HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt. Andrews Presbyterian Church (PA2002-265)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 7
May 20, 2004
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner, (949) 644 -3210
jcampbellacity newport-beach ca.us
SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265)
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change & Use Permit
600 St. Andrews Road
APPLICANT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
INTRODUCTION
This proposal is to expand and modernize existing facilities at the St. Andrews
Presbyterian Church campus located at 600 St. Andrews Road. The project consists of the
replacement of the existing fellowship hall and construction of a new multi - purpose
gymnasium & youth center, classrooms and a below grade parking structure.
Implementation of the project requires a General Plan Amendment to increase the
maximum allowable floor area that could be built on the site by approximately 39,950
square feet. No change to the existing land use designation of Governmental, Educational
& Institutional Facilities is requested or required. The application also includes a request to
change the existing zoning designations from R -1 and R -2 (residential) to GEIF
(Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities) to gain consistency with the General
Plan land use designation. The consideration of a Use Permit for construction and
operation of the proposed development includes establishing the maximum height for the.
proposed fellowship hall building and the multi - purpose gymnasium building at 40 feet
from grade.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and continue
the hearing to June 3, 2004.
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 2
Current
Development:
Religious
Institution
To the north:
Newport
Harbor High School, fraternal organization facility
To the east:
Single
family residential
To the south:
Single
family & two family residential
To the west:
Multiple Family Residential
t
,.. I ..
dot r
'�i,l�h _1►M 7 11 J .. .�, l
IIE p
li �i 1111 I
glp
s
i
it
HIP 1 ,
v
SuNect Pro
e
li 1 it
��.
�
7E 1 _ .
�
v _ u4111124,Enu .«.. �,,,,. � � .. �, w. _.. _ � .
1 it Feet �
0 20618
Current
Development:
Religious
Institution
To the north:
Newport
Harbor High School, fraternal organization facility
To the east:
Single
family residential
To the south:
Single
family & two family residential
To the west:
Multiple Family Residential
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
St. Andrews Church has been operating at the subject property since early 1950. In
1962, the City approved Use Permit No: 822 for additions to the church. In 1974, the
Use Permit was amended to expand the campus once again. During the 1980s, the
church campus underwent significant expansions in buildings and land area. The use
permit was amended in 1982 and again in 1985. Ten homes along Clay Street were
removed to make way for the existing 250 space parking lot. The existing sanctuary and
chapel /administration building were the two latest major construction projects completed
in the mid 1980s. In 1988, the City adopted the present General Plan Land Use Element
that permits no additional floor area at the site. The applicant now desires to increase
the floor area allocation to accommodate additional construction. The church campus
operates pursuant to two permit applications today: Use Permit No. 822 and Site Plan
Review No. 31. The use permit covers the entire campus and the site °plan review
related to the construction of the main sanctuary. Staff has compiled 'a full list of
applicable conditions of approval given the various amendments and applications over
time (Exhibit No. 1). The proposed project has precipitated a significant amount of
correspondence, which is attached as Exhibit No. 2.
Proposed Construction
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing fellowship hall and southern classroom
building. New construction will consist of a 27,996 square foot fellowship hall building
that will occupy the same approximate location as the existing fellowship hall. The three
level building will have a full basement below existing grade for storage and the overall
height of the building will be 40 feet from existing grade. A second new building houses
a youth center, multi - purpose gymnasium and classrooms is proposed to be
constructed in the same approximate location as the classroom building proposed to be
demolished. The total area of this building is approximately 32,744 square feet and it
too will have a full basement level below grade. The height of this proposed building
would also be 40 feet from existing grade. Lastly, the applicant proposes to construct a
below grade parking garage along Clay Street that will increase on -site parking from
250 to 400 spaces. Vehicular site access is not changing and is presently provided by
three driveways; one on 15"' Street, one on Clay Street at Pirate Road and one on St.
Andrews Road.
The applicant has prepared a complete set of plans for review (Exhibit No. 3). A full and
complete project description appears within the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 2003 -08 -1065) on pages 3 -1 to 3 -21 and is incorporated herein by reference. If
the proposed project is approved, demolition and construction activities are planned to
occur over an 11 month period with occupancy of the project anticipated in the first half
of 2006.
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 4
The applicant plans to close the preschool during the construction period. Additionally,
the church plans to conduct regular worship services during construction during which
time the existing parking lot will not be available. Interim parking is planned at Newport
Harbor High School and other off -site locations.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
Environmental Review
The City contracted with Keeton Kreitzer Consulting for the preparation of an .Initial Study
and EIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the
analysis of the Initial Study, the following environmental topics were identified as
potentially affected with the implementation of the proposed project: Land.. Use and
Planning, Transportation & Parking, Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics and! Police: Services.
The remaining issue areas were determined to be affected at either a less than "significant
level or that the project would have no impact: Agriculture, Biological 'Resources,: Cultural:::
Resources, Geologic & Soils, Hazards, Hydrology & Water Quality, Mineral Resources
Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation and Utilrt ervice systems..:
Kreitzer Consulting then prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081065) that
focused upon the environmental issues identified as "potentially affected." The DEIR was
completed and circulated for a mandatory 45-day review period that began on March 17th
and concluded on April 30, 2004, and was previously transmitted to the Commission.
Comments were received by a utility company, the Environmental Quality: Affairs
Committee and many interested parties.
The DEIR provides a detailed project description and a description of the environmental
setting. The document also discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to CEQA.
These alternatives include a "no project' or no expansion alternative, a "renovation or
replacement" aftemative with no expansion of facilities, a "reduced intensity" alternative
with the proposed project minus the proposed gymnasium, an "off -site parking" atemative
with a parking structure at Newport Harbor High School and an " alternative site" where the
proposed gymnasium/youth center is located at an off -site location. The following
discussion provides a summary of the significant environmental issues evaluated in the
DEIR.
Land Use and Plannina — This section focuses upon whether or not the proposed
project is consistent with established land use plans, zoning provisions and habitat
conservation plans. The conclusion of the analysis is that the project can be found
consistent with applicable land use plans and zoning provisions so long as the requested
General Plan and Zoning Amendments are approved. No habitat conservation plans are
applicable to the project.
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 5
Transportation & Parkin — A traffic analysis was performed in accordance with the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A cumulative analysis was also performed that included
reasonably foreseeable projects. The project is expected to increase average daily trips by
327 with 26 trips expected in the AM peak hour and 24 trips anticipated in the PM peak
hour. Nine intersections were studied and the analysis concludes that no significant
impacts will result with the exception of the unsignalized intersection at 15�h Street and
Irvine Avenue related to construction traffic when school is in session. The potential impact
can be mitigated by scheduling construction traffic outside the peak school traffic period.
Parking is one of the main areas of concern of nearby residents. Area streets are used
heavily during the week by students at NHHS and St. Andrews utilizes street parking on
weekends. Surrounding streets are posted for 2 -hour parking in an effort to ensure that
vehicles are moved periodically so residents can have access to spaces. A preferential
parking program for residents has also been implemented.
On -site parking will be increased from 250 spaces to 400 spaces; however, this total falls
short of the minimum required for the largest assembly room, .the main sanctuary. Based
upon the maximum approved occupancy of 1,387 seats, a total of 463 parking spaces are
required using the current required parking ratio of 1 space per each 3 seats. The City
granted a partial parking waiver in 1982 when the main sanctuary was authorized when
the parking requirement was based upon a 1 space per 5 seat standard. The waiver was
based upon the availability of parking at Newport Harbor High School (NHHS).
The parking study took into account the increased on -site supply and the availability of on-
street parking and parking that is available at NHHS. The key factors that lead staff to the
initial conclusion that no significant environmental impact would result is the. increase in
on -site parking supply of 150 spaces and that off -site parking at NHHS and in. adjacent
public streets remains available. This conclusion is also based upon limiting maximum
assembly occupancy to that afforded by the main sanctuary. The two new buildings do not
have occupancy levels that would require more parking than the main sanctuary.
Therefore, staff suggests that no concurrent assembly occupancy be permitted on a
regular basis. Parking during construction was also evaluated since the applicant plans to
conduct regular worship services when the on -site parking lot is not available. The
applicant has made arrangements for off-site parking at the Lighthouse Coastal
Community Church located at 300 Magnolia Street in Costa Mesa and at NHHS in the le
Street and 15th Street lot. Church employees will park at Lighthouse during the week and
church vehicles will shuttle people to the site. Church members will be directed to use
NHHS lots with the consent of the School District through a permit process and church
vehicles will be used as necessary to shuttle people to the site. Even with this off-site
parking arrangement and a parking management plan required as a mitigation measure,
increased use of street parking in the area of the project is likely occur during construction.
Air Qua l" — Emissions related to construction activity have the potential to create a
short term impact. The potential impact arises from truck hauling activities related to
excavation and export of dirt for the proposed parking garage. This impact can be
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 6
mitigated by limiting the vehicle miles traveled per day; however this mitigation measure
would have the effect of lengthening the grading period, possibly creating other
undesirable impacts. Export of dirt is planned during the summer months when school is
not in session and conducting the dirt haul when school is in session is something staff
would like to avoid. There is one possibility to avoid the air quality impact and not conduct
the grading during the school session and that is to reduce the vehicle miles traveled by
finding a disposal site '/z the distance away than was assumed for analytical purposes.
This scenario is a likely outcome as the consultant assumed that the dirt would need to
travel 18 miles to a local landfill. Closer disposal sites are likely; however, one cannot be
identified at this time. Therefore, staff is suggesting that the City accept the air quality
impact so that we are assured of avoiding export operations during the fall school session.
Despite this, staff will work with the applicant to find local disposal sites such that the air
quality impact is avoided while avoiding the fall school session. Staff recommends a
condition of approval be applied to require this effort.
Noise — Noise associated with construction and operations of the project was
evaluated. Construction related noise is controlled by existing provisions of the Municipal
Code which prohibits construction- related noise between 6:30PM and TOOAM weekdays,
6:OOPM and 8:OOAM Saturday and all times on Sunday and holidays. This standard, which
is applicable.to any construction project within the city, would permit any construction
related noise during the non - prohibited hours. Noise associated with increased traffic was
also considered and was found to be less than significant due to the limited increase in
traffic. The remaining issue with respect to noise is to ensure that mechanical equipment
be quiet or that adequate sound attenuation be provided. A mitigation measure requiring
this is included.
Aesthetics — Visual simulations were not prepared for the project because? The
consultant has concluded that the proposed buildings would not prove to be an aesthetic
impact. No scenic vistas or public views would be impacted, the proposed buildings are of
similar scale to the existing buildings, and landscape setbacks and streets should provide
an adequate buffer for the project.
Police Services — This section was included due to a comment on the Notice of
Preparation suggesting that the proposed parking garage will become a "haven" for
criminal activity. Although staff does not concur with the comments, staff had the crime
prevention specialist of the Newport Beach Police Department evaluate the project and the
Department does not believe a significant environmental impact will result with
implementation of the project. They have provided recommended security and design
requirements that will reduce the likelihood that the parking garage will become a
nuisance.
The DER concludes that no significant unavoidable impacts will result with the
implementation of the project. However, short-term air emissions may present a significant
impact should the disposal site for the dirt from the garage excavation be located
sufficiently far away and/or the City chooses to require that the dirt haul to be scheduled to
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 7
avoid the fall school session. Based upon the final decision of the City in this regard, staff
will prepare a statement of overriding considerations for short-term air quality impacts if
necessary.
As noted, the DER looked at several alternatives as required. The environmentally
superior alternative other than the "no project" atemative is a "reduced intensity"
alternative where all of the features of the proposed project are constructed with the
exception of the gymnasium. Staff and the environmental consultant believe that this
alternative meets most of the applicant's objectives while reducing less than significant
impacts of the project. The potential air quality impact is not reduced significantly as the
parking garage was included in the analysis and it is the single most contributing element
to the potential air quality impact.
The City has received many comment letters on the DEIR. Staff is preparing written
responses to those comments and they will be forwarded to the Commission as soon as
available. Staffs preliminary conclusion is that none of the comments have raised
significant new information that would lead staff to conclude that the DER is inadequate or
would require significant revision. Clarification of some items and additional information will
be presented in the responses to the comments, which will be made part of the Final EIR.
Lastly, it is important to note that the EIR is a draft and additional issues may be raised
during the hearing.
General Plan Analysis
The Land Use Element has 12 general policies to guide consideration of the potential
amendments. The following discussion relates to those general land use policies that
are applicable to the proposed project.
A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools,
employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood
shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community.
The proposed project is located in an area of the City that is characterized by single -
family residential development. Institutional uses are also present in that Newport
Harbor High School and St. Andrews are also part of the community. Although a
general plan amendment is proposed to accommodate the increase in floor area
proposed by the applicant, no change to the land use designation (Governmental,
Educational & Institutional Facilities) is proposed. The proposed expansion and
modernization program will facilitate continuation of the church in the neighborhood, and
therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.
B. To insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties, and to preserve the
value of properly, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for
some modest growth. To insure that traffic does not exceed the level of service
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 8
desired by the City, variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the
trip generation characteristics of the use or uses proposed for the site.
Redevelopment and modernization of the existing church as proposed is generally
consistent with this policy, which suggests that some modest increase in floor area may
be permitted if adequate capacity exists in the infrastructure (e.g., circulation, sewer and
water, etc.). Based on the detailed traffic analysis that was prepared for the proposed
project, all of the primary intersections are forecasted to operate at Level of Service A or
B when project- related traffic is added to future growth and approved project traffic.
Similarly, the increase in traffic generated by the proposed increase in floor area will not
result in any significant cumulative impacts.
D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to
ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation
of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms
along bluffs and cliffs.
The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site and surrounding neighborhood are located
within an area of the City that is virtually built out; no noteworthy visual resources and/or
natural features (e.g., bluffs and cliffs, landmark trees, shoreline, etc.) are present.
Therefore, development of the site as proposed is consistent with this policy.
F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for
landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding
of utilities and other development standards to ensure that the beauty and charm
of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office
projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses
and that the appearance of and activities conducted within industrial
developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare.
Although this policy does not specifically mention institutional land uses, the general
goal of the policy is applicable to any project. The City maintains and implements
development standards through the Zoning Ordinance. The change in zone from R -1 &
R -2 to GEIF does change applicable development standards. The only two
development standards that change are setbacks and building height since parking
requirements are not changed. Residential setbacks are exchanged for setbacks
determined through the Use Permit process based upon the speck facts of a
development proposal. Building height limits change from the 24/28 height limitation
zone to the 32/50 height limitation zone. Although the potential height of a building is
increased, these height standards are more suitable for an institutional development as
opposed to a residential height limit. Institutional or educational use of the site is what
the Land Use Element call for. The suitability of development standards is discussed in
subsequent sections of this report.
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 9
Zone Change Analysis
As noted above, the application includes consideration of changing the zoning of the
property from R -1 & R -2 to GEIF to match the General Plan Land Use Element
designation of the property. The residential zoning is a remnant of the past uses at the
site. The church began with the northerly portion of the property that is zoned R -2. A
church is a permitted use in a residential zone pursuant to a Use Permit. The church
expanded its campus in the early 1980s with the demolition of 10 homes along Clay
Street that were zoned R -1. The residential zoning was not addressed with the
expansion at that time since a church remained a permitted use pursuant to a Use
Permit that was under consideration at that time. In 1988, the City adopted an update of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan that designated the site for Governmental,
Educational and Institutional Facilities to reflect the existing institutional land use. The
City did not pursue a follow up zone change to match the land use designation. Staff
requested the zone change application to be made a part of the applicant's proposal
and the applicant has included the zone change request.
The zone change has the effect of applying different use and development standards.
For instance, typical residential setbacks are changed to setbacks established by a Use
Permit. A Use Permit is also required for the expansion of any existing use. The height
limitation zone changes from 24/28 feet to 32/50 feet. The base height limit, at which a
structure is permitted by right, would be increased by 8 feet. The upper height limit is
increased by 22 feet, which requires the Commission to make certain findings, also
through the approval of a Use Permit. The main portions of the two proposed buildings
are 32 feet in height with each building having a mechanical enclosure or screen at 40
feet from grade, thus requiring this type of consideration. The height of the buildings is
discussed further below.
The last significant change in circumstances related to the zone change is the
elimination of the residential zoning designations that are inconsistent with the General
Plan designation. A religious institution is a permitted use in the proposed GEIF zone.
Use Permit Analysis
The Use Permit application relates to the overall expansion plan and the height of the
two proposed buildings. The following general findings are applicable to any use that
requires the approval of a Use Permit.
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The objective of the Zoning Code is "to promote the growth of the City of Newport
Beach in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace,
comfort and general welfare, and to protect the character and social and economic
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 10
vitality of all districts within the City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial
development of such areas." The City decided in 1998 that the appropriate land use
designation of the project site is for governmental, educational and institutional facilities.
A religious institution is consistent with the purpose of the proposed GEIF zoning for the
property. In general, increased activity at the site will likely occur over the life of the
project. This activity will have an impact on the surrounding residential community.
Many of the issues can be mitigated through conditions of approval; however, residual
impacts will remain.
2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan
and the purpose of the district in which the site is located, will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons
residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, and will not
be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general
welfare of the city.
With the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and
with the application of conditions of approval designed to mitigate or avoid areas of
concern, staff believes that the use can be found consistent with the General Plan and
proposed GEIF zone.
Staff believes that the implementation of the project will generate both positive and
negative results depending upon an individual's perspective. The enhanced facilities to
support existing and future programs at the site may have a beneficial social impact
upon the community. The increased on -site parking supply with proper parking
management will assist to alleviate parking issues. The gymnasium will allow existing
outdoor athletic activities to be moved indoors, which will reduce nuisances to nearby
residents. The project will provide the opportunity for increased activity at the site
possibly on a more regular basis, which will bring people and cars to the site more
often. The gymnasium facility will facilitate a broader range of assembly activities that
may have the potential to cause impacts. Increased traffic, although not predicted to be
a significant environmental impact, will occur. Construction of the project will generate
short term noise, safety, parking and air quality issues. The two proposed buildings are
32-40 feet in height and their height and mass will be larger than existing buildings. Staff
does not consider the increased height to be out of character as there are buildings of
similar size nearby, including the existing sanctuary and NHHS buildings. The height of
the buildings is discussed in more depth in subsequent sections of this report.
The project will have impacts to the community, both positive and negative.
Environmental impacts are predicted to be less than significant with the possible
exception of air quality (see below). After careful consideration of all aspects of the
project, staff believes that facts both in support and against the finding are in evidence.
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 11
3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this Code, including any
specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be
located.
The proposed use, with the approval of the pending applications will comply with the
provisions of the Zoning Code. No specific conditions of the Zoning Code related to
religious institutions are applicable.
The following four required findings relate to the issue of building height.
A. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and
views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention
shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground
cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas.
The increased height provides an area for mechanical equipment screening and
elevators only. The two proposed buildings are primarily 32 feet in height with 8 -foot
high mechanical screens. The area occupied by these features is less than the area
of each of the building footprints. The screened mechanical area of the gymnasium
building is approximately 750 square feet and is located roughly in the center of the
proposed building, as compared to the building footprint of approximately 14,200
square feet. The gymnasium portion of the building is 32 feet in height with the
educational portion being an average of approximately 24 feet in height. The
proposed fellowship hall has a screened mechanical area that is approximately
1,350 square feet and is located on the west side of the proposed building while
being setback from the edge of the building. There is also a building element on the
east side of the proposed fellowship hall that is 35 feet high and occupies roughly
750 square feet and houses an elevator and stairs. The two building elements
exceeding the basic height limit are approximately 2,100 square feet as compared to
the building footprint of approximately 10,400 square feet. Although these areas are
limited in size and are set back from the property lines in excess of the distances
shown on the site plan (building setbacks), the only open area provided is the limited
volume below the 32 foot height limit above other proposed building areas.
Assuming the same basic building design without the screens, mechanical
equipment would be visible or would need to be ground based, which would occupy
other areas of the site now proposed to be open.
The proposed fellowship hall has a slightly larger footprint than the existing
fellowship hall and it is located in the same basic location and it will maintain the
same setback to Clay Street. The gymnasium /youth center /classroom building would
occupy more of the site than the educational building it would replace. The parking
garage is below the grade of Clay Street and most of the open space that the
present parking lot provides is retained. The two new buildings will occupy more of
the site than the existing conditions. The proposal does not provide increased open
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 12
space; however a large amount of open space will remain along Clay Street
B. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural
treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of
the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone.
The increased height of the buildings is in scale with the design of the proposed
buildings in staffs opinion, although the applicant has not demonstrated how the
increased height is more architecturally appealing than that what could be designed
within the 32 -foot height limit other than the function of screening the mechanical
equipment, which is a standard requirement of the zoning code. The architectural
style is in keeping with the design of the existing buildings in terms of materials and
form. Should the mechanical screens or other portions of the fellowship hall be
required to conform to the 32 -foot height limit, the vertical and horizontal articulation
of the building will be affected with the elimination of the mechanical screen or its
relocation to a lower roof area. Alternatives might include locating mechanical
equipment on the ground or atop a lower portion of the buildings.
The mechanical screen and the elevator /stair area of the proposed fellowship hall
building balance each other. If one feature is eliminated, the building is out of
balance and if both are eliminated, the building will be a simple box without other
potential offsetting changes. The gymnasium building has different roof elements,
building masses that are separate and lower and a variety of exterior treatments
(windows, brick, stucco . & trellis) all of which would minimize the impact of its
elimination. Whether or not either alternative is more desirable or has a more
appealing visual character is difficult to assess without a revised elevation.
C. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale
relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or
public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure
including both horizontal and vertical dimensions.
The height of the sanctuary is approximately 45 feet height and the height of the
chapel is approximately 26 feet, 6 inches. The 25 foot high educational building is
proposed to remain. The bulk of the two proposed buildings are comparable to the
existing chapel building and both are smaller than the sanctuary. The proposed
fellowship hall is located approximately 130 feet from Clay Street and its increased
height and mass should not prove detrimental to residential properties located
across Clay Street, which would be approximately 210 feet away. The gymnasium
building will be approximately 75 feet from Clay Street with the nearest residence
being approximately 145 feet away. The gymnasium building will be setback 42 feet
from St. Andrews Road and the existing residential buildings across St. Andrews are
approximately 105 feet away. Given the setbacks from nearby structures, the
increased height should not prove abrupt or detrimental.
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 13
D. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved
without the use permit.
The areas of the building that would exceed the 32 -foot basic height limit are
mechanical areas. With the approval of the increased development allocation (GPA),
the structures will have no more floor area than what could be achievable with the
basic height limit.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a
minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at
City Hall and on the city website.
Public Controversy
The following discussion is intended to provide a brief summary of some of the major
areas of controversy. It is not intended to be an all encompassing discussion of all areas
of concern.
Some residents have suggested that the existing church is in violation of the present
conditions of approval by not adequately monitoring parking or reporting attendance.
The relevant condition is:
"The applicant shall monitor attendance and semi - annually report attendance figures to the
Planning Department. The applicant shall also monitor usage of the high school and on-
site%ff- street parking areas. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds
1040 persons per worship service or concurrent use of chapel and sanctuary for other
activities, or if attendance exceeds 915 and usage is less than 85% of capacity for the high
school and on- site%ff- -street parking areas, the applicant shall modify the project's
operational characteristics to lessen parking demand in a manner acceptable to the
Planning Department or apply for an amendment to this Use Permit to provide additional
on- site%ff- -street parking."
The church has submitted the required attendance reports on a regular basis that cite
the attendance during Sunday worship services. Members of the public believe the
church to be violating this condition by not reporting attendance at all events and by not
including information related to parking usage. It is staffs belief that the attendance
reporting requirement related to Sunday worship services only. Staff also believes that
there was a general understanding at the time when the condition was applied that
other activities on days other than Sunday would have lower occupancy levels, and
therefore a lower parking demand. Although the church has not submitted any
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 14
information related to their obligation to monitor parking usage, reporting parking usage
is not specifically required by the condition. Since the average reported attendance over
the past several years has been below 915, monitoring parking is not necessary for
compliance with the condition.
Staff had the traffic consultant evaluate the parking usage for a typical Sunday. The
results of the parking availability study indicate that street parking is heavily used on
Sunday, but with the combined parking supply (on -site, NHHS and on the street),
parking demand does not exceed 85% of available supply. The complete study is
contained within the traffic & parking study that is an appendix to the EIR.
Members of the public have complained that the increased traffic and the presence of
the parking garage will exacerbate traffic and parking conditions in the area. Staff has
received complaints that people speed on abutting residential streets when they are late
for a scheduled activity at St. Andrews. They often park on the street since the on -site
lot is full on Sunday. Even with the increased supply of parking on -site, there is a
perception that the parking garage will be too inconvenient and people will not utilize it
to the maximum extent. The traffic consultant looked at this issue and recommends an
aggressive parking management and educational plan where members of St. Andrews
are directed where and where not to park. Included with that recommendation is the
possible use of parking attendants and a minimum of 45 minutes between services so
the parking structure can empty and then fill.
The size and capacity of the proposed gymnasium and its possible use as a venue has
been expressed as an issue of concern. The DER incorrectly states the occupancy
load of the gymnasium at 1,333 people. This number is the total occupant load of the
entire building, which is comprised of the youth center, gymnasium and classrooms.
The gymnasium itself has an occupant load of approximately 460 people based upon a
1 person per 15 square feet ratio pursuant to the Building Code. The applicant indicates
that the gymnasium will be used for athletic activities for the youth ministry and not be
used for local basketball leagues or other large public gatherings. However, the church
wants the flexibility to use the space for a wide variety of church- related social or
religious functions. A worst case scenario might be a dance or a function with
contemporary rock music. The applicant plans to incorporate building materials and
construction techniques that will attenuate sound to meet or exceed community noise
ordinance standards. The facility has a foyer and a double set of doors, which should
help alleviate noise issues. Use and occupancy of the gymnasium in this fashion will be
accommodated with available on -site parking and parking at NHHS provided concurrent
occupancy of other assembly rooms does not exceed anticipated levels.
Several long time residents have expressed the belief that the church promised not to
physically expand again after the expansions in the 1980s. There is no evidence in the
public record of such a promise or pledge, but even if there were, it would not be
St. Andrews Church Expansion
May 20, 2004
Page 15
binding and there is no such provision in the approved Use Permit or Site Plan Review
application.
Other complaints have been received ranging from lighting nuisances and outdoor
evening activities. Complaints have also been received regarding evening noise from
young people returning by bus from off -site activities. The church has attempted to
address these issues when they come up.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of the overall project, the Planning Commission must find consistency
with the General Plan, zoning including the additional findings for increased building
height and that the project is not detrimental to the neighborhood or the City.
Many residents would suggest that the existing facility is not compatible with the
abutting neighborhood and by expanding the facilities and increasing future activity
levels will lead to increased land use conflicts by increasing traffic, parking demands,
noise, etc. However, construction related issues will be temporary and increased on-
site parking will result in reduced on- street parking demand. The project should also
result in social benefits to the community as well as provide a meeting place for
community groups. Staff further believes that mitigation measures will reduce or avoid
significant environmental effects and conditions of approval can be crafted to alleviate
most other areas of concern. In closing, staff believes that there are facts both in
support of the application and facts against it. The public hearing will provide an
opportunity to hear from the community directly, and staff will prepare findings and
conditions for project approval or findings for denial pursuant to the Commission's
direction.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
W p- a
'Jdmes W. Ca pbell, S nior Planner Patricia L. Temple, Pla ning Director
Exhibits
1. History and Conditions compilation
2. Correspondence received
3. Project plans (Separate large format drawings)
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Exhibit No. 1
History and Conditions
compilation
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Fj
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Patricia L. Temple, Director
April 1, 2004
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
Prepared by Jim Campbell, Senior Planner
UP-822 was first approved on February 15, 1962 at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission.
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church — 600 St. Andrews Road, Portion of Lot 171 Block
54, Irvine Subdivision Zone R -1 Applicant requests permission to make an addition
to the Sanctuary (1) to increase the seating capacity by approximately 280. (2)
Enlarge existing lounge. (3) Addition of new Pastor's study and counseling room.
The existing church pre -dates this use permit as it was established prior to the
requirement for a use permit.
There are no Conditions of Approval; however, a report entitled "Charts and
Research of Growth, Construction Phasing and Parking for Environmental Impact
Studies" is part of the application description.
Use Permit No. 822 was brought to the Planning Commission on 01 -03 -74 for an
amendment, and was approved with (10) conditions. The applicant then appealed
Condition No. 2 (concerning parking) to the City Council on 02- 25 -74, whereby
Planning Commission's decision was overruled and the City Council made an
amendment to Condition No. 2, which is reflected in the following list.
Use Permit No. 822 (Amended 1974) conditions:
1. That development be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plans.
2. In the event applicant is precluded from use of the Newport Harbor High School
parking lot prior to construction of the new sanctuary, no building permit shall be
issued for said sanctuary unless applicant simultaneously provides the 147
vehicle parking spaces shown on the approved master plan as fronting on Clay
Street.
3. That the design of all new structures, including elevations by approved by the
Director of Community Development.
3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Telephone: (949) 644 -3200 • Fax: (949) 644 -3229 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.us
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
4. That landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the
Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation. All landscaped areas shall be
continually maintained.
5. That on -site parking areas shall be screened from the public right -of -way by the
utilization of walls or fencing or mounding or landscape planting or any
combination thereof.
6. All building, landscaping, parking area and service area illumination shall be
directed away from adjacent properties, and in no case shall lighting standards or
fixtures outside the building be installed above a height of twelve feet.
7. All signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development.
8. That the location and design of the access points to the off - street parking areas
shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the Public
Works Department. However, no access driveways shall be permitted on Clay
Street.
9. A resubdivision application shall be processed and a parcel map filed when the
residential lots are converted into off - street parking lots.
10. That this use permit becomes void if not exercised with three years.
These conditions were in effect between 1974 and the subsequent amendment in
1982 outlined below.
Use Permit No. 822 was amended in 1982 at the request of the applicant. Included
with the application was Resubdivision No. 723, which was also approved. The
following conditions of approval applied to both applications:
Use Permit No. 822 (Amended 1982) Conditions:
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by
the Building and Planning Departments.
2. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent
drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other
water pollutants.
3. The grading permit shall include, if required a description of haul routes access
points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize
impact of haul operations.
2
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan if required shall be submitted and be
subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded
to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region.
5. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and
erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design.
6. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil
Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering
geologist based upon the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic
investigation of the site. This shall establish parameter of design for all proposed
structures and also provide recommendation for grading. Permanent
reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size
sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department.
7. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty
days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer.
8. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the
installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the
occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the
Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with
the prepared plan).
9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department.
10. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use
of fertilizers and pesticides.
11. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant
native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff
and over - watering.
12. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All
vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition.
13.The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape
architect. The existing, landscape program shall be modified to include the
concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extend practicable. Any
change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and
incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance.
14. That any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to be
no greater than 55 Dba at the property line.
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
15.That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be
screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to
acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the
recommendations, of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the
Planning Department.
16.That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review
the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection.
17. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department.
18.That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression
systems approved by the Fire Department.
19.That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall
be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments.
20.That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be
approved by the Fire Department.
21. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable
material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the
Planning Department.
22.All work on the site shall be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies
K -5 and K -6. Verification of said shall be provided to the Building and Planning
Departments.
23. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving
devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities.
24.The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking
areas and drives.
25.That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as
to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent
residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical
Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this
requirement has been met. Any parking lot lighting shall be approved by the
Planning Department.
26.That no private school program for first grade and above shall be permitted on-
site without a future amendment to this use permit and re- evaluation of the Traffic
Study.
27.A dust control program shall be implemented during the construction period.
4 b
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
28.The angled driveways on St. Andrews Road and Clay Street shall be revised in
accordance with a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer.
29.The layout of all parking and circulation shall be subject to further review and
approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
30. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 723 shall he fulfilled.
31. That an off - street pick -up /drop -off area shall be provided onsite
32.That any above -grade level parking spaces shall be phased with growth in
membership /usage and subject to amendment to the Use Permit.
33.That handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a manner
approved by the City.
34.That the intersection of the private drives and public streets be designed to
provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping,
walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance
requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-
four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-
critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer.
35.That all development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved' plot
plans, floor plans and elevations.
36. Deleted by the Planning Commission
37. That the off - street parking, whether on -site or on the high school parking lot, shall
be provided as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A maximum of
twenty-five (25 %) percent of the required parking may be compact parking
spaces.
38.The applicants shall monitor attendance and semi - annually report attendance
figures to the Planning Department. The applicants shall also monitor usage of
the high school and on -site/ off- street parking areas. During any four (4) week
period where attendance exceeds 1040 persons per service, or if attendance
exceeds 915 and usage is less than 85% of capacity for the high school and on-
site /off- street parking areas, the applicant shall modify the projects operational
characteristics to lessen parking demand in a manner acceptable to the Planning
Department or apply for an amendment to this Use Permit to provide additional
on- site /off- street parking.
39.That in the event the church should lose the opportunity to park in the high
school parking lot, they shall be required to come back to the City for an
amendment to this use permit and provide adequate off - street parking.
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
The following six conditions were the result of a Council ad hoc subcommittee
and were added by the City Council to the Use Permit No. 822 Amended:
1. That the sanctuary be situated a minimum of 92 feet from the curb line of Clay
Street.
2. The sanctuary be a maximum of 46 feet in height;
3. There be a minimum of 250 parking spaces on the site;
4. The non - occupied identification steeple, with a cross, may exceed the maximum
height of 46 feet, subject to approval of the Planning Commission;
5. Any square footage lost (resulting in the reduction of the steeple) be permitted at
another location on the subject property;
6. A revised site plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code.
Resubdivision 723 Conditions:
1. That a parcel map be filed.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
3. That all unused drive depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
4. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to .
record the parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
5. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public
Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain
facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map.
6. That the on -site storm drain system connect to the 15th Street storm drain.
7. That the existing 8 -inch sewer main from Snug Harbor, running through the
development, be re- routed down Clay Street and connected to the 15th Street
sewer.
8. That the existing 8 inch sewer main from Pirate Road, running through the
development be re- routed down Clay Street to the St. Andrews Street sewer.
6 1. 1
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
9. And that all of the above improvements be designed by a registered engineer
using City standards. All modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain,
water and sewer systems shall be the responsibility of the developer.
10. That the existing sewer easements located between lots 143 and 144 of Tract
1212 and between lots 33 and 34 of Tract 1220 be abandoned.
11. That a 6 -foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Clay Street and
15rh Street frontages, with access ramps at the intersections of Clay Street and
15th Street, St. Andrews Road and 15th Street., and Clay Street and St. Andrews
Road.
12. That the existing 20 -foot alley located between St. Andrews Road and 15th Street
be vacated prior to issuance of any building permits and that the existing alley
approaches be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. That the
existing sewer and water mains located in the alley be abandoned in a method
satisfactory to the Public Works Department unless utilized as private services.
13. That all unused driveway depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter
and sidewalk and deteriorated curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Clay
Street, 15th Street and St. Andrews Road frontage.
14. That street lights be installed with spacing to be approved by the Public Works
Department on 15th Street, St. Andrews Road and Clay Street.
15. That the applicant shall acquire the consent of all those with rights to the portion
of the vacated alley that does not revert to the church when it is abandoned.
Pursuant to the condition requiring a Site Plan Review application added by the
City Council, St. Andrews applies and receives approval of Site Plan Review No.
31 subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed project be developed in substantial conformance with the
approved Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Sections.
2. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 723 be met.
3. That all Conditions of Use Permit No. 822 (Amended) be met.
4. That the height of the tower (steeple) shall be approved by the City Council.
5. That construction shall be phased in general conformance with the schedule
submitted by Irwin & Associates dated December 17, 1982.
9
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
6. That the Planning Department shall be authorized to issue permits for the use of
temporary facilities on -site consistent with the phasing schedule noted above.
7. That the proposed sidewalk located adjacent to the curb along St. Andrews Road
be a minimum of 5 feet wide.
8. That the proposed sidewalk along the Clay Street and 15th Street frontages be a
minimum of 6 feet wide and that access ramps be provided at the intersections.
9. The passenger loading bay shown on St. Andrews Road shall be eliminated. A
loading zone shall be created for weekday use in the new parking lot.
10.That driveways shall be a minimum of twenty six feet wide and should be marked
with a centerline to facilitate access.
11. That on -site sidewalks adjacent to the parking lot shall be a minimum of four feet
clear width.
12.That the parking lot layout, including the location and distribution of compact
parking stalls, shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic
Engineer. If necessary, a minor increase in the 25% limitation on compact stalls
may be permitted provided that the total number of on -site parking stalls does not
fall below 250.
Use Permit No. 822 was again amended in 1985 at the request of the applicant
subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. That all conditions of Use Permit 822 (Amended) (1982) and Resubdivision 732
be fulfilled.
2. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot
plan, floor plans and elevations except as noted below.
3. That the undesignated basement area be reduced by 6,850 sq. ft.
4. That the chapel shall not be used as an overflow facility for the main sanctuary
during worship services.
5. That concurrent use of the sanctuary and chapel for activities such as weddings
and memorial services shall be limited to a total occupancy not to exceed the
sanctuary capacity of 1,387 persons.
6. The applicants shall monitor attendance and semi - annually report attendance .
figures to the Planning Department. The applicants shall also monitor usage of
the high school and on- site /off- street parking areas. During any four (4) week
period where attendance exceeds 1040 persons per worship service or
s b
f
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
Summary of Permit History and Compilation of Conditions of Approval
April 1, 2004
concurrent use of chapel and sanctuary for other activities, or if attendance
exceeds 915 and usage is less than 85% of capacity for the high school and on-
site /off - street parking areas, the applicant shall modify the projects operational.
characteristics to lessen parking demand in a manner acceptable to the Planning
Department or apply for an amendment to this Use Permit to provide additional
on- site /off - street parking.
7. That in the event the church should lose the opportunity to park in the high
school parking lot, they shall be required to come back to the City for an
amendment to this use permit and provide adequate off - street parking.
8. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this
use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit,
upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit,
causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the community.
9. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
Please note that the preceding history and conditions of approval compilation is
based upon available public records for the St. Andrews Church site and this
document does not replace or amend these records. This summary is deemed
accurate but not reliable and any errors or omissions in the preparation of this
document are unintentional.
This summary and compilation supersedes the "St. Andrews Presbyterian
Church Permit History and Conditions" memorandum dated February 23, 2003.
we
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Ix
Exhibit No. 2
Correspondence
0
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
The
Gas
Company
D
A Sempra Energy utuity-
March 24, 2004
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 11768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Attention: James Campbell
Southern California Gas Company
Technical Services Department
1919 S State College Blvd., Bldg. A
REdt*8!69#- 92806
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 01 2004 -
71819110111112 111213141516
Subject: EIR - 600 St. Andrews Road, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report)
Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area
where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing
gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and
extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements
are made.
This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an
inforinational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and
regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal
regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under
which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions.
This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non -utility laws and regulations (such as
environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if
hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be
determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun.
Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and
are obtained from the Commercial- Industrial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000
(Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several
programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient
appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy
conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance.
S'nc
Kris eas
Tec 'cal Supervi r
West Region -An eim
xxian
eir04.dM
)5
Campbell, James
From: DouglasRet @aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 6:37 PM
To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: No Subject
I live at 306 Pirate Road in Newport Beach and feel that the new St Andrews
project will have a very negative impact on this neighborhood. Not only during
the destruction and construction period but also due to the impact on the
traffic /noise/ and danger that it will bring. We definitly do not need an
underground parking structure near our homes. This is one of the most dangerous places
that any neighborhood can have nearby. It is a breeding ground for crime,
both minor and major in nature. It is time for St Andrews to move if they really
think they need this huge increase in space and the parking structure. We have
had to put up with them filling this street each weekend as well as for
special events. Please do not approve this impact report and/or the project.
Carl R. Carlson
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 0 7 2004 PM
7 019110111112111213141516
J�
April 15, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Newport Beach Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Initial comments on the ADEQUACY of the DEIR
FR: Elaine and Richard England
435 Snug Harbor Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Examples of items discussed in the DEIR that are confusing and/or contradictory
include:
1. MM 4 -6 -2 (Lighting) ... "..the ground level parking should be lit at night to allow
m vi s to identify someone from 100 feet away ".
Pg 1 -10 ..."exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site
boundries.
"although some light emanating from the subject property will extend into St.
Andrews Road and Clay Street, the illuminance of all light will be reduced to
0.00 footcandle before it reaches the residential properties south of Clay Street ".
QUESTIONS;
Our property is 45 feet from the Church property line; how will this light be "shielded"?
During what hours and under what conditions will these lights be on at night?
RECEIVED BY
pLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 0 2004 PM
�g�9 10 11 1 112 111213141516
1 I
2. Newport Beach's City Noise Ordinance 10 -28 -040 . restricts construction activities
to between lam and 6:30 pm on week days; 8 am to 6 pm on Saturdays. " The
project does not propose construction outside of the hours permitted in the Noise
Ordinance ".
"The mechanical equipment shall not generate noise levels greater than 50 dBA
during the nighttime ". (10 pm to 7 am). If the nighttime noise limit cannot be
achieved a timer can be used to limit the operation of the system to the daytime
hours ".
QUESTION:
Which of the above is correct? Will there be noise at night or not?
3. Project Construction Traffic —"the truck traffic activity will be scheduled to take
Place when the Newport Harbor High School is not in session".
"heavy construction vehicles, including trucks hauling construction equipment
and materials will be limited to non -peak hours during the construction phase when those
activities occur during the school year ".
QUESTIONS:
When is Harbor High not is session? What are the non -peak hours if activites of this sort
do indeed occur despite what is stated in the DEIR?
".The Frank B. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine is 18.5 miles. Debris will be removed in 1.5
days. Trucks will take 6 -7 round trips daily ".
Traveling by passanger car, on the 405 Freeway, I traveled to Bowerman Landfill and,
back in 35 minutes each way at 9:30 am. Take that elapsed time (1 hour and ten
minutes) and add loading time at St. Andrews, unloading time at Bowerman; add delays
for slower
routes and time for lunch, breaks and waiting in line, each truck trip will take closer to
two hours. Two hours X 6 trips = 12 hours. The landfill is only open for 8 hours (9 for
transit trucks).
QUESTIONS;
How long will this process take, certainly not 1.5. days. Where will the 15 trucks line up
to wait for their turn in loading?
i%
4. St. Andrews Parkine Manaeement
" if needed, park along Clay Street between St.. Andrews Road and Snug Harbor, (do not
park on Clay Street between Snug harbor and 151' Street). Do not park on any other
neighborhood streets ".
QUESTION
Why is it OK to park in front of the Gallant, Botros, Marscellas and England residences
on Clay Stret but not others on Clay Street or other available neighborhood streets?
"if nec essary, parking personnel should be employed to "cone -off' or otherwise restrict
use of the street parking adjacent to the church property until the on -site parking is fully
realized ".
QUESTIONS:
Who are the "parking personnel" to be employed; what does "otherwise restrict" mean
and what gives St. Andrews the right to "cone -off' anything on public streets?
5. Underground Parking Structure
"several measures have been recommended by the Newport Beach Police Department to
ensure that unauthorized activities are avoided or minimised ". .
QUESTIONS:
What are the recommendations made by the Newport Beach Police Department and what
does "minimize unauthorized activities" imply?
6. Public Services
"adequate sewer, water and storm drainage facilities are located within the existing street
system, which can serve the additional development ".
QUESTIONS:
Will there be any interruption of sewer, water, electric, gas or television cable services
due to this project? Will there be any closure of streets, if so, which and for how long?
17
7. Phasing of the Project
QUESTION: What has been planned to coordinate this project with Newport Harbor
High School's demolition and construction plans should they occur at the same time?
WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A PORTION OF OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THE
PROPOSED ST. ANDREWS PROJECT. WE DISPUTE ANY CONCLUSIONS
SUGGESTED BY THE DEIR THAT THIS PROJECT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD; THE PLAN IS LIKE TRYING TO PUT 10 POUNDS OF
SAND INTO A FIVE POUND BAG, WE URGE REJECTION OF THE
APPLICATION.
0
.,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 0 2004 PM
Jon Marchiorlatti
Vice President 7 g g 1911611111211121314 516
CB Richard Ellis, Inc.
Brokerage Services
April 16, 2004
City of Newport Beach
Attn: Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
SCH #2003081065
R-71 9 , 1 "
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.725.8485 Tel
949.725.8623 Fax
ion. march iorlatti @cbre. com
www.cbre.com
I have reviewed the above mentioned Environmental Impact Report and find that the report is very
favorable with regards to the proposed development by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. If the church
will adhere to the mitigation factors, which seem to be reasonable for the church to accomplish, then there
is no negative impact on the community. I believe that the additional buildings will enhance the
community both, for the youth as well as families within the community. The issue is not to address St.
Andrew's as far as its current location and its current facilities, the issue is how can the facility be
enhanced to positively impact the community in a much greater way.
Given the information in the report and given the plans that are proposed I would hope that the Planning
Department wiY proceed with approval on this project and present it to the Planting Commission as well
as the City Coocil for their approval. .
Thank you ffr your efforts on this project.
M
d)
S:UTnMh1 Lettws\2004\City of Newport Beach 416- 04.doc
Campbell, James
RECEIVED BY
From: robert.craig @ablestik.com PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1:00 PM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
APR 2 1 2004
To The City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and City Council g g 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 PM
6
Members: III 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1
My name is Robert Craig and I live at 418 Snug Harbor Road in Cliff Haven.
My house is about a half a block from the St. Andrews Church Complex. It
is my understanding that the Church is planning an expansion that involves an underground parking
structure and a 40,000 square foot expansion. I
have reviewed the draft EIR and I also have seen the plans. I am in
complete opposition to this proposed expansion. My reasons are as follows:
1. Currently my street is one of the main parking areas for members of
St. Andrews - not just on Sunday but for nightly events and on Saturdays. This was not supposed to
be the case according to the CUP for the previous
expansion. In fact, I was a board member of the Cliff Haven Community
Association during the period of the last expansion and I distinctly remember that St. Andrews was
directed to monitor the parking and take steps to prevent parking on the neighborhood streets. This
never happened. Over the past several years my drive way has been blocked at least a dozen times.
by Church related vehicles and I have had to call the police department to get this resolved. 2. 1 am
opposed to an underground parking structure within line of site of
my home. Please ask yourselves the following question: Would I like to
stand in my front yard and view a large parking facility in my residential
neighborhood? I am sure your answer would be a flat out NO! In. addition
to the parking structure, we will also be exposed to:
the associated lighting necessary to prevent crimes at night
the rush of cars all at one time into and out of the parking structure
directly down our streets - - imagine 9 AM on Sunday morning'about 500
cars travelling down Snug Harbor Road and Pirate Road to the parking
structure .............and then 11 AM those 500 cars all leave at the
same time.
because of the complexity of moving that many cars into and out of a
parking structure, who in their right mind would want to park in the
structure? Their first choice would be the neighborhood
streets..... same situation as exists today...... only more so because of
the expansion.
3. What steps will be taken to mitigate the inherent crime that will
take place in the parking structure during late night hours? Who will police this open structure?
4. Please review the Home Depot structure on Harbor Blvd....... if you
approve the proposed expansion to St. Andrews then you will approve a facility in our residential
neighborhood that will be larger than Home
Depot. St. Andrews was at one time a neighborhood church that serviced
the local Newport Beach area. I contend that is time to limit the size
of the facility and another branch can be constructed at another location.
Sincerely,
FIM
Robert J. Craig
418 Snug Harbor Road
Newport Beach, Ca 92663
949 - 548 -4271
This email has been scanned by the Messagel_abs Email Security System. For more information
please visit http:Uwww.messagelabs.com /email
�
Campbell, James
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
INUM
CPS DEIRComment
letter- revise...
Hi Jim:
Don Krotee [dkrotee @krotee.coml
Monday, April 26, 2004 12:00 PM
James Campbell (E -mail)
Comments on the St. Andrews DEIR
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 6 2004
AM PM
718[9110111112111213141516
Attached is a file which may have already been sent and received by the City under a separate cover.
Please acknowledge this receipt or accept this file as our Community Associations CEQA concerns
for this part of the process.
Although the EIR has several inconsistencies and typographical errors, we have deliberately focused
on what the neighborhood feels are substantive issues.
I know that all of the comments will receive their equal consideration, however, as a GPAC member,
am very concerned about the traffic comments wherein a LOS of D is found to be acceptable. The
EIR fails to explain what policy of the City establishes that an LOS of D is acceptable. Further, the
EIR fails to explain if an LOS of D is acceptable only on a collector or higher street, or is it also
acceptable on local residential streets. I plan to have the specialists doing the traffic answer these
City questions also as involving GP and other policies.
Don Krotee
Newport Heights Improvement Association
dkrotee @krotee.com
<<CPS DEIRComment letter- revised 4- 26- 04.doc>>
A
April 26, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fax number:(949) 644 -3229
e -mail: jampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EM
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Mr. Campbell:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 6 2004
7�819110 X11 X12 11 12131415�6
As requested by Newport Heights Improvement Association, we have reviewed the Draft E1R for the
proposed St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. We have a number of concerns regarding the
content and level of analyses presented in the project Draft EIR. We ask that the City provide a thorough
and complete response to each of these comments, summarized below:
Proiect Description:
Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR erroneously implies that the church has occupied the same 3.9 acre site for
50 years. Rather, since moving to the corner of 15`" Street and what has been subsequently named St.
Andrews Road; the church has systematically purchased additional residential properties, including a
block of single family homes that used to front Clay Street, and has subsequently been absorbed as part of
the church property. The church has also purchased adjacent multifamily properties that it currently uses
to house staff. During the past 50 years, the church has transformed itself from a small neighborhood
church to a very large regional facility. Full disclosure of all past church expansions and of church
properties adjacent to the site is critical to the City and community understanding the history of the
project.
Further, the Project Description fails to disclose how the church has grown significantly since City
approval of its current Use Permit (UP) some 20 years ago, and that the church may now be in violation
of that UP. The existing UP (No. 822) did not provide for Saturday services. However, for about the last
10 years, the church has held Saturday evening services without reporting these activities to the City, as is
required by Condition #6 of the existing UP.
Air Ouality:
The analysis of short term air quality impacts contains a number of serious errors. The Draft EIR states
that the demolition of the existing church buildings will result in 3,000 cubic yards of debris, and will be
removed at a rate of 100 truck loads a day. There will be 10 trucks and each truck, according to the EM
will travel 20 miles to the landfill or 40 miles round trip. The EIR concludes that the debris will be
removed in 1.5 days. However, a typical single axle dump truck carries 7 cubic yards of debris. A round
trip from the church to the landfill, including time to load and unload the trucks, will take about 90
�25
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion
April 26, 2004
Page 2 of 4
minutes, depending on the time of day and length of queuing at the dump. Optimistically, the quickest a
dump truck could enter the church site, be filled with debris and exit the site would be 15 minutes, or 4
trucks an hour, or at its best, 32 trucks a day. Dumping the entire 3,000 cubic yards of debris would take
at least 13.5 days, or 2.5 work weeks. The additional 50,000 cubic yards of soil that would need to be
excavated and removed would take at least 223 work days or 44.6 work weeks or I 1 months. Combined,
demolition and excavation at the project site will result in 255 works days, about one work year, of all day
truck traffic. The dump trucks will make a total of 7,571 trips and travel 290,840 miles.
The project air quality analysis does not adequately account for the cumulative impact of these 255 days
and 7,571 trips of truck traffic, nor does it adequately explain the adverse effect of these air quality
impacts on adjacent residents, students and the sensitive biological resources within the adjacent
Environmental Nature Center. This consistent level of heavy truck traffic will also certainly damage
neighborhood roads, and cause traffic and noise impacts.
Traffic:
Level of Service: The Draft EIR fails to fully present the potential project parking and traffic impacts. The
EIR states that an LOS of D is acceptable. However the EIR fails to explain what policy of the City
establishes that an LOS of D is acceptable. Further, the EIR fails to explain if an LOS of D is acceptable
only on a collector or higher street, or is it also acceptable on local residential streets.
The EIR then finds that with the proposed church expansion, traffic at the intersection of 15th and Irvine
will worsen to LOS E during the p.m. peak, and LOS F during the a.m. peak. However, the EIR neglects
to explain to the reader the significance of these levels of service. According to the Highway Capacity
Manual, a LOS of E means that there are high traffic delays, and individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences. LOS F is gridlock. LOS E and F are traffic levels a driver may expect to experience on
freeways or major commercial or urban streets, not in a suburban residential neighborhood.
Traffic Counts: The Church's primary access points are on Clay Street, but the Draft EIR fails to study
traffic impacts on Clay Street. The Draft EIR needs-to be revised to assess impacts on Clay Street and
also needs to describe the following:
• Precise times of peak hours
• The days and times traffic and parking studies were conducted
• The church activities that were occurring during these times; if there were sermons or lectures, the
speakers need to be identified as attendance at the church varies greatly depending on the orator
speaking.
Best Efforts to Predict Impacts: Pursuant to Section 15144 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency
must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can about a project. The Draft EIR
for the church expansion fails to comply with"this disclosure requirement. The traffic analysis assumes
the additional 35,948 square feet of church facility will not be used on Sunday. However, the church
currently operates a number of additional activities concurrent with its Sunday services. These additional
activities include adult lecture series and seminars, as well as children Sunday school classes. There is
nothing in the project application that would preclude the church from holding activities in the additional
classrooms, offices and gym/multiuse area during the Sunday services. The church is currently holding
Saturday services and other activities outside its existing UP, and it is reasonable to expect that they
would operate Sunday (and Saturday) activities in their new facility.
a�
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion
April 26, 2004
Page 3 of 4
To allow the City and community to understand the full potential impacts of the proposed expansion, the
EIR must be revised to account for traffic and parking impacts assuming full use of the new facilities
during Sunday services.
Significant Adverse Impacts: The EIR states that a significant adverse impact will occur if the project
traffic causes the ICU at an intersection to increase by 0.01 or more, and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS
E). As presented in Table 4.2 -7 of the EIR, the proposed expansion will cause the ICU at the intersection
of Irvine Avenue and 15"h Street to increase 1.61 percentage points and the resulting LOS is F. By the
EIR's definition, this is a significant adverse impact.
Parking: Table 4.2 -2 contains a number of errors. In several instances, the table suggests that the number
of available on -street parking spaces exceeds street parking capacity by more than 55 %. For example, the
table states that St. Andrews Road to Clay Street has a capacity of 34 on -street parking spaces, but that
there were 53 cars parked on the street. This would not be possible unless half the block were double
parked. The EIR needs to correct the table and recalculate the parking analysis as required.
Parking Structure Driver Behavior: Residents in the greater Newport Beach/Costa Mesa are generally
parking structure adverse, particularly subterranean parking. Residents will chose to park on a surface lot
or on a street if available. The few parking garages that exist in the area (Triangle Square, the office
building at Irvine Boulevard and 17th Street) are frequently undemtilized. Cars enter, leave and queue
through parking garages at a much slower rate than they do through at -grade parking. The EIR traffic
study needs to be revised to account for greater queuing time at the proposed parking structure entrance
and exit, and the EIR parking study needs to account for potential parking garage adverse behavior.
General Plan Compliance:
A policy of the General Plan Land Use Element states that the City shall provide sufficient diversity to
allow schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping
centers in close proximity to each resident. The Draft EIR incorrectly finds that the project does not
conflict'with this policy. Rather, by proposing to expand 35 %, the church will create a- facility more
dense than South Coast Plaza, thereby disrupting the fine balance between residential homes and
community services that this General Plan policy strives to achieve.
Another General Plan Land Use policy states that to insure redevelopment of older or underutilized
properties and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element
allow for some modest growth. The proposed expansion, by proposing to expand 35% and creating a
facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, is not "modest" growth. The project will violate this General
Plan policy, and could debase the value of the single family homes surrounding the church.
Alternatives:
Regional Facility: The Draft EIR misstates Mr. Krotee's request regarding project alternatives. His NOP
comment letter, dated August 20, 2003, notes that the proposed expansion would create a regionally sized
facility and that an alternative site should be considered that would better facilitate such a regionally sized
facility. Appropriate alternative sites would be those served by arterial and collector streets. The Draft
EIR fails to adequately examine such alternative sites.
Renovation or Replacement Alternative: The Draft EIR correctly identifies this alternative as an
environmentally superior alternative. This alternative recommends that the existing church facilities be
renovated and/or replaced, but with no increase in total square footage. This alternative appears to
�1
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion
April 26, 2004
Page 4 of 4
warrant more detailed consideration by the City and applicant, including a review of alternative space
plans for the church.
Alternative Site: Placing the proposed youth and family center /gymnasium in a commercial or industrial
area rather than a residential area would certainly have fewer land use and aesthetic impacts than the
proposed project. The Draft EIR fails to adequately describe these impact reductions.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Section 4.3.5 of the EIR finds that the project will cause unavoidable adverse impacts relative to
construction- related air pollution. The EIR then makes an attempt to abate these impacts by proposing
mitigation measures MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2; however, these mitigation measures do not work. Neither the
EIR or the appended air quality analysis adequately demonstrates how a reduction in truck miles traveled
would reduce NOx emissions. Further, neither the EIR or the appended air quality analysis adequately
demonstrates how the increased number of days of truck traffic will impact cumulative levels of NOx and
other air quality emissions. Finally, although the EIR acknowledges that implementation of MM 4.3 -1
and 4.3 -2 could adversely affect traffic and noise, the EIR fails to include an analysis of these potential
impacts. The EIR's attempt to dismiss these potentially unavoidable adverse impacts as "short- term"
violates the intent of CEQA, which requires the EIR to fully consider both the short-term and cumulative
impacts of a project.
The Draft EIR also fails to adequately disclose the process that the City must follow should it chose to
approve the church expansion regardless of the unavoidable adverse impacts. Section 15091 of the
CEQA Guidelines requires that the City make one or more written findings for each of the unavoidable
effects. These findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The
possible findings are:
• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
• Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and
not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and
should be adopted by such other agency.
• Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
These could be extremely difficult findings for the City to make relative to the proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me at 949 - 650 -3206, should you have any
questions.
Yours truly,
Joann Lombardo
M
BARRY L. ALLEN
THOMAS D. MULLINGS
DEBRA E. ALLEN
ALLEN, MULLINGS & ALLEN LLP
. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2021 E. FOURTH STREET
SUITE 120
SANTA ANA, CA 92705 -3999
April 22, 2004
Jim Campbell
Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
TEL: (714) 558 -6991
FAX: (714) 558 -0638
IRS # 33 -0709W
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 6 2004
71819110111 X12 ,112,31415�6
Re: St. Andrews Church
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Enclosed please find the EQAC report on the St. Andrews EIR.
If you have any questions feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
BARRY L. ALLEN
BLA:deu
cc: Robert Hawkins (w /enc.)
�1
TO: Jim Campbell, Senior Planner of City of Newport Beach
FROM: EQAC
SUBJECT: EQAC Report on the St. Andrews Church Draft EIR
On April 19, 2004, at the Committee's regular monthly meeting, the EIR and proposed
project by St. Andrews Church was discussed. Present during this discussion were
representatives of St. Andrews Church. The following is the EQAC report on the Committee's
review of the draft EIR:
In Appendix B are the NOP comment letters. Conspicuously absent is the NOP comment
letter made by EQAC. No explanation has been offered to the subcommittee as to why this
particular letter was not included in the EIR. The final EIR should include EQAC's comments.
1. Land Use and Planning:
(a) Section 3.2.3 Existing Zoning (page 3 -9) - The first sentence incorrectly
references the southern portion of the subject property as being zoned R -1 and the northern
portion zoned R -2. According to Exhibit 3 -6, the reference is reversed..
(b) Section 3.5 Project Phasing (page 3 -20) - Under the paragraph entitled
"Weekend Church Activities there is a reference to permit no. 4014 and the dates don't make
sense. We assume the effective date is July 5, 2005 and it expires November 6, 2005.
Considering the lengthy construction process this permit is likely to lapse before the project is
started or completed.
(c) Candidate properties currently being investigated for off -site parking
include the Ardell property. Ardell has indicated that their property is not available for an
off -site parking agreement with the church.
(d) Section 4.1.1 Existing Conditions (Land Use and Planning) - Housing
Element (page 4.1 -2) - The last sentence refers to areas available for in -£ill development and
includes the upper castaways property that has been developed for over five years.
(e) Recreation and. Open Space Element (page 4.1 -2) - Bob Henry Park is
located in the referenced area.
-1-
(f) Page 1 -5, Table 1 -1, Potential Impact No. 2 - Revise the first sentence by
inserting the word "not" as shown in bold "the proposed project is not consistent with the
Newport Beach General Plan."
(g) Page 8 -2, second full paragraph - Delete the second and third sentences
that state "amendments to the City's general plan are not unusual and do not represent a radical
change to the land use adopted for the site. The City frequently considers amendments to the
adopted general plan." These statements understate the importance of general plan amendments
and represent more opinion than fact.
(h) Page 9 -3, Section 9.3.1 Land Uses and Planning - The second paragraph
is unclear and should be revised.
(i) Page 9 -3, Section 9.3.1 Land Uses and Planning - The third paragraph
concludes that concurrent construction at Newport Harbor High School and the church does not
represent any significant cumulative impact because construction impacts are temporary. Before
a conclusion of no significance is reached, a discussion of the duration of concurrent
construction activity and severity of the potential inconvenience to residents is necessary. In
other parts of the EIR they indicate that the high school plan is already in effect and is expected
to last for two years and the "construction schedule" for the proposed project is 11 months.
0) Page 10-4, Section 10.4.1 No Project/No Development Alternative and
page 10 -8, Section 10.4.2.7 Elimination/Reduction of Significant Impacts indicate that there is
no limitation on religious activities or hours of activities. This statement conflicts with
statements elsewhere in the document that indicate the 1985 use permit placed a limit on
concurrent activities to be no greater than the sanctuary use (see Section 10.4.3.1). These
sections should be corrected if the church does have limitations on overall activities on the site.
Air Quality:
(a) ' Project construction will result in temporary impacts, particularly with
respect to demolition and excavation of the parking garage. Fugitive dust will be controlled by
water and other stabilizers, based on SCAQMD Rule 403.
(b) The hauling of debris to a disposal site 18 miles away will exceed the
SCAQMD threshold established for NOX from the trucks. Until the emission technology with
respect to the type of truck being used becomes financially feasible for truck manufacturers, this
problem will remain for any and all projects that require hauling of similar debris.
-2-
J)
(c) Overall the project draft EIR, pages 4.3 -8 states: "The project will not
result in a significant local air quality impact" provided all mitigation measures are taken. Due
to the length of construction (one year), should the policy makers require additional mitigation?
Noise:
(a) The City ordinance that controls for noise from construction equipment,
limits the hours of construction from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, at
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
(b) Page 4.4 -2, third paragraph "ambient noise levels" - There, are two
potential weaknesses in this study. First, the study was conducted between 10 -11:00 a.m. on
a weekday. Most residential neighborhoods are relatively quiet during this time period as most
people are at work. The time choice to measure, and the limited time of measurement (1 hour)
would bias the study to underestimate the ambient noise level for the area. Further, this is not
the time frame when the church will be working at peak capacity. Shouldn't measures be taken
on a Sunday morning?
(c) Another potential study weakness is that it was conducted during Santa Ana
wind conditions that also caused changes in the John Wayne flight path, which is not typical.
This factor could bias the study to change ambient noise levels for the area at the time of
measurement. This study should be redone.
(d) At page 4.4 -8, third paragraph - Indicates that construction noise at some .
homes may reach as high as 96db. This is a very high level as shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3 where
the noise is up in the pile driver range. This is a temporary .situation, that may be very
disturbing to some residents. Maybe it would be wise to notify the homeowners in advance
when construction will be close to their homes and the noise levels will be at their peak. This
type of mitigation may bring goodwill from the neighbors.
(e) On page 9 -6 it indicates that construction noise is exempted by a Newport
Beach noise ordinance. Is this correct? Is it correct that construction activities can make as
much noise as they want to and neither the City or adjacent residents can complain because such
noise is "exempted "? If this is true then it would appear appropriate to notify Harbor High
School of this exemption for construction noise so that they will know that such noise that exists
during a construction phase will not have to be mitigated by the project proponents. This notice
would be important so that those students, staff, and parents of students, might want to take a
position on this project. The EIR calls the construction noise a "nuisance ". Legally, that
- 3 -
3a
appears to be the appropriate term but putting up with construction projects at the school, for
24 months, and construction projects on the subject site for at least an 11 -month period of time
(the time estimated to build the project) might be considered something more than a "nuisance ",
as a layman might understand it: Therefore, it is suggested that a special notification of the
noise issues be given to the school so that they will be aware of this matter in order to make
sure they bring any concerns they might have before the policy makers.
(f) On page 10 there is a discussion about noise generated by 200 daily heavy
truck trips on the roadways adjacent to the site and specifically 15th Street. The report indicates
that less than 3db increase will exist, when these trucks are traveling on 15th Street adjacent to
Harbor High School. This committee does not claim any special expertise in noise but believes
that this particular measurement of increased noise of only 3db for 200 heavy truck trips per day
may be incorrect. The report concludes "the greatest noise level increase will be experienced
along 15th Street ". The report concludes that because it is only 3db this is less than the
"substantial increase requirement" for it to be a significant impact.
(g) The EIR contains a Table 8 on page 15 which shows the sounds created
by various activities and indicates that a car passing by in a parking lot at a distance of 50 feet
generates 55 to 70db but then concludes that large construction vehicles hauling dirt loads, 200
loads a day, wouldn't be higher than 56.8db in the middle of the classrooms at Harbor High
School.
(h) With the proposed expansion of the gymnasium /classroom /fellowship
center there is likely to be significantly more activities taking place on this site. This does not
appear to be disctissed or adequately covered in the EIR. The alternative to sending the matter
back for additional studies or information is placing some limitations on the applicant for use
at these new facilities so that the various elements in the EIR that are being relied upon by the
policy makers will not in fact become just "fiction" because of substantially more intensive use
of the site by applicant.
(i) . The gymnasium is identified as part of the project but the EIR is not clear
on its intended use. If the gymnasium is intended by the applicant for more intensive uses/more
frequent uses, then the noise element should be reviewed because of this intensification of use.
0) On page 1 -9 it indicates a noise study is being prepared and will be
submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. This should be prepared
now and included in the EIR so the policy makers and citizens would have an opportunity to
comment before the project is approved (see SUNDSTROM case).
0
(k) The EIR under "Mitigation Measures" 4.4.5 states that: "There is some
potential that the mechanical systems proposed for the project, if not properly designed, could
exceed the City's noise ordinance limits." The EIR indicates that a noise study will be prepared
and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. This should be completed
before the project is approved by the policy makers and made a part of this EIR. (See
SUNDSTROM case.)
(1) . Page 4.4 -11, Table 4.4 -6 - For the roadway segment Cliff Drive - west
of Dover Drive ", the two, columns are equal at 0.2. Is the church responsible for all the
projected growth of noise on that street?
4. Aesthetics:
(a) At page 4.5 -8, fourth paragraph, fourth line starting with "surrounding"
delete "intensity of ", but even then it is not clear what this sentence is attempting to state.
(b) While there are very good color photos of the existing conditions, there
are no visual simulations of the proposed changes. Such graphics would assist the reader in
concluding, as has the authors of the EIR that there are no visual impacts. While there are no
scenic vistas in the area, residents in the vicinity have expressed concerns about the increased
intensity of the project and its compatibility with the residential neighborhood. A better graphic
representation of the changes would help explain the difference in the bulk between the existing
and the proposed uses. Such graphics should be required to aid the decision makers.
(c) bong Term Operational Impact starts on page 4.5 -8 - The analysis
concludes that the site photometric plan was prepared which indicates that none of the lighting
will result in significant off -site intrusion but there is no mitigation measure to insure that the
proposed lighting is implemented as represented.
5. Police Protection:
(a) The summary of NOP comments (pages 2 -4 and 2 -5) states that 'a
"subterranean parking structure could create a magnet for criminal activity" as a major concern
of the adjacent residential neighbors. To address this concern the draft EIR lists two criteria to
determine if an. adverse environmental impact will be created. They are: (1) Increase in
demand for law enforcement services to a degree that accepted service standards are not
maintained. and (2) Interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. It would appear
that this project does not result in the above adverse impacts. However, the draft EIR does not
-5-
31
deal with the concern that a magnet for crime may be built. The applicant should be required
to design a parking structure that does not become a magnet for criminal activity. The applicant
should be required to demonstrate to the policy makers proper design features have been
incorporated into the structure to prevent crime. Examples of what might be utilized is open
areas in the walls to allow daylight, well lighted underground structure, open and lighted
staircases, and surveillance cameras. The applicant should demonstrate that similar features will
be incorporated in their parking structure. The police should be asked to supply information on
criminal activity in underground parking structures.
6. Traffic and Parking:
(a) The streets around the project are almost all single lane in each direction.
With Harbor High School, the across the street neighbor of the project, the traffic is never going
to be great, given the size and capacity of the streets. Fortunately, other than the church school
(300 students) and church staff and school personnel (118) the traffic generated by the two
neighbors generally use the streets at different hours during the day. If the project is approved
the EIR anticipates an increase of 320 added car trips on a typical weekday (traffic study,
page 21). This figure standing alone would not appear to increase traffic levels in a significant
degree. The EIR traffic studies confirm this.
(b) Sunday morning traffic was not analyzed (page 15). The project engineers
utilized "CHURCH" as the way to categorize the project. Is this appropriate when the proposed
expansion is not the sanctuary but to the remainder of the project?
(c) During the construction phase how does the project intend -to enforce the
no heavy truck use during peak traffic hours?
(d) During construction what is the proponents plan to allow bicyclists to use
15th Street in a safe manner? After all, this area has heavy bicycle use for Harbor High and
Ensign Middle School.
(e) On page 4.2. 11 a proposed condition is that the contractor has to submit
a traffic control plan prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. That plan should be
submitted at this time so that it can be reviewed by the public and the policy makers to
determine if it is a reasonable plan before approving this project. The agency's promise and
deferral on the mitigating of this significant impact fails to satisfy CEQA requirements. "By
deferring environmental assessment to a future date the condition runs counter to the policy of
CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning
process." SUNDSTROM v. COUNTY OF MENDICINO (1988) 202 CAM 296, 308.
3-5
(f) Section 4.2.4.2, Long -Term Operational Inputs (page 4.2 -17) - The
unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street will operate at level F in the A.M.
at level E in the P.M. The EIR states this is an acceptable condition because this intersection
currently operates at these unacceptable levels. The applicant's project will add traffic to this
unacceptable condition. What effort is the applicant willing to make to try and solve this
admitted traffic problem that is at least partially caused by the existing development on site?
(g) Section 4.2.2, Significant Criteria - Currently, the applicant does not meet
the required parking spaces for the existing facilities. After the proposed project is completed
the applicant will still not have sufficient parking capacity and will require an ordinance variance
(62 spaces short). The applicant should be required to meet parking requirements in order to
eliminate one of the significant complaints from the neighboring residential community.
(h) The church has a staff of 118 people (page 3 -4 and 3 -6). Where are they
going to park during construction when the parking lot is removed and the parking garage is
under construction?
(i) There are 300 students in the church school. All the children are of an
age that they would not be driving their own motor vehicles to the site. How are the students
in the church school going to arrive at school and be safely delivered and transported to the
school during construction?
0) Exhibit 4.2 -3 Diagrams off street parking in all the residential areas
surrounding the site. This provides 626 on street parking places. 462 of those will be occupied
on Sunday if no parking is provided on site during construction and if Harbor'High School
doesn't allow the use of its parking lot because of its own construction activities going on at the
same time.
(k) On a typical Sunday now 490 cars were determined to be parked in the
church lot, school lot, and on the street during Sunday church activities. The obvious question
is where do these 490 cars park during the construction phase of the church when there is no
on site parking available? On page 4.2 -11 a condition on the project is for the church to submit
an off site parking management program during the construction phase. The policy makers
should require that program to be provided at this time for viewing by the policy makers to see
if it is in fact a practical solution for the parking problem._ Such important guidelines should not
be left to some consideration after the project is. approved but before the issuance of a
"demolition permit ". That doesn't give the public a chance to comment on the plan unless this
is part of the EIR and the documents that the policy makers and public can review prior to any
approval of the project. (See SUNDSTROM case.)
-7-
(1) Under PARIUNG on page 4.2 -12; the first paragraph, it indicates that
construction crews will be shuttled to the site from an off site location and will not be allowed
to park on local streets. Where is the "off -site location "? What method is suggested for
enforcement of this requirement on construction workers? If a construction worker parks on a
local street and then walks to the job site what do you do to him? Many construction workers
bring the equipment they need to do their job in their trucks. How does the proponent plan to
get the product that they use to perform their jobs to the site if their trucks have to be parked
far away and then they as individuals are shuttled to the site?
(m) On page 4.2 -12 there is discussion of an alternative parking site as being
at the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church. Is there a written agreement between the
churches to allow this?
(n) On page 9 -2 of the EIR there is a discussion of plans at Harbor High
School for significant work to be completed on site and in some instances involving 15th Street
and Irvine Avenue within an 18 to 24 month period beginning in approximately May 2004. The
EIR goes on to conclude, on page 9 -3, that because these projects are temporary these impacts
would cease upon the completion of the project. Considering the length of time of the two
projects, is it appropriate to burden the residents in the area with not only the construction
projects of the school but also the construction projects at the applicant's site at the same time?
(o) The City requires one parking space for each three seats and the church
seats1387 people. The proposed parking on site is 400 spaces. The church will therefore be
.. under parked by 62 spaces even with the increased parking being built. In approving this project
the policy makers must consider whether allowing such a deficiency in parking to exist is
appropriate.
(p) The EIR proposes a parking management program to instruct church
members where to park (page 1 -7). This "program" is basically telling people where to park
off -site. Is it appropriate to allow this project when the parking plan mainly involves using
street parking in a residential neighborhood?
(q) St. Andrews is a good neighbor and provides valuable services to the
community. However, they're in a basically R -1 neighborhood. The question needs to be
asked: Is this just too much to give in this particular location?
(r) The EIR concludes that parking on the city streets will "reduce demand
for parking along residential streets" (page 4.2 -19 and various other locations in EIR). The
streets where the parking is proposed are "residential streets ".
�I
(s) Another suggested mitigation for parking is set forth on page 4.2 -21 and
indicated "with the exception of special or unusual events that now take place at the church, no
concurrent use of other assembly areas within the church property that exceeds the approved
capacity of 1387 persons will be permitted at any time." Is the applicant willing to allow a.
condition on the project for this mitigation measure? If so, then it would appear that the
sanctuary could not be used for services at any ti me when any other area of the church property
is being utilized for any other purpose at all.
(t) On page 4.2 -12 the EIR indicates. that the church and the high school have
"entered into a temporary agreement that gives the church the exclusive use of parking at the
high school." The policy makers should require a copy of this agreement.
(u) The traffic study, at page 35, suggests that when the project is completed,
if it is completed as planned, it would now have substantial excess parking capacity available
except on Sundays. The traffic study recommends the church therefore issue a greater number
of parking permits to the high school to reduce the need for neighborhood street parking by
students and staff on school days. The policy makers should request/require of the applicant that
such an agreement be. made between the church and the school on the basis that it would be of
a substantial benefit to the.residents in the area.
(v) The traffic study seems to be incomplete in one area. When you have
church activities on a weekday for not only the sanctuary are in use, but you have Harbor High
School in session, and you have the church school in session plus the other daily activities that
are set forth in the. church calendar that take place throughout the day. Wouldn't it be.
appropriate; and of assistance to the policy makers, to -have a study done on a weekday of the -
parking and traffic in the area when the church has a memorial service/funeral at the same time
as all the above activities are also taking place?
(w) The EIR on page 4.2 -21 indicates that "project implementation. ..will not
exacerbate any existing parking deficiencies in the neighborhood." In view of the studies set
forth in the EIR this would appear to be an inappropriate finding.
7. Miscellaneous:
(a) LIGHTING - On page 1.11 a lighting study is discussed with an evening
inspection to take place prior to the issuance of a building permit. If it is impractical to conduct,
that study and include that in the EIR (see SUNDSTROM case) isn't that something that should
be required to be published to the citizens in the area so that they might attend the inspection
to determine what effect the lighting study may have on the residential area?
3g
(b) On page 1 -13 the last item indicates that adequate sewer, water and storm
drainage facilities are located within the existing street system. The EIR should point out what
study they are referring to that indicates that these storm drainage facilities that are located in
existing street system are sufficient.
-10-
39
April 26, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1,768
Newport' - Beach; CA 92658 -8915
e- mail: icampbell @city : newport- beach.ca,us
REC= '`'��•
CITY OF N
APR 2 8 2004
� ia[
819110 Ill 112111213141516
Fax number:j949j 644 -3229
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR,
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed expansion of St. Andrews.
I believe the plan is inappropriate for a residential area and is going to have major
adverse affects on my properties in this neighborhood, including my rental property.
There will be major increases in traffic, especially on Clay Street, that are not addressed
in this report. I believe the EIR is inaccurate and does not reflect the increased traffic
and congestion that will result if either the parking facilities or the building square
footage is increased as proposed. I am opposed to rezoning the St Andrews parcel. I
am also opposed to any increase in the parking facilities or any increase in the square
footage of the buildings. Any of these changes, separately or collectively, will have a
significant, adverse impact<on;my.property values and rental income. I believe my
tenants may move out if this project is approved due to the increased noise, traffic and
pollution. I have also spoken to several owners and tenants at the following addresses
on Clay Street and they share my concerns:
1704,1804,1604,1500, 1401, 1601, 1901, 2005 and 1900
I will be contacting additional owners and tenants on this matter and will encourage
them to contact you directly and attend the Council meeting on 5120104.
If the church wants to provide services that can not fit within the size of the existing
facility, they should consider finding an alternative site to build on. This proposed
expansion is completely beyond a reasonable scope for a residential neighborhood. A
facility as large as the one- proposed is more of a regional'facility and should tie '
relocated to an area with regional access.
Sincerely,
Christopher Budnik
2215 E.16t' Street
Newport Beach CA 92663
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 8 2004 PM
IY g191101111121112131415i6 .
M
April 27, 2004
James Campbell
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Hand delivered
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Draft EIR,
Dear Mr. Campbell:
F E61i IVED' By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 8 2004 P�
7"°� 0 111112111213141516
I have reviewed the Draft EIR and have several concerns regarding the depth and accuracy of this
report.
There are several issues which merit further review and comment by the appropriate entity.
Please review the following and respond:
The report characterizes the St. Andrews facility as a small neighborhood church and fails to
review the rapid growth in terms of membership, attendance, properties owned in the
neighborhood, and days and hours of operation in the past ten years. It is critical to disclose this
historical data for the readers of the EIR to understand the past and appreciate the potential of
future traffic, noise and impact of the expansion.
I ask that the project description include actual attendance figures including ALL attendance at
the facility. This report should include total attendance each day of the week for all.activities.
The facility is not currently reporting anything but Sunday service attendance. This is certainly
inadequate to determine the impact of current or future activities. I believe that this is also a ...
violation of the facility Conditional Use Permit.
The draft EIR does not study nor does it address the several residential streets impacted by the
current and future use of this facility. I would ask that the intersections of Cliff and St. Andrews,
Pirate, Snug Harbor and Kings Road be included in the EIR. These streets are severely impacted
by current traffic and not included in the study.
Traffic counts provided in the EIR are not and should be properly identified neither in terms of
dates (which would reveal whether or not a holiday or vacation date was involved) nor by the
speaker at the service (which would identify demand for that date).
The traffic and parking study fails to acknowledge that most users and especially older users of
parking facilities avoid parking in structures given a choice. The report should take this into
consideration as well as recognize the delays associated with parking lines created by ingress and
egress of a structure.
The current CUP calls for a 25 mile per hour standard to be maintained on more than one street
adjacent to the facility. The DEIR does not and should provide a study regarding that
issue /requirement.
l)
St. Andrews Church Draft DER
Page 2 of 2
Alternative sites should be studied by the EIR. This facility is, even now, too big and too active
for a residential neighborhood.
It is vital that the church study alternative sites if they wish to continue to expand. The EIR
should examine these options and their potential to locate in a commercial zone to reduce the
negative impact on our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response.
James M. Carmack
1000 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, California 92663
u),
Willard & Gayle Courtney
611 Saint James Place
Newport Beach, CA 92663
April 23, 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach CA, 92663
re: St Andrews Church expansion.
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 9 2004
71819110111 112111213141516
We strongly object to another expansion of the St. Andrews church.
There have been several plans approved over the years, each
negativly impacting with more traffic to our residential area.
The traffic congestion" used to be felt mostly on Sundays, now
there are more activities and the traffic is not confined to just
one day. With the proposed plans of a gymnasium etc., this problem
will only increase on other days as well.We would remind you that
this is an R! zoning and further deviation from the general plan
is most objectionable.
We understand" that the church is purchasing other residential
properties to be converted to their use thus removing property
from the tax base. All of this will 'require more services such as
police and fire.A double whammy l
Please listen to the residents of this area who do not want this
expansion.
Respectfully �bmitted,
Wil
GaylC;ourtney
Date
Copies sent To:
Mayor
Un'i1 Member
�^y�,'ana8er
� A
C
0
C3, -_
Y3
Clerk to copy each of the council
04 ,APR 20, A!; :45
yz
From ;r- i - T C, iYCLFt�
D
Date.
Date
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Copie Sentlo:
Mayor
until Member
�nzger
The proposal by St Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet. i am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. if St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of mull -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR
were to say terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider'
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue
Yours truly, RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT SEACki
APR 2.9 2004 one
J0�1IpIl
41
Clerk to copy each of the council
From
p ®off
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Or' 7:rE -� F Is :E �jTV CLF?p
1 understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the .
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EiR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact; or an `acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that. this "bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in A small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is. at an `acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements', who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, its not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2.9 2004 PM
71819110111112111213141516
45
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Calif omia 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Clerk to copy each of the council
'04 AIR 29 d11 :44
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR
were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
7 1819110 111 112 11 12
4�
Clerk to copy each of the council
V
E-1:
Lg �? rR r 44 2a il
�� �
•.L .
M
Date
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: Sit. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 144,822
square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. if St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic thatwili
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of mull -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR
were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger:
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
r!
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2.9 2004 PM
7 8 415�6
1911bi1111211�2�3�
Clerk to copy each of the council
A
•, APP %� ,�� � ,z
A/f7 /e.
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to:handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of multiuse
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what: Even if the EIR
were to say `terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please. hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 9 2004 PM
71819110111112111213141516
tr�
Clerk to copy each of the council
$, E D
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over34go larger then the already 104,822
square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR
were to say `terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue. RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Yours truly, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2.9 2004 MAI
2
'19
Clerk to copy each of the council
From
z8 - 0�
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
. Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
1 understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of. St. Andrews Presbyterian _Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an `acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who.says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council, And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church
may be made better, but no larger.
RECEIVED BY
Please hear the communities on this issue. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Yours truly, APR 2.9 2004 PM
71819110111112111213141516
56
Clerk to copy each of the council
E e E ®,
A q 5
2 (- Z7
From
Date
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built. to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good.pianning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with.
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 9 2004 PM
7181911011111211 1213141516
5)
Clerk to copy each of the council
2io`j 6.
costc,. �. i/4 RFR 24 !tit" . :r4
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104;000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, °don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2.9 2004
AM 7 819110111112111213141516
52,
Date: ly (7�/0q
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
r
11 P I''= � '' S
'01, �,PK 29 "ll :44
1 understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell
you the church is a serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, the churches presence in the community
already is a huge . traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application.
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2.9 2004
718,910 ,11,121112131415 6
53
Clerk to copy each of the council
V
'04 'TR '19 T111 :44
F rom
I �-
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller.
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having. found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly,
� � r
RECEIVED BY,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY`OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2.9 2004
AM 71819110111112111213141516
5�
Clerk to copy each of the council
wlv 6 n
mm 5.29 n11 .44
From =
Date
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The proposal by St Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet. 1 am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what Even if the EIR
were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightiy so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP "Very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 9 2004
191 10111112 1l 1213,41516
V
Nis
From
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Clerk to copy each of the council
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 9 2004 PM
AM 19110111112111213141516
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements°, who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, its not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue..
Yours truly, f F
5�
(30/
Lmm
Ll /Z E-10
grl've
�� 64j- qa 6-,sC
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Clerk to copy each of the council
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2.9 2004 PM
q gi9110111112111213141516
The proposal by St Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 247 traffic.thaLwiil -
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of mull -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR
were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
5�
Date:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mayor Ridgeway and Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City of Newport Beach APR 2.9 2004
3300 Newport Boulevard PM
Newport Beach, California 92663 71819110111112,11213141516
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and I won't judge this report, but 1 can tell
you the church is a serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, the churches presence in the community
already is a huge traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please., Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application.
5%
Clerk to copy each of the council
yv� r j [d- tvDj-t Vr' 424 % 0' of ":Fn stn ^,;i :44
From
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
a,
APR 29 2004 PM
AM
71819 110 1111121112,3141516
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and. pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly,
0
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 9 2004
AM 7M�110111112111213,41516s
. rJ�
eel 2e�41—
,rte
April 28, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fax number:(949) 644 -3229
e -mail: jampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 2 9 2004
7181911011111211121314 516
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR,
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed St. Andrews expansion. As part of
the application process, an EIR was requested by the City and prepared by Keeton
Kreitzer Consulting. I believe this EIR. has several flaws. Many of these flaws are
detailed in the response prepared by Ms. Joann Lombardo on behalf of the Newport
Heights Improvement Association, which you should have received under separate cover.
I concur with Ms. Lombardo's assessment, and I point out the following additional
deficiencies.
Traffic
The Daily Trip Generation figure quoted in the EIR is unreasonably low. The EIR
projects 328 daily trips. This figure is based on an expansion of 35,948 square
feet, and is derived from the ITE Trip Generation publication. The Land Use
Category used is "Church ", defined by the ITE manual as "a building in which
public meeting worship services are held. A church may also house an assembly
hall or sanctuary, meeting rooms, classrooms, and occasionally dining, catering, or
parry facilities." This definition does not include a gymnasium/performance hall
as proposed in St. Andrews plans. As I understand it from speaking with other
traffic consultants, the actual land use of the expansion should be used to
determine the Trip Generation Rate, not the overall facility type. The
gym/performance hall seats over 1,300 people. At a generous 3 persons per car, a
single full capacity event in the gym would yield over 430 car trips. This is for a
single event, not counting other usage during that day: There is no cap on the
number of such events. As I understand it, the EIR is required to assume a worst -
case assessment as part of the impact analysis. I don't believe this has been done.
Traffic impact on streets in close proximity to the Church property has not been
assessed. The closest intersection analyzed is 15th and Irvine. This is away from
curb cut at Pirate Road and Clay Street, the most - likely point of entry /exit for the
parking structure. Using this driveway, cars would approach the facility from the
south. The closest intersection to the south measured in the EIR is Cliff Drive and
Dover, then again at Dover and PCH. At that distance from the property, Church
traffic has dissipated, causing an artificially low measurement of impact in the
6)
EIR.
Noise
No long -term noise projections local to the church site have been provided in the
EIR. Again, impact on the neighboring properties has not been assessed. Only a
local 30- minute measurement of current noise level has been performed along
Clay Street. Noise projections have only been provided for streets well away from
the Church property.
The EIR categorically states that the gymnasium /performance hall shall not have a
noise impact. The consultant reaches this conclusion by simply relying on the fact
that a double set of doors is shown on the plans, and that the facility does not open
directly to the exterior. As far as I can see, there has been no assumptions listed as
to the type of amplification equipment to be used or the specific types of events to
be held. The consultant's conclusions cannot be reasonably supported in fact.
Noise impact from the parking garage has not been adequately assessed. The EIR
does not account for a) car alarms going off, which is a constant source of
irritation in the existing St. Andrews facility, b) engine and tire noise as cars
enter /exit the parking facility. Usage of the parking facility is likely to be en-
masse, as for a church service at a specific time. 400 cars leaving the facility at the
conclusion of an event would create a high -level of noise for an extended period of
time.
Air Quality
• The impact to air quality of local properties has not been fully assessed. In
addition to short-term impact due to construction, there is likely to be considerable
degradation of the air quality enjoyed by neighbors of the Church, especially those
immediately adjacent to the driveways at St. Andrews and Clay Streets. No
measure has been taken of the effect of 400 idling engines as they wait to
enter /exit the parking structure.
Aesthetics
• The EIR incorrectly implies that vehicular access to the Church is only from 15th
Street (p 4.5 -3). This is inaccurate and misleading as it minimizes the impact of
traffic using the Clay Street and St. Andrews Street driveways.
The pictures of the existing property (p4.5 -2, 4.5 -3, 4.5 -4) are stretched in the
landscape direction, minimizing the mass and bulk of the existing property. There
is no technical reason for this distorted view; I would like to understand why the
pictures are reproduced in this manner.
• The huge mass of the gymnasium/performance hall, and its impact on the adjacent
properties, has not been considered. At 40' high, the gymnasium will cast
shadows on the properties along St. Andrews Street. The gymnasium will also
block sky views for properties along Clay Street, between Pirate and St. Andrews.
M
No consideration of these and other impacts have been considered.
Process
I have not been able to determine a) whether or not City policy requires/suggests a
Conflict of Interest Disclosure be obtained from consulting companies, and b)
whether or not the City has a Conflict of Interest Disclosure from the EIR
consultant. Can City Staff please clarify?
Much of the impact assessed in EIR is based on the assumption that occupancy of the site
shall not exceed the 1,387 persons permitted in the sanctuary under the existing CUP.
Yet this assumption is contradicted in the EIR itself on p. 4.2 -21, which states that during
"special of unusual events (eg, memorial services, etc) which now take place in the
Church" this occupancy limit may be exceeded. According to the diagram on p.3 -18,
there were 128 such "Other Events" in 2002. This number has certainly grown since
2002, and will likely be even higher given the additional facilities requested by St.
Andrews. The EIR does not address this worst -case scenario as required by CEQA.
In my opinion, the EIR prepared for this application is woefully inadequate and is not an
accurate projection of the impact of the St. Andrews expansion. I would appreciate a
written response to these points at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
Terry Botros
433 Pirate Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949.887.0299
�3
Page 1 of 2
Campbell, James
From: dcstoney [dcstoney@adelph ia: net] PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 3:55 PM
To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us APR 2 9 2004 PM
Subject: St Andrew's El
7189110 il 1112111213141516
Mr. Campbell,
I am a resident of Cliff Haven and I want you to know that I have briefed the DER prepared for the planned
expansion at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. I am not well versed in the field of reviewing DEIRs and have no
experience in the realm of real estate development which made the voluminous content a challenging read for me
and my wife. 1 would however still like to challenge some of the content in the areas of parking, noise, lighting
and traffic.
1) Parking
The stated number of spaces in the new underground parking structure is to be 400 as apparently calculated and
required by the seating capacity of the sanctuary. This does not take into effect the other additional proposed new
and expanded facilities and potential consecutive events occurring on any given day, of any given week. Combine
that with the natural human opposition to parking in a structure (as evidenced by Triangle Square) and that means
more street -side parking in the neighborhood than there already is. This is a direct negative effect on the
community.
2) Noise
The construction noise is another element that concerns me. When will truck traffic actually occur and what will
the number of trucks be at any given time on any day? I was confused by conflicting information in the report. The
noise generated by the fleet of trucks and trip counts that happen at whatever time of day will destroy the peaceful
quality of our area for hours at a time during the construction phase and will also apparently overlap
with construction traffic from the NHHS construction schedule.
Additionally, the proposed number of functions and programs to be carried out by the church are going to
increase the traffic in the area into the future indefinitely. This is will forever reduce the quality of life in this area
by adding traffic noise forever.
3) Lighting
There are confusing explanations in the EIR regarding the lighting of the area of the grounds on the Clay Street
side of the facility.
Some residents live within 50 feet or less of this side of the facility and I believe the report states a minimum
nighttime field of view of 100 feet to be well lit ... but no intrusive light is to spill over into the adjacent housing. How
can this be done? I see a direct negative impact on those immediate residents on Clay. What about general
additional area lights and any lighting on the cross that is there now? Will there be new lights on a new cross ? 1
like to look at the night sky with my children and we deal with a washed -out skyline due to the current nighttime
lighting... what will the overall new lighting be and what will it do to the night sky and the surrounding area going
forward?
4) Traffic
To increase the size of a facility that already produces an unacceptable level of traffic in a neighborhood area and
to further state that forecasted traffic increases will be adequately handled by current infrastructure is ludicrous to
me based on my experience of living in the area near the church facility. I find fault in the report in as much as the
intended program times, quantities and sizes are not considered as a whole relative to traffic and parking
increases.
In closing, I want to state that I am actually supportive of what the church does for the general community.
Although I do have problems with the current location and size of the facility, I am O.K. with the idea of
improvements but not growth, not here. Maybe the church should consider a more commercial area to expand
their reach. This is not the only location they should look at but it is one that, if they have their way, will suffer from
a general deterioration of the quality life and a negative impact on the beauty that makes it so unique. Thank you
�1
05/03/2004
Page 2 of 2
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Stoneman
05/03/2004
�5
April 26, 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council i -, j'= r58
3300 Newport Blvd
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA 92663.
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR,
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed. expansion of St. Andrews.
I believe the plan is inappropriate for a residential area and is going to have major
adverse affects on my properties in this neighborhood, including my rental property.
There will be major increases in traffic, especially on Clay Street, that are not addressed
in this report. I believe the EIR is inaccurate and does not reflect the increased traffic
and congestion that will result if either the parking facilities or the building square
footage is increased as proposed. I am opposed to rezoning the St Andrews parcel. I
am also opposed to any increase in the parking facilities or any increase in the square
footage of the buildings. Any of these changes, separately or collectively, will have a
significant, adverse impact on my property values and rental income. I believe my
tenants may move out if this project is approved due to the increased noise, traffic and
pollution. I have also spoken to several owners and tenants at the following addresses
on Clay Street and they share my concerns:
1704,1804,1604,1500, 1401, 1601, 1901, 2005 and 1900
I will be contacting additional owners and tenants on this matter and will encourage
them to contact you directly and attend the Council meeting on 5/20/04.
If the church wants to provide services that can not fit within the size of the existing
facility, they should consider finding an alternative site to build on. This proposed
expansion is completely beyond a reasonable scope for a residential neighborhood. A
facility as large as the one proposed is more of a regional facility and should be
relocated to an area with regional access.
Sincerely,
Christopher Budnik
2215 E.16th Street
Newport Beach CA 92663
Date
Copies Sent To
- " ayor
-�Uncil Member
a as gE egry r
tto ,� �
✓ - X
�
Of
❑
Lail
April 26, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fax number:(949) 644 -3229
e -mail: jampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
D
Date � � I
copies sent To'
ayor
4pc, 3o '�12 :05 -- -uncif Member
'anager
�Uor y
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR,
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Jim:
My biggest gripe about the DEIR is the traffic findings. Knowing that the Church is in
violation of the .existing CUP (they have covered up their requirement of Saturday
reporting attendance) we have been in a situation where the City has been asleep at the
wheel and the church has much more in programs and traffic than the makers of the
original CUP ever imagined. And, this is not fair. In light of this, I'm very worried about
the addition of far greater velocity and trips because of an expansion. .
The greatest let down, according to the DEIR, is knowing that the City has already
accepted a LOS (level of service) D and might consider ordinary, E and F. As you know.
these are awful traffic levels a driver may expect in LA, but not here. I have serious
concern that the City is permitting high thresholds of LOS in residential areas. The
result, as is the case with this traffic analysis, finds these levels of service rather
ordinary, and worse, end up allowing this application to proceed in that the City may
offer findings of no impact.
Having lived her for over 25 years, I can tell you that our communities have no intention
in lowering our standards and, if the State is telling staff that, 'it's ok', It's like my friends
in our community say, we want better for ourselves.
Find that these mitigation measures are too weak and that our LOS allowances are too
high. Recommend denial to the Commission. You should want better for us too.
Yours very truly,
Oe K -i;r- zG z 6-7"
Fe Mayor and City Council
�aq
April 26, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fax number:(949) 644 -3229
e -mail: jampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
PLANNJNG DEPART
CITY OF NEWPORT SEA T CH
AM APR 3 0 2004
7 8,9110111112111213141516
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR,
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Jim:
My biggest gripe about the DER is the traffic findings. Knowing that the Church is in
violation of the existing CUP (they have covered up their requirement of Saturday
reporting attendance) we have been in a situation where the City has been asleep at the
wheel and the church has much more in programs and traffic than the makers of the
original CUP ever imagined. And, this is not fair. In light of this, I'm very worried about
the addition of far greater velocity and trips because of an expansion.
The greatest let down, according to the DER, is knowing that the City has already
accepted a LOS (level of service) D and might consider ordinary, E. and F. As you know
- these are awful traffic levels a driver may expect in LA, but not here. I have serious
concern that the City is permitting high thresholds of LOS in residential areas. The
result, as is the case with this traffic analysis, finds these levels of service rather
ordinary, and worse, end up allowing this application to proceed in that the City may
offer findings of no impact.
Having lived her for over 25 years, I can tell you that our communities have no intention
in lowering our standards and, if the State is telling staff that, `it's ok', It's like my friends
in our community say, we want better for ourselves.
Find that these mitigation measures are too weak and that our LOS allowances are too
high. Recommend denial to the Commission. You should want better for us too.
Yours very truly,
,0- e-,?0
Fc Mayor and City Council
N
April 26, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fax number:(949) 644 -3229
e -mail: iampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C1TY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR g 0 2004 PM
7 $1g11011112,121314151R
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR,
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Jim:
My biggest gripe about the DEIR is the traffic findings. Knowing that the Church is in
violation of the existing CUP (they have covered up their requirement of Saturday
reporting attendance) we have been in a situation where the City has been asleep at the
wheel and the church has much more in programs and traffic than the makers of the
original CUP ever imagined. And, this is not fair. In fight of this, I'm very worried about
the addition of far greater velocity and trips because of an expansion.
The greatest let down, according to the DEIR, is knowing that the City has already
accepted a LOS (level of service) D and might consider ordinary, E and F. As you know
these are awful traffic levels a driver- may expect in LA, but not here. I have serious
concern that the City is permitting high thresholds of LOS in residential areas. The
result, as is the case with this traffic analysis, finds these levels of service rather
ordinary, and worse, end up allowing this application to proceed in that the City may
offer findings of no impact.
Having lived her for over 25 years, I can tell you that our communities have no intention
in lowering our.standards and, if the State is telling staff that, 'it's ok', It's like my friends
in our community say, we want better for ourselves.
Find that these mitigation measures are too weak and that our LOS allowances are too
high. Recommend denial to the Commission. You should want better for us too.
Yours very truly,
U
o r Kt z z C, ct_o c e
Fc Mayor and City Council
a
APR -27 -2004 14:45
April 21, 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P, O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fax number: (949) 6443229
e -mail: jampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
P.04
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 0 2004
AM PM
71819110 111 (12111213141516
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Drag EIR,
SCH: 20M I065
Dear Honorable Mayor, Council and Mr. Campbell:
I have a number of concerns regarding the DEIR for the proposed expansion of
St. Andrews. I believe the expansion plan is inappropriate for a residential
neighborhood. There will be major increases in traffic on the surrounding
residential streets that are not addressed in this report. I believe the traffic
volumes in the area already exceed acceptable standards for residential streets
and much of the problem is being caused by the previous church expansion. I
own rental property nearby Si Andrews and I believe my tenants may move out
if this project is approved due to the increased noise, traffic and pollution.
I believe the HR is inaccurate and does not reflect the increased traffic and
congestion that will result if either the parking facilities or the building square
•footage is Increased. I am not in favor of rezoning the St. Andrews parcel
increasing the parking facilities or increasing the square footage of the buildings.
Any of these changes, separately or collectively, will have a significant,
permanent, adverse impact on my property value and rental income.
Sincerely,
X
Name: A-itW t/ANS
Owner of : 1001
Newport Beach CA 92663
Owners Mailing address:
a Y�,6o
TOTAL P.04
16
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 U 2004 PM
71819110111112 111213141516
Ron and Novell Hendrickson
1991 Port Claridge Place,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel. 949 644 -8644
April 26, 2004
City of Newport Beach,
Planning Dept.,
Attn: Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: DEIR for the St.Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, CA
SCH No. 2003081065 March 2004
Dear 1VIr. Campbell:
We have reviewed the subject Draft FIR, and we believe that it deals with the issues that encompass this
project. It appears that all of the impacts can be mitigated.
We know that the neighbors are concerned with traffic, but it appears the St. Andrew's project would have
minimal impact on the neighborhood. I attended the City's Newport Heights /Cliff Haven Traffic Calming
Study meeting on 2/26/04 at Ensign Middle School, and no questions were raised regarding any St.
Andrew's generated traffic. The traffic generated by both Harbor High and Ensign School are obviously
the major concern to the neighborhood.
We trust that the City Staff Planting Commission and City Council will provide a fair review of this
DEIR and ultimately give it their approval
Thank -you for the oppordmity to review this document.
Sincerely, %
V
eI
Comprebensive Planning Services
April 26, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fax number.-(949) 644 -3229.
e -mail: jampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us
PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 0 2004
71819110111112,11213141516
Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIK
SCH: 2003081065
Dear Mr. Campbell:
As requested by Newport Heights Improvement Association, we have reviewed the Draft EIR for the
proposed St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. We have a number of concerns regarding the
content and level of analyses presented in the project Draft EIR. We ask that the City provide a
thorough and complete response to each of these comments, summarized below:
Project Description:
Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR erroneously implies that the church has occupied the same 3.9 acre site for
50 years. Rather, since moving to the corner of I Sth Street and what has been subsequently named St
Andrews Road —the church has systematically purchased additional residential properties, including a
block of single family homes that used to front Clay Street, and has subsequently been absorbed as part
of the church property. The church has also purchased adjacent multifamily properties that it currently
uses to house staff. During the past 50 years, the church has transformed itself from a small
neighborhood church to a very large regional facility. Full disclosure of all past church expansions and of
church properties adjacent to the site is critical to the City and community understanding the history of
the project.
Further, the Project Description fails to disclose how the church has grown significantly since City
approval of its current Use Permit (UP) some 20 years ago, and that the church may now be in violation
of that UP. The existing UP (No. 822) did not provide for Saturday services. However, for about the
last 10 years, the church has held Saturday evening services without reporting these activities to the
City, as is required by Condition #6 of the existing UP.
Air Quality:
The analysis of short term air quality impacts contains a number of serious errors. The Draft EIR states
that the demolition of the existing church buildings will result in 3,000 cubic yards of debris, and will be
removed at a rate of 100 truck loads a day. There will be 10 trucks and each truck, according to the
EIR, will travel 20 miles to the landfill or 40 miles round trip. The EIR concludes that the debris will be
removed in 1.5 days. However, a typical single axle dump truck carries 7 cubic yards of debris. A round
trip from the church to the landfill, including time to load and unload the trucks, will take about 90
q)-
PO Box 15592 Newport Beacb,California 92659 Voice: 949/650 -3206 Facsimile: 949/548 -6981 e-mail: joann @jalcps.com
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion
April26,2004
Page 2 of 4
minutes, depending on the time of day and length of queuing at the dump. Optimistically, the quickest a
dump truck could enter the church site, be filled with debris and exit the site would be 15 minutes, or 4
trucks an hour, or at its best, 32 trucks a day. Dumping the entire 3,000 cubic yards of debris would
take at least 13.5 days, or 2.5 work weeks. The additional 50,000 cubic yards of soil that would need to
be excavated and removed would take at least 223 work days or 44.6 work weeks or I I months.
Combined, demolition and excavation at the project site will result in 255 works days, about one work
year, of all day truck traffic. The dump trucks will make a total of 7,571 trips and travel 290,840 miles.
The project air quality analysis does not adequately account for the cumulative impact of these 255 days
and 7,571 trips of truck traffic, nor does it adequately explain the adverse effect of these air quality
impacts on adjacent residents, students and the sensitive biological resources within the adjacent
Environmental Nature Center. This consistent level of heavy truck traffic will also certainly damage
neighborhood roads, and cause traffic and noise impacts.
Traffic:
Level of Service: The Draft EIR fails to fully present the potential project parking and traffic impacts. The
EIR states that an LOS of D is acceptable. However the EIR fails to explain what policy of the City
establishes that an LOS of D is acceptable. Further, the EIR fails to explain if an LOS of D is acceptable
only on a collector or higher street, or is it also acceptable on local residential streets.
The EIR then finds that with the proposed church expansion, traffic at the intersection of 15th and Irvine
will worsen to LOS E during the p.m. peak, and LOS F during the a.m. peak. However, the EIR neglects
to explain to the reader the significance of these levels of service. According to the Highway Capacity
Manual, a LOS of E means that there are high traffic delays, and individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences. LOS F is gridlock. LOS E and F are traffic levels a driver may expect to experience on
freeways or major commercial or urban streets, not in a suburban residential neighborhood.
Traffic Counts: The.Church's primary access pointss are.on,Clay_$tr..eet, but the Draft EIR fails to study
traffic impacts on Clay Street. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to assess impacts on Clay Street and
also needs to describe the following:
• Precise times of peak hours
• The days and times traffic and parking studies were conducted
• The church activities that were occurring during these times; if there were sermons or lectures, the
speakers need to be identified as attendance at the church varies greatly depending on the orator
speaking.
Best Efforts to Predict Impacts: Pursuant to Section 15144 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency
must use its best efforts to find.out and disclose all that it reasonably can about a project. The Draft EIR
for the church expansion fails to comply with this disclosure requirement The traffic analysis assumes
the additional 35,948 square feet of church facility will not be used on Sunday. However, the church
currently operates a number of additional activities concurrent with its Sunday services. These
additional activities include adult lecture series and seminars, as well as children Sunday school classes.
There is nothing in the project application that would preclude the church from holding activities in the
additional classrooms, offices and gym /multiuse area during the Sunday services. The church is currently
holding Saturday services and other activities outside its existing UP, and it is reasonable to expect that
they would operate Sunday (and Saturday) activities in their new facility.
n3
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion
April 26, 2004
Page 3 of 4
To allow the City and community to understand the full potential impacts of the proposed expansion,
the OR must be revised to account for traffic and parking impacts assuming full use of the new facilities
during Sunday services.
Significant Adverse Impacts: The EIR states that a significant adverse impact will occur if the project
traffic causes the ICU at an intersection to increase by 0.01 or more, and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS
E). As presented in Table 4.2 -7 of the EIR, the proposed expansion will cause the ICU at the
intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15ch Street to increase 1.61 percentage points and the resulting LOS is
F. By the EIR's definition, this is a significant adverse impact.
Parkine: Table 4.2 -2 contains a number of errors. In several instances, the table suggests that the
number of available on- street parking spaces exceeds street parking capacity by more than 55%. For
example, the table states that St. Andrews Road to Clay Street has a capacity of 34 on- street parking
spaces, but that there were 53 cars parked on the street This would not be possible unless half the
block were double parked. The EIR needs to correct the table and recalculate the parking analysis as
required.
Parking Structure Driver Behavior: Residents in the greater Newport Beach /Costa Mesa are generally
parking structure adverse, particularly subterranean parking. Residents will chose to park on a surface
lot or on a street if available. The few parking garages that exist in the area (Triangle Square, the office
building at Irvine Boulevard and 17th Street) are frequently underutilized. Cars enter, leave and queue
through parking garages at a much slower rate than they do through at -grade parking. The EIR traffic
study needs to be revised to account for greater queuing time at the proposed parking structure
entrance and exit, and the EIR parking study needs to account for potential parking garage adverse
behavior.
4 094
General Plan Compliance:
A policy of. the. General Plan Land Use Element states that the City shall, provide. sufficient,diversity.to
allow schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping
centers in close proximity to each resident. The Draft EIR incorrectly finds that the project does not
conflict with this policy. Rather, by proposing to expand 35 %, the church will create a facility more
dense than South Coast Plaza, thereby disrupting the fine balance between residential homes and
community services that this General Plan policy strives to achieve.
Another General Plan Land Use policy states that to insure redevelopment of older or underutilized
properties and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element
allow for some modest growth. The proposed expansion, by proposing to expand 35% and creating a
facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, is not "modest ".growth. The project will violate this General
Plan policy, and could debase the value of the single family homes surrounding the church.
Alternatives:
Regional Facility: The Draft EIR misstates Mr. Krotee's request regarding project alternatives. His NOP
comment letter, dated August 20, 2003, notes that the proposed expansion would create a regionally
sized facility and that an alternative site should be considered that would better facilitate such a
regionally sized facility. Appropriate alternative sites would be those served by arterial and collector
streets. The Draft EIR fails to adequately examine such alternative sites.
qq
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion
April 26, 2004
Page 4 of 4
Renovation or Replacement Alternative: The Draft EIR correctly identifies this alternative as an
environmentally superior alternative. This alternative recommends that the existing church facilities be
renovated and /or replaced, but with no increase in total square footage. This alternative appears to
warrant more detailed consideration by the City and applicant, including a review of alternative space
plans for the church.
Alternative Site: Placing the proposed youth and family center /gymnasium in a commercial or industrial
area rather than a residential area would certainly have fewer land use and aesthetic impacts than the
proposed project. The Draft EIR fails to adequately describe these impact reductions.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Section 4.3.5 of the EIR finds that the project will cause unavoidable adverse impacts relative to
construction- related air pollution. The EIR then makes an attempt to abate these impacts by proposing
mitigation measures MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2: however, these mitigation measures do not work.. Neither the
EIR or the appended air quality analysis adequately demonstrates how a reduction in truck miles
traveled would reduce NOx emissions. Further, neither the EIR or the appended air quality analysis
adequately demonstrates how the increased number of days of truck traffic will impact cumulative levels
of NOx and other air quality emissions. Finally, although the EIR acknowledges that implementation of
MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 could adversely affect traffic and noise, the EIR fails to include an analysis of these
potential impacts. The EIR's attempt to dismiss these potentially unavoidable adverse impacts as "short -
term" violates the intent of CEQA, which requires the EIR to fully consider both the short-term and
cumulative impacts of a project
r
The Draft EIR also fails to adequately disclose the process that the City must follow should it chose to
approve the church expansion regardless of the unavoidable adverse impacts. Section 15091 of the
_
CEQA Guidelines requires that the City make one or more written findings for each of the unavoidable
effects. These findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The
,. possible findings.are;.. ..
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can
and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
These could be extremely difficult findings for the City to make relative to the proposed project..
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me at 949 - 650 -3206, should you have
any questions.
Yours truly,
Joann Lombardo
15
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR a 0 2004 PM
7t8 19110 111112 11 I213t41516
April 28, 2004
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
Attn: Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Draft EIR for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach
March 2004
Dear Sir:
6061 Sierra Bravo Rd.
Irvine, CA 92612
I am a subcontracts engineer, retired from Fluor Corporation. During my 15 years with Fluor, I
became familiar with the environmental impact studies and reports required by many of the
subcontracts I wrote and worked on. This professionally prepared draft appears to me to cover
all the bases. The mitigations and conclusions seem both thorough and reasonable.
Our grandson and his family are also members of St. Andrew's. This fine young Christian is
doing well academically and is on the crew at Newport Harbor High School. I want hirn to
continue on the paths he has chosen — not those you read about in the newspapers.
The proposed youth center would be an effective facilitator in.developing him, others in the
neighborhood of St. Andrew's and those who follow, as good neighbors and citizens.
We appreciate and thank you for the efforts of you and your staff to implement progress in the
City of Newport.
Very truly yours,
Carl Richardson
CR/cja
April 28, 2004
Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport blvd.
Newport beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Draft EIR for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Dear Mr. Campbell:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 0 2004 PM
718 9 10111112111213141516
We have just read the Draft EIR and it appears to be very thorough. It obviously
represents a great deal of hard work.
We are members of St. Andrews and have lived in Cliff Haven for more than 50 years.
The concerns of our neighbors about traffic, parking, noise and litter seem to us to be
inaccurately aimed at the church and its members when many of the problems stem from
the High School and the lack of enough parking for its students. St. Andrews wishes to
install more parking spaces and also provide adequate facilities for programs for both
Harbor High students and those from Ensign Intermediate School. These additions would
provide a place for the young people to gather and help keep them and their cars off of the
residential. streets.
Remember that we are not asking for greater seating capacity in our sanctuary.
We hope that our thoughts will be helpful to you in your deliberations.
Yours Truly,
a mond J. Palm
Marg t . Palmer
702 St. James Place
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548 -4739
99
Clerk to copy each of the council
�asti( s, C-ar(a..f t lA QaG63
/sy s Q�� 11if Newer+ r
4119 jyS 3s /Fs'
From J 4�,e a-f -eZt Ca141ol06 C( Si CjpcG,a�� Qd . J a•« oaae
e,7y 07v ewe2 f dw-etEy AwpaGTw" � St`. awl Cdunc�, 4".w C)
RZ-
Qgi(29, 9b0�/
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 U 2004 PM
17 819110111112111213141516
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St.
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use-f
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Evenif'the EIR
were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work':.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
Oa /tow
a. t
9 .2 663
4119 l ys- 36-13
Date: tgp1; / :2,f
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 0 2004
718191116111112111213141516
I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell
you the church is a serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, the churches presence in the community
already is a huge traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application.
A��t
°�� ,�o�f dtieczzy
99
April 29, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Campbell,
RECEIVED BY
rLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 0 2004
AM 718191101111121112,3141516
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the Draft EIR for the proposed St.
Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. I would appreciate your response to the
following questions not addressed in the EIR.
Program Description:
I do not think the EIR addresses a needs assessment of the St. Andrews Membership.
Where does it describe the congregation's support of the expansion? Has the
congregation been contacted and had the opportunity to provide feedback? Does the EIR
assume membership is informed about the expansion and supports these changes? It was
my understanding the original goal was outreach to new neighborhoods, and to make St.
Andrews available to more people from different areas. Now it seems St. Andrews is not
planning to increase membership. Where are the clear and concise objectives, and are
these supported by a well - informed membership?
The EIR does not describe the Programmatic Changes the church plans to make if the
expansion is completed. What are the specific programmatic changes that necessate the
expansion? What is the schedule for the new activity center? When will the concerts and
or sports league activities. be held - once a week on Sundays only? Will they be at the
same time as Sunday Services or in the evening? What about during the week? How
often will it be used and how many people will attend events at the new facility. The new
structure inevitably means more people, more people means more traffic — where is this
additional usage quantified on a daily basis?
I'm concerned that commitments and decisions made at the past St. Andrews expansion
have been omitted and overlooked from this EIR. I think the details of the past expansion
and conversations with people who were involved originally need to be addressed.
Traffic:
The EIR does not address additional traffic on Clay Street and surrounding neighborhood
streets such as Snug Harbor, Pirate, and Kings. Could we please understand what
consideration has been given to the increased traffic on the surrounding residential
streets? What are the plans to ensure the safety of the children and residents when it is
evident traffic will increase significantly on these streets as well as 156 and Irvine?
tM
Current Usage:
It has been brought to our attention that St. Andrews owns or rents residential property in
the surrounding area and conducts functions and meetings in these just off -site locations.
Have the number of participants of functions at the surrounding properties been included
in the EIR? Has the church exceeded the allowed usage numbers with current activities?
Alternatives:
In my opinion, St Andrew's may have outgrown this location and it is the responsibility
of the City, the Church and this EIR to evaluate alternatives. I do not think this has been
adequately addressed in the EIR. Please comment.
Thank you very much for your consideration of my comments. I look forward to hearing
back from you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Diane Connelly
Dianeco@msn.com
321 Pirate Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 722 -1904
�I
BRUCE C. STUART
333 Pirate Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 725 -4118
April 30, 2004
VIA EMAIL
ocampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM APR 3 0 2004 PM
81911Q111112111213141516
Re: St Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR SCH: 2003081065
Dear Mr. Campbell:
As a 26 year resident of Pirate Road and one who has lived through the prior church
expansion in 1982, my family and I have significant concerns with respect to the proposed
St. Andrews expansion. To that end, I have reviewed the draft EIR described above and have a
number of questions or comments. The numbers opposite my comments correspond to Section or
Page numbers of the draft EIR.
3.5 During the construction activity, how will the parking demands of the Church's other
programs, such as their preschool, be addressed? How will the absence of on -site
parking impact high school parking in the neighborhood during the construction? How
will use of shuttle services be enforced?
Table 4.1 -2 Is the general plan policy with respect to changes in character of the neighborhood
limited solely to the look or use of the building? Can't the increase in intensity of use
result in a significant change in the residential character of the neighborhood? Further,
the reference to a "modest" increase in floor area in the third line of the second box,
given the over 30 %'o increase in floor area, appears grossly inaccurate. Further, the
conclusory statement made at the end of the paragraph that the expansion will not
result in a significant cumulative traffic impact seems unsupported. The analysis of the
intensity of use seems focused solely on the use of the sanctuary. In determining the
level of utilization of the church facilities on Sunday or Saturday, only the numbers of
attendees in the sanctuary appear to be counted. What of the Sunday School attendees,
which are in separate buildings during the same service time? The policy analysis
DOCSOC /1041588v 1/ 19999 -0000 0
James Campbell, Senior Planner
April 30, 2004
Page Two
further assumes, without any evidence, that the parking structure will be adequately
used. Please provide the basis for such conclusion. Further, on page 4.1 -7, in the third
box, it appears that offsite parking is relied upon in satisfying parking needs.
Therefore, it would appear that the increased floor area and additional parking structure
will not alleviate any existing parking issues. There is already a significant adverse
impact on the neighborhood based on current utilization of the church facilities which
is far beyond that initially contemplated by the 1982 Use Permit due to the expansion
of the Church programs, including the addition of Saturday evening services. To add
more imposes too great a burden on the neighborhood.
4.1.4.2 The initial paragraph seems to focus solely on the sanctuary for determining parking
demands. In fact, what are the total attendance counts in the sanctuary and at Sunday
school to determine whether that is an appropriate measure? See prior comment
concerning lack of evidence of how the parking structure will improve current and
future parking problems.
On page 4.1 -10, the analysis focuses on the type of use and ignores completely the
intensity of use that will occur due to the increased facilities. By its own statements,
the Church has indicated that it wants to expand its facilities to enhance (aka expand)
its offering to its youth groups, especially at the high school level. How is that
potential additional demand addressed with respect to parking and traffic impacts?
Further, the use of gymnasium which the report specifies would increase levels of
traffic and demands for parking above what presently exists, are said not to be
significant, yet the only traffic analysis done with respect to an intersection near the ..
neighborhood was the intersection at Cliff Drive and Dover. No analysis appears to
have been done with respect to the impact on traffic throughout the Cliff Haven
neighborhood, especially Pirate Road, which serves as a principal access route to the
Church parking lot currently (and would be for the parking structure).
4.1.5 The mitigation measures do not appear to take into consideration the impact on traffic
in any area other than at the intersection of 15th and Irvine. What is anticipated to
occur if the LOS at 15th and Irvine is at a level F due to construction and school
conflicts? How will other intersections and streets be affected? Won't people choose
alternate routes, thereby burdening other intersections?
4.2 Why was an analysis of traffic on Sunday not conducted? Has the Church agreed that
the gymnasium facility would never be utilized on Sundays?
DOCSOC/]041588v1/19999 -0000 �,�
James Campbell, Senior Planner
April 30, 2004
Page Three
4.2.1 Weekday Parking Demand. The analysis of parking demands seems to ignore the
cumulative effect of the Church and High School on the neighborhood. It segregates
demand between the Church and the High School. Although the Church cannot control
the High School parking, the absence of on -site parking during construction and an
increase in the intensity and level of use during school hours or during the evenings when
the school has functions, creates potential conflicts.
4.2.1 On Page 4.2 -11, the City acknowledges that there is available, unused parking on the
Newport Harbor High School lot often during Church services, yet members choose to
park on the more proximate neighborhood streets. On what basis does the study indicate
that a parking structure will be utilized more than the High School parking lot and
thereby alleviating the impact on the neighborhood?
SC4.2 -1 What enforcement mechanisms are contemplated with respect to any construction
parking in the residential neighborhood?
4.2.4.1 What is the average load each truck will carry? What after peak hours of operation are
contemplated for truck operations in the event construction activity occurs during the
school year or during school construction? Further, how far is the Lighthouse Coastal
Community Church from St. Andrews?
4.2.4.1 Further Parking Condition. When the daycare drop -offs occur, will the balance of the
parking structure be able to handle the parking demand ,at that time ?. Will drop-off result. ,. .
in a back -up or queuing into the neighborhood. See prior comment concerning my
question about the conclusion about the adequacy of the existing road network to handle
the increase in traffic. What support is given for the statement "the increased parking
proposed on -site, augmented with the parking at Newport Harbor High School and on-
street parking adjacent to the Church will reduce the demand. for parking on the
residential streets ?" This assumes people will park in the parking structure and the High
School lot (which the EIR states is not fully utilized now and thus probably wouldn't be
in the future) and not park in the more convenient location of the neighborhood streets.
NW4.2 -1 See prior comment requesting definition of "non -peak hours ".
NIN14.2 -2 What is the impact if the parking arrangement with the School District ceases? How
could it cease?
NIM4.2 -3 Please indicate what,-if any, of these measures are currently utilized by the Church to
handle existing parking problems. What specific enforcement mechanisms are intended
to be used to prevent church parking on neighborhood streets ? -
DOCS001041588v1/19999 -0000 0 q
James Campbell, Senior Planner
April 30, 2004
Page Four
MM4.2 -4 How will the operation of the parking structure be handled to avoid a back -up of traffic .
in the neighboring streets?
MM4.2 -7 Has any study of the parking structure utilization been conducted?
MM4.2 -10 See prior comment concerning establishing basis of measurement on total attendance,
not just the sanctuary.
MM4.2 -11 This would appear to allow an even greater intensity of use, which by necessity would
have to increase the overall level of traffic, only perhaps reducing it during a peak
period. This makes the problems in the neighborhood perhaps less at one period, but
larger over a greater period.
4.2.6 Please indicate the basis for the conclusion that the project will not exacerbate the
existing parking deficiencies in the neighborhood. This appears to be predicated upon
full utilization of the parking structure, no evidence of which has been provided.
4.3.4.2 Please indicate whether or not there is any effect on local air quality caused by traffic
backups which could be created by cars queuing in and around the parking structure.
4.4.1 With respect to the noise study, no measurements appear to have been taken in the
neighborhood itself. Most of the measurements appear to be some distance from the
residential neighborhood. ..What are the impacts with respect to intended noise. in the
Cliff Haven neighborhood itself? This would apply both during construction and
afterwards due to traffic and Church operations. On page 4.4 -14, there is a statement
that the design will minimize noise escaping from the facility. How much noise is
anticipated to escape? How will that affect the ambient noise in the neighborhood?
4.5.4.2 The analysis of the impact on the neighborhood does not appear to take into
consideration the massing of the gymnasium closer to the residences. Also, it does not
discuss the height of the parking structure as it relates to the current height of the
parking lot and landscape berm.
4.5.4 Shouldn't the study indicate that the neighboring Cliff Haven area does not generally
have street lights and therefore any lighting increase is noticeable. Further, the level of
lighting appears to be in conflict with later statements about security that requires
recognition of people at a distance of 100 feet. Please reconcile these statements.
MM4.5 -1 Where is the construction staging area to be located?
DOCSOC11041588v1119999 -WO p
James Campbell, Senior Planner
April 30, 20O4
Page Five
4.6.2 What is the level of incident reports for parking structures in the Newport Beach area
with respect to vandalism and similar issues? How will the security for the parking
structure in the evenings be handled?
4.6.4.2 Are there are safety concerns from the Fire or Police Department with respect to
increased traffic through the Cliff Haven neighborhood, which, when coupled with the
onsite parking for the neighbors and the Church and the presence of a number of
children, seems to create higher risk of accidents?
N4v14.6 -2 See prior comment concerning mitigation measures which appear to conflict with the
photometric study.
6.2 I would strongly disagree that the impact of the expansion would be reduced to a level of
insignificance by the proposed mitigation monitoring/reporting program. A 34%
increase in floor area, placing approximately 135,000 square feet on a 3.9 acre site which
is acknowledged to be parking deficient now, and 62 spaces deficient later, which relies
on full utilization of a parking structure about which no evidence has been given to
assure its full utilization and/or traffic flow is not logically insignificant.
9.2 The report appears to focus mainly on buildings and the type of use. The High School
enrollment is increasing and therefore the level of the intensity of its use will be
increasing. The report does not seem to adequately address the cumulative effect of that
increased enrollment and the potential increase in utilization of the Church facilities on
the neighborhood.
9.3.1 See prior comment that the report focuses on the type use and does not appear to consider
the increase in the intensity of use.
9.3.6 See prior question concerning definition of Non -Peak Hours. Further, note that there is
an increase which will be created at the Dover Drive and Cliff Drive intersection. This is
one of the main entrances (if not the main entrance) to the Cliff Haven residential
neighborhood. Also, what impact does the current traffic calming study being conducted
for Newport Heights and Cliff Haven based on current traffic problems throughout the
neighborhood, have on the contemplated traffic impacts from the St. Andrews
expansion? Please note that I do concur with the conclusion on page 9 -5 with respect to
the "current undesirable on- street parking conditions in adjacent residential
neighborhoods ". However, there appears to be no clear basis for any indication as to
how the parking structure or parking management program would alleviate the current
undesirable conditions, especially in light of the increased intensity of use.
DOCSOC/1041588v1/19999 -0000
James Campbell, Senior Planner
April 30, 2004
Page Six
10.4.1 This alternative is the most appealing to the neighbors. There are already deficiencies in
parking as acknowledged in the EIR which the City should review as part of the Use Permit
now. To increase the intensity of usage on the site would exacerbate an already existing
problem. The unsupported reliance on a parking structure to solve not only a current
problem, but to absorb the future expansion is unsupported. The analysis indicates that
certain other choices would not change the current parking demands and therefore ignore the
existing problems and the additional traffic /parking issues that are created by the expansion
and increase in operations from that contemplated in 1982. To allow further expansion is
unwise and would be detrimental to the Cliff Haven residential neighborhood adjoining St.
Andrews.
Very truly yours,
Bruce C. Stuart
BCS:ssd
DOCSOC/1041588v1/19999 -0000 G /
Gary P. Hill
503 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA
April 30, 2004
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P.O: Box 1768
Newport Beach Ca. 92658 -8915
Subject; St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR
Mr. Campbell
PLANRECEIVED I RTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
...........
APR '3 0 2004
AM PM
81911.41111121112131415 6
As a property owner in Cliff Haven neighborhood and having lived. (in three separate homes)
within one mile of St Andrews Church for over fifty years I believe I have a good idea of what is going on
there. As stated in the EIR craft it is false to say the Church has occupied that much area for fifty years.
The Church that was once a Sunday only church and pre school Monday through Friday, has now gone to a
huge business empire operating seven days a week and over twelve hours a day. I would like to see in their
current use permit ( No. 822) where they are allowed to run such a business.
I cannot talk about air quality, but as far as the car traffic goes the amount of cars that are using the
small residential streets has increased drastically. The increased traffic is not just on Sundays anymore, it is
very busy all the time. I would like to know when St. Andrews is doing there traffic study per there use
permit because the traffic is out of hand.
The proposed parking structure that is planned will not solve the parking problem in the
neighborhood. It is been true in most studies that seniors do not park in parking structures they avoid them
at all costs so we have them all again in the neighborhood streets.
I just can't believe the expanded St. Andrews church would be good for our neighborhood. St
Andrews should move out to Bonita Canyon if they want to nm such a huge business empire.
Gary
949 -075 -0740
Email garyphill @sbcglobal.net
M�
� F- el'
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Clerk to copy each of the council
Copies Sent To:
"Erga,yor
-
Member
.Onuncii
anager
tto(neil
A e
❑
yr;
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, its not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP: If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly, m 4�71-• C�
N
srp 30 :15
Date:
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell
you the church is a serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, the churches presence in the community
already is a huge traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application.
1'
Clerk to copy each of the council
4SS le // C4,ewe k-
/c/o so C /a7 s79-
Aeea Or.41 A046:1
From
Date
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663 <
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The proposal by St Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
.... where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
a 666mpany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli-use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what Even if the EIR
were to say 'terrific, the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St Andrews church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
Eunice Smith Jones
RECEIVED BY 341 Costa Mesa Street
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Costa Mesa, CA 92627
April 28, 2004
APR 3 0 2004 PM
Mr James Campbell AM 1 3 1415 I 6
Senior Planner 718191101111121112
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Draft EIR Report for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church N.B. 3/4/04
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I have reviewed the Draft EIR for improvements-to St. Andrew's and they
seemed to me to be in proper order.
I began attending St. Andrew's in 1949 when it met in the library of
Newport Harbor High School with a congregation of a little over 100
members. There were mostly empty fields surrounding the area when
construction began on the original buildings for the church about that
same time. Over the years, St. Andrew's has met the spiritual needs of so
many people in the area and has now grown to slightly over 4000 members.
There have been several building projects over the years as St. Andrew's
grew; and it seems that the the church has always tried to be a good
neighbor and comply with any inconveniences to those living in the
neighborhood. I'm sure we shall try to ease parking, traffic and noise
complaints that have been expressed.
We are grateful to the city of Newport Beach for the help they have given
us on this project.
,-Sincerely,.
Eunice Jones
�L:,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Webster J. Jones
APR 3 0 2004 PM 341 Costa Mesa St.,
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
71819110,11,12 I1I2I3I4I5I6 April 30, 2004
Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.,
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear Sir:
I started teaching at Newport Harbor High School in the fall of 1949.
The following year my wife and I joined St. Andrew's. We have watched
the expansion of the high school and our church for over fifty years. Some
of my students have had the benefit of attending the youth programs
that St. Andrew's has offered through pastors such as Jim Stewart,
Charles Dierenfield, Kim Strutt, and Ed Snedeker. I have talked to former
students at their class reunions and at church; I have come to realize that
many of these programs have had a positive effect on their lives. Ih
addition I feel that the proposed gym facility should in many cases meet
the needs of some of the local youth and young adults who might not have
the time or skill for organized sports at the junior or senior high level.
I have come to see the importance of exposing our youth to character
building programs to counteract what they hear and see in the Movies,
on TV, and in recorded material. Today's young people .need to have
qualified persons with whom to talk to, to answer questions about what is
going on in today's world and to receive some kind of guidance. These
are the kinds of opportunities that $t. Andrew's is offering for our youth.
I have read over the DEIR, and it would implement and improve the current
program for our young people, as it exists today.
V
James Campbell
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: Draft EIR —St. Andrews proposed expansion
Dear Mr. Campbell,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 0 2004
AM 8191101111121112131415 6
As a concerned resident of Newport Beach, I would like to thank you for allowing
me to voice my concerns over the planned expansion by St. Andrews. Our
primarily single family residential neighborhood is impacted by many different
factors. Traffic and related parking though seem to make up the greatest threat
to the current levels of safety, security and peace we enjoy.
I'm concerned that not enough consideration was given to certain key factors in
the draft EIR.
Church expansion —The church has systematically and continuously
grown since it's inception. It is no longer a quiet neighborhood church, but
is seeking to become a large regional facility serving more than the
surrounding neighborhood. It is hard to believe that they have remained it
compliance with the CUP, zoning and planning regulations through their
growth.
Programs — The Church had continuously added to their programs, with
morning and evening speakers and events, Saturday evening services,
concerts, etc., etc. The. EIR -does .not address the additional uses and
increased programs that an enlarged facility will allow. The Church's plan
even shows a large amount of space dedicated to storage. Isn't that a use
better suited to an offsite facility?
Alternate Site — With the potential for the planned and additional
expansion of the facility and the increased current uses and future
programs, it would seem more investigation should be given to an
alternate site.
Parking — Evidence would suggest that during peak usage, the parking
and attendant traffic would-be negatively affected.. With current
ingresslegress problems exacerbated by a structure, traffic would back up
in the neighborhood and more street parking can be expected, with the
structure ending up being under utilized.
Traffic — Increased programs and usage will increase the amount of
visitors and the traffic in the neighborhood. During peak usage, streets
such as Pirate Rd., Snug Harbor, Clay and Signal become major
thoroughfares. These neighborhood residential streets, with no sidewalks,
become crowded with cars, the additional street parking by Church users
complicates the issue. Where does the EIR deal with the potential for a
q !
serious accident with one of our residents, especially the children and
elderly.
In conclusion, there are a number of significant issues affecting the quality of life.
in our neighborhood that need more complete investigation. I appreciate your
consideration with regards to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you
would like further clarification or have any questions.
Warm Regards,
Jim Connelly
321 Pirate Rd.
Newport Beach
949 -722 -1904
Q5
NEWPORT -MESA Unified School District
2985A Bear Street •. Costa Mesa • California 92626 • (714) 429 -5000
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Dana Black • Dave Brooks • Tom Egan
Martha Fluor • Judy Franco • Linda Sneen • Serene Stokes
Robert J. Barbot Ed. D., Superintendent
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1368
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -0368
RECEIVED BY
Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Newport Beach Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT REACH
3300 Newport Boulevard lq r` 36
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 2004 I'm AkA
Dear Mr. Campbell: 8 19�10 �l 1 X12 �l �2�3�A�5�6
The Newport-Mesa Unified School District is in receipt of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and
Use Permit. In that the project is immediately adjacent to Newport Harbor High School
and the document mentions the school district in section 10.4.4.2 Traffic and Parking we
would like to make the following comments.
There is no formal parking agreement between the school district and St. Andrews, and
no such agreement is contemplated at this'time. We recognize that there has been some
confusion on this point in the past and would direct your attention to our previous letter to
the Newport Beach Planning Commission, dated June 16, 2003, which is attached.
Section 10.4.4.2 raises at least the speculation of a joint school district/church parking
structure on the grounds of Newport Harbor High School. Please be advised that there are
no plans for such a structure and that the school district has not indicated any interest in
the creation of such an option.
Please also be advised that the school district's Measure A modernization program will
be in various stages of construction at Newport Harbor High School until late 2005, and
that the planned replacement of the Robins /Loats building (the tower building) is
anticipated to commence soon after that. Even short term impacts which would close the
school's 15a' parking lot would need to be reviewed by the district as to both normal
operation and construction at the site for the time that such closure is planned.
NEWPORT -MESA Unified School District
2985A Bear Street • Costa Mesa • California 92626 • (714) 424 -5000
BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Dana Black • Dave Brooks • Toro Egan
Martha Fluor • Judy Franco a Linda Soeen • Serene Stokes
Robert J. Barbot Ed. D., Superintendent
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1368
Newport Bead, CA 92663-0368
June 16, 2003
Mr. Steven Kiser
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Ms Patricia Temple
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Application for Conditional Use Permit
bear Mr. Kiser and Ms. Temple:
We are all aware that parking in the neighborhood around Newport Harbor High School is an
issue of concern. We are also aware that there are ongoing discussions considering proposals
from St. Andrews Presbyterian Church for renovation and modernization of the church facilities.
The School District is pleased to have St. Andrews as a good neighbor of long standing. .
The District is concerned, however, that there may be some misunderstanding regarding the
relationship between the Newport-Mesa Unified School District and St. Andrews Presbyterian
Church as it pertains to parking issues and the impact of parking on the church's proposed
renovation and modernization plan. Information published by the church states the following:
"St. Andrews and Newport Harbor High School have shared parking for 45 years. The
church and high school expect to continue that historic relationship that helps ease
parking demands on the neighborhood'
As a general statement the information is correct. The Church and the School District have
enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship as good neighbors over the years. To the extent each
have had parking facilities available when one or the other have had events which caused a peak
parking demand the relationship has indeed provided additional options to the neighborhood.
However, the District is compelled to clarify that the relationship has been merely one of good
neighbors. To the best of our knowledge, and to the extent files stretching back forty -five years
are available, there is no formal agreement between the Church and the School District that
grants any specific parking or other facility rights to one or the other entity.
U
Mr. Steven Kiser and Ms. Patricia Temple
June 17, 2003
Page Two
We agree we have enjoyed a historic relationship and hope it will continue, but as a matter of
public record we must point out that it is not a contractual relationship. We trust no one is
assessing it as such.
Sincerely&V&/
Paul H. Reed
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
c: Members of the Board of Education
Superintendent Robert J. Barbot
Mr. Jake Easton, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
9V
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, James
From: dcstoney [dcstoney @adelphia.net] RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 5:38 PM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
To: joampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
APR 3 0 2004
Subject: church EIR
Dear Mr. Campbell, 17 819110 [111121112131 5 6
My husband wrote you earlier today regarding St. Andrew's desire to expand. I would like you to consider that I
second all of his thoughts on the subject. We have children and they often play in the street, but depending on the
schedule the church is running on any given day, I need to ask them to come out of the street or back into the
house. There are many children on our street and I worry about them when people are rushing to attend church or
going get their children to day care. I can't imagine what it will be like during construction too with big trucks all
over our roads. We love living here and don't want the quality of our home and neighborhood to be diminished by
the increases in noise, traffic, lighting, parking, litter and crime.
Please don't allow this church to grow here in our backyard.
Thank you,
Cindy Stoneman
05/03/2004
DONALD B. SAMIS
GRACE E. SAMIS
444 Serra Drive
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Telephone 67t4o 760 -0830
949
Mr James Campbell
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
V
April 28th, 2004
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APR 3 0 2004
AM 781911011111211 1213141516
RE: Draft EIR Report for St Andrew's Church 3 -04 -04
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the mitigation items in the Draft &IR
report and are of the opinion they handle the concerns
%well and proper!
We do hope the report receives the approval of all the
official entities in a timely manner in order that the
church may proceed with this most wortH4vile project.
Respectfully ",
0
i
160
Apr 30 2004 11:15AM John Zieg
John and Judi Zieg
1300 Clay Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
30 April 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Council!
949 - 650 -9039
We are writing with regard to the expansion planned by St. Andrews Church. The various
activities at the church have already significantly increased traffic and noise in the
community. Any expansion of the church will complete the transformation of our
neighborhood from a quiet residential area to a high - traffic, noisy, community- services
center, decreasing the value of the homes adjacent to the church.
While the church desires to provide more services to more people, they don't seem to be
cognizant of the effect of their activities on their neighbors who are entitled to the quiet
and peaceful enjoyment of their homes. Please guide the church to a more suitable area
for their extra - curricular activities.
As our elected representatives, we trust that you will not take value from our home,
without compensation, and transfer it to the church.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
John and Judi Zieg
l
t I
r
Date 5-13—
Copies Sent To:
-el
'I-OT l Member
anager
tiorney
El
p.1
16)
Mrs. Sheila J. Munson
IM 503 Saint Andrews Rd.
JWNewport Beach, CA 92663
Date: - :102f%w
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
A NOY -A. "9 :27
I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell
you the church is a serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, the churches presence in the community
already is a huge traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application.
Clerk to copy each of the council
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
dora't.pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone haying found,someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP, If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have. been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church.to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may„ be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue;,`.,
Yours
X63
From Mrs. Sheila J. Munson
503 Saint Andrews Rd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Date��'
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
=; a
m
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
dora't.pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone haying found,someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP, If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have. been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church.to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may„ be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue;,`.,
Yours
X63
Clerk to copy each of the council
Mrs, Sheila J. Munson
503 Saint Andrew, Rd_
Newport Beack CA 92663
Date �a / - /
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Cafifomia 92663
Re: St Andrews Expansion
a-J
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The Proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388- square feet= over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
,accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of mull -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
1. understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR
were to say 'terrific!, the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrews church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
16 q
APR - 28-2004 04:32 PM PLAN VRNUN oo< r�roo
APR -27 -2004 19:50 ,y
4 -aid 0 i
F�C-70 7-0
AMP 21, 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council `J4 !1AY --s 4217
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department _ ,'i
P. O. Box 1768 rc<
Newport Beach, CA 926SO-8915
Fox number (949) 6443229
e -mail: jcompbeil *clty.newport- beach.ca.us
Re: St. Ahdraws Presbyterian Church Proposed 6xponslon Oraft EIR,
SCH: 200001065
Door Honorable Mayor, Council and Mr. Campbell:
Wn
I have a number of concerns regarding the DEIR for the proposed expansion of
St. Andrews. i believe the expansion plan is inappropriate for a residential
neighborhood, There will be major increases in traffic on the surrounding
residential streets that are not addressed in this report. I believe the traffic
volumes in the area already exceed acceptable standards for residential streets
and much of the problem is being caused by the previous church expansion. I
own rental property nearby St Andrews and I believe my tenants may move out
if this project is approved due to the Increased noise, traffic and pollution.
I believe the SR is Inaccurate and does not reflect the Increased traffic and
congestion that will result if either the parking facilities or the building square
footage Is Increased. I am not In favor of rezoning the St. Andrews parcel.
increasing the parldng facilities or Increasing the square footage of the buildings.
Any of these changes, separately or collectively, vAl have a significant,
permanent, adverse Impact on my property value and rental income.
Sincerely,
Name :ALAia bA►luni
Owner of: lc cat_�e�_��as.�tcLs,�s,.,
Newport Beach CA 92663
Owners Mailing address: 150 n1- �gdr uwr
LA 64►►A 66Aem _ c^ 41631
TOTAL P.04
Jb5
APR -28 -2004 17 :45 96% P.01
Date: X/� (
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that St. Andrews. Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion, I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell
you the church is a serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, the churches presence in the community.
already is a huge traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application.
E
Clerk to copy each of the council
From
Date
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
ri
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St.
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli-use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR
were to say 'terrific!, the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. AndreWs church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours truly,
O%A,
161
From
Date 112 e/o
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Clerk to copy each of the council
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And,
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly,
10
'v
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And,
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
Yours truly,
10
RECEIVED By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
M
MAY 4 2004 Pm
A
7 1919110 111 1121112t3141516
A-P I-� ac, tom, ZCO�
zi Rcck8o
cp 9a�t��
c-t
Tj ukpfr�
Tuj is C)
0�- 1,-)-1 L-�*
0
41VI fr B41VB #02W
•YYi%YY .••.
493 OGLE STREET
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
(714) 646 -3731
p�NNI DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM MAY 4 2004
7 819110111112111213141516
a4
RECEIVED ARTMENT
Mr. James Campbell A��WpCR7 BEACH
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach MAY 4 2004
3300 Newport Blvd. PM
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 iy 8 19 11 0 11 1,12,11213141516
Re: Draft EIR Report for St. Andrew's Church- R.R. March 4, $004
Dear Sir:
I have - reviewed the Draft EIR for the improvements to our church and
found the document very thorough. I see that there are appropriate
mitigations suggested -to- solve- any problerrm others Wright find neeesTsary.
I hope that the St. Andrews Church plan will be approved in order that our
church cart accommodate -our young rnembers who -hold our future .
Thank you for all the work that the city goes through to help us continue to
serve our community.
\11
To: City of Newport Beach Planning Dep'L
Attention: James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear Mr. Campbell:
April 23,'04
RECEIVED By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 4 2004
7�81911D111 112111213141516
The DEIR for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project, SCH No. 2003081065,
dated March 2004 is a very detailed piece of work, with a lot of professional
consultants involved It covers everything, and while they tell you what the problems
may be, ie., Impacts, there seems to be a soludop for each of these impacts, and my
conclusion is that it is a very fine document.
While I think this is a very worthwhile project,. l:am concerned that the neighbors get a
fair shake during the construction process. Y hope the City can provide the necessary
inspectors to ensure that there is minimal dust, noise etc.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this report.
I)X
Mr. James Campbell April 20, 20 RECEIVED BY
mp �t ANNING DEPARTMENT
Senior Wanner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City of Newport Beach
2300 Newport Blvd. MAY 1 4 2004
Newport Beach, CA 92658 =8915 7181911011111211,213141516
Re: Draft EIR Report for St. Andrew's Church -N:B. March h, 9004
Dear Sir:
r
I have reviewed-the Draft EIR for the improvements to our church and
found the document very thorough. I see that there are appropriate
mitigations suggested- to-solve- any problem others-might fift& necessary.
I hope that the St. Andrews Church plan will be approved in order that our
church can accommodate oar young members who -hold our future:
Thank you for all the work that the city goes through to help us continue to
serve -our community.
Sincerw,,
e�
))3
April 27, 2004
RECEIVED BY
Mr. James Campbell PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Senior Plaaner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City of Newport Beach MAy 4 2004
3300 Newport Boulevard PM
Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 y$ 1011 1212 3 4 5 6
IIg I. i I 111111
Re. DEIR for St. Andrew's Proposed Additions
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Since 1972, my wife and I have lived at 411 Kings Road, about four -to -five blocks from
the St. Andrew's Church, where we are members. Our children have gone to
Newport Heights, Ensign and Newport Harbor High. Nancy, my wife, taught at Newport
and Corona del Mar High Schools. Thus, we consider ourselves very much a part of the
community.
I personally have reviewed the DEIR and believe that it accurately evaluates the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment and that the various impacts can
be resolved by mitigation. I hope the necessary approvals will be forthcoming soon.
As a matter of interest, last year our congregation grew by only one member. The
proposed new facilities are for our young members who hold our future. The gym
and youth facilities will give our lads a place to "hang out" after school and keep
them off the street. Also, the additional parking facility will take more cars off the street,
which should be of comfort to the neighbors. I firmly believe that the new plan will be
an improvement for both the community and the church.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
Very truly yours,
H. . Geerlings
I) f
F. R. Herman, M.D.
910 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
l�rwui e3,Cczti!�' AM MAY 4 2004
S'en+tl✓` �/ %a-tti;Wft 718,9110,11112111213141516
't �e - - E 1 k R qw+ ho f &ra,, - 4pifju,/
3-o me. if-
(ST G1ud�ecvs t 5 S i^kh e�f(r %¢z,P.
Gi r�b �e+ Lace �otU lCr�j f a C�2nez� lh
` C ��aw � � "�"' "� �ilvtreh mewl'-• �tS �f'a� �' IS
d
- gv4v -6t"t A 4
A -
r
tREl,VED ''JY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 4 2004 PM
7 �819 10 X11 X12 11 12j3G41516
qa 6,s I5
i
'V1ffl- I *�A
))6.
y
tze
A
ill
a . f
t4l'f � y goo y
m"twAm
�,
Re
0
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Q� MAY 4 2054 PM
P 7 8I9I10i11112I11Z13I41516
/ /
r
/
i
Date:
Mayor Ridgeway. and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
'0A ",hY -5 ' %4 17
t;r
K.AC?
I understand that. St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell
you the church is a serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, the churches presence in the community
already is a huge traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application,
Date
Copies
�
ayot y °r O 4
i— n g Member
;
T� -rgrJf- a nager
0 -
K
Kim LW fa�omQ>
�/5 S-i
Naar &", (;- ai LG G2
From
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council
Clerk to copy each of the council
'04 Vi, Ay -F ^•='u :17
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
IX.
p6
Minnie Ballard
415 Santa Ana Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
April 29, 20044
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
vz
°o4 rjR f -E TIC'! =17
[7D
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate their
34% expansion. On behalf of my neighbors and my family, I ask you to deny this
application. If St. Andrews wants to expand they need to consider an off site facility. If
they really need to expand this should be the only reasonable land use alternative. For the
value. and the well being of the community, to which the church is an interregnal part, this
Is the best option. On the other hand, if St. Andrew's may be improved and substitute
some of the spaces that they are planning for some of the buildings they are asking to tear
down, and the result is a "zero net gain of space" these studies deserve a look.
I understand that a DEIR has been developed for the property and I have no experience
with this part of the process, however fundamental logic, history and the present traffic tell
me that if they add thousands of square feet It will acerbate the present mess. Even if the
EIR were to say `acceptable impact', the community wants better for themselves, including
St. Andrews.
Please ask St. Andrews to improve their quality and not there size. The current CUP should
tell everyone, "They are big enough ". Thank you for going with logic and history.
Yours truly, �5
)A)
wj F- I o rmz
( 'r
n
4010 P rk M�Imford
Newport Beach, ort X102
cq 9 . 0*
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
D04
Pm
-rr i. r n 'f' i- J/'JVU i'nr1 J � Ir Y` � bCJ• • � •
vI 1I
Q 25; 2VV4
i J J
of -J- r!!••r' •f ( v• n_ evrr ' !ie �l5' 're• �J• ! Is'rr-
J
' . I • I I .. b' a ! '!•� a`if ]'fL {' !f "ff J. !J. 9fr:•:�L^ b a I ' b S e %:' a' -. rJ' /Y
• / %I Y' a/i JS f. * f l3fi ". .'" ' e -•.•{ !f: af1J/ I II! II' /! / !!AI J f II"
/ - I %' { � r %r a i•' /If l's• ers J %r• Y'!r. �ryJ r: JrJ {' r s•sl -I!i r JrY'J J
I (' n r' . I '!rY! s+ s r ura' s au( •n.r +• ' ✓n!rYJ r`, '
rJ ♦ 1 li ' UNIT /� ' JS[e!rri idd !RS. ( elf. i[f" bJe3ff'y _ (
f J/' I( I "{ YJ IP /' IJJI !{ Ir'I 1r !' IJP{JI YiY 'l ♦ `( ( II"
J
`JIM l 1
JAa-
T0'd %L6 KSL WE 606 90 :60 b002- 40 -AUW
. ApR•-24'i00d 17:06 P.04
E w
RECBDEpARTMENT
Apn121, 2004 C1_1111 GwppRT BEACH
Mayor Ridgeway and Council MAY 0.5 200 pNy
lames Campbell, Senior Planner t11112,112`314i516
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Fmnurnber:19491 644 -3229
e -mail: jcampbellOdty.newport beach.ca.us
Re: St. Andrews Prasbyterlan Church Propowd EXPw foci nra8 FIll,
SCN: ZOD30�1086
Dear Honorable Mayor, Council and Mr. Campbell:
I have a number of concerns regarding the, DER for the proposed expansion of
St, Andrews. I believe the expansion plan is Inappropriate for a residential
neighborhood. There will be major increases In traffic on the surrounding
residential streets that are not addressed In this report. I betleYe the traffic
volumes In the area olreodyoxceed ddceptgble standards for residential streets
and much of the problem is being caused by the previous church expdrisiori. I
f hrental Property nearby n may out
i lspro ect is approved due c the Increased oise,mac nd
I believe the EIR is inaccurate and does not reflect the increased traffit and
congestion that will result if tither the parking facilities or the buildihp square
footage is increased. I am not In favor of rezoning the St. Andrews Parcel,
increasing the parking facilities ar increasing the square footage of the buildfigs.
Any of these changes, sepan:Italy or collectively, will have a sigrdficnt,
permanent, adverse impact on my property value and rental income.
Since ly.
X`-Q
Nam cpj--
I owner o .
Newport Beach CA 92663
Owners Moiling address: u (pile
TOTAL P.04
ia3
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, James
From: jimjudytracy [imjudytracy @adelphia.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 3:36 PM
To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: Fw: St.. Andrew's Plan
-- Original Message --
From: jimjudytracy
To: jcampbell acity.newoort- heach.ca.us
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 3:26 PM
Subject: St.. Andrew's Plan
Dear Mr. Campbell, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Cole, Mr. Selich, Mr. Toerge, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Eaton
and Mr. Kiser,
We appreciate the thoughtfulness and study that goes into making planning decisions for
the City of Newport Beach. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is coming to you with plans for
a new.Youth and Family Center. We have lived in Newport Beach and attended.St. Andrew's..,.. _....
Church since 1995. In the 1950's, my parents rented homes on the Balboa Peninsula for a
number of years for our family's vacation, so I have seen many changes. St. Andrew's and its
programs are a constant asset in meeting the real needs of our community in a rich variety of
ways in the Newport Harbor area.
The innovation and dedicated community leadership shown in the St. Andrew's "Get Set"
pre - school program is an outstanding example of how they have helped the community.
Look now at the Newport Beach -Costa Mesa School District Pre - school Program and you will
see the growth from the St. Andrew's seeds flourishing there among staff and volunteers 0 am
one of them). Please, by approving this new plan, help enable St. Andrew's to contribute in
new and effective ways to aid our community's youth. Anything in this day and age that
successfully competes with the media driven standards of materialism, abuse of women,
violence, and disrespect for authority offered by music, television, and movies, is a blessing
for our children. With this new facility, St. Andrew's will have a chance to make a difference
for the better in your children's lives, your grandchildren's lives and your community's
children's lives.
On a personal note, we think it would help reduce the street parking in the immediate
neighborhood on Sundays and other busy church days.
Sincerely,
Jim and Judy Tracy
2204 Fortuna, Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 759 -0473
0
05/06/2004
T0'd iG6 0254 WE 606 90:60 7002 -40 -Add
aPR-27 -2004 17:06 P. 134
April 21, 2004 `04 NAY -7 A9:05
Mayor Ridge'NaY and Council
James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
F. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA `3'2658.8915
Fax number.(9491644-3229
e- mail: Campbellocity.newvport-l)each.ca.us
Re_ St. Ahdraws PresbyWdGh Cherch PrapvNd brPanflort Oran Bit,
SCH:2,=081065
Dear Honorable Mayor. Council and Mr. Campbell:
I hove a number of concerns regarding the 4EIR for the proposed expansion of
5t, Andrews. I believe the expansion pion is inappropflate far o residential
neighborhood. There will be major increases In traffic on the surrounding
residential streets that ore not addressed in this report. I believe the traffic
volumes in the area already exceed acceptable standards for rei ldential streets
and much of the problem Is being�'caused by the previous church expansion. I
own rental property nearby St Andrews and l believe my tenants may move out
If this project Is approved due to the increased noise, traffic and pollution.
I believe the EIR is inaccurate and does not reflect the increased frafflc and
congestion that will result If tither the parking facilities or the building square
footage is increased. I am not in favor of rezoning the St. Andrews porgies,
increasing the parking facilities or increasing the square footage of the buildfigs.
Any of these changes, separ::rtaly or collectively, will have a significant,
permanent, adverse impact On my property value and rental income.
X `-t own
Newport Beach CA 92663
ov�ners moiling address:
i r iL
Date
Copies Sent To:
Mayor
i� ncil Member
$ Manager
rney
,G _w�
TOTAL P.04 Jas
iur�e�. � f.nd7 •b lHLI
Clerk to copy each of the council
Elizabeth Pyle
1400 Clay Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From
May 7, 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this
neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822
square feet I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St
Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site
where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will
accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that
comprise them, this pressure of greater land, use density and application for this type of muli -use
expansion must consistently be denied.
I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even 9 the EIR
were to say `terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'.
Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider
conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrews church may be
made better, but no larger.
Please hear the citizens on this issue.
Yours
L~ - 3 z.
0
Date: �-i`gV6- --7- 1 -Z-Ov 1
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their
huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA
guidelines and 1 won't judge this report, but I can tell
you the church is a. serious growth concern in our
neighborhood. Without having seen this huge
document, .the churches presence in the community
already is a huge traffic generator and noisy.
The application asks the City for 140,388 square
feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The
math does not work in this small community. Their
size is already an impact.
Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old
CUP and ask if the programs they have now were
contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be
bigger they should move.
Please vote to deny this application.
C52-1 il-
L23
a1
E. James Whittier
1301 Seacrest Drive
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Tel: 949 644 7670
Fax: 949 644 7683
Mr. Earl Daniel, Chairman and Planning Commission
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92623
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTIAE'UT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 10 2004 PIS
17
AM PM
Dear Sirs:
We are writing this letter as both long time residents of Newport Beach and
as members of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church.
We are totally in favor of the renewal of our church.
First let me share the concerns of our neighbors.
In a perfect world, they would undoubtedly want to eliminate Newport
Harbor High, our church, John Wayne Airport, the crowded coast highway
and the crowds at our beach.
The fact is all of the above are here to stay.
The answer is in how we deal with these issues.
For our part, all of the changes at St_ Andrews represent a concerted effort
on our part to alleviate the conditions that affect our near by residents the
most -the traffic, the parking and the noise.
While the new parking will be increased by 150 spaces; all of the additional
will be underground — inviting, lighted and safe —with a beautification
project to hide the present on ground parking.
Now as for the noise, St Andrews is not trying to become a "Mega Church ";
however, to remain stable it must nue to attract young people. In doing
this we are replacing our fellow,4 Dp. Vch will take our youth in doors into
a magnificent, soundproof facility.
In conclusion, we want to be good neighbors and while we are hear to stay,
we want to do everything within reason to alleviate the concerns of our
valued neighbors many of whom are members of our church.
lAr
Mr. James Campbell
Senior Planner, Cit of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RE: Draft EIR for St. Andrews Church
Newport Beach, CA
Dear Mr. Campbell:
RECEIVED Sy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BEACH
CITY OF NIFWa� �nT
MAY 1-u 2004
71619110111.,112111213141516
May 1, 2004
Inxeference to the above Draft EIR, I feel the impact on the surrounding community will be
minimal. I'm familiar with the work of Snyder- Langston, through my having been one of three
members of the building committee at Concordia University - Irvine and can vouch for the quality
of their design and construction. I feel confident that the ultimate renovation of this facility will
not in any way, impact negatively upon the surrounding community.
Hopefully, by revising this campus the city will be enhanced and that it will encourage the
Christian youth to grow in faith and be of service to Newport Beach in the future.
Sincerely,
E. Vernon Frost.
1�1
2627 Seaview Ave
Corona Del Mar, Calif. 92625
Phone 949- 723 -4167
waltdrake *arthlink.net
..........................
May 6, 2004
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 1-01 2004
7�819110111 112,1,213141516
Chairman and Planning Commission
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
Dear Sirs: Re: " St. Andrews Building Program
My wife and I have been residents of Corona Del Mar for 15 years plus,
and members of St. Andrews for 17 years plus. In order to meet the needs
of our youth program, the church must expand it's current physical
facilities. The youth are the future of our community and St. Andrews plays
a vital roll in their development. We strongly urge your support far St.
Andrews building program.
Respectfully
.����
Walter M. Drake
Marjorie G. Drake
17
Vp Tna 16. =- Maitax
200 J) a¢is 1'ane c79�t. 218
.�zNzwhott Bzacg, eafifawia 92663
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
May 5, 2004
Mt. EaAt McDaniel, Chaiftman
NeNpaxt Beach Planning Comwusa.ion
Newpoxt Beach City HaP2.
3300 Newpoxt Blvd.
Newport Beach CA 42663
Deaf M. McDani.eZ:
MAY 11 2004 PM
71819110 X11112111213141516
When I moved. to NewpoAt Beach ltweZve. years ago to be elo.6eA
to my son's 6ami.Zy, one o6 the 6itst th.inp I. dial was to
twx4jet my.Chwcch membeo. h.ip to St. Andxew!.a_Pxesbytexian.
I had heard many uwndeAjut stoties o6 .them dnvotvement with
the people o6 the community. I became so impressed it wont .
tong be6ote I became involved in. many o6 the Chutch's acttvi-
ties .
Because out member ship is geneutty otdet we have been trying
to geaA ouA activities towaxd meeting the needs o6 the young
people in out Chwcch. This .inct'ude! the only new building in
out proposed development pAogAam, a youth and family Centek,
papa c6 which w t t? teptaee an existing cta6sAoom building that
witL be demolished.
The new 6acUity Witt dnetude a soundptoo6 gym at gtound 6toot
tevet, and meeting and teeAeation toom6 at basement teveZ.
A new 6acit ty, which wilt .inenea6e packing spaces 6Aom 250 to
400, is ae6o planned. The uppeA.tevee will be apptoximateZy
the same elevation as the existing tot, and the towex teveZ
wiZ.Z be well Lighted and seAvieed by etevatoAA - .inviting and
sa5e. The additional 150 packing spaeeb wilt'_ Remove panhing
6tom in 6Aowt o.5 many neighbots' homes.
We believe that out teaching out to the young people in out
community with :these planned imptovement6 .i6 a very positive
e66oAt, and ttAubt you will give bed=s positive attention
to out tegueat box appxoval.
Thanking you in advance ban your sehiou6 attention to this
matter, I am
Since ety,
IMA4.! Verna D. Mattox
1
May 3, 2004
STATE OF CALIFORNIA��
Governor's. Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Jan Boel
RECEIVED BY Acting Director
PLANNING DEPARTMENT .
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
James Campbell
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
MAY 11 2004 PM
7 `819110 11 l j12 �l �2j3�4�5�6
Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Improvements
SCHM 2603081065
Dear James Campbell:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft. EIR to -selected state agencies for review. The
review period closed on April 30, 2004, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter
Acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality-Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at.(916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named proJect, please refer to the
ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Terry Ro its
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812 -3044
TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2003081065
Project Title St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Improvements
Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment that would
allow for an increase in floor area above that currently permitted and Amended Conditional Use Permit
for expansion of their current facilities. In addition, the project is subject to the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance requirements. It approved, the discretionary actions identified above would allow the
demolition of two existing buildings and the construction of two structures, including a
gymnasium /fellowship hall and classroom buildings, resulting in a total of 140.388 square feet of floor
area on the site (i.e. an increase of 35,566 square feet). In addition, a subterranean parking garage is
proposed.
Lead Agency Contact
Name James Campbell
Agency -City of Newport Beach.
Phone 949 - 644 -3210 Fax
email
Address 3300 Newport Boulevard
City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663
Project Location
County Orange
City Newport Beach
Region
Cross Streets 15th Street & Irvine Avenue
Parcel No. 049- 252 -11
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways SR55
Airports
Railways
Waterways Newport Bay & Pacific Ocean
Schools
Land Use The 3.94 -acre site is currently improved with 104,440 square feet as St. Andrews Presbyterian Church.
Several buildings, including a 1,200 -seat sanctuary, classrooms, and administrative facilities occupy
the existing structures. The property is zoned R -1 and R -2, which is consistent with the Low Density
Residential General Plan land use designation.
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic- Historic; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; Flood
Plain /Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Job Generation; Minerals; Noise, Public Services;
Schools /Universities; Sewer Capacity; Wildlife; Wetland /Riparian; Water Supply; Water Quality;
Vegetation; Traffic /Circulation; Toxic /Hazardous; Solid Waste; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading;
Social; Cumulative Effects; Other Issues
Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of
Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources;
California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8;
Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands
Commission
Date Received 03/17/2004 Start of Review 03/17/2004 End of Review 04/30/2004
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
0
Mr. James Campbell
Senior PIanner, City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RE: Draft EIR for St. Andrews Church, Newport Beach, Ca
Dear W. Campbell:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM MAY 12 2004 PM
7 8,91101111121112131415 6
May 02, 2004
I have been a member of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church for many years and have noticed
an increase in the activities and attendance for young people at the church. With the additional
cars, parking has been a problem and I strongly feel this will be remedied with the renovation
plans for this facility.
A lot of thought and planning has gone into these changes and additions to the campus and the
last thing the church wants is to have a detrimental effect upon the surrounding environs. The
positive effects of these changes, I think, will have long lasting benefits for the community at
large far into the future.
Thank you for your hind attention to this matter,
t
Elaine Gordon
13q
Message
Campbell, James
From: Lisa and AI Gels [the - gels @pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:58 PM
To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: [QUAR]St. Andrews Expansion
Attention: Jim Campbell
Subject: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Councilman Rosansky,
Page 1 of 2
We are 12 year residents of Newport Heights and have attended St. Andrews Church for
nearly 10 years. We strongly support the St. Andrews project and hope that you will do
the same.
St Andrews is a tremendous asset to our community. They provide a safe haven for our-,
youth in a time when there are fewer and fewer safe places for kids to just "hang out."
Our children have benefited from St. Andrews' Preschool, Vacation Bible School and all
their wonderful programs. We hope St. Andrews will be able to build the recreation
center as outlined in the proposed expansion plan so that as our children reach Junior
High and High School they will have a place to worship, as well as a wonderful gathering
spot with thriving Junior High and High School programs to keep them off the streets
and out of trouble.
As we see it, the.proposed expansion is a great benefit to the entire community. We know
the Newport Heights Association is opposed to the project: however, they do not
represent the views and opinions of all residents in the Heights. We strongly support the
project and disagree with their arguments that the expansion will create more noise and
traffic.
There is tremendous misconception about the traffic, noise and density issues associated
with this project.
• The proposed expansion is intended to accommodate the needs of the existing
4,000 members. St. Andrews is not intending to expand their membership.
Therefore, there will be no more cars coming to and from the church. The cars will
merely be parked off the street and in an underground structure which will take the
parking off the streets.
• Traffic is an issue in Newport Heights, but the St. Andrews proposed expansion is
05
05/13/2004
Message
Page 2 of 2
not cause for the congestion. Traffic is a result of the Hoag Hospital expansion,
the car dealers on Coast Highway and more and more high school students driving to
and from school. The primary cause is the increased congestion on Pacific Coast
Highway, Newport Blvd., and 17th Street. As these main streets become more and
more congested, alternative "cut through routes" through the residential streets in
Newport Heights are cause for the increased traffic in the area. If traffic is a
concern then address those issues which are real don't use St. Andrews' proposed
project as a scope goat.
• Noise is being addressed and mitigated by the fact that the entire gym and
recreation area are underground and will be sound proofed. Noise going to and from
events'will be lessened too as a result of the underground parking versus street
parking.
We strongly urge you to look at the significant benefits that St. Andrews provides to
the community at -large and ask that you support and approve this important project.
J )�
05/13/2004
Chairman and Planning Commission
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Youth and Family Center Improvements
Dear Chairman and Commissioners:
May 10, 2004
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 13 2004
AM PM
7181911 O il 1112111213141516
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed improvements to the St. Andrew's
Presbyterian Church campus at 600 St. Andrew's Road in Newport Beach, CA.
My family has resided in Orange County.since the early 1960's and except for period
between 1976 -1986, has attended St. Andrew's since that time. I now live in the City of
Newport Beach, after having lived in Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, all the while
attending St. Andrew's. We moved to Glendale in 1976, where we worshipped at
Glendale Presbyterian. After I graduated from college, I moved back to Orange County,
where I became a member at St. Andrew's in 1989.
While in Glendale, I was actively involved in the youth programs both as a student and
later as a youth counselor. One of the most important aspects of that program was its
excellent youth facility that appealed in both design and function. It was a quality,
constructive place that the area youth could gather, play games, exercise in a safe
environment, and worship together. When I came back to St. Andrew's, I was dismayed
that the remodel that had occurred when I was away did not include a youth center. After
years of worshipping and working at a church with a youth center, it was heartbreaking to
have to leave. The importance of the youth center as a tool to reach out into a community
cannot be underestimated. I am a witness of how such a facility can be a positive and
enriching part of any church campus.
I am currently a homeowner in Bonita Canyon. Our homeowner association recently
collaborated with the neighboring Mormon Church to allow the building of a completely
new Temple facility — a huge new facility that dwarfs the proposed improvements at St_
Andrew's. We proved that homeowners can work together with a church to understand
each other and where possible, limit impacts on our neighborhood. I see no reason why
the neighbors around St. Andrew's can do likewise and still, approve the proposed facility
improvements. The arguments I have seen raised so far are simply veiled opinions by
people that simply do not want any church in their neighborhood. In reality, St.
Andrew's likely preceded nearly all of the current homeowners in the immediate
neighborhood.
13)
Arguments related to real estate (decline in values, etc...) are also unfounded. I am a
licensed real estate appraiser and broker and have been active in Orange County real
estate for nearly 20 years. A study published in the Journal of Real Estate Finance and
Economics' concluded that "...neighborhood churches are amenities that enhance
property values... ". Considering the length of time that St. Andrew's Presbyterian
Church has been at its current location, I would seriously doubt any improvements would
negatively alter nearby property values. The strength of the real estate market in the local
area cannot possibly be harmed by the proposed improvements. On the contrary, there is
a good likelihood that a modern, appealing facility that reaches out to the community and
provides a positive influence can only increase property values by making the
neighborhood a more desirous place to live.
As you are likely aware, the improvements will only add one building while simply
modernizing and bringing the remaining buildings up to date. Architects plans envision
blending the updated structures with the rest of the buildings on the campus, as well as
considering the neighborhood architecture. The parking problem in the neighborhood is
commonly associated with Newport Harbor High School and. not St. Andrew's.
However, the proposed improvements will dramatically increase the off - street parking for
church events by 60% - a "win" for the neighbors by getting more cars off the streets.
Noise problems associated with the youth programs (music, basketball, etc...) will be
relocated underground in soundproofed areas that will be yet another `vin" for the
neighbors.
Any claims that St. Andrew's is completing this project to become a "Mega- church" are
absurd. Membership has remained fairly constant over the past 20 years, and with the
current demography of the local area, it is believed that membership will remain constant
(and NOT increase) for years to come. Nationally, the Presbyterian church has not seen .
dramatic increases in membership for decades. - .. .
Specific programs at St. Andrew's have had profound effects on the community. The
Divorce Recovery Workshop is attended by families in need throughout Orange County.
The music program has always provided renowned concerts and opportunities to worship
and enjoy both classical and religious concerts. Outreach programs, such as the
Thanksgiving Dinner have provided meals and love for needy families throughout the
Harbor area. It is hoped that the proposed improvements will not only make these events
more appealing, but also reduce the impact on the Church's neighbors.
St. Andrew's is a good neighbor to the residents in the area. Programs provide a place to
address and support social issues in our community, provide for those less fortunate than
most of us in the Harbor area, and reach out to children and youth as a positive guiding
influence in this challenging time. The proposed improvements will merely decrease the
impacts on the neighborhood while increasing the effectiveness of the ministry of the
church. I hope and pray that the Planning Commission can understand and realize the
truth of the project and not be swayed by misleading emotional falsehoods.
'Living Next to Godliness: Residential Property Values and Churches, Journal of Real Estate Finance and
Economics, 12:319-330 (1996).
i 3q
Again, it is my hope that the neighbors in the Cliff Haven area, the Planning Commission
and St. Andrew's can reach a collaborative understanding to allow the project to be
approved and completed in an expeditious manner.
Sincerely,
David & Amy Guder
30 Whitehall
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
3q
jack, W. Wabtew, UFAC fC-
3 Maidstone Drwe
Newport Peach, CA_g266,0 -42 1
(94j) 720 -0296
!we%bievcox. wet
Ma 11, 2004
Mr. Earl McDaniel,
CLIP rM.an and Planvung CDVVLMiSSLon
Newport Beach CLt� +-tall
3300 NewportBivd.
Newport'&each, oA_g2ro63
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 13 2004 PM
y 819110111112 I1 I21314,516
Dear Mr. MCDavu.et:
1 write to asle for the eontmssio support of the St. AKdrew's PresbuterLaw.
church youth and f:amUt Center project. our St. AvWrew's ntent.bershLp nears 20
ears and was a 1ZCU factor in our decsion to vnalee our home Lm Newport $each in
1999• The fUVKUU and covu.wL"Vtit� focus EnherCwt Ln the St. A"rew's program
commLtwt.ents are what bind us to this uvu clue Christian feLLowship.
we will continue to support St. Andrew's whether or not it proceeds with
Lv proved fnoUL ves crafted to better serve the "vu et. needs of Uouwg people and
fame Lt es En Newport Beach. The "gra Jiv g" popuLatLOn,Ln this covl&mv -vUt� wU ensure
St. Avuolrew's congregate wyewtibershEp wtU support its current program endeavors.
Ptowever, what WILL lowome of our ChLLdren avt.d our three grandsons also
residing Lvu Newport Beach and attevOing St, <tvt,drew's? It is disconcerting and
unfortL,c"te to hear them discuss the possibte need to seep other churches with facUEt�
resources more aligned to their favKUU needs and expectations. shouLd their concerns
be acted upon., atov?g with others iv. Ulu posttov, the eros%on of St,4ndrew's future wilt
suretu foLl ow. such an outcovvie Witt dLvvli k aw Lmportant etement that has vnade
Newport Beach a hLgh[U desirabte place to LEve.
St. ,4vwlrew's, from the beginning, has centered Lt planvv -d facULtt
Evupvovemmts with neighborhood concerns foremost Ln vi End. , The benefits of the
ptavun.ed faCULtEes have been orafted to resolve Long - standing issues that have been
major irritants to neighbors and congregates atil2e. The commLssiows favorabLe
referral, of the project WELL represent a major step forward to slgni ficantt� Lvuprove. one
aspect of the Newport. Harbor.High.weighborhood WKLe I,Q,, ng,the foundation for the
continued heatth and fullness. of Life. for alt NewportBeaeh residents.
si erel�,
J 1
cl2 W. weLblew
1�
Ron Hendrickson
1991 Port Claridge Place
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel. 949 64441644
Mr. Earl Mc Daniel, Chairman, and the Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. McDaniel and members of the Planning Commission:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 13 2004
AM 7 819110111113111213141516
May 8, 2004
I am a 30 year resident of Newport Beach, a member of St. Andrew's, have been active in the community,
love Newport Beach, and want it to be the best City it can be. Having fine schools, great recreational parks
and churches like St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in our community provide the ingredients of an
outstanding city.
St. Andrew's which was founded in Newport Beach well over 50 years ago, has a membership that has
remained constant in size and is generally older; however, there are many younger families who are the
future of the church. There has been for several years a shortage of facilities to accommodate these
families and their children in existing church programs. Therefore, the focal point of the proposed building
program is a Youth and Family Center, which includes a gym with soundproofing. Part of the Youth and
Family Center would replace an existing obsolete classroom building which would be demolished. More
that half of the proposed new square footage would be below grade, therefore reducing the building mass.
The other building in the program is a new fellowship hall building which is to replace the existing
fellowship hall building, and include administration space. The existing fellowship hall building would be
demolished.
While a new 2 level parking facility (one level below grade) is included in the program, increasing St.
Andrew's current arking by 60 %, I hope that the, Commission would not overlook the availability ofthe
Harbor High's 15 Street parking lot which the Church has used and shared parking with the school for .
many years. The increase in St. Andrew's on -site parking will allow for more shared parking with the
school during the week and get parked cars off the streets.
There is no question that every effort would have to be made by St. Andrew's and its contractors to ensure
mummma disturbance and impact to the neighborhood during construction, but with the building of many
new large homes in the area in the recent past, this would not be an entirely new experience for the
neighborhood.
If St. Andrew's reasonably mitigates the impacts outlined in the DEIR, I hope the Planning Commission
will recognize the need for these additional facilities and be able to approve this needed project.
1 4
Dr. John W. Applegate, M.D.
Frances H. Applegate
May 10, 2004
Chairman and Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach.
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
PLANNING DEP 8Y
CITY r')F NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 13 2004
8,9110111 112,1 121314,516
My wife and I have lived here for 40 years and have been members of St. Andrew's
Presbyterian Church for almost 20 years. We raised our children here, and they now live
in the St. Andrew's neighborhood and attend St. Andrew's Church. Our grandchildren
attend Newport Harbor High School.
I practiced obstetrics and gynecology in Newport Beach during this same period and
delivered many babies at Hoag Hospital, where I served as Chief of Staff. I think largely
because of the high divorce rate in our community I can't tell you how many tunes my
patients came in to tell me sad stories of their kids having trouble in school, teenage
pregnancies, and drug abuse. St. Andrew's, because of its location next to the high
school, can play an important role in managing these kids in the 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. time
period and after football games from 9:30 to 11:00 p.m. With a soundproof underground
gym and recreational meeting room where no alcohol or drugs are allowed and excellent
youth pastors are in constant control, the risk of our children misbehaving will be greatly
reduced. It is not our intention to increase the number of members of our church, which
has remained stable for 20 years, but to serve our youth better. This should save the city
considerable money in the police budget as well as mating the neighborhood quiet and
safe for all. The addition of underground parking will mean fewer cars on the streets.
We hope that you will find it m your hearts to approve this important project.
Sincerely yours,
JW. Apple D. U
l��
Elizabeth Pyle
1400 Clay Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
l-rom
May 7, 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
Clerk to copy each of the council
Sljp
_ o
Date
Copies Sent To:
�' ayor
—`
tr�uncil Member
" —
Manager
�Q
I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the
application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses
don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller
scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the.
document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have
the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small
community.
The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000
square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be
watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable
level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements", who says that should be
good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I
say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities.
The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated
by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with
freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The
neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to
remodel, not expand, their 100;000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church
may be made better, but no larger.
Please hear the communities on this issue.
urs truly,
�3 -
February 9, 2004
City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Dear City Council:
•o4 riAY 13 A9:34
8 Cii
I am writing about the building program for St. Andrew's and asking that you support St.
Andrew's in our request to refurbish and remodel our spiritual campus.
I am told that there are neighbor concerns about the church. That -is .a littlehard to... .
understand since we have been here for more than a half century, as has Newport Harbor High
School. Nevertheless, we want to be good neighbors and meet the city's stringent building
requirements.
As I understand the St. Andrew's application, the church is providing the number of off -
street parking spaces required by city codes, and is not seeking any building variances. The new
parking capacity is added out of sight underground, and there is extensive landscaping around
the campus. The building materials are compatible with the existing building materials. The
new family and youth center is sound attenuated and oriented toward the central campus core.
St. Andrew's has played by all the rules. I hope you can see your way clear to give us the
support we need to meet the needs of our congregation.
Yours truly,
4.P� /C./
E.A.Zoe Hemepo3+er �-
-2958 Quedada
Bevpok Beach; G 92660-3533,
Date _!d13 W
Copies Sent To:
Mayor
—1-e-CBuncil Member
Manager
ney �f
11
Pr C io Azfter5,02-09-04 1 4 1
May 13, 2004
Planning Commission and Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Commissioners and Council:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY,1 4 2004 PM
71819110111112111213141516
My husband and I were not able to make the meetings in support of the
neighborhood, but you should fully understand how many people are
opposed to this outrageous power play. The church had its land grab
22 years ago in the original C U P. Please deny this expansion and
don't even think about mitigating - we don't want it.
The density of building mass is hideous. The fact that lots of the
building is underground is stupid- how will that keep the additional
people from using the expanded facility? Our lovely small
neighborhood will me over built with commercial like land use
influences. Their own parking and traffic, even now, is awful.
Please, on behalf of the older residents who can't make the meetings
and lobbying- do what it is you do best and represent us.
Thank you. /
u/
Betty Shaw
Mr. And Mrs. Shaw
447 Irvine Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92663
145
RECEIVED BY
May 12, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT EACH
MAY 14 2004 PM
Planning Commission and Council 7 gI9�10I11I12I1I2I3141516
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews Expansion
Dear Honorable commissioners and Council:
The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate their 34%
expansion. On behalf of my neighbors and my family, I ask you to deny this application on the
basis of the following planning precepts:
1. Inappropriate density- both the FAR and the built footage in square feet per acre are far
beyond those found in our neighborhood. And, this is not a house- it is an institution
seeking greater area, operation and more people. The area has been shown to be
greater in density than regional shopping centers and with the added volume. of people
and traffic it is unwelcome in a small neighborhood.
2. Insufficient and unclear mitigation of increased traffic. The DEIR shows a very troubling
_ ...:. trend of -greater traffic and does. not-achieve suitable. mitigation. _Theixade.to introduce .
traffic volumes through the Heights and Cliffhaven, without collector streets, so that the
church can be larger is very poor planning. If there is a 40% error in traffic reports, why
take the risk?
3. Existing CUP failure- the church operates marginally now under a.20 year old CUP.
" f'hey are conditioned to require attendance counts, but have not complied with reporting
of these counts on any Saturday, service.
4. 'Parking failure- Even if the DEIR allows the'parking`persanctuary seat, their program
functions explained in their own application indicate that there is much more happening
at the church than mere worship services. There are no calculations offered or made
suggesting what the parking irequiremerit might be for any'combination of concurrent
uses or activities.
5. :Horrific construction work- the ezcavation,'grad'ing and hauling alone, without the
remainder of the nightmare-heavy construction, cannot be adequately mitigated.
6. Poor Planning/ loss of property value- with such an institutional sized expansion, there
will be a decline of property value. This is an awful land use occurrence and one that
the Commission, on behalf 'of 'the community; should'cleariyiead to denial cirthis
proposal.
If St. Andrews wants to expand they might consider an off site facility, but the option of further
on -site expansion, 11ri oursmall neighborhood, is inappropriate. Please ask them to remodel, but
not expand.
{
Thank you in advance for hearing the Communities!
14
April 40 2004
Mayor Ridgeway and Council
City ofNcwportBeach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: St. Andrews' current CUP compliance
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
It bas come to the attention of the joint neighborhood Associations that certain
facts caning St. Andrews' existing CUP need to be reviewed in light of St.
Andrews present application. After di=using these f cts with staff they
recommended that we forward the mattes to you. We ask that your body revisit
the Church's compliance with the CUP and you, as makers of this condition, be
knowledgeable and understandthe following facts:
1. that the traffic impacts, of apparent interest to the makers of this original condition, no
longer are restricted to Sunday;
2. that the Church, under its current programming, has far greater impact than tin; makers of
the original condition ever imagined;
3. that the interest of the communities served by the original CUP has been impacted by traffic
not known to the staff and makers of this original condition because the reporting has been
limited to Sunday. This is especially important in that the Church had expanded its services
to Saturday- without notifying the Council or this condition and without reporting the
attendance of these services;
4. that the community has been damaged due to the growth of the Church, primarily by its
increased traffic;
S. that the makers of the original condition are gone. As City staff is the custodian of this
condition, the damaged neighborhoods ask that the staff require the Church to report to the
requirements of the original condition namely the attendance associated with the Church's
growth;
6. that the Church be asked to report the attendance for all current activities that produce an
attendance of more than 12, regardless of when they occur, so that the staff and Council
might witness and know the Church's actual growth, rather than the current limited
7. that the Church can worship whenever and wherever they want, but only operate on this site
to the extent permitted in the CUP and the law that governs;
The Church's current program and activities have outgrown the existing 20 year
old CUP, that may be shown to be unmonitored (however inadvertent) because, in
part, that the Church has reported attendance figures from only two thirds of its
services and none of its now popular other "programs ".
IV)
At some point St. And news desire to change its operating conditions will need to
be balanced against the impact to the neighbors and their property. If it is
appareatthat the Church has histmicalty reported attendance incompletely wader
the existing CUP, and the City, for reasons that may well be inadvertent but
now plain, hasn't monitored these conditions, then the premise and continuum of
judgment for the current proposal must be seen in a different light. The Church is
asking to add to a facility that is already at a development level never imagined by
the makers of the wdsting CUP.
In regard to the Church being proactive with the community, the City should
know that St. Andrewshas neverpm. sented a changed plan fient dwiroriginal .
massive expansion project and has informed us that theircnaent plans will stand
as submitted. Our neighborhood associations stand united and opposed to this
current expansion plan.
Yours truly,
Donald Krobee AIA , ent
Newport Heights Improvement Association
Brian Brooks, President
Cliff Haven Community Association
`qi