HomeMy WebLinkAboutNewport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001-208)ba,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Hearing Date:
October 3, 2002
orb
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item:
2
6
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Staff Person:
James Campbell
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Appeal Period:
14 day3
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)
2300 Bonita Canyon Drive
New Information
The city received a comment letter late Monday from Allen Murray that questioned the height of
the steeple of the Stake Center. Staff dispatched a survey crew and verified that the Stake Center is
not 86 feet high, but rather 68 feet high. The figure of 86 feet was taken from the building permit
plans approved by the City of Irvine and there was no evidence of a field correction. Prior to these
events, staff had no indication that the Stake Center steeple was not built according to plans. The
new information has the following possible implications:
Environmental Impact Report
The change in height of the Stake Center steeple has no impact upon the aesthetic analysis
contained within the EIR as the analysis was not based upon a comparison of the project with the
Stake Center. No statements within the EIR are made quantifying any relationship between the two
structures. The analysis within the EIR is based upon the crane and photo simulations. The height
and location of the crane was verified at approximately 124 feet by a survey conducted by a
professional engineer. The new information that the Stake Center steeple is 18 feet lower than
previously thought does not result in the identification of any new significant environmental
information. Therefore, staff believes that the analysis and conclusions of the EIR remain valid.
Staff has prepared a response to the Murray letter as well as other letters commenting on the project
received since the previous meeting (Exhibit No. 1).
Staff's Previous Recommendation
The 100 -foot alternative was identified for discussion purposes and there was no quantitative
method used to arrive at the height. It was identified as it would meet project objectives and it was
thought that any reduction in the height would incrementally lessen the visual impact of the project,
with all other things being equal. The new information on the height of the Stake Center does not
alter the conclusion or recommendation staff has presented as the analysis was based upon an
extensive field survey conducted when the crane was installed at the site in January of 2002. The
height of the Stake Center steeple is one of many factors to be weighed in determining whether or
not the height requested is compatible with the area. It is not known if lowering the height of the
Temple further would meet project objectives to the same extent as achieved by a 100 -foot Temple.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Sharon Z. Wood JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Assi t City Manager Senior Planner
Exhibits: Additi 1 responses to comments (separate)
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)
2300 Bonita Canyon Drive
SUMMARY: A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operation
of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon
Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot
building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens,
walkways, and water treatments in the. western portion of the project site
and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The
request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would
exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet.
ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and Adopt Resolution No. certifying
Environmental Impact Report No. 2002 -001 and approving the Use Permit
No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (PA2001 -208) subject to
conditions.
APPLICANT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
50 E. North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84150
Introduction
This item was continued from September 5, 2002 in order to facilitate proper noticing of the Notice
of Availability or Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the
conclusion of the previous meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to explore the potential
for flexibility regarding the height and lighting of the Temple. At the last meeting, a large petition
was submitted with what appears to be approximately 1000 signatures in favor of the project. It
appears that all of the signatures are of Newport Beach residents and the petition is identical, so
staff has attached a copy of only one signed petition. Should the Commission desire to review the
entire petition, it is available in the Planning Department as part of the administrative record.
Discussion
During the previous meeting, the majority of the discussion was focused on the height of the
steeple, proposed lighting and the adequacy of the EIR. Holiday lighting was discussed and an
inquiry was made about the depth of the fill proposed through project grading. Commissioner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Hearing Date:
October 3, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item:
2
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Staff Person:
James Campbell
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Appeal Period:
14 da s
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)
2300 Bonita Canyon Drive
SUMMARY: A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operation
of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon
Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot
building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens,
walkways, and water treatments in the. western portion of the project site
and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The
request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would
exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet.
ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and Adopt Resolution No. certifying
Environmental Impact Report No. 2002 -001 and approving the Use Permit
No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (PA2001 -208) subject to
conditions.
APPLICANT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
50 E. North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84150
Introduction
This item was continued from September 5, 2002 in order to facilitate proper noticing of the Notice
of Availability or Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the
conclusion of the previous meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to explore the potential
for flexibility regarding the height and lighting of the Temple. At the last meeting, a large petition
was submitted with what appears to be approximately 1000 signatures in favor of the project. It
appears that all of the signatures are of Newport Beach residents and the petition is identical, so
staff has attached a copy of only one signed petition. Should the Commission desire to review the
entire petition, it is available in the Planning Department as part of the administrative record.
Discussion
During the previous meeting, the majority of the discussion was focused on the height of the
steeple, proposed lighting and the adequacy of the EIR. Holiday lighting was discussed and an
inquiry was made about the depth of the fill proposed through project grading. Commissioner
Selich requested a discussion of the relationship between the Bonita Canyon PC text and the
Zoning Code as well as a discussion of the church exemption to height limits within Section
20.65.060(G). Each of these issues is discussed below.
Height
The Commission requested that the applicant identify what, if any, flexibility there is with regards
to height of the Temple. The applicant has been in contact with Church officials in Salt Lake City,
but has not submitted any changes to the proposal. Staff has drafted two resolutions for project
approval with two different height limits: 100 feet and 123 feet 9 inches (applicant's request). Staff
recommends the compromise height of 100 feet. Staff's analysis is that 100 feet will meet both the
project objectives and address community concerns regarding compatibility of the structure with the
surrounding area.
Lighting
Staff has drafted a set of conditions requiring the preparation of a final photometric study,
prohibition of excessive lighting creating glare, and the ability to modify or dim the lighting if it
presents a problem. These conditions are standard conditions applied to nonresidential or mixed use
projects. Staff also proposes to limit the height of exterior lighting fixtures (20 feet in the parking
lot, 10 feet for exterior walkways and 4 feet in the garden area). Limiting the height of fixtures will
assist in limiting light spilling onto neighboring areas. Staff also proposes that lighting fixtures
aimed at the Temple be located such that the angle from the ground is no less than 70 degrees. This
angle is important in reducing the size of the "halo" effect by keeping the light more vertical.
Lastly, staff has drafted a condition limiting the hours of exterior architectural lighting to 5:OOAM
to sunrise and sunset to 11:OOPM.
Holiday Lighting
The applicant has no plans to create a holiday lighting display at this time. The City presently does
not regulate or restrict holiday lighting displays for any land uses, and staff does not recommend
that the LDS Temple be subject to any more restrictive regulation than applicable to other uses.
However, staff recommends prohibiting additional architectural lighting of the Temple and steeple
beyond what is proposed during the remainder of the year. Additionally, staff suggests that the
applicant be held responsible for increased costs of public services if holiday displays generate
increased traffic that necessitates increased services relating to traffic control measures. Staff
believes that this provision would protect the public interest by mitigating potential nuisance issues
by the least restrictive means.
Environmental Impact Report
Many speakers at the last meeting who spoke in opposition to the project disagreed with the
conclusion of the aesthetics section of the EIR. No comments during the last meeting identified any
new information to conclude that the conclusions of the EIR are invalid. No new information was
presented that identified any new impacts. As noted previously, this matter was continued to
LDS Temple (PA2001 -208))
October 3, 2002
Page 2 of 5
facilitate full noticing of the EIR. As of the writing of this report, no new comments on the EIR
have been received. The extended comment period ends on September 3&, and if any comments
are received, responses will be prepared and forwarded to the Commission for consideration at or
before the meeting for incorporation within the Final EIR.
Grading plan
One question was raised during the last meeting regarding a perceived inconsistency between staff s
statement that the fill below the Temple is between 5 -8 feet in depth and the description within the
preliminary geotechnical report. The change in grade below the Temple building varies between 5 -8
feet based upon the preliminary grading plan. The preliminary geotechnical report cites that
maximum fill depths of 10-12± feet are planned in certain areas of the site to achieve the elevations
proposed. These statements do not contradict each other as the higher fill depths are necessary in
some areas to level out the site, but the depth of fill below the proposed Temple building varies
between 5 -8 feet.
Relationship between the Bonita Canyon PC regulations and the Zoning Code
A question was raised regarding the relationship of the Planned Community Development Plan and
the Zoning Code regarding building height. Chapter 20.65 establishes height limits for all property
within the City including all planned communities. Section 20.65.050 states that each planned
community shall establish height limits as part of the planned community development plan. The
Bonita Canyon Planned Community establishes a height limit for the subject property at 50 feet,
which is consistent with the 32/50 height limitation zone established in Section 20.65.040
applicable to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. Section 2.1.4 dictates that the PC
Development Plan regulates all development within its boundaries and in cases where there is
conflict between the PC Development Plan and the Zoning Code, the PC Development Plan
prevails. In summary, any property within a PC district is subject to the development opportunities
and restrictions of both the Zoning Code and PC Development Plan, with a PC Development Plan
prevailing when in conflict with the Zoning Code.
Section 20.65.060(G) establishes an exemption for church structures. It states that "church
structures used for church purposes shall be exempt from restrictions of this chapter, except that any
such structure exceeding .35 feet in height shall require a use permit " Therefore, since a Use
Permit is required, but a church structure is exempt from the restrictions of the Chapter, the
required findings for the Use Permit are the standard findings contained within Chapter 20.91 (Use
Permits & Variances). These findings are discussed in the September 5, 2002 staff report. The
applicant has prepared an analysis of the exemption opportunity for the Commission's
consideration (Exhibit No. 2).
In conclusion, staff believes the Use Permit before the Planning Commission is the proper
application within which to consider the proposed 124 -foot height of the Temple. Staff does not
believe that a Variance is the appropriate application as Section 20.65.060(G) clearly indicates that
a church is exempt from height limits subject to the issuance of a Use Permit.
LDS Temple (PA2001 -208))
October 3, 2002
Page 3 of 5
The Use Permit application and procedure as described has been used routinely in the past. St.
Andrews Presbyterian, St. James Episcopal and St. Mathew's Episcopal churches have processed
Use Permits under similar circumstances for structures that exceeded applicable height limits. St.
Andrews and St. James are not located within planned communities and are subject to conventional
zoning. St. Mathew's Episcopal Church is located within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community
and received approval of a Use Permit for a 75 -foot high steeple and cross. Using the same
application procedure for the project is consistent application of the development regulations and
procedures.
Recommendation
Staff has prepared two draft resolutions for the Commission to consider. The first resolution
approves the project with the height of the Temple not to exceed 100 feet. The second resolution
approves the project with the height of the Temple as requested by the applicant.
Staff does not recommend project approval with the Temple at 50 feet. This height is not consistent
with stated project objectives and is not consistent with past approvals for structures to exceed
height limits granted by the City for other religious institutions. Typically, staff does not stress past
approvals as a precedent as it is well known that consideration granted in the past was based upon
the specific facts and circumstances of the individual cases, and therefore not establishing a
precedent. In this case, it is important to stress that this applicant must be provided the opportunity
for consideration of a Use Permit to exceed the height limit pursuant to Section 20.65.060(G)
consistent with past approvals. This does not mean that the City must approve a 124 -foot steeple.
Staff recommends this application receive the same opportunity to exceed height limits as other
churches subject to evaluation specific to this location and project.
Based on evaluation of the LDS Temple and its location, as discussed in the report for September 5,
staff recommends approval with the height of the Temple at 100 feet.
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Wood
Assist t City anager
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
LDS Temple (PA2001 -208))
October 3, 2002
Page 4 of 5
Exhibits
1. Petition in favor of the project
2. Letter from J. Bently on behalf of the LDS Church regarding the building height exemption
for churches.
3. Letter from J. Bently on behalf of the LDS Church regarding the height and lighting of the
Temple.
4. Additional correspondence received by staff since the last meeting.
5. Additional comments on the EIR and responses to comments (to be submitted at the
meeting).
6. Draft resolution for project approval — 100 -foot Temple
7. Draft resolution for project approval — 123 foot, 9 inch high Temple
LDS Temple (PA2001 -208))
October 3, 2002
Page 5 of 5
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
0
Exhibit # I
Petition in favor of the project
a'
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
PEITHON FOR APPROVAL
OF
THE TEMPLE USE PERMIT APPLICATION,
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL UYIPACP REPORT
OF
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS OF LA MAMA YSAINTS
I am an adult resident of the City of Newport Beach. I hereby request that the City's Plarming
Commission and City Council approve construction of the LDS Temple, proposed to be built at
2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, which presently includes the following elements:
An approximately 17,500 square -foot temple on 8.65 acres - less than 5% lot coverage. (This
is 1 /4th the size of the LDS Temple on the I -5 in La Jolla and 1110th the size permitted
by city zoning.)
• Setbacks winch exceed the city minimum by more than 80 feet on all sides.
- Approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped areas.
• 152 spaces of terraced landscaped parking, to serve an average capacity of 150 persons.
• Soft lighting (less than virtually all non - residential facilities in the City of Newport Beach.)
• A 91 -foot steeple atop a 32 -foot, 9 -inch, one-story Temple building for a combined total of
123' 9" above finished grade.
• All building illumination to be kept on until 11 pm.
I respectfully request that you approve this project as outlined above.
Dated:
Signature:
Address:
7 !/ a
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
)a
Exhibit # 2
Letter from J. Bently on behalf of the LDS Church
regarding the building height exemption for churches.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
�a
BOSTON
BRUSSELS
CHICAGO
FRANKFURT
HAMBURG
HONG KONG
LONDON
LOS ANGELES
MILAN
MOSCOW
NEW JERSEY
Via Fax/Reeular Mail
Robert Burnham, Esq.
Newport Beach City Attorney
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Bob:
Latham a Watkins
ATTORNEY^§ AT LAW
WWW.LW,COM r
SEP 17 2002
Garr
September 13, 2002
Re: LDS Temple /City Church Height Exemption
5 it,
NEW YORK
NORTHERN VIRGINIA
- ""RANGE COUNTY
PARIS
SAN DIEGO
.N FRANCISCO
LICON VALLEY
SINGAPORE
TOKYO
3HINGTON. D.C.
n, No. 04532-0025
During our first Planning Commission hearings last Thursday, September 5", Bob Wynn
delivered to the Commission's secretary a copy of the enclosure, "Church and Steeple Height Exemption:
The Newport Beach Zoning Code Is Consistent With Federal Law ( "RLUIPA "). . This letter will amplify
a few points raised in Bob's paper and at the hearings.
One of the objections raised most often by those opposing our project, both before and
during the hearings, is that we need some kind of special relief in order to exceed the normal 50 -foot height
limit that applies to other new construction in Bonita Canyon Planned Community 50, including our site.
As the Daily Pilot quoted Steven Brombal, the opposition's first speaker: "If they [the Mormons] had
agreed to abide by the rules of a 50 foot height limit, we certainly would not be here tonight." The
onoonents' position is based on the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan, which imposes a 50 -foot height.
limit on all covered property. Our position is that Municipal Code §20.65.070 -G exempts church'
structures from this or any other height limit, so long as a use permit is issued.. This church- height
exemption is extremely broad, as described at the end of this letter. We shouldn't have to justify and fight
for every inch of steeple that goes above 50 feet.
At the hearing, the Commission asked Robin Clauson to give them her opinion as to whether
the PC text must specifically refer to the Zoning Code or the subsection G exemption in order for that
exemption to apply, and whether silence itself constitutes a conflict that precludes use of the exemption.
The Planning Department's Staff Report noted on page 5 that: "Where the Planned Community Develop-
ment Plan is silent or does not provide sufficient guidance, the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Title 20 of
the Municipal Code) is applied and where there is conflict between the PC Development Plan and the
Zoning Code, the PC Development Plan takes precedence. " On page 6, it also states: "The Bonita
Canyon PC Development Plan does not specify a procedure to deviate from structure height; therefore,
the Newport Beach Municipal Code provisions apply." It then refers to the church height exemption in
subsection G.
550 TOWN CENTER DRIVE. SURE 2000 • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92826.1925
TELEPHONE: 0141 540 -1235 • FAX; (714) 7 55-8 290 .
00558143.1 09-13- 2002 14:31
Robert Burnham, Esq.
September 13, 2002
Page 2
We see no conflict here between the silence of the PC -50 Plan, which does not mention
churches, and the general.zoning exemption of subsection G. Certainly, it shouldn't be necessary for a
general exemption like that to be mentioned each place where it could apply in order to be effective. As a
matter of fact, Bob Wynn has examined all 36 of the existing PC Development Plans at City Hall. He has
determined that none of those Plans specifically refers.to any of the Zoning Code §20.65.070 "Exceptions
to Height Limits," including the subsection G exemption for churches. ' All that is required in each case
is the issuance of a use permit, without regard to the normal height limit in any particular PC zone. That
is what we are requesting in this case, consistent with other churches in Newport Beach that have exceeded
the prevailing height limits.
When Patty Temple was asked by some Planning Commissioners whether she thought the 50-
foot height limit had been applied to St. Matthew's-Church .across Bonita Carryon. Drive from our site, Ms.
Temple confirmed that St. Matthew's received a use permit (initially issued by the City of Irvine, then
confirmed by the City of Newport Beach upon annexation) that included a steeple much higher than 50
feet, but without the need for any special relief or special process of any kind as to their steeple.
Finally, we note that §20.65.070 -G gives churches far more latitude to exceed the normal
height limits than any of the other items that are listed in §20.65.070 as "Exceptions to Height Limits".
Only churches are said to be "exempt" from all restrictions of Chapter 20.65 (entitled "Height Limits "). .
Other stated "Exceptions to Height Limits" —such as elevator shafts, enclosed stairwells, screened
mechanical equipment, chimneys and vents, skylights and roof windows, flag poles and boat cranes —are,
in turn, subject to other very specific limitations that have been imposed, above and beyond the general
Planned Community height limits. However, there is no stated maximum limit for churches! The only
requirement for a church structure (if it exceeds 35 feet, which virtually all churches will do) is that "it
shall require a use permit."
With this statement of broad intent in mind, we request that you or Robin clarify in writing to
the Planning Commission that – so far as churches are concerned – not only does the 50 -foot height limit
from our PC text not apply, but neither does any other maximum limit.
Please call either Bob Break, Bob Wynn or me if you have any questions. We hope to hear
from you before the end of next week, if possible.
ours Y,
Joseph I.
of LATHAM & WATKINS
Enclosure.
Robin Clauson, Esq.
Robert K. Break, Esq.
Robert L. Wynn
James Campbell
' hi fact, only 3 of the 36 PC Plans specifically allow any churches to be built at all. That exclusion
may itself raise questions under RLUIPA's final § 2000cc (b)(3), which is titled "Exclusions and
Limits." However, that issue is beyond the scope of our letter, as it does not apply in our case.
1A
QC\558143.1 09 -13 -2002 14:31
Church & Steeple Height Exemption
The Newport Beach Zoning Code Is Consistent With Federal Law V'RLUIPA ")
A persistent misunderstanding regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints'
application for a use permit to build its new Temple at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive needs to be
corrected. It is erroneously stated that the Church is seeking some kind of special exception,
variance or other favor from the city, as part of this process. Therefore, our effort is viewed by
many as bad precedent for future churches to be built in the City of Newport Beach.
Like many cities in California, Newport Beach has a zoning ordinance that allows churches to
exceed the normal height limits imposed on non - church buildings.' This is true for all churches
built in every zone throughout the city, be it agricultural or residential or industrial.
Newport Beach's Municipal Code § 20:65.070(G) reads in full as follows: "Church structures
used for church purposes shall be exempt from the restrictions of this chapter [entitled `Height
Limits'], except that any such structure exceeding 35 feet in height shall require a use permit"
The last part of this section is redundant, since in this city, no church can be built in any zone
without a use permit: Also, virtually every church in Newport Beach exceeds 35 feet (which is
the normal zoning height limit); especially if it has a steeple. Therefore, if a church first obtains a
use permit, then citywide height limits simply do not apply.
When a use permit is issued, it covers all essential project elements, not just one —like a steeple.
There is no need for any variance, exception or other special permit to enable a church steeple to
exceed the normal height limit (which, in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development
Zone, is 50 feet rather than 35 feet).
Of course, before issuing a use permit, the city must exercise reasonable discretion, within legal
parameters, in evaluating all matters relating to health, safety or welfare such as traffic, parking
and certain aesthetic considerations. That will be at the core of the City Planning Commission's
public hearings on the Temple on. September 5`h.
Two good examples of how this church use permit process has been applied in the Temple's
immediate area are the adjoining LDS stake center and the fixture chapel (with steeple) for the St.
Matthews Church—across Bonita Canyon Drive from the LDS Temple site. Both structures
exceed (or will exceed) the prescribed 50 -foot limit and are subject to prior use permits. But
neither required any steeple processing, separate and apart from the project as a whole.
This process is not only consistent with the citywide exemption for church structures, but also with
the new federal law— Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA'). Signed
by President Clinton on September 22, 2000, RLUIPA prohibits a city from treating a church on
"less than equal terms" with a non - church institution. According to the map following Muni.
Code Chapter 20.65 "Height Limits," the maximum height permitted for non - church facilities is
M feet (applicable to commercial buildings in Newport Center and the Airport area). Therefore,
375 feet may also be the right height for future church structures built in Newport Beach. To
impose a lower limitation, without proper overriding circumstances, may be a violation of RLUIPA.
1�)
OC\555827.1 09 -13 -2002 14:55
In addition to the federal law, various state courts have held — without any reference whatsoever
to RLUIPA =that steeple heights are protected religious symbols.
In a Massachusetts case, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a 169 -foot steeple, as a
religious symbol, was not properly a subject of judicial review and declined to determine what
exact height was religiously symbolic. See Martin v. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d 131 (2001).
In. a recent New York Appeal, the judges unanimously upheld the trial court's mandate to the.
town to issue a temple building height variance (including a 115 -foot steeple) which had been
denied as exceeding the town's 35 -foot height limit. See Matter of Corporation of Presiding
Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints v. Zoning Board of Appeals of
Town /Village of Harrison, New York Law Journal, p. 23 (July 16, 2002).
In short, as the City's own EIR for the proposed LDS Temple correctly concluded: "No
variance or other special permit of any kind is required for the steeple. (See EIR p. 3 -16.)
This application for a use permit to build a church that includes a 123' 9" steeple should be
approved.
' For example, in Redlands where the LDS Church is building a similar temple and steeple, the Redlands
Municipal Code 618.152.030 reads in full: "Penthouses or roof structures or the housing of elevators, .
stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building and
fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers, steeples, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, personal television
antennas, water tanks, silos, churches or similar structures, may be erected above the maximum height
permitted in each district.. No structure or penthouse shall be allowed for purposes.of providing
additional floor space (Ord. 2433 §2, 2000).
IY
00.555827.1 09 -13 -2002. 14:55
Exhibit # 3
Letter from J. Bently on behalf of the LDS Church
regarding the height and lighting of the Temple.
11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1
BOSTON
BRUSSELS
CHICAGO
FRANKFURT
HAMBURG
HONG KONG
LONDON
IOS ANGELES
MILAN
Moscow
NEW JERSEY
Via Fax/Reealar Mai
Robin Clauson, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Proposed
Dear Ms. Clauson:
(WED) 9. 25' 02 11; 28 /ST. 11: 27/NO. 4861483116 P 2
LOamawaUdes
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
W W W. LW.CDM
September 25, 2002
Beach Temple, 2300 Bonita
NEW YORK
NORTHERN VIRGINIA
ORANGE COUNT'
PARIS
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SILICON VALLEY
SINGAPORE
TOKYO
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Drive ("'Temple ")
During our hearings in the above matter on September 50', you handed me copy of
a letter addressed to the City Planning Commissioners from Robert W. Dyess, Jr., Esq., a resident
and board member of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association. He attached a schedule of
"Unofficial Temple Statistics" that showed the size, steeple height and hours of operation for all
current temples of the Church.
The purpose for the Dyess schedule was to demonstrate that there are many
temples with shorter steeples and shorter operating hours than what are proposed for this Temple.
His reason was an attempt to establish that a mandatory reduction in our proposed steeple height
OT operating hours, in his words, "clearly would not constitute a substantial burden on [the
Church's rights of] religious exercise." His data is all taken out of context, with no information
about the surrounding terrain or other nearby structures, including any Church -owned buildings_
With due respect to Mr. Dyess' impressive volume of work, it entirely misses the
point. The essence of the Church's rights of free exercise in this case includes its members' faith
that each temple design, including the steeple, is a signlflcant but an individual religious symbol.
It really doesn't matter how many temples have shorter steeples or whether some have no steeple at
all. The members' faith is not based on any mathematical formula or averaging of steeple heights.
A statistical study showing that a high percontage of temples with shorter steeples than that
proposed for this Temple is completely irrelevant to the members'faith that ibis particular
Temple's design was inspired through the Church's President.
The foundation for that faith is as follows: The Church's President—whom the
members regard as a prophet —has a unique mandate to determine temple location and design. An
early LDS scripture recorded in 1838 illustrates that mandate. In this scripture, the Lord said to the
Church's first president, Joseph Smith: "I command you to build a house unto me [in Far West,
Missouri], for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.... [L]et the house be
built unto my name according to the pattern which I will show unto them. And if my people build
it not according to the pattern which 1 shall show unto thetrpresidency, I will not accept it at their
hands" (Doctrine & Covenants 115:8, 14 -15. Emphasis added.). The city leaders and our
opponents don't need to believe any part of this scriptural mandate. But under both federal and
California law, the fact that Church members believe It should be respected.
950 To N Cc A Dnx. , 5ulm ECOO • COSTA MGM, CAUFORW 9262e-1925
TELEPHONE: f7141 540-1235 • FAX: 17141 755-5290
OC'1�58192.3 "y
09.25 -ZW2 1 i;13
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29/ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 3
t1tT!l N&WAMIM
Robin Clauson,Esq.
September 25, 2002
Page 2
I have first -hand knowledge that the current Church President, Gordon B.
Hinckley, has been intimately involved with the selection of the existing site for the Temple and
its pattern or design, especially regarding such essential religious symbols as the steeple and the
angel figure atop it. How he receives and applies this inspiration is up to him. It can be done in
many ways. The fact remains that the members have faith that he has specified or approved the
essential design features as part of his divine mandate. As a corollary, no substantial change may
be made to the Temple design without his approval.
In my remarks at the September Ss' hearing, entitled "Why Would a Mandatory
Reduction in Steeple Height Be an Undue Burden, On Our Religious Free Exercise ?" (delivered
in writing due to time constraints), I noted that one of the key factors the Church's President may
consider in determining steeple height is the surrounding topography and whether the Temple will
appear subordinate to any nearby LDS structure. One of the EIR Project Objectives stated that
the Temple (including its steeple) must be highly visible, so as to be seed "as a pinnacle of the
faith and source of perceived eternal blessings to the faithful" Such items as terrain topography
and adjoining structures mayor may not be factors in satisfying this objective. It is up ro the
President to make the final determination, in each case, so far as Church members are concerned.
As for operating and lighting hours, these will vary according to the individual needs at
each temple. Some temples will start earlier and some will run later than others, according to the
members' own circumstances in the area. Members would need to arrive about �!: hour before any
Temple ceremony begins, in order to prepare for it. So the correct arrival time for a 5:30 am session
would be around 5:00 am. Conversely, if the last session of the day (lasting about 2 hours) started at
8 pm, it could take another half how or so to complete their preparations and then leave by around
10:30 pm. Thereafter, the Temple leaders and other volunteer workers would depart by around 11
pm. These are typical schedules for many LDS temples.
In any case, I am confident that the City will not entangle itself in regulating Temple
operating hours any more than it would try to regulate the hours of midnight mass, sunrise services
or other inherently religious observances that did not pose any health, safety or welfare risks_ An
important element of religiousfaithfor LDS temples involves keeping them illuminated during
normal operating hours, as a symbol offollowing Christ into the light and out of darkness. Here,
we are asking for no greater hours of building illumination or operation than other existing
churches now enjoy in the City of Newport Beach.
I trust that this will clarify some of the misunderstandings in Mr. Dyess' letter.
Yours truly,
Q
Joseph`[�Benticy �4
of LATHAM & WATKINS
cc: City Attorney Robert Burnham
Senior Planner James Campbell
City Clerk LaVonne Harkless
00559192.3 09.25 -2002 11:13 �V
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29/ST. 11:27/NO.4861483116 P 4
Ref;5keNge COPY gRrLy
RONALD K. BROWN, JR.
FRANK M. CADIGAN
CAARY ALDO OAPELC i
ROBERT W. OYESS. JR,
MARSHA GABLE
PAUL C. HCGNESS{
HCIOI STILB LCWIS
THOMAS J. O'KEEFE {
T,Mp V C. PICKART
NIKK1 A. 11RE54EY
MICHAEL P. RIDLEY
RICHARD L -SEIDC
JOHN A.STILLMAN
THOMAS E. WALLCY
♦A PROFESSIONAL COII{ORATIOh
ua, OFnaas OF
GOOD, WxT.D1KA.N. HEONESS & WALLET
5000 CAMPUS ORIVE
NEWP03rf BEACH, &.T WOHNrd geGGo.2381
(949 955.1100
Chair and Members of the
Planning Commission, I
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
September 5, 2002
Re: Proposed Newport Beach Temple
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Dear Planning Commission Members:
ROT M. GOOD
(RET,RCO)
PAUL W.WILDMAN
4{ SAV h {C�
LOUIS A. CAPPADONA
DOUGLAS M. VICKLRY
STEPHEN 9. OTTO
FAX (949) 933 -0633
I reside at 8 Seabluff, Newport Beach, in the Bonita Canyon Cnmmuniry, I am
also a member of the Board of Directors of Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association and
a partner in the Newport Beach law firm of Good, Wildman, Hegness & Walley.
The purpose of this letter is to provide additional information to assist you in the
determination of whether any restrictions or conditions that you may impose on the
proposed Newport Beach Temple would constitute a "substantial burden" upon the
exercise of religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA). I refer you to the Memorandum dated August 28, 2002 from the City
Attorney's Office to the Chair and Members of the Planning Commission which contains
an analysis of RLUIPA (the "City Attorney Memorandum ").
The City Attorney Memorandum concludes that the Project Proponent has not
clearly articulated whether and to what extent a reduction in the proposed height of the
steeple or conditions relative to lighting would constitute a substantial burden on
religious exercise. Further, the City Attorney Memorandum suggests that it is left to the
Planning Commission, from information submitted or presented, to conclude whether a
substantial burden would be imposed by a reduction or modification to the project. If nt
substantial burden on religious exercise is found, it is irrelevant under RLUIPA whether
any modification serves a compelling governmental interest.
Al
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29/ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 5
Chair and Members of the
Planning Commission
Re: Proposed Newport Beach Temple
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
September 5, 2002
Page 2 of 3
Attached hereto is a schedule of Unofficial Temple Statistics prepared by me from
information obtained on the internet. The primary internet sources of information are
disclosed on the schedule. The statistics include the steeple height and hours of operation
for most of the 113 LDS Temples in current operation. Information is also included for
some of the 6 Temples under construction and some of the 7 Temples that have been
announced but are not yet under construction.
The statistical information on steeple heights shows that there are at least 53
Temples in operation with steeple heights of 80 feet or less - Three Temples have no
steeple. Although the Temples without steeples were constructed more than 75 years
ago, the 50 Temples with the shorter steeples all were constructed in the past twenty
years under the presidency of Gordon B. Hinckley, who I understand is the current
President of the Church.
The 53 Temples with short steeples or no steeples represent 47 percent of the 113
currently operating Temples. The 50 Temples with short steeples represent 54 percent of
the 93 currently operating Temples constructed during the Presidency of Gordon B.
Hinckley. These Temples all have steeples that are shorter than the 86 -foot steeple of the
LDS Stake Center located next to the proposed Newport Beach Temple_ Accordingly, a
reduction in steeple height for the Newport Beach Temple to 86 feet or less should be
consistent with the Church's exercise of religion in roughly one -half of its existing
Temples. Any conditional use permit granted by you should require a substantial
reduction in the height of the steeple. Such a reduction clearly would not constitute a
substantial burden on religious exercise.
The attached schedule also includes the hours of operation for 64 of the, 113
currently operating Temples. Hours of operation for the other 49 operating Temples were
listed as by appointment. Most Temples are open Tuesday through Saturday. However,
some Temples operate on Mondays. The average opening time for all days of operation
for the 64 Temples is approximately 7.45 am. The average last meeting time for all days
of operation was just before 7:00 pm. Notwithstanding these average hours of operation
for other Temples, the Church has stated its intention to operate the Newport Beach
Temple from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm five days per week. No other Temple posts these
extreme hours of operation.
As a homeowner whose bedroom looks upon the proposed Temple, my primary
concern with the proposed hours of operation is the timing of the lighting of the Temple
and its steeple during the nighttime hours of proposed operation. Traffic and noise
AO
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25' 02 11; 29 /ST. 11: 200. 4861483116 P 6
Chair and Members of the
Planning Commission
Re: Proposed Newport Beach Temple
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
September 5, 2002
Page 3 of 3
during these nighttime hours also cause concern. In January of this year we were advised
by Church officials that the lighting would be extinguished at 11:00 pm. There was no
mention of turning the lights back on at 5:00 am until the publication of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report. As a light sleeper, I regard the proposed re- lighting of the
steeple every morning at 5:00 am as an intrusion of my right not to be disturbed and of
my right to privacy.
Lighting has been reduced for other Temples. The website for the Redlands
Temple reports a compromise between Church and City officials for the lights to be
turned off at 10:30 pm during the five operating days and at 10:00 pm during the two
non- opernting days. There are several other references in the Temple websites to lighting
compromises. There is no indication that any other Temple turns its lights back on in the
morning hours.
The Church should be asked to reduce its hours of operation and lighting. The
extreme hours proposed for the Newport Beach Temple far exceed the hours of operation
and lighting for most Temples. At the very least, the Church should be prohibited from
re- lighting the Temple and its steeple in the morning hours. Such a reduction should not
constitute a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.
Our residential neighborhood should not be asked to live with standards that are
not imposed on other Temple neighborhoods under the guise of free exercise of religion.
Please take this information into account in determining the restrictions and conditions
that you must impose.
Very truly yours,
Oe&,-4w Dyq�
Robert W. Dyess, Jr.
cc City Attorney Robert Burnham
Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway
Council Member Gary Proctor
Council Member Norma J. Glover
Council Member Garold B. Adams
Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg
Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil
Council Member John Heffernan
A3
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29/ST. 11; 27/NO. 4861483116 P 7
UNOFFICIAL TEMPLE STATISTICS*
(Listed in Chronological Order by Date of Construction)
Location Hours of Operation ** Square Footage Steeple height
Operating Temples:
1.
St. George Utah
7:20am -8:00 pm
110,000
175 feet
7:20am- 11:20am Mon
6 :00am- 8 :00pm Wed
6:00am- 8:00pm Sat
2.
Logan Utah
7:00am- 8:00pm
119,619
Two Towers
5:30am- 8:00pm Wed
170 feet
5 :30am- 8 :00pm Sat
3.
Manti Utah
7:30am- 7:30pm
100,373
Two Towers
179 feet
4.
Salt Lake
5:45am- 8:00pm
253,053
Six Spire
210 feect
5.
Laie Hawaii
7:00am- 8.00pm
47,224
NO STEEPLE
7:00am- 1 1:00am Mon
5:30am- 11:30am Sat
6.
Cardston Alberta
9:30am- 7:30pm
88,562
NO STEEPLE
9:30am- 8:30pm Fri
7:30am- 12:30pm Sat
7_
Mesa Arizona
7 :00am- 7:30pm
113,916
NO STEEPLE
5:30am- 7:30pm Fri
6:30am- 7:30pm Sat
B.
Idaho Falls
5:00am- 8:00pm
92,177
148 feet
5:00am- 7:00pm Sat
9.
Bern Switzerland
8:00am- 3:00pm
35,546
140 feet
8:00am- 8.00pm Fri
8:00am- 1 :00pm Sat
10.
Los Angeles
7:00am- 8:30pm
190,614
258 feet
5:30am- 8:00pm Tue
7:00am- 8-00pm Wed
5:30am- 7:30pm Sat
11.
Hamilton New
8:30am- 8.30pm
44,212
157 feet
Zealand
8:00am- 10 :30pm Fri
6:30am- 10:30am Mon
12:30pm -610pm Sat
12.
London
8:00am- 8:00pm
46,174
I90 feet
8:00am- 12:00am Fri
7:00am- 4:00pm Sat
13.
Oakland
7:00arn- 8.00pm
95,000
Five Spire
5:30am- 8.00pm Tue
170 feet
5:30am- 4:30pm Sat
14.
Ogden Utah
7:00am- 8:00pm
115,000
180 feet
6:00am- 8:00pm Wed
Page 1 of 6
a4
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1
Location
15. Provo Utah
16. Washington D.C.
17. Sao Paulo
18. Tokyo
19. Seattle
20.
Jordan River Utah
21.
Atlanta
22.
Apia Samoa
23.
Nuku'alofa Tonga
24,
Santiago Chile
25.
Papeete Tahiti
26.
Mexico City
27.
Boise Idaho
28. Sydney Australia
29. Manila Philippines
30. Dallas Texas
31, Taipei Taiwan
(WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29/ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 8
ft0m. �
7:00am- 8:00pm
7:00am- 10.00am Mon
6:00am- 8:00pm Sat
7:00am- 9:00pm
7:00am- 10:30pm Fri
6:00am- 8:30pm Sat
7:00am- 8:30pm
7:00am- 11:55pm Fri
1: 1 5pm-6:45pm Sat
10:00am- 7:30pm
6:00am- 2:30pm Sat
7:00am- 8:00pm
5:30am- 8:00pm Tue
6 :00am- 8:00pm Sat
6:00am- 8:20pm
5:00am- 8:20pm Tue
9:00am- 8:00pm
8:00am- 4:00pm Sat
7:00am- 7:00pm
6:00am- 10.00am Sat
6:00am- 7:00pm
5 ;00am- 9 ;00am Mon
9:00am- 8:30pm
9:00am- 10:30pm Fri
7:00am- 6:30pm Sat
7 :00am- 7:OOpm
6:00am- 7:00pm Sat
8:00am- 7:00pm
7:00am- 5:00pm Sat
7:00am- 8:00pm
5:00am- 8.00pm Tue
6:30am- 8 :00pm Sat
9:00am- 7:15pm
6:00am- 12:00pm Sat
7:00am- 7:00pm
7:00am- 10:00pm Fri
7:00am- 5,00pm Sat
7:00am- 8:00pm
6:00am -3:30 Sat
2:00pm- 7:00pm
10:30am- 7:00pm Fri
10:30am- 5:00pm Sat
Page 2 of 6
Square Foota -e
128,325
59,246
Steeg_le Height
t 18 feet
Six Spire
288 feet
101 feet
52,590
178 feet
110,000
179 feet
35,325
(reduced height
due to airport)
148,236
139 feet
35,360
Unknown
14,460
75 feet
14,572
75 feet
13,712
76 fcct
9,936
66 feet
116,642
152 feet
35,325
Six Spire
112 feet
30,677
75 feet
26,683
Six Spire
115 feet
46,956
Six Spire
95 feet
9,945
Six Spire
126 feet
�5
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1
Location
32. Guatemala City
33.
Freiberg Germany
34.
Stockholm Sweden
35.
Chicago Ubnois
36_
Johannesburg
South Africa
37.
Seoul Korea
38.
Lima Peru
39.
Buenos Aires
Argentina
40.
Denver Colorado
41. Frankfurt Germany
42,
Portland Oregon
43.
Las Vegas Nevada
44,
Toronto Ontario
45.
San Diego
47. Bountiful Utah
48. Hong Kong
49. Mount Timpanogos
Utah
(WED) 9, 25' 02 11; 29 /ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 9
Hours of 0mr—a
7:00am- 11:00am Mon
7:00am- 5:00pm Tue
7:00am- 5:00pm Wed
5:30am- 7:00pm Thu
5 :30am- 7:00pm Fri
5:00am- 1:0Optn Sat
8:00am- 1 :00pm
7 :OOpm- 7:00pm Fri
7:30am- 6:00pm
7:30am- 12:00pm Sat
8:00ant 8:OOpm
7:00am- 7:00pm Sat
3:30pm- 6:30pm
6:00am- 6:30pm Fri
7:00am- 1:00pm Sat
1:30pm- 7:30pm
6:00am- 3 :30pm Sat
7:30am- 7:00pm
8:00am- 8:00pm
6:00am- 6:00pm Sat
8:00am- 7:30pm
5:30am- 7--30pm Wed
7:00am- 4:009m Sat
8:00am- 5,00pm
8:00am- 7:00pm Fri
8:00am- 2:00pm Sat
7:00am- 8:00pm
5:30am- 8:00pm Sat
7:00am- 8:00pm
7:00am- 7:00pm Sat
11:00am- g:00pm
7:00am- 8:00pm Sat
7:00am- 8:00pm
5:30am -8-Wpm Tuc
6:30am- 8:00pm Sat
8:00am- 8:00pm
7:30am- 3:00prn Sat
6:00am- 8:00pm
9:00am- 7:00pm
6:00am- 8:00pm
Page 3 of 6
Square Footage
11,610
13,300
14,508
29,751
19,184
28,057
9,600
11,980
29,117
24,170
79,220
80,350
57,982
72,000
70,000
104,000
21,744
107,240
t=le Height
Six Spire
126 feet
Unknown
Six Spire
112 feet
Six Spire
112 feet
Six Spire
112 feet
Six Spire
112 feet
Six Spirc
112 feet
Six Spire
112 feet
'Unknown
82 feet
Six Spire
169 feet
Six Spire
119 feet
116 feet
Two Towers
200 feet
165 feet
175 feet
135 feet
190 feet
S
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1
(WED) 9. 25' 02 11:30/ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 10
Page 4 of 6
�1
1AEation
Hours of OReration
Square Footan
Steeple Height
50.
St. Louis
9 :Mam- 7 :30pm
58,749
150 feet
7:30am- 2:15pm
51.
Vernal Utah
6:00am- 7:45pm
38,771
97 feet
6:00am- 1:30pm Mon
52.
Preston England
7:15am- 8:00pm
69,630
155 feet
7:15am- 12:00pm Mon
7:15am- 4:00pm Sat
53.
Monticello Utah
By Appointment
6,700
70 feet
54.
Anchorage Alaska
By Appointment
6,800
70 feet
55.
Colonia Juarez
By Appointment
6,800
47 feet
Chihuahua Mexico
56,
Madrid Spain
8:00am- 7:00pm
45,800
Unknown
8.00am- 5 :00pm Sat
57.
Bogota Colombia
9:30am- 7:15pm
53,500
Unknown
9.30am- 12:30pm Sat
58.
Guayaquil Ecuador
10:00am- 7:00pm
70,884
Unknown
9:00am- 2:00pm Sat
59.
Spokane Washington
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
60.
Columbus Ohio
6:00pm- 8:00pm
10,700
78 feet
10:00am- 8.00pm Wed
12-00pm- 8'00pm Pri
8:00am- 6:30pm Sat
61.
Bismarck North
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
Dakota
62.
Columbia South
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
Carolina
63.
Detroit Michigan
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
64.
Halifax Nova Scotia
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
65.
Regina Saskatchewan
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
66.
Billings Montana
9:00am- 7:30pm
33,800
120 feet
7:00am- 4:20pm Sat
67.
Edmonton Alberta
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
68.
Raleigh North
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
Carolina
69.
St. Paul Minnesota
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
70.
Kona Hawaii
By Appointment
10,700
79 feet
71.
Ciudad Juarez Mexico
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
72.
Hermosillo Sonora
By Appointment
10,769
78 feet
Mexico
73.
Albuquerque New
9:00am- 7:00pm
34,245
Unknown
Mexico
7:00am- 7:00pm Sat
74.
Oaxaca Mexico
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet
Page 4 of 6
�1
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1
75.
76.
77.
78,
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
8$.
86.
87.
88.
89,
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
,
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105,
106.
107.
�y
Location
Tuxtla Gutierrez
Mexico
Louisville Kentucky
502 - 241 -4115
Palmyra New York
Fresno California
Medford Oregon
Memphis Tennessee
Reno Nevada
Cochabamba Bolivia
Tampico Mexico
Nashville Tennessee
Villahermosa Mexico
Montreal Canada
San Jose Costa Rica
Fukuoka Japan
Adelaide Australia
Melbourne Australia
Suba Fiji
Merida Mexico
Veracruz Mexico
Baton Rouge
Louisiana
Oklahoma City
Caracas Venezuela
Houston Texas
Birmingham Alabama
Sarno Domingo
Dominican Republic
Boston
Recife Brazil
Porto Alegre Brazil
Montevideo Uruguay
Winter Quarters
Nebraska
Guadalajara Mexico
Perth Australia
Columbia River
Washington
Snowflake Arizona
Lubbock Tcxas
(WED) 9. 25' 02 11:30/ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 11
Hours of QMration Square Footao
By Appointment 10,700
By Appointment 10,700
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
9:30am- 7:30pm
8:30am -4:30pm Sat
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
8:00am- 8:00pm
7:00am- 3:00pm Sat
By Appointment
8:30am- 8 ;00pm
6 :00am- 3:30pm Sat
8:00am- 8:00pm
10:30am- 8:00pm
8:00am- 3:30pm Sat
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
By Appointment
Pane 5 of 6
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
33,303
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,700
10,769
15,332
33,970
10,700
67,000
69,600
37,200
10,700
10,700
16,000
10,700
10,700
16,880
18,621
16,498
Steeple Height
78 feet
78 feet
78 feet
78 feet
78 feet
78 feet
78 feet
Unknown
78 feet
78 feet
78 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
Unknown
75 feet
Unknown
139 feet
Unknown
78 feet * **
78 feet * **
Unknown
78 feet * **
78 feet * **
Unknown
Unknown
108 feet
IR
FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9, 25' 02 11:30 /ST. 11:27/N0, 4861483116 P 12
Under Construction:
114.
Location
Hours of Operation
Square Foyian
Steeple Heieht
115,
110.
Monterrey Mexico
By Appointment
16,498
108 feet * **
111.
Campinas Brazil
None Stated
48,100
Unknown
112.
Asuncion Paraguay
By Appointment
10,700
78 feet * **
113.
Nauvoo Illinois
6:00am- 8:00pm
54,000
162 feet
Redlands California
Not Complete
6:00am- 4:00pm Mon
130 feet
124.
Under Construction:
114.
Copenhagen Denmark
Not Complete
Not Available
Not Available
115,
The Hague
Not Complete
14,477
Not Available
Netherlands
56,000
from 115 feet
116.
Brisbane Australia
Not Complete
10,700
78 feet
117.
Accra Ghana
Not Complete
Not Available
Not Available
118,
Redlands California
Not Complete
18,000
130 feet
124.
Newport Beach
compromise: lights off
17,572
124 feet
125.
San Antonio Texas
at 10:30pm on
15,000
Not Available
126.
Manhattan New York
operating days and at
20,000
Not Available
10:00pm on Sun and
Mon
119.
Aba Nigern
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Announced Temples:
120.
New York New York
Not Complete
28,400
105 feet
compromise from
compromise
56,000
from 115 feet
121.
Kiev Ukraine
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
122,
Helsinki Finland
Not Available
23,000
Not Available
123.
Sacramento California
Not Available
58,000
Not Available
124.
Newport Beach
5:00am- 11:00pm
17,572
124 feet
125.
San Antonio Texas
Not Available
15,000
Not Available
126.
Manhattan New York
Not Available
20,000
Not Available
*Sources: 1. Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints Website
www.ldschurchtemples.com
2. Nathan's Exhaustive Guide to the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter -Day Saints Website www. nocities .com/AthenvParthenon/4909 //
* *Unless otherwise noted stated hours of operation are for Tuesday through Saturday.
** *Unconfirmed steeple heights based on relative steeple heights of other Temples with same
square footage and appearance by picture.
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit # 4
Additional correspondence received by
staff since the last meeting.
31
JOSEPH A. LUMSDAINE"
MARK C. DOYLE
T RED W A Y
1920 MAIN STREET, SURE 1000
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
MICHELE S. PATTERSON
(949) 756 -0684
FAX (949) 756 -0596
MICHAEL A. LANPHERE
MATTHEW LKINLEY
LUMSDAINE
DOWNEY OFFICE
DANIEL R. GOLD
DOWNE(Y, CALIFORNIA 90241
JOAN PENFIL'
SHANNON M. SILVERMAN
ROY J. JIMENEZ
® DOYLE
FAX (562) 869 -4607
FRANCIS A. JONES
LLP
LONG BEACH OFFICE
MONICA GOEL
REZA MANSOURI
Lawyers
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
(562) 983 -8140
FAX (562) 983-8141
"OF Counsel
^Protesamml Law Corp.
w Jldlaw.conn
AUTHOR'S E -MAIL
HAROLD T. TREDWAY
mtloyle @tidlaw.wnn
RETIRED (1964)
REPLY TO: IRVINE
September 4, 2002
Via Facsimile and
James Campbell
First Class Mail
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
RECEIVED BY
3300 Newport Blvd.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
CITY C1F kiIF IPOPT F,EACH
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report SEP 0 2002 PM AM Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple 71
71819110(11112(1121314(816
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I am a resident of Bonita Canyon and a member of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance
Association. I am writing to voice my objection to the Draft Environmental Impact
Report published by the Church and express the support of the Bonita Canyon
Maintenance Association position as stated in their letter to you of August 8, 2002.
I am aware that recent legislation has caused additional concern regarding restrictions
upon religious institutions. It is important to note that construction of a steeple tower
approaching 130 feet in height is not essentiai to the practice of a religious belief.
Instead the height of the temple acts as a marketing/public relations device to promote the
church to all those within view of it including those on the 73 Freeway.
Perhaps this would be acceptable in a commercial area with similar height buildings but it
is clearly not acceptable and inconsistent with the general plan for a steeple of that height
to be constructed in a residential neighborhood.
I urge the planning commission to carefully consider the comments of the Bonita Canyon
Maintenance Association which represent the many residents living adjacent to this
proposed site and require the Draft Environmental Impact Report to be modified
accordingly. Further, based on the current plans submitted by the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints Temple the conditional use permit should be denied.
OC143864.199999 33
James Campbell
September 4, 2002
Page 2
Should the City accept the Draft Environmental Impact Report and issue the conditional
use permit for construction. of the tower, I will consider legal action challenging both the
Environmental Impact Report and the City's issuance of a conditional use permit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE Lip
Mark C. Doy
MCD:jij
cc: Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association
Board of Directors
O043864.199999 ; I
David sow�e
2905SUVer L -awe
Newport Beach, CA92660
September 1, 2002,
Dear Chairman Kiser,
I am a Newport Beach resident and am whole - heartedly in support of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints building of the temple.
This should not be an issue of religion, but simply stated a land use issue. It is
my understanding that the extensive study that the city requested, concluded there to be
NO NEGATIVE IMPACT, on the community or the aesthetics of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Please allow the temple to be built the temple as the plans currently state, its not
like the issue is excessive noise as is the concern of the neighbors of the Village Inn. The
LDS temple goers consider the temple grounds to be scared and thus are typically
reverently respectful.
The temple will not "block" anyone's view, as is the concern of the neighbors of
the Butler Home on W. Bay. The large spire and angel atop will not prevent the views of
their neighbors or serve as an eyesore. The Temple grounds will be beautifully
landscaped and from the pictures in the report, it clearly shows, that the spire will only be
slightly higher than the existing spire. (When I hold a pencil six inches away from my
face, it does not block my view of the beach behind it, and such is the case of the angel
on top.)
Respectfully,
David Sonke
2905 Silver Lane
Newport Beach, CA 9260
Jevwi.i,fersovO e
2J05S ver L_no -e
Newport Beach, CPA92000
September 1, 2002
Dear Chairman Kiser,
I am a Newport Beach resident and am whole - heartedly in support of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints building of the temple.
This-should not be an issue of religion, but simply stated a land use issue. It is
my understanding that the extensive study that the city requested, concluded there to be
NO NFGATIVE IMPACT, on the community or the aesthetics of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Please allow the temple to be built the temple as the plans currently state, its not
like the issue is excessive noise as is the concern of the neighbors of the Village Inn. The
LDS temple goers consider the temple grounds to be scared and thus are typically
reverently respectful.
The temple will not "block" anyone's view, as is the concern of the neighbors of
the Butler Home on W. Bay. The large spire and angel atop will not prevent the views of
their neighbors or serve as an eyesore. The Temple grounds will be beautifully
jgndscaped and from the pictures in the report, it clearly shows that the spire will only be
ighdy higher than the existing spire. (When I hold.a pencil six inches away from my
e, j� does not block my view of the beach behind it, and such is the case of the angel
qp top,.)
Respectfully,
Jennifer Sonke
2905 Silver Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RECENED BY
pLANMhG`DEEPRr [ EACH
CITY , C
SEP 0 6 2002 .PM
AM .
7ig`9il0�11i12i1i2i3i4i8ti6
3L
Debra S. Bendheim
2313 Fairhill Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
September 3, 2002
Mr. Steven Kiser
Chairman — Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Kiser:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NFwPnRT REACH
AM SEP 0 6 2002 PM
7i8i9i101111121i1213141818
I am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -
Day Saints and their desire to build a temple in our great city. I think that it
will be a wonderful building, one of beauty and serenity. I think it will be a
great benefit to the community and Iook forward to its construction.
I have looked at the Environmental Impact Study and found it to be
complete and satisfactory in its conclusions.
As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to publicly voice my
support for the temple.
Sincerely yours,
31
W aryW argaret Bendheim
2742 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Septem6er3, 2002
91tr. Steven Kiser
Chairman — Tfanning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Bfvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Oear9Kr. riser
RECEIVED BY
Dr AKjkjjN'G DEPARTMEPIT
AIM qq 0 6 lauz PM
I am writing to express my support for the church of,7esus Christ of Latter -0ay Saints
acrd their desire to 6uifd a tempfe in ourgrwt city. I thinkthat it wili6e a uvndefid
6uif vW, one of 6eauty. andserenity..I thinkit wiff6e agreat benefit to the community
and look forward to its constructionn.
I have loofsd at the Environmentaflmpact Study andfoundit to 6e cornpfete and
satisfactory in its conclusions.
As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to pu6Cu61 voice my support for the
temple.
Sincerely yours,
i
�y
Candace E. Jackson
1545 Cumberland
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Septem6er3, 2002
Wr.. Steven Kiser
Chairman — Aanning commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear9dr. Uw..
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM SEP 0 0 2002 PM
718,9110111112,112,314,316
1
i am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints
and their desire to 6uild a temple in ourgreat city. I thinkthat it wi1T 6e a wonderful
6uilfiiV one of beauty and serrn ty. I thinkit wiff be a great benefit to the community
and look fomwd to its construction.
I have looW at the Environmental impact Study and found it to be complete and
satisfactory in its conclusions.
As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to pu6&ly voice my support for the
temple.
3q
September 3, 2002
Mr. Steven Kiser
Chairman — Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Kiser:
U�
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NJFWPORT r-,EACH
AM SEP 0 6 2002 PM
7i6�8ii0illiluii�213�4iSi8
I am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter -Day Saints and their desire to build a temple
in our great city. I think that it will be a wonderful building,
one of beauty and serenity. I think it will be a great benefit
to the community and look forward to its construction.
I have looked at the Environmental Impact Study and found
it to be complete and satisfactory in its conclusions.
As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to publicly
voice my support for the temple.
Sincerely yours,
�ae_��
alb
2313 Fairhill Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: SOMETHING NEW!!!!!
Draft EIR
LDS Temple
Dear Commissioners:
September 6, 2002
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF I,�ip\kipnr-.T REACH
AM SEP 13 2002 PM
71819110111112111213441616
4.
I attended the PC meeting last night. My card was not chosen to speak and I
would like to supply you with something that you may not have heard before. Like Mr.
Fuller, who spoke last night, I too am an appraiser with much experience in Southern
California. I am also a resident of Bonita Canyon. As you know, appraisers can have a
multitude of opinions. After all, that is what an appraisal is — an opinion.
I disagree with Mr. Fuller and his findings regarding the value of the homes in the
adjoining areas. I have attached an article for you and the Planning Commission to read
on "The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values ". This article (from The
Appraisal Journal) notes many factors that are both realized and perceived to decrease or
damage real property and its value. To many of the homeowners in Bonita Canyon, this
temple will be (and is) perceived as a future detrimental condition. You had pointed out
at the beginning of the meeting that it would be your responsibility to ensure that the
project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. In this article, the most applicable
DC would be Roman Numeral V — Imposed Conditions.
The article that was included in the DEIR referred to "churches" and I would
argue would not be similar to gigantic temples. I would like to see a copy of what Mr.
Fuller submitted to you. I can't imagine that property values would increase in the
vicinity of structures such as is proposed (unless you are a member of that church).
Regardless, while I do not object to the existing church or even a temple that conforms to
the existing zoning regulations, the proposed structure is completely unacceptable.
I am also worried that the City of Newport Beach might just "roll over" and
accept anything that the LDS church wishes. The city attorney may be fearful of fighting
the LDS church with the recent ruling in Boston and the Religious Land. Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act ( RLUIPA). As is noted in several articles, RLUIPA will
likely be tested in courts and its constitutionality may be questioned (as the RFRA was
declared unconstitutional in 1997).
The edicts of the temple (steeple height, color, design, lighting) are all "revealed
to the president of the LDS church" and are therefore set. That may be fine for believing
mormons, but is that edict fair to be thrust on the citizens of Newport Beach? I think not.
41
Among the effects of the proposed temple that would impact the surrounding
properties would be:
✓ Adverse effect on the scenic vistas
✓ Degradation of the existing visual character of the surroundings
✓ Addition of substantial light pollution, and
✓ Increase of traffic.
The values of the homes in the Bonita Canyon development can easily be
recorded and noted for a diminution in value after the temple is built. The City or the
church could then be found to be the source of the diminution and could further be held
liable for damages. Factors for the economy and any other outside influences can be
separated from the impacts of the temple to determine a net damage to the residences.
The EIR is also woefully inadequate in the measurement of traffic impacts on the
area. A much more detailed analysis of the traffic in and out of the temple must be
presented. What are the traffic patterns and visitor /member traffic patterns at other
temples in the nation? The LDS church should be forced to present daily /monthly
and annual traffic counts for at a minimum the Los Angeles and San Diego temples.
I'm sure this data can be presented with little effort — if the church wished to. I am
convinced that the traffic impacts as presented in the EIR are grossly incorrect.
In addition, I would propose that any permit be conditioned upon working
with the City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine, and the Transportation Corridor
Agencies /OCTA in having the Bonita Canyon Drive off ramp from the Route 73 be
changed to a "Non -Toll" ramp, with the Toll Road beginning south of this ramp.
Traffic from Shady Canyon, Newport Coast and the Turtle Rock area all routinely use
Bonita Canyon Drive to MacArthur simply to avoid paying the toll. This causes
unnecessary congestion, noise and pollution in our residential area. Traffic is a regional
problem and should be conditioned upon any permit that is granted.
I also object to the lighting. In summary, I cannot object to the temple being built
but can object to its conformity to the standards set by the City of Newport Beach and
that of the community in which we live.
Sincerely,
VDavid Guder
30 Whitehall
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Cc: Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association
Randall Bell, MAI
The Impact of
Detrimental Conditions on
Property Values
Detrimental conditions that affect property values range from temporary conditions and
market perceptions to construction defects, environmental contamination, and
geotechnical issues. Quantifying the impact of DCs is significantly more complex and
challenging than working through the three approaches to value. The author has
discovered distinctive graphic patterns in his study of DCs and grouped them into 10
general categories, each with unique characteristics. The article urges appraisers to
address the costs associated with assessment, remediation, ongoing costs, and the
effects of any market resistance.
There are over 200 detrimental conditions
(DCs) that can affect real estate values.
They include temporary easements, airport noise,
construction defects, serious toxic waste,
geotechnical issues, and natural disasters.
Determining the diminution in property value
brought about by a DC requires the application
of specialized methods, procedures, and
formulas. In fact, contamination and geotechnical
issues present some of the most involved
problems in real estate valuation.
All DCs can be classified into 10 categories,
each having unique patterns and attributes that
can be illustrated on a graph. Further, a DC's
impact on value can vary from case to case. A
DC could even be completely benign. Therefore,
each situation must be independently and
competently analyzed. The Bell Chart' defines
each classification and graphs the relationship
between property values and typical events (see
figure 1).
DETRIMENTAL CONDITIONS MODEL
All DCs involve some or all of six basic ele-
ments that lead to an understanding of: the costs
or losses associated with the assessment of the
condition, the repair or remediation costs, any
ongoing conditions, and any residual market
resistance to the condition. The DC Modef
illustrates the costs before, during, and after the
actual remediation (see figure 2). These costs are
shown as A or the value as if unaffected by
1. Randall Bell, "The Ten Standard Categories of Detrimental Conditions;' Right of Way (July 1996):14-16
2. Randall Bell, "Quantifying Diminution in Value Due to Detdmetnal Conditions: An Application to Environmentally Contaminated
Properties," Enviromnentat Claims Jounnd (October 1996): 135.
Randall Bell, MAI, directs the real estate damages practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Costa Mesa,
California. He specializes in the valuation of properties affected by detrimental conditions, and is the developer
and an instructor of the Appraisal Institute's seminar, "Valuation of Detrimental Conditions." His book on the
same subject, titled Real Estate Damages, will be released in 1999. Mr. Bell earned an MBA from the
University of California, Los Angeles.
380 � n
the DC; B, the value upon the realization that t
DC exists; C, the value upon assessment of the
situation; D, the value upon repair or otherwise
resolved; E, the value upon the consideration of
any ongoing costs; and F, the impact of any
market resistance.
The value patterns of any DC will involve
some or all of these six basic elements. For
example, Classes III through VI generally utilize
only components of this model,
as may Classes VI and DL although they may have
all the elements of the model. The point is that all
elements must be considered in any DC
assignment.
SIX BASIC ELEMENTS
Valuation as if no detrimental condition.
The first step of a DC assignment is to value the
property as if there were no DC.
Bell: The Impact ofDetnmentaf Conditions on Property Yafoes
381 q q
This establishes a benchmark for the following
studies.
Assessment costs. These encompass all the
costs associated with monitoring and assessing
the DC before any repairs or remediation,
including the Phase I and H studies, soils and
geotechnical studies, and other monitoring costs.
These costs are provided by the engineering
firms that do such monitoring, and because
requests for this work are commonplace, the
cost estimates are generally well established.
Remediation costs. The remediation costs
represent all costs associated with the actual
repairs, cleanup, and correction of the condition.
A vast spectrum of costs could be included,
depending on the remediation method chosen.
The costs would also include any agency
oversight, engineering, legal review, permits,
sampling, improvement demolition,
improvement reconstruction, additional
scientific analysis, and backfill. Again, these
costs are often provided by the engineers of the
firm contracted to conduct the remediation.
However, special care should be taken in
reviewing the completeness of such estimates
because the original cost estimates are often
exceeded. The firm providing the estimates
should clearly set forth whether the costs are
best case, expected case, or worst case scenarios
—an important point for implementing the next
step.
As stated, remediation costs can exceed their
original estimates. For this reason, a
contingency factor may be required to adjust
remediation costs to reflect a complete and
reasonable cost estimate, so that the real estate
market is reasonably assured that all reasonable
remediation costs are accounted for in the
estimates provided. It is important to note that the
contingency factor applied to the remediation costs
relate to the hard costs of remediation and should
not be confused with intangible losses, such as
onus or stigma. Because informed potential
buyers must be reasonably assured that they have i
clear indication of their potential cash liability, it is
essential that the total remediation costs accurately
reflect the total reasonable repair costs, not just f
cursory and optimistic estimate.
Carrying costs must also be considered. During
the remediation process, there may be disruptions
to the property's use, resulting in a loss of rental
revenues or the utility of the property. In addition,
operating expenses, which may be paid by the
tenant under the terms of a net lease, would also be
considered.
The final element of the repair process is the
project incentive. This is the entrepreneurial profit
required for a buyer to purchase damaged property
and make the repairs.
Ongoing costs. Some damaged properties incur
ongoing costs even after repairs or remediation is
completed. For example, a contaminated property
may undergo continued monitoring. Formally
damaged or contaminated properties may have
difficulty in
382 The Appraisal Journal, October 1998 U 5
obtaining financing. Lenders may not consider
financing an unremediated site and may also be
reluctant to finance a property that has been
remediated, usually due to cone= that
government agencies do not permanently certify
a site as clean. The result could be an
environmental review of the property, additional
loan points, a higher interest rate, or a lower
loan-to -value ratio. In the end, the property
owner could pay additional financing costs.
A damaged property, may also incur re-
strictions in use. For example, a formally
contaminated site may be limited to industrial
uses, even if it had previously been a
commercial or residential use. This issue must
be individually studied for any damaged
property.
Market resistance. At this point, the total
costs and losses are subtotaled, and an ad-
justment is made for the overall market re-
sistance to the property, if any. This adjustment
reflects the market's post -repair resistance to
purchase the property when similar properties
without a history of defectiveness are available.
Valuation as is. To derive the value, as is,
all the above issues must be addressed, quanti-
fied, and deducted from the value as if no DC
exists. The total losses attributable to a DC can
range from being nominal to exceeding the
Class I value. Additionally, the costs of
remediation may actually be minor compared
with all the associated costs.
DC CLASSIFICATIONS
Class I—No Detrimental Conditions or Be-
nign Condition Class I is the most straight-
forward because it involves an absence of DCs.
Many DC assignments include the initial step of
determining the market value as if no DC exists.
The formulas relating to the concepts of Classes
I through X are summarized in figure 3.
This class also involves situations in which an
act or event occurs, but the issue has no effect
on value. Such cases can involve any one of the
DC Classes II through IX. This concept is
straightforward, but it can be the grounds for
litigation.
For example, a plaintiff may contend that
some condition affected his or her property
value, while the defendant claims that the event
had no impact on value. One way to determine if
an issue is, in fact, a DC is with a paired -sales
analysis. In this process, market data that is clearly
unaffected by the issue is collected and then
compared with similar market data that is affected.
If a legitimate DC exists, there will likely be a
measurable and consistent difference between the
two sets of market data; if not, there will likely be
no significant difference between the two sets of
data. When a published study about a
neighborhood adjacent to a well - designed landfill
in the Los Angeles area was compared with
comparable neighborhoods some distance from the
landfill, the results indicated no significant
difference between the two neighborhoods in
either current prices or appreciation rates. 3
Class II— Non - market Premium. Class II in-
cludes assemblage, redevelopment zones, and
other situations where the buyer paid a premium.
This is a detrimental condition in terms of the
higher price being paid by the buyer.
Class III- Market Condition. Class III includes
the normal cycle of the real estate market when
values increase, decrease, or remain level over ;
specific period of time. These patterns of value are
simply the effects of the general economy coupled
with real estate supply and demand. This is a
significant classification because a certain
condition might be suspected to have affected the
value when, in fact, the DC was benign, and the
market conditions caused the loss or gain in value.
In addition, each of the other graphs depicting
the common characteristics of the impact of
various DCs on value is based on level market
conditions. In reality, market conditions may have
an added impact in and of themselves, thereby
requiring adjustments for market conditions with
any one of the various classifications of DCs.
One way of measuring Class III conditions may
be to study several comparable sales that resold at
a later date. By comparing the initial and
subsequent sales dates and values, a determination
can be made about the market trends. Graphically,
Class III simply reflects increased, decreased, or
level market conditions over time.
Class IV— Temporary Condition. Because this
class describes DCs that are only
3. DonaldR Bleich, M Chapman Findlay,KwdG. Michael Phillips, "An Evaloationofthe Imp=tofa Well - Designed landfill on
Summmding Property Values, "The Appraisal Journal (April 1991):247,
Bell: The Impact ofOatrimanta /Conditions on Pfopefty !/aloes
During the
remediation
process, there
may be
disruptions to
the property's
use, resulting
in a loss of
rental revenues
or the utility of
the property.
383 Q 6
Figure 3 Detrimental Conditions Valuation
Formulas
temporary in nature, the loss in value is limited
to the disruption caused by the temporary
condition. The most common Class IV situation
involves temporary construction easements in
which a portion of a property is used by another
party while adjoining construction is underway.
Upon the completion of construction, the full
use of the property is returned to its original
state..
This temporary disruption can affect value. For
example, if temporary construction disrupts the
traffic patterns of a shopping center, the
diminution in value may be extracted from the lost
revenues, higher vacancy rates, and other related
losses. The diminution in value would be in
addition to the rental rate of the land being used
during the temporary construction. Further, while
the effects of bankruptcy are often a benign Class 1
DC, this situation may be a Class IV DC if there is
substantial deferred maintenance or there are other
temporary conditions that affect the value.
Another type of Class IV DC involves
absorption losses. For example, if a particular
condition causes a major tenant to vacate the
building abruptly, the property value would drop
upon the tenant's departure and then increase over
time as the vacant space is absorbed. Absorption
losses specifically include lost rents, leasing
commissions, and tenant improvements.
Class IV conditions may also be the result of
crime scene or other tragic event. Media coverage
of the incident might negatively influence the
market's perception. Interviews with brokers and
agents indicate that, when disclosed, a violent
crime committed within a residence adversely
affects value As depicted by the graphs, these
types of conditions may either have a brief effect
only or have a long- lasting effect that could
diminish with time. In some extreme situations,
the memories caused by the tragedy may be sc
unpleasant that the improvements are eventually
demolished; however, the stigma tends to impact
the site continuously.
Measuring Class IV DCs often involve
comparing the subject property to other properties
in similar Class IV situations and subsequently
sold to buyers informed of the tragic event. (A
lower sales price is often required to entice buyers
to purchase these properties.)
The Class IV graphs may reflect only a short
and temporary drop in value if the condition is
minor and forgotten by market participants
quickly. It may also reflect a sudden drop with [
gradual increase in value as the market eventually
becomes more accepting of the situation.
Class V— Imposed Condition Adverse ex-
ternal factors, eminent domain, undesirable acts, or
forced events by another person or entity constitute
Class V conditions.
4. Sheila A. Tattle, "Effects of Violent Crimes on Residential Property Values," The Appraisal Joumal(July 1988):342.
384 The Appraisal Journal, October 1998 1 , f I
Specifically, the DCs can be imposed
governmental conditions such as down - zoning,
special bond assessments, or the designation of a
property as a historic site. Examples of adverse
external factors are dumps, landfills, factories
that produce noise and bad odors, neighbors that
allow their property to deteriorate, and trans-
mission lines.' They may also include the dis-
covery that improvements were illegally con-
structed, or the development of surrounding
nuisances (or perceived nuisances) such as a
sewer treatment plant, airport noise, or a prison.
For example, published studies illustrate that
there is a measurable impact on values due to
international airport noise. a In addition, Class
VI DCs apply to eminent domain situations,
especially a partial taking, and to willfitl acts of
the property owner, such as entering into a
ground lease.
In some situations, the effects of an imposed
condition may be relatively easy to assess. In
other cases, the imposed condition may be
unclear and require special studies to predict
how the market will change. Upon full
investigation and assessment, the uncertainties
are eliminated and the value of the property
generally increases.
Graphically, Class V often reflects a sudden
drop in value upon the occurrence of the DC and
a permanent loss in value as a result of the
imposed condition. In a situation involving
diminishing effects, such as a ground lease, the
leasehold value gradually decreases over time.
Class VI— Building Construction Condition
The basic premise of both Class VI and VII DCs
is that they are manmade, which means that they
can often be repaired. Class VI DCs involve
construction issues above grade. As such, they
are relatively easy to assess, and often result in
the restoration of the property's full value upon
completion of the repairs. Typically, the
problems are self - evident, and no special studies
are required to determine the scope of the
problem; however, all potential losses should be
addressed.
To quantify these types of DCs, the appraiser
must study the cost of repairs, engineering,
related services such as relocating the tenant,
free rent for the tenant while repairs are being
made, post -repair cleanup, and so forth. Some
tenant relocation costs can partially, if not entirely,
be mitigated simply by waiting until the property is
vacant to make the repairs.
Depicted on a graph, a Class VI situation may
show a drop in value upon the discovery of the
condition and a return to full value upon the repair
of the condition. In unusual circumstances, there
may be an ongoing condition that remains because
it is not physically or economically possible to
cure, thereby resulting in a permanent loss in the
value of the improvements. For example, if a
construction defect cannot be economically
repaired, it may be a situation similar to inadequate
insulation or asbestos abatement. The most
noteworthy example of this situation is asbestos
containing materials, which because they may be
impractical to remove from a building, are an
ongoing condition. Air monitoring may be
required throughout the life of the improvements
and special handing and disposal costs would be
incurred if the building is eventually demolished.'
Under this condition, the graphic illustration
reflects a permanent loss of value because the
condition remains, or is perceived to remain,
unchanged overtime. .
Class VII —Soil or Geotechnical Constrno-
tion Condition These DCs, which involve
construction issues below grade, are more difficult
to assess and repair than Class VI conditions
because of the challenges of assessing conditions
below grade and the associated drilling, coring,
and excavation. This category of DCs could
include site grading; soil cut, fill, and compacting;
slopes; drainage; tunneling; or retaining walls.
Often, Class VII DCs can be assessed and
repaired even if the foundation must be reinforced
or the improvements underpinned. Like Class VI
DCs, calculating the diminution in value would
involve the review of the functional utility of the
property, repairs that are necessary to prevent a
loss to life or property, repair costs, engineering
costs, disruption to the property, etc. These
conditions are manmade and can usually be
corrected although in some extreme conditions,
they cannot be repaired and an ongoing condition
may remain, affecting the value if the functional
utility of the property is diminished or the market
5. HsiangteYwog and Charles F. Seagle, "Impact ofTrananission Lines m Property Values: A Case Study," The Appraisal Journal (July
1992):413.
6. Marvin Frankel, "AirpottNoise and Residential Property Values: Results of a Survey Study," The Appraisal Journal (January 1991):
96 -110.
7. Randall Bell, 'The hnpact of Asbestos on Real Estate Values;' Right of Way (October 1994):10-21.
Bell: The Impact ofDetnmenfa /ConditmsoflRepedyVa/ues
Class VI DCs
are relatively
easy to assess,
and often
result in the
restoration of
the property's
full value upon
completion of
the repairs.
385
or the market perceives the ongoing issue to
impact the value. Thus, the functional use of the
property and the necessary repairs must be
carefully reviewed.
For example, if a site has fill soil that is up to
100 feet deep and differential settlement occurs,
it may not be economically or physically
possible to install piles and extra building
foundations to the bedrock to support the
improvements and ftilly" mitigate the situation.
As a result, it may be reasonable to expect that
the property will be more prone to earthquake
damage and continued settlement damage. In
this type of condition, the value of the property
may be permanently impaired and beyond the
other Class VI and VII categories.
On the other hand, some Class VI and VII
DCs do not have any effect on the rental rates
paid by tenants, or the property's liability or
utility and may, therefore, be questionable as
Class VI or VII DCs at all, if the capitalization
rate is also unaffected.
For example, if improperly compacted
shallow soils cause some minor settlement
cracks on the floor of a warehouse building, and
similar settlement cracks are commonly found in
comparable properties with no known soils
problems, the issue may not have any impact on
value. This is particularly true if the tenants' use
of the property is unaffected by the condition
and the marketability of the space is comparable
to that of similar properties.
The Class VII graph indicates a loss in value
when the condition is discovered and a return to
the non - impacted value upon the assessment and
repair of the condition. As stated, in some
unusual conditions, there may be a residual
market resistance remaining even after repairs
are made.
Class VIII — Environmental Condition
Class VIII involves environmental
contamination such as hydrocarbons, asbestos,
radioactive waste, solvents, and metals. In these
situations, remediation costs must be analyzed
carefully. There may be a variance between
estimated and actual remediation costs .8
However, in recent years, this concern has
subsided somewhat due to the introduction of cost
cap insurance and increased use of
indemnifications by responsible parties. In ad-
dition, if the property is contaminated, there may
be continued and justified concerns about
problems and issues resurfacing in the future. The
Environmental Protection Agency maintains a list
of problem sites, including those yet to be
investigated. These lists are available on request,
and if a problem arises, a Freedom of Inforntation
Act officer can be contacted? No government
agency will irrevocably certify a site as clean even
if the site has undergone remediation and has site
closure status.10 In fact, once contaminated, a site
is always on a list and, as a result, may be reex-
amined in the future. Further, it is difficult to
prove that all contaminants were removed and no
longer exist. In other words, it is logically and
scientifically impossible to prove a negative
hypothesis and regardless of how much time,
energy, or resources are expended, absolute
assurance is impossible." Figure 4 shows the
general flow of activity related to a contaminated
site and the possible circular nature of this process:
" In recent years, "letters of nonresponsibility`
and other mitigation techniques have elevated
many of these concerns.
As shown on the chart, even with site closure,
the sale, refinancing, or new use of a property may
trigger a Phase I survey, which in turn could lead
to a Phase II study. This, of course, could result in
another review of the property by the government
regulatory agency, with possible new political
agendas or other factors altered since the previous
site closure was issued. This means that, in rare
instances, a formerly contaminated site could be
subjected through the site assessment and
remediation process again.
Stigma- related losses can be nonexistent,
nominal or, in extreme situations, virtually destroy
a property's value." When environ mental
features are viewed as repulsive, upsetting, or
disruptive, they are stigmatized as undesirable. 14
While engineering experts may possess the
expertise to judge that a specific
8. Albert R. Wilson, "Emerging Approaches to Impaired Property Valuation," The Appraisal Journal (April 1996):156.9. Ralph IC Olsen;
"Hazardous waste Sites, "The Appraisal Journal (April 1989):234.
10. Wilson,158.
11. Albert R_ Wilson, 'The Environmental Opinion: Basisfor an hapaired Value Opinion," The Appraisal Journal (July 1994).441.12.
Randall Bell, "Quantifying Dummntion in Value Due to Detrimental Conditions: An Application to Environmentally Contaminated
Properties," Environmental Clamps Journal (October 1996):135.
13, Peter J. Patchin, "Contaminated Pmpeniesand the Sales Comparison Approach," The Appraisal Journal (July 1994):408.14. Bill
Mundy, "Stigma and Value," The Appraisal Journal (January 1992): 10.
No government
agency will
irrevocably
certify a site as
clean even if
the site has
undergone
remediation
and has site
closure status.
386 The Appraisal Joumal, October 1998 �I (�
situation is not a cause for concern, the non -
engineer, who is also often the potential buyer
and lender, may view a formerly damaged
property with skepticism. In contamination
cases, the reduction in value results from the
increased risk associated with the contaminated
property." Such ongoing concerns may create
market resistance - sometimes referred to as
stigma, onus, taint, or impairmentagainsi
properties that have a history of problems and
have potentially incurred future liabilities or
hidden cleanup costs, as well as against the
general hassle involved with owning the
property. With source contamination properties,
all elements of the DC Model should be
considered.
Class IX— Natural Condition Class IX in-
volves curable natural conditions that may be
economically and physically repaired. These
would include earthquakes, tornadoes,
floods, landslides, endangered species, and other
natural conditions.
These DCs may involve a significant safety
issue to the occupants of the property. If the DC
can be fully assessed and repaired, the property
value may return to the previous level before the
condition existed. However, if there is still a
question about the effectiveness of the repair or
remediation, there may be a residual loss of value.
Again, the impact on value involves the costs to
clean up or fortify the site, incidental costs, and
any residual conditions. All the elements of the
DC Model should be considered.
Class X— Incurable Condition This class
represents the most serious cases, for the property
may not be economically or physically remedied,
resulting in considerable or total loss in property
value. The property may be a liability if the
condition creates a
15. James A Chshners and Scott A. Roehr, "Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated Property," The Appraisal Journal(January 1993):
33.
Bell: The Impact ofDetdmental Conditions on Properly Values 387
J �
serious hazard or the cost to repair exceeds the
property value.
Examples of Class X DCs would include
extreme toxic or hazardous waste issues and
major landslides- situations that pose a risk to
life, health, and property, and cannot be
economically and physically repaired. Even if
the DC is curable, it would still be considered
Class X because the problem cannot be cured by
the property owner. For example, if a landslide
originates in an adjoining canyon, the property
owner cannot make repairs to the affected
property because it belongs to another person or
entity.
Class X conditions bring about a total or an
overwhelming loss in value upon the discovery
of the condition and are so severe that property
becomes worthless or even a liability if the costs
to correct the DC exceeds the property's Class 1
value.
Methodologies to Quantify
Diminution in Value
General research sources. Regardless of the
method used in quantifying the impact of a DC,
market data must be collected and analyzed.
The challenge is that comparable information on
DCs is often not provided in typical appraisal
reports. For this reason, specialized research
methods must be employed. For example, if the
DC is soils subsidence, a search may be
conducted for all articles published on the topic.
From this information, property owners and
brokers may be contacted and interviewed.
Also, government agencies, environmental
engineers, and soils engineers often have logs of
completed remediation projects from which
specific projects may be identified and studied.
Of course, brokers and sales agents often pro-
vide excellent leads on properties affected by
DCs. Comps Infosystems, Inc., based in San
Diego, California, now publishes market data
nationwide that is categorized by the Bell Chart.
Paired -sales analysis. This process involves
comparing sales affected by a DC with similar
sales not affected by a DC. For example, a
group of properties under the flight path of an
airport can be compared with similar properties
not located under the flight path.
Resale analysis. To conduct this analysis, the
appraiser would study sales comparables and the
subsequent resales of the same properties, usually
to determine the increase, decrease, or level
conditions of market values, or to determine the
impact of a DC by comparing values before and
after the DC is discovered. For example, if there is
a discernible pattern to the selling prices of a
specific property type, the effects and direction of
the market can be determined.
Cost -to- remediate analysis. Conducting this
analysis means studying the costs to remediate
DC, including engineering, tenant relocation, lost
rents, demolition, repair, cleanup, new tenant
improvement buildout, leasing commissions,
carrying costs, etc. Market data analysis. This
analysis consists of studying the effects of DCs on
other properties. Although the unique
characteristics of every DC makes direct
comparison difficult, market data can help support
the appraiser's conclusions. A study designed to
cross - reference remediation and stigma costs and
losses illustrates the wide range of effects of DCs
and provides market data on conditions of sales
comparables (see table 1).
Direct capitalization analysis. This process
capitalizes permanent lost rents brought about by s
DC. For example, if a property leases for a certain
rate before the construction of an adjoining sewage
treatment plant and then leases for less upon the
completion of the plant, the difference in the nel
operating income may be capitalized to determine
the permanent impact of the DC. If the income
and risks (capitalization or discount rates) are
affected, the situation must be addressed, using
specific methods. 16
Discounted cash flow analysis. This analysis
involves the calculation of the net present value of
a stream of income that reflects an affected
property's various costs and fluctuating revenues.
If a property is undergoing asbestos abatement or
soils remediation, the cash flow study would
incorporate all the costs cited in the cost -to- repair
approach. In addition, the cash flow would include
air or ground water monitoring costs and, if some
contaminants remain, any future demolition,
disposal, or cleanup costs. Further, the discount
rate may be increased to account for the perceived
risks of property ownership, if supported by the
market.
Modified cash flow studies are also required to
measure the impact of a ground lease on leasehold
estates. These leasehold
16. Richard A. Neustem, "Estimating Value Dimimrtionby the Income Approach," The Appraisal Journal (April 1992r 283 -287.
388 The Appraisal Joumal, October 1998
51
advantage studies involve the calculation of
market and contract ground rents and the
computation of the net present value of any
difference.
ANALYZING DETRIMENTAL
CONDITIONS
The basic guidelines for analyzing DCs are
summarized in the following:
Always use market data when quantifying
the impact of DCs on value. Quantifying
damages based solely on experience and
professional judgment is reckless and
probably unethical, particularly when
market data exists for virtually all DCs. In
the absence of direct market data, surveys
may be used.
Failing to research and apply relevant
market data is the single most common
Raw in DC analysis. Some in dividuals
tend to lump all DCs together when
discussing or writing about various
conditions. Be careful to understand the
limitations of such information, as there
are distinct traits for each classification of
DCs.
2. Be cautious in using market data from one
DC classification when attempting to
quantify the diminution in value of another
DC category. This is the basic concept of
comparing apples to apples. The common
characteristics of each class of DCs are
graphically distinct. Some DCs involve
repairs and some do not; some involve
permanent residual conditions while others
diminish over time; some involve
engineering studies and others do not, and
so forth.
3. An appraiser should never go beyond his
or her area of expertise. It is unethical for
appraisers to go beyond their area of
expertise, such as assessing soils con-
ditions, making engineering calculations,
identifying contaminants, estimating the
extent of damages or contamination, or
estimating the time to remediate.17
4. Consider the reliability of remediation es-
timates. It is not uncommon for remed-
iation projects to incur cost overruns.
Many issues and questions should be con-
sidered, such as: Does the contractor have a
contract clause that allows for additional
costs? Is the property indemnified against
cost overruns? Are the estimates best case,
most likely, or worst case scenarios? Do
bonds, cost capitalization insurance, or in-
demnifications exist that shift the liability
overruns to the ..contractor, insurance
company, or other party? Are the estimates
itemized to reveal any additional incidental
costs? Is the site assessment comprehensive
enough to yield a realistic cost estimate? 18
Always review the remediation costs and
related engineering costs for "rea-
sonableness". While real estate appraisers
and analysts are generally not also engineers,
it is not only possible but appropriate that
these costs be reviewed for basic
reasonableness. 19
6. Consider all the associated repair costs. The
actual cost of repair can often be relatively
minor compared with all the associated costs,
such as engineering costs, tenant relocation,
lost rents, demolition, repair, clean-up, tenant
improvement buildout, leasing commissions,
and absorption. All costs should be itemized,
categorized, and analyzed.
Never attempt to quantify damages based
solely on the Bell Chart. The chart is in no
way intended to quantify any loss in value.
This can be accomplished only by a
comprehensive study by a qualified expert.
However, the Bell Chart does show the
general issues, typical value patterns, and
relative impact on values for various
classifications.
8. Exceptions do exist, but usually only in more
extreme circumstances. These charts reflect
the common characteristics of DCs, but
exceptions do exist. For example, a
construction defect may be so major that it
takes many years to repair. This situation
may involve considerable disruptions to the
tenants and even create media attention. In
these types of conditions, the property value
may be impacted by negative market
reactions to the problems even after the
repairs are fully completed.
17. Appraisal Institute, "Guide Notes to The Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Guide Note 8 -The Consideration offlazardous
Substances in the Appraisal Process" (Chicago,lllinois: Appraisal Institute, 1991)t Wt.
18. Ibid., Guide Note 6- Reliance on Reports Prepared by Others, D14.
19. Ibid.
Bell: The Impact ofDefimental Condttioru on Property Values
Appraisers
should always
review the
remediation
costs and
related
engineering
costs for
reasonableness.
9.191
5a
9. Study the functional utility and mitigation
issues carefully. The issues related to the
DC's actual impact on the utility of a
property must be addressed. For example,
some DCs do not require immediate repair,
and the costs may be significantly
mitigated by merely waiting for a naturally
occurring tenant vacancy before repairing
the problem. Other DCs may affect the
property, but the rents, occupancy, and
resale value remain unaffected. In these
cases, the DC may, in fact, be benign.
How the DC has had a real or perceived
impact on the day -to -day use of the
property must be considered. For example,
a few years ago asbestos abatement was
considered a necessity by many. Today
the perception that asbestos is a heath risk
has diminished.
10. Recognize the various dimensions of using
the Bell Chart. The applications for using
the standard Bell Chart classifica lions are
far- reaching. In fact, it is possible that one
property issue will involve the use of three
or more classifications.
A property owner may contend that an
adjoining development caused his or her
property value to decline when market
conditions are actually to blame. The
property owner might inappropriately use
the Class V criteria and presume an impact
on value, but the proper analysis would
involve a Class I analysis
to demonstrate that the condition is benign.
Class III would be used to illustrate the real
cause of the declining value. By properly
classifying DCs, selecting the appropriate
method, and following these basic rules, each
individual situation may be more effectively
and accurately studied. Relevant market data
can then be researched and the proper
methods applied.
CONCLUSION
Quantifying the value diminution of property
affected by a detrimental condition can be a
challenging appraisal assignment. The appraiser
must recognize six basic issues: (1) the value as if
the property is unaffected by the DC; (2) the value
upon the DC's occurrence or its discovery, (3) the
necessity for a proper and thorough assessment of
the situation; (4) the determination of value upon
completion of repairs -i.a, the condition is
otherwise resolved; (5) the necessity for the value
conclusion to take into account any ongoing costs;
and (6) the need to examine the impact of any
market resistance. In other words, the appraiser
must examine the full spectrum of events -before
remediation, the remediation process itself, post -
remediation, and any post -repair market resistance
caused by the situation. The result should be ;
meaningful and accurate assessment of hew a det-
rimental condition has affected the value.
Bell: The Impact ofDetl7mental Condilions on ftpedy Values 391
5 L
RECENED BY
Newport Beach City Council PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Newport Beach Planning Commission CITY OF NE \NPOPT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard sPP 17 2002
Newport Beach, CA 92663 AM PM
September 13, 2002 7iBi9il0illi12ili2i3i4iBi6
Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
I first moved to Newport Beach, 38 years ago, at the age of 7. At the time it was
just hills between CdM and the airstrip we now know as John Wayne Airport. No
Fashion Island, Newport Center, Big Canyon, Harbor View Homes, Spyglass Hill,
Belcourt, etc. There was the little neighborhood of Harbor View, seen for miles at
Christmas time with its blue and green Christmas lights and a huge white star on every
house. We moved in to Eastbluff when it was new and ran down the hill and across the
big field that is now the Bluffs to explore the old salt mine in the back bay.
Slowly, the open land disappeared. One field after another was developed, and
the city has grown more and more beautiful over the years. Now my church would like
to build a temple on a small parcel at the edge of town. The main objectors to the project
are new residents who somehow think they have a right to "conserve" the city now that
they are comfortably sitting on a bluff that 5 years ago offered grazing cattle and a
panoramic view all across the county towards Brea. I don't understand the logic. Only a
handful of people in Bonita Canyon will even be able to glimpse the temple from their
property.
The temple will be beautiful. Every temple project meets with strong opposition,
with most of the roots found in doctrinal opposition. For example, a few years ago, when
our chapel opened, our youth,distributed flyers inviting the public to an open house: One
Seawind resident, Randy Hunter, sent a letter to our stake president threatening to have
any Mormon arrested who stepped foot on his property again, and furthermore, that we
"don't have the right to call ourselves a church." I notice he is now one of the main
spokespeople for the opposition.
- Please don't let a very few squeaky wheels convince you to turn down something
that will add so much peace and beauty to the city. This topic has gotten plenty of press,
and a very few residents of the city have bothered to speak out in opposition.
I back up to Bonita Canyon road —and where I once saw cows and city lights, I
now see 500 yards plus of Irvine -like adobe houses, with associated street lighting, house
lighting and traffic. I would like to see a temple in my view too, please.
Lisa Jarvie
1918 Port Cardiff Place
5�
Campbell, James
From: Roger Gilbert Docegil @adelphia.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:45 AM
To: Jim (James) Campbell
Subject: My Thoughts re "Spire "--- - - - - --
Hi There Dear Mr. Campbell -- after speaking to a very nice, polite
person in the Planning Department, I decided to follow her
recommendation and send a note re the Mormon Spire -- I believe that if
that is one of the things that is important to the Mormon "Way of
Worship" than they should be allowed to have their Spire be the number
of feet that they so desire ......... I simply cannot believe that it will
interfere with the view (visual or opinionated) of some homeowners -- do
they walk around with their heads pointed upward all the time? If they
are driving they should be looking out the front window of their car --
and if they are walking they should be looking at curbs, bumps in the
sidewalk, or else smiling and talking to their companion.....
I also think that such negativism is intolerant and what does that teach
one's children - - - - -- normally I do not write "letters" or opinions even
though I have strong thoughts on most everything -- but this seemed like
such a nit picky thing on the part of some people that I am putting "my
two cents in" ...... I had called Mr. Bromberg, our city council rep, and
he said that if the Mormons got their way than all the other churches
might raise their steeples too (and actually no one should mind if they
did) -- I presume he was talking just a rhetorical scenario...... well,
this note is much to long but I just get a bit weary of reading how
petty some of the issues are that some segments of our city complain
about when there are more.important things going on in this world of
ours....... Sincerely, Jocelyn Gilbert........
1 5(o
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, James
From: phil and barbara kilmer [barill @pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:03 PM
To: jcampbell *city.newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: Moorman Temple
Please take a moment to read my note, it is of great concern to me. Thank You.
I reside in "Harbor View homes ", in the immediate proximity of the purpose Mormon temple. The
crane was viewed and did little to show the true impact of temple on the surrounding communities.
The only way to understand the impact on our community is to see a similar Mormon Temple.
Hopefully you have viewed one of these temples, if not you should observe the Mormon temple on
the way to San Diego, on the left next to the freeway, you cannot miss it.
After speaking with James Campbell, the Senior Planner assigned to this project, I felt very little
resistance to this project from the planning Department, thus my note to you.
CONCERNS
I understand that religious organizations have some leeway in the variance process, but this project
has gone considerable past the normal exception that may be considered.
This proposed Temple is in the middle of a residential district. The structure exceeds maximum
height and illumination requirements. The fact they may consider turning off or lowering the lights on
the lower portion of the building, except their angle on top of the steeple, which will remain
illuminated all night does not warrant an exception.
If the city waives the height and lighting requirements, what about the other churches in the
immediate area? If they request to add excessive steeples will the city allow them the exception?
Maybe we could have a steeple build contest. Joking.
Frankly the temples excessive height and illumination would be an unwanted intrusion in the lives of
the residence of our community. Remember the FLETCHER JONES affair?
Lastly, I don't see any real benefit to the City, unless it receives some kind of tax revenue from the project, or the
community. One of the major religious believes is to love thy neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do to
you. With that in mind, how can a particular religious group attempt to force an unwanted structure on any community?
The word "force" may seem harsh, but in reality I understand that the Mormon Church has and is prepared to do what
ever it takes to accomplish their goal, including litigation. Guess who pays the legal fees? The City and ultimately the
taxpayers.
I know you are aware of the above, but please remember the people of the communities involved when decision must be
made on this matter.
Thank You
Phillip S. Kilmer
09/27/2002
�1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
5�
Exhibit # 5
Additional comments on the EIR and responses to
comments (to be submitted at the meeting).
6 �
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Go
Exhibit # 6
Draft resolution for project approval —
100 -foot Temple
4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 2002 -001 AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -036
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2002-005 FOR THE CHURCH OF JESUS
CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE TO
BE LOCATED AT 2300 BONITA CANYON DRIVE (PA2001 -208).
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as
follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by the Church of Jesus Y , f Latter Day Saints.
with respect to property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, and ,l ally "' ribed as Parcel 1
per Exhibit B attached to Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065 -LL} orded per
Document No. 93- 0425720, for a Use Permit and Site Plan Rev* to all c struction and
operation of a Temple on an 8.65 acre site within the Bonita Con Plan , Community. The
request also includes consideration of a 124 foot high 0 ed the maximum
allowable height of 50 feet.
Section 2. A public hearing was
6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chan
California. A notice of time, place and
information, and opinion, both it.. and i
materials and diagrams weresentef a
meetings.
ber 5,02 and October 3, 2002, at
Boulevard, Newport Beach,
ie meetings was given. Evidence,
ags, photographs, plans, simulations
by the Planning Commission at the
Section 3 'N W iWpmmisstin finds as follows:
4 at'
..
1. The project site rs esrgnate�overiitthtal, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the
Land Uslementrn .ythe Ge al Plan. This land use designation is applied to areas
developed uses orm physical and social infrastructure of the community and
are desig ettg educ cilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches,
among oth °r civlated uses. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church,
is listed as a permi ' nstitutional use within this land use category.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy A as the site is in close
proximity to residents of the community, thereby providing convenient access to the facility.
Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur Blvd./Bonita
Canyon Dr. /SR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed project
while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR.
3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy D. The project site does not
possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting
preservation, due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic
vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of
the steeple, although the project will be highly visible from public areas.
65
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 8
4. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community,
which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained
within the preface of the Planned Community Development Plan and states that "Sub -area 7
is designated Public /Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property." The existing
church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the
designation of the site.
5. Use Permit No. 2002 -36 for the proposed LDS Temple and the conditions under which it will
be operated or maintained 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 improvement, in the vicinity or to the
general welfare of the city for the following reasons: 1 � �`
a) The project site and the operation of the proposed Temple War with the General
Plan and are consistent with the purpose of the Publi c { ion of the
property by the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Devpment PW
b) The operation and maintenance of the
adverse impacts to the area as cone
signalized intersection on a major H
provided given the proposed schedule
shared use of the parking lot with the
for the project concludes that no
implementation of the pog ft� ar,_
c) The proposed Temple
traffic on Sundays wh(
d) The closest
fee
8.65 aes and
the pr N ,site
west, q3 9 feet
}.
n area
e t `ipated to generate
has access from a
lequ off- street parking will be
of tl remple, taking into account
tir. The traffic study prepared
6c impacts will result with the
with similar uses but will not contribute to
the area are more active.
rsef L ted within Bonita Canyon Village, which is
t
away at itcjosest point from the proposed Temple. The site is
ple H, the proposed Temple is roughly located in the Center of
:tbac)€of 83 feet to the south, 291 feet to the east, 379 feet to the
=north provide adequate separation of the Temple from its
in making the project more compatible with the community.
e) Exterior illuminati bri of the proposed Temple is designed to focus light on the Temple
and steeple while minimizing light and glare in the surrounding area. The hours of
illumination are also limited and not 24 hours a day.
f) The requested height of 123 feet, 9 inches is not compatible with the surrounding area as
there are no other comparable structures of this height within the City. The reduction of
the overall height of the Temple from 123 feet, 9 inches to 100 feet above the proposed
finished floor of 193.5 feet above mean sea level will make the proposed structure more
compatible with area. A 100 feet overall height limitation will reduce the impact of the
proposed Temple upon public and private views in the surrounding area. A 100 -foot high
Temple meets the applicants project objective To provide a highly visible site and a
distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a
�94
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 8
substantial distance" based upon the visibility of a crane that was installed at the site to
simulate the height of the steeple in January of 2002. A 100 -foot high Temple, including
the steeple and angel figure will be approximately 17.5 feet taller than the adjacent Stake
Center and does not eliminate visibility of the Temple from the same distances and
locations as the higher requested height. Due to this height differential with the Stake
Center, as well as the overall site design, building architecture and lighting, the proposed
Temple will be more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center. The reduced height of the
Temple in no way limits religious activities conducted within the Temple.
g) A finding that the proposed use is not detrimental to the community is further supported
by the facts in support of approval of Site Plan Review N 2002 -005. Said facts in
support of SR2002 -005 as outlined in paragraph 6 below "by incorporated by
reference.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and pure ate ' (Site Plan
Review) and warrants approval based upon the following is relate' r the standards for
approval of a Site Plan Review application:
IWO,, ,a
a) The site will be graded and developedith d egard�, t[[�tetic qualities of the
site even though additional filling of a sateuvill be nssary to achieve the grades
�
proposed. The site slopes moderately fr abu street
#o the north and east toward
Bonita Canyon Village and the San atn t, . ';<<„ sportation Corridor, and the
elevation changes from approximately 195 fel �M p roximately 175 feet above mean sea
level. The pad elevation :i:roposedmpfa t1 193 feet with the finished floor being
193.5 feet. This fmishe oor' ion 3 5 feet above the finished floor of the abutting tZI
Stake Center and roughl foot lor,than Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 340 feet
from its intersect�ort. witlia aine RorC The intersection is approximately 10 feet above
the proposed f0slie l(po?.91. site al has no unique natural landforms due to the past
grading of th to and rrtees Escaping.
b) The pit osed , ` ect is inpatible with the character of the neighborhood and
surrou sites no
etrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of
the suuti,gs and" City. The area is characterized by a mixture of residential
uses, ehurch&QR park, a preschool and a shopping center. The area is not a "densely"
urbanized area lt, compared to other areas of the city and is "suburban" in character
with many open space areas. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR-
73, Bonita Canyon Sports Park and numerous landscaped areas within medians,
parkways and other setback areas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and
Bonita Canyon Drive providing additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby
residential structures are approximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close
proximity to the proposed Temple as they are located over 620 feet away. The nearby
churches are large buildings comparable in size to the project although the proposed
steeple is higher than other buildings and steeples in the area. The Temple will have
significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping
that when combined assist in making the development more compatible with its
surroundings. The granite exterior finish with its "flamed" property is not reflective. The
�5
Resolution No.
Page 4 of 8
color of granite selected by the Church is warm and earth toned, which is compatible with
the colors of the surrounding community.
c) The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly
block public views due to the slender design of the steeple. It is acknowledged that the
project will be highly visible from public areas. The view simulations that were prepared
for the EIR show that the Temple steeple will make up a small percentage of the viewable
area and not block public views.
d) The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and the
construction and operation of the proposed Temple will not i act any ESA. The site is
devoid of sensitive resources or submerged lands. No 'g-archaeological and
historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to due to the highly
disturbed nature of the site from its previous gradi The ° plan includes
approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and wal wi anted with
some mature plantings. This high percentage of lands ing an":.: a re atively small
footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately, 0 4 �es) mak a site plan more
compatible with the open space areas that abut t . "
e) Consideration was also made for share. pgrk&V usage the adjacent Stake Center.
The circulation and parking layout mee exc�s. Crty r ' ign standards. The site plan
includes several walkways within and d thdtris and a separate pedestrian
crossing is provided between the proposed' ample and the Stake Center. Both the
Planning and Public Wo.artments �t ve rowed the proposed site plan for proper
pedestrian and vehicle netiom till h found that the site plan does not present any
negative circulation iss with eif Temple operation or shared parking usage with the
adjacent Stake QgMer.
f) Electrical serge will ft oground and mechanical equipment will be within
the building ogncealed " .1md roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground.
AlthoiT trash ge ared *hare not specifically delineated on the plans, trash storage
will b mmodrthenclosures or within the proposed building.
7. The conteilts o environmental document, including comments on the document and
responses to the coments, have been considered in all the decisions on this project. On the
basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than
significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects
on the environment that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental
goals that would be compromised by the project or cumulative impacts that are anticipated in
connection with the project. No mitigation measures are identified aside from
implementation of the project as described in the project description and application of
standard conditions of approval. Conditions of approval are applied that require
implementation of the project as described and that apply standard conditions of approval.
6�
Resolution No.
Page 5of8
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby
certifies Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2002031048) and approves Use Permit No. 2001-
036 and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached.
Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the
adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this
action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20,
Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
PAS!
LW
M
�1
Resolution No.
Page 6 of 8
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans except as
modified below. The plans are identified by date as follows:
Sheet No.
Date
Site plan
04 -5 -02
Conceptual grading plan
03 -7 -02
Landscape plan
o5 -1 -02
Elevation A2.1
03 -3 -02
Elevation A2.2
03 -3 -02
Elevation A2.3
03 -3 -02
Elevation A2.4
03 -3 -02
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances,
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approv:
IS.
sds, unless
3. Project approvals shall expire unless exer d wit 24`�th the effective date of
,
approval as specified in Section 20.914050A af. the Nev%rt Beach Municipal Code.
Reasonable extensions may be gr m
anted the "lpng rector in accordance with
applicable regulations.,; ,
4. The proposed project shalZ�tme
a ran to the reglltre is of the Uniform Building Code, any
local amendments t0 thetate,abled access requirements, unless otherwise
approved by the Building nt z
5. The applicant sha�. °,iWWj a 7 dscape ate irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect or hcend archt for s� end adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans
shall incorporate `ught tort plant #rigs and water efficient irrigation practices, and the
plans shall be appro d by the anning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
All planup[ 2areas be prded with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler
irrigation' ste,of a ,table for the type and arrangement of the plant materials
selected. �antiisg, , eas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous
concrete curb or si permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede
vehicular sight distanc'to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
6. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the
approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing
condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All
landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept
operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular
maintenance.
7. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right of way must
be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
L t 1
Resolution No.
Page 7 of 8
8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction
vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic
control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with
state and local requirements.
9. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the
Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities
for the on -site improvements and public improvements prior to the .issuance of -a building
permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer
systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer.
10. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City pri " a issuance of any
building or grading permit for construction of the project.
11. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of �ope', d adjacent
public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accord , with ptW 0.26 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be paced u rgroun�to f est appropriate pole
unless it is determined by the City Etr sneer 4hat such dergrounding is physically
infeasible.n.� =::a:.
13. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pe than circulation systems shall be subject
to further review by the Tr af Engineer %itnum of 146 parking spaces shall be
provided in accordance witlffi�e Or€l pance
14. In accordance with the prow 9ns of C ter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or
other applicable s,ff6i**ch r, streef7tees shall be required and shall be subject to the
review and aupro, l of tiAimier �c.R and Public Works Departments.
15. The applipant shaPre respone for the payment of all applicable City plan check and
16. The over heig f the Temple including the steeple and angel, shall be no more than 100
feet from the propo finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level.
17. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays
or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance.
"Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off
fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light
standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light
sources shall be no higher than 4 feet.
18. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for
approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The site shall
not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the
illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or
N
Resolution No.
Page 8 of 8
environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or
other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
19. Architectural lighting of the Temple, including the steeple and angel figure, shall be aimed to
illuminate the structure and shall avoid missing the structure to the maximum extent feasible.
Light sources aimed to illuminate the steeple and angel shall be located such that the angle of
light shall be no less than 70 degrees from the horizontal ground surface. Changes to the
lighting system that would increase lighting levels or increase the lighting sources shall
require an amendment to this Use Permit.
20. Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 5:C
to 11:00PM. Any future increase in these hours of illumination or
or additional light sources shall require an amendment to this Use
21. If a holiday lighting display within the project site is created OWN
to the site that creates a need for traffic control, the applit
costs associated with the City providing any increased
necessary to properly manage the temporary increase `' c
N �
+L
dui
to sunrise and sunset
iges in lighting levels
visitors
for the
deemed
Exhibit # 7
Draft resolution for project approval —
123 foot, 9 inch high Temple
J1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
�;L�
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 2002 -001 AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -036
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2002 -005 FOR THE CHURCH OF JESUS
CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE TO
BE LOCATED AT 2300 BONITA CANYON DRIVE (PA2001 -208).
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as
follows: I,
Section 1. An application was filed by the Church of Jesus y —, f Latter Day Saints.
with respect to property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, and le ally ribed as Parcel 1
per Exhibit B attached to Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065 -LL," corded per
Document No. 93- 0425720, for a Use Permit and Site Plan Rev to all ' e c'i- struction and
operation of a Temple on an 8.65 acre site within the Bonita C on Plan Community. The
request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high stethanld eed the maximum
allowable height of 50 feet.
Section 2. A public hearing was
6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chan
California. A notice of time, place and
information, and opinion, both Witten and c
materials and diagrams were pre` .��,a« to a
meetings.
Section 3.
fiber 5 2 and October 3, 2002, at
Boulevard, Newport Beach,
he ieetings was given. Evidence,
ngs, photographs, plans, simulations
by the Planning Commission at the
finds as follows:
1. The project site resign' Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the
Land UseE lement of th'`,„ neW Plan. This land use designation is applied to areas
develope uses that R' :, physical and social infrastructure of the community and
are desi educa % acilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches,
among otter civ lated ups. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church,
is listed as a pemu2nstitutional use within this land use category.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy A as the site is in close
proximity to residents of the community, thereby providing convenient access to the facility.
Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur BlvdJBonita
Canyon DrJSR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed project
while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR.
3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy D. The project site does not
possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting
preservation, due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic
vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of
the steeple, although the project will be highly visible from public areas.
X13
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 8
4. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community,
which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained
within the preface of the Planned Community Development Plan and states that "Sub -area 7
is designated Public /Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property." The existing
church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the
designation of the site.
5. Use Permit No. 2002 -36 for the proposed LDS Temple and the conditions under which it will
be operated or maintained 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 improvemen to the vicinity or to the
general welfare of the city for the following reasons:
a) The project site and the operation of the proposed Temple arc- sis-be with the General
Plan and are consistent with the purpose of the Public. .c ion of the
property by the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Devppment
b)
The operation and maintenance of the propose: eotipated to generate
adverse impacts to the area as conc,j ed b�$e _Thy' has access from a
signalized intersection on a major Hlaway, d adequ off - street parking will be
provided given the proposed schedulerccupnpy of W, Jemple, taking into account
shared use of the parking lot with the aa�j%t Stf "fl r. The traffic study prepared
for the project concludes that no signific; traffic impacts will result with the
implementation of the pro &,,
c) The proposed Temple is
traffic on Sundays,% -when
q area with similar uses but will not contribute to
s in the area are more active.
d) The closest Resident" uses loc46d within Bonita Canyon Village, which is
approximately20 feway at its closest point from the proposed Temple. The site is
8.65 aes and the st e atone proposed Temple is roughly located in the Center of
the praksite. The s of 83 feet to the south, 291 feet to the east, 379 feet to the
west, ;ttd feet to north provide adequate separation of the Temple from its
-9
surrouireiings° assist ttmaktng the project more compatible with the community.
e) Exterior illuminafi of the proposed Temple is designed to focus light on the Temple
and steeple while minimizing light and glare in the surrounding area. The hours of
illumination are also limited and not 24 hours a day.
f) The requested height of 123 feet, 9 inches is not detrimental to the surrounding area
based the central location of the steeple within the 8.65 acres site, its slender design, large
setbacks to property lines, large distance to surrounding properties, and the exterior color
and finish of the granite selected. The requested height is necessary to achieve the project
objective, which is "to provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a
steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance" and does
not block public or private views as the steeple occupies a small percentage of viewable
14
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 8
area. Additionally, the requested height is necessary to ensure that the Temple will be
more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center.
g) A finding that the proposed use is not detrimental to the community is further supported
by the facts in support of approval of Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005. Said facts in
support of SR2002 -005 as outlined in paragraph 6 below are hereby incorporated by
reference.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan
Review) and warrants approval based upon the following facts related to the standards for
approval of a Site Plan Review application: AL
a) The site will be graded and developed with due regard for the ,. ' ° etic qualities of the
site even though additional filling of the site will be nece5sslr f`T ieve the grades
proposed. The site slopes moderately from abutting street�d o ast toward
Bonita Canyon Village and the San Joaquin Hills Tisportat i Co' or, and the
elevation changes from approximately 195 feet to approx rely 17 et above mean sea
level. The pad elevation for the proposed Temple e itth t wished floor being
193.5 feet. This finished floor elevatior*.3.5 fiAt ab ov2� 1 'floor of the abutting
Stake Center and roughly 1 foot lower%an BotYa Canyotirive approximately 340 feet
from its intersection with Prairie Road $Temtectton approximately 10 feet above
the proposed finished floor. The site alW al landforms due to the past
grading of the site and no trees or landscapin`:,i;,,
b) The proposed project the 'character of the neighborhood and
surrounding sites and is nodneq)a1 to the orderly and harmonious development of
the surrounding of th��at y k "e area is characterized b y
a mixture of residential
uses, churche'pa prSc
it shopping center. The area is not a "densely"
urbanized arawhen npart�o oth r areas of the city and is "suburban" in character
with many op^space &as. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR-
73, tta Canyon Sport Park and numerous landscaped areas within medians,
parkwtad other se?act�eas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and
Bonita ai'gt Drive `' ding additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby
residenaal s res areapproximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close
proximity to th`' " ,pposed Temple as they are located over 620 feet away. The nearby
churches are lazge`buildings comparable in size to the project although the proposed
steeple is higher than other buildings and steeples in the area. The Temple will have
significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping
that when combined assist in making the development more compatible with its
surroundings. The granite exterior finish with its "flamed" property is not reflective. The
color of granite selected by the Church is warm and earth toned, which is compatible with
the colors of the surrounding community.
c) The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly
block public views due to the slender design of the steeple. It is acknowledged that the
project will be highly visible from public areas. The view simulations that were prepared
Resolution No.
Page 4 of 8
for the EIR show that the Temple steeple will make up a small percentage of the viewable
area and not block public views.
d) The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and the
construction and operation of the proposed Temple will not impact any ESA. The site is
devoid of sensitive resources or submerged lands. No known archaeological and
historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the highly
disturbed nature of the site from its previous grading. The site plan includes
approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and walkways that will be planted with
some mature plantings. This high percentage of landscaping and the relatively small
footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately 0.4 acres) cake the site plan more
compatible with the open space areas that abut the site.
e) Consideration was also made for shared parking usage wi t Stake Center.
The circulation and parking layout meets or exceeds City€ d` a site plan
includes several walkways within and around the gar `ns and eparate pedestrian
crossing is provided between the proposed Temple the St Center. Both the
Planning and Public Works Departments, have re pct site plan for proper
pedestrian and vehicle function and lip., four that t to does not present any
negative circulation issues with eithermp1,e ration oared parking usage with the
adjacent Stake Center.
f) Electrical service will be provided undergrourr ,apd mechanical equipment will be within
the building or concealed ind roof pgets 'a -will not be visible from the ground.
Although trash storage areas not Stifrcallydelineated on the plans, trash storage
will be accommodated witt4j e or within the proposed building.
7. The contents of .t "etttnmealtk ent, including comments on the document and
responses to the mmenthaveI n considered in all the decisions on this project. On the
basis of the entirinviro e al review record, the proposed project will have a less than
significan , pact upon t nvrrg rrrent and there are no known substantial adverse affects
on the en ent that wd ;paused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental
goals thatou e compr t: d by the project or cumulative impacts that are anticipated in
connection' wits' e prdject. No mitigation measures are identified aside from
implementation of" roject as described in the project description and application of
standard conditions bf approval. Conditions of approval are applied that require
implementation of the project as described and that apply standard conditions of approval.
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby
certifies Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2002031048) and approves Use Permit No. 2001-
036 and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached.
Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the
adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this
action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20,
Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
J�
Resolution No.
Page 5 of 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
M
'N�
11
n'
ABSENT:
On
'te"S-
BY:
Steven Kiser, Chairman
BY:
Shant Agajanian, Secretary-
41
M
'N�
11
Resolution No.
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Page 6 of 8
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans except as
modified below. The plans are identified by date as follows:
Sheet No.
Date
Site plan
04 -5 -02
Conceptual grading plan
03 -7 -02
Landscape plan
05 -1 -02
Elevation A2.1
03 -3 -02
Elevation A2.2
03 -3 -02
Elevation A2.3
03 -3 -02
Elevation A2.4
03 -3 -02
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances,
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approv,
3. Project approvals shall expire unless exerc
approval as specified in Section 20.91
Reasonable extensions may be granted
applicable regulations.
4. The proposed project shall coprm to the
local amendments to the UB ' and State.
approved by the Building Dep*m "W ,
s,' stari ards, unless
i * °Yhe effective date of
Beach Municipal Code.
;tor in accordance with
of the Uniform Building Code, any
;ess requirements, unless otherwise
5. The applicant shal�tY#jt,a latsc'd irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect or lice d arctrl ct fo D site afid adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans
shall incorporate ought erant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the
plans shaW approved by the Plgttning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
All planti areas shall be p ed with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler
1.
irrigation 1 of a desq table for the type and arrangement of the plant materials
selected. Y lantrngs' eas ac $ent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous
t rk
concrete curb or si' = permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede
vehicular sight distanclo the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
6. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the
approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing
condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All
landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept
operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular
maintenance.
7. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right of way must
be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
1b
Resolution No.
Page 7 of 8
8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction
vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic
control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with
state and local requirements.
9. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the
Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities
for the on -site improvements and public improvements prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer
systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer.
10. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City pritl ' ; e issuance of any
building or grading permit for construction of the project.
d� 11f 4e
11. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of pe 1 d adjacent
public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accord with '
p a� pte 0.26 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control �;.
12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be laced u rgro 0 "1 est appropriate pole
unless it is determined by the City neer drat such A.Ridergrounding is physically
infeasible._.,, _.._
13. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pstrian circulation systems shall be subject
to further review by the Traffic Engineer.: ,-
:. mi -um of 146 parking spaces shall be
provided in accordance with th€ oimg Ounce
14. In accordance with the provisics o1Ster 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or
other applicable S. r _cha' trees shall be required and shall be subject to the
review and appro?1 of the C?enetervices' and Public Works Departments.
15. The applint shall be rensibl for the payment of all applicable City plan check and
16. The over' hei§ft,,,pf the Triple including the steeple and angel, shall be no more than 123
feet, 9 inches from ?gproposed finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level.
17. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays
or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance.
"Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off
fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light
standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light
sources shall be no higher than 4 feet.
18. The applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for
approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The site shall
not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the
illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or
1I
Resolution No.
Page 8 of 8
environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or
other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
19. Architectural lighting of the Temple, including the steeple and angel figure, shall be aimed to
illuminate the structure and shall avoid missing the structure to the maximum extent feasible.
Light sources aimed to illuminate the steeple and angel shall be located such that the angle of
light shall be no less than 70 degrees from the horizontal ground surface. Changes to the
lighting system that would increase lighting levels or increase.the lighting sources shall
require an amendment to this Use Permit.
20. Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 5:C
to I l:OOPM. Any future increase in these hours of illumination or
or additional light sources shall require an amendment to this Use
21. If a holiday lighting display within the project site is created
to the site that creates a need for traffic control, the applic
costs associated with the City providing any increased ti
necessary to properly manage the temporary increase:
fL X ...
NS
} 1
�f� 4
to sunrise and sunset
ises in lighting levels
ed visitors
esp Bible for the
measures deemed
�rll