Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt. Andrews Presbyterian Church (PA2002-265)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 6 October 21, 2004 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner, (949) 644 -3210 6 cam pbellAcity. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265) General Plan Amendment, Zone Change & Use Permit 600 St. Andrews Road DISCUSSION The proposed St. Andrew's expansion was first heard on May 20th of this year. Due to neighborhood opposition and concerns related to the compatibility of the project with its environs, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights Associations to come to some mutually acceptable resolution. The applicant has been meeting with neighborhood leaders as directed. On June 3, 2004, staff transmitted the Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR to the Planning Commission for consideration. As noted in that report, staff believes that the comments received did not reveal any new environmental impacts or dispute the feasibility of mitigation measures identified. Commissioner Eaton posed several questions related to the Responses to Comments in an e-mail dated August 6, 2004 to which staff has prepared responses (Exhibit No. 1). The responses augment and clarify the Draft EIR and staff believes that the EIR is now complete. After additional public input is received at the hearing, a recommendation related to the adequacy of the document can be considered and staff can be directed to prepare additional information or findings as necessary. At the August 1 Wh meeting, the applicant orally presented a revised project by reducing the net increase in floor area requested from 35,948 to 27,186 square feet. The applicant also pledged to reduce building heights to 32 feet from 40 feet. The Commission indicated that this was a step in the right direction; however, several Commissioners expressed the desire to see the area further reduced. The Commission also directed the preparation of a needs assessment to support the area requested. Finally, the Commission asked the applicant and the neighborhood groups to continue to work together to develop possible operational limitations that might become conditions of approval. St. Andrews Church Expansion October 21, 2004 Page 2 Meetings between the applicant and neighborhood groups continued and on October 7, 2004, the applicant officially submitted a revision to their application in the form of a letter, revised plans and a needs assessment (Exhibit Nos. 2 & 3). The revised plans have not been transmitted to the Commission as they will be revised (see below). The net increase in area requested has been further reduced to 25,717 square feet. The revised plans show that no construction would exceed 32 feet in height. The applicant prepared a Traffic Management Plan (Exhibit No. 4) and a construction management plan (Exhibit No. 6) for consideration. Staff has reviewed the Traffic Management Plan and has prepared comments and /or revisions to be incorporated (Exhibit No. 5). Discussions between the neighborhood associations and the applicant related to operational conditions are continuing and no drafts have been submitted to staff. On October 14, 2004, the applicant submitted a letter indicating that the requested increase in floor area for the site will be further reduced to 21,900 square feet (Exhibit No. 7). The applicant has not presented revised drawings for this latest project revision. Don Krotee representing the Newport Heights Improvement Association has indicated in an e-mail that his association cannot support the revised applications (Exhibit No. 8). Staff would like the Commission to take public testimony on the DEIR and Responses to Comments based upon the original project as opposed to the revised project since the applicant has not submitted plans related to the most recent change to the application. Considering the EIR in this context should not be an inefficient use of time since the EIR evaluated a larger project and the site plan should remain largely the same. These facts will likely lead staff to conclude that the EIR would adequately cover the revised project; however, staff will need to evaluate the revised project in more detail once received in the hope to support this conclusion. Staff recommends that the Commission take public testimony and consider the adequacy of the EIR based upon the original project. Staff then requests a continuance to November 18, 2004 to prepare to allow the applicant to prepare and submit revisions to the application in accordance with the October 14, 2004 letter. This date should allow sufficient time for staff to review the revised project, prepare any additional analysis needed and draft a resolution recommending an action to the City Council. Prepared by: Submitted by: / W calvw 0 " dlnoL es W. Campbelll, Senior Planner Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director St. Andrews Church Expansion October 21, 2004 Page 3 Exhibits 1. Commissioner Eaton's comments on the Responses to Comments and staff responses. 2. Letter from the applicant dated October 7, 2004. 3. St. Andrew's use and Needs Assessment received date stamped October 7, 2004 (separate bound volume) 4. Traffic Management Plan dated August 11, 2004. 5. Staff comments on the Traffic and Parking Management Plan 6. Construction Management Plan dated October 1, 2004. 7. Letter from the applicant dated October 14, 2004. 8. E -mail from Don Krotee dated October 14, 2004. 9. Additional correspondence received. Exhibit No. 1 Commissioner Eaton's comments on the Responses to Comments and staff responses. -5- THIS PAGE IS BLANK R Campbell, James From: Susan /Barry Eaton [eaton727@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5 :23 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Temple, Patty; Clauson, Robin Subject: St Andrews DEIR Response to Comments Document Jim, You had asked that I give you a heads -up on my comments on these responses. Last night, the Chair said we won't be talking about the EIR at the next meeting; but I think all the previous indications had been that we would do so the next time we heard the matter, so I think there may be expectations out there that we are going to do that. In any event, whenever we do talk about it, following are my comments on the response document: - Response to comment 8 on page 10, says that the NMUSD will be "required" to provide the City with construction details of their construction program. Can the City "require" NMUSD to do anything? ��- - Response to comment 37 on page 36 states that "During the weekend, staff and volunteers will 20 park on site or.. ". The comment inquired about the construction period, when there would be no ability to park on site; so how could they park on site? - Response to comment 40, also on page 36, states that "The minimum number od spaces that 0 should be secured is 400 spaces,... ". I don't see this as a MM. Should it be? Is it enforceable if it is not? - Response to comment 51 on page 38 acknowledges that memorial services during school hours "create increased parking demands on the area ". I would say that is putting it mildly. Our Lady Queen of Angels catholic church representatives have suggested a possibility that there should be consideration of a MM or condition requiring large memorial services to commence after the prime school hours at CDMHS - almost an identical situation. Should that be considered in this case, as well? - Response to comment 9 on page 59 appears to acknowledge the comment that there were a S number of errors in Table 4.4 -2 in the DEIR; yet states that the corrections won't be incorporated until some time in the future, in the FEIR. Those corrections should be produced before the PC hearing on the DEIR and responses. - Response to comment 12, also on page 59, states several rationale for the DEIR's conclusion that the proposal represents "modest" growth, and is therefore consistent with the General Plan Policy being questioned. It then goes on to say that the CC can change the policy. Is that really what was intended? That the CC could or should change the General Plan policy to fit the project? - Response to comment 8 on page 78 acknowledges that photographs on several pages in the DEIR are distorted, and goes on to say that they will be fixed at some time in the future in the final EIR. These corrections should be produced before the PC hearing on the DEIR and responses, whenever that is. ® - Response to comment 7 on page 115 states that ... "the applicant has received a permit from NMUSD for 400 parking spaces Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday during construction." Is there any evidence of such a "permit"? What hours does it include on Wednesdays if school is in session? Are there 400 spaces available at NHHS? q Response to comment 15 on pages 116 and 117 states that'The use of parking attendants ... is contemplated... ". Is this a commitment? If so, is it a MM or condition? - Response to comment 24 on pages 118 and 119 states that "In addition, a six foot high screen I o fence will be placed around the parking lot to further screen on -site construction activities." Again, is this a commitment? If so, is it a MM or condition? Thanks for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions, let me know. Barry I Staff Response to Commissioner Eaton's questions from August 6, 2004 e-mail. 1. The City cannot compel the School District to provide construction details on their modernization program. Staff will request the information and given the cooperative relationship the City enjoys with the District, staff believes the information will be forthcoming. 2. The response should be revised to delete the reference to on-site parking during construction since no on -site parking will be available during construction. 3. The comment relates to whether or not requiring the applicant to provide a minimum of 400 off street parking spaces during the construction period as a mitigation measure. The response to which the comment relates does not suggest the additional parking during construction be a mitigation measure. Requiring the 400 spaces as a mitigation measure can be required if it is believed that without it, a significant environmental impact related to parking supply would result. The DEIR identifies a measure (SC 4.2 -1) that requires the preparation of an off -site parking management program identifying off -site parking resources for use of the site during construction. A minimum number of spaces can be incorporated within the condition. 4. This comment expresses the opinion that an additional mitigation measure or condition of approval should be considered that would require memorial services to be scheduled outside of "prime school hours" in order to further avoid parking conflicts. Typical school hours range between 8AM and 3PM and the comment might suggest that no memorial services be scheduled during this time. Based upon the parking survey that was prepared and incorporated within the EIR, weekday street parking usage is relatively constant from around 50% to 60% between 7AM to 1 PM. At 60% usage, there would be approximately 250 spaces remaining in the area. The parking survey was conducted when school was in session and it should be noted that street spaces closest to the Church and NHHS are the most highly used. Parking conflicts presently occur when memorial services are scheduled when school is in session. The project includes an increase in on -site parking from 250 spaces to 400 spaces thereby reducing street parking demands and partially alleviating parking conflicts. Due to the increased on -site parking supply, staff does not believe there is a significant impact to parking resources. Parking conflicts may occur even with the provision of increased parking, and therefore, the Commission could consider a condition of approval that would prohibit memorial services from occurring when school is in session. 5. The revised table will be provided at the hearing and staff recommends that response 9 on page 59 of the Responses to Comments be changed as follows: "Table 4.4 -2 shall be changed as follows: <Insert revised table 4.2 -2>" — The revised table will be submitted at the October 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. 9 6. The reference to the City Council having the ability to change the policy was not intended to indicate that the City Council is considering any amendment to Land Use Policy B as it relates to the St. Andrews project. The statement was intended to indicate that the has the ability to change the General Plan policy related to the intensity of land use at the project site by increasing the allowed gross floor area at the project site. 7. The photographs with the correct aspect ratio are attached for consideration and staff recommends that the third sentence of response 8 on page 78 be replaced with the following: "Nen_.distorted images will 138 iRGlu ied in the final Ci(] The non - distorted images below replace those within Section 4 -5 of the DEIR. 8. The parking permit from NMUSD is included in the October 1, 2004 traffic management plan and it permits the use of up to 400 parking spaces Wednesday from 6PM to 8PM, Saturday from 5PM to 7PM and Sunday from 8AM to 12 PM. The permit is valid July 2005 to November 2006. 9. Parking attendants is proposed and is a provision of the draft Traffic Management Plan prepared by the applicant which is attached to the October 7, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report. 10.The 6 -foot high screen fence is project design feature1 and is not a mitigation measure. The fence would be required as part of a condition of approval requiring the project be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan. A separate condition of approval can be included to specifically to address the fence. /V WD-Mr, I:i �,T kz 40", NL J WT 9 . v. . � ( \� .�� � �© : � -< . v. . � ( \� .�� � THIS PAGE IS BLANK )y. Exhibit No. 2 Letter from the applicant dated October 7, 2004. is THIS PAGE IS BLANK 1-C ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Planning Documentation by: BETTENCOURT & ASSOCIATES 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92660 -6907 (949) 720 -0970 / FAX (949) 721 -9921 Philip(r�bettencourtolans.com October 07, 2004 (Hand Delivered) Mr. Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3210 j campbell@city. newport- beach. ca. us RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OCT 0:7 2004 7�819110 1l l X12 1112131415�6 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church: Amended Application Documents. Dear Mr. Campbell: I am writing on behalf of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church ( "St. Andrew's ") to officially amend the pending application of St. Andrew's for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Amended and Restated Conditional Use Permit for the 3.9 acre church campus at 600 St. Andrews Road. The original application documents were filed on December 24, 2002; On January 22, 2003, you provided a status letter on the application and requested additional documentation; On May 20, 2003, we filed additional materials to supplement the application. The campus has since been subject to a comprehensive environmental analysis and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), is complete and awaiting certification, including responses to comments. The DEIR includes standard city conditions, proposed mitigation measures, and a draft Mitigation Monitoring Program. On March 9, 2004, in my response to your request, we provided a clarification on the proposed Youth and Family Center indicating "that this religious assembly building also includes offices for members of the clergy, including prayer and counseling offices for youth pastors, as well as classrooms for instruction and study in the Christian faith. This building, and all of its constituent parts, are DANsiness Files St. Andrews Presbyterian Chmh\St Andrew's Applimfim An dm t Final.dm 11 Mr. Jim Campbell October 07, 2004 Page 2 of 5 integral to the church ministry of St. Andrew's and will be used for prayer, counseling, outreach and reconciliation." Planning Commission Status. The Planning Commission has held two extensive public hearings on the application, the first hearing on May 20, 2004, and the most recent hearing on August 19. At the August 19 hearing, Ken Williams, the St. Andrew's Building Committee chairman and Gary McKitterick, general counsel to St. Andrew's and a member of the congregation, announced a proposed 8,780 reduction in the amount of building square footage sought by St. Andrew's. In addition, they agreed to withdraw a permissible building height waiver application. (The attached schedule shows a before and after comparison of the original application and the revised application confirmed in this letter.) Why was the reduction proposed? The St. Andrew's application has been under public scrutiny for more than a year and a half, yet the betterments program envisioned obviously cannot be finally designed until necessary city approvals are complete. In the interest of neighborhood harmony, the earthwork and demolition aspect of the program is forecasted to occur when neighborhood schools are not in session in order to ease neighborhood traffic impacts. Current plans call for that activity to occur in the summer of 2005, so time is running short. In order to seek common ground with neighbors and to reach out to the community, at the August 19 Planning Commission hearing, St. Andrew's proposed a reduction in the building program. This voluntary reduction was proposed despite the fact that the environmental impacts of the application, as pointed out in Mr. Williams remarks, are fully mitigated. Here is a summary of the building square footage as originally proposed, and the revised building square footage suggested on August 19, and as further reduced in this communication, an approximate 28.5% reduction in the original application: Building Height Waiver Withdrawn. In addition to the permissible building square footage on the campus, which is a threshold established in the city's General Plan, Messrs. Williams and MclGtterick also announced St. Andrew's intentions to withdraw the building height waiver application to ensure that each of the new proposed buildings (you will recall that one building is a replacement building) would be under the height limit for the Government, Educational and Institutional zone of 32 feet. St. Andrew's hereby withdraws the building height waiver request. D:\Businws Files\St. Andrews Presbyterian Church \St Andrew's Application Amendment Final.doc OU Mr. Jim Campbell October 07, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Zone Change would be Consistent with General Plan. The General Plan Amendment deals only with the square footage threshold and not with the historic designation of Government, Educational and Institutional for the campus. In addition, St. Andrew's, at the request of the city staff, continues to support the change of zone to Government, Educational and Institutional to ensure that campus zoning is consistent with the city's General Plan. Needs Assessment Provided for Your Consideration. The original St. Andrew's application document included an exhaustive activity analysis of church worship And ministry activities on a 7 -day a week basis. That analysis addressed every room within the existing and proposed campus and whether or not the use of those existing and proposed buildout uses are regular or occasional. The analysis indicated the square footage for those spaces, their minimum capacity and their maximum capacity, and what normal use is and/or is expected to be. That activity analysis, as submitted to you on May 20, 2003, and as made available in the public. record and to your independent contract environmental consultants, is again enclosed to assist stakeholders and the Commission in evaluation of the St. Andrew's proposal. In his August 19 presentation to the Commission, Ken Williams indicated the space allocated for each of those uses in the proposed building program and also showed the amount of square footage devoted to each use. We were, however, asked to provide a further needs assessment. St. Andrew's hereby amends the application analysis to show (as requested by commissioners and stakeholders) the requested uses for the entire campus as compared with the existing uses in the attached comprehensive "St. Andrew's Use and Needs Assessment ". This planning document has already been shared with community stakeholders How are Existing and Proposed Uses Allocated? St. Andrew's lay leaders and church ministry, collaborated with the church's architects, the world - renowned firm of McLarand Vasquez & Emsiek (MVE) to determine how best to meet space requirements on the existing campus. A number of factors influence space allocation: • Uniform Building Code; • Uniform Fire Code; • Pre school licensing authorities; • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); • Recommendations of professional planners, including facility planners; • Recommendations of the project architect; • Staffing requirements of the church, as related to ministry and support staff; • Consultations with lay leaders and young people to understand their needs; • Standards employed by other churches; • Planning goal of providing more indoor circulation for noise and activity control. DABusiness FiWSt. Andrews Presbyterian ChurchVSt Andrew's Application Amendment Final.doc 19 Mr. Jim Campbell October 07, 2004 Page 4 of 5 St. Andrew's and its team of architects and consultants believe that the current plan, as reduced, will allow the church to improve and modernize its' facilities, while being sensitive to community concerns. Please consult the revised project plans by MVE to see program details and where building square footages and visual bulk have been reduced. Parking Options for St. Andrew's Still Include Joint Use Opportunities. For more than 40 years, St. Andrew's has openly shared parking facilities during off peak times with Newport Harbor High School (NHHS). Church visitors park on the NHHS 15th Street lot during times when school is not in session. St. Andrew's allows up to 35 parking spaces for NHHS during off peak times when school is in session. The current City approved Conditional Use Permit embraces this relationship, but provides that other arangments would have to be made if school parking opportunities were somehow lost. The current application contemplates a City Council approved Off - street parking agreement for peak time overflow spaces, even with the proposed 400 spaces on campus planned in the new parking facility. In addition to the facility option, the draft EIR also considered the possibility of St. Andrew's financed improvements on the NHHS campus that would provide for additional St. Andrew's overflow opportunities, but that would also be available during the regular school day to ease neighborhood parking requirements. St. Andrew's, after consultation with neighborhood stakeholders, has presented a proposal to the Newport Mesa Unified School District to finance such improvements, estimated to cost on the order of $2.9- million and to provide not less than 65, to as many as 100 new parking spaces on the 15th Street side of the campus. At this writing, there is no official determination by the district on this proposal except we have been told that district officials are open to hearing about opportunities for privately financed facility improvements, and do not intend to act on such a proposal until city entitlements proceedings are settled. We remain open to the possibility, and we are prepared to follow the City Council's lead for facilitation. Operation Controls Still Under Review. At this writing there is no consensus document to share concerning operational aspects of church activities, although we have forwarded a copy of a proposed Parking and Traffic Operations Plan that is still under going city staff review. In addition, we continue to confer with neighborhood stakeholders, not only on the building program, but on church operations. Traffic Management Plan for Construction Phase. The draft environmental document contemplates that a construction Traffic Management Plan ( "TMP ") would be filed for city review prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Although the TMP may be required later in the process, some neighborhood stakeholders have been especially concerned about this matter and we chose, therefore, to provide the proposed plan now for your consideration. WBusiness Film\St. Andrews Presbyterian Chumh\St Andrew's Application Amendment Final.doc 20 Mr. Jim Campbell October 07, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Conclusions. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is proposing to construct additional facilities on the existing campus; consisting of a new Youth and Family Center, the replacement of the existing Fellowship Hall and Education Buildings, and a new parking facility, The Youth and Family Center would provide much needed state -of -the -art space for the youth and families of the church for both religious and recreational activities. This new Youth and Family Center will replace the existing education building which will be demolished. The net new square footage of the Youth and Family Center and this total project is 25,714 square feet. Of this area, 11,032 square feet is utilized for restrooms, storage and circulation; leaving an increased net useable area of 14,682 square feet. We hope that these supplementary materials are helpful to commissioners, staff, and stakeholders and, when coupled with existing staff analysis in the environmental documentation, will give you the data you need to move ahead. Very truly yours, Philip F. ,Bettencourt Consultant to St. Andrew's PFBAM Attachments Cc: Mayor Todd Ridgeway Dr. Robert J. Barbot Brian Brooks Don Krotee Gary McKitterick Herb Smith Patricia Temple Larry Tucker Ken Williams Sharon Wood DABusiness Fil"%t. Andrews Presbyterian Church\St Andrew's Application Amendment Final.doc 2l St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church "St. Andrew's Use and Needs Assessment" Building Square Footage by Type of Space Building Space Existing Original 1 -Oct Now Change Category Campus Application Reduction* Proposed Existing Circulation A Rest Rooms 29,023, 40,439 41,921 40,439 11,416 Classrooms 18,155 18,155 21,669 18,155 0 Kitchens 1,320 1,868 16,620 1,868 548 Multipurpose 15,269 28,643 2,779 25,864 10,595 Offices 13,026 16,830 055 15,775 2,749 Sanctuary /Chapel 21,248 21,248 6,468 21,248 0 Storage 6,399 13,205 6,400 6,805 406 32,744 104,440 140,388 104,440 130,154 257714 10,234 Building Square Footage by Building Building Summary Existing Original 1 -Oct Now Change Campus Application Reduction Proposed Existing Building A 41,921 41,921 41,921 0 Building B 21,669 21,107 21,107 -562 Building C 16,620 16,620 16,620 0 Building 0 - Old 17,762 0 0 - 17,762 Building 0 - New 0 27,996 10,234 17,762 17,762 Building E - Old 6,468 0 0 -6,468 Youth A Family Center (E) 0 32,744 32,744 32,744 104,440 140,388 130,154 10,234 25,714 Note: 1) A reduction of 8,780 sq ft had already been announced to Planning Commission at August 19, 2004 meeting. October 7 reduction 1,454 sq ft. additional. 2) Original application of 35,948 to 25,714 reduction of 28.5% St Andrew's Sq Ft from official Use and Needs Assessment 10 -07- 2004110/712004 z 7 Exhibit No. 3 St. Andrew's use and Needs Assessment received date stamped October 7, 2004 (separate bound volume) Z3 THIS PAGE IS BLANK zq Exhibit No. 4 Traffic Management Plan dated August 11, 2004. zs THIS PAGE IS BLANK Z� RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 1.2 200 7 1819110111112111213141516 August 11, 2004 Engineers&Planners Traffic Transportadon Parking ... Mr. Herbert L. Smith Business Administrator and COO Unsoott Law & Greenspan, Engineers ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Drive D 1560 Corporate e Ddve 600 St. Andrews Road Sane 122 Newport Beach, CA 92663 LLG Reference: 2032432 -1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.641.7587 T Subject: ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 714.641.0139 r TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP) �flgengineers corn FOR EXPANSION PROJECT Pasadena Dear Mr. Smith: Costa Mesa San Diego Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Traffic Las Vegas Management Plan (TMP) for the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. The development of this report addresses the mitigation specified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that requires a traffic and parking management plan be prepared for the project. The on -site TMP has been prepared to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent street system and surrounding neighborhood, and reduce traffic conflicts within the site upon completion of the expansion project. The TNT's focus was to accommodate traffic loading and unloading for the Church campus during. Sunday morning services, since that time period is the busiest time for the Church compared to typical weekday /weeknight and Saturday Church activities. The TMP recommendations outline how traffic entering and exiting the site driveways will be directed, and how the fixture on -site parking structure and existing Newport Harbor High School parking lot adjoining the Church will be loaded and unloaded in an orderly manner. Our method of analysis, findings, and recommendations are described in detail in the following sections. WHAT IS THE TMP? The following highlights the aspects of the TMP: • The TMP describes specific measures to be implemented by the Church in managing the traffic and parking needs during its peak activity hours when Sunday morning services are held, which include Easter and Christmas services. Z? Mr. Herb Smith August 12,2004 Page 2 • During typical weekdays /weeknights and Saturdays, when Church activities generate much less traffic and parking demands than Sunday mornings, the parking facilities serving the Church campus should be operated without the special controls specified in the TMP. There is one TMP recommendation relating to non - Sunday conditions, which involves the proposed operational closure of the Church driveway along St. Andrews Road during typical weekdays/weeknights and Saturdays (as discussed later in this report). • As with other TMP for churches, the congregation's familiarity and adherence with the TNT's specific measures and controls will grow over time. All framework elements of the TMP will be rigorously implemented at first. After the initial "education and enforcement" phase, the management strategies will be refined and improved on an as- needed basis. Eventually, probably not all TMP measures will need to be rigorously applied as most church members develop a common "know -how" of when and where to park, and both driver and pedestrian behavior evolve to "fit" the TMP patterns without being explicitly directed to do so by traffic and parking control personnel and/or devices. The preparation of a "report card" (through some type of monitoring program) on a consistent basis to review the TMP's effectiveness, benefits, and areas for improvement will help the Church to know when adjustments to the TMP implementation and enforcement are appropriate. • The recommendations included in this TMP are focused on buildout conditions upon completion of the expansion project and on -site parking garage. A separate TMP has been developed to address the traffic and parking needs during project construction. • A "Parking Ministry" has been established by the Church, and is responsible for implementing and enforcing the TMP measures. The group will meet every two months as part of monitoring and fine - tuning the TMP. Herb Smith has been established as the main point of contact for the Parking Ministry, and his phone number is (949) 574 -2224. The primary purpose of this TMP is to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent street system and surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, as part of the effort to address traffic and parking impacts on residential streets, and as described in the following sections of this report, the TMP elements include Church driveway closures (along St. Andrews Road and on Clay Street), and requiring the congregation to use a specified route away from residential streets when going to /coming from the Church (referred to as the "Preferred Church Access Routes" on pamphlets currently distributed by the Church to its members and visitors). 1932Ph4.Itr.revisM.dac Z V' Mr. Herb Smith August 12, 2004 Page 3 EXPANSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Exhibit 1 illustrates the existing site plan for the project, and shows the following five existing buildings: Building A (existing sanctuary to remain); Building B (existing educational building to remain); Building C (existing chapel/administration. building to remain); Building D (existing fellowship hall, kitchen, and storage space to be removed as part of the project); Building E (existing educational building to be removed as part of the project). The reported existing parking supply for the Church totals 250 off - street spaces, which are located on the surface lot that runs parallel to Clay Street, as shown on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 shows the future site plan for the project. Except for small areas of renovation, Buildings A, B, and C remain unchanged in the proposed plan, but Building D and Building E are removed and replaced. Building D will consist of storage space in the basement; fellowship hall and kitchen/serving/storage areas on the first floor; and conference /meeting/work rooms and offices on the second floor. Building E will have a lounge, offices, a cafe, multipurpose rooms, and storage areas in the basement; a gymnasium, classrooms, and offices on the first floor; and classrooms on the second floor. The demolition of the existing Buildings D and E, and the construction of the new three -level buildings result in a net expansion of approximately 35,948 square feet (SF). Floor area values and other quantity data are from the Application Package by Bettencourt & Associates, dated May 20, 2003. A two -level parking structure (plus a fractional sub - basement level) with a total of 400 spaces will be provided as part of the project. This parking structure will be located where the surface parking lot currently exists. The proposed site plan and parking structure layout are from plans prepared by MVE & Partners on December 20, 2002. TMP RECOMMENDATIONS Driveway Closures and Route Diversion The primary purpose of this TMP is to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent street system and surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, as part of the effort to address traffic and parking impacts on residential streets, the TMP includes the following elements: 1. The existing Church driveway located along Clay Street should be closed to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic (emergency access could still be provided using hardware that would satisfy City requirements) to discourage U3�.u,,.AW do. Zq Mr. Herb Smith August 12, 2004 Page 4 Church visitors from parking along Clay Street and nearby residential streets, and to minimize traffic conflicts within Level One (at -grade level) of the proposed parking structure. Based on traffic counts collected at the Church driveways on a Sunday morning, there could be as many as 75 peak hour trips displaced from this driveway and relocated to the Church's driveways along St. Andrews Road and 15th Street, plus the high school's 15th Street lot driveway. This traffic shift would help lessen Church - related traffic along residential streets, could easily be accommodated at the other existing driveways, and would not detrimentally affect the traffic operations along St. Andrews Road, Clay Street, and 15t' Street. The Clay Street driveway closure would support the route diversion (during worship services) currently publicized by the Church, as described in Item 3 below. 2. To address neighborhood concerns, the Church has expressed the desire to close the existing Church driveway located along St. Andrews Road during typical weekdays/ weeknights and Saturdays (emergency access could still be provided using hardware that would satisfy City requirements). We believe that this operational closure of the St. Andrews Road driveway during non- Church service conditions would not detrimentally affect overall traffic circulation within the Church site and along the adjoining street system. Based on traffic counts collected at the Church driveways on a Sunday morning, there could be as many as 98 peak hour trips using that driveway. The peak hour traffic demands along that driveway on typical weekdays/weeknights and Saturdays are likely to be much less. This much lesser amount of traffic that would shift from the St. Andrews Road driveway to the 15t' Street driveway during non - Sunday morning conditions could easily be accommodated at the other existing driveways, and would not detrimentally affect the traffic operations along St. Andrews Road, Clay Street, and 15th Street. We also believe that the proposed operational closure of the St. Andrews Road driveway will also encourage more Church members to use 15th Street rather than cutting - through the adjoining neighborhood on non - Sunday mornings. 3. Continue to disseminate information requiring the congregation to use a specified route away from residential streets when going to /coming from the Church (referred to as the "Preferred Church Access Routes" on handouts currently distributed by the Church to its members and visitors. This colored handout is attached at the end of this report, and shows that the residential streets (Pirate, Snug Harbor, Signal, Kings, and St. James) are "restricted access ", St. Andrews Road and Cliff Drive as "emergency only" routes, and Dover Drive, 16th Street, Irvine Avenue, and 15th Street as "preferred" routes to /from the Church 3432PW- - rcriuddw 30 Mr. Herb Smith August 12, 2004 Page 5 Other TMP Recommendations The following recommendations have been developed to further enhance the parking, site access, and internal circulation for St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (the TNT concepts are illustrated on Exhibits 3 through 11): Exhibit 3: Baseline TMP Measures 4. As illustrated on Exhibit 3, the existing Church driveway and pedestrian . opening located along Clay Street should be closed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic (emergency access could still be provided) to discourage Church visitors from parking along Clay Street and nearby residential streets, and to minimize traffic conflicts within Level One (at -grade level) of the parking structure. 5. Create a "Traffic and Parking Ministry" team that will be deployed at strategic locations in St. Andrews and in the adjoining Newport Harbor High School parking lot. They would have the following responsibilities: • Usher /guide /direct motorists through the Church's parking garage and High School lot in a defined pattern and sequence. To help minimize pedestrian- vehicular conflicts, parking ushers should always direct vehicles to park at the far end of each parking aisle (farthest from the aisle entry point), and work back to the aisle entry point, by filling each space along the way. • Implement a "special permit" sticker /placard program. Parking ushers should facilitate the movement of special permit vehicles into the designated parking areas. • Place (and remove) signage, barricades and traffic bollards and/or cones for on -site channelization, and the closing and opening of specific parking areas. • Exhibit 3 illustrates the five traffic /parking control personnel that would be responsible for Level One. One person will be stationed at each of the entry and exit driveways for the Church A third person will be stationed at the entry drive aisle into the "special permit" area (discussed in Item b below), and two others will adjust their positions according to the prevailing traffic and parking conditions. All traffic /parking control personnel should have radio communication to coordinate activities, including monitoring and sign/barricades /traffic cones placement. 6. As shaded in blue on Exhibit 3, designate parking areas for special groups, . such as first -time visitors, seniors, handicapped, families with babies, etc., and 2432PW -Itr-re lwd.d 31 Mr. Herb Smith August 12, 2004 Page 6 enforce this through a special permit/piacard program. The Church would need to develop stickers or placards that would be distributed to the handicapped, families with children, patrons with special needs, elderly, and first -time visitors. Any vehicle displaying a "special permit" sticker /placard would automatically be directed to the designated parking area, without having to be stopped and questioned by a traffic /parking controller. 7. Designate pick -up /drop -off areas on -site. The "special permit" area shaded in blue on Exhibit 3 should be used for this purpose, due to the area's proximity to the main destination points in the campus. 8. Develop a loading and unloading plan,. operating protocol, and signage program to be enforced by the "Traffic and Parking Ministry" team at both the Church and High School. This loading/unloading plan is described in Stages 1 through 5 for the Church's parking structure (illustrated on Exhibits 3 through 8), and in Stages 1 through 3 for the High School parking lot (depicted on Exhibits 9 through 11). 9. As indicated on Exhibit 3, implement one -way vehicular circulation for the Church site during peak loading and unloading periods, with entry on St. Andrews Road and exit on 15"' Street (as discussed previously, the St. Andrews Road driveway will be closed on weekdays /weeknights and Saturdays). 10. Disseminate information on the Traffic and Parking Management Plan to the congregation. 11. Establish a public /community outreach program to publicize efforts by the Church in addressing traffic and parking problems. 12. Develop a consistent "report card" or monitoring program to review the framework elements of the Traffic and Parking Management Plan (i.e., its benefits, areas of improvement, etc.). Exhibit 4: Stage 1 TMP Measures (Park Church Staff/Worship Team Before First Service) 13. As shaded in orange on Exhibit 4, reserve "dead -end" and/or lower -level parking spaces in the proposed parking structure for special groups with longer parking duration (i.e., pastors, choir, staff for children programs, ushers, etc.). Every attempt should be made to fully park these areas at least 30 minutes before the first service. A total of 110 parking spaces (33 spaces on Level One, 33 spaces on Sub -Level 1, and 44 spaces on Sub -Level 2) could WWWay..WAoc 32_ Mr, Herb Smith August 12, 2004 Page 7 potentially be designated for Church staff and worship team parking, as illustrated on Exhibit 4. 14. In addition to the five traffic /parking control persons responsible for Level One, a sixth person is needed for Sub -Level 1, as shown on Exhibit 4. 15. Traffic /parking control personnel will be responsible for monitoring the use of the spaces designated for Church staff and worship team members. To fully . utilize the parking garage, if parking spaces are still available in the staff/team - designated areas 15 minutes before the start of the first service, then the general public will be allowed to park in those spaces. Exhibit 5: Stage 2 TMP Measures (Fully Park Sub Levels 1 & 2 Before First Service 16. As illustrated on Exhibit 5, first load those parking spaces that are on the lowest level of the parking structure. When Sub - levels 1 and 2 are fully parked, proceed to Stage 3. This will minimize conflicts between arriving vehicles and pedestrians who have already parked and are walking to their destination on campus. 17. In addition to the six traffic /parking control persons responsible for Level One and Sub -Level 1, a seventh person is needed for Sub -Level 2, as shown on Exhibit 5. 18. Traffic /parking control personnel will be responsible for monitoring Sub - Level 1 and Sub -Level 2, and coordinating status and activities with Level One personnel via radio communication (i.e., walkie- talkie). Exhibit 6- Stage 3 TMP Measures (Fully Park Level One Before First Service) 19. As illustrated on Exhibit 6; open those parking spaces that are on the portion of Level One that is shaded in pink. When these spaces are filled, proceed to parking the portion of Level One closest to the entry driveway (shaded in light green). This will minimize conflicts between arriving vehicles and pedestrians who have already parked and are walking to their destination on campus. 20. Monitor the parking occupancy of the parking garage. When fully parked, close the St. Andrews Road entry (i.e., monitor and block entry as arriving cars are balanced to the last available spaces), and proceed to Stage 4. 1931Phff- Urteaud.dac 33 Mr. Herb Smith August 12, 2004 Page 8 Exhibit 7: Stage 4 TMP Measures (Church Garage Full Before/During First Service; St. Andrews Entry Closed) 21. Traffic /parking control personnel will be responsible for closing the parking structure entry by using barricades, traffic cones and/or bollards to enforce the driveway closure. 22. As shown on Exhibit 7, direct traffic to use the High School lot by placing "Garage Full" and "Park in H.S. Lot" signs at the entry driveway, at the southeast corner of the St. Andrews Road/15th Street intersection, and at the northwest corner of the Clay Street/15th Street intersection. Only re -open the Church's parking structure once the first service demand has substantially dissipated (i.e., when spaces in the garage that are expected to "t urt" are 80% empty). 23. TMP measures were also developed for the existing High School lot, and these are described in detail under Items 26 through 31 below (also illustrated in Exhibits 9 through 11, to be discussed below). The TMP concepts for the High School lot should be implemented regardless of whether the Church parking garage is fully occupied or not. There are Church visitors who prefer to park in the High School lot versus the Church, and who therefore travel to the High School lot directly (without attempting to park at the Church first). TMP measures in the High School lot will be necessary for managing Church - generated traffic destined for the high school lot directly, plus the diverted traffic from St. Andrews Road due to the closure of the Church parking structure. Exhibit 8: Stage 5 TMP Measures (After First Service; Before Second Service) 24. Only re -open the Church's parking structure once the first service demand has substantially dissipated (i.e., when spaces in the garage that are expected to "turn" are 80% empty). To better manage the peak "parking turnover" periods between services, do not open and close the entry for the garage on an intermittent basis (ideally, entry into the garage should be closed once and opened once). 25. Once the Church garage is opened, remove "Garage Full" and "Park in H.S. Lot" signs at the entry driveway, at the southeast corner of the St. Andrews Road/15th Street intersection, and at the northwest comer of the Clay Street/15th Street intersection, as shown on Exhibit 8. Continue to implement TMP measures for the High School lot. MV 3`l Mr. Herb Smith August 12, 2004 Page 9 Exhibit 9: Stage 1 High School Lot TMP Measures (Before/During First Service 26. Exhibit 9 illustrates "baseline" TMP measures for the existing High School lot, which include closing the High School's easternmost driveway, restricting the middle driveway to inbound traffic, and restricting the westernmost driveway to right -turn out movements only (all restrictions enforced by traffic /parking control personnel and the use of traffic cones and/or bollards). These driveway restrictions were developed to help minimize vehicle - pedestrian conflicts along 15°i Street. Exhibit 9 also shows the need for three additional traffic /parking control personnel. Adding these three to the seven persons needed for the Church parking structure, the total number of persons needed to implement the TMP is a minimum of 10 persons. To lessen parking "&fiction" (caused by vehicles pulling into and out of parking spaces) along the entry drive aisle and exit drive aisle, parking in those spaces located immediately adjacent to the entry and exit driveways is prohibited (unless parking in these spaces is necessary, as described in Stage 3 and Exhibit 11) by placing traffic cones and/or bollards on those parking spaces. 27. Stage 1 involves fully parking the portion of the High School parking lot shaded in brown before opening the rest of the spaces in the lot. 28. Under Stage 1 conditions, spaces shaded in blue and not used during the first service would be used by early arrivals for the second service. This would be done by closing off all drive aisle entries to those spaces until they are actually needed. Exhibit 10: Stage 2 High School Lot TMP Measures (After First Service; Before Second Service) 29. As shown on Exhibit 10, open the spaces shaded in blue for the second service. 30. During the peak "parking turnover" period between services (vehicles and pedestrians are arriving at the same time as departinj traffic), consider use of a "crossing guard" to platoon pedestrians. across 15 Street. Because of the public right -of -way, Church staff will not be allowed to direct traffic, and supplemental City police personnel should be considered for the "crossing guard ", in order to establish and reinforce the pattern, and to occasionally fine -tune it. 2432ne.h, -, vA.id. a`_ Mr. Herb Smith August12,2004 Page 10 Exhibit 11: State 3 High School Lot TMP Measures (Ilefore/During Second Service 31. As illustrated on Exhibit 11, only open the spaces shaded in purple if all other spaces in the High School lot get filled. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you need further assistance, or have any questions regarding this analysis, please call us at (714) 641 -1587. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS emu— *� Paul W. Wi on, P.E. Principal Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. Transportation Engineer III Attachments (Pok I°AUL wrLe,rssa,o ) 2432PW. lo-- rarised.doc 36 t w z o- Iu � J � m m m J U i FLl " r� Q F am F O x �Ld �W Z W E v = W U Z F r 0] W CL CL 3 w cr 0 z U U) V N Q f/1 w a a AS U K 0 J r a W (n W '3W 2 Z ' u M Sn W 31 « : ƒ IM IS Im No � ( e s) in %§ j/ � ~ k §e §$§ 2-« 22 . 0 )gin E!° «2§¥ $ \\/ \ \ \§ � A§§q! /e&COS M « . .. . � a � LLI 1-4 �- � /B® � « w \ m00 2b4 t . / §� @E ( e s) in %§ j/ � ~ k §e §$§ 2-« 22 . 0 )gin E!° «2§¥ $ \\/ \ \ \§ � A§§q! /e&COS M « . .. . �� ƒ§ z �§%�� N §: } E-i LLI 1-4 \\\ /B® W E B�6 \ m00 2b4 t . / §� @E .. _ \ . \. k ��. t k m L) . �k � �� ƒ§ z �§%�� N b O C K ZO Q KOZ -n-80 K-KW d(n 15TH STREET \ \ \ \ \ \ ` } 3 D W O U pO_'OmQZ Z� Q� r\Z�NtOWJ \i Oz OOJ �W QMQO �Qm �y� Sara° mUN Uv L 1_' LO W W v z U Wrj2 o L4 a O60 W 4 E� 3 3z �aF a C W Z poUQO W'D 6d'EY U0OSM �w� p w imzya 0r- @t Z,.., pO_'OmQZ Z� Q� r\Z�NtOWJ \i Oz OOJ �W QMQO �Qm �y� Sara° mUN Uv L 1_' LO W W v U Wrj2 o 3 E z E� 3 W D C W Z dW a � � w rn w c� P. M c a N W O Z (/a a f�slj t Gr 9 U W Z Ocoz W U W a �3W o �s� W NI CO w w U LLS H 1 I 1 I 1 I Wwm o E W E Ls, U mW � �� U dW a W W� `..........■■ O m ON v;imm .... PANNE OEM nn. ■..... r.. .... aCL CL 3 w 0 .r. 1uun■' Q r Ron f i Win ON 0 o im .� .. .. ;r NO ����Y.� :: ON IN ON AL MKS Ad So 0.11 -- -..ate. ��• ,.. ® E CO w w U LLS H �W Wwm o E W E Ls, U mW � �� U dW a W W� O m rn w aCL CL 3 w 0 Q r J N < K W Z O44Z{ W ZN3/W t! JV yZj KZ azw W m G4 w�U o a_ r z P.�Z W EoOw v W�� v ¢ E-E m C7 H Gl a 5 L wz U� a vr� W J U J m W N / W 3 W `7 J . :............ i. ............'...1::'..:.�.. ■.. ■................1111.,, .....s.. a�i• ii\ On li 1 1�3 i i. On In ow In On �s i \® :mm to 00 MM a1w a . :. on �-. r���� O• • 'l f It it � ,♦�� � :�� RI IN III •.... � I ®P.•�� ....� azw W m G4 w�U o a_ r z P.�Z W EoOw v W�� v ¢ E-E m C7 H Gl a 5 L wz U� a vr� W J U J m W N / W 3 W `7 J . W W U m ry� LLJ z ✓ti Q. O W E" W U CW=Z Z 1 1 1 I V I • _ m W N V w 0 . a w \ou.�udu�ouu�uoo�oo.. F o C/1 cn N pu�uW�WVWWWinniiiiii�uun�nuunnnu MOuu M.....•u.EM•••• •i����.r AWE i 1111 ®!> is Um •�t la Q;it am ME A on �' ' ��.., .®rs • t /71 'i �,' ♦ ♦ ♦♦ �, ♦ ` u . v'3 / ® ♦ ♦ ♦♦ _ 1 W W U m ry� LLJ z ✓ti Q. O W E" W U CW=Z Z Fw< m W N V w 0 . a w F o C/1 cn N v W Z O�Z W Z4 S at Z V W f!4 4002 -Z1 -LO LZ�4"i�80 d01 s w N Za w° W N W O O w W W N az 020 a� a K(X V W w 4a ¢aN Ka Y v00 ate= wtn YAW NJ <z 1500 P, iS ? ri= avoa sM3aaNVV '15 FF 9 m W UU3 o M P, F 3 a� z a; W E w U E-0 qa x�La w °W dW a gm 3 w z z a III a� a� z tn W th 3: Uj _i�1V W its- • s j ► vii;. 0 o a ?o J Z Q W W wFwF S ZF� Wd' y41 ONQ- wo ZV1�Q mOw W NZ ocaiF3 o°-�� WO < oOww KW . 4150] 2JUZ J UVl QQ �2 NaOw aZZ d0 Ny.ORgEa Q?� ZO N O.Z a s< 4a =mgdt °- w V < �0 w maZawu Vo In J 0� ~wvmaU �Ir �a v1Rww mo Z �-'F of lewo OZ 0x00. OWQ avow SM3MONV '1S Z� W O y' W qfO WW c=i �5 m pq �o AW A. ZO z U W W Z F U1 j Oa C) z O � xW CQ �U uj d a �M w m F 0 M z a ai Z� W O y' W qfO ,°An6o tqpL -Ll -lA LL�P60 dPi 6 °p•L IaLLYL\MPVfiZfOZ\W/L\:u � L Q 133LLLS � L Z Al x3 • ol• J I J / O, / OZ, �I - uuo=ouoouo�� I I i i/ 0 J Z W W Q aO:E<MWWZ . ww M,)�F3oa�� . F- J O U W W- Wo I O J K 6 V O O U W W W :�V) I �UZ J JW ZK - OKri OHOLI z a W R o 2 Z� SM3NGNV '1S zo wr 003w WPwa J (n z0 WWN2<z4Z Kw J =w MC�Mi3N x aJd JN aW=Oa! I / Y UO O wOmw a7U IIj LL� zW °02 WF ommo �v o? c°�a00. owa W wz� e= y W Z OqN W Z� N:td U W 41 t� �+ W m in (OL rW �J 040 Z W E+ W v EM Soo i!s Q w W m CW7 O CL H W cn w 0 a r W wz� e= y W Z OqN W Z� N:td U W 41 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Preferred Church Access Routes 1 Enlergencporoy; i.......'.::.. %'y Restricted Access . Please evdd due neigfiDoriwod OfOlff Haven when coming to w from church and when parking. Please park in the church ad NHHS ads" kris. 0 Exhibit No. 5 Staff comments on the Traffic and Parking Management Plan `P9 THIS PAGE IS BLANK So Exhibit No. 6 Construction Management Plan dated October 1, 2004. SI THIS PAGE IS BLANK S2 OpLVN NGEIVF08- 7 y OF NeW, Agr44E OCTOCT 0 q®argEACH ` 4004 Engineers & Planners October 1, 2004 ?18191101llljaljla13141g6 Transportation Parking Linscoa, Law & Mr. Herbert L. Smith Greetn;pan, Engineers Business Administrator and COO 1580 Corporate Drive St. Andrews Presbyterian Church suite 122 600 St. Andrews Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.6411667 r Newport Beach, CA 92663 LLG Reference: 2032432 -1 714.641.0139 r we Ilgengineers.coa Subject: Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the Construction Phase of the Church Expansion Project Pasadena Costa Mesa Dear Mr. Smith: San Diego Las Vegas Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the construction phase of the proposed expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. The City of Newport Beach does not have a standard set of guidelines for a construction- specific TMP, and treats construction projects on a case -by -case basis. Although this letter is not a formal construction- related Traffic Control Plan, and has not been reviewed by the City, this TMP describes general ways to minimize potential impacts of construction - related traffic on the adjacent street system and surrounding neighborhood, focuses on both weekday /Saturday and Sunday morning conditions, and anticipates what TMP elements the City would likely require during the project's construction. Our recommended measures, all of which are subject to the City approval, are described in detail in the following sections. CONSTRUCTION TMP: TRAFFIC- RELATED. MEASURES During construction, the following worship services will still be accommodated on site in the sanctuary: Saturday evenings from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM, Sunday mornings from 8:00 AM to 12:00 noon, and Wednesday evenings from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. On weekdays, the office staff will be shuttled from an off -site parking lot (further described in Item 15 of this letter) to their existing offices in the administrative building on site. All other Church activities, including the pre- school, will be relocated off -site. Therefore, the traffic and parking demands attributable to these non - administrative and non- worship service functions will not be generated at the site during the entire construction period. 5,3 Mr. Herb Smith St. Andrews Presbyterian Church October 1, 2004 Page 2 2. All construction activity at the project site, including hauling of materials to /from the site, will be limited to hours in accordance with City requirements. 3. Potential haul routes include 15'h Street (the short segment of St. Andrews Road between 15`h Street and the Church driveway could also be used, if necessary), Irvine Avenue, and 17s' Street. When feasible, materials being delivered to, or removed from, the project site during the construction period should be scheduled for the least inconvenience to the public. 4. The City should be notified prior to beginning any haul period. If hauling is suspended, the City should be notified when hauling will recommence. 5. All trucks and construction personnel traffic will enter and exit the site using the existing Church driveway along 15`h Street (and along St. Andrews Road, if necessary). 6. All trucks and construction- related vehicles exiting the project site should yield at all times to public traffic. 7. Use flagmen to guide and control traffic, to minimize inconvenience to the public, and enhance vehicle and pedestrian safety. A flagman should be used whenever trucks entering or leaving the project site may impede the flow of traffic. Minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes along 15`h Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road. 8. The contractor should prepare a truck haul route plan, which would include the approximate number of truck trips, the hours during which transport activities are expected to occur, and measures to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris /gravel/dirt attributable to hauling operations. 9. The staging of all trucks and construction- related vehicles will occur on site. 10. As a pedestrian safety measure, the contractor should install a fence along the project site perimeter before excavation begins. 11. The contractor will have a designated employee controlling the logistics of all deliveries. No unscheduled deliveries should be accepted. All materials requiring assembly will be accommodated on -site, except for rare instances like crane -boom assembly or dismantling that will need to be done off -site. 12. To minimize construction vehicle delay and queuing on City streets, all construction vehicles should be equipped with two -way radios, so that radio communication could be established between drivers and a traffic controller at the job site, and entry into the site could be easily coordinated and facilitated. ...,.Pm,r.N..r.0 .h, -rse d.d. S Y'1 Mr. Herb Smith St. Andrews Presbyterian Church October 1, 2004 Page 3 13. All trucks leaving the site during excavation operations will be hosed down (both undercarriage and wheel areas) before entering City streets, and should be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface.to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. If there is any accumulation of construction mud at the entrances to the project site or nearby streets, such areas should be cleaned (swept or washed). CONSTRUCTION TMP: PARKING - RELATED MEASURES 14. All construction- related parking, including construction employee parking, will be accommodated on -site, and prohibited on City streets. The following summarizes the number of construction personnel vehicles expected (all of which could be parked on- site): • First 3 weeks: • Second 3 weeks: • Next 3 months: • Next 5 months: • Next 2 months: 15 vehicles 10 to 15 vehicles 35 vehicles 75 vehicles 35 vehicles 15. For the construction period, the Church has established parking leases /agreements with the following (the parking agreements are attached at the end of this letter): Newport Harbor High School (NHHS): a total of 430 spaces (252 spaces in the 15t' Street lot, plus 178 spaces in the 16th Street lot) could be used by the Church. Church parking at NHHS will be allowed Wednesday (6:00 to 8:00 PM), Saturday (5:00 to 7:00 PM), and Sunday (8:00 AM to 12:00 noon), during. which St. Andrews Church will provide shuttle service to /from the 16th Street lot. Lighthouse Coastal Community Church (located at 301 Magnolia Street in Costa Mesa, approximately 1.5 miles of driving distance from the project site): a maximum of 50 spaces could be used by St. Andrews Church. St. Andrews Church parking at the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church will be allowed Monday through Friday (7:00 AM to 6:00 PM), with a shuttle service to be provided by St. Andrews Church on weekdays. • Bank Site (located at 901 Dover Drive, approximately less than one mile of driving distance from the project site): a minimum of 88 spaces could be used by St. Andrews Church. Church parking at 901 Dover 2412PMP.ns.W..- Il1- .vi.di SS Mr. Herb Smith St. Andrews Presbyterian Church October 1, 2004 Page 4 Drive will be allowed Wednesday (6:00 to 8:00 PM), Saturday (5:00 to 7:00 PM), and Sunday (8:00 AM to 12:00 noon), during which St. Andrews Church will provide shuttle service between the Church and this off -site lot. 16. The City Code specifies a parking ratio of 1 space per 3 seats for "Religious Assembly" uses. The application of this ratio to the total of 1,387 seats allowed at the Church results in a Code -based requirement of 462 spaces (1,387 seats divided by 3). 17. The construction will require that all of the Church's on -site parking spaces be taken off -line (total of 250 spaces). 18. The use of 50 spaces (at a maximum) at the Lighthouse Church lot will adequately serve the displaced parking demand of administrative personnel on weekdays through the provision of a shuttle service by St. Andrews Church. 19. It is estimated that the use of 518 spaces at three off -site lots during construction (comprised of 430 spaces at the two NHHS lots and 88 spaces at the 901 Dover Drive bank lot), plus the Church's provision of a,shuttle service to /from the 16`h Street lot and the bank lot, would adequately serve the displaced parking needs during Church services on Wednesday and Saturday evenings, and Sunday mornings. Comparing the off -site supply of 518 spaces against the Code -based parking requirement of 462 spaces (from Item 16 above) results in a surplus of 56 spaces (518 -space supply minus 462 -space demand). 20. A detailed shuttle program and pick -up /drop -off plan (for the shuttles operated by the Church and privately -owned vehicles) during Church services on Wednesday and Saturday evenings, and Sunday mornings will be developed to the satisfaction of the City. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you need further assistance, or have any questions regarding this analysis, please call us at (714) 641 -1587. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. Transportation Engineer III Attachments �ri2rMirunsiruuion -iv -re. isa.doc SL Parking Agreement with 901 Dover Drive This agreement is in process for a minimum of 88 parking spaces at 901 Dover Drive. Upon completion of the agreement in the near fixture, the formal agreement will be substituted for this page and forwarded onto the City. S-7 NEWPORT•MRSA�UNIF #♦«p 2 SOMO L 'DISTRICT P'o, ttox 1388 Newport 6eack'Calftamfo 92583 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FFOR USIE OF SCHOOL FACILITIRS UM MR @BAR ACT. A. AVIOU"Tt" 1. fdama.otAppWant —3AtAd 2. AgdM*s of Applicant 3. Applicant Ropiesentall ,�5/' 1. FadllilasRaqueated gip; r_, -I-A k C. Ilan — etlaraas Ekdldlrq - Rsem - Grounds - Special pat flitms 403.9 E..DOLUM df intended use: 6. DEGLAPfATMOFAMAC= t. Ne&sea p!t9pa ri.Nitandedrma. i2ir r , rrr.. � ;.: �. ,• � ': ; { . f r � ". 2. AgjfllgBpl;has feaelsed aill Faca)Vat9r xxE apliyll�a haroln Bated cwfVIbuWrre pesh epllgpxpna. ragMullw1b", tultion. do(iallons, of other recalpm eali to arnamt'te .. . x w rpeafpto tudica idi r Blesa,scifiapds, tfwak here: f J 3 AapelpAe: eel imdrm qf.2 s6eva, W611S5: ivied fart i 4 I hereby <arffig Best 1, and ma app + v"ai t r4pro aplda W a6; nBdsarrd ra4UfatPdrla .. 6 x1z• &6r9haaveht tfga,F e 4E!'BaRplfia6uN,,rwrexaut %tlR Earmtd lo± lanai :e�2armtpna[18uealree:banfader 0 . fFiava bamct9N e'uxeaf{t�t�x dra'teiainaaFiivfMannl4wrdtn can aatuxf a,,,: .es:.%...n�w::.,....,,...:w.wr� J .. sfBd'e' tan pt Apppcmrt`1eereaalRalroaJ /P�{_•__ Address —_ I X ,'.L �7L.d >� ✓!•! / _ . �"'�'.""'...— '1 f Tslephon YF := Dam rt •N Me. ai. A r'ril[IIIrr granrad. flbiaiad FM s Involee<No. .:6f{Wa191:U^aR s 08/06/2004 14:50 January 14, 2004 349-631-3689 Si ANDREWS PRE$ CH To: Herb Smith :St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 600 St Andrews Rd. Newport Beach, CA., 92663 RE: Parking Amog=cw For Upcoming Coris"ction,(July 2005) Dear Herb, Thank you for oontactini have spo)m *0 Pastor during your construction day, their witurier session dq facility. In addition, W&' to church- related simak whoa such sibmtionslaA and,use-the .13 spa= 4. picimp and drop off joj* twain lot. PAGE 02 Atparki,% avisilabifity during, yo pom'V coedit Astivadan project. I ad we both Agrealbitt Lighthottow Church can,aw will assist you we havedewtsifted that we can support up to q= the hoot :of` O*s&nL.tdj5-0@ p-m- 3.our facility fm parking o* dwft thii4raditictrial workweek , the we do1ouse a P&iue whool-(Mine School) that uses the thoroughfam and playground. Ajine School will be holding o iris necessary to rusixinAze sd ty -for the children at the serve the A& For short noticodanVit to any agreisMerit due sake every stlitinpt't0notify at die earliest possible moment r1 asking that you use the 27 spum in our southwest mw Obip-center in the main lim", lot* We will reiluire your southwest parking lot; this'sitall roduce the daily traffic in the Villa iz ff J ji itirludiilg a; � Plats. f to Is, Y 14 f AQ; 4 ...... —Im" e S"? THIS PAGE IS BLANK M. Exhibit No. 7 Letter from the applicant dated October 14, 2004. 61 THIS PAGE IS BLANK 62 ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Planning Documentation by: BETTENCOURT & ASSOCIATES 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92660 -6907 (949) 720 -09701 FAX (949) 721 -9921 Philipna,bettencailMlans.com October 14, 2004 Mr. Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3210 CampbellCa.city.newnort-beach.ca.us Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church: Amended Application Revised II. Dear Mr. Campbell: I am writing on behalf of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C' St. Andrew's' to officially notify you of our intention to again amend the pending application of St. Andrew's for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Amended and Restated Conditional Use Permit for the 3.9 acre church campus at 600 St. Andrews Road. • The original application documents were filed December 24, 2002; • On October 07, 2004 we filed amended application documents withdrawing our requested building height waiver and reducing the new building program to no more than 25,714 square feet from an original request of 35,948 sq.ft. • We enclosed an exhaustive Needs Assessment with that amendment and indicated we were continuing to explore additional opportunities for neighborhood compatibility • We indicated we looked forward to the next Planning Commission public hearing on October 21, 2004. Further Building Reductions Will Be Proposed. As a result of further design studies and searching for common ground with stakeholders, we are working on further building program reductions, seeking a target of not more than 21,900 new sq. ft. That would be a 40% reduction from our original proposal. Next Steps. This application for urgently needed youth and family facilities has now been in the city review processes for nearly two years. We are hopeful that by slashing the amount of new program we can move ahead with the city's entitlement processes. CAE)muments and Settings\jcampbe1[UL al Settingffemporary Intemet Files \OLKSF\St Andrew's Application Amendment Revised n (2).doe 6 3 Mr. Jim Campbell October 14, 2004 Page 2 of 2 In the very near future, we will file the appropriate plan revisions by the project architect to document this latest proposal. We look forward to the October 21, 2004, hearing, which we understand will be devoted exclusively to Draft Environmental Impact Report matters. Very truly yours, [Original Signed by Mr. Bettencourt] Philip F. Bettencourt Consultant to St. Andrew's PFB:lm Cc: Mayor Tod Ridgeway Gary McKitterick Herb Smith Patricia Temple Larry Tucker Ken Williams Sharon Wood C:\Doo mts end Settings \jcampbe115Local SettingsU mporary Internet Files50LK Mt Andrew's Application Amendment Revised 11 (2).dce LI Exhibit No. 8 E -mail from Don Krotee dated October 14, 2004. 65 THIS PAGE IS BLANK Wo Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Don Krotee [dkrotee @krotee.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:54 PM To: James Campbell (E -mail) Subject: application amendment of 10 -14-04 Staff, Commission and Council: We are in receipt of the applicants amended intentions. For many of the same reasons, the consolidated neighborhoods can not support the most recent revision to 21,900 SF of net expansion and the parking garage. Although St. Andrews has listened, they have not reduced the size of the project to, or even near, the size the neighbors have offered. They have merely probed Planning Commissioner Eaton's seriousness in their offering a larger version of his public reckoning that the core programs can be accommodated in 18,000 additional SF. This amendment still contains a problematic and urban parking garage, contains no final results form the NMUSD'S negotiations, reduces the landscape along Clay, reconstructs 100% of the 30,000 SF that they are tearing down and 'makes nothing better for the surrounding community', the hope of Chairman Tucker and the communities. For these paramount reasons, the community can not support the project. The residents have shown interest in re- writing the Commission and underscore our recommendation for an action of denial to be sent to Council. Our polling shows: • that no one in the noticed area supports this project that is not a member of the congregation • that 6 families in the area of the joint neighborhoods, who are St. Andrews members, oppose the project • that 369 signs have been purchased, delivered or placed in the joint neighborhoods opposing any expansion of the project With the residents opposed to the project and the Commission's threshold of expansion expressed clearly by Commissioner Eaton at 18,000 SF, we hope that the church revises their expansion to a remodel to achieve the consensus required by many to best serve the neighborhoods and assist the youth and family of their congregation. Don Krotee Newport Heights Improvement Association 10/14/2004 6-7 THIS PAGE IS BLANK M Exhibit No. 9 Additional correspondence received. M THIS PAGE IS BLANK 70. 09/19/2003 00:23 949729114 Council and Commission City of Newport Beads 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St Andrews Expansion CORKI'S Dear Honorable Mayor, Council and Planning Commission members: PAGE 01 September 27, 2004 The essence of good planning and balance for the quality of life in Cliffhaven and Newport Heights was on the chopping block 22 years ago. The PC and CC, then with the direction of Mayor Evelyn Hart, bargained an aggressive St Andrews plan into today's configuration. It is the basis. It is the benchmark of balance and mediation. For twenty-two years of growth, within a community, which said yes' to the current 104,000 square feet under roof, the communities have endured. And, through the parishioners blocking driveways and dogging the streets and an added Saturday service (with the attendance unreported as conditioned by the current CUP) the neighbors have held their arms open to St. Andrews. Now comes St. Andrews with a proposal for more than 25,000 mo new traffic generating added square footage into a little neighborhood already stressed by NHFWs traffic. And, a parking garage (wouldnt a parking garage in the Port Streets just be dandy ?). Has the traffic improved in the neighborhood so much, since the 1984 Evelyn Hart deal, that this expansion is now'good planning? I sat in the audience and listened as Planning Chair Lang Tucker said, 'he didn't care too much about the square feet as long as the community was better ofF. How can this be good planning? And, St. Andrews is knocking down some of the 'less efficient space' and widening resbwms, corridors and adding multi- purpose rooms. In hearing this, would one expect more traffic or less? Who could blame the communities for crying foull Please save us. Vote to hold the fine at where we are today. 9'f 5- %,Vl ;2 - 8'(, 44; LraK4 z'4 (F G.o y� -7( Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: James Robertson jjrobertson @interisk.comj Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:07 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: St. Andrews Application Mr. Campbell: We want to register our support for the proposed St. Andrew's project. We are long -time residents of the area and Newport Beach neighbors of the church. Nearly every block on this side of Newport Beach has construction and remodeling projects underway. It is obvious that most homeowners recognize the need to periodically remodel, and in many cases, completely rebuild the structure on their property. St. Andrew's is basically in the same position. St. Andrew's is not proposing a "growth" project that would have adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood or increase traffic; it is merely seeking to remodel and update its physical plant to meet the current needs of both members and the local constituencies that St. Andrew's serves. The current physical plant is over 20 years old, and is much in need of refurbishment. The future of our community depends on providing safe, supervised activities for our youth, positive role models, and an emphasis on Christian ethics and morality. Because of its proximity, St. Andrew's is a natural provider of programs for the Newport Harbor High community, and is able to provide many types of programs that a public school cannot. The problems of the youths who attend NHHS will not go away just because we don't have a facility to serve theml St. Andrew's wants to do its part to serve this community by helping to provide positive programs for the youths who represent our future. Denying this application would force the church to continue to attempt to serve the youth of our area with an inadequate facility, and would be a disservice to the neighborhood and the entire Harbor area. One of the most important positive aspects of the proposed plan is placing the center of youth activities that create the most noise underground, where there is little chance of disturbing the surrounding neighborhood. In the current facility, youth activities are on the second floor of Dierenfield Hall, and can be heard some distance from the church. The more attractive above - ground facilities of the new buildings and the new landscaping would then have less impact— indeed, a more favorable impact —on the surrounding neighborhood than leaving the current buildings in place. We urge approval of this plan! St. Andrew's has always been a source of positive contributions to the Newport Harbor Area, starting with the founding of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian by members of our church. This is a forward- thinking plan that meets critical needs of youth and families in our community, just as many projects currently in process for other property owners meet their needs. Even the construction plan has been designed to mitigate impact on our neighbors. We believe that once the construction is finished it will be a great enhancement to the entire neighborhood and our City. Thank you for registering our concerns in the approval process. Respectfully, (Mr. & Mrs.) James A. Robertson and Stephanie Robertson 1343 Mariners Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)515 - 9930, 466 -8362 Yoi bertso_mightensk.com 08/23/2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 1 9 2004 PM 71819110111112 111213j41516 �Z St. Andrew's Church I've been a resident in Newport Beach since 1925. Growing up on Balboa Island until I married in 1943. We had planned on building our home in Corona del Mar until we found out that Earl Stanley (our neighbor on Balboa Island) had started Cliffhaven Tract in early 1947. We bought our house on Signal Road and moved in December 1947 with our 6 -month old child. There was a small church on 15a' Street and that's what it was to be, a small neighborhood church, nothing more. St. Andrew's Church has expanded in the past 20 years and now wants more room under the pretense of helping keep our youth off the streets. We have after school activities available for them. I oppose this expansion in our residential area. Most of the traffic we have, besides students of Harbor High, are attending St. Andrew's Church coming from Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Irvine and even Tustin to name a few. If the church wants to expand, maybe it's time for them to find land available to accommodate their needs, and let residents enjoy their homes with less traffic. Newport Harbor High School was here before the residents and the church. Elouise Gogerty 57 year resident of Cliffhaven 949/642 -6340 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 2 3 2004 71819110111112111213141516 1$ St. Andrew's Church Expansion A few years back, a neighbor wanted an encroachment permit to enlarge his garage from a two -car to a three -car garage to within three feet of the fence line. The family's needs had changed. Their child had a car and they wanted to park it in the garage. One household objected to the City of Newport Beach and the encroachment permit was denied. After a few years, the child went away to college and took the car with him. Once again, the family's needs had changed. The garage expansion was now unnecessary since the original need for the three -car garage changed. Approximately 20 years ago, St. Andrew's Church wanted to expand because its needs had changed. With much opposition from the Cliffhaven and Newport Heights neighborhood, the expansion proceeded. Being the "good neighborhood" Church, they said this expansion satisfied their needs and wouldn't request another expansion. Since that time, the parking and traffic problems in Cliffhaven and Newport Heights have escalated, not only due to the original Church expansion, but from the school, cars cutting through the neighborhood and more cars owned by residents. This has been enough of a problem that the neighborhood and the City have held multiple "Traffic Calming Meetings ", and the City is potentially going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to install various devices (e.g., traffic circles, bulges, new striping) in an attempt to mitigate the traffic issues. Now the Church's needs have apparently changed again. Not living up to their word from 20 years ago and waving the flag of "for the youth ", they proposed a 35,948 (which has been reduced to 27,168) foot expansion with an underground parking garage. Hundreds of residents of Cliffhaven and Newport Heights are horrified. Instead of the Church working with the residents to alleviate the existing parking and traffic conditions, they want to add to them? Three of the concessions the Church says it would make for the neighborhood to discourage traffic and parking in the Cliffhaven and Newport Heights streets in order to push the expansion are: (1) to close the Clay Street driveway to the existing Church parking lot; (2) build a solid wall around the parking lot; and (3) to work with the high school to move the maintenance buildings and re- stripe the parking lot to accommodate more cars for church and school parking. In the spirit of being a "good neighborhood" Church, one would think that at least the Clay Street driveway and block wall options should have been put in effect long ago instead of being a bargaining chip for the new Church expansion. The Church's request isn't just an encroachment permit of a few feet on one small property, but is a City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment Change, Zone Change and Use Permit Change! It isn't a project that will take a couple of months of building, but will be years of building with the accompanying disruption and inconvenience of noise, dust, dirt, parking and traffic (especially large dirt hauling trucks). And then residents living with the increased traffic, huge structures, and ever 74 . s increasing and changing use of the Church facilities forever! The Church has not provided a "Needs Assessment' for this project to the City or to the neighborhood - working group. If there is an overwhelming need for a project of this size to address the Church's outreach requirements into the rest of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Irvine, they are no longer a "neighborhood church ". It is time for St. Andrew's to move to an area where they can spread out to accommodate their needs, or to reassess their needs to fit the neighborhood location without an expansion. I am a 26 -year resident to the neighborhood and am very much aware of the Church and high school down the street. What is needed is for the City of Newport Beach to have the Church live up to the regulations, goals, policies and procedures the City has in place to protect the ClifFhaven and Newport Heights residents from the unwelcome, unnecessary and unneighborliness of the Church expansion. This expansion request is completely inconsistent with an R -1/R -2 zoned neighborhood. It only took one neighbor to object to an encroachment permit request to have it denied. In the Church's case, hundreds of neighbors are objecting to a General Plan Amendment Change, Zone Change and Use Permit Change! What is this saying? And when will the needs of the Church change again? Remember, bigger is not better. Please no expansion! Monica Mazur Cliffhaven Resident 949/645 -7569 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 2 3 2004 PM 7!8!9!10!11!12 !112!314!5!6 7S October 11, 2004 The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: St. Andrews Expansion To Whom It May Concern: PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OCT 14 2004 819 10111112 1I 12131413 6 I am enclosing more signatures opposing the expansion of the above - mentioned property. I am also concerned that when the traffic survey that was done the week before school started at Ensign will not give the appropriate numbers of cars accessing the area. This street should have been monitored during the school week. I also noticed today that the church parking had a sign posted "No school parking today". I thought the parking lot from St. Andrews was shared with the High School. Again there shouldn't be any expansion what so ever. Respectfully, Nancy Barfield 2001 Kings Road Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 -7-4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OCT 14 2004 7 1819110,11111111213141316 The Planning Commission, Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Petition comment re: St. Andrews Expansion On behalf of my neighbors and my family, I ask you to deny the proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church that includes their 34% expansion. If St. Andrews wants to expand further, they should consider an off site facility. For the value and the well . being of our community, to which the church is an interre"( part, this is the best option. On the other hand, if St. Andrews improved and remodeled, to show a "zero net gain of specs", this Idea would deseive planning consideration. I understand that a DEIR has been developed for the property and I have little or no technical experience with this part of the process, however fundamental logic, history (7984 CUP), the present traffic, civil services and basic ideas of land use toll me that if they add over 36,500 square feet, it is not appropriate for our neighborhood or this City. Even if the E1R were to say 'acceptable or marginal impact, and show mitigation, the community wants better for themselves, including St Andrews. Please ask St. Andrews to Improve their quality and not their size. These facts should compel the Commission and Council to deny this application. Name printed Name signed address printed. 'r -0f t0. 35Gd b3.SS3E)7JSS3Ha-13I -4&VE Z9061ZZ606 hE'-90 b00Z /81/00 SUNNI /0 u�rrlr.i31Y1�+t�la r ♦`I ,. �m .I te-MAZAPAW e 'r -0f t0. 35Gd b3.SS3E)7JSS3Ha-13I -4&VE Z9061ZZ606 hE'-90 b00Z /81/00 For more than 2 decades the communities that bound St. Andrews have been at varying odds with what was once a small neighborhood church. As early as 2001 the residents of Newport Heights were holding meetings to try to address traffic and safety concerns here and In Cliftaven. In a neighborhood meeting it was learned that St Andrews, in a September 2002 newsletter, had made plans fbr a groundbreaking on a project in May of 2004. We all thought that St Andrew's must have some degree of confidence for approval, but no one had the slightest idea of what was proposed. Later the neighborhoods discovered a proposal to construct a huge parking structure, with the cooperation of the school District ton District property) to support this expansion. The structure was resoundingly defeated in a school board meeting later that year. Meetings on Increasing traffic lead to the making of Newport Heights Improvement Association- a C -3 non - profit corporation In July, 2002. The issue of the churches expansion Herr under.Phe radar In a City council candidate forum hosted by the joint ClI flhaven and Newport Heights groups. However, after election in December of 2002, it was discovered that St Andrews.had filed application at the City, for a large expansion. At this time it was discovered that St. Andrews had developed a written "time line" that displayed to the City that they had conducted "neighborhood participation" meetings. As the neighbors talked, no one recollected being invited to participate or had heard of the church's expansion. After doing more research at the City, we were able to find that St. Andrews planned as they do today, to Increase the church by 35%, to an area of 140,388 square feet. This is 40.= square feet lamer than the typical base " for anre Dept. And, in a nut shelf, this is the communities chief complaint: that St. Andrew's wants too much on this small and unassuming, servlcedby smOraa45;, property. The size and shape of our surroundings is an important part of our communities We are mindful and respectful of St. Andrews and embrace them as a neighbor and we know they are entitled to apply for this expansion. We St. Andrews to understand that the size of this proposal brings Increased traffic, it fails the test of the community and we will not support it. We are reminded of St. Andrew's IWI and land m- presence In our community. St Andrews is permitted under a special City regulation tailed a Conditional Use Permit. This "special permission" Is given to owners who are not usually permitted in the typical zoning of a neighborhood, The predominant zoning surrounding St. Andrews is R -1 or single - family residence zoning. This original CUP, was granted in 1962 and then expanded in 1974 and then again during a very contentious 1982 expansion. In this context, and with respect to the existing CUP, this proposal falls the test of the community In that this project is inappropriately too large. St. Andrews knows that the current CUP, the eodsting zone and the generM plan will no longer accommodate this overwhelming expansion. They have asked the City to do away with the existing general plan regulation and the existing R -1 zone that form the very basis of our community. St, Andrews has asked the City for new designations to accommodate this huge expansion. The expansion's density, measured in square feet per acre„ will be 140,385 square feet per 3.94 acres. To give you an idea of how der>,se this is, South Coast Plaza Is about 1,000,000 square feet on 180 acres. This makes St. Andrew's new plans between 5 and 6 thus as dense than South Coast Plaza. This density, EIR or not, will never be appropriate where our children play or where we Ibve. Parking accommodations for the proposal fall in the following way. The church proposes an underground parking garage to provide parking at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 3 seats of the 1200 seat sanctuary, hence the 400 -car garage. What St. Andrews has not and cannot address is that the chair seating in the sanctuary, the school, administration, daycare and gym/ multi use space have no parking. We are asked to believe these activities don't occur concurrently, but they do. We are asked to believe that senior church members will use the parking garage, but studies show that they will not. Even if the entire project were to be averaged at a parking requirement of 3 spaces per every 1000 square feet, the 400 -tar proposed garage could not meet the demand. Hence, the parking fails. Please make St. Andrews better, but not bigger. Z0 /Z0 39Gd Z�3SS3913SS3H(n3I321Vff Z90STZi(ih6 bE:SB b60Z /8tf80 rg RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Commission, Mayor Ridgeway and Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard OCT 14 2004 Newport Beach, California 92663 7181911011111 1212 3 4 5 11111 Re: Petition comment re: St. Andrews Expansion On behalf of my neighbors and my family, 1 ask you to deny the proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church that includes their 34% expansion. If St. Andrews wants to expand further, they should consider an off site facility. For the value and the well being of our community, to which the church is an interregnal part, this is the best option. On the other hand, if St. Andrews improved and remodeled, to show a "zero net gain of space ", this idea would deserve planning consideration. I understand that a DEIR has been developed for the property and I. have little or no technical experience with this part of the process, however fundamental logic, history (1984 CUP), the present traffic, civil services and basic ideas of land use tell me that if they add over 36,500 square feet, it is not appropriate for our neighborhood or this City. Even if the EIR were to say 'acceptable or marginal impact', and show mitigation, the community wants better for themselves, including St. Andrews. Please ask St. Andrews to improve their quality and not their size. These facts should compel the Commission and Council to deny this application. Name printed me signed address printed i1 RECEIVED BY The Planning Commission, Mayor Ridgeway and Council PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard OCT 14 2004 Newport Beach, California 92663 AM Re: Petition comment re: St. Andrews Expansion 7 $19110111112111213141516 On behalf of my neighbors and my family, I ask you to deny the proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church that includes their 34% expansion. If St. Andrews wants to expand further, they should consider an off site facility. For the value and the well . being of our community, to which the church is an interregnal part, this.is the best option. On the other hand, if St. Andrew's improved and remodeled, to show a "zero net gain of space ", this idea would deserve planning consideration. I understand that a DEIR has been developed for the property and I have little or no technical experience with this part of the process, however fundamental logic, history (1984 CUP), the present traffic, civil services and basic ideas of land use tell me that if they add over 36,500 square feet, it is not appropriate for our neighborhood or this City. Even if the EIR were to say 'acceptable or marginal impact', and show mitigation, the community wants better for themselves, including St. Andrews. Please ask St. Andrews to improve their quality and not their size. These facts should compel the Commission and Council to deny this application. Name printed Name s*ned address printed I • A16 ql-((; � % N j 11 Goi £ b-414--iTE- �i'ccL. (�--� 3� l S., ilc�f� iz) iZbb zyexe,�. I • Statement: For more than 2 decades the communities that bound St. Andrews have been at varying odds with what was once a small neighborhood church. As early as 2001 the residents of Newport Heights were holding meetings to try to address traffic and safety concerns here and in Cliffhaven. In a neighborhood meeting it was learned that St Andrews, in a September 2002 newsletter, had made plans for a groundbreaking on a project in May of 2004. We all thought that St. Andrew's must have some degree of confidence for approval, but no one had the slightest idea of what was proposed. Later the neighborhoods discovered a proposal to construct huge parking structure, with the cooperation of the school District (on District property) to support this expansion. The structure was resoundingly defeated in a school board meeting later that year. Meetings on increasing traffic lead to the making of Newport Heights Improvement Association- a C -3 non -profit corporation in July, 2002. The issue of the churches expansion flew under.the radar in a City council candidate forum hosted by the joint Cliffhaven and Newport Heights groups. However, after election in December of 2002, it was discovered that St. Andrews had filed application at the City, for a large expansion. At this time it was discovered that St. Andrews had developed a written "time line" that displayed to the City that they had conducted "neighborhood participation" meetings. As the neighbors talked, no one recollected being invited to participate or had heard of the church's expansion. After doing more research at the City, we were able to find that St. Andrews planned as they do today, to increase the church by 35 %, to an area of.140,388 square feet. This is 40.000 souare feet larger than the typical base size for a Home DeMt. And, in a nut shell, this is the communities chief complaint: that St. Andrew's wants too much on this small and unassuming, serviced bysmalfroads, property. The size and shape of our surroundings is an important part of our communities We are mindful and respectful of St. Andrews and embrace them as a neighbor and we know they are entitled to apply for this expansion. We St. Andrews to understand that the size of this proposal brings increased traffic, it fails the test of the community and we will not support it. We are reminded of St. Andrew's legal and land use presence in our community. St Andrews is permitted under a special City regulation called a Conditional Use Permit. This "special permission" is given to owners who are not usually permitted in the typical zoning of a neighborhood. The predominant zoning surrounding St. Andrews is R -1 or single - family residence zoning. This original CUP, was granted in 1962 and then expanded in 1974 and then again during a very contentious 1982 expansion. In this context, and with respect to the existing CUP, this proposal fails the test of the community in that this project is inappropriately too large. St. Andrews knows that the current CUP, the existing zone and the general plan will no longer accommodate this overwhelming expansion. They have asked the City to do away with the existing general plan regulation and the existing R -1 zone that form the very basis of our community. St. Andrews has asked the City for new designations to accommodate this huge expansion. The expansion's density, measured in square feet per acre, will be 140,388 square feet per 3.94 acres. To give you an idea of how dense this is, South Coast Plaza is about 1,000,000 square feet on 180 acres. This makes St. Andrew's new plans between 5 and 6 times as dense than South Coast Plaza. This density, EIR or not, will never be appropriate where our children play or where we live. Parking accommodations for the proposal fail in the following way. The church proposes an underground parking garage to provide parking at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 3 seats of the 1200 seat sanctuary, hence the 400 -car garage. What St. Andrews has not and cannot address is that the choir seating in the sanctuary, the school, administration, daycare and gym/ multi use space have no parking. We are asked to believe these activities don't occur concurrently, but they do. We are asked to believe that senior church members will use the parking garage, but studies show that they will not. Even if the entire project were to be averaged at a parking requirement of 3 spaces per every 1000 square feet, the 400 -car proposed garage could not meet the demand. Hence, the parking fails. Please make St. Andrews better, but not bigger. 1