HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Attachment IATTACHMENT NO. I
INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY
THE APPELLANT DATE STAMPED
10/30/06
a��
September 23, 2006
Reverend Kerry Beaulieu
Our Lady Qum ofAngols
2046 Mar vista Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
VIA U.S. MAIL
RE: Proposed Expansion of Our Ia rly Queen of Angels
I D,771TIT =751 U-77,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 3 0 2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Please be advised that on Septantber 20, 2006, l.tiied an Application to Appeal the IMMon of
the Planning Commission which approved the shove captioned matter.
I have done so primarily to address our serious concerns which we contained within the
Application, of which I have enclosed a true and accurate copy for your nelerence. As stated im
said petition this matter most be heard within Thirty (30) days of filing said petition, however I
have requested a one hundred -twenty day (120) extension forthe following reasons: ,
1. I have a long sbmcling commitment to be out of the country all ofNovember.
2. 1'o allow myself; as welt as others, to fatly review the plethora of reports and studies
presented on behalfofthe church.
3. To provide for a reasonable amount of limo to consider and most possibly conduct
sbx iw (traffic and otherwise) as wall as to fully address numerous salient ins
and arghmaews regarding the veracity and correctness of said reports prepared on the
churches behalf.
As staled in the 'Application, for Appeal' it is the applicant's basic right to due proem and be
heard by the City Council within Thety (30) days from the date ofthe filing of same. Therefore,
should Our Lily Queen ofAngols at al refuse to agree to head within the time flame set fathby
the City, contained within the Application itself, then in order to allow the appellant our hrgal
d& to he heard, in per, you we obligated to CDOW me a$ to a date after December 1, 2005
which would be agreeable to bath the Church and me, and in conjunction with the City Council's
avmlahle calendar.
Failure to do so would be in complete conhadictlea to the repeated motions made by your
spokespeople, on behalf of tin church, that you have and continue to "rawk ow to Me
comonrariay" (your spokespeople's wards, not mine). And to consider the neighborhood's very
real concerns by 'listening' and by making `concessions' (again, your words not mine) out of
respect to the nrmaemW ccncems Pertaining to severed fihcets of the enormity of the proposed
expansion of both the Church and its' school, and most saliently, the increased number of cars
and the resulting traffic, and in that ' promised' attempt to coexist harmoniously with the adjacent
homeowners and residents.
215
Reverend Kem Besulise.
Our Lady Queen ofAngels
Septmber 22, 2006
Page
I would ask respectfhUy that you contact me at your earliest convenience. I con be reached by
mad and or vu;4-vu; telephone at the fi)Howmg address and telephone number.
835 AaliRDS Way, Vilk 15
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel (323) 650-4501 / Facsimile (323) 650-1095
Thanking you in advance for you time and consideration in this matter.
very truly yours,
Paul Doremus
PDD/sbm.
Enclosure (1)
C: Vile -
� I to
VAN . Yy. Y'I 1II RI I I
Original Applicant: Our Lady Queen of Awls Church (PA- 2005 -092)
Appeal Applicant's Information
Filed: September 20, 2006
Villa Granada Homeowners Association
Reasons for Appeal: Appellant Applicant requests a minimum of One Hundred and Twenty
( 120) days to be heard by the City Council regarding this matter, as to consider conducting new
Studies ( Traffic & otherwise) as well as to fully review all documentation pertaining to the
proposed project and permits Wanted (PA-2005 -092).
Appellant also requests that OLQA immediately cease and desist any and all attempts to install
!any `New' classrooms which are either of a temporary and or permanent nature.
!Appellant firmly believes that the new findings will validate our serious concern(s) as to any and
fall increase of students to the Our Lady Qum of Angels Church / School as well as the proposed
lenlarged seating capacity of One Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy (1170) parishioners in a
10hurcA which conducts Six (6) services per weekend — with the very real potential of
approximately Seven Thousand (7000) attendees per weekend. Our Lady Queen of Angel's
!proposal equates to an increase of Two Thousand ( 2000) people per weekend, not to mention the
(hundreds of additional vehicles that will bring said attendees into the direct vicinity of the Church
land onto our already overcrowded residential streets.
:Appeal Applicant intends to consider the possibility of conducting a new `Traffic Study', one
:which will focus on the germime, intersections of Eastbluff / Mar Vista / Domingo and Amigos
Street(s) — the streets that actw* surround the OLQA Church and OLQA School — instead of
relying on the current study (funded by OLQA) which wrongly focused on the intersection of
Jamboree and Eastbluff ONLY
Appellant firmly believes that the new, forlboomvig information will shed new light on the very
complicated equation of the ongoing and dangerous traffic jams and congestion as well as
validate our concerns as to the mmntly proposed and approved expansion of both the size, height
and seating capacity oft he new church, and the proposed and approved increased capacity of One
Hundred and Eighty ( 180) students of the Church's school and their direct and mm>aous adverse
effects they would have on the adjacent neighboring communities.
2-11
NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Patricia L. Temple, Director
Revised
Transmitted via Facsimile
Original to Follow via US Mail
September 29, 2006
Paul Doremus, Trustee
The Doremus Family Trust
P.O. Box 69149
West Hollywood, CA 90069 -0149
RE: ON OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS CHURCH EXPANSION PROJECT
- CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON THE APPEAL FILED SEPTEMBER 20,
2006
Dear Mr. Doremus:
On September 20, 2006, the City Clerk's Office received your application to
appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on Our Lady Queen of Angels
Church expansion project.
Please be advised that the Newport Beach City Council will consider the appeal
hearing of Our Lady Queen of Angels Church expansion project on November
14, 2006. This hearing date is set pursuant to the Municipal Code Section of
20.95.060 (Procedures for Appeals) which specifies that a hearing on the appeal
shall be held before an appellate body within 60 days of the date the appeal is
filed. The hearing may be scheduled more than 60 days after the appeal is filed,
provided both the applicant and the appellant or the appellate body consent to a
later date. Your 120 -day minimum request is not possible for the applicant and
the appellate body.
Should you wish to submit any supportive materials for staff review and for the
City Council to consider, please submit them to the Planning Department by
October 27, 2006. 1 could be contacted at 949 - 644 -3208, should you need
further assistance with this matter,
M. Ung,_,
Planner
Attachment
3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach. California 92658 -8915
Telephone: (949) 644 -3200 • Fax: (949) 644 -3229 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.vs
� o
Elizabeth C.- Densmore
848 Anilgas Way, Unit C
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
S%ftmbff 5, 2006
A&. Jef&CY Cole, Chair
I& Scott Peotter, Mr. Robert Hirwkins,
I&. Barry Eaton, Nft. Earl McDariiel,
Mr. Michael Toerge, Mr. Michael Hem Members
I%U.PatrwiaTemple, PlaumagDaector
In Re. Our Lady Queen of Angels.
Church AND School Expansion,
PA2005-092
SEP o 'A'20
7,
I attended the first hearing about this project and shared my concerns about the threat it poses to our
neighborhoocl. In brief, we are prepared to. tolerate two. years of construction and the inevitable growth of the
school and the church What we are w4uestiag iLs your support Y.R seizing this moment w do as much as passible
to. mitigate an already bad situation, rather than abetting making it worse. That is what I think Planning
Commissions are for!
Residents of Domingo. and Amigo- are already nearly "held hostage" at the beginning and end of the school day
and at certain hours. on Sunday. Unmanaged as it is, the vehicular traffic is. a threat to-pedestrians, to the ability
of emergency velucles, to enter or exit the area and to anyone trying to manage a schedule. The new parking lots
plans, while great at accommodating more parked cars, will only make the &-w of traffic. worse because of the
eptiow being created. I wrt, at best skeptical of the modest projected "#W' increases, repotted m the plan
document.
We talked a little at the W4 hewing about things which might, be done. Here is a-list. of possible options:
• Put an entrance into-the new lot directly fiamIAMBOREE
• Do-not permit church parking in the Administrative Lot of the CDM High School, which would reduce
pedestrian cross. traffic and the number of cars. entering the intersection of Mar Vista and Domingo.
If the CDMI*gh School lot is-to remain available, enforce &Iaw that zequwes-exAmg vehicles- to-make a
right turn and go. around the school rather than crossing traffic to make a left. [it would help if that
testriction was • in place now. There is a sign for certain times during school days which is largely
ignored, as is the one prohibiting left turns. onto Mar Vista from East Bluff.1
• Build- a pedestrian bridge over Domingo-. I can't imagine what it will be like when all the students, go-to
church (at least weekly) or at the beginning and end of Man, with the configuration.
• Hire a policeman; or traffic guard to direct traffic at the intersection of Domingo and-Mar Vista,
We are counting on-you towpreseat the interests of ALL Newport Beach's eitizef�s is this planrang process.
We know this.may be a challenge but we believe it cart be done.
Thanking you la advance fi taking. it.
Donald E. Bowers
315 Ruby Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92662
94,91660-9044
NEWPORT BEACH
Vii. ,, , ��,, ;,TNIENT
August 23, 2006 AM ?M
Rosalinh H. Ung
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Our Lady Queen of Angels Project
Dear Madam:
I appreciated the opportunity to speak with the Planning Commission on August
17, 2006. 1 hope I was successful in conveying the apartment owners and
residents serious concerns with the additional traffic that will be generated by Our
Lady Queen of Angels (OLQA) new church and expanded school. By itself the
increased traffic is probably not significant, however, when you consider that that
the area is already gridlocked during certain periods each day, any increase will
be meaningful.
I do not believe that the traffic study prepared by OLQA was thorough as
apparently the existing condition was overlooked. Further, I saw nothing on the
proposed plan that would mitigate the additional congestion. One driveway into a
large parking lot will encourage drivers to park at the high school or the church
property on the west side of the street and walk across Mar Vista or Domingo.
The mixing of pedestrians and vehicles will further impact ingress and egress
and is dangerous.
At the Planning Commission meeting I stated that, even with a reduction in the
number of seats, the proposed OLQA sanctuary will bring a substantial increase
in vehicle trips on Sundays. The reason for this is the number of services
conducted by the two churches.
Current:
OLQA 872 Seats x 5 Services = 4,360
St. Marks 350 Seats x 1 Service = 350
Total 4,710
Amigos Properties LP
461 S. Glassell Street
Orange, CA 92866
714 - 532^5939
August 11, 2006
Rosaliah M. Ung
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
pecea'Ised (9 1l71or,
90
SUBJECT: OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS EXPANSION PROJECT INITIAL
STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Dear Madam;
This letter is intended to provide comments on the subject project and its environmental
documentation prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
We believe that the City has failed to disclose potentially significant impacts related to
the subject project, and request that additional evaluation be undertaken and the
necessary environmental documentation re- circulated for public review and comment
prior to taking action on the Use Permit for the project.
The subject project proposes to double the size of the seating capacity of the existing
�aJ.) pn3 sanctuary, double the size of its school (including a 10,000 square foot gymnasium), and
ff �� exceed the current height restriction of 35 -feet for a 90 -foot steeple. The proposed plan
calls for relocating the entrance to both the 1,200 - capacity sanctuary and 600- student
school to a residential street with only one driveway.
The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to disclose the following:
On any given school day, or on any Sunday during the five services at Our Lady Queen
of Angels, traffic congestion already exists in the neighborhood streets that were never
PP4 designed to accommodate the existing number of vehicles that now traverse streets like
J Mar Vista and Domingo (which happen to be the only access to multi- family residences
on the east side of Eastbluff).
Further exacerbating the existing situation is the unresolved traffic problems related to
Corona del Mar High School, immediately adjacent to the project, whose enrollment has
fig. 5 QP5 far exceeded the capacity it was designed for more than 40 years ago. Nor is it
acknowledged that the school's "new drop -off plan" implemented last fall has only made
matters worse by delegating most of the traffic to the east side of Eastbluff.
V-7 ail
N 1j-
f - ><
F F
F
r
Y
a
5
S
{ 5
1
r
Y
a
5
S
{ 5
1
all
±yq .
� \:\
\ �s
. �
\
le
h
The parking analysis provides data regarding existing parking demand, existing
average vehicle occupancy (AVO) and a forecast of future parking demand.
Parking impacts have been identified and a mitigation measure, in the form of a
parking management plan, drop off pick up plan, construction parking phasing
plan, have all been required and prepared for review and approval by the City
Traffic Engineer.
Pg. 2 PP3
Comments noted.
Pg. 2 PP4
The parking analysis was prepared based on the premise that church parking
demand could be satisfied without the Corona del Mar High School parking lot.
The project, as proposed, provides on -site parking at both properties. Currently,
parishioners use the Cororna-del Mar High School parking lot because there is
insufficient on -site parking. This will not be the case in the future with the
implementation of parking management plan.
Pg. 2 PPS
The Initial Study of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared
for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
10
�3
It was also suggested that the traffic problems in the area are caused by Corona del Mar
High School and are therefore the responsibility of the School Board. Even if this were
so, this would only be the case on school days, not on weekends. Given that the streets in
P9 PP Eastbluff are the responsibility of the City of Newport Beach, and planning for the street
network is the responsibility of the Planning Commission, this kind of statement from a
Planning Commissioner appears at least disingenuous. Furthermore, the Commission has
an affirmative responsibility to ensure that new projects do not contribute significantly to
an already existing problem.
At another point in the hearing, Vice Chairman Eaton, as well as other members of the
Commission, acknowledged the existing parking and traffic congestion problems in this
area. In response to one public comment, Mr. Eaton pointed out that there were 84
conditions of project approval in a separate list of "Draft of Conditions of Approval
August 17, 2006" for this project. Conditions number 37, and 72 specifically
acknowledge the need to mitigate traffic and parking congestion in this area. However,
the Negative Declaration does not even mention any existing traffic or parking problems
in the vicinity of the project, nor does it analyze how the changes in the project might
impact the existing significant impacts other than to minimize the situation by concluding
that 27 additional trips couldn't possibly cause an impact. If there already is a significant
impact (some of which is caused by the existing church operations), the addition of any
new trips MAY be significant. Without adequate analysis of this issue, it appears difficult
to conclude that the impacts from the project are less than significant. Until the level of
significance is evaluated, adequate mitigation (of existing and expanded facilities) can
not be imposed.
Further, it was acknowledged at the hearing that although the proposed project would
meet ordinance requirements for parking, the applicant expects to substantially exceed
pp the parking requirements on at least several occasions in any given year. Neither the
P9 2 1 1 traffic or parking impact of these special events is adequately addressed in the Negative
Declaration. This is a potentially significant impact from operation of the project and
must be mitigated.
Mr. Eaton made the comment at the close of the Public Hearing that it was his opinion
that the project was approvable at this point and the staff should prepare findings for the
next hearing. Given that this statement comes prior to the close of the public comment
period on the Negative Declaration, and before Commissioners have reviewed the
entirety of the CEQA documentation for the case (including public comments) to
determine whether the CEQA document is adequate to support the action, we believe
suggests that Mr. Eaton has prejudged this case - a clear prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Decision - makers have an affirmative duty to evaluate the environmental impacts of a
proposal before making up their minds on a project. We are concerned that Mr. Eaton
may have a bias on the subject action before the Commission and should consider
recusing himself from rendering any final vote on this project.
P2 P PS I Finally, we believe that the following additional conditions should -be required of the
g applicant before the project is approved:
ra�yt 2/3
•
r.
PATRICIA KRONE
835 AMIGOS WAY, No. 4
KINGANDKRONE @AOL.COM
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660,4563
(949) 6440662
Aug, 17, 2006
Mr. Chairman and Members of the City of New Port Beach Planning Commission
I am Pat Krone, resident -owner 835 Amigos way, past President and member of the
Board of Directors, Villa Granada Community Association, representing them this
Evening.
We are here to voice our concern over Staff's conclusion that the applicant's proposal
would not impact the environment in our neighborhood. When you figure the number of
peek hour trips the plan would generate, it's frightening. Peek hours here are 7 to 9AM
and 2 to 4PM school days and all day Sunday when the applicant has five services.
Every child driven in and out is 4 trips and every student driver and every Sunday trip is
two. Any expansion will swell the traffic congestion seriously.
We have a letter from Homer Bludau, dated; Aug. 2005 stating that the city is committed
to continue efforts to improve safety and enhance traffic flows in the area. Is the City
going to deliberately let it get worse? The 225 families that are crammed into Amigos
Way and Domingo Dr. are literally trapped in or out of our homes during peek hours.
Emergency vehicles are shut out. This happens because bottlenecks causing gridlock
occur at Domingo/Mar Vista and Mar Vista/ Eastbluff.
In 2004 there was a Task Force convened to study traffic in the area. Leslie Daigle
reconvened it in 2005.. Participants were the City, Our Lady Queen of Angel. School,
Corona Del 1GIaz Middle school and High School, community members,
.and Xewp9rt-
Mesa School District. What ever happened to that? One suggestion I remember was to
widen Mar Vista. That could be done. What ever happened to that?
The present situation, the 2100 students and drivers to and from Corona Del Mar Middle
School and High School, and drivers to and from Our Lady Queen of Angels church and
school. is a serious traffic, safety, problem. How can the City deliberately allow it to
worsen?
What does the School Board have to say about the applicant's use of the CDM parking
lot after hours and all day Sunday ?: Do they generate revenue from this shared use; or is
this a gift?
This is a quality of life issue for us. Please consider the people who LIVE here.
A0
Iry =
August 4, 2006
13Yii17JMTMI
Post Office Box 3362
Newport Beach, CA
Via Facsimile
RE: Our Lady Queen of Angeles Church Expansion
Dear Mr. Arst:
We are long time homeowners and residents (over thirty years) here in Newport Beach and
supporters of the Greenlight organization. The purpose of this letter is to advise your organization that we
receipt of the Planning Departments NOTICE OF AVAILABLITY OF INITIAL i MND, dated June 30,
2006, regarding the proposed expansion of Our Lady Queen of Angeles Church, a copy of which I have
enclosed for your review.
Mr. Arst, with all due respect to you and to your organization, I believe this is an issue that demands
Greenlights intervention. Notwithstanding a brief telephonic conversation we had, a few years ago
regarding this vary issue, wherein you advised me of Groenlights position on this matter, stating in part
that, " Greenfight was hesitant to become involved as many ofyour members and supporters are Catholfd' I
shouldn't have to remind you that this is not now, nor has it ever been an issue of religion, it is and remains
an issue of overdevelopment and the trait residue that such expansion brings with it, issues that you and
Greenfight purport to care so much abou L For the record and for your information, not only does it appear
that Our Lady Queen of Angels appears hell bent on breaching a previous agreement `not to expend'
similar to that of St. Andraw's, despite promises by the leaders of Our Lady Queen of Angels they have
done little, if anything, to begin to address due already out of control traffic congestion that they contribute
to on a daily basis. Further, all respect aside, I know very well that if the Koll Company or any odor entity
proposed such an expansion as Our Lady Queen of Angels has, Greenlight would be all over it Gke a cheap
suit. In all candor, any hesitation on Crreenlights part to become involved suggests to me a double standard
and appears the height of hypocrisy on Greenlights part.
Our concerns regarding this proposal are as follows:
First and foremost, far the Planning Depairtments to state, "Me City of Newport Beach, Plmm ig
Department conducted an Initial Sri* which determined that the proposed project would not have an
effect on the environment' is nothing short of negligent when the applicant, Our Lady Queen of Angels, is
proposing to increase the seating capacity of the existing church to one thousand, one hundred and seventy
(1,170), that's approximate four hundred (400) more seats, doubling the size its school inclusive of but not
limited to constructing a ten thousand (10, 000) square foot gymnasium and seeks to brad a sanctuary that
far exceeds the current thirty -five (35) foot height restriction and resurrect a ninety (90) foot steeple.
Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that the proposed pint further calls for relocating the major
thomughihres to both the sanctuary and school farther from Jamboree Road and Fast Bluff to a residential
street ( Domingo) and proposes to install two (2) driveways, directly opposite each other one that will serve
as an entrance for the school and another one that will save as the ONLY entrance to the approximately
1200 seat sanctuary, and the City's Platming Department has the audacity to offer their professional
opinion that this proposed expansion will not have an ,effecr when all evidence is to the contrary. Insofar
as the capacity of the church will be expanded to nearly 1200 people, that suggests that there will be
approximately six hundred (600) cars per mass, give or take a few. With five (5) masses on Sunday that
adds up to approximate three thousand (3000) cars That's not math, that's simple arithmetic.
Prr
Moreover, if the members of the Planning Department would have performed their fiduciary duty
and taken the time to visit the actual situs on any given school morning or on any given Sunday directly
before or after one of the five (5) services they would witness fast hand the congestion that already exists
and realize that the proposed expansion will only double the traffic and parking issues that the City has and
continues to ignore. Simply put, these streets, Mar Vista (with three lanes, one for ingress and two for
egress) and Domingo (a residential 2 lane street with no lane markings) were never originally designed, nor.
have they ever been adequately redesigned to accommodate the traffic that both Corona del Mar High
School, Our Lady Queen of Angels and St, Mark's that bring individually or collectively to the
neighborhood, and most certainly are not adequate for the scope of the proposal that Our Lady Queen of
Angels that doubles the capacity of both its Church and school.
Thirdly, further exacerbating the situation is the unresolved traffic nightmare that Corona del Mar
High School contributes to the equation and whose enrollment has exceeded the capacity it was originally
designed for in 1960. And the 'new and improved drop -off plan' initiated last fall has only made matters
worse by delegating most of the traffic to the east side of East bluff and by restricting access to certain
public streets such as Alba and Mar Vista, as the Traffic Commission has, has contributed to the
unnecessary strain on East Bluff and only adds fuel to the fire. I don't think it is any coincidence that the
study appears to have been conducted after both the high school and Catholic school terms were out of
session, and serves no ones purpose other than Our Lady Queen of Angels and the Planning Department,
who appears to have and continue to refuse to acknowledge to the egregious traffic situation that exists
every school day from September through June, and is entirely misrepresentative of the true and actual
traffic calamity that exists.
Speaking not only for myself, but as President of our Homeowners Association, and a homeowner
here on Amigos Way for more than thirty (30) years, I have witnessed that many of the parishioners of Our
Lady Queen of Angels have and continued to demonstrate a total disregard and disrespect for the
neighborhood, its residents and exhibited distain for traffic and safety laws. On both school days and any
given weekend parishioners and parents of children who attend the school regularly exhibit a reckless
disregard by engaging in three point turns, u- turns, double parking, blocking traffic by letting children and
passengers out, trespassing onto private property and parking in No Parking areas much to the detriment
and safety of both the residents who reside in the immediate vicinity of the property, their respective guests
and anyone else who has the misfortune to find themselves anywhere near East bluff Mar Vista and
Domingo streets. The traffic issue is only compounded by the fact that both the students and the parents of
students exhibit an equal distain for traffic laws.
Fourthly, for the retard, the applicant, Our Lady Queen of Angels, appears to be intent on breaching
a previous agreement not to expand' similar to that of St. Andrew's, winch in and of itself speaks volumes
to the Churches in and of itself Furthermore, it should be noted that from day one, Our Lady Queen of
Angels and their representatives have been less than forthcoming with their expansion plans with the
neighborhood which has neither gone unnoticed by those in the community and or appreciated Adding
insult to injury it now appears that the Church and or City and its Planning Department have given little, if
any, serious consideration to the effects of the proposed expansion on either the escalating traffic issues and
or the havoc it will wreck on the quality of life issues that no one in the City including your department
seems to care much about. In all candor, we don't know what offends us more, the Church's arrogance or
their indolence. The same could be said about the Planning Department.
While we have voiced our opinion about this proposal during traffic meetings and through the Daily
Pilot it appears that most, if not all, of our legitimate concerns have fallen on deaf ears, especially those
who are members of Our Lady Queen of Angel's congregation, who engage in incessant yammering,
defending such unreasonable expansion plans by attacking us, as they have in the past, dismissing our
concerns with their NIMBY (no in my backyard) rhetoric. Once again continuing to confuse religion with
overdevelopment, ignorant to the salient fact that the church, which was supposed to be a 'neighborhood
church', has simply outgrown the neighborhood for which it was intended speaks to both their selfishness
and, quiet bluntly, their laziness in expecting that their church be within a certain mile radius of their own
homes without giving a second thought to the consequences that such and expansion will have on the
quality of life of those who live in the direct vicinity of Our Lady Queen of Angels.
r
Fortunately for those who don't live nearby, they don't have to live with the consequences of the
costly mistakes of the City's Planning Department that didn't have the foresight to see that a public high
school and two churches, both with schools of their own, cannot co -exist as neighbors, as they do, nor did
they give a second thought of how this might impact the neighborhood in the foreseeable future. We
would have thought, if nothing else, the City and its planners would have learned from their mistakes.
Apparently that is too much to expect and they seem hell bent on repeating their disastrous decisions, much
to the detriment of those of us who have the misforpme to have purchased homes here thirty -five years ago
and who put their faith into their elected representatives and City Hall to protect their investment and their
quality of life we all have the right to expect.
To put it in terms that even the Planning Department and the City Council will understand, the only
reasonable solution is to either relocate the high school (which should have been downsized and another
facility built to accommodate the thousands of new homes, many with four and five bedrooms, that the City
allowed developers to construct in the Newport Coast area, without the foresight to build one (1) new
public high school that would have reduced the burden on Corona del Mar High School) or leave Our Lady
Queen of Angels as it is, or relocate it to another urea altogether that is better suited for a project with such
unnecessarily ostentatious proportions. The plans themselves speak to the very issue that those behind the
proposed expansion have demonstrated little, if any; real concern for proportion and the proposed design is
completely out of place in this residential community.
Mr. Arst, if Greenlight was serious about addressing the traffic issues that threaten our community,
as stated within your Mission Statement, now is the time for you and your organization to step up to the
plate and protect the very issues that Greenlight claims are first and foremost on their agenda,
Respectfully,
Bette and Bill Dormus
Eight'[baty-five Amigos Way
Villa Fifteen
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Facsimile 949.759.5443
July 18, 2006
City Council
City of Newport Beach,
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Cal 92663
Via Facsimile
RE: Our Lady Queen of Angeles Church Expansion
Honorable City Council Members:
We are in receipt of the Planning Departments NOTICE OF AVAILABLITY OF INITIAL / MND,
dated Tune 30, 2006, regarding the proposed expansion of Our Lady Queen of Angeles Church.
With all due respect, we take particular umbrage in the Planning Departments claims included within
the notice wherein they state, "The City of Newport Beach, Phmntng Department conducted an InWd
Study, which determined that the proposed project would not have an effect on the erwironment " when the
applicant, Our Lady Queen of Angels, is proposing to double the size of the seating capacity of the existing
church to one thousand, one hundred and seventy (1, 1701 doubling the size its school inclusive of but not
limited to constructing a ten thousand (10, 000) square foot gymnasium and seeks to build a sanctuary that
far exceeds the current thirty-five (35) foot height restriction and resurrect a ninety (90) foot steeple.
Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed plan further calls for relocating the major thoroughfares to both
the sanctuary and school to a residential street (Domingo) and proposes to install two (2) driveways,
directly opposite each other, one that will serve as an entrance for the school and another one that will serve
as the ONLY entrance to the approximately 1200 seat sanctuary, and the City's Planning Department has
the audacity to offer their professional opinion that tbis proposed expansion will not have an "effect" when
all evidence is to the contrary.
If the members of the Planning Department would have performed their fiduciary duty and taken the
time to visit the actual situs on any given school morning or on any given Sunday directly before or after
one of the five (5) services they would witness fast hand the congestion that already exists and realize that
the proposed expansion will only double the traffic and panting issues that the City has and continues to
ignore. Simply put, these streets, Mar Vista (with three lanes, one for ingress and two for egress) and
Domingo (a residential 2 lane street with no lane madJngs) were never originally designed, nor have they
ever been adequately redesigned to accommodate the traffic that both Corona del Mar High School, Our
Lady Queen of Angels and St, Mark's that bring individually or collectively to the neighborhood, and most
certainly are not adequate for the scope of the proposal that Our Lady Queen of Angels that doubles the
capacity of both its Church and school
Further exacerbating the situation is the unresolved traffic nightmare that Corona del Mar High
School contributes to the equation and whose enrollment has exceeded the capacity it was originally
designed for in 1960. And the `new and improved drop-off plan' initiated last fall has only made matters
worse by delegating most of the traffic to the east side of East bluff and by restricting access to certain
Public streets ( Alba) most specifically, which would greatly reduce the unnecessary stain on East Bhr$ as
the Traffic Commission bas, only adds fuel to the fire.
I don't drink it is any coincidence that the study appears to have been conducted after both the high
school and Catholic school terms were out of session, and serves no ones purpose other than Our Lady
Queen of Angels and the Planning Department, who appears to have and continue to refuse to acknowledge
to the egregious traffic situation that exists every school day from September through June, and is entirely
misrepresentative of the true and actual traffic calamity that exists.
�JI
Never mind the fact that our appeals to Green Light have fallen on deaf ears as they have made it
abundantly clear that they intend to steer clear of this issue as "many of their members and supporters are
Catholic" their words, not mine. The sobering reality is that if the Koll Company or any other entity
proposed such an expansion as Out Lady Queen of Angels has, Greenlight would be all over it like a cheap
suit. Their action or lack thereat; is evidence of the double standard that exists in our community when it
comes to discussing churches and clearly suggests hypocrisy on both Greenlights part and the City planners
as well who have and continue to turn a blind eye to the mess the City allowed to develop by allowing a
high school and two church's to co-exist in this triangle and who's streets were never designed to
adequately handle the traffic that either the school and or Church bring to it individually or collectively,
Moreover, having been a homeowner and resident on Amigos Way for more than thirty (30) years I
can attest to the fact that both the staff of Our Lady Queen of Angels and many of its parishioners have and
continue to demonstrate a total disregard and disrespect for the neighborhood, its residents and exhibited
distain for traffic and safety laws. On both school days and any given weekend parishioners and parents of
children who attend the school regularly exhibit a reckless disregard by engaging in three point turns, u-
tarns, double parking, blocking traffic by lotting children and passengers out, trespassing onto private
property and parking in No Parking auras much to the detriment and satiety of both the residents who reside
in the immediate vicinity of the property, their respective guests and anyone else who has the misfortune to
find themselves anywhere near Fast blur& Mar Vista and Domingo streets.
For the record, the applicant, Our Lady Queen of Angels, appears to be intent on breaching a
previous agreement `not to expand similar to that of St. Andrew's, which in and of itself speaks volumes
to the Churches empty promises. Furthermore, for your information the, from day one, the loaders of Our
Lady Queen of Angels and their representatives have been less than forthcoming with their expansion plans
with the neighborhood which has neither gone unnoticed by those in the community and or appreciated.
Adding insult to injury it now appears that the Church and or City and its Planning Department have given
little, if any, serious consideration to the effects of the proposed expansion on either the escalating traffic
issues and or the havoc it will wreck on the quality of life issues diet no one in the City including your
department seems to care much about. In all candor, we don't know what offends us more, the Church's
arrogance or their indolence. The same could be said about the Planning Department
We are neither interested nor do we carp about the incessant yammering of these who rim to the
defense Our Lady Queen of Angels and their unreasonable expansion plans by attacking us, as they have in
the past, dismissing our legitimate concerns with their NIMBY (not in my backyard) childish rhetoric,
always confusing religion with overdevelopment and never accepting the salient fact that the church, which
was supposed to be a 'neighborhood church', has simply outgrown the neighborhood for which it was
intended and nom articulating anything but selfishness and, quo bluntly, laziness in demanding that their
clinch be within a certain radius of their own homes, never considering the consequences that such an
expansion will have on other peoples quality of life. This is not now, or has ever been an issue of religion,
as some will argue, it is and remains as issue of overdevelopment. Fortunately for those who don't live
nearby, they don't have to live with the consequences of the costly mistakes of the City's Planning
Department that didn't have the foresight to see that a public high school and two churches, both with
schools of their own, cannot coexist as neighbors, as they do, nor did they give a second thought of how
this might impact the neighborhood in the foreseeable future. We would have thought, if nothing else, the
City and its planners would have learned from their mistakes. Apparently that is too much to expect and
they,seem hell bent on repeating their disastrous decisions, much to the detriment of those of us who have
the misfortune to have purchased homes here durty -five years ago and who put their faith into their elected
representatives and City Hall to protect their investment and their quality of life we all have the right to
expect.
To put it in terms that even the Planning Department and the City Council will understand, the only
reasonable solution is to either relocate the high school (which should have been downsized and another
facility built to accommodate the thousands of new homes, many with four and five bedrooms, did the City
allowed developers to construct without the foresight to build one (1) new public high school that would
have reduced the burden on Corona del Mar High School, or leave Our Lady Queen of Angels as it is, or
relocate it to another area altogether that is better suited for a project with such unnecessarily ostentatious
pv-
February 2001
MetroNews
A Land swap Sealed in Heaven
A Catholic parish In Newport beach
CaPyrW (c) 2001. Los Angeles lanes)
To create room for a long- awaited expansion, a Catholic parish in Newport Beach has agreed to
spend $6.7 million for a neighboring Presbyterian church to move a few miles down the road.
The 385 -member St Mark Presbyterian Church will gain 10 acres of prime land new Fashion
Island, along with a new sanctuary, meeting halls, offices and a preschool--with the Catholic
church picking up the tab.
Nearly half of the land, which abuts a small coastal canyon, will be left in its natural state.
The combined project is expected to cost $20 million to $25 million, Catholic church officials said.
The money will be raised by the affluent Our lady congregation.
The public will get its first peek at the churches' proposals at tonight's Newport Beach Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioners will be asked to start the process of granting an exception
to the city's general plan to accommodate the land swap and new construction. The deal hinges
on City Council approval of the projects, which is expected in four to six months.
"It was a wild idea," said Father Vincent Gilmore, parochial vicar at Our Lady and architect of the
land deal.
The growth of Our Lady, established in 1853, has mirrored the steady expansion of Newport
Beach during the past half- century. Residents from recent Newport Coast developments have
placed additional strain on church facilities. Six Sunday Masses are celebrated to accommodate
worshipers in the 750 -seat church. Parishioners' children are admitted to is school, which serves
kindergarten through grade 8, on the basis of a lottery.
Two years ago, Msgr. William P. McLaughlin, Our Lady's pastor, deputized Gilmore to find ways
the church could expand. So Gilmore walked across the street to see if the Rev. Gary Collins,
senior pastor at St Mark, would consider moving.
'ICoflinsj said, 'I like that kind of thinking.' He understood our need," Gilmore said.
Collins said his initial reaction to Our Lady's overture was that it "could not fly. But I always like to
say, 'Let's not draw an absolute conclusion.
"Then I thought it over and got excited. We'd get better visibility and have the possibility of
designing facilities to ft our ministry as we go into the new century."
aq3
St. Mark and Our lady have been neighbors and friends for almost 40 years, even sharing a
number of ministries. In fact, that intimacy nearly prompted one longtime St. Mark member to vote
against the deal.
"She didn't want to move," Collins explained. "She didn't want the closeness between our
churches to end."
St. Mark would be uprooted after decades in the same location. And its sanctuary would be
demolished, a sacred and beloved building when: hundreds of baptisms, weddings and funerals
have taken place.
'There were many with reservations about leaving the familiar," Collins said. 'Things are going
very well at this stage in St Mark's life. But then someone offers you a deal like this, and our
mission can be enhanced. And that's what its all about"
The new St. Mark church would expand its sanctuary from 300 to 450 seats, create a significantly
larger social hall, and make five acres of open space a prominent design feature. St. Mark would
add roughly 7,000 square feet to Its facilities.
The project faced challenges from the start:
" Finding a chunk of open land in Newport Beach, which is nearly built out. Catholic officials
soured the city and found two sites for St Mark, the best one on the comer of MacArthur
Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road that usually serves as a Christmas tree lot in December.
" Getting the Irvine Co. to sell that property, which wasn't on the market
" Meeting with sb"rowth advocates to show why one of the city's last pieces of open space
that had been proposed would work as a church site.
"They're trying to please everyone," said Claudia Owen, co- president of the group. "And they're
doing a good job."
�qq
March 1880
Copyright The Tans Urrm company; cos Angeles Times 1990ea tights reserved)
The City Council has agreed to allow expansion of a church in a residential area after residents
withdrew their objection to the project.
The unanimous approval Monday clears the way for Our Lady Queen of Angels Church to add
another 23,534 square feet by budding a new parish hall, offices, classrooms and a garage. The
church, which is within the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Diooese of Orange, is at 2048 Mar
Vista Drive, across from Corona del Mar High School.
Originally, some residents balked at the expansion, fearing that it would draw additional cars to a
neighborhood already inundated with school traffic. But city officials say the expansion would add
50 cars a day to the area at most
The Bluffs Homeowners Community Assn. withdrew its objections to the project providing that the
city approve a traffic study of streets near the high school. City Manager Robert L. Wynn
estimated the cost of such a study at between $10,000 and $12,000.
But Councilman John C. Cox Jr. said that funding a study would be a "waste of money" when the
council is already aware of the traffic problems.
Sys
re Qr
url4
do,
gt
gt
- �F,r1
H J
�. '� i ` � •dam °��
i
r t� t { �dig7j
�. -� .R.!° 1 b. _ ', � ,tae, � i n. {i ,i°4ra?a P � k. � 1r. •x 4'�.i2
4 - t
in T ua' in li !4k: "*Y t rt-J4 S
16 -��
_ -. - r rA'21 y'fi'c f t A4 i� fah �Fr3? t•
d ra ✓1
y.. a ST..�, .. ,.. ;a,m"�e
k��� � t , 19. p :Y •
J
SL W'
t
e
y „
-
f
s .nr^�' s ✓ K �• .( r t F, a -� *T". r=+q
y �a ,�, , i i4it+ x 1uti� ,�
r �
IN
E
Al.
,'N3 1 1 FM �,�,¢f �JVe>ayJV {{ R -z� 5%. E1 l.r.•+� _ �� al'�i�}, _ - v� t+
> 1 V' "f� [�'T�� \.aYV "� S V/r A'.h ]YU, -:- F V45i`�h�•if ..... it 1 ..r
dz'y ?'
n
W
v n ,' It - - - ..
1 i L ,� �� •� � J a. i xQ�.{
t TV
! �r
`• � • ` ��.,~��r 3. �,M i' .. a �y r �+ b'�i ,
y � � y , � • ♦ �. . � , r . �' c� , lam. ''"� �w ,c' ,
*'+ di:- e C 2♦ A l� r
} +ry* II ? i P
*� �sv W :`.as ay „""'kY R$4:,{ej ¢sr
4�5 dx. A` ,� ':`" i'� '' a 4z ,!, w yd7 f� 3 Ir'a �i .0 f. as i
t .'�' v c, r € 4 S'§' _ da31 m' ,i� ♦,, ?+;,"��, ,� i 7 ?r'�..�'�i a'" �- Sf.;t" � �r
sea
4 rk
yy..e p'..
4T�.� � 1 r � rG� A P i �ti� fafh Mv4'�Z'Xie ,� jFYy^° e'j � 'v � r• i��+i C
i •!J� rl$'� •+�p(SIv` � �, rox rat✓ �'h Jx �a �^ � T�`a sJ�:i � ° : y) ,r M `,�. r r � �'�V N /��w'� 4�'J ,�
-,g `o •ku«..
.yens 3 r s r r $r ^°+3sa MwR Ar
d+t -b jFj .�� Ur .� IF6p °ni i3i r .v"�1.{ -03a x •.YS fra kFK``M 1 '� »T �, :' A� ';'
4, Y-
.q b l 1 J.yata i '( x4 a, & -kE 5'yz n bpr X k di] •'"Fyha e 4 t ++! b r v xu . r - i4 d f ifi
r
IM
5'
Y
r �5=
F �
P f{
X64 i
J •
•
fA /j1.y �
Ae
OL
'PT
_,k, i r dir"
MW.
'Al
M ig �Y}
AM, �„.yiidt R"...
Pl z"N
AR
xer
Yt
y k 1
r . 3
�Yl , 1
AW
2►
r .7
45
*r 't
i
1
„r= 'i, 3; ' °• ,, ` � ten,,.
i r
• ; � rte. .d � �1 � �'
t
I
Y
TY
P �
s ;
r
Y�
I r
' Y1
) b
J � y,Y tl.. ,I.i ar i'Rr -: �1t J i u">�G•: � c-d y s'• ; . <.
f +'
.y
yj
i0.. r•� ..
Iy 'a
r i
,
+� �' h �'��y���. x..+n''�`L�y �Y�� ��i l�k ff��.~ �v�` N�;�?x >'y�4L a �t •�a ir9 5'�/4� }��; ir•�Y r i p�{ _J�e
` ,� � � ` i i �... � " w v$, `wks+' tf�Cti y'��� Y j r rn� �i,,.,,.. N ➢�4ti£s 9 41e-z' yy y �r �. "'nE" [{
r ix
r
'A
Tn "
'Tn
i
k
, Y
• j N nTXyT� f M1, r , ^.
4,` rein!
Y ] 4
i
S �
NY
�
r
,
S �