reduced the size of the previously approved project, that the structure is substantially smaller than earlier approvals, and that they would accept reasonable conditions on animal numbers and kitchen use; at the hearing the applicant withdrew a late submittal request to add a sentence to Condition E‑9 allowing unamplified outdoor processions to the temple entrance.

Action and next steps The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2025‑08 (motion by Commissioner Jester, second by Commissioner McCarroll). The roll call as read into the record was: Chair Weiler — yes; Commissioner McCarroll — yes; Commissioner Speer — yes; Commissioner Jester — yes; Commissioner Stevie — yes; Commissioner Gustafson — no. The recommendation forwards the MND and the project with the staff‑drafted conditions of approval to the City Council for final decision.

What remains unresolved or subject to later review - Temporary use permits for festivals and large events will require separate submittals and parking/traffic management plans and remain discretionary. Director‑level review could deny permits if impacts are unacceptable. - Private easement and road maintenance agreements between the applicant and adjacent property owners must be finalized outside the planning‑entitlement decision; the applicant said it intends to pave the access shown on the plans in coordination with the island parcel owner. - Any future code enforcement matters or violations of CUP conditions (for example, unauthorized public feeding from the kitchen) would be handled via the city’s compliance processes.

Ending note: the commission’s recommendation advances the project to the City Council, where councilmembers will consider the environmental finding, the staff conditions, public testimony and any additional written materials before making a final determination.