Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt. Andrews Presbyterian Church (PA2002-265)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 6 June 17, 2004 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner, (949) 644 -3210 icamobell(&city newoort- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265) General Plan Amendment, Zone Change & Use Permit 600 St. Andrews Road During the last meeting, meeting, several Planning Commissioners indicated it would be preferable if the applicant and the neighbors develop a mutually agreeable compromise to the issues raised during public testimony. The applicant has had several meetings with neighborhood association representatives. Staff has been told that no compromise has been made; however, discussions continue. The Newport Heights Improvement Association has submitted an update on the project and ongoing discussions (Exhibit No. 1). The Final EIR, which takes the form of the responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, has been prepared and is attached to this report for the Commission's consideration (Exhibit No. 2). Comments received did not reveal any new environmental impacts or dispute the feasibility of mitigation measures identified. The responses augment and clarify the Draft EIR and staff believes that the EIR is now complete. After additional public input is received at the hearing, a recommendation related to the adequacy of the document can be considered. The single most repeated comment on the Draft EIR relates to the general sense that the site is insufficient in size for the intensity of use proposed and that the intensity of use given the location of the site is in conflict with nearby residential uses. Increased parking, traffic and noise may conflict with many neighbors desire to live in a quiet residential neighborhood. Answering the question of whether or not the project is compatible with the community is not answered by the analysis contained within the EIR because EIRs use the concept of a "threshold of significance to determine significant environmental impacts. There is no threshold of significance related to the intensity of an institutional use in close proximity to residential uses. Therefore, the analysis contained in the St. Andrews EIR related to land use impacts is very frustrating to many residents. Compatibility of a project with its surroundings and whether or not a project is detrimental to a community are the central questions that must be answered through the St. Andrews Church Expansion June 17, 2004 Page 2 exercise of good judgment by the Planning Commission and City Council in their decision making. Design changes or operational conditions that go beyond the suggested mitigation measures of the EIR can be applied to the project through the Use Permit. The only caution that staff has in this area is that any changes or conditions need to steer away from any religious aspects and relate to alleviating legitimate environmental or community concerns. For example, conditions designed to avoid or reduce impacts related to efficient traffic and parking management, hours of operation, noise control, building height limitations, lighting concerns etc. are all legitimate areas that can be regulated. Placing the City in a position where a condition required a determination of whether or not an activity is faith based is unadvisable. Additionally, conditions must not represent a "substantial burden" on religious exercise and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has said that a substantial burden is a "significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise." With that, a list of potential operational conditions has been created for discussion purposes. The list is by no means comprehensive or final and it is simply a starting point for discussion (Exhibit No. 3). Based upon the previous meeting, staff is exploring the pros and cons of closing the Clay Street driveway. The applicant is presently preparing a detailed traffic & parking management plan that may be available for consideration at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff is hoping that by the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission will be able to give direction for staff. Several courses of action present themselves at this time: 1. Direct staff to prepare findings and a resolution for project denial; 2. Prepare findings and conditions for project approval, which would include the necessary findings for certification of the EIR. 3. Direct staff to have additional analysis prepared. Staff recommends a continuance to July 22, 2004. Prepared by: 3w � James W. Ca bell, Senior Planner Submitted by: PAIW CO- Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director St. Andrews Church Expansion June 17, 2004 Page 3 Exhibits 1. E -mail from Don Krotee with an update from the Newport Heights Improvement Association Planning Committee 2. Final EIR (Responses to Comments) — separate bound volume 3. Church Operations Study 4. Additional Correspondence received This Page Left Intentionally Blank 4 Exhibit No. 1 E -mail from Don Krotee with an update from the Newport Heights Improvement Association Planning Committee R This Page Left Intentionally Blank 0 Message Campbell, James From: Don Krotee [dkrotee @krotee.coml Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:35 PM To: 'Campbell, James' Subject: RE: St. Andrews meeting Thanks Jim: Two things. Page 1 of 2 First, an alternative to allow the church to demo the two buildings, the same as with the current proposal, replace the structures with the elements of the proposal that address their new program (youth center and the gym). The buildings could be placed subterranean (partially and) in locations back from Clay to allow regular sized parking spaces. This (tucking under the parking lot) would maximize the surface parking and display a net add to the site of '0' sq. ft. This would enable them not to downsize the landscape setback, as currently proposed, and to use generally the rules of the existing 1982 -1984 CUP. This could also have the church offer to improve the parking shared with the adjacent District. In that the 'add' is not so aggressive, the parking on the school property could be restripped surface parking and St. Andrews, with the money they save, could afford to pick up the mitigation tab for some of Edmiston's'calming devices' sprinkled around the area. An adhoc committee, like'82 -'84 propose and mitigate other portions of the project as requests are made by the staff, neighborhood(s) and others. The alternative that KKA proposes is not too dissimilar. I'm enclosing the churches reaction from showing this at the first negotiation meeting. Second, the minutes near the end of the meeting, in regard to Commissioner Eaton's comments, are grossly abbreviated. Wherein: Commissioner Eaton noted the following: . This is a difficult issue. . He noted a letter received comparing the Mormon temple and this church expansion. Eaton had several very important context comments about the size (square footage of the proposal and the controversy) of the Mormon facility, the height of it's embattled tower (when compared too St. Andrews huge lighted cross) and the size and location of the facility near large arterials as compared to the little streets served by St. Andrews. I believe the Commission, staff and public require these important issues- Commissioner Eaton certainly thought so. Thanks for the insight to the process. //k 06/11/2004 Message - --- Original Message--- - From: Campbell, James [mailto:JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:43 PM To: 'Don Krotee Cc: Terry Botros'; 'bill @slaterbuilders.com' Subject: RE: St. Andrews meeting Page 2 of 2 The responses to comments are done. Look at the St. Andrews webpage and download them. I have hard copies in my office. I expect a lively debate about the EIR on the 17th. Are there any operational conditions (beyond the mitigation measures) that you might want me to think about? Lastly, there will not be a final recommendation by the PC on the 17th. Jim Campbell - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Don Krotee [mailto:dkrotee @krotee.com] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 4:05 PM To: James Campbell (E -mail) Subject: FW: St. Andrews meeting Can we agree that the actions the 1701 have been postponed? What time line do you think the responses? Nk DONALD KROTEE PARTNERSHIP, INC 515 North Main Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92701 -4619 VOICE: 714/547 -7621 FAX: 714/647 -0193 dkrotee @krotee.com 06/11/2004 �11 NEWPORT HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE The Planning committee includes several neighbors in Newport Heights who are interested in the community planning issues that affect our neighborhood. Some areas of concern are the influence and development of 17th Street, Old Newport, Mariners Mile, Hoag and any commercial developments that affect our community. The hope and goal for the Heights planning group is that we can provide input into the private planning and the public processing of these developments to better the neighborhood and the development through a cooperative effort. St. Andrews Expansion- Background As the most serious impact to our neighborhood, this expansive development has routinely eluded our goal above. In the summer of 2003 the Church was found to have published plans for an unprecedented expansion (35,948 sq. feet of net addition to the existing site including a gym - multi- purpose room and an underground parking garage, on 3.942 acres, in our residentially zoned neighborhood). The plans are so great they require an amendment to the City's general Plan (GPA). The GPA would allow an area so large it would narrowly avoid a Green Light vote. More surprisingly, Cliflhaven, our sister association, discovered a printed schedule /timeline, authored by St. Andrew's, showing community planning meetings completed, when actually they were held without notice. No one from the Clifthaven or the Heights group had been invited. Following a flurry of planning meetings with Dr. Huffman and the Building Committee, we asked that they make the church better, but not bigger and withdraw the idea and the application for the expansive development. In each instance the neighborhood suggestions were met with their public relations and lobbying constituent who delivered the same message, "we love to talk to you; but we are not changing our plans ". Currently the church has pressed their case to request a General Plan Amendment, zone change and Use Permit at the City. The City required an Environmental Impact Report and a draft EIR (DEIR) was submitted in March 2004. E NEWPORT HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Planning Committee Update St. Andrews Expansion- Update The Planning Commission met May 20`I', 2004, to hear the issues of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and other items of the churches building application currently before the City. Notice of the availability of the plans, DEIR and the application was given those in the specific area (300'). The communities have provided comments to the City in regard to the EIR and as of the end of May; there have been no response. The Commission has noted their interest in seeing these responses also. In the Commission meeting the chair of the Planning Commission, Mr. Earl Mc Daniel (emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com) invited the staff and the applicant to provide a presentation. Following this the chair asked that the leaders of the two affected homeowners associations make a presentation. He then asked for people opposed and people in favor of the `application' to, in the interest of time and in 2 minutes of less, provide their opinion. Approximately 25 to 35 people from the neighborhoods spoke to the issue and approximately 17 to 25 people, from this and other Cities supported the churches position. At lease two members of the church presented a view favoring the findings of the neighborhoods. At the close of the hearing several Planning Commissioners indicated that they had but'...two ways to vote- red and green, and if they vote, one of the parties may not like the outcome'. Most of the people who heard this, think that the statement was directed to the church whose arguments were more from the heart than from any logical point of view. However, the Commission clearly asked the applicant and the Communities to revisit the possibility of a compromise proposal and the meeting was continued. Compromise Meeting Wednesday May 26, 2004 the church invited Bruce Stewart, an attorney living in Cliffhaven, to meet with the churches attorney and their development people and investigate the possibility of a negotiated middle ground for settlement. In this settlement session, (hosted and held in the office of Mr. Gary McKitterick (gmckitterick @allenmatkins.com ) the attorney assisting the church) the following attended. Bruce Stewart (BSTUART @SYCR.com), Bill Dunlap (bill @slaterbuilders.com), and Don Krotee (dkrotee @krotee.com) attended for the consolidated neighborhoods. Mr. Ken Williams, Mr. Brad Hilgren and the churches builder, Mr. Steve Jones, represented the church. The neighborhoods stressed that the best alternative project and the one reiterated and offered as 'an alternative project within the DEIR', was for a remodel, but no additional growth. �u NEWPORT HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Planning Committee Update Compromise Meeting (continued) In this option the church might demo the two buildings, the same as with the current proposal, replace the structures with the elements of the proposal that speak to their new program (youth center and the gym), place the buildings as to eliminate the compact parking and to correct and maximize the surface parking and display a net add to the site of '0' sq. ft. This would enable them not to downsize the landscape setback as currently proposed and to use generally the rules of the existing 1982 -1084 CUP. This could also have the church offer to improve the parking shared with the adjacent District. They could mitigate other portions of the project as requests are made by the staff, neighborhood(s) and others. The church did not receive this well and complained that it offered them 'no project at all'. They stated that their beliefs and commitment were toward their current proposal. As a second alternative, the group as a whole had studied and saw wisdom in the concept(s) of developing the Youth center, gym (as additional building) with additional parking, along 15th and possibly the more urbanized 16th streets (off the current church site). However, no clear direction could or ever was established here, especially in that the church and District have no formalized agreement and the Government code forbids such an agreement. There is opportunity here, however, the church stated that they like their development on a single campus for the unity and convenience of control. A less than successful record in the Districts previous attempt to build a parking garage in the area along 15a' street makes this also a more difficult, but possible alternative. A few days following the negotiation meeting the applicant church asked for a continuance to review comments in regard to the DEIR and to allow for the church and the neighbors to continue to talk. The continuation at Commission was asked to be no earlier than Thursday, June 17, 2004. This Page Left Intentionally Blank I-x Exhibit No. 2 Final EIR (Responses to Comments) separate bound volume 13 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 1A Exhibit No. 3 Church Operations Study 15 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 1b Church Operations Study. 2"° Edition 1. Hours of operation. Normal hours of operation will be between the hours of 7AM to 10PM Sunday through Thursday and 7AM to 11 PM Friday and Saturday. Program events (see assumptions & definitions) of more than 400 persons will not start later than 8:00 PM and will be scheduled to end at least 30 minutes prior to the normal end of operation hours. 2. Occupancy of the site. To be 1,387 adults in worship services or religious instruction at one time. Children below the age of 16 are not included. Report attendance at all worship services and begin reporting attendance at any special event that exceeds 1200 attendees. 3. Gymnasium use. Shall be limited to church sponsored events with the following exceptions: NMUSD or the City may rent it on a limited basis for assembly or athletic use. Maximum outside rental use will be limited to not more than 300 persons as assembly use or 150 persons with athletic use. Concurrent use of the gymnasium as a venue for worship services will be subject to the overall site occupancy limitations. 4. No New School. No private school from first • grade and above shall be operated on -site without a future amendment to the use permit and re- evaluation of the Traffic Study. 5. Buses. Coach bus pick -up and drop-off shall occur at curbside either on 1 e Street or St. Andrew's Road at the church perimeter of the church property. School bus pick -up and drop-off shall occur within the parking lot at one of the designated drop off points. 6. Youth events. Will be supervised to • discourage youth from loitering or making excessive noise in the at -grade parking lots. Entrance and exit to youth events in the Youth and Family Center shall normally be scheduled using the below grade lobby circulation area. Youth events will be given priority parking in the lower level of the parking facility. 7. Parking Lot Use. Use of the parking lot for other than parking and unloading for events shall be limited to preschool use as a play area. Event use of the at -grade parking lot will be permitted up to 6 times per year. No amplified sound will be allowed at events held in the parking lot. Uses and attendance will be reported to the City. 8. Parking management plan. Will be provided prior to certification of the final EIR. The plan will involve the following: a. Parking Education for all groups using the site on where to park, when to park and how to approach the campus. Created on 6/10/2004 6:48 PM / 1 \1 Church Operations Study, 2"" Edition b. Parking management and staffing for worship services and special events expecting more than 800 persons. c. Coordination with the NHHS on the use of the 151h street lot for all events expecting over 1,200 persons. Coordination with NHHS for use of the church lot for student parking or NHHS events. d. Shuttle service from any or all designated off-site parking lots, other than the NHHS 15th Street lot, that are part of the conditions of approval for this application. e. Consideration will be given to using the le Street exit as the preferred exit for events ending after 8 PM. 9. Limited overnight use of the Family and Youth • Center will be permitted for church youth programs. 10. Weekday parking in the lower level parking facility will be assigned to staff and NHHS students (by permit) during business hours. 11. Time between Events. A minimum of 35 • minutes shall be maintained between worship services or special events that are expected to have more than 800 participants. 12. Assigned Parking. During worship services or special events with over 800 persons, lower level parking facility will be assigned to worship service or event participants and youth workers. One or more traffic monitor /s shall be assigned to direct cars into the facility when spaces are available. Parking stickers will be assigned to allow visual identification of vehicles assigned to the lower level parking facility. Subject to NHHS regulations, one or more monitor /s will be assigned to the NHHS. 151h Street lot to direct parking and traffic flow. 13. Monitoring. The applicants shall monitor • attendance under the conditions established and semi - annually report required attendance and event figures to the Planning Department. 14. NHHS Parking. In the event that 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. Assumptions & Definitions: a. Program events are considered any events other than worship services, prayer meetings, memorials, weddings or religious instruction. b. Special events are program events expecting more than 800 persons or memorials and weddings expecting more than 500 persons. Created on 6/10/2004 6:48 PM / 2 ld Exhibit No. 4 Additional Correspondence received 1q This Page Left Intentionally Blank 7D Page I of 1 Campbell, James From: Don Krotee [dkrotee @krotee.com] Sent: Friday, June 11, 200410:29 AM To: James Campbell (E -mail) Subject: Please re -visit the existing CUP In reading the staff report and paraphrasing a portion of the condition in regard to the reporting of attendance issue: 'The applicant shall monitor attendance and semi- annually report attendance figures to the Planning Department. "- Reiterating the written joint neighborhoods formal request, ( the letter of request is attached) to look into the supervision and the attendance for the church campus wide, the staff arbitrarily and capriciously interoperates this to mean, "only Sunday ". In this planning context of the church application, where people, population, traffic and parking is generated by the site programs that admittedly are across the weekly calendar, a further count, examination and explanation is called for. Can you please provide one? The applicant has provided an unaudited 24/7 program study of uses, but it is unclear, and staff has not commented on, the existing vs. proposed aspects of this. Traffic generation, in the DEIR seems to ignore the use of this applicant provided program information in favor of a 'table'. Staffs research and reporting is needed here. This study and reporting is especially needed in that the church indicates that'a youth and family center' is added to the existing interactions and existing traffic, far outside the conception of the makers of the original condition. However, the original condition only answers the question of 'Sunday. A count and study, across the week, should be undertaken before one can say that square footage added, whatever is negotiated, can be further absorbed by the neighborhood. Don Krotee for Newport Heights Improvement Association 06/11/2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 11 2004 PM 17 8[9110 [11 [1211 [2[3[415[6 Clerk to copy each of the council NEWPORT HEIGHTS iIwRovudENT ASSOCIATION PO Box 3242 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659 -0888 E -mail: dkrotee @krotee.com March 11, 2004 Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews' current status with the existing CUP. Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: It has come to the attention of the joint neighborhood Associations certain facts concerning the existing CUP. After discussing these points with staff they have recommended that we forward the matter to you. Our concern and an extermly important issue would be to ask that you body revisit the churches compliance with this condition of approval and to have have you, as makers of this condition, be knowledgeable and understand: 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 it's current programming, has far greater impact than the 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 it's services to Saturday- without address to 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 and primarily it's traffic. 5. that the makers of the original condition are gone. As staff is the custodian of this condition, the damaged neighborhoods ask that the staff require the church to report to the spirit of the original condition believed to be to understand the attendance associated with the churches growth. 6. that the church be asked to report the attendance for all of their 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 growth that is guised by the current limited reporting. 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. r St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion March 11, 2004 Page 2 of 2 More important is that the current needs of the church have out grown an existing 20 year old CUP, that may be shown to be unmonitored (however inadvertent) because, in part, that the church carefully reported attendance figures from only two thirds of its services and none of it's now popular other "programs ". At some point the granting of rights to operate will unquestionably be balanced against the impact to the neighborhoods (and their property). If it is apparent that the church has historically reported attendance falsely (under the existing CUP), and the City, for reasons that may well be inadvertent but now plain, hasn't monitored, then the premise and continuum of judgment for the current proposal must be seen in a different light. The church may be asking to add to a facility that is already at a development level never imagined by the makers of the existing CUP. In regard to the church being proactive with the community, the City should know that St. Andrews has never presented a changed plan from their original massive expansion and has informed us that their plans will stand as submitted. Our neighbors stand consolidated and opposed to this expansion. Yours truly, Donald Krotee AIA President, Newport Heights Improvement Association Brian Brooks, President Cliff Haven Community Association �3 June 3, 2004 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92658 Honorable Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Council Members: I wish to state my opposition to the expansion of Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church. First, the church as it currently stands is already oversized for a residential neighborhood. It increases the noise and congestion on our streets. A 35, 000 ft. expansion is completely out of keeping with the goals for neighborhood integrity articulated during the visioning process in Newport Beach. Furthermore, I am troubled by the argument that the church should be allowed a zoning change or variance on the basis of the good it brings to the neighborhood and community. Citizens of Newport Beach should not be required to sacrifice the quality of their neighborhood in order to promote a particular religious institution. I teach in a Newport Beach Sunday school, and my students complain that there is already considerable social pressure at Ensign Middle School and Newport Harbor High to join Saint Andrews Church youth groups. My own children felt this pressure while in these schools. I am happy that people find comfort and direction in the services offered by Saint Andrews. However, the City Council is not in the business of supporting the evangelizing efforts of any particular religious body. We citizens shouldn't be asked to sake the quality of our neighborhood to support the expansion of a church plant that has outgrown its location. Such a demand flies in the face of the separation of church and state. I ask you to reject the General Plan Amendment requested by Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church. !late c Copies Sent To, Mayor `rte t<ouncil Member - Mana;er - �• _ n c �—LCYN ❑ — ✓ _— a`� PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT IA ovet"Atf- _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CA v -a o Y l-A� vj � U I i JUN 0 S 2004 AM PM 718191 10 11 l 112I1 12I3141516 I 6 FSOO,p c%U.cJ� 8 CJ a d 46 �-�( 70 AAx O PLM 0 o� v v� N U OI 0 m �o m N N Lf W Z a v r ZL a� Date WM.HAROLD JEWELERS Copies Sent To: .' ]Mayor 3116 '. 3116 NEWPORT BLVD., NEWPORT BEACH, Douncil Member onager 04 JUN -8 A 9 :22 ,f F —A L] soa,�t Vill, AO c- jj� ECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M JUN 0. 8 2004 PM q 149 �7 S- G S- A ' 718,9110111,12 1112,3141516 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 7 2004 7�819110111 X12 ,11213,415 6 RF. `?t'. jiWAs4jSs housWE 4 tam.. '. ills CL t5 4frA v'ovuw`l*jF_%, at- (�4xq -6s SeQoa2s I Cwt TCk-qAo9-k oQPa�ffi ��. 3 wJ av Pit `t'V 1 IA„ C' DMm U'ri ,wb\`ed `WtfeontE Su[�i. 4 at Q`�En�at,`�\� �co2 `tPn4.n 7%%S. a� Splendi�t Media Productions June 3 , 2004 Mr. Earl McDaniel Chairman, Newport Beach Planning Comission Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. McDaniel, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPOR*f BEACH JUN 0 7 2004 PM 7 �819X10 X11 X12 1l121 3141516 My family has lived in the Newport Heights area for nearly 11 years. We are members of St. Andrew's and have benefited greatly from the many family and youth programs available. Our community would benefit greatly from the proposed youth center. Less traffic on the streets, less kids on the street, and increased value to the properties in the surrounding area. This youth center would truly" be a selling point and a great addition to the features of the community. Please give it your enthusiastic support. Sincerely, Clayton Light SplendidLight Media Productions 3� 177 Riverside Avenue Newport Beach. California o266a vox nao . 722 . RAk cnx Qaa . 722 . 7RoC, .cnlendirlliuht.rnm EDWARD B. LoYD 421 Vista Parada Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 760 -6949 Fax: (949) 760 -6940 email: edloyd @sbcglobal.net May 28, 2004 O Date Todd Ridgeway, Mayor City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Remodeling of St. Andrews Church Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Council Members: Speaking as an independent resident of Newport Beach, this is an open letter regarding the above project. First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce myself to you. In 1992 I transferred my U.S. home from New Jersey here for the purpose of establishing my new United States residence. At that time I had been abroad .for 20 years and planned, to move back with my family. One of-the first places we visited in Newport Beach was St: Andrews Presbyterian Church. The welcome that both my family and I received made it very clear that this is the community in which we wished to live. In 1997 we moved back to the United States. Our second indication that we made the right decision was Harbor View Elementary School where we enrolled our two children. Once again we were met with warmth and the general feeling that we were very welcome in the community. This community has given us so much that I felt I needed to give something back and that was when I ran for the School Board of Newport-Mesa. Almost 7,000 voters here in the District agreed with my platform and voted for me. Additionally, I am a member of the Kiwanis Club, and a Board Member of the YMCA. Being a Deacon at St. Andrews, I serve on the Congregational Care Committee as well as being an usher. I am trying to show the depth of my commitment to this community and I do intend to seek public office. If I am fortunate enough to serve the community, I hope and pray that I will be able to make the right decision in most instances, as I know you do. Speaking for myself and what I know about my fellow parishioners, truly we wish to be good neighbors. To that end we were trying to address some of the issues which were brought up at several of the church meetings. 1) . Parking. "The neighbors seem to have a tremendous number of complaints about Sunday morning, particularly with the parishioners, their parking and the noise that is created on Sunday morning, together with the need to sometmies park near a neighbor's driveway. But.at.no time would they deliberately block someone's driveway. To show their community spirit, the. .. . parishioners decided to open up the Church's parking lot for the students over at Harbor High. 31 Given the parking restrictions during the week, i.e., that you can only park on the street for up to two hours at a time, this created a greater hazard for the neighborhood and the children because students would need to leave and find other places to park. The Elders decided to build a parking facility for the Board of Education which would relieve this parking hazard. Additionally it will provide another structure for us to use during our Sunday Services. This represents absolutely no cost to the School District and provides safety for the neighborhood. But because some of the neighbors raised an objection, the School Board decided against this plan. Consequently, we retreated to our property in trying to maintain everything on the present footprint of the property by constructing this parking facility underground on our own property. Keeping in mind, once again, that we are trying to be a good neighbor and make a facility where we would relieve any parking problem, both for us and the neighborhood. 2) Secondly, some of the neighbors complained about noise that would sometimes occur on a Wednesday night during the Youth Program which St. Andrews sponsors. As everyone knows, there are not enough facilities around for the young people of Newport Beach to congregate. Given our splendid Youth Program, this has proven to be quite successful. Young people from Junior High all the way up through College participate in this program. In our Planning Application we decided to relocate this Youth Center within the structure in order to avoid any of the loud noise which the community seems to be complaining about. We feel strongly that we want to do everything we possibly can to work with and assist the community and not have any type of adversarial confrontations erupt. 3) The perception being projected by the neighbors is that we are expanding beyond our present footprint. This is NOT THE CASE. We are not "increasing the extent, number, volume or scope of: Enlarge" [Webster, 1977]. Any construction contemplated lies purely within the present property lines. We, as a Church, need to make certain changes to accommodate our parishioners. At the same time we do take into consideration the community. We have been on this property for a very long time, in most instances longer than any of the neighbors. We would welcome any constructive input to the project that would enable us to accomplish what we feel is necessary, while keep a peaceful relationship within the community. As an elected official, when you have two opposing sides, sometimes tough decisions need to be made. But in this instance, I know for a fact that St. Andrews has done everything which is required of them to do. Therefore, both the Planning Commission and the City Council have an obligation to approve this project. I am certain after its completion, the neighbors will clearly see that we have addressed our own needs as well as theirs. Unfortunately, I cannot be at the June 3'd meeting because of prior obligations abroad. But I would request that this letter will be read either in part or totally at the meeting. And also to include it as part of the official public participation in the heariig //` Sincemty /, Eduard B. Loyd cc: Chairman, Planning Commission Committee Dr. John Hoffman, Sr. Pastor, St Andrews Church Los Angeles Times, Daily Pilot Orange County Register 2 3a Date: May 25, 2004 To: The Honorable Tod Ridgeway and City Council Members " i1 Lilt+ _f q i 3 Subject: St. Andrew's Plan My husband and I have been active members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in-Newport Beacfi for the past forty-one years. Our two children, ages thirty-nine and thirty -six, are members of St. Andrew's. Our grandson, age eleven, is enrolled in the Sunday School and participates in the Daily Vacation Bible School program. St. Andrew's has played an important role in the life of our fancily as our primary source Of instruction in Christian doctrine and values. In 1984, my husband and I supported the building program for the existing St. Andrews sanctuary. Twenty years later, we are supporting the St. Andrew's Plan for a Youth and Family Center to facilitate the youth and young family ministries. Upon learning that some of the residents in the Newport Beach area have had concerns regarding this project, we contacted a friend in Paradise Valley, Arizona where a similar plan has recently been completed. Some of his remarks are as follows: "we added a gymnasium and multipurpose room to our facility." Date alb Copies Sent To* "Same thing.... The neighbors and city of Paradise Valley had issues." --,cT 'mayor "I supported the project because I feel it is essential for the Church to provide a 'I-r:f�uncil Member dynamic well- rounded youth and young family ministry." idfanager "The youth and young families of today are very much in need of special guidanc� and assistance. The Church should not fail in its ministerial responsibility to help them. J O - -- "Traffic does not seem to be that much different since most activities occur at differeIE1 (non -peak) times." As a parent and teacher, I am aware that our youth and young families are today facing difficult challenges in this ever - changing complex world. St. Andrew's is attempting to establish a ministry that identifies and addresses such challenges in an effort to offer guidance and assistance in all areas of need. In other church settings, a Youth and Family Center with a gymnasium has proven to be an effective tool in this ministry. Such a center will provide a safe and supervised environment where the youth and young families can congregate to learn Christian values, seek assistance with special needs, and participate in extra curricular activities. My husband, Gordon Graham, and I are asking you to support the St. Andrew's Plan when the plan comes to a vote before the City Council. The proposed plan has been carefully designed to satisfy the needs of the immediate surrounding area and has remedied some of the existing problems in the neighborhood. A'yes' vote will be a vote for our youth! A'yes' vote will be a vote for our young families! Thank you for considering this request. Respectfully, Sandra Graham 429 Gordon T. Graham 429 Via Lido Scud Newport Beach, CA 92663 33 Pack National Development 1012 Brioso Ste. 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (949) 645 -1000 (949) 645 -9800 Fax almarshall @PaciflcNationalDevelopment.com May 28, 2004 Mayor and City Council City.of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: St. Andrews Church Expansion Dear Chairman and Planning Commission Members: 0 JLNd — s A9 .05 The proposed expansion of St. Andrews Church is detrimental to the residential nature of our neighborhood and I am in opposition to their proposed expansion. I have lived at 330 St. Andrews Road since 1988 and have periodically attended services at St. Andrews Church. I have raised my son there where he currently attends Newport Harbor High School. I have watched the significant changes taking place within our City and our neighborhood. I wish to register my opposition to their proposed expansion as follows: ➢ St. Andrews Church is a business and like any other business should be required to adhere to the same standards imposed on other related business by our community standards, General Plan, Zoning Codes and Conditional Use Permit. St. Andrews is a non -profit and does not contribute tax dollars to the community. ➢ St. Andrews constituents are mostly from outside of the City of Newport Beach — this expansion benefits them without the social cost expended by our neighbors. St. Andrews Church, as it stands, is sufficient for the community that it serves. Our neighborhood has not grown in density to warrant the requested expansion. ➢ The existing facility exceeds the allowable FAR for the current General Plan. ➢ The proposed expansion far exceeds the allowable FAR under the current General Plan. ➢ If approved, the disregard of the General Plan and Zoning requirements will set a dangerous precedence for businesses to assume non - profit status, provide social services for outside residents and locate in better residential neighborhoods. ➢ Drug and alcohol rehabilitation, while providing exceptional social service is better left to commercial or retail (next to liquor stores and night clubs) areas outside of, and away from neighborhoods, especially within two blocks of two major neighborhood schools. ➢ Traffic on St. Andrews Road has increased and so have the speeds of vehicles on this street. The expansion will encourage additional traffic on this residential street. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, Albert J. Marshall FAMy Documems\PJM\House\81 Andrews expansion CC.doc Date k�cq Copies Sant To: 9ayor council P.iember rr1a, °,epr it J J�. James M. Parker Attorney at Law 5001 Birch Street Newport Beach, California P. O. Box 9107, Newport Beach, California 92658 Phone(949)720 -9931 Fax (949) 640 -6860 E -Mail ocparklaw@AOL May 28, 2004 The City of Newport Beach Jim Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church: PA2002 -265 Dear Jim, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN .3 2004 PM y 819110111112111213141516 As you will recall, I am representing Mrs. Donna Gallant and Mr. Paul Gallant who reside at 424 St. Andrews Road, at the corner of Clay Street and St. Andrews Road, directly across the street from the applicant. Mr. Gallant and I attended the Planning Commission meeting last Thursday with the intention of voicing the Gallants' opposition to the applicant's application for a General Plan amendment and a change in Zoning which would allow an increase in the intensity of its current use of its property. Mr. McDaniel the chairman of the Commission, made it clear that the Commission did not want to hear any general objections to the applicant's proposal because the matter was going to be continued in any event. The Chairman requested written submissions describing any objections to the proposal. This is such an objection. First of all, the Gallants adopt as their own the following objections to the Draft Environmental. Impact Report submitted in writing to the City and attached as Exhibit .2 to the Staff Report of May 20, 2004; Joann Lombardo's letter of April 26, 2004 beginning on page 25 of the Report; Allen, Mullings and Allen's letter of April 22, 2004 beginning on page 29 of the Report; Terry Botros' letter of April 28, 2004 beginning on page 61 of the Report; Bruce Stuart's letter of April 30, 2004 beginning on page 82 of the Report; Bank's and Krotee's letter of April 4, 2004 beginning on page 147 of the Report. The City of Newport Beach May 28, 2004 Page two The principal change to it's present facility proposed by the applicant is the addition of a gymnasium which is really a multi -use facility. Within the three floor structure there are two 90'x 60', gyms, 7 classrooms, 5 offices, 2 multi purpose rooms, a lounge /caf6 and a kitchenette. The proposed expansion is a major increase in the intensity of use of the property. As proposed it violates every building restriction currently in effect requiring a General Plan Amendment and Changes in applicable Zoning. These proposals if approved, will result in a facility that can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with commensurate increases in traffic which is already at intolerable levels within the Cliff Haven residential community. There is almost unanimous opposition to the applicant's proposal from its adjoining home owners. The Gallants and I are aware that the City is not bound by privately imposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) but just as a court may take current zoning into consideration when reviewing a suit to enjoin a proposed violation of such CC &Rs, the City may also consider applicable CC &Rs when considering General Plan amendments and proposed changes in zoning which conflict with private CC &Rs. Please therefore, consider the following; Mrs. Gallant's father, Earl Stanley along with the Irvine Co., subdivided the Cliff Haven residential community in 1947 -48 by recording several tracts and CC &Rs covering those tracts. Two of the tracts, T. 1218 and 1220 included 10 residential lots fronting on Clay Street that were then purchased by the applicant. In 1972 and in 1979 the applicant obtained the necessary number of consents from residences of those tracts to change the permitted uses of the 10 lots from residential to "religious goals... including buildings, structures, parking facilities and landscaping... and all other activities reasonably connected..." to that use. No other restrictions in the CC &Rs were waived by those consents. In those times the applicant had only a relatively small sanctuary and chapel. In 1984 the City recorded a Parcel Map which did not reflect the existence of the 10 lots in Tracts 1218 and 1220 owned by the applicant. This of course, is not a matter that the City need consider because the CC &Rs are private not governmental restrictions. At the same time however, neither the Parcel Map nor any other action by the City affects those private restrictions. Thus, the CC &Rs still encumber the 10 lots. The CC &Rs established 10' and 20' set backs from the front property lines on Clay Street for each of the 10 lots. Set backs apply to surface, above surface and to below the surface of the lots so restricted. The applicant proposes to build parking structures below the surface of the 10 lots in violation of these setbacks. As a property owner in Tract 1220, Mrs. Gallant will take whatever action is necessary in order to enjoin these intended clear violations of the CC &Rs. The City of Newport Beach May 28, 2004 Page three I don't need to remind the Planning Commission or the City Council that in reviewing this proposal the City is exercising its inherent power to regulate for the common good of the community. Private property rights must yield to this power. Although the applicant's current activities conform to current law, its intentions involve an unreasonable and unwanted expansion of those activities. The proposal should be rejected. Please place my name and address on the list to receive notices of public hearings or any other actions by the City which entitle the public to be present at any consideration of the applicant's proposals. Thank you. Sincerer James M. Parker cc: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Attn: Dr. John Huffman 3A Pacific National Development 1012 Brioso Ste. 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (949) 6466-1000 (949) 645 -9800 Fax almarshall @PacficNationalDevelopmentoom May 28, 2004 Chairman and Planning Commission Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: St. Andrews Church Expansion Dear Chairman and Planning Commission Members: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN .:3 2004 PM 7 819110111112111213141516 The proposed expansion of St. Andrews Church is detrimental to the residential nature of our neighborhood and I am in opposition to their proposed expansion. I have lived at 330 St. Andrews Road since 1988 and have periodically attended services at St. Andrews Church. I have raised my son there where he currently attends Newport Harbor High School. I have watched the significant changes taking place within our City and our neighborhood. I wish to register my opposition to their proposed expansion as follows: ➢ St. Andrews Church is a business, and like any other business should be required to adhere to the same standards imposed on other related business by our community standards, General Plan, Zoning Codes and Conditional Use Pennit. ➢ St. Andrews is a non - profit and does not contribute tax dollars to the community. ➢ St. Andrews constituents are mostly from outside of the City of Newport Beach — this expansion benefits them without the social cost expended by our neighbors. St. Andrews Church, as it stands, is sufficient for the community that it serves. Our neighborhood has not grown in density to warrant the requested expansion. ➢ The existing facility exceeds the allowable FAR for the current General Plan. ➢ The proposed expansion far exceeds the allowable FAR under the current General Plan. ➢ If approved, the disregard of the General Plan and Zoning requirements will set a dangerous precedence for businesses to assume non -profit status, provide social services for outside residents and locate in better residential neighborhoods. ➢ Drug and alcohol rehabilitation, while providing exceptional social service is better left to commercial or retail (next to liquor stores and night clubs) areas outside of, and away from neighborhoods, especially within two blocks of two major neighborhood schools. ➢ Traffic on St. Andrews Road has increased and so have the speeds of vehicles on this street. The expansion will encourage additional traffic on this residential street. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, 1 /Y' Albert J. Marshall F -VM Documents\AJM\I-Iouse \St Andrews expansion PC.doc (� 3 Proposed St. Andrews General Plan Amendment & Expansion Campbell, James From: John Sandberg asandberg @sandbergfumiture.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:09 AM To: 'jcampbell @city.newport- beach. ca. us;' PTemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us'; 'dandee @earthlink.net; 'parandigm @aol.com'; 'don2webb @earthlink.net'; 'tri, beach.ca.us'; 'jhff@aol.com'; 'garold_adams @hotmail.com'; 'nbcouncil @ranic 'gvarin @city. newport- beach. ca. us' Subject: Proposed St. Andrews General Plan Amendment & Expansion Page 1 of 1 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing you to urge you to stop the proposed expansion of St. Andrews church. We are strongly opposed to this expansion and any change in zoning and the General Plan that would allow any further development of the facilities at the St. Andrews property. We have lived in Cliff Haven for nearly ten years and have seen a steady increase in traffic flow throughout the neighborhood, and particularly on our street, Signal Rd. Any expansion of facilities and services at the St. Andrews property will only increase the traffic stream. I believe that the City is making an earnest effort to curtail traffic in the area via calming measures... not increase it! Approving this expansion is counterproductive to that effort. As far as zoning, we have seen a neighborhood church grow to become a community church, which is more than it was ever intended or should have ever become. This neighborhood was not designed to accommodate such a massive facility in the first place. Now that the church size is approaching mega - church proportions, we are seemingly going the wrong way. Please do not vote to approve this expansion. We already have too much traffic. We do not need any more! Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, John & Sue Sandberg F1ECEIVE D By MENT 401 Signal Rd. CITY OF N weoRT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92663 JUN :.3 2004 PM g ig 11 0 11 1 11211121314151 06/03/2004 M. D. Talbot 324 Signal Road Newport Beach CA 92663 May 28, 2004 Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Proposed St. Andrews Expansion Ladies and Gentlemen: p'R _o n ^r :32 Date copies seat TO: 0"%ayor _E aundi Member �na?er C - -- As a resident of Cliff Haven living within a few blocks of St. Andrews Church, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion, and any change in the General Plan and zoning to accommodate any further development of the facilities on the church property. Our neighborhood is already struggling with significant traffic, parking, density and noise problems resulting from the church, the high school, and the fact that our neighborhood streets have become arterial highways for by- passing Coast Highway as well as getting to businesses located on 17th Street and elsewhere in Costa Mesa. In brief, set forth below are the substantive reasons that I believe require the Planning Commission to deny approval of the project: 1. The proposed expansion will have a significant, detrimental impact on the density, air quality, traffic, parking, and safety, and cause noise and light pollution, in our area due to the increased uses caused by the expansion, as well as just the general density impact 135,000 square feet of improvements on just 3.9 acres has by itself. Construction alone will have a substantial negative impact, but it is the long term impacts that will be most detrimental. In addition, the proposed 400 car underground parking structure is totally unacceptable in a residential neighborhood like ours - it would be a safety problem and would greatly exacerbate the traffic situation. And there is no proof that it would relieve the parking situation we experience from the church as claimed. `lb Our neighborhood now lives with unacceptable levels of speeding traffic endangering our children and ourselves. On my street, Signal Road, like other residential streets in the neighborhood, we have considerable "through" traffic as well as church and high school "destination" traffic coursing through our streets and parking in front of our houses. We do not have sidewalks in our neighborhood, so the streets are shared by our children and ourselves with the traffic. We enjoy walking and jogging on our streets and should be able to let our children freely walk in our neighborhood to visit their friends and play, but we cannot do this due to the high danger caused by the traffic, which only gets worse as time goes on. On my street, we often have to flag down speeding drivers - not a safe thing to be doing in any event, but something we are often compelled to do when cars are running through our stop signs and speeding as if on a drag strip - and its not just young drivers, but most any age. And it is a substantial number daily at all hours. It is evident to all of us living near the church that there is already a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood based on current utilization of the church facilities which is far beyond that contemplated by the 1982 Use Permit. 2. The EIR is inadequate in numerous respects that have been provided by other opponents to the project. These deficiencies are briefly listed below and require that the EIR be determined to be inadequate. A. The EIR fails to adequately address parking and traffic impacts. For instance, the use of gymnasium which the EIR states will increase levels of traffic and demands for parking above what presently exists are said not to be significant; however, the only traffic analysis done is with respect to the intersection at Cliff Drive and Dover. B. The mitigation measures do not take into consideration the impact on traffic in any area other than at the intersection of 15u' and Irvine. C. Our Cliff Haven/Newport Heights road network is already inadequate to handle the current traffic safely, and the EIR conclusion about the adequacy of the existing road network to handle the increase in traffic is unsupported. D. The EIR contains no study or analysis to support its conclusions regarding the parking structure utilization. The unsupported reliance on a parking structure to solve not only a current problem, but to absorb the future expansion, is unsupported. E. Metrics in the EIR used for analysis of impacts from church facilities attendance do not adequately address total attendance based on increased uses planned and capability for increased uses based on expansion. F. Measurements for the noise study do not include measurements taken in the neighborhood but appear to be some distance from the residential neighborhood. The EIR fails to address the impacts with respect to noise in the Cliff Haven neighborhood itself. `l G. There is an inherent conflict in the fact that the Cliff Haven area does not have street lights and the proposed mitigation of adding lighting to satisfy security requirements. This mitigation is unsupportable as any such lighting increase is noticeable and a negative impact. H. The report does adequately address the cumulative impact on the neighborhood from the increased enrollment at Newport Harbor High School and the substantial increase in utilization of the Church facilities. I: The EIR fails to address what impact the current Newport Heights / Cliff Haven traffic calming study will have on the contemplated traffic impacts from the church expansion? J. A 34% increase in floor area, placing approximately 135,000 square feet on a 3.9 acre site (34,615 sq. ft/acre) which is acknowledged to be parking deficient now, and 62 spaces deficient later, and 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 significant, not insignificant as concluded by the ELR. Conclusion To increase the intensity of usage on the church site would exacerbate already existing severe problems with traffic, noise, parking, safety and air quality, and detrimentally affect the overall residential nature of the neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood where people walk, and where children should be able to play, in the streets. Traffic is horrendous with constant speeding and running of stop signs. The church, particularly if expanded, is no different than putting a major commercial office or shopping center in the midst of an RI area with inadequate roads and traffic controls. Further, expansion of the church would cause significant additional costs and inconveniences to the neighborhood for which the church contributes nothing to ameliorate the problems it already brings to our neighborhood. I request that the Planning Commission deny the application. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, M. D. Talbot eta-, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 2 2004 PM M. D. Talbot 71819110111112111213141516 324 Signal Road Newport Beach CA 92663 May 28, 2004 Chairman and Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Proposed St. Andrews Expansion Ladies and Gentlemen: As a resident of Cliff Haven living within a few blocks of St. Andrews Church, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion, and any change in the General Plan and zoning to accommodate any further development of the facilities on the church property. Our neighborhood is already struggling with significant traffic, parking, density and noise problems resulting from the church, the high school, and the fact that our neighborhood streets have become arterial highways for by- passing Coast Highway as well as getting to businesses located on 17th Street and elsewhere in Costa Mesa. In brief, set forth below are the substantive reasons that I believe require the Planning Commission to deny approval of the project: 1. The proposed expansion will have a significant, detrimental impact on the density, air quality, traffic, parking, and safety, and cause noise and light pollution, in our area due to the increased uses caused by the expansion, as well as just the general density impact 135,000 square feet of improvements on just 3.9 acres has by itself. Construction alone will have a substantial negative impact, but it is the long tern impacts that will be most detrimental. In addition, the proposed 400 car underground parking structure is totally unacceptable in a residential neighborhood like ours - it would be a safety problem and would greatly exacerbate the traffic situation. And there is no proof that it would relieve the parking situation we experience from the church as claimed. 0 Our neighborhood now lives with unacceptable levels of speeding traffic endangering our children and ourselves. On my street, Signal Road, like other residential streets in the neighborhood, we have considerable "through" traffic as well as church and high school "destination" traffic coursing through our streets and parking in front of our houses. We do not have sidewalks in our neighborhood, so the streets are shared by our children and ourselves with the traffic. We enjoy walking and jogging on our streets and should be able to let our children freely walk in our neighborhood to visit their friends and play, but we cannot do this due to the high danger caused by the traffic, which only gets worse as time goes on. On my street, we often have to flag down speeding drivers - not a safe thing to be doing in any event, but something we are often compelled to do when cars are running through our stop signs and speeding as if on a drag strip - and its not just young drivers, but most any age. And it is a substantial number daily at all hours. It is evident to all of us living near the church that there is already a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood based on current utilization of the church facilities which is far beyond that contemplated by the 1982 Use Permit. 2. The EIR is inadequate in numerous respects that have been provided by other opponents to the project. These deficiencies are briefly listed below and require that the EIR be determined to be inadequate. A. The EIR fails to adequately address parking and traffic impacts. For instance, the use of gymnasium which the EIR states will increase levels of traffic and demands for parking above what presently exists are said not to be significant; however, the only traffic analysis done is with respect to the intersection at Cliff Drive and Dover. B. The mitigation measures do not take into consideration the impact on traffic in any area other than at the intersection of 15th and Irvine. C. Our Cliff Haven/Newport Heights road network is already inadequate to handle the current traffic safely, and the EIR conclusion about the adequacy of the existing road network to handle the increase in traffic is unsupported. D. The EIR- contains no study or analysis to support its conclusions regarding the parking structure utilization. The unsupported reliance on a parking structure to solve not only a current problem, but to absorb the future expansion, is unsupported. E. Metrics in the EIR used for analysis of impacts from church facilities attendance do not adequately address total attendance based on increased uses planned and capability for increased uses based on expansion. F. Measurements for the noise study do not include measurements taken in the neighborhood but appear to be some distance from the residential neighborhood. The EIR fails to address the impacts with respect to noise in the Cliff Haven neighborhood itself. `'A G. There is an inherent conflict in the fact that the Cliff Haven area does not have street lights and the proposed mitigation of adding lighting to satisfy security requirements. This mitigation is unsupportable as any such lighting increase is noticeable and a negative impact. H. The report does adequately address the cumulative impact on the neighborhood from the increased enrollment at Newport Harbor High School and the substantial increase in utilization of the Church facilities. I. The EIR fails to address what impact the current Newport Heights / Cliff Haven traffic calming study will have on the contemplated traffic impacts from the church expansion? J. A 34% increase in floor area, placing approximately 135,000 square feet on a 3.9 acre site (34,615 sq. ft/acre) which is acknowledged to be parking deficient now, and 62 spaces deficient later, and 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 significant, not insignificant as concluded by the EIR. Conclusion . To increase the intensity of usage on the church site would exacerbate already existing severe problems with traffic, noise, parking, safety and air quality, and detrimentally affect the overall residential nature of the neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood where people walk, and where children should be able to play, in the streets. Traffic is horrendous with constant speeding and running of stop signs. The church, particularly if expanded, is no different than putting a major commercial office or shopping center in the midst of an R area with inadequate roads and traffic controls. Further, expansion of the church would cause significant additional costs and inconveniences to the neighborhood for which the church contributes nothing to ameliorate the problems it already brings to our neighborhood. I request that the Planning Commission deny the application. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Q0, -- M. D. Talbot 0 ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Planning Documentation by: BETTENCOURT & ASSOCIATES 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92660 -6907 (949) 720 -0970 / FAX (949) 721 -9921 Philin(abettencourtplans.com Friday, May 28, 2004 Mr. Earl McDaniel, Chairman Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Patricia Temple, Planning Director 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. Dear Chairman McDaniel and Commissioners: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 1 2004 PM I7 819110111112111213141516 I am writing on behalf of our client, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, to request a continuation of our forthcoming continued planning commission hearing until no earlier than Thursday, June 17, 2004. As you will recall, the application and the comprehensive staff report were first heard on May 20, 2004. The city's staff has just published additional analysis and proposed replies to comment letters concerning the draft environmental document. A number of issues remain unresolved, however, and have been the subject of recent meetings with neighborhood leaders. CADocuments and Settings %jcampbe111Loca1 SettingslTemporary Internet Files\O1.UMt. Andrews Letter to McDaniel 05- 25- 041.doc 4 Mr. Earl McDaniel May 28, 2004 Page 2 of 2 We look forward to the opportunity for continued meetings with our neighbors, however, and we are hopeful that common ground can be developed. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, {original signed by Philip Bettencourt] Philip F. Bettencourt Planning Consultant PFB:lm Cc: Brian Brooks Jim Campbell Don Krotee Gary McKitterick Herb Smith Ken Williams 41 RECEIVED BY I page 1 of 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Campbell, James AM JUN 1 2004 PM From: Dudley & Janette Johnson [dudjan @pacbell.net] Ill I I III 1 1 1 Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 5:56 PM To: dandee @earthlink.net; parandigm @aol.com; don2webb @earthlink.net; tridgeway@city.newport- beach.ca.us; nbcouncil@ran ichols. info; jhff @aol.com; garold_adams @hotmail.com; jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us; PTemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: St Andrews I am opposed to St Andrews expansion for many reasons already publicized. But I'm also opposed for some reasons that I have not expressed in print so perhaps you could add these to your list of complaints. The Shalimar Learning Center has demonstrated that it is possible to use an existing apartment building to develop a youth program that can be effective for after school use. I am told that St Andrews has an apartment building already, across the street from the church. If after school programs for young people from Ensign and Newport Harbor is really their primary concern, as they have stated, why couldn't they use their existing facilities to provide after - school classes in subjects not covered in school — like religion, health, diet, fitness, finance, etc. They could probably coordinate their teen program with both schools and have some limited use of athletic facilities. 2. If the teen center issue is not really the driving force behind this expansion what is? Perhaps we have a clue in the Daily Pilot article on Sunday. It stated that Pastor Huffman "...has presided over its expansion ", but the real clue may be in the picture, presumably Mr. Huffman's office. I have never seen an office this big, its probably bigger that the oval office in the White House. And do I recall that he wanted an office in the top of the overly tall tower that was not permitted during the previous expansion? Is it possible the plans for the new expansion happen to include a new, even larger space for him? Is this expansion a legacy? A future Christian school (paid for with vouchers)? 3. Why do we have zoning laws if the people in charge of them make exceptions. If our codes call for 5' setbacks and 35' height limits why are any exceptions ever made? On 17v' Street in Costa Mesa there is a three story height limit, but there is a seven story office building near the comer of Irvine that represents an ugly exception made by their Planning Commission and City Council. So for the rest of time people on the higher floors look into the yards and bedrooms of all the houses below — but wait, no worries will have them build some "fins" so people cannot look at an angle into the houses and yards. But whoops, it appears that the inspectors missed the fact that they never built the fins so I guess that attempt to mitigate did not work out too well. How many times do you inspect a seven story building under construction? You have a zoning restriction in the area where St Andrews is located and it has already been violated once, why is violating it again even being considered? They should have just been told no before this all got started, now it is dividing the community. What could possibly have caused Mr. Huffman to think you would even consider such an expansion? Speaking of teens and concern for their issues, do you remember "Just say no!" 4. Perhaps because I owned a home that was affected by the fiasco on 17v' Street in Costa Mesa I have become overly suspicious of what motivates exceptions made to codes so please don't be offended by this. But would it make sense for any Planning Commission or Council member who is a member of St Andrews, or has family members who are part of the congregation, to identify themselves and let the public know? At this point I would not suggest anyone meeting this description recuse themselves, but at least let us know to avoid any hint of special treatment. Dudley Johnson Cliffhaven Resident ql 06/02/2004 James From: Terry Botros [terry.botros @incontext- c2b.com] PLANNING DEPARTMEP Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:28 AM CITY OF NEWPORT BEA1 To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: [QUARIFW: St. Andrews expansion JUN 1 2004 Resending, misspelled your email below. 718191101111I211 1213141516 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Terry Botros [mailto:terry.botros @incontext- c2b.com] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:27 AM To: jcampbell @city.newport. beach. ca. us; gvarin @city.newport- beach.ca.us; Patricia Temple; Steve Bromberg; nbcouncil @ranichols.info; parandigm @aol.com; don2webb @earthlink.net; John Heffernan; Gary Adams; Tod Ridgeway; emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com Subject: St. Andrews expansion Hon. City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, Planning Staff : Enclosed is an op -ed piece that I wrote that was published in the Daily Pilot this week. It expresses the sense of frustration that we have as neighbors of St. Andrews and they way they have generally tried to run roughshod over the surrounding community. Please enter into the record regarding this project. Thank you very much for your patience as this process unfolds. Regards, Terry Botros 433 Pirate Road 949.887.0299 From Daily Pilot of May 27, 2004 1 read with great interest your interview with John Huffman, Sr. Pastor of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Sunday's edition. In the piece he says of the expansion "we should have done this in the early 80's... but we didn't know how to do it right ". As a long -time neighbor of St. Andrews, I respectfully suggest to Rev. Huffman that they're still not "doing it right." Here are some facts. In 2001/2002, the Church approached the school district with a plan to erect a parking structure at Newport Harbor High School on 15th Street. They did this without consultation with the neighbors. Not surprisingly, the neighborhoods opposed this. outlandish proposal for many reasons : traffic, security, financial priorities within the school district, school land use, aesthetics, etc. In fact the proposal was lampooned on the editorial pages of the Pilot. The School Board was left holding the bag in the face of the neighborhood's reasoned opposition and rejected the Church's plans. After all, who among the readers would welcome a parking structure in their neighborhood, especially if that structure was only the first step of a large expansion? In pursuing the existing development proposal, the Church once again never consulted with the neighbors before filing their plans with the City. Let me repeat that: the Church put together plans WIN for a parking structure, gymnasium /performance hall, a 35% expansion of space, and filed those plans with the City without ever approaching the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhoods to look at acceptance or feasibility. Instead of working cooperatively with the neighborhoods on plans that meet the Church's needs while mitigating the many existing traffic, density, and noise issues, the Church retained the services of a cadre of well- connected consultants to lobby and push the proposal through the City. Since those plans have been filed, the neighbors have had several meetings in which the Church has presented and attempted to sell the expansion plan, but at no time has the Church administration proposed tabling the proposal and working with us on alternatives. Instead, the Church representatives insist, as Rev. Huffman repeats in the interview, that this 35,000 square foot expansion is a simple remodel as many of us "have done in our own homes. I don't know about you, but I've not seen many homes remodeled to add a full -court gymnasium /peformance hall and 400 -space parking structure. In recent years St. Andrews has also bought the apartments at the comer of Haven Place and St. Andrews Road and is on the record as wanting to acquire the Masonic Lodge at the corner of 15th St. and St. Andrews Road. These are the actions of a church looking to expand. The Church is not spending $20,000,000 simply to have a nicer facility for the present congregation. Through its regular advertising in the Los Angeles Times, Rev. Huffman's own closing words in the interview, and through the statements in the Church's fundraising material for this expansion, St. Andrews is clearly looking to grow the number of activity participants. That would be well and -good if the Church was at a site adequate for that level of congestion. The neighbors believe that a development that will become 2/3 the size of a Wal -Mart Supercenter is not a simple remodel and is not appropriate for a residential area. We believe that a development that will result in an additional 328 car -trips a day is not appropriate in an area in which the City already has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to mitigate the existing traffic congestion. We believe that a development in which a proposed mitigation is to cone off public streets and have ushers direct traffic and parking is not one that is indicative of a community Church. We believe that proposing a gymnasium /performance hall and a parking garage within a few dozen feet of residences does not show sensitivity as a neighbor, and is simply lousy land use. We believe that St. Andrews already has a tremendous impact on the surrounding homes, homes which did in fact predate the present Church by a considerable number of years. To continue the metaphor Rev. Huffman offers in the interview, even now the shoe does not fit the foot. The Church of course has every right to propose any plan they wish and file it, as they have done, without consulting the neighbors. Unfortunately, by proposing a plan that is so out -of -scale with the surrounding residential area, and by attempting to steamroll those plans over the neighbors, the Church is seen by many as insensitive and bullying. In my opinion, "doing it right" would have the Church coming together with the neighbors, many of whom are parishioners, with a list of project: objectives, combining that list with the neighbors' existing concerns, and then cooperatively developing a reasoned enforceable plan that meets the needs of both without requiring zoning changes or General Plan amendments. That process wouldn't be easy, and it wouldn't be quick, but for a Christian institution it would most certainly be the right thing to "do. Terry Botros 433 Pirate Road 949.887.0299 r'. Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor and City Council: Elaine Willman 92 Villa Point Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 May 26,20W I am a resident of Newport Beach and a member of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. We are asking for your support for the new project which includes badly needed space for our youth, and additional needed parking. St. Andrew's has been a valuable community asset for over 55 years and the impact of this building program is minimal. Please give it your approval. Sincerely, Elaine Tilh=m P.S. Just a personal note: I just turned 80 in February of this year and might not be around to see our dream of a Youth Center completed but I am just finishing up my three year financial pledge and am so proud to be a member of a church that is providing moral leadership for our youth — not just for the youth in our church but for the community of Newport Beach. E.W. Date Copies Sent To: ._----E3- ayor /p-Muncii Memeec 1--�anager El 51 The Honorable Mayor Todd Ridgeway City Council of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 `04 114 —1 Dear Mayor Ridgeway, M1 It is with the strongest support for the St. Andrew's church expansion that we appeal to you and all of the council members to give approval to the St. Andrew's building plans. Our reasons are as follows: St. Andrew's has a substantial history of cooperation and sensitivity toward its neighbors. It is unlikely that any business can please everyone all of the time. Since there . is likely to be a few who will always oppose an issue, a priority should be what decisions best serve the common good. Given St. Andrew's history of providing service to the community, to youth, to the needy locally and internationally, an expansion of services should be welcomed and supported. We are certain the St. Andrew's Board, Administration and Staff will continue to be a good neighbor and responsive to its neighbors concerns. 2. In all of our years of travel and residence in several states we have never witnessed a more generous congregation in reaching out to help those in need by providing support services and spiritual leadership to local individuals as well as local, national and international agencies. This well- devised facility plan will allow many more local youth to take advantage of this goodness of services and spiritual leadership. The additional underground parking facilities in the plan illustrates the congregation's desire to be good neighbors and their concern for alleviating as much of the street parking problem as possible. 4. It is our understanding that Pastor Huffinan and Staff have demonstrated their desire to work with local neighborhood representatives to the extent they have modified the original plans as an expression of cooperation. I am sure that you and the council have an appreciation for working with local citizens in a cooperative manner but on few, if any, occasions have you satisfied all of the outspoken voices. 5. All of us are well aware of the expanding need for spiritual and virtuous leadership to our youth and other needy citizens who are constantly being bombarded by unfavorable images and activities in the secular and temporal society in which we live. We urge you to act favorably on the St. Andrew's building plans in order that this congregation may offer more of its commendable, stabilizing, necessary s ces of help and care for others. Date. Sincerely, �- Cap +es Sent to: �y�-ze -ft'o� �"�� �- s✓suncil h4ember Bob &Ruth Lahti ii�j ranagei attorney `i � IM � May 27, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 12004 RE: Expansion of St. Andrews Church which was established in 1948.71819110111112111213141516 PM For the record I am not a member of St. Andrews Church. I'm appalled at the resistance of the Newport Heights neighborhood to the much - needed expansion at St. Andrews. rve read the letters (CMDP) and seen the signs on their lawns and reminds me of what transpired several years ago. Did you know that St. Andrews volunteered to build a multi -level parking lot at Newport Harbor High School at their multi- million dollar expense just to be able to use it on the weekend? The NMUSD Board approved the request; however, the neighborhood fought and rejected the plan! What a wonderful plan for the students and faculty of NHHS. For the past 4 years, I for one have endured the wrath of the neighborhood members when parked on the sidestreet waiting to pick up my granddaughter- -she now drives her car and wouldn't it be nice if she could have parked in a parking structure on the school grounds ?? Instead of furtively searching for a parking spot, walking and sometimes late for her class. St. Andrews is a most wonderful compassionate neighbor, they have support and youth groups for ALL of our community members. I have a brother in a convalescent- rehabilitation center in Newport Beach and several times a year St. Andrews church members deliver small flower arrangements to EVERY patient, does your church do this ?? Did St. Andrews disapprove of your mansionasafion? It's sad to say that this reminds me of South County people buying homes around the El Toro Marine Base - Airport and then forcing Orange County residents to vote FOUR times until they won the NO on an airport, yet over 77% of them fly out of John Wayne Airport over our heads! That's NI MBYISM at best. Think about it! Sincerely, Rachel Perez - Hamilton a resident of this area since 1937! cc: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA. 92663 cc: Ken Williams @ St. Andrews Church, 600 St. Andrews Road, Newport Beach, CA. 92663 53 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 8 2004 PEA May 28, 2004 71819110111112111213141516 NEWPORT HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION d krotee@ krntP..P.. rn m W TO: Pkair"fig Conunission and Ciiy Councft PAX: M9f 644 -3229 17"M: Don Krotee, Newport Heights Improvement Association Copy: council PROJECT: St. Andrews Expansion RE: The legal history of the 1982 -84 CUP and Ms, Evelyn Bart's letter of 3-6-03 As indicated in the context of my verbal presentation on the floor of the Planning Commission„ May 20, 2004,1 submitted that Ms. Evelyn Hart had written a letter opposing the application for further expansion. Enclosed, please find a copy oflim Mwch 6, 2003 letter. This letter was not included with staff s collection of letters, presumably because it was received on a date outside of or prior to the NOP, Please include it in the public record. In that Ms. Hart was a seated council person at the time of the 1982 action, her recollection of the limits of development are relevant to the current considerations. The community believes the Commission should look very seriously at the breach of public trust that would be caused by replanning the current general plan as requested by the applicant. Similarly very serious examination and legal counsel should precede your agency's use of overriding the serious impacts of air quality, with the use and application of any such jlhOngs of overriding consideration. To insure that the community is served, a complete study and staff report needs to he made on the meaning of or the logical planning interpretation that the 1982284 expansion, also the subject of a contentious CUP, represented the maximum growth of the we of the apghcandchurch. Further consideratinn should be given to the amount that the church has grown, added programs and expanded services (as it did with it's unreported attendance for Saturday services) since the adoption of the 1982 -84 limits. If the 1982 -84 CUP represents a maidmum area, as stated in the General Plan and the applicant has been a questionable custodian of the twenty- year -old promises and conditions, the community submits there is no justification for the 33% expansion today and that approving this expansion violates the community trust. TO 39tl8 oaaaswo-ir sdo Tessevs6b6 sp:60 VOOZ /8Z /50 54 Clerk to copy each of the council March 6, 2003 Mayor Bromberg and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92163 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: The proposal by St Andrews Presbyterian Church comes as a surprise to many of its neighbors and, as a former servant of the City, me too. My recollection of the public record and approval, back in the early '80% was that after the tooth pulling of this often embattled CUP, and the eventual settlement that the church could expand then, was that approval would be the final straw of development. This is a wonderfiA church with great programs for all the kids and people who attend as both members and visitors. But, to allow it to expand to a regional level, in a neighborhood, does not make planning, political, civic or economic sense. The impacts of traffic and building mass alone, on the Cliffhaven and Newport Heights neighborhoods didn't work then, often breaks down now and does not work for this expansion. The proposal makes the development an aggressive expansion without thought to the neighborhoods and those citizens the church has served. We strongly urge the City to move away from this already fired battle and to have St Andrews make better what they have- not bigger. it would seem that an inevitable and expensive Environmental Impact Report (EfR) would show the before mentioned issues of traffic and building mass irreparable impacts, not to be mitigated. This results in there being no way for the City to show that they have demonstrated to the public that the environment is being protected. And, as you all know this is a mandate from the State Public Resources requirements. Please hear the citizens on this issue Yours truly, " Evelyn Hart 55 Z0 39tld Oa6vswolr sd3 58698b9666 5b:60 1700Z/8Z/90 HAROLD B. ZOO K ARCHITECT, A.I.A. May 25, 2004 Chairman and Planning Commission Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Committee Members: P- r4NP N1§ pvpo �y OFNEw�pgRTNE MAY OPT S1ACH A� 2 72004 71'(91101111121112134 PM 1 1516 Regarding the improvements proposed for St. Andrew's Site Plan, the fact that additional parking will be provided has been pointed out. To make this possible, the Church proposes to improve it's land use which seems fair and reasonable. The neighbors benefit and the Church benefits. After examining the ratio of car parking to building sq. ft., it appears that the proposed ratio of parking per sq. ft. is more favorable than the existing ratio. Existing Building Footage — 104,822 sq. ft. — 1 car for each 419 sq. ft. Proposed Building Footage — 140,388 sq. ft. — 1 car for each 351 sq. ft. This ratio which benefits all concerned should not be overlooked in your decision. By improving the Site, everyone benefits. ir ce e y, old B. Zook, A.1. A. cc: J. Huffinan and H. Smith, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church 485 MORNING CANYON ROAD, CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, 92625 (949) 760 -1221 FAX (949) 644 -7427 E-MAIL - Z0DKIE4S5@ADELPHIA.NET 5� May 24, 2004 Chairman and Planning Commission Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Support for St. Andrew's Church RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 7 2004 PM 7 819110111112 111213141516 We have been members of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church for over fifty years. We have raised two children and three grandchildren, all have grown up within the church family. We attended the May 20th meeting of the Planning Commission and from conversations overheard we are amazed at the amount of miss - information that is being verbalized. As you approach the time of decision, we trust you will fully investigate the true facts and not rely solely upon the hearsay comments of a few disgruntled residents. Over the years, St Andrew's has made every effort possible to be considerate of ifs neighbors. Each week we are reminded of ilie need to be aware of the neiglibors concerns regarding on street, parking an ffi d trac'. Representatives of St. Andrew's have hosted and attended many neighborhood meetings to negotiate our future building plans. Most of these have been met with a total lack of support of any type of church development. Much of the neighborhood resistance comes from persons who, at the time of the last church expansion, did not reside there. These are the same individuals who have joined the neighborhood and have torn down, re- built and expanded their homes to the maximum allowed, and are now opposed to any expansion by others. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church has long provided a needed service to the Harbor Community. Its location between two schools is a prime spot to continue to meet the growing needs of our youth. In order to meet this growing need it is vital that existing facilities be renovated. If permitted to move forward with the planned modifications, the entire area will be enhanced. Traffic flows will be modified to reduce the use of residential streets both for travel and parking. The addition of the underground parking structure will add badly needed spaces and will go a long way in reducing on street. parking. New structures will provide greater soundproofing resulting in a quieter neighborhood. Of the sum 38,000 square'; of additional space requested, nearly half _is for storage grid common space` required by code. No additional seating is requested in the Sanctuary. 61 In rendering your decision, please consider the true facts rather than hearsay. We would also urge you to explore the depth to which the church has gone in bringing its message to the neighbors, including the compromises each party has been willing to make. Thank you for your concern and may God be with you during your deliberations. OEM me I I Wag Mike and Patty Healey 2144 Iris Place Costa Mesa CA 92627 (949) 646 -3866 6%