Weekly Update 60

November 7, 2025

Hello, everyone.

This week, a regular council meeting was held, as it is on the first Tuesday of every month. There were a few items on the agenda. I will address some of them in today’s newsletter and continue next week. Summary:

First item: Drainage planning on Hatomer and Hadas Streets

Topic 2: Resurfacing and repaving of Jabotinsky Street along its entire length

Third topic: The “Ohel Yaakov” synagogue is a “national site” – Thanks to my intervention, which I reported on here previously, and the concealment of the application process from the plenary members, the plan submitted by the council head (without the council members’ knowledge!!) was withdrawn. This plan sought to approve the construction of an event hall on the public open space adjacent to the Great Synagogue in the moshava.

My detailed letters were sent to the National Council for the Preservation of Sites and the District Planning and Construction Committee, who subsequently visited the site; and as a result of this visit, the council head ordered the withdrawal of the plan he had submitted and instructed that the proper procedure be followed, including a discussion in the Preservation Committee so that it could decide whether there is any need at all to demolish this historic plot of land in favor of an event hall that would serve only the synagogue committee. (Who on the Shabutbol committee cares so much about them?)

The council’s Preservation Committee, chaired by the council head, includes a preservation consultant appointed by the council in accordance with its requirements. The preservation consultant, an architect by training, submitted a detailed and reasoned opinion less than a month ago containing an unequivocal recommendation: do not touch the land and certainly do not build on it, as it is the last remaining historic plot.

Attached are the minutes of the meeting, which include the consultant’s opinion. The minutes show that, contrary to the preservation consultant’s recommendation not to touch the land, the members of the Preservation Committee, headed by the council head, decided to move forward with a construction plan that has not yet been prepared. Consequently, the matter will return for discussion/approval by the Preservation Committee—which allows us to object and attempt to save the historic synagogue in the face of the council head’s intention to build even at the expense of preserving the glorious history of the community and the history of the Land of Israel.

First Item: Drainage Planning on Hatomer and Hadas Streets

At this stage, the council unanimously approved a budget for detailed drainage planning on Tomer and Hadas Streets, as well as traffic regulation at the Hadas-Chazon Ish intersection. Only after the planning is completed and an estimated cost for implementation is received will a budget framework for the work itself be brought to the plenary for approval. This will take at least several months.

I asked the plenary why the planning would not also include Hazon Ish and Dorot Streets, since rainwater there also flows in the same direction toward Hatomer and Hadas Streets due to the local topography. The council head replied that the council’s hydrologist had determined there is no rainwater drainage problem on Hazon Ish Street. Regarding Dorot Street—he ignored the question and did not answer. (Why??)

I asked another question: On Tomer Street, the water authority dug up the road—will they contribute to the cost of repaving it? It appears from the council head’s response that the authority will indeed bear part of the costs.

We will wait for the plan and its implementation, hoping that the residents of HaTomar and HaHadas will not suffer like the residents of the villas in HaHoresh, where, in early August, they announced their intention to resurface and repave HaShazif, HaShikma, and HaTapuach Streets. And this is indeed what was approved in a council vote. Then, without any notice to residents, heavy machinery began digging deep to install stormwater drainage pipes. The work was suddenly halted, and for three months now the roads have remained unpaved and the sidewalks dismantled. And unfortunately, a young woman was injured and required hospitalization and surgery (which will likely require the council to compensate her). Work resumed just this week, but the sidewalks—and the neighborhood residents, who are well-accustomed to disappointment—are waiting to see if everything will be completed as required.

Second issue: Resurfacing and repaving of the entire length of Jabotinsky Street

The Israel Electric Corporation carried out excavation work along Jabotinsky Street to regulate the power supply for the “Founders’ Courtyards” residential and commercial project, which is currently nearing completion. As is customary in cases where the Israel Electric Corporation or the water utility digs up a road, they are required to repave it at their own expense.

The Israel Electric Corporation’s contractor will perform the resurfacing and paving from the Shufersal Square up Zhabotinsky Street to the middle of the street. Since we will not leave the road half-paved, we approved a budget at the meeting to complete the work up to the intersection with Hendiv Street. The work will be carried out over two nights, and the start date has not yet been determined.

I would like to remind you that the section of Founders’ Street from the Shufersal Square to the Yishai Gate will be carried out by the contractor of the “Founders’ Courtyards” project immediately upon completion of construction there. Again, this is a standard procedure where a contractor, due to development and construction work that damages or wears down public infrastructure because of the heavy engineering equipment and trucks brought onto the construction site, restores the infrastructure.

Third Issue – “Ohel Yaakov” Synagogue, a National Site

Below is a summary of the events I reported on here from late December through January 2025 (Newsletters 18–20):

The Great Ohel Yaakov Synagogue was built in 1886 by Baron Rothschild, and as a mark of respect, the moshava’s founders commemorated his father’s name—Yaakov—within it. It is the most magnificent of all the synagogues established by Baron Rothschild; the Baron used to converse with the residents of Zichron Yaakov there. The synagogue is one of the most important historical sites in the town and among all the First Aliyah settlements. This synagogue belongs to the local council but is operated and maintained by the synagogue committee.

Adjacent to the synagogue is a plot of land that currently features a large tree and benches (public open space). The synagogue committee is requesting this area to build a conference/event hall where they will host, for a fee, Shabbat Chatan meals, Bar Mitzvah receptions, study sessions, and more. However, the building and the land are owned by the local council, so the committee needs the council to submit development plans for the event hall. Furthermore, a local committee cannot build on council-owned land unless an allocation for the land has been made; therefore, it is unclear (or rather, it is prohibited) who would finance the construction if it were approved. It is unclear.

Personally, I think it is a mistake and a historical folly to build an event hall in the heart of the moshava, adjacent to a historical heritage site. There is historical beauty in the area, and it can be enhanced with appropriate paving, lighting, landscaping, and more. But the council head thinks otherwise, and already during his previous term he promoted a plan to build the conference hall. Fortunately, the district committee at the time rejected the plan because it is, after all, a heritage site, and Ziv Deshe, when he was head of the council, also opposed the construction—except for the development of the public open space for the benefit of the public, the kitchenette, and the restrooms on-site, all in accordance with preservation regulations.

In his current term, Abutbul has once again submitted the plan to the district committee without holding a preliminary discussion in the council’s preservation committee, as required by law regarding historic buildings—and all the more so for a national heritage site. This is land belonging to the council, and therefore the law establishes a comprehensive approval process to ensure that the council head does not act arbitrarily with council assets. But Abutbul simply “skipped” over the Allocations Committee (this is my assumption since they did not respond to my inquiry on the matter), “skipped” over the Preservation Committee (he certainly did not receive their approval, and only after the plenary session was it announced that there would be a discussion in this important committee), and over the council members (he did not approach us nor receive our approval). Only the demands of the District Committee in this round as well forced her to bring the plan to the council meeting. Otherwise, we would have known nothing again.

At that council meeting on 12/3/2024, I was the only one who voted against it. All other council members—coalition and opposition alike—voted in favor. My fellow council members and the party have the right to think differently and support the construction of the event hall on historic land. But for their decision to be informed, they must know all the facts. If the reasons why the District Committee had already rejected the plan twice had been read aloud at the meeting!!—perhaps they would have been convinced that the committee was right and not the council chair. If it had been stated at the meeting which approvals had not been received (from the council’s Preservation Committee), perhaps they would have voted differently. If the members of the Allocations Committee participating in the plenary session had said something during the discussion, but that information was not provided. I warned during the meeting that information was missing; I tried to reveal some of it—but I was the only one. I want to believe that if they had understood that the council head had bypassed them and the entire procedure and had already submitted the plan during the previous and current terms without informing them—they would not have voted in favor of it.

I didn’t stop there—as early as December 2024, I continued my investigation in an attempt to uncover the information that had been withheld from us during the meeting. A thorough review of the documents and site plans revealed astonishing findings that were not presented to the council members during the meeting in which they voted in favor of the plan.

Here is what emerged from the investigation and the steps I took regarding this matter:

• The council head is promoting a construction plan that will harm a national site. And he is doing so without first consulting the Council for the Preservation of Sites. I contacted the Council for the Preservation of Sites.
• The council head is submitting a plan to the District Planning and Construction Committee to build a conference hall, even though according to the plans applicable to the area, part of the courtyard is designated as open public space where only a garden, playground, etc., may be built—not a structure. Therefore, a rezoning is required.
• The council head is submitting a plan to the District Planning and Construction Committee to build a conference hall on land that may not even be owned by the council at all, as indicated by the block and parcel maps. I have contacted the District Committee regarding this matter—the committee chair and its legal advisor.
• The council head is apparently seeking to act in violation of the Public Land Law and allow a private association to operate on public land without an allocation process or a tender, and to construct a building on public land. This is evident from the response he sent me. I contacted the supervisor of the authority at the Ministry of the Interior regarding this matter.
• The council head and the professionals serving as gatekeepers are not presenting all the required data to the elected officials who make the decisions and are apparently hindering them in their duties (information I compiled myself after the plenary session). I also contacted the Haifa District Director at the Ministry of the Interior regarding this matter.
• The council head did not inform the plenary members that a similar plan had been submitted approximately eight years ago and that the district office did not support it.

In the newsletter dated January 20, 2025, I wrote: “So what is the purpose of the council’s preservation committee if the council head, who is well-versed in the Planning and Building Law and who chairs the preservation committee, can bypass it and submit plans himself regarding buildings designated for preservation?”

The plan submitted by the council head—which was supported by all council members except me—was submitted behind our backs and perhaps even without the signature or knowledge of the current council engineer; it did not pass the council’s Preservation Committee, and the National Heritage Preservation Council was not notified. These are fundamental violations that indicate a lack of proper administration and disregard for the law.

Following intervention by the Council for the Preservation of Sites and the Haifa District Committee, a discussion was held about a month ago in the council’s Preservation Committee. During the discussion, the council’s preservation consultant submitted a detailed report to the committee. This is what a proper procedure looks like, one in which a legal body is not bypassed and plans are not advanced in violation of the law.

Attached are the minutes of the Preservation Committee meeting dated October 15, 2025. These are interesting minutes that include a discussion of other historic properties in relation to construction plans. Regarding the synagogue, you can refer to page 11 of the minutes. There you will also find the preservation consultant’s opinion. What is missing from the minutes—and I’m not sure why it’s missing—is the course of the discussion: what the participants said, whether there were any objections, etc.

And this time, lo and behold—the plan explicitly states that the land designation must be changed from “national site” to “area for a public building.” And another change: from open public space to a single-story building. Historic trees must be uprooted. A single-story building is to be constructed about three meters from the western facade of the synagogue. So many changes!!! And those profiting at the expense of the public and our heritage are the synagogue committee, which will operate the hall and make money from it. Yet the synagogue and the land do not belong to them; the property belongs to the council—that is, to all of us residents.

The opinion of the council’s conservation consultant completely rejects the proposal and notes: This is the last remaining public property that has remained undeveloped since the settlement was established in December 1882. The site is designated as a national site in accordance with the National Parks and National Sites Law. The conservation level according to Plan Sh/12/C: Strict Conservation Level 1 (prohibition on changes to the structure and materials).

Therefore, his conclusion is unequivocal:

The “Ohel Yaakov” Synagogue is not the property of a specific community—it is a national asset in the fullest sense of the word. Harming its cultural context in terms of preservation is akin to desecrating a holy book: one does not alter, add to, or “update” it—but rather preserves it, with responsibility and reverence.

Today, there is no structure more important than this in the heritage of the Baron’s settlements. Anyone seeking to alter its surroundings is, in effect, seeking to touch the very heart of that heritage.

Recommendation: Do not approve the request at this stage. A new application must be submitted in accordance with the conclusions of an approved documentation file. Since the area is located within a national site.

Look at what important due process the council head sought to bypass. Look at what he concealed from the council members. And you will understand the flawed (and possibly illegal) management culture under which the council operates.

To my great regret, the Preservation Committee did not adopt the consultant’s opinion but chose to proceed. I hope public pressure will bring about a change. Because as long as a plan has not been approved and there is still no plan—everything is up in the air.

Decision:

The committee decides to convene for a further discussion on the request.

The request concerns the construction of a single-story building on land currently designated as public open space and the development of a front yard.

The trees to be preserved will be marked on the map and in the plan, and the plan’s guidelines will address the preservation of the trees and their habitat.

Trees designated for preservation in the zoning plan may not be cut down, and the habitat/root system must also be preserved.

A rendering from the perspective of a person walking down the street will be submitted, demonstrating the orientation of the proposed building and the development of the garden in front of the building.

The committee will review the documentation file and the values that should be emphasized.

The designation change on the plan will be from public open space (Shatz”p) to public open space and public parking (Shabatz) (Pajama).

The building line of the structure will be 0 toward the west and south.

The plan instructions shall specify that finishing materials and details for the proposed building will be defined within the scope of the permit.

A condition for occupancy of the building will be the development of the front garden.

Yours,

Limor Zar-Guttman